Lords Sitting of 25 March 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Housing Legislation: Shorthold Provisions
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should say that I have two flats which are now up to be sold.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing legislation to extend the present law enabling short-term leases of flats and houses to be granted without conferring on the tenant security of tenure after the expiry of the lease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980, which came into force on 28th November, already allow this. Under shorthold, landlords have an absolute right to regain possession at the end of the fixed term.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask this Question: I should like to know whether any help can be given to people who bought their houses some time ago and hoped to retire to them and who now find themselves with sitting tenants paying rents so small that in some cases the repairs cost more than the rents?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we said in the manifesto that it was not the intention to make shorthold provisions retrospective, and I fear that we have to stay with that. I have great sympathy with the problem that my noble friend raises; but I see no way in which we can go back on that commitment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have been told that in Surrey the rent officer is working overtime to work out the fair rents under these shorthold tenancies, which not only shows that the demand is there—and it is a large demand—but also shows that there have been very satisfactory lets to the benefit of both sides?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful comment. I know of the situation to which he refers.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although some such provisions as these shorthold tenancies are indeed necessary to put right
1158
many things which were wrong with the previous arrangements, many solicitors are advising their clients against parting with their properties on short-hold tenancies as there are in fact a great number of snags? Is there any hope that some amendments can be made to the arrangement so that these tenancies may become more popular?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not aware of the snags to which the noble Viscount refers. Possibly the greatest concern of those who are contemplating making this kind of accommodation available is the fact that the Labour Party have said that they will do away with this form of tenancy. This is understandably a matter of concern for those who would make such accommodation available. It is very sad because it only denies rented accommodation to such people. Having said that, I think that there is also the whole matter of the fair rent regulations and laws that exist at the present time. It is a matter which is of much concern, because if we do not make this kind of accommodation available, what will happen to the future of the private rented sector?

Petrol Tax Increase: OPEC Prices
2.40 p.m.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposed budget increase of 20p on a gallon of petrol is likely to encourage the OPEC countries to believe in restraint in their demands for higher prices, and if so for what reason.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the 20p increase in duty on a United Kingdom gallon of petrol will influence OPEC prices. In real terms, the 20p increase has restored petrol duty to just under its November 1973 level.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply? May I ask him whether he is aware that during the past 10 years I have had to visit almost all the big oil-producing countries in one official capacity or another, and on almost every occasion I have been chided for the hypocrisy of succeeding Governments in blaming the OPEC countries for increasing the price of oil when most of the price was in fact increased by the Governments of the day in their own countries? Is my noble friend also aware that I have to visit Dubai on Friday and I was hoping for a helpful reply?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am always delighted to try to help my noble and extremely experienced friend with his travels. The fact remains that crude oil prices have risen by about 1,800 per cent. since 1973, and, as I have said, in real terms this duty increase has only restored petrol duty to the level it had reached before 1973.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not the case that the OPEC countries continually call for restraint in the use of oil by the industrialised countries? This 20p on a gallon of petrol ought to fit in with that demand and desire by the OPEC countries.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am sure that the OPEC countries will be pleased to see that the United Kingdom is moving towards economic pricing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, were the figures stated in reply to the question a measure of the impact of inflation?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the figures I gave are the indications of the inflation that has occurred.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, since we are one of the world's largest oil producers, why are we not an OPEC country? Would it not be much nicer to decide to be an OPEC country instead of a Common Market one?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the alliances of the United Kingdom in international diplomatic terms quite fall within the remit of the Question.

Somalia and Ethiopia: Refugee Problem
2.44 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailsa: 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, in view of the simultaneous appeals from Somalia and Ethiopia, at a time of growing tension in the Gulf/Indian Ocean region, any initiative could be taken by Great Britain to promote talks between the Governments of Somalia and Ethiopia, aimed at resolving the refugee and other mutual problems which continue to destabilise the Horn of Africa.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government are concerned at the continuing tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia and would welcome a return to stability in the Horn. We regard the Organisation of African Unity as the body best suited to resolve disputes between African states. We are anxious to see early progress in alleviating the region's tragic refugee problem, and will be represented at the International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa, to be held in Geneva in April.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, while aid has been given in respect of refugees from Somalia, whose problem is very serious, would not the Minister feel that, in view of our long-standing responsibilities for Somalia, a larger amount of aid for the refugees from there would be more justified than aid which has been given in many other directions?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we have donated £1 million towards refugee relief in Somalia during 1980–81. That comprised 5,000 tonnes of food aid and the balance in cash. We have also recently decided to offer a further 11,000 tonnes of cereal worth over £1 million and some £30,000 to finance the Save the Children Fund medical team in Somalia. In addition there is, of course, our European Community commitment.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there are in that part of Somalia bordering on the Ogaden, something in the neighbourhood of 1½ million refugees or displaced persons, Somalis, who represent a great problem both financially and materially to the Somali Government?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I can agree with my noble friend. We estimate there are about 800,000 Ethiopian refugees in camps in Somalia and up to another 600,000 outside the camps.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, the noble Minister has referred to the aid the Government have agreed should be sent to this stricken part of Africa. May I ask whether he feels that in all the circumstances the aid that is being sent is adequate, or anywhere near adequate, to the need?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we think it is a very sizeable contribution on our behalf. May I remind the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is introducing a debate later this evening on the same subject?

North-South Economic Relations: Mexico Summit
2.46 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the summit meeting on North-South economic relations has been postponed.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords. The co-sponsors of the proposed Mexico Summit meeting have postponed the meeting from June, the date originally suggested, until 22nd and 23rd October.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this is due to the fact that President Reagan had declined to attend a meeting before the autumn and was supported in that by our Prime Minister? May I also ask: does not delay seriously prejudice the chances of success of the summit meeting?—because it was timed to take place in June before the meeting of the Western Heads of State in Canada in July, where its findings would have been the first item on the agenda. Without these preliminary discussions, is there not a danger that both sides may formulate conditions which will cause confrontation rather than co-operation?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. We understand that the co-sponsors decided on postponement to meet the wishes of other participants to take part in substantive preparations for the summit, and to make it easier for the United States to attend. There will be a further preparatory meeting which will take place in Mexico at Foreign Minister level on 1st and 2nd August, and all the participants will be there.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to confirm that Chancellor Kreisky of Austria has invited the Soviet Union to attend? Further, is the noble Earl aware of any reply to that invitation? Also, is it a fact that China has indicated a readiness to attend but will not be invited if the Soviet Union attends? Is it not very desirable that both these countries should be present?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the sponsors have indeed invited China and also the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. However, so far as the noble Lord's supplementary point is concerned—that one will not come if the other does—I have no advance knowledge.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this conference was originally planned for this month, then postponed until June and has now been postponed until October? Is he further aware that the Brandt Report has now been published for 12 months, which would give any Government the opportunity of preparing itself to make a response, and does it not suggest that this postponement is yet another example of the lack of political will which killed the Pearson Report over 10 years ago?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's last supposition. I think all noble Lords will agree that conferences of this nature take a long time to set up, and unless they are set up with good preparation they are liable to stumble anyway. Therefore it is much better to have preparation of this nature.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister has said that the conference will last for only two days. Within that period is it possible for a thorough discussion to take place, resulting in recommendations? Would the Government urge that there should be a continuing procedure of negotiations, so that practical results can be achieved?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I think I have tried to indicate already, the co-sponsors are working on the agenda and the preparatory work prior to the conference. The Foreign Secretaries' Meeting on 1st and 2nd August will greatly help on the road to preparation.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, apart from the meeting in August, which post-dates the meeting in June, may I ask the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend the feeling on both sides of the House that between now and June—if June is, in evitably, the date of this conference—there should be very close consultation with other participants in that meeting, particularly with the United States of America, whose presence and whose participation in such a
1162
conference, whenever it is held, is absolutely vital? May I repeat the point that between now and June there should be diplomatic and other close consultation with the prospective participants in the conference?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks on the subject, which know are very wise. I will indeed convey them to my right honourable friend, and I am sure that he will take note.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the continued postponement of this conference causes great concern to British industry, since the Brandt Report is concerned not simply with aid but with the development of trade between North and South? The continued postponement can have serious consequences for industrial regeneration in this country.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's remark.

European Council: Maastricht
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Carrington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council, Maastricht.
Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Agriculture
2.52 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough rose to call attention to the problems facing British agriculture; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be thought an appropriate time to discuss this Motion, as negotiations are at present in progress regarding CAP prices, and there has not been an agricultural debate in your Lordships' House for some time. I must draw attention to the fact that time allows for an average of only seven or eight minutes per speaker, if we are to get through the list for the debate in two and a half hours and to allow the Minister to reply. I must myself declare an interest as a farmer.
I know that the House will be particularly looking forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone. He is well qualified to speak, having been trained at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, with its wide ranging and comprehensive agricultural courses. He is a successful arable farmer from the heartlands of Scotland and joins a lot of other Scottish farmers in your Lordships' House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. But I advise him to pay no attention if he ever hears people calling for home rule for England! The House will listen with great interest to his speech.
Farming net income has declined by 50 per cent. over the last four years, having declined by 24 per cent. in real terms in 1980 alone. The fall has been quite simply because the prices of goods and services used by farmers have risen much faster than the prices which they have received for their products—14 per cent. against 6 per cent. The fall was most marked on cattle and sheep farms in the lowlands, as well as in the hill and upland areas. Without any improvement in prices, the ability of some farmers to continue to survive by increasing their level of production will soon be overtaken by the squeeze and output will start to suffer.
More and more farmers keep going only by borrowing from the bank and the 1980 level of overdrafts was some 30 per cent. above the 1979 level, which was 70 per cent. above the 1978 level. Farmers therefore now work largely for the banks. Little wonder that livestock breeding numbers have reduced in recent years, while European herds have been expanding, and thereby our productive base has been disappearing. Profits are inadequate or non-existent and, as money is not available, capital investment in fixed assets declined by 10 per cent. in 1980. There has been a corresponding sharp decline in applications for grants.
Investment in plant, machinery and vehicles fell by 23 per cent. in volume from 1979 levels. Consequently, unemployment in the agricultural machinery industry doubled, while that in the tractor industry rose by 150 per cent. The number of farms in the United Kingdom continued to decline, with 5 per cent. fewer than five years ago. Small farms can no longer support a family, and yet their land price on sale remains far above economic reality. There is also a situation where smaller farms cannot afford to employ labour, and the farmer has to work longer hours and receive less reward than any workers' union would allow for its members.
Dairying is the biggest farm enterprise and the Commission's proposals, that our dairy farmers should, in effect, have to pay for surpluses of milk abroad when France is giving illegal aids to its producers, are certainly not acceptable. The Commission's proposals appear to penalise our intensive and efficient milk units, while supporting the small and inefficient producers on the Continent—a totally wealth reducing exercise.
With regard to the hills, the value of output and average incomes have fallen markedly. This seems particularly so in the North in 1979–80, and the forecast for 1980–81 is further falls in net incomes overall. This seems to be in spite of the increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowances; though the sheep order, which was laid before the House on 28th November, provided a level of support that will certainly be of help to hill farmers and was a good bargain with the Community.
The cereals co-responsibility proposals are unacceptable. There are, after all, no abundant world supplies, nor evidence of an EEC structural surplus. Further, cereals store well and can easily be sold on world markets. The need for co-responsibility in oil seeds is doubtful and the standard quantity of 2·2 million tonnes is likely to be exceeded in 1981. Why should co-responsibility be appropriate for a
1164
crop of which the EEC is still a large importer? I hope that other noble Lords will take up the problem of individual commodities in more detail.
Continental farms are also suffering to some extent, but they have not had such a long period of poor results to cope with and the success of the present negotiations on price increases is vital if many British farms are to survive in cultivation. The original Commission proposal of 7½ per cent. went only halfway to meet the 15 per cent. price increase which was needed to sustain reasonable farm incomes in efficient farms on the Continent. But, allied to the proposal to reduce the MCAs by five points. 7½ per cent. would have resulted in an overall fall in real incomes averaging all crops for United Kingdom farms.
Our MCAs have already been reduced by six points, due to the recent adjustment in the European currency unit central rate, and yet the Commission still propose a further five points reduction. Such a green pound revaluation would act severely on our farms and would reduce the cost of living by only about ¼ per cent., and reduce our payments to the EEC budget by only about £12 million in 1981. Positive MCAs have emerged, not because of our trading strength but because of our oil strength. If sterling remains strong, only a reduced inflation rate compared with the EEC average could justify a revaluation of the green pound. The Minister must, therefore, continue to resist revaluation, if our competitive position to sell against European produce is not to be destroyed. However, there is hope in the Commission's latest thoughts of a 10 or 12 per cent. price increase, and perhaps the Government will be able to quantify the effect of such a figure on the farmers and on the housewife.
But farm price increases all have to be paid for. We must remember that the agreement to cut Britain's budget bill runs only for two years. There is no reason to suppose that Britain's problems of large food imports will have gone by then. Yet while reform of the CAP is called for by all, there are no signs of any positive proposals being put forward. The situation where France, one of the
richest of the EEC countries with 27 per cent. of EEC farm output, has its farm prices subsidised to a generous extent by British contribution, cannot be allowed to last for ever. If not before, the crunch; will come when the 1 per cent. VAT limit is reached. This could happen in 1982 or 1983. Whatever problems we have now will be as nothing when Spain as well as Portugal and Greece have joined the Market. Then there will be little hope of keeping to the 1 per cent. VAT rate. Meanwhile, the guidance fund to provide for farm modernisation has now shrunk from 30 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the EEC farm fund which has been overwhelmed by the size of the guarantee payments.
The biggest problem for the EEC is the support of small farms, and hill and marginal areas. Yet these small farms have to be maintained to preserve the population structure of the countryside. Also, the hill farms in Britain provide half our beef-cow herd and our breeding sheep flock. The problems of maintaining small farms will remain for ever and will get worse as larger farms for ever become more efficient. Last month in the forestry debate we heard of the desirability of integrating forestry with hill

1165
sheep farms, planting up the high and far-off land so that forestry should eventually provide an annual income for the sheep farmer in addition to his hill stock. Furthermore, the lesser but more concentrated acreage left for sheep would, as has been proved in areas like Dumfries, provide an equal or better output, and the need for subsidy would be reduced.
Is this not therefore the time for the Government to offer farmers the use of their work experience labour to plant up, with the farmers' help and labour, successive plantations so that the sheep farmer may eventually become an annual timber producer, needing less support from the CAP, providing much needed timber and making good use of the presently unemployed? Planting is labour-intensive and the work requires young trees, stakes and wire, the production of which itself is fairly labour-intensive.
But we must not just look to see what subsidies we can gain now and in the future. We must look to see what we can do to help ourselves. One of the most important yet most neglected aspects of farming, and in particular food production, is marketing. Many British producers have a high quality and grading discipline, but far too many do not. This point was well made by Sir John Sainsbury who said that there should be a greater penalty for growers who cheat the system by sloppy grading of their produce which then compares badly with the strictly graded imported produce. The success of Danish bacon, sold on reliability of quality, is a very good example. France and Germany both have central bodies to encourage good marketing for agricultural produce. Perhaps Britain should have a similar organisation. Such an organisation, it is claimed, would help to counter some of the inroads into this country of foreign produce and help sales of our produce abroad.
I hope we shall hear other positive ideas in this debate, for it is surely better to aim at self-help, where possible, than to argue about hand-outs. The benefits to Britain of membership of the Common Market are indisputable, but as a large importer of food we pay high prices, whether to featherbed the small continental farmer or to buy over the threshold from outside the Community. Along with Germany, we provide a large proportion of the CAP fund to bear 100 per cent. of the cost of propping up the farmers. The time has come for national exchequers to share the burden. This cost will concentrate the mind of national Governments to try to keep the rising costs of the CAP under better control. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity again to debate agriculture. I wish this debate had been a little later, when the Minister has returned from Europe and when we know what has or has not been achieved. Nevertheless, I am glad to have the opportunity to echo some of the difficulties which are affecting the farming community. I have here a document which was presented to me by the National Farmers' Union. It was partly quoted by the noble Lord opposite. It is an excellent document.
The NFU believe that agriculture is facing a crisis and that the decline of 24 per cent. in real terms in 1980 alone is endangering the future of British agriculture and of our domestic food supplies, and is
1166
creating serious problems in the industries which supply agriculture. All of the subsidiaries—for instance, the engineering sections of different firms—are affected. The crisis in our major industry is important, but I believe that in the end we shall triumph over the difficulties.
The package of EEC farm prices and related measures which was put forward for 1981–82 by the Commission on 18th February fails completely to meet the need for a substantial increase in United Kingdom farm prices. The adoption of the package would be disastrous for the industry. We must consider the importance of our industry. I have here some figures which show what can be achieved and what has been achieved over a long period of time. We produce more than most countries. Our agriculture is perhaps the most efficient in the world. Our scientific staff, who are important, are the envy of the world. I was at a reception the other evening for the President of Nigeria at which he emphasised the importance in agriculture of soil conservation. We, the British, must be proud of having given the lead in this and many other directions throughout the world. I hope that we shall continue to do so.
I am sorry to have to strike a sour note at this point. I have here an extract from Big Farm Weekly of 12th February 1981. The heading is, "New axe over ADAS". The report says:
"A significant step towards further staff cuts in ADAS and other departments is due to be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture's senior policy-making group, the Management Board, tomorrow (Friday).
"The cuts will be based on proposals drawn up last month by department heads as the first move in reducing staff numbers by almost 2,000 (one-sixth) by 1984. The cuts come on top of those already made within ADAS under the reorganisation of the regions and early retirements first reported in BFW Jan 1.
"A continuing fear in ADAS is that professional, scientific and technical staff are being excessively weakened in relation to the administrative and executive grades. With only three ADAS representatives on the twelve-man management board, and a proposal now before the Minister to reduce this to one, morale among ADAS staff in the regions is said to be lower than at any time since the reorganisation of the old NAAS into ADAS.
"'The cuts already made in research and development suggest that the advisory service always gets the brunt of the staff reductions ', an official ADAS staff representative said this week.
"Meanwhile the impression among advisers in regional offices that they are getting a raw deal relative to other Ministry departments seems to be growing, with some claiming that even their clerical staff are being taken away from them.
"However, a reduction of clerical services within ADAS relative to other departments was denied by a senior Ministry spokesman this week ".
I want the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to put this point to his Minister. There must be no cutting down on this major advisory service. I can remember when I was succeeded by a Conservative Minister—overnight part of the advisory service was affected. It is one of our great achievements to have created an organisation which emerged out of the war, certainly; but over a long period of time successive Ministers have always defended it. The noble Earl knows ADAS well and is always a good friend of agriculture. He must look at this sympathetically.
That is one example, but there is another problem which affects ADAS; that is, the reorganisation of the regions. For example, in the northern region, from which I come, and where we have a great centre in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, that body is to be cut out

1167
altogether and is to be transferred down to Leeds. At this time, when we need to stimulate activity in the regions, that is an action which is a tragedy. I cannot understand why MAFF are doing this. It does not just apply to a great agricultural organisation which is being transferred to Leeds in Yorkshire; the same thing is going to happen in Wales. Aberystwyth, which is the great centre of Welsh agriculture; their main activities are going to be taken to Cardiff. I believe that is wrong. Here is an organisation which again is the envy of the world. We all know about the grassland developments in that part—and indeed other matters. Here are two great areas which are of vital importance to agriculture. Why make these changes now? Why should the axe fall now on this great service which has done so much? That is really what I want to drive home today.
I pay tribute to what the Government are doing. I have here a press notice which says:
"Lord Ferrers urges United Kingdom industry to grasp opportunities offered by agricultural development in South-East Asia".
Who is going to do that? If we are going to approve a policy which the Ministry of Agriculture thinks is important, we should make certain that there is no cutting down on this fine advisory service which we have created over a long period. I am glad that the noble Lord has said that, as a result of what he heard on his tour abroad, in those countries there are developing great opportunities for British business. It is good policy for Britain to build up our resources, to show the world what we have done in agriculture and to show that our British technical and management expertise in agriculture, in processing, in marketing and in research can have a valuable role to play. That is why so many countries want our experts in order to improve the productivity of agriculture in the countries concerned.
If I may just quote some figures—and I will not take up too much time because this is a short debate. We must stress the importance of British farming because a lot of people are still critical of British farming. I do not know why. They object to what they call "subsidy payments", but I believe that successive policies over a long period of time have produced an industry which is second to none. Perhaps I may quote Richard Butler, who has done remarkably well, succeeding a distinguished father. He said:
"British farming is one of our nation's greatest assets. In the mid-1970s output from British farms was three times the turnover of the coal industry. Four times that of British Rail. We produce very much more food than Canada. We produce as much as Australia and New Zealand combined. Neither North Sea oil nor our coal reserves are our only hope of economic salvation. British agriculture is a resource of at least equal importance. The former are finite resources, whereas agriculture is a resource which should be perpetual. It is a question of priorities. We can survive without oil or coal; we cannot without food".
When I was first made a humble Parliamentary Private Secretary, I remember going back to my constituency. A miner said to me, "Fred, why are you taking an interest in agriculture? This is an industrial seat". My reply to him was, "Don't you eat?" There was nothing said after that. I believe that is something which all must think about. Britain has attained 70 per cent. self-sufficiency in a temperate
1168
type of food production. We can satisfy our consumer demands for eggs and fresh milk; five-sixths of our meat and most of our fresh vegetables. Yet, of course, we spend £2,500 million a year buying imported food which we can grow ourselves. I think that must be put right. The role of British farming as an import saver is highly significant, and yet it could be improved.
After all, our farming communities are large employers of labour. An expansion of home agriculture is good for the national economy and a sound investment, not only for the farmer but for all food consumers. As to the Market, I take the view that we cannot leave. I used to be very critical about the Community but I believe that in the present circumstances we should not contemplate leaving. Our role there is to see what we can achieve, and in all fairness to the Minister I believe that he is doing a very good job. So we must be as ruthless as our EEC partners, and occasionally even more ruthless than we have ever contemplated.
I believe that in this short debate we should highlight home production and our role in Europe. But I hope that at some later stage, three or four weeks from now when the Minister returns from Brussels, we shall be able to have a much bigger debate than we are having today. However, I have given my point of view and I hope that the speeches which will follow will be as brief as I have tried to make mine.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether it would not be true to say that, when it comes to comparing it with the success of the EEC, we have played down the success of our own agriculture? We have lost out on that.
Lord Peart: My Lords, wherever I have been, even in the EEC, I have stood for British agriculture; there is no question about that. I know that the present Minister is doing so, and I believe that other Ministers have done it. Certainly it is one of our greatest industries.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for introducing this debate at this time, because I think it is useful for the Minister to have the support of this House in the battles ahead. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, but I think it is a very good time to have the debate because of that very fact, and I trust it will influence the Minister and support him in the very tough battle that he will have. I am particularly glad to speak in this debate just before the maiden speech of my noble neighbour, Lord Elphinstone, who farms down the Howe of Strathmore from me. It is excellent country and rather well farmed, much better than my land is; similarly, I am sure that his speech will be very much better than mine, and I look forward with enormous pleasure to hearing it.
I do not think that one can expand a great deal on what the noble Lord who opened the debate said about agriculture. One can only back it up. The fact is that agriculture is in an extraordinarily bad way. Even I myself started the last year rather complacent about what a clever chap I was, and in one account

1169
I actually had a little money, but I am afraid that at the present day that no longer applies. The last year has been a disastrous year for the good land, particularly for fruit farmers. But it is not of the good land and the reasonably sized farms that we should talk. We should be talking about the vast mass of production which comes from farmers throughout the country in units which are not necessarily large, or the best sized, but which have done a tremendous job. They are suffering and suffering really badly.
Recently I saw one extraordinary figure relating to Scottish agriculture which highlighted exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said—that farmers are working for the banks. In fact, in Scotland the total amount paid in interest was two and a half times the net income last year. These are horrifying figures, and they show exactly the sort of thing that is happening to a very large number of farmers throughout Scotland, and England too. One of the worst features of the whole affair is that, with the high interest rates, the people who have been hardest hit have been the farmers who have been trying to modernise and have spent money bringing their farms up-to-date; they are now borrowing money to pay the interest which they have incurred from trying to be more efficient and developing their production to the benefit of the country.
There is also no doubt that the other great indicator is beginning to show in spite of the outside factors. By that I mean the price of land. The price of land is falling singnificantly in England, and more than significantly in the north of Scotland, where it has almost halved. The number of farms for sale is another indication of the general state of farming. It is one indication which people always ask about when they hear about the high prices being paid for farms. There is now no question but that those prices are coining down.
There is one thing I would like to do in this debate and that it is to dispel the idea that we are sitting in a world of plenty and that food for the population of these islands is to be had very easily by buying it from abroad. I was looking at some figures this morning and I thought them quite significant. They are from the Department of Agriculture in the United States, their figures for world production and consumption of cereals, and we are talking about total grains, including rice. In 1973–4 production was 1,370 million tonnes, which is a lot of grain. It rose in 1978–79 to 1,531 million tonnes, but consumption followed it, from 1,364 million tonnes in 1973–4 until six years later it was 1,487 million tonnes. That is 20 million tonnes a year by which consumption is increasing in the world. We all know that world reserves at the moment are nearly down from the 1973–4 level. I do not think we are sitting in a safe world, where Britain can buy her requirements at will, when in fact the consumption of grain in the world is going up by more than the total production of grain in the British Isles. The most we have produced is 19 million tonnes, and consumption is rising at 20 million tonnes a year. These are fantastic figures.
The other thing I should like to say is that the EEC, the CAP, has done a terrific job in making European agriculture make a contribution to the food of the world. There are one or two very interesting figures. I shall not quote many, but I do think it is significant
1170
that the total EEC production of grain in the last 20 years has increased by 61 per cent., and that off a slightly smaller acreage than we have today. This shows a tremendous increase in efficiency, and it also shows a tremendous confidence on the part of the farmers of Europe in the CAP. I have no doubt at all that, for all its faults, the CAP has done a remarkable job, not for the farmers but for the people of Europe as a whole.
I know that this is a short debate and I have calculated the period that everyone can speak, and mine is due to end in two minutes' time. So I must say what I think should be done. First of all, I think that the Government should pull out all the stops; in other words, bring in all the national subsidies they are allowed to pay under EEC rules to the hills and the marginal country. They are really suffering hard and we are going to lose a large number of communities unless they are helped. There is already the ability to double the suckler cow subsidy, and for expenditure of relatively little money the Government could preserve a very valuable source of the breeding stock which we require in farming in this country.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned the integration of forestry and agriculture, because again subsidies to integrate our forestry with hill farming, as he suggested, could be extremely valuable and get us a long-term asset that we badly need. The other thing that is absolutely vital—and the two go together and I do not believe that they differ—is that we really must have a further drop in interest rates. It is absolute nonsense that producers should constantly be paying out money to the rentiers: I do not believe that that is anything other than inflationery. It cannot be right that you hammer producers in order to pay money to the bankers. We have got to get interest rates down. And of course, along with this, we have got to get inflation down. I shall not go into matters of incomes policies and other things, but surely there must be methods other than the sledgehammer we appear to be using at the moment. But of course, inflation, interest rates and other things have done more harm to agriculture than any other single factor.
I end by saying that we have got to back the Minister in his efforts in Brussels all we can. At present, I understand, the Commission are proposing only about an 8 per cent. rise, and with it they are proposing a revaluation of the green pound, which would in fact wipe out any rise for British farmers. That is totally intolerable. I was very glad, at a meeting of the EEC sub-committee on agriculture the other day, to hear the Minister of Agriculture—who made an excellent job, I may say—catogorically say that he could not have a revaluation of the pound and that farming required the rise the Commission were proposing the very least. He said that he was backing the rise, and he appreciated that it meant that farmers were going to take another drop in income and contribute fodder to the fight against inflation. Nevertheless, I think some figure round about that, without any revaluation, is totally necessary for British farming.
I must mention one or two other things before I close. First of all, I do think the Minister should back the super levy—that is, the levy which will be placed on extra milk produced in the country where it was pro-

1171
duced. I think this is the only sensible levy, to place the responsibility for producing surplus on the area that produces it, and that without exception. If there is to be a levy, then there must be no exemptions, which would totally destroy its purpose.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord a dairy farmer?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: No, my Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Earl that I am not a dairy farmer. I gave that up 10 years ago because I was tired of pulling cows for 20 years and I was determined to die a decent fellow fattening beef! Therefore, I believe that we must back the Minister very hard in his fight.
There are many other things that we should do, one of which is that we should speed up the procedures in the EEC against, for example, surplus dumping. Scottish farmers—I am a fruit farmer—have suffered very much from the dumping of foreign pulp, especially the dumping of iron curtain country pulp in this country. My Lords, I have said enough.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Elphinstone: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their very kind words. When I first joined your Lordships' House I was by far and away the youngest member. It has taken me, I regret, five years to pluck up the confidence to stand up in your Lordships' House and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me as I speak for the first time.
To declare my interest in this debate, I must begin by saying that I am, indeed, a farmer. Whether I am as successful as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has suggested I am not sure, but I rely for my daily bread upon the farming business. I speak today having made two assumptions which I hope are acceptable. The first is that the farming industry is little different from any of our other major national industries, and I feel that it is a mistake to treat is as a separate case. Secondly, I think we must accept that times are by no means easy in this industry which encompasses our nation. In common with many other situations, times are indeed hard.
I should like to suggest to your Lordships that two very different situations exist within the industry at present. These differences cut across the normal lines of demarcation between the arable and the stock farmer, between the hill and the low ground farmer, and between the large-scale and the small farmer.
We have in this country on the one hand the ordinary, traditional agriculturalist—a man cautious and conservative in his approach. As often as not he runs a family unit, employing a mixed farming system which varies little as the years go by. It is not within his business system to borrow money, and he is, therefore, rarely beholden to the moneylenders. He is a man, who, if the worst comes to the worst, can, so to speak, batten down the hatches and survive. On the other hand we have a counterpart to the traditionalist, whose outlook is very different. He has considered it his job to expand and intensify his enterprise, which he
1172
has been urged to do by successive Governments over the years. Recently, for example, we have had the two papers, Food from our Own Resources, which strongly persuaded farmers that, in their own and in the national interest, they must invest in improving their production.
A number of the more ambitious among the agricultural community have taken heed of these encouragements, and in order to expand they have borrowed both from the banks and from the longer term mortgagors. The banking community have not been hesitant to join in this dance, being only too happy to lend against ever increasing land values. Indeed, the figures, as has already been suggested, show agricultural borrowings having risen at 30 per cent. per annum steadily over the last three years. I think it needs no illustrations to suggest that this section of the community, who have responded to the call of Government to enlarge their production, are now finding themselves in a very vulnerable situation. As with other industries, they are being pinched unmercifully between rising costs, high interest rates and static product prices.
On top of this, it is now being suggested that, in order to cut EEC surpluses, co-responsibility levies be raised on some products—it seems that we are now being asked not to produce so much. This will cause added distress to a section of the industry which had faith in Government suggestions that they would be rewarded for following the expansionist line. By following this course, as it turns out, the enterprising farmer has, in some cases, put his business in jeopardy. I am not suggesting that the industry is heading for an imminent collapse; however, it will become increasingly difficult for Governments to enter into honest discussions with the farming industry regarding future requirements. Any further requests may well fall on deaf ears.
Confidence is at a low ebb; the future still looks bleak. The industry needs guidance as to the direction in which it should develop in the future. Can it afford to invest even more money with any certainty of a commercial return, or will this lead to further financial strain and added surpluses? We need answers to these and other questions, and, if the Government wish to restore the confidence of our industry in the future, now must be the time to ensure that the reward is given to those who placed their faith and their money behind the exhortations of Governments in the past.

European Council: Maastricht
3.36 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I hesitate to come between the admirable speech that my noble friend has just made, which I know your Lordships have greatly welcomed, and the proper congratulations which are due to him, but I would ask your Lordships' permission to repeat a Statement which the Prime Minister is making in another place and I shall do so in her own words. The Statement reads as follows:
"I will make a Statement about the European Council meeting in Maastricht which I attended on Monday and Tuesday.
"The discussions at the meeting covered a wide range of issues, both Community issues and those relating to foreign policy co-operation. There was no formal communiqué but a number of statements were agreed and the presidency on its authority drew certain conclusions. I have placed copies of all these texts in the Library of the House.
"The main themes of the meeting were the economic and social problems confronting the Community; fisheries; and Poland.
"On the first subject, all those present emphasised the need to continue the fight against inflation through the pursuit of sound monetary policies. We agreed on the need to encourage productive investment, particularly in the sectors of high technology and innovative enterprise. We all share the deep concern at the high and rising rate of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment in member countries. We determined to make the best possible use of existing funds and financial mechanisms, among other things, in providing advanced technological training and education for youth. The clear and unanimous view was expressed that short-term demand stimuli would be ineffective.
"On fisheries, there was an attempt to deal with outstanding agreements with Canada and the Faroes in isolation but the measures to improve the fish marketing arrangements which were offered as a quid pro quo did not in my view provide sufficient protection to our industry. I insisted and it was agreed that it would be much better to deal with these external fisheries questions in the context of an overall fisheries settlement, as we have been trying to do for so long. It was therefore decided that the Fisheries Council should meet on Friday of this week to try to reach agreement.
"In our view, agreement on an overall settlement was close in the Fisheries Council last December. If each and every member now has a genuine willingness to settle, it should be possible to find solutions. For our part, we are seeking early agreement on a basis which will secure the vital interests of our own fishing industry.
"The Heads of State and Government decided unanimously to confirm the status quo in regard to the provisional places of work of the European Institutions.
"The third main subject was Poland, where the events of the past few days had naturally caused us concern. Our message once again was that the problems of Poland are for the Polish people to resolve: any other attitude than this could have the gravest consequences for international relations in Europe and worldwide. So far as the economic situation in Poland is concerned, we expressed the readiness of our Governments to continue, in conjunction with others and within the limits of our means, to contribute to the recovery of the Polish economy thereby complementing the efforts of the Polish people itself.
"The Council adopted statements on a number of other political subjects. We took note of the progress registered so far by the Netherlands presidency in following up the Venice Declaration of June 1980 on the Middle East. We endorsed the statement made last week by the President of the
1174
UN Security Council in support of the United Nations force in the Lebanon, to which some of our European partners contribute. We pledged our support for any initiative likely to contribute to the restoration of Afghanistan as an independent, non-aligned and neutral state. And, finally, we congratulated the people of Spain on their defeat of the recent challenge to democracy in a country which in due course we look forward to welcoming as a member of the European Community.
"This meeting enabled the Heads of Government to have a businesslike discussion and to reaffirm their determination to work together in tackling the major issues facing their Governments".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for this Statement. We find the paragraph on unemployment particularly among young people vague and disappointing. Apparently, no progress has been made since the last summit in fashioning new and effective policies to deal with this scourge which is afflicting all member states of the Community. This is most disquieting as some members of the Community more than others have reason to remember what mass unemployment, especially among young people, led to in Central Europe in the late 1930s.
On fisheries, we must of course await the outcome of the Fisheries Council on Friday, but we should be glad to know a little more about the Government's intentions on the fisheries question. Today the Prime Minister is reported to have mentioned the possibility of a compromise. If so, can we be assured that the fishing industry in this country has been consulted as to the nature of any compromise which will be advanced at the Fisheries Council by our representatives? This is a vital industry to us and feeling runs very deep on both sides of the fishing industry in Britain. This island may be surrounded by fish, but it seems that it is even more surrounded by French fishermen.
This leads me to the point that we join with the Government in their apparent intention to stand up for vital British interests, particularly in the fisheries field, and in rebutting the accusation that our fishermen—or, indeed, our Government—are guilty of intransigence on this matter. We hope that a firm and clear line will be taken on Friday, a line which has substantially been agreed beforehand with the industry. The dispute over fisheries has gone beyond the question of fisheries itself, as reports today indicate. We are rather disquieted, if not alarmed, by the words attributed to the German Chancellor in an article published in The Times today which says:
"The Federal Republic agreed to a financial deal"—
that is in regard to the budgetary adjustments in favour of this country last May—
"which caused enormous difficulties and higher taxation in Germany".
Herr Schmidt is reported to have continued:
"I was deceived and disappointed. There is no point in such an agreement if one side does not stick to it".
We should like to be assured that no pledge or commitment was made last May in regard to fisheries

1175
and fish as part of a deal over the budgetary adjustments. I myself do not believe that any pledge was given, but it would relieve our minds if the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was able to give us that assurance. For our part, we repeat our assurance that we shall support every effort that the Government make next Friday and in succeeding Council meetings to safeguard legitimate British interests.
I turn to my final point. Those of us who, from the early days, have worked for—and many have fought for—the principle and the fact of European unity saw in political co-operation the main prize of such a unity. Is it not becoming increasingly clear from one summit to another that until we have a rational economic policy in Europe, the goal of political co-operation —the true objective of European unity—will elude us? I say this because part of the Statement refers to massively important questions, such as Southern Africa and the Middle East; they are mentioned as having been discussed, but not, I think, with the sense of urgency to which they are entitled. One has the feeling at the end of this particular summit that Europe must look at its economic arrangements in order to free itself from these repetitive disputes which keep it from its real objective of achieving effective political co-operation among the nations of Europe in the councils of the world.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we from these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for repeating this very important Statement. We note the quite satisfactory nature of the discussions on various social questions and on Poland. On fish —and here I differ slightly in emphasis in what I shall say from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Robert—salthough, of course, everyone is in favour of our trying to obtain the best possible deal for our fishermen (no one would dispute that), I think that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary might perhaps agree that this is really not the right way to run a railway!
As it seems to me, the Community will not work if everybody, in effect, insists on what he or she wants to achieve, even if in a minority of one. Short of things which obviously affect the safety of these islands, I do not think that any such attitude should be adopted by reason of the possession of a national veto.
Will the noble Lord also not agree that the Community is only likely to work in the future either on the basis of major deals, such as Chancellor Schmidt thought he had concluded but now finds that he apparently did not—which seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way of proceeding—or on the basis of majority voting, save of course in cases which actually affect vital national interests? Clearly, this would be in the general interest, including our own, because if in some cases we should not be able to get everything we want, in others, for instance, in the CAP, we might very well get considerable satisfaction if majority voting was adopted.
However, as things stand, we can only hope that some reasonable arrangement will be reached on Friday at the next meeting of the agricultural Ministers. I might perhaps add that, subject to some agreed quid pro quo, I would doubt the wisdom of holding up the Canadian deal simply for the purpose apparently
1176
of inducing the French to be, as we would think, more reasonable. In any case, I imagine that all would agree that if we really cannot reach agreement, all fishermen in the European Community, including our own fishermen, are likely—in the long run, at any rate—to be very much worse off than they are at present.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says that this is not the way to run a railway. But the fact is that this is the way at present the railway is run, and if you are travelling on the railway, you had better operate according to how it happens to be run. I do not think that it is any good discussing that at the present time. May I make it clear—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts—that there is no reason for any assertion that we have been intransigent about fisheries. Very far from it. We have been very accommodating indeed about fisheries, but there comes a time—and the time has come—when every country has to look after its basic industries and its basic interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, asked me whether a commitment was made on 30th May last. The Council said that there should be an agreement on fish by the end of the year, and there would have been an agreement on fish by the end of the year had the French Government allowed it, because eight countries were prepared for the agreement to be made on the basis of the proposals which were made by Britain. So it was not we who blocked it. There very nearly was an agreement on 16th December.
I do not believe it to be impossible that there can be an agreement on Friday if everyone actually wants an agreement and seeks an agreement. There is no question of compromise in the sense in which the noble Lord spoke. The Prime Minister is saying that she believes a deal is possible which would be acceptable to everyone—to the French, ourselves and the other members of the Community. I feel sure that that is true. Of course, our fishing industry will be one of those who will have to be asked whether they, too, will accept it. There is no question about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is quite wrong when he said that we were unable to agree to the EEC-Canada fisheries agreement because we were putting pressure on the Germans in order to put pressure on the French. If the noble Lord looks at the situation he will see that if in isolation we had agreed on the EEC-Canada arrangement we would have had another very large tonnage of fish landed in this country, partly because of the strength of sterling at the present time. It would have been impossible for us to agree to any such arrangement unless the Commission were prepared to devise means whereby that fish did not come on the market, or at any rate there was a higher withdrawal price. This was not forthcoming and therefore it was not possible for the British Government to agree to it. I very much regret it, and I quite understand the disappointment that the Federal Chancellor has expressed. He has his political problems but so have we, and what we have to do is to find an overall settlement about fish which will be acceptable to everybody and which will get this out of the way for good and all.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, talked about majority voting, and the rest of it. I hardly think that this is

1177
the moment to go into that. I would only point out to him—and I imagine that he knows this better than I do—that there is something called "the Luxembourg compromise which, on the whole, works extremely well. It is going to be very difficult for countries of the Community to give up their vital interests unless there is some sort of compromise of that kind which reassures them on matters which are of real interest to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, was disappointed that there had been nothing very significant said about unemployment. There was a long discussion in the Council about unemployment. The social and regional funds of course already play a useful part in tackling unemployment—in a fairly minor way compared with the problem—and the Council has asked the Commission to give higher priority to measures to help advanced technological training and education for youth; and of course also for a co-ordinated effort to encourage the development of high technology which, in the end, is going to increase competitive strength in Europe and which will, although not in the short term, do a great deal for unemployment in Europe.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who still have faith in the European idea are a little upset perhaps at the slightness of the economic side of the Statement that he has made this afternoon? We all agree that there must be a fight against inflation. We can all see that there could be dangers in short-term stimulus, but there used to be in the Community even two years ago an idea of a concerted effort to deal with recession. There was the idea of a concerted plan of growth. Have those ideas been posponed, or have they been abandoned?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks that there was not a very significant discussion about the economic situation. This took up most of one of the days. I also think that one should recollect that the idea of the European Council was not to make decisions. The idea, which was originated by President Giscard, was that the Heads of Government in Europe should meet twice or three times a year so that they could reflect upon the problems of the Community and other problems outside the Community and not take decisions, and not to supersede the institutions of the Community. Therefore, I think it would be a mistake to think that decisions are going to come out of the European Council, and I do not think that that is what it is for.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that at the moment the whole fishing industry of this country is a stricken industry? Can he give us any assurance that on Friday Her Majesty's Government will stand absolutely firm on the basic essentials for its survival, which include the 12-mile limit in its entirety, and certain special areas in the Irish Sea and in the Minch?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that the Government have made plain what the noble Lord has said, that we understand very well the difficulty in which the fishing industry finds itself, and there are certain essentials for it. I do not want to go into what they
1178
are but there are obviously certain essentials. I would however say that I think it would be greatly to the benefit of the fishing industry of this country if we could come to an agreement, because there is at the moment enormous uncertainty. After the end of next year it is, strictly speaking, possible, according to some interpretations, for there to be no fishing agreement at all and for there to be a free-for-all in the North Sea with no conservation measures or anything of the kind. Therefore, a fishing agreement is really essential, but I of course give an undertaking to the noble Lord that the British fishing industry will not be abandoned. Of course not.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House and also the country will congratulate the Government on the firm stand that they have taken in defending the British fishing industry and its interests. But will the Government bear in mind in these crucial talks that while uncertainty is the enemy of all fishermen, and that all the fishermen in the EEC will want uncertainty to be ended, none the less the fishing areas, the fishing grounds round Britain, and particularly round Scotland, are the most prolific and fruitful ones because of conservation measures in the past, whereas the coastal areas off France, Belgium, and the other Continental countries have been more or less fished out? Therefore, there is a danger of the remaining fruitful areas round the coasts of Britain being fished out also unless there really is a satisfactory agreement.
Lord Carrington: Yes, my Lords, that of course is very much in the mind of the Government. Conservation is one of the issues which has very much been in the minds of all of us when we have been trying to negotiate this agreement. I agree with my noble friend. He will of course also accept that there are complications, like historic rights, which cannot be ignored.
Lord Pargiter: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what funds are likely to be available from the Community to deal with the problems arising from unemployment, having regard to the huge amounts required for the common agricultural policy?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, not, I am afraid, without notice; but the thrust of the noble Lord's question is clearly right, that if two-thirds of the available resources of the Community are employed on the common agricultural policy there is consequently less for anything else.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not also right to remember that it is much more difficult to run the Community when all of the Community is in a state of economic recession, and therefore vital interests of each individual country come more to the surface and produce perhaps more clashes than would be necessary in time of prosperity and rising employment and growth, and that really the Ministers, and especially my right honourable friend, should be congratulated on keeping the temperature as cool as even the press have allowed it to be?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right, that if there is nothing to quarrel about

1179
one does not quarrel about it, and that would be a very happy situation. I hope that gradually we are removing the areas of disagreement in the Community. I think it is a mistake to over-emphasise one particular issue and to ignore all the benefits which have accrued as a result of membership of the Community, some of which are extraordinarily difficult to quantify and to explain. But the fact remains that we have to get these irritants and difficulties, and in particular the fisheries policy, out of the way because it is of very great importance to this country and to our fishing industry.

Agriculture
Debate resumed.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, after a most interesting discussion I think we can perhaps return to our debate on agriculture. It falls to me with enormous pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, on his maiden speech. We have all enjoyed it very much. It is delightful to find someone young, energetic, and practical who is engaged in agriculture. I wish him the best of luck. I am sure he will do extremely well, and we shall all hope to hear him not only on agriculture but on other subjects. In any case, we should like to congratulate him on an admirable maiden speech.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for this debate. As time is a vital element in a short debate, I shall be very short indeed. I speak as a hill farmer and as someone who is particularly interested in sheep and store cattle, and that is what I am going to speak about. I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far to help us in this section of the industry. We are faced with a real problem in that beef numbers have fallen for the fifth consecutive year, being 20 per cent. lower than they were in 1975, and it is believed—I hope this will not turn out to be true—that in 1981 there will be another drop of 5 per cent. All this happens not because we cannot sell beef but because we cannot make beef pay. That makes the beef premium intervention absolutely vital, and I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has been so strong on that matter in view of the vital pal t it plays in this section of the industry. I also thank the Government for the increase in the suckler cow herd premium, which is most welcome.
On the subject of mutton, lamb and wool, all of which are part of hill farming, last year was absolutely disastrous, due partly to the weather and partly to EEC hesitations and postponements which kept prices very low, and when the new sheepmeat policy was agreed it was too late to do anything for the hill sheep farming industry. On that I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. If this agricultural policy is to occur every year, which it will, it is vital that a decision is taken before the end of the year, because we are not dealing with a static industry but with one where the demands of nature are such that things have to be done at certain times, and if they are not done you lose the opportunity for another year. So I agree with what Lord Mackie said on this
1180
issue and I hope the Government will be very strong when they discuss the matter.
Last year we had the great problem of exporting lamb to the Continent. At that time the French market was opening and shutting and Her Majesty's Government were unable to do anything on that topic. However, the sheepmeat regime came in, followed by something known as the clawback. Although it is right in principle that exporters of lamb should not claim two sets of subsidies, it began by stopping completely the export trade; and although I am glad to say that the situation is better now, the Minister has himself said that further adjustments must be agreed on.
I also thank the Government for the hill ewe and sheep subsidies, which have been of great help by raising the overall limit on special areas for hill land. That is bound to be of help because the more assistance we can get at this difficult period the better it will be for the industry. And it is an industry which is vital agriculturally to the whole production of sheep and cattle in this country. We are the people who produce the store lambs and store cattle. People with farms where there is rich land, so they can fatten, get their animals from the hill farmers, so the hill farmer is vital. This is not a question of saying that something better could be done in these areas. Nothing better can be done than to provide the sheep, lambs and store cattle which turn into the meat which the consumer buys in the shops. It is therefore vital to keep the hill sheep and cattle remaining on the hills. That is where they are produced, so making the best use of that land.
In 1980, farming incomes declined by 10 per cent., about 24 per cent., in real terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said. We have heard about bank loans. Certainly the bankers have done best out of the decline in agriculture. I am glad the Budget has reduced the bank rate to some extent; that will be of great help to the farmer. Many EEC countries give enormous subsidies to their farmers. The French Government are subsidising French farmers to the tune of £450 million. That is out of all proportion to what we do or, in my opinion, to what should be done, and it falsifies the whole position in the EEC. However, I am hoping very much that out of the new policy, which is still being discussed, some of the anomalies will be dealt with.
All farmers in the EEC have suffered a drop in their incomes, but none as much as United Kingdom farmers. As with all industry, it is not only the drop in income but the difficulty of investing in new machinery and capital equipment, investment which is essential if we are to keep the farming industry up to date, and the fact that we have not had that amount of money to reinvest will, I am afraid, take a while to overcome. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we are hoping that out of the new proposals and CAP prices some of that loss will be made up to us. In my view our Minister is doing a splendid job in speaking up for the British farmer in the EEC. We should back him up all we can for what he is trying to do, and I hope very much that he will be successful.
4.7 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, I congratulate the noble

1181
Lord, Lord Elphinstone, on his maiden speech, which was short and to the point. When necessary, this House can already muster a formidable amount of mud on its boots, including ex-presidents of the National Farmers' Union, and we hope the noble Lord will in the future speak on this and other subjects.
For the purpose of this debate, horticulture is deemed to be included within agriculture. Politically, growers are content to be part of an industry the size of which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, described, but we would not wish the size and importance of our section to be overlooked on that account. With a turnover of about £800 million, it is an important economic unit on its own account and its problems are in many ways different from those of agriculture. That is particularly so within the context of the European Community. Before Britain joined the Community, horticulture fell outside the price review system which at that time constituted Government policy towards agriculture. Instead, there was a system of tariffs which were protective towards certain sensitive commodities during the United Kingdom production season.
When we joined the Community it was clear from the start that the main plank of the common agricultural policy—that is, the target price system—would virtually not apply to British horticulture. It is true that eight commodities come within the intervention system, but, for various reasons, only apples have been significantly involved in that system in this country. Yet the Community right from its inception was in balance or in surplus in a wide range of horticultural products. That is confirmed by the fact that in 1978–79, 163,000 tonnes of tomatoes went into intervention in Italy, for example, while in 1979–80 22 per cent. of the Belgian apple crop did the same thing. Externally, there is therefore a system of common Community tariffs.
I have referred to the historical background because the problems of British horticulture today arise in the context of the CAP. It is of course a basic concept of the European Community that tariffs between member countries should be abolished. It so happens that two such countries—France and Holland—were, and are, strong competitors with British horticulture for our home market. Internal competition of this order, and the unimpeded flow of trade among member countries, is of the essence of the CAP, with the hopeful aim of encouraging efficiency in agriculture and reducing costs. British growers have always been well aware of that point, and many of them have spent the last 20 years gearing up to meet it, mostly with considerable success.
But the obverse of this part of the CAP is set out in Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. Article 92 states that, except where otherwise provided for in the treaty,
"any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it [adversely] affects trade between Member States, [be deemed to] be incompatible with the common market".
Perfectly fair competition can probably never be achieved in a community comprising so many different nations, regions and climates. None the less, that is a very important article of the treaty, and currently many of the problems of British horticulture lie in that area. Both France and Holland have strong national
1182
policies for encouraging exports of horticultural produce, and national aids have undoubtedly been deployed towards that objective. An outstanding example is the very low price for gas enjoyed by 95 per cent. of the Dutch glasshouse industry, while in France there has been extensive Government aid, such as in the advertising of French apples in this country.
That sort of pressure is adversely affecting the viability of British horticulture and causing even more severe cutbacks in net income than is occurring on the farming side. There has been a progressive decline in the area of horticultural land, from 305,000 hectares in 1977 to 268,000 hectares in 1980. Both the Commission in Brussels and our own Government are aware of that situation, and I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will confirm that something will be done about it. On the one hand, it is essential that all forms of national aids should be investigated, and anomalies such as the Dutch gas price eliminated. On the other hand, it is perfectly legal, and in accordance with the treaty, to give both short-term aid to correct anomalies and long-term support such as research and advice.
On the last point, the Minister will, I think, be aware that agricultural research in this country has been of a high order and that the record of the horticultural industry in the uptake of this research has been quite outstanding. Here I should very much like to support the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart: that it would be folly of the highest order at this point to run down even further the advisory services. I think that the Minister should again look very hard at the cuts which are being made, or are contemplated in this area. In recent years there have been drastic reductions in staff, and the process cannot go any further without serious loss of efficiency.
Finally, my Lords, it seems that the present proposals from Brussels concerning co-responsibility could well be looked at closely in the context of horticulture, provided that they are applied in a way which will genuinely help to reduce surpluses. Of course there are political difficulties, but, so far as the British grower is concerned, in no way is he interested in growing for intervention; at the cost of his inputs, he simply cannot afford it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already extended to my noble friend Lord Elphinstone on a first-class maiden speech. My noble friend is a young man of wide interests, and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of listening to him on many occasions in the future. It is I believe evident that at the moment the farming industry in this country is really in the doldrums. There is certainly nothing very buoyant about it, and the outlook for the immediate future is not particularly bright, but I feel that there is hope that conditions will improve in the long term. The problem facing the industry at the moment is very simple, but incredibly difficult to solve. The problem is one of rapidly increasing costs with a more or less static return. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough said—and I feel that it cannot be emphasised too strongly—farming income has been falling every year since 1976, and in fact it fell by 23 per cent. in real terms in 1980.

1183
It is recognised that the industry has a superb record of productivity. This alone has enabled it to keep its head above water in the past few years, although indebtedness to the banks increased by, I think, £700 million last year to the rather astronomical figure of £3,200 million. The record of productivity cannot be sustained under these conditions. Numbers in livestock breeding herds are down, and capital investment of all types on plant, machinery, buildings, et cetera, is rapidly falling. Obviously that is due in part to lack of confidence, but I think even more so to lack of resources. That is serious because it must lead to loss of production with consequent probable future domestic food shortages. It will make the industry less competitive and the country more vulnerable to overseas pressures. It will undoubtedly also have serious repercussions on all the ancillary trades; and there are many of these entirely dependent for their viability upon a thriving and prosperous agriculture.
I now wish to turn to the Community Commission's farm price proposals. The proposed average price increase of 7½ per cent. is completely inadequate for doing much to help the United Kingdom farmers, whose costs have increased by so much more than average, but at least it will help. However, it is imperative that our green pound is not revalued by 6 per cent., as the Commission proposes. That would have the effect of lowering our price increases to between 1 and 2 per cent., which would create an impossible position with the current trend of ever-increasing costs. It would surely be grossly unfair that our farmers receive only a fraction of the increase received by other European farmers, thus making it impossible for them to compete; and the consequences would be dire indeed.
One has to acknowledge that a revaluation of the green pound could possibly be of slight benefit to the consumer. I understand that it would involve a reduction in the cost of living of about a quarter per cent. However, that would surely be entirely dependent upon the actions of the processors, wholesalers, and retailers, who could well decide that in the present recession it is necessary to improve their profit margin, rather than reduce prices; and who could blame them?
The common agricultural policy obviously has immense significance for the success of the Community, and the cost must be controlled. Therefore, I think that for that reason alone there would appear to be some logic in the co-responsibility measures in the cases of milk and sugar, which are in surplus at the present time. Indeed, I think it could well be argued that there could be a move towards rationalisation in those commodities, but it seems illogical to impose levies on other products that are not in surplus. That would lead to a further fall in the real income of our farmers, and this general measure must be resisted, for it is totally unacceptable.
What of the future? With the progressive fall in the inflation rate and the general increase (one trusts) in EEC product prices, one hopes that the present cost/price gap will narrow. There will undoubtedly be a reduction in the total area of land farmed, with fewer holdings, but an increase in their average size. That I think will lead to a trend towards even greater specialisation, which may well be advantageous.
1184
I consider that over the next few years we must take a long, hard look at our marketing structures. It seems imperative that we improve our marketing performance, and I feel that greater emphasis should be placed upon quality, rather than quantity. Our grading standards in certain commodities should certainly be improved, and I believe that producer boards should take due regard of this fact. If this can be achieved then I, for one, am reasonably optimistic regarding the long-term prospects for the agricultural industry.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Elphinstone. Would it not be lovely if every speech in your Lordships' House went on for only four or five minutes! We would save an enormous amount of money on overtime. But I think I may overshoot his excellent example. One thing that I thought was very pointed in what he said was that we should not regard agriculture in isolation; and it is, after all, our most successful industry, and possibly our most important industry.
I have given notice to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on this particular question, and it is the topical one of, basically, deer and foot-and-mouth. What I should like to know is: if deer in the New Forest were to get this wretched and horrible disease, how is anybody to know that they have got it? The last outbreak took place in the West and the North of England, where there is a very small, almost non-existent indigenous deer herd. In the South of England there is a very large and rising herd of roe deer, and it is in much more wooded surroundings, where they can lie up and really not be found at all. If this virus can jump the Channel and land in the Isle of Wight, it can jump the Channel and land on a roebuck snugged-up in the New Forest as easily as anything, and we are not going to know about it. If that happens it is going to become endemic in this country, with all the ghastly consequences which that entails.
Agriculture, as has already been said by Lord Gisborough and by others, is having a very difficult time at the moment. Real income is down by 24 per cent. Agricultural wages, thankfully, have kept pace and have slightly overtaken the rate of inflation, but I would suggest to your Lordships that they are still too low for the standard of skill which we demand from our agricultural labour force. I would also suggest that they are a fairly small part of the gross farm turnover. However, the cost-squeeze has been vicious. In 1976 feed barley ex-combine cost £72 a tonne. In 1980 it fetched £89 a tonne—a difference of 24 per cent. However, the Kings of Morocco and Saudi Arabia have done very well, because they have put up their prices for nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers by nearer to 100 per cent. in five years. The example is that in 1976 Nitram was £59 a tonne, and it is now £113 a tonne. Sprays are up by 100 per cent. Fixed costs—rent, rates, electricity, et cetera—are all up by over 100 per cent.
This discrepancy has forced the farmer to grow more corn, and consequently the intervention stores are full. Farm investment in machinery is down, with its bad effect (as has already been said by at least one noble Lord) on employment in our farm machinery manufacturing

1185
industries. Farmers' incomes, though falling, are heavily subsidised by the increasingly unpopular CAP. The European butter and skimmed milk mountains, wine lakes, olive oil slicks and beef-bergs all confuse and worry the public and rightly so. France and Germany use the common agricultural policy for social reasons. Germany uses it to subsidise secondary occupation for Wolfsburg car-makers and other industrial workers. France keeps large numbers of peasant farmers in existence to avoid rural depoluation. I would certainly not wish to criticise either of these very worthy aims, but in the end it means subsidies for butter for Russia, which in turn releases Russian money for Russian guns with which to shoot Afghan peasants.
Rural depopulation also affects this country. The corn plains of East Anglia and Wiltshire-Hampshire produce efficiently with very little labour, all highly skilled, on very expensive machinery which consumes enormous energy. This rural depopulation in turn lessens demand for rural services and transport, et cetera, and consequently the vicious circle of falling demand followed by falling standards followed by falling demand becomes obvious. The population tends to age, and the youth goes away to the cities, with their unemployment problems.
Rural depopulation is shown at its most difficult in Wales, I would suggest to your Lordships; not because it is worse there but because there is a cultural and to a certain extent ethnic problem superimposed. The derelict Welsh cottages are bought up by retired people for holiday homes, the local people see around them good quality houses not occupied for most of the year, and this produces a jealousy—unattractive, yes, but I would suggest to your Lordships that it is understandable as well.
I do not want to reopen all the discussions that we had on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I suspect that that could even be an impeachable offence. But farming has responded quite marvellously—with grant aid, of course—to the demands which, as my noble friend Lord Elphinstone said, the country and various Ministers have put upon it. They have grown more food; but I would suggest to your Lordships that the countryside is a less rich place than it was 40 years ago. Please do not think that I am blaming the Ministry, the farmers or the environmentalists; I am merely pointing out a situation which has arrived. I do not know what the solutions are, but I do think that we in the farming industry must not only look at our own immediate interests and at our own immediate problems, which are very severe, but have got to understand the interests of others. If not, we shall become isolated. A picture of overpriced food, of a prairie countryside with no hedges, factory farms, nil investment, enormous and growing surpluses and impoverished farmers in hock to the bank for much more than they can afford is, admittedly, a fairly exaggerated picture, but I suggest that there is enough truth in it to cause concern.
I do not honestly know what to do, but there must be a solution, and it must he a solution which does not sacrifice our fight against inflation; because, as has already been said, inflation is not only the worst enemy of the farmer, it is the worst enemy of a stable, ordered and progressive society. All can do is to hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my right honourable
1186
friend Mr. Walker can understand the situation as I see it and as I think a lot of others see it, can apply their minds to it and, please God!, can come up with some answers.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Elphin-stone. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that he made a number of points which I had down to make myself, so that has cut down the length of my speech. There is little doubt that there is great worry in the farming community at the current financial situation in British agriculture, and I cannot believe that at least some of the rumblings of the grave situation have not penetrated Government circles. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough has said, there was a drop last year of 24 per cent. in United Kingdom farm incomes; but the Government's own figures show that in Scotland the drop in that income was 52 per cent. It was down to £33 million in total, as opposed to £114 million in 1978. The total income of all Scottish farms was only one month of British Leyland losses.
There are 30,000 agricultural holdings in Scotland. Therefore, the average income per holding was only £1,100. I ask your Lordships: what other section of' the community in this country at the moment is working for £1,100? When our rates go rocketing up, is it surprising that the farmers are very much peeved when they see their senior officials getting a 20 per cent. increase in their salaries? If one considers the incomes of the rich lowlands and Angus farms, there must be many farms in Scotland last year which lost money. Is it surprising that, as we have already heard, bank borrowing is rocketing up? Even the banks are now worried at the situation.
Six out of 16 of my farm tenants have given up their holdings in the last 18 months. It must have been the 'thirties since this last happened. The writing is on the wall. What is one to do with these farms? If one relets them, one depreciates their capital value by 50 per cent. One of our most efficient industries is being strangled. If one is in debt to the bank and the income from assets is insufficient to meet the interest on the debt, there is no option but to sell off stock. This reduces the efficiency of the unit and the return from the unit. The circle is a vicious one. The United Kingdom beef herd (the breeding animals) has dropped 6 per cent., that is by nearly 100,000 cows, in the last two years. The projected drop for this year of beef and veal is over 8 per cent. But what is happening to our competitors? France increased its beef herd by 4·5 per cent. last year; the EEC is giving Irish farmers £25 million which, when topped up by the Irish Government, will be more than the Scottish farmers' total net income.
What is happening to milk? Our milk herd has been reduced but French milk production was up 5·5 per cent. in 1980. We are handing over our markets to our EEC partners. This must stop. The only stable commodities at the moment are grain and sheep production, but this follows two disastrous years for sheep and there still remains the clawback problem. We look like finishing the grain year with large unsold stocks, which bodes ill for next year's grain prices.

1187
What are the answers to these problems? The reduction in the minimum lending rate in the Budget is clearly to be welcomed, but what was given with one hand was taken away with the other. Fuel tax and the increase of vehicle registration costs were particularly heavy taxes on the rural community.
The Government are clearly reluctant to increase agricultural prices as this would increase food prices and thus inflation, but there are legal means within the EEC of helping farmers so that the industry is not damaged in the long run. Our EEC partners are giving massive help to their farmers—the French, the Dutch with fuel costs, and the Irish, as I have just mentioned —and none of these coutries has our rate of inflation and our rising costs. It is not surprising that our farmers ask how it happens that our Minister of Agriculture goes to Europe and stands out alone in resisting price rises to the farmers. The question must be posed: Can any one man act as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? How can he wear so many hats at once? I see that the noble Lord on the opposite Front Bench is laughing. He has tried it, but it is not a feasible operation. The consumer lobby will always be bigger than the agricultural lobby and therefore prices to the farmers are always likely to be kept down.
If we cannot pay the farmers more, is there no means of reducing costs to the farmers? Again, there are other proposals which will increase our costs. There is to be a new marketing organisation to be paid for by the producers. If it is felt that there is a need for a new organisation with compulsory levy powers, then let us look at the existing marketing organisations and see whether there is not room for cuts there which could pay for the new body. Do we need all the existing bodies, all the organisations that we have: BAC, BAEC, AOS and SAOS, the milk boards—five of them—the potato boards, the hop board, old Uncle Torn Cobbleigh and all? I could go on. I think there are about 20 organisations already dealing with marketing. The old grey mare of agriculture, she ain't what she used to be, she groans under the existing crew, but if Auntie Deta gets on her back as well, I think that the old mare will collapse. Will the new organisation be able to tell, for instance, the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board how they can better sell milk in Achiltibuie? I doubt it.
There is talk of more levies. If these are to be implemented, then it should be on increased production only and not on herd size. The EEC "milk lake" is caused by increased production from France and Germany, and their farmers should pay for it. If there was a levy on herds of more than 15 cows, then 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom dairy farmers would be caught, but only 50 per cent. of French farmers. The milk surplus could be cut at a stroke by increasing health regulations. Our milk has to be cooled and kept cooled. The continental milk goes into churns and sits cooking in the sun. If the continental producers adopted our standards, then all the herds of 15 cows or less would go, as they have done here. The continental countries wish to keep the small farms in existence for social reasons.
During the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill the Government were defeated on an amendment to give more help to the rural areas. We all
1188
want to keep the rural population but these social requirements should not be paid for from agricultural funds—as we do with the crofting finance at the moment. These social costs must be removed from the agricultural budget.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Woolley: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, and, like other speakers before me, welcome him to the small but diligent band of agriculturalists who from time to time, rarely in some cases, speak in this House. It was an interesting and delightfully delivered speech. We hope to have the pleasure of hearing him on many future occasions. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for introducing this subject for debate. I think he covered the ground extraordinarily well and there is not all that much that I can add. I must declare an interest as a farmer. I have not yet been farming all my life but I hope to in the course of time. The noble Lord made a most comprehensive survey of the industry. I am afraid I shall have to repeat many points that other noble Lords have made but I hope not to take too long in doing so.
There is no doubt that the agricultural industry is having a bad time. There have been bad times and good times or (should I say?) bad times and less bad times, in the history of the industry. This is natural; but usually we have been able to see some sorts of solutions, difficult though they may have been to accomplish. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and I should like to join with him in the plea he made about the Agricultural Advisory Service, ADAS. I would underline everything he said about how valuable MAFF and ADAS have been to the agricultural industry. We know about economies and about how natural it is to say, "Everyone else but not us". I say that this has been of great value not only to agriculture but, through agriculture, to the economy of the country as a whole, and I hope that his words on that matter will be seriously considered.
The trouble is (and this has already been stated) that the costs are inflating at a far higher rate than the returns are increasing. Every farmer looking to his accounts finds that situation. I, personally, and, I am sure, the industry as a whole, support the Government in their determined attempts to conquer inflation. This is the pervading ill that affects us and certainly affects agriculture. Perhaps no single factor has been more significant in our financial difficulties at this time than the indebtedness and the payments we have to make to the banks, a matter which has been dealt with by the speakers who have preceded me. It is one thing for bank borrowings to be going up when production is going up and things are going in step and the ratio is being reasonably maintained, but it is quite another when production is going down and prices are going up.
I do not want to exaggerate the position. Certainly, the steam has evaporated. This is a dynamic industry. Its importance has been well stated. It was the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who quoted the president of the National Farmers' Union—and may I say how pleased I was to hear his tribute to him—about the production from agriculture. These were not new comparisons; they have been used on many occasions. But it is fundamentally true that this is the biggest single industry

1189
in this country. No country can afford not to have a healthy agriculture. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. Our agriculture is sick at this present time. We know that it is sick; the difficulty is to find the cure. We did have a system which, with all its difficulties, worked extremely well. I remember Mr. Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, saying to me in May 1960 that whoever devised the agricultural system that we were then working, of guaranteed prices, production grants and the most liberal trading that it was possible to have, was a genius. Those were his words 21 years ago.
He was right in my judgment, because largely out of all the difficulty and experience of wartime had come the 1947 Agriculture Act. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, knows a great deal about that because he was involved in it with his friend Torn Williams. This did not make farming easy but it made it sound; it gave it a credit-worthiness. We were able to borrow finance and increase production. I have seen agriculture in the latter half of my lifetime almost revolutionised. This is a great achievement and one that we do not want to see slip away from us from a national point of view.
I believe that we have to look extremely seriously at the EEC. I fear that there is a tendency to close our eyes and to keep repeating in a magic way the virtues about the EEC: we have heard this this afternoon from the Foreign Secretary and many other speakers. I am not here to run down the EEC, but I believe we have to be more realistic about it. I believe that our Prime Minister is being realistic. She is not afraid to go in there and fight the corner of this country. In doing so, far from doing a disservice to the EEC and the concept, she is giving it the only chance that it can possibly have for survival. If we try to fool ourselves that we can indeed make work things that are unworkable, then we are only heading for ultimate disaster.
This is what has been happening to some extent. By all means let us keep the concept of a common agricultural policy, the overall objectives and a framework; but let us accept the hard fact of life that one cannot implement those objectives in exactly identical ways in all the varying countries that go to make up that Community. This I do not believe can be done. I believe the sooner we face this fact the better. It is being done progressively. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, refer to the £450 million of French aid. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, about the subsidies from France for the export of their apples, and the various devices about the fuel subsidisation in Holland.
All these activities are going on. They are not supposed to go on, they are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, but they will go on—of course they will—because no country is going to abandon the interests of its own people and important sections of its own population. It will not do it. Therefore, I believe that if the Community is to continue, it will—and I believe that we should be working in this direction—have to try to loosen up the modus operandi so that there is a greater degree of responsibility and flexibility to different countries working within an overall policy. I know that is not easy of achievement; but the whole concept is not easy of achievement. We did this within our own country. It was not easy to reconcile
1190
the various interests within the United Kingdom. It is impossible to reconcile them all in a Community of 10 differing nations if the attempt is made to do this on one single pattern of operation.
I have said enough, my Lords. I have no panacea—I do not think any of us has a panacea—for the problems that face us. But if we are going to look to the future I think that we must try to grapple with the fundamental elements that face the agricultural industry at the present.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Digby: My Lords, as a signals officer I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in the depths of the jungle. I hope that he gets the message loud and clear from this House today—certainly louder and clearer than I ever achieved. I think that everyone has been of one voice.
I am afraid that I am going to offend the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and perhaps be impeached. But I must remind your Lordships that we have spent many days and nights on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and in general the arguments have ranged between the conservation lobby and the farming lobby with the Government acting, as they should, as a very firm umpire. The argument is between those who want to see, feel, hear and smell the countryside for recreational purposes, and those who obtain their livelihood, income and also their recreation from the land.
I hope that noble Lords most vociferous in the conservation lobby are here today because I can assure your Lordships that they would do more for conservation by advocating a viable rural economy than by forming any number of SSSIs or AONBs, valuable as all these are. I am reminded of a story that my mother used to tell. She was brought up in a Welsh mining valley. One day she fell into a hole on the hills caused by mining subsidence. She complained bitterly about the coalmines which had ruined her beautiful hills and valleys. Her father took her by the scruff of the neck down to the worst disused hovel that he could find. He said "Yes, my girl. This is how you would be living if it were not for industry and the coalmines". That is a lesson which we ignore at our peril. We must create the prosperity that will enable us to afford conservation.
My Lords, I suggest two ways of ensuring a beautiful countryside: the first is to subsidise partridge shooting; secondly, to ensure the profitability of livestock farming. My first solution is hardly likely to be adopted as it would offend the anti-blood sports lobby and blatantly favour rich farmers. However, that does not mean it would not be effective. The partridge needs hedges for shelter, nice weedy headlands to encourage grubs for food, and hedgerow timber to provide shade and security.
However, I must be a little more serious. The more acceptable solution would be to encourage livestock farming, which requires reasonable-sized fields with good stock-proof hedges and trees for shade and shelter. And, above all, it provides more rural employment. In the days when the drift from the land was encouraged this was not so important, but with today's unemployment and the migration of rural workers away from the villages, I suggest that a good

1191
source of agricultural employment is in the national interest.
I farm in an area of outstanding natural beauty and run a traditional dairy, beef and arable farm, employing 10 men and providing houses and a livelihood for 17 families. A neighbouring farm of the same size is all arable and employs only three men. I have no idea which is the more profitable, but I have no doubt that my stock farm is a bigger asset to society and the countryside as a whole. But could economics force me to change? First, I have already given up my single suckled beef herd, as every single field and area of downland on which they grazed is crossed by a right of way, and this precluded me from running a bull with them. However, if the Wildlife and Countryside Bill becomes law in its present form I shall be able to start up this herd again.
In the last year agricultural wages have gone up 28 per cent., which is more than keeping pace with inflation. That is good; but the price we get for our milk has gone up 8 per cent. while the price of calves, which are an important by-product of dairying, has gone down 50 per cent. You may say, "Good, we will get rid of the dairy mountain". But there is no butter mountain in Britain. We import butter and, by our own efforts within the industry, we have built up the best liquid milk interest in the world and we have the most efficient dairy industry.
Do you want me to follow my neighbour's example and keep no stock? If I did, doubtless I would now be watching cricket in the West Indies and I would have nothing to do in the winter. But what would the families in my village be doing? They would be watching the dole queue. And as I reduced my labour so the hedges would go, the hedgerow timber would go and the rural economy would suffer; so that the one vital thing that must be produced out of this economy is a viable livestock industry. I find that many people look at my valley and say, "What wonderful natural beauty"! Of course, that is nonsense. It is entirely man-made and I can tell your Lordships that unless farming is prosperous it will not be man-maintained.
I should like to turn to one other subject of which I have a slight knowledge; that is, county council smallholdings. These are small but highly productive farms, probably two or three times the size of small farms in Bavaria or France. They provide a chance for farmworkers to become self-employed farmers. It may well be that they and their wives work twice as hard as if they were dairymen, but they are their own masters with freedom to plan their own lives—except, of course, for the constraints of their bank manager and those of the cows, which have to be milked 365 days a year. They believe in that life, but I must warn your Lordships that, despite the fact that those smallholdings produce more per acre than any of the big farms around and are highly viable, the bank overdrafts of smallholders are rising and the profits out of which they must pay the bank charges are falling.
Farm profits halved in five years is serious for me, but for a small farmer, a smallholder, it can be disastrous. If the green pound is revalued, I fear for the demise of many smallholding businesses, and therefore I must congratulate the Minister on his firm stand on this subject. I would remind him of the years when the
1192
green pound was not devalued, so that the British farmer did not get the benefits that I saw farmers getting in the Irish Republic. Agriculture has responded to every call since 1939 and 2½ per cent. of the population produce 70 per cent. of our food. I am confident that the Minister will not underestimate our problems and will fight our battles with success.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Elphinstone on a very remarkable maiden speech: certainly I think it was one of the best, if not the best, I have ever heard. It was not only thoughtful but thought provoking, and that is rare in a maiden speech—not to mention the fact that it was short! I hope I shall be able to follow that good example. I should like also to thank my noble friend Lord Gisborough for having introduced this debate on the most timely occasion.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I am sorry he is not in his place to hear me say that, but I am sure he will be back shortly and perhaps my comment could be passed on to him. I do not agree with the noble Lord for two reasons. One is that it seems to me to be proper as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, for this debate to take place before the Minister goes to Brussels at the end of the month and fights his battle; and also because, as will be known to those who are members of it, Sub-Committee D is busy writing a report and struggling manfully to produce it in time, on the whole question of the price review and indeed on what the Commission call their "reflections" on the common agricultural policy. That report was approved by the Committee today and should be available to your Lordships in about a fortnight's time, when we plan and hope to have another debate on the subject. We, being rather more pessimistic than others, feel that the agricultural Ministers will not reach a conclusion at the end of this month, and are very likely still to be debating the subject in April. We hope to be able to contribute at that stage, and that is an opportunity the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will have for a further debate on the subject after the Minister has returned at the end of this month.
Before going on to what principally I mean to say, and being encouraged to do so by my noble friend Lord Onslow, I feel I must make some mention of foot and mouth disease in the Isle of Wight, which I come from. It was only yesterday morning that I was treading on a chemically-impregnated mat before being allowed out of the Isle of Wight and to talk to your Lordships. It is a terribly tragic situation. I happened to be living in South Hampshire in the mid-1960s when we last had a nasty attack of this fell disease, and one remembers very well how much it hit the small farmers. It was not altogether a question of money—because of course they get compensation—but that they may often have spent years building up a herd which had to be destroyed overnight.
The particular farmer who this time has been hit so hard in the Isle of Wight—I admit I am not more up-to-date than midday yesterday—farmed on land belonging to a family connection of mine whom I know very well, and he has lost not only his herd of

1193
cows but also his collection (I do not know what the proper collective term is) of pigs which he was doing particularly well with. They, too, have had to be destroyed.
I must confess to not knowing the farmer as well as I perhaps should, but if he is, as my noble friend Lord Elphinstone said, of the conservative type, no doubt he will be able to grin and bear it and in due course build up for himself another herd. But if he is more of the entrepreneurial type described by my noble friend, perhaps he could be financially stricken in a very heavy way as well, nothwithstanding the compensation. I do hope that this particular fell disease does not spread further and hit the mainland. or indeed that it does not spread further within the Isle of Wight.
I am joining in this debate because, as I suspected —and it has been the case—the farmers among us have touted their wares with considerable skill and ability in the usual way, and have made their points with great enthusiasm. I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Burton, who implied that the poor little farmers never open their mouths and tend to be downtrodden: that was the general gist of what he was saying. That certainly is not my experience, either of serving on Sub-Committee D or of debates in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that farmers are among the best organised collective groups of people and, furthermore, that the National Farmers' Union are probably the best lobbyists outside this House that there are in the country. I say that wholly congratulatorily and not in any way in criticism. But it means that those of us who occupy a different position in what I like to call the food chain should also speak up for themselves.
I probably do not need to remind your Lordships that I have an interest to declare in being closely associated with the biscuit and cake manufacturing industries. Therefore, I shall find myself talking for that part of the food chain which processes the food that is produced by my noble friends who have spoken in this debate so far. Something like 70 per cent. of all the food that is eaten has first been processed, so it is an aspect of the farming picture as a whole which must not be disregarded when giving advice to Ministers, or, indeed, when seeking to get the balance right within the complicated arrangements of the common agricultural policy.
The recommendation of the Select Committee scrutinising the European Economic Community, in its report last year on the common agricultural policy, that it should be not just a common agricultural policy, but a common food and agricultural policy, was a very sound one and one that needs to be remembered and, indeed, implemented as soon as practicable. As a consequence of that, I suggest to your Lordships, while sympathising very much with all the points made earlier in this debate about how the price adjustments. year by year, should take full account of the requirements of the Treaty of Rome, let alone the needs of the farmers in practical life, that the balance must also reflect the position of the food processors in this total picture.
The food chain takes us all the way from the farm gate to the individual private kitchen, and we must not forget the retailers and wholesalers who are part of this process. They are often highly criticised, and
1194
everybody assumes that all the other people in this system are making much too much profit at the expense of the ones in whom he is particularly interested. But the fact of the matter, as I think some noble Lords have made clear, is that we are all struggling in these difficult days of high inflation and high interest rates. It does not make very much difference where you are in this picture, and one must not over-emphasise one interest if that turns out to be done at the expense of the other interests which are essential for delivering the food to the people who are going to eat it.
So I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench, when he is conveying our thoughts to his right honourable colleague, will make this point that the common agricultural policy needs to be a common food and agricultural policy, and that the balance which he will seek to achieve should make sure that, so far as is practicable, all the interests concerned receive the proper concern for the contribution that they make towards the production of food for the individual.
Finally, I should like to say, as has been said earlier, that, when Mr. Peter Walker gave evidence to Sub-Committee D last week, he really impressed us—or, certainly, impressed me—not only with a wonderful grasp of the situation, but with a very clear picture of what ought to be done and how it can best be done in the interests of all concerned. I trust that he sticks to that when the time arrives at the end of the month.
5.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I would echo what many other noble Lords have said in thanking my noble friend Lord Gisborough for putting down this Motion, because it has given us an opportunity to discuss the problems of agriculture, and the problems relating to price fixing, before the price-fixing agreements have been arrived at. This is, in many respects, helpful and we shall certainly take note of what your Lordships have said. I am quite sure that your Lordships will understand if I do not seek to discuss every single item of the price-fixing negotiations in advance, because that would be totally inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that he hoped this debate would influence and support the Minister. I can only tell him that it will give the greatest support to my right honourable friend and, where it seeks to influence him in the correct way, it will have achieved the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
One of the greatest pleasures of this debate has been the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Elphinstone. It was a pleasure to hear him speak on a subject of which he has not only practical, but intellectual experience. His speech was short, concise and full of knowledge and it had that happy flavour of being one of genuine experience as well. I hope that we shall hear him on many other occasions. He said that confidence is at a low ebb and that agriculture needs guidance. Many people would wish to see the way through difficult problems. The whole country—indeed, the whole of the Western world—is facing very difficult problems, and agriculture is bound to be affected by them.
But may I give my noble friend this bit of help and encouragement? It is frightening to think that, since the jubilation at the end of the last war, the population

1195
of the world has doubled. It is alarming to think that in the next 19 years the population of the world is likely to increase by 50 per cent. Those people must be fed, and agriculture is the means by which they have to be fed. There are not many industries where you can see a total need for a product. It is our business to try to see that the immediate difficulties and problems are overcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was right when he said that there is no panacea. It is a question of working through the difficulties and the problems in order to ensure that agriculture in this country, and within the Community, fulfils the required role. My noble friend Lord Digby chided me, and said that he was once a signals officer and hoped that he would get his message through to me today more clearly than he did some years ago when he was at the end of a wireless set. It is perfectly true. His message did get through better today, and the reason why it did not get through before was that he did not know how to work his machine.
Lord Peart: Perhaps he should have been court-martialled!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could not court-martial a senior officer. Not surprisingly, we have heard a certain amount about the problems of agriculture. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough that it is a matter of great concern that farming incomes have fallen in real terms by 50 per cent. since 1976. My noble friend Lord Burton said that he hoped that the rumblings had got through to the Government by now. I can tell him that the Government are very concerned that real incomes should have fallen by that amount.
The latest figures show borrowings of some £3,200 million, which is about double the level in February 1978—only three years ago. If these borrowings were for investment, that would not be so much of a worry. But, if they are simply to keep farm businesses afloat, then that is a matter of great concern. Of course, the 2 per cent. cut in minimum lending rate which was announced in the Budget has been a help and it implies a reduction in borrowing charges in the farming industry which, taken together with the other decreases which were announced last year, will result in a net reduction of some £140 million or £150 million.
We have to remember that farming in this country is not alone in facing these difficulties. There is a squeeze of varying force in the farming sector in the whole Community and that causes a dilemma. If the Community raises prices, presumably it adds to the cost of the common agricultural policy, which may well encourage further surpluses. But if the Community does not raise prices, then farmers are in the position of having constant prices but increased costs. That will seriously worsen the already declining farm income. This is a fact of life with which we are confronted.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise—I agree with him—said that the success of agriculture does not relate merely to the farming community; it is also of fundamental importance to many other industries. One thinks of industries like the fertiliser and agricultural engineering industries, both of which have suffered very severely because of the declining purchasing power
1196
of farmers, coupled with immense cost increases. They, like other industries, have suffered from the double vice-like grip of inflation on the one hand and recession on the other, which work together but against prosperity.
This is a problem which faces not just agriculture and its connected industries but the country as a whole. It is a major problem with which the Government of the day, whatever party happens to be in power, are presented. There are many other industries which depend upon a successful agricultural industry and which are affected by a downturn or an upturn in the future of agriculture. These industries are all those which are involved in the rural economy, right across the board from suppliers, through transport and leisure to tradesmen. The prosperity of agriculture is far greater therefore than just the immediate area of agriculture.
I am bound to say that the success of agriculture depends a great deal upon research and upon the communication of that research to farmers. The noble Lord,
Lord Peart, referred to ADAS. I am second to none in my support for ADAS, whose officers have done a remarkable job. The noble Lord said that he was concerned about the cuts which he thought were likely to be imposed. As the noble Lord knows full well, Government expenditure has been too large. The borrowings of the Government between 1974 and 1979 rose from £40,000 million to £80,000 million. The Government have got to stop this rise in expenditure. Right across the board this has had to be done. Everybody says, "Yes, but we mustn't cut schools, or the social services, or agriculture, or defence".
All I would say to the noble Lord is that agriculture, in common with everything else, has got to be prepared to accept some form of restriction. Our job in the Ministry of Agriculture is to streamline the activities of ADAS so as to ensure that we get the best value for money that we can afford, with the least distress, the least inconvenience and the least impact possible both on the recipients of the service and on the participants. No decision has yet been taken with regard to the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred.
My noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Mottistone referred, quite rightly, to the problem of foot and mouth disease. As we all know, this is a terrible disease and I would extend my sympathy to those people whose animals have been slaughtered because of it. It is unfortunate that whenever my noble friend moves house the disease seems to crop up. He said he was living in Hampshire when the disease cropped up last time, and now that he is in the Isle of Wight it has cropped up there. I am sure that there is no connection between the two. One merely records the facts stated by my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me about the deer in the New Forest. It is perfectly true that deer are able to get the disease. When animals are running wild it is very much less easy to determine whether they have got it than when they are in an enclosed community. But practical experience and scientific evidence confirm that deer are unlikely to be a factor in the transmission of viruses during an epidemic of foot and mouth disease in domestic livestock. We are

1197
bound to concentrate our efforts on the livestock population, which experience shows is the most likely population to contract foot and mouth disease. That is, of course, in the domestic situation. I can assure my noble friend that we shall take this point very seriously and do what we can to ensure that if the disease does affect wild animals we know about it.
We have heard quite a lot about the problems of agriculture. Perhaps we should look at some of the strengths and achievements of the farming community. Last year, agricultural production reached the highest level which had ever been known. A major factor was the record cereals harvest. It was the fourth successive year in which we had had a record cereals harvest, although growing conditions were variable. Scotland, as we have heard, was less fortunate than some other places. But the latest figures show that the areas planted to winter wheat and barley for 1981 are the highest ever recorded. In an intervention the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said that we so often play down our successes. She is quite right. We do play down our successes. May I remind the noble Baroness of this little success: that in 1970 we in this country produced 60 per cent. of the food which we could produce and that 10 years later, in 1980, the figure had gone up from 60 per cent. to 75 per cent. This is a great and considerable achievement.
Of course it is true that there are difficulties in some of the livestock areas. My noble friend Lord Digby reflected the view that the shift of difficulties has been slightly greater in the livestock area than in the cereals area. However, the latest figures show that the recovery of the sheep breeding flock from the levels of the mid-1970s has continued. I have no doubt that a substantial part of that recovery is due to the agreed sheepmeat régime. This is encouraging. On the other hand, the cattle breeding herd was down by 2.6 per cent. at December, 1980, compared with a year earlier. That is a matter of great concern.
I have noted the difficulties faced by hill farmers, which have been mentioned. Both my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to them. The hill farmers are an integral part of the agricultural scene. We want them to succeed in the best way that they can. They farm in difficult circumstances. This is acknowledged by the fact that in November 1979 we raised the hill livestock compensatory allowances by the biggest amount ever and, a year later, raised them yet again. We also introduced the beef supplement premium. I am not suggesting that this is an answer to the problem. All I say is that it is an indication of the fact that the Government are concerned about the hill farmers.
Another point which is of immense importance is investment. We have heard about the difficulties facing agriculture. Let me point out that 20 years ago the capital employed per man in agriculture was 60 per cent. of that which was employed per man in manufacturing industry. Today the figures are the same. Agriculture employs per man the same capital as does manufacturing industry. It is a remarkable achievement.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this includes land values? If it does,
1198
it is a very different value than if it just means tenants capital.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I will write to my noble friend giving him details of exactly what those figures do relate to. It is an important point. However, the inference is correct: that however agriculture operates, at the moment it has to employ the same amount of cash per man as does industry.
One or two noble Lords have referred to the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, considers it to be a problem. I regretted to hear that he is not very enamoured of it. Let us remember—the noble Lord, Lord Peart, made this point and I agree with him—that the United Kingdom is in the Community. We intend to stay in the Community. We intend also to do all in our power to make the Community succeed. Of course, the common agricultural policy, which affects all member states and all farmers within each member state, is not perfect. Nothing ever is. We wish its shortcomings to be improved. I am bound to say that there is not much point in referring to a common agricultural policy if some member states introduce the types of national aids which have been referred to this afternoon by, I think, my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, which totally distort competition.
Since last summer, for instance, the French have given additional national aids to their farmers amounting to about £430 million. They have given income subsidies to their farmers, for example, at a rate of 1 per cent. of the turnover for milk and poultry. Not only is this unfair, but it is against the spirit of the common agricultural policy, and of course it tends to lead to increased surpluses in the Community which others have to fund. My right honourable friend has made the strongest complaints about this to the Commission and they have opened proceedings against the French.
The noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, referred to horticulture and the problems which relate to the supply of gas for horticulture. I recognise that there are severe problems which face the glasshouse industry. Again, there have been unfair subsidies given by Dutch competitors on energy costs. My right honourable friend has taken this up again with the Commission and the Commission have agreed that there is unfair subsidy and they have asked the Dutch to correct this position. I would only say to the noble Viscount that I accept and I recognise the difficulties which face the glasshouse industry but the right thing is to get the unfair distortion of trade corrected as opposed to everyone turning round and saying that, because one person is behaving incorrectly, therefore it is right for others to follow suit. The whole purpose of the common agricultural policy is that there should be fairness in competition, and where there is not my right honourable friend has taken that up most vigourously.
I was glad also to hear my noble friend Lord Wise refer to marketing and my noble friend Lord Mottistone refer to processing. It is absolutely fundamental that the marketing of agricultural products is one of the most important aspects of agriculture. It is one that my right honourable friend has pressed very strongly ever since he became Minister. In the

1199
old days, there was the feeling that agriculture could produce the food and there was the nation ready to eat it. Things have changed. Now the Community is our market and we have to market our agricultural produce. I am glad to see that there are many people —farmers, wholesalers, retailers—taking an active public interest in this problem.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone is absolutely right when he refers to processors. If I may give one example, 25 per cent. of the potato crop is taken up by processors. But if we do not provide in British agriculture the right type of potatoes of the right quality and with a continuity of supply at the right price, the processors will erect their firms in other parts of the Community and the United Kingdom will lose out twice on that score. First, by agriculture not providing that which it can provide, by not marketing it properly and also it will lose because of the employment which will go to other countries by virtue of them having the processing plants. So the marketing of agricultural products is absolutely vital.
I wish to refer to one last thing, because I know that a number of noble Lords mentioned it, including my noble friend Lord Gisborough. It is, that the Commission have proposed a revaluation of the green pound. The Government have been criticised from certain quarters for allowing the high positive MCAs. It is important to recognise that MCAs go up or down during the year in line with movements in the value of sterling. This does not affect the farm gate prices, but what does affect the farm gate prices is if, at the annual price fixing, the green pound is specifically altered. The Commission's proposal for a 6.2 per
cent. revaluation would therefore, so far as the United Kingdom producers are concerned, remove virtually all the benefit of the common price increases which the Commission are proposing.
At a time when we have been experiencing one of the highest levels of inflation within the Community, and a severe fall in farming incomes, it would be manifestly unfair to the United Kingdom and to our farmers, and the Government have made it perfectly clear that we cannot accept it. On the basis of the Commission's proposals there is no question of our agreeing to a revaluation of the green pound. With regard to prices, we are looking for restraint overall, but within the total we want to see more help given to the hard-pressed livestock sector. I am grateful for the views which your Lordships have expressed and we will certainly take note of them in the forthcoming review of the Community's agricultural prices.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I hope the House will agree that this has been a very useful debate. We have had some extremely interesting and well-informed speeches. I should particularly like to add to the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Elphinstone. He pointed out that farmers are presented with a problem as to whether to do very little and have no overdraft or to modernise and work for the bank. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who pointed out the difference between borrowing in inflationary and deflationary times. I hope that
1200
we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, many times again.
I should like to thank the Minister for answering many questions and I think that much that he said will be reassuring to the industry, particularly concerning the green pound. One very good thing about these two-and-a-half hour debates is that the shortness of the speeches that is necessary tends to concentrate the minds of speakers and that must be a good thing. Before I resume my seat, I should like to mention that there is a meeting tonight at 6.15 on foot and mouth disease, which may be of interest to certain noble Lords. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Closed Shop: Local Councils
5.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the closed shop policies of a number of local authorities under which employees who entered their service when there was no requirement that they should be members of a trade union are being required to join a union with the threat of dismissal if they refuse; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion for Papers which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The issue I want to raise in the House this evening is the closed shop policy of a number of Labour-controlled local authorities. I propose to leave on one side tonight the question of whether or not a closed shop is desirable in itself; whether it is even in the interests of the trade union movement; whether it should be permitted to continue or whether it should be made unlawful. I have no doubt that others will want to discuss these questions, if not tonight, then next Wednesday on the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I want to devote my speech tonight to one aspect of the closed shop which I, and I know many others, find entirely objectionable. That is the practice whereby an employer can introduce a retrospective requirement into employees' conditions of service that they should be members of a trade union.
That inevitably brings me to the case of Miss Joanna Harris. Miss Harris is—or was until 11th March of this year—a poultry inspector with the Sandwell district council. She enjoyed her job, and so far as I am aware, everyone agreed that she performed her duties with a high degree of competence. She was not a member of the National and Local Government Officers Association and when she joined the service of the Sandwell council there was no requirement that she should be a member of that—or, for that matter, any other—trade union. However, the majority Labour group on the council decided to introduce a closed shop policy and they determined that it should apply to everyone. Not just new employees—that I think would have been a defensible proposition. Certainly it would have been lawful. But they went a great deal further than that. The new policy, they decided, would cover everyone, including all those who had joined the service of the authority before the date upon which they made their decision to introduce the

1201
closed shop policy. Miss Harris and a number of other employees of the council decided that despite this ultimatum they were not prepared to join a trade union. The council then resolved to invoke procedures which have now brought about the dismissal of Miss Harris and will no doubt also cause the sacking of other employees of the council.
But the practice, of course, has not been applied exclusively in Sandwell. We have, we are told, the local authority in Walsall appearing to behave in precisely the same fashion. Here it has been applied to part-time employees of the authority, some earning £9 or £10 a week as part-time dinner ladies in schools. I have no doubt at all that the policy I have described will be extended after the forthcoming local government elections when, as is inevitably the case—or at least, I should say, invariably the case—when a Government are defending a large number of seats they won while in opposition, there will be a significant number of new Labour controlled authorities.
I do not propose, despite the obvious temptation, to discuss in any way this evening the present state of the Labour Party, but all I would say is this. They should, I think, pay some attention in your Lordships' House to the recent statement of the noble Lord, Lord Lever, in which he drew attention to a large number of sensible, moderate Labour councillors being removed by the extremists who now control many constituency Labour parties. I will, if I may, quote from Lord Lever's article on accountability which appeared in the London Review of Books:
"There is a local back-up to the undermining of Labour Members of Parliament which has received too little attention in the media. A similar process has been even more successfully and ruthlessly applied in the control of municipal offices. Hundreds of experienced councillors of high quality have been ousted in favour of the nominees of this alliance of left-wingers and recently arrived extremists. Even more outrageous demands for control over Council members have been organised and to a large extent accomplished in all the great cities which enjoy large Labour representation—such as London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. The absence of these local figures further weakens the positions of moderate Members of Parliament as well as dangerously undermining local democracy".
That does not come, as is often suggested to be the case, from a source hostile to the Labour Party, but from a senior member of the Cabinets of Sir Harold Wilson and Mr. Callaghan. There can, it seems to me, be no doubt that, in the light of the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Lever, and many others, what we have seen in Sandwell may be repeated in forthcoming months in other local authorities, including some of the largest in the country.
What in these circumstances should be done about it? Before coming to the Government's position on this matter I will, if I may, deal first with two arguments which have been advanced from the official Opposition Benches to defend their colleagues in Sandwell. First, it has been said that there has been altogether too much publicity about these cases. Why, it has been asked, has the press—and by implication those who have raised the issue at all—not been equally concerned by the cases of men who have lost their jobs because of their efforts to introduce trade unionism into non-union companies? I must say I have absolutely no difficulty about answering that question. As someone who has been a member of a trade union since the age of 20, I would deplore the action of any
1202
employer who sacked an employee simply because of his trade union activities. So I think that argument can be put on one side.
We come to the second argument which has been put by two noble Lords in this House. It is argued that there must be a great deal to be said for the closed shop; otherwise, it is said, why do so many employers favour it? Well, the answer to that is this, again reminding the House that what we are discussing this evening is not the desirability or the morality of the closed shop in general, but the practice whereby employees' conditions of service are altered retrospectively and against their will: of course many employers have conceded a closed shop, sometimes, it has to be said, after immense pressure from some trade unions. But I find it a little odd hearing the view expressed from the Labour Benches that because an employer favours a particular policy then it is self-evidently right. Nor can it seriously be maintained that the introduction of a closed shop has led to improved industrial relations. Anyone who believes that particular view should examine the position of the national newspaper industry in this country, where the closed shop has existed for many years, and where labour relations have been utterly disastrous, as we all know.
I turn to the Government's position on the matter which I have put down for debate this evening. Certainly the Secretary of State for Employment cannot be accused in any way whatever of having adopted an ambiguous stance on these cases. He invited Miss Harris to meet him in London, and published a letter setting out his views in the most trenchant terms. In his letter of 4th February, which was released to the press, he said:
"I have already condemned Sandwell council's ruthless and inhuman closed shop policy and I have made it clear that I fully support Miss Harris in her refusal to be bullied into joining a trade union".
I share the right honourable gentleman's sentiments entirely—so I believe do the majority of Members of your Lordships' House.
But we cannot, I believe, possibly leave the matter there. It is, of course, true, as the Secretary of State has said in his letter, that Miss Harris can take her case to an industrial tribunal. That is perfectly correct. And indeed she may be given a substantial financial award. Again perfectly correct. But, as Miss Harris has consistently pointed out, it is not compensation she wants; it is her job that concerns her. She likes being a poultry inspector. I must put it to the Minister of State this evening quite bluntly: Why should Parliament not be in a position to insist that she and others like her get their jobs back? I would remind the Minister of State of what his right honourable friend said in his letter of 4th February. Mr. Prior wrote:
"It is quite clear that what Sandwell are proposing is unlawful under the terms of our recent Employment Act. The staff who have been threatened were already employed by the council before the closed shop was brought into effect. That fact alone is sufficient to make their dismissal unfair".
One could not possibly ask for a statement clearer than that. What Sandwell council has done he said, is not only wrong; it is unlawful. Yet, despite this, Miss Harris has lost her job.
As I have said, we cannot leave the matter at that. What action do the Government now propose to take to protect Miss Harris and others who are likely to be placed in a precisely similar position? I should like to ask, first of all—this matter has already been ventilated at Question Time—why the matter has not been referred already to the district auditor. If members of a local authority choose deliberately to flout the law, and a burden is thus unnecessarily imposed on the ratepayers, the councillors concerned can be required by the courts to repay the money involved as individuals. I still hope that we shall hear tonight that the Secretary of State for the Environment will himself direct the attention of the district auditor to the behaviour of the Sandwell and Walsall councils and, indeed, any other council that is involved in this highly disagreeable process. I believe that a reminder about the fate of the Clay Cross councillors might have a most valuable effect on some of even the most militant members of local authorities.
But even this procedure does, of course, take time. What we require here is, I believe, urgent action. As it is clear, on the basis of what has been said by the Secretary of State for Employment, that the behaviour of the Sandwell local authority is unlawful, is the Secretary of State prepared to consult the law officers of the Crown with a view to applying for injunctions to restrain the local authorities concerned from dismissing their employees, in deliberate defiance of the law of this country?
I think that I must say the following most emphatically to the Minister this evening. It will not be enough for him tonight to rely exclusively on the industrial tribunal argument in terms of compensation. That, as we all know perfectly well, may secure for those concerned financial compensation; but it will not get them their jobs back. And that is what they want. They do not want to find themselves given a cheque, a friendly pat on the back, and then dismissed to join the growing army of the unemployed. Indeed, I believe that it would be intolerable were that to be the outcome of these cases.
Miss Harris and her colleagues have—and I repeat again that we have been told this by the Secretary of State—been sacked unlawfully. Why then should they not receive the full protection of the law for the stand that they have taken? It is a matter of total irrelevance whether or not we, as individual Members of this House, think that people have in any particular case—in this case or, indeed, for that matter in any other case—behaved well or badly, or whether it is desirable or not that they should be a member of a trade union. There is only one issue of importance: Should we allow this grievous wrong to be done to these women, in this particular case, or to any others in other cases—that they should be sacked at a time of rising unemployment—when the law of Britain clearly states that employers are not to behave in this abominable manner?
When sitting some two years or so ago on the Government Front Bench in this House, I had the good fortune to listen to a number of speeches from the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor, then of course speaking for the Opposition. In a number of those speeches the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1204
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, drew attention to the fact that a number of Members of another place, and some local authorities, appeared to be contemptuous of the rule of law. They did not, he said, appear to like the courts; they seemed to harbour the deepest suspicions of the judiciary, and were increasingly inclined to support unconstitutional action in order to achieve their objectives. I agreed with his view when he expressed it. I still do so. Indeed, I believe that the threat to our society from these elements is a great deal more profound now than when he spoke from this side of the House.
That being so, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, occupying as he now does that great office of state of Lord Chancellor, will take the keenest personal interest over these cases. What is being done in Sandwell and Walsall represents an outrageous and, as we know from the Secretary of State, an unlawful assault on the civil liberties of a number of our fellow citizens. In my view it calls for immediate action from the Government to safeguard their position and to forestall an arbitrary and tyrannical abuse of power. I hope that we shall be assured by the Minister of State tonight that the Government are prepared to take such action. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having introduced this Motion, but on behalf of my noble friends I should like to do more than just thank him for having done so. I believe that this is the first debate initiated in the House of Lords by someone who has declared himself a supporter of the Council for Social Democracy, which tomorrow is to become a new political party. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on having made a speech that was truly liberal—with a small "1"—in its advocacy of individual freedom. It augurs well for that close co-operation in Parliament which I fervently hope will lead eventually to the formulation of agreed policies and put a stop at last to the constant changes in economic direction which, for the past 30 years, have done so much damage to British industry.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I cannot let that last comment pass. The closeness of the present Government's economic policies to those of the previous Government has hardly been denied.
Lord Rochester: My Lords. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said at the start that he would leave on one side some of the wider issues affecting closed shops and I shall do my best to follow him, for we shall have an opportunity in the debate next week on trade union immunities generally, to discuss those other matters.
The noble Lord devoted his speech to what he called the indefensible practice whereby an employer can introduce into the conditions of service of his employees a retrospective requirement that they should be trade union members. I agree with him very strongly on that point. It is the same tyrannical practice which resulted in the dismissal in 1976 of people who had for years given faithful service to British Rail. Their

1205
case is now before the European Court and I shall not comment on it further, except to reaffirm the abhorrence that Liberals feel for the detestable thinking that underlies the imposition of closed shops in such a pitiless manner.
When three weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked a Question about the closed shop policies of Sandwell and Walsall District Councils I said that those like me who have advised against the immediate abolition of closed shops on practical grounds, found that our position had been made more difficult to maintain. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in reply very properly emphasised the need for laws to be enacted that had the overall consent of the public. I acknowledge that point. Indeed, I did so when the Employment Bill was debated in your Lordships' House last year and I do not depart now from the view which I then expressed.
In the case of Miss Joanna Harris I must also accept that, under the present law, now that she has lost her job she has no claim to reinstatement, but only to compensation for unfair dismissal. The question remains as to what the Government and the rest of us can do which will affect the immediate position. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I shall await with interest what the Minister has to say in reply to Lord Harris's question as to whether the Secretary of State for the Environment will himself direct the attention of the district auditor to the behaviour of Sandwell Council. If the Minister does not feel able to take that course then I express the hope that, if Miss Harris puts her case before an industrial tribunal and obtains compensation for unfair dismissal, some Sandwell elector will then take action. That is because it is clear that the Sandwell Council has infringed the statutory rights of its employees under the Employment Act 1980, and it is therefore open to anyone to raise the matter with the district auditor, who may decide to investigate, with the result that individual councillors could be held responsible for expenditure that would otherwise fall on the ratepayers. I would further ask the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, whether, if the district auditor finds that some loss has been incurred through the wilful misconduct of councillors, the auditor may himself initiate action to recover the sum involved.
While I am at it, there are a few other questions to be asked about Sandwell Council. What is known about the circumstances under which any ballot of union members was held to approve the closed shop agreement?—which I understand was introduced last July, only a few weeks before the Employment Act became law. Were all the council's employees given an opportunity to vote? Are there any others, besides Miss Harris, who were not members of NALGO when the agreement was made, who have not since joined the union and who may, therefore, also be under threat of dismissal? If so, how many of them are there? I am sure that it is fitting for questions like these to be raised in Parliament so that the facts can be made known to as many people as possible.
I have said nothing about Walsall Council, for there is quite enough to be going on with at Sandwell, but I would hope that when the noble Earl replies he will tell us as much as he can about the position there and, indeed, in any other places where council employees
1206
are threatened with dismissal or, for that matter, with action short of dismissal.
There is one last specific question which I should like to ask the Minister. This is rather a different point. Is it true that certain local authorities, in particular Darlington Borough Council, are persisting in bringing pressure to bear on outside contractors to introduce closed shops by excluding from approved lists of tenderers contractors who do not operate a closed shop? If the allegation is true, what remedies are available to contractors subjected to that sort of pressure?
Having said all that, in the light of my industrial experience I still hope that it will not be necessary to introduce any further legislation relating to closed shops, for I very much doubt whether that would do anything positive to solve the problems of human relations in industry or in local government. But if there are not to be such further laws, I cannot stress too strongly that it is essential for employers and for trade unions to observe those laws that were enacted last year. Even as matters now stand, I suggest that there are certain positive steps that ordinary people can take which should affect the behaviour of those who are parties to closed shop agreements of the kind recently introduced at Sandwell; that is, trade union representatives and local councillors.
First, I take trade unions. I hope that the members concerned will move in concert to elect leaders who will act in accordance with the view that the great majority of trade unionists continue to express in opinion polls whenever questions involving closed shops are raised. It is my experience that in trade unions as much as in other organisations bullying is best stamped out by the general body of members combining together for that purpose.
In the case of local councils, electors likewise have a remedy. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the large number of sensible, moderate Labour councillors now being removed by extremists who control many constituency Labour parties. I console myself with the thought that the more extreme the view of local Labour councillors, surely the more likely it is that the general body of electors will turn against them.
Understandably, members of the Social Democratic Party which is to be formed tomorrow may not be in a position to stand at the county council elections to be held in May. But I trust that it will not be thought mere electioneering on my part to point out that there will then be plenty of Liberal candidates in the field. It is for the voters to draw their conclusions. However, I very much hope that one result of the forthcoming elections will be that in places such as Sandwell, Wallsall, or any other places where the cap fits, district councillors will find themselves under increasing pressure to change their behaviour.
Finally, I should like simply to reaffirm that my noble friends and I are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for calling the attention of the House to the issue of civil liberties that has been raised in this debate.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having ventilated this noxious issue in your Lordships' House.

1207
West Bromwich, being part of Sandwell, the place of my birth and the place with which—with some permissible pride, I associate the formality of my title, it is a matter of great sorrow and shame to me that this should be a place prominent among local authorities which use public office and public money to trample upon human freedoms and deny the right to work other than conditionally.
I cannot be present in the House next week and it is difficult to discuss this subject without reference to the trade unions because, in truth, certainly in West Bromwich, if not indeed elsewhere, they have much on their conscience tonight. But because it would be unfair for me to be accused of union bashing or because it would be wrong for me to be felt unmindful of the great lives which have been dedicated to a great movement, let it be said for and on the record that in a lifetime in industry, including 10 years as chairman of Britain's largest engineering company, which then had approximately 80,000 people employed in the United Kingdom, I never knowingly conceded or tolerated a closed shop. I never found it necessary to do so and I enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, excellent relationships, friendships, trust and confidences with the leaders of the trade union movement at all levels.
However, I always knew the closed shop to be evil; I felt it to be part of my responsibility to deny it; I felt it to be my duty to my employees to accord to them the same equity, the same freedom, the same respect and the same respites as my shareholders and to rank in all respects equal with my shareholders, and I succeeded. Therefore, deplore the relatively modem trend in management whereby—on the fragile excuse that closed shops convenience industrial relations—employers press their employees beyond the bounds of freedom, and even make it a condition that unless you belong to a union, you may not have a job. So, in this matter, management does not have clean hands, and in my view does not have sensible hands.
The great tragedy, economic and social, of our time —the greatest in my lifetime—is that this great movement, the trade union movement, born necessarily and desirably of all the inequities and horrors of the Industrial Revolution, should have been misused; and that the ideals and the service of great men who have led it should have been misused by minorities to the point where it has become the greatest tyranny of our age; licensing and charging people to work; licensing employers to employ; and increasingly having the temerity to seek to license elected Governments to govern. I have too much written for the time available, so I shall pass on. I refer to a strange inconsistency again of our time; the kind of schizophrenia whereby we rightly condemn apartheid in South Africa and legislate for industrial apartheid in our own country, and they are both equally evil and tragic.
I come now to the indelicacies, the indecencies, or that which, if I were in another place, seeking your Lordships' pardon, I might even refer to as the stench of Sandwell, and in particular to the tragedy of the torture of Joanna Harris. I am well aware that by abstruse legal arguments a brilliant Front Bench can defend, or seek to defend, in good conscience or not, that which is indefensible. I am quite content to go
1208
down to defeat before the brilliance of debate, because that will never override truth or freedom. But some points are worth making about that which actually happened at Sandwell. I am briefed by people in the town, and if I make errors I apologise. I rely on information given to me.
It is abundantly and overwhelmingly clear that there was conspiracy, brilliant and rapid conspiracy, between a left-wing town hall and left-wing local executive committees of the unions concerned. In rapid succession, and in order to seek to circumvent the impending 1980 law and code of practice, they rushed through in three separate blocks three sets of closed shop agreements. These things are called UMAs, and that managed to make them sound a little more respectable. in the third of these came the NALGO union, but, prior to Block 3 of these hurried agreements, NALGO conducted a poll on the closed shop issue of its union members, not of all the people in the grades to which NALGO would normally relate itself.
The issue was, should there, or should there not, be a closed shop? The proposal was defeated. But, not to be deflected, and at great speed, the left-wing executive committee of the NALGO union organised another poll, again of NALGO members only, not all of whom received their paper in time to vote. On this second poll, 810 voted in favour, 671 against, out of what would have been an electorate of 3,600 of the appropriate grades under the law as it now stands, inadequate though I believe that present law to be. The votes were counted by
the president, the chairman, and the vice-chairman of the executive committee of NALGO. They were counted properly or improperly, and I have to say that because there was no audit of the count and there was no audit of the processess leading to the poll.
Such, then, is the sorry state, such then is the value, such is the worth of democracy in Sandwell, and such is the demonstrated worth of democracy in the trades union movement. I greatly dislike saying that because, I repeat, there are a great many in this House who have given their lives to that movement and they deserve a better reward, a more dignified status, and a more dignified contribution to our society than we are now getting from that to which they have given their lives.
As for poor Joanna Harris following these events, she went to inquisitions which have been described to me as being Star Chamber-like in nature. Thereafter, accompanied by a courageous local councillor, Mrs. Jones, hopefully or hopelessly—who shall know?—she went to see the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment. He, I am told, to receive this little girl was surrounded by a panoply of advisers. She must have been getting a little tired of officialdom. I know that she had great courtesy, but all that she had at the end was a procedural washing of hands and a useless reference to an industrial tribunal. I am ashamed to believe that any member of the party which I have served all my life should think that money will substitute for freedom or the right to work. This Government stand condemned, in my view, by the inadequacies of their own legislation because that legislation left the loopholes which have brought about the suffering of Joanna Harris and others.
Picking up one or two points that have been made, I believe that this council has already been legally

1209
advised that the district auditor will have no claims against them. I do not question the original or present integrity of intent of the Secretary of State for Employment. I would never question that. I believe him to be a well-motivated, good man who has sought to attract the right response from responsible trades unionists, but that his aspirations have been destroyed by
extremists. Thus, this Government have broken faith with their own manifesto; broken faith with the electorate; and allowed evil to occur for which there is in this House tonight no apparent remedy. In short, like Governments before them, they have not learned that no spoon is long enough to enable you safely to sup with the devil. I leave with a thought for the Minister of State: there is still time to remedy these injustices, to lift up the hearts of the people who elected them, by introducing—and I do not like it—reinforcing retrospective legislation to redress these evils. If they do not, then all I can say is God save freedom, God save England and God save us from the expediencies of politics!
6.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for taking up the case of our namesake from Sandwell, and I fully share the sense of outrage he expressed about the treatment of that courageous young lady. I was suitably impressed by the delicate courtship by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as a social democrat. I was enormously impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, who I find it difficult to follow with credit, for Lord Brookes as a practised, enormously experienced industrialist, has given the lie to so much of what we heard in the debates on the Employment Act about the necessity for the closed shop, and he set an example of liberalism to those on the Liberal Benches who so often uphold individual freedom in principle and acquiesce time and again in its erosion in particular cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Brookes, told us how the closed shop came to be fastened on the workpeople in Sandwell and how, after two polls a few months apart, the closed shop was approved by fewer than one in four of the employees who would be affected, a large number having been disfranchised by not being allowed to vote on that issue. He omitted to deploy the point that the date chosen to enforce the closed shop by Sandwell Council was 1st August, chosen deliberately as two weeks ahead of the coming into effect of the Employment Act, which would have required an 80 per cent. affirmative vote of all the employees in order to create a new closed shop.
Since November, apart from Miss Joanna Harris, we have had evidence of the persecution of people like deputy matrons of old people's homes and ordained Baptist ministers of religion, and the majority have backed down. They backed down under the threat literally of a firing squad; they would be sacked if they did not back down. Miss Joanna Harris has not backed down, having explained:
"All I know is that I believe in freedom of choice and Sandwell Council is trying to take this away from me. I will not be pushed around".
1210
Most plaintively, she said:
"I still cannot believe that this is happening under English law".
The branch secretary of NALGO, a Mr. Eric Faux, as though replying to Miss Joanna Harris's plea, is quoted as saying:
"It may appear to be unfair, undemocratic and un-British, but it is not illegal".
That is the issue I put to the Minister today. I believe that in that last assertion by the branch secretary of NALGO, Mr. Eric Faux was correct, and therefore I believe the Secretary of State was wrong in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted on 4th February, which was issued to the press and is therefore available to be checked, in which the Secretary of State used these words:
"It is quite clear that what Sandwell are proposing is unlawful under the terms of our recent Employment Act".
It is not a legal quibble but critically important that we should be clear once and for all if that statement is true. I claim that what Sandwell has done is not unlawful, however much it may be insensitive, highhanded, authoritarian or even shameful. This issue has been raised in two Starred Questions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and each time there has been reference to the statutory rights of employees having clearly been infringed, but no clear statement about whether it is unlawful under the 1980 Act. I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, following the last Starred Question and asked this specific question: Was it unlawful? In his courteous answer, for which I thank him, he told me, again elaborately, about the statutory rights that had been infringed but he did not come specifically to the question whether what they had done was unlawful.
If Sandwell Council have broken the law, then noble Lords in all parts of the House might agree that they should be prosecuted. The important fact is that if Sandwell Council have not broken the law, then we can prevent a repetition of these sad events only by changing what has proved in practice to be an unsatisfactory or ineffective statute. As I am advised, the 1980 Act does not prevent any employer from acting exactly as Sandwell have acted. Section 7, which I remember well debating through its various stages in this House, specifically licenses an employer to dismiss an employee in precisely these circumstances; where there is a union membership agreement—that is, a closed shop, as there are covering perhaps 7 million employees at the present time—the employer can sack anyone who refuses to join.
The only question is whether hush money will be paid to the victims and, if so, how much. The lawful sacking of Joanna Harris may subsequently be judged to be fair or unfair—it was clearly unfair because the 1980 Act provided that it was an unfair practice to sack someone who was already working in a shop to which a union membership agreement applied—and if it is judged unfair, compensation must be paid. But there is no right for the victim to be reinstated. The victim may appeal to the employment appeal tribunal, which may order reinstatement, but the employer can refuse to reinstate, in which case the victim will simply get more hush money as compensation for loss of the job.

1211
It was because the employer was so often egged on by the trade union to refuse reinstatement or to sack a non-member of the union that the 1980 Act made one advance; namely, it provided employers with the right to join the union in the proceedings before an industrial tribunal. Then, if the tribunal finds that the dismissal of the employee was unfair, the tribunal can order the trade union to pay the employer up to the full amount of any compensation that may be awarded. Those possibilities lie in the future. It might be noted that Sandwell Council have announced a clear understanding with NALGO that the union will not be joined in any action of that kind, and that seems to be the only point where the district auditor could get a look in, because the council and the union conspire to say that the ratepayer shall be charged with any compensation.
But of course Miss Joanna Harris has not yet decided whether to appeal; she just wants her job back, and on that she has three months to decide whether to go to the industrial tribunal. The consideration in her mind is that if she goes to the industrial tribunal, which can be six months or a year away, that would leave her with further costs, and there is no provision for legal aid before the industrial tribunal.
We are often told, particularly from the Labour Benches, that you cannot make trade unionists work with non-members. Their case is that to outlaw the closed shop would not be effective because trade unionists will not work with non-members. But if the law quite explicitly prohibited the closed shop, as it does throughout Europe, then the effect of what is happening in Sandwell and elsewhere would be plainly to expose trade union funds to action for massive damages. That would provide a test as to whether ordinary trade union members think it is really worth paying large sums of money in order to indulge the preference for closed shops.
On this issue and many others that we are to see over the coming months it is no good trying to blame noble Lords on the Labour Benches for their advocacy of the closed shop. By a melancholy accident of history the Labour Party has to appear all the time as the partisans and protagonists of trade unions, though even they must be becoming increasingly uneasy about some of the examples of misuse of trade union power. We have to blame the Conservative Benches, because the Conservative Party came into power in 1979 with an overwhelming authority from the electorate to strike a decisive blow against what was seen to be trade union tyranny of just the kind that we have witnessed periodically ever since, and which the 1980 Act cannot stop. Well, Tories of a more philosophical bent often like—or used to like—to quote Burke. I would tonight remind them of his verdict on Hampden's refusal to pay ship money. Burke said:
"Would 20 shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No. But the payment of half of 20 shillings on the principle it was demanded would have made him a slave".
It was because Miss Joanna Harris would not be a slave that she has now been sacked. And that is the grim choice that confronts in total probably 7 million people in legal or informal closed shops, who are imprisoned, many of them involuntarily, in union membership. I believe that they are entitled to look to Parliament for early relief.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing the opportunity to ventilate this most important matter. As we expected, the noble Lord has given the House the benefit of his further studies into this affair that he raised in Question form in your Lordships' House on 13th February, as reported at column 405. The burden of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as I understood it, was that he was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the closed shop as such. His prime point was that the actions of the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council were unlawful. The noble Lord made that point in the course of his supplementary questions after the reply given to him on 13th February by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Indeed, he purported to quote—I do not use the term "purported" in an at all abusive sense—from a letter written by the Secretary of State to Mr. McWhirter on 4th February, in which the Minister is quoted as saying, as reported at column 407 of the Official Report:
It is quite clear that what Sandwell are proposing is unlawful under the terms of our recent Employment Act".
It is true enough that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in the course of a reply to a later supplementary question, pointed out that it was possibly unwise not to go on to quote further passages from the letter. At least that is what the noble Lord implied. He said, as reported at column 407:
"I am always tempted when noble Lords quote from letters to say to them, 'Read on, read on', because very often such statements are taken out of context".
I am not accusing the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, of quoting out of context. Having listened to the noble Lord, I am quite convinced that he is firmly of the opinion that the actions taken by this particular council are unlawful, and it is on the record that the Government think so, too, if the quotation from a letter read out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is accurate, as I have no doubt it is—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord since I have certainly drawn upon the letter today, but on 13th February it was in fact quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; but at any rate the letter was quoted. The burden of the noble Lord's complaint today—which he has accompanied by adjectives such as "inhuman", "abominable", "outrageous"—stems from his fundamental accusation of illegality. It is the duty of all parties, in government or in opposition, to see that the laws as they are passed are upheld. An accusation of illegality should not be lightly made. So I was particularly grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Peak, rose to his feet and proceeded to demonstrate—
A noble Lord: Lord Harris of High Cross.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry, my Lords; I mean the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross.

1213
There are so many Harrises in this case that perhaps I may be forgiven for the slight confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, rose to his feet and demonstrated, in my view quite conclusively, that of course the council had not at all acted illegally. In amplification of that point, may I cite to your Lordships the section of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 that deals with this aspect of the matter. Section 58(3) states:
"Dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded as fair for the purposes of this part"—
that is this part of the Act—
"if—

(a) it is the practice, in accordance with a union membership agreement, for employees for the time being of the same class as the dismissed employee to belong to a specified independent trade union, or to one of a number of specified independent trade unions; and

(b) the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of the specified union or one of the specified unions, or had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of that union or one of those unions;".

If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will forgive me, I should like to mention in parenthesis that that Act was passed by a Government of which he was
a member, and of which Mrs. Shirley Williams was a leading member. I cannot recall this question having been raised by the noble Lord or by Mrs. Shirley Williams in such passionate terms as have been addressed to the House today. As no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will mention, it is quite true that that part of the 1978 Act has been modified by Section 7 of the Employment Act 1980. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, reminded us, Section 7 came into operation by means of a Statutory Instrument issued by the Department of Employment on 15th August. Thus, the agreement itself was not unlawful.
As to whether the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council have acted unfairly,
this is another question altogether. It may well be that, if the procedures that are envisaged by the main Act are followed, the tribunal to which an appeal can be made under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 will decide in favour of the appellant, whoever he or she may be. There does not seem to be any reason why this appeal should not be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Many questions of dire hardship have been raised, and, as I say, strong adjectives have been used to describe the plight of Miss Joanna Harris. But if the injury is all that grievous, and even if in fact it merits only a part of the descriptions which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, then surely she will be easily able to mitigate at any rate the hardship part by going through the normal appeals procedures, which are still open to her and which will in fact be open to her until 11th June.
Therefore, if Miss Harris thinks that she has been maltreated or unfairly dismissed, then the remedies are open to her. I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, that the remedies in the Act itself are of no consequence. I do not think the noble Earl opposite would permit them to remain in existence if they were of no effect. The noble Earl shares with those of us on this side of the House the view that where an unfairness has been done to an individual then that unfairness should be rectified, more particularly if there is statutory provision for it; and I would
1214
hope that this would be done.
In so far as the agreement is concerned, I am bound to say this. There has been no particular haste by the union in this matter to get a closed shop agreement. It was mooted at one time, in 1977, and the branch considered it, but there was a ballot against it. It was raised again within the union itself in 1979, but then, once again, the union held a ballot and rejected it. It was in mid-1980 that the question was raised once again, and an offer was made to the union and to the other unions concerned by the Sandwell Borough Council. That offer they accepted, and the agreement was signed between the local authority and the union on 25th July 1980, to become effective on 1st August 1980.
Moreover, the form of the agreement itself, the general text of which I have in front of me, is in complete conformity with the Department of Employment's code of practice on this particular matter. It follows quite meticulously, so far as I can see, the guidelines that were laid down, either before the Minister came into office or afterwards, for the conduct of this type of operation. So there does not seem to be any reason why the agreement and the provisions under the agreement, which provide for appeals on specific grounds, should not have been followed out.
Miss Harris was first interviewed on this matter on 21st January 1981, which was some six weeks after the issue first arose—it could have been hastened—and she was seen again on 11th February. I am not in a position to deny what the noble Lord said about inquisitorial methods. Personally speaking, I would doubt it; and I would require the production of some evidence to know that that was in fact the case. When one is being questioned one tends to regard all questioning or interviews as inquisitorial, but I think that accounts conveyed second-hand on a hearsay basis should be treated with some reserve.
As to Miss Joanna Harris herself—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out, was a Sandwell Council poultry meat inspector—it would seem from the press reports that have appeared (and I would emphasise that these have not been provided to me by the parties concerned) that one of the chicken slaughter-houses where Miss Harris inspected poultry on behalf of the Sandwell Council was a family firm owned by her grandfather, in addition to her mother and uncle being directors of the firm. Also, before it became mandatory for local authorities to inspect white as well as red meat in accordance with the EEC meat hygiene regulations, it is understood that Miss Harris worked at her grandfather's firm as a direct employee.
I cannot vouch for the information—it is hearsay; it has only been in the press, and I do not assert it as a fact—but since there has been so much other hearsay bandied about it is perhaps necessary to say that it has also been released in the press that her grandfather had previously set up a trust fund for Joanna Harris, into which he makes a payment of approximately £600 with an increase of £200 a year to the firm which trades under the name of Ward's Poultry Limited.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? What on earth has this got to do with what we are discussing?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, my Lords. The case has been made out, in very extravagant terms, of a very considerable amount of personal hardship to an individual. When considering whether or not a person has suffered material hardship, it is only right that one should take their circumstances, so far as they are known, into account. I pass no comment on them. They have merely, as I say, been released to the press, like so many other statements that have been made here this afternoon. Since the debate has been limited—
Lord Brookes: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Clearly I could not have been present—neither, for that matter, could the noble Lord opposite—at any examination or inquisition relating to Miss Joanna Harris; but I did not quote from newspapers, I did not quote from speculation and I did not quote from the spoken word. I quoted from information communicated to me by a highly respected member of the local authority concerned—and I named her.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I immediately accept that from the noble Lord, and I would not wish to impute anything to the contrary. However, one must always say—and I think most noble Lords would agree—that what is hearsay must be treated as hearsay, from whatever source it comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, deliberately did not raise the question of the desirability or otherwise of closed shops. However, while not seeking to detain the House on this matter, I am bound to say that it is always very easy for people who, owing to the activities of trade unions, achieve wages levels and conditions-of-work levels which have been the result of combined trade union effort to say, "We want no part of this"—but, at the same time, they continue to emjoy the benefits of the combined organisation for which they seem to have a somewhat fastidious distaste, knowing perfectly well that, regardless, they will continue to be employed and remunerated, in most cases, at levels determined by the trade union movement in negotiation with the employers.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking the House to believe that the increase in the standard of life and of protection, which has been from time to time the consequence of the formation of trade unions, involves behaviour of the kind that we have heard described this evening?
Lord Bruce of Donington: No, my Lords, I am not inviting the House to reach any such conclusion. The remarks that I have made I trust are temperate and have avoided the use of some of the extravagant language that we have heard here this evening and which I, suggest to your Lordships is wholly inappropriate to the degree of personal injury or damage sustained.
A noble Lord: No!
Lord Bruce of Donington: And, my Lords, particularly in the light of the fact that the procedures which are laid down in the Act have not been followed. I recollect a case in which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was replying to me on a question of an alleged injury inflicted on someone at a party conference He did
1216
not argue to me about it at all. He merely said that no complaint had been received; and he regarded that as conclusive. In this case we are faced with the fact that there are procedures provided under the Act of which no advantage has been taken. The time has still not run out; it is still there until 15th May or, alternatively, 15th June. One hopes it will be invoked.
I trust that the House may bear in mind the observations which only yesterday fell from the lips of the right honourable gentleman Mr. Prior, the Secretary of State for Employment, when speaking at a meeting of the Institute of Directors. A report of the meeting reads:
"Mr. Prior, the opening speaker to the Institute's 2,000 delegates at the Albert Hall, gave examples of employers who, he said, were more determined than any trade union to maintain certain closed-shop arrangements".
It is precisely because both sides of industry see advantages in the closed shop that the closed shop and the introduction of the closed shop continues. There is no case for their abolition and the Government themselves, I feel, would not make a case for their abolition.
One would never condone—and we on this side of the House would never condone—unfair acts or unfair conduct under any Act. Our function at this time, and the most useful one we can perform, is to urge upon the Government to begin to create a social climate within which good industrial relations can be established; because ultimately the whole of the industrial relations field depends on complete cooperation between the management and the unions in order to ensure that both sides get a fair deal and to ensure that hardship is inflicted on no one. This is the way I feel that the Government, any Government, ought to proceed rather than by trying to legislate on matters which the Government themselves admit are not always susceptible to legislation.
6.46 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, this debate, which I welcome very much, has to some degree been about law and the interpretation of law. But principally it has been about people, people who, in the words of my noble friend Lord Brookes, use public office and public money to trample on human freedoms. The cases of this kind which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to in his brilliant opening speech are intolerable. Sandwell is the most notorious example, but there are others and very worryingly, as Lord Harris pointed out, there may be more in the pipeline.
May I go over what is agreed about the case of Sandwell? Last year a local authority, the Sandwell Borough Council, introduced closed shops: at first covering all the manual employees and then, last July, before the Act came into force, white collar staff. That included Miss Joanna Harris, who has been mentioned many times in this debate. Councillor John Edwards, the chairman of the council's works committee, claimed that his council had a mandate from the electorate to force union membership on all employees regardless of their wishes. The union in question is NALGO. So if in Sandwell Borough Council NALGO discovers that someone is employed by the Council but is not a paid-up member it has only

1217
to get in touch with an officer of the council, a Mr. Hodgetts, who is Sandwell's personnel director and who has instructions to investigate the individual concerned. This means in effect that the local NALGO official, a Mr. Faux, faces the council employees with the choice of joining the union or being sacked. Mr. Faux has himself said—and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross instanced this—that he has no conscience about doing so. By this process of employees having to join up or get out, those who object are weeded out or, in the case of Miss Joanna Harris, sacked for sticking to their guns.
In referring to Miss Harris, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that it really is not relevant what her personal circumstances are. Were she the principal legatee of the late Paul Getty she should have redress to the law in the Sandwell case. On the other point that the noble Lord raised—that it is easy for people to take benefits from unions without contributing to their terms and conditions—well, as we know, one of the very dubious benefits of increasing upward movements in wage pressures due to union monopoly and activity has been increased unemployment. That is not a benefit that should continue.
My Lords, as you know, the Government oppose the principle of closed shops, and we share the public concern over the way these local authorities have acted. It is quite right that this House should voice the widely held criticisms of the actions. Councillors, and those they purport to represent, should be aware of the concern that these intolerable policies can cause.
I really think that, by any normal ethical standards, Councillor Edwards, Mr. Hodgett, Mr. Faux and their associates in the Sandwell case are thoroughly bad men, and their actions thoroughly wicked. I hope that the electors of Sandwell are alert to the kinds of action which are being taken in their name.
Let me now look at the general background to this debate. Last year, a few local authorities pushed through union membership agreements shortly before the Employment Act took effect in August. The Act of course requires that new agreements should be approved by a secret ballot of employees if the agreement is to give the employer a defence in tribunal cases. But these councils did not want to put the agreements to the vote of the employees whom they were going to affect. And then—over a period of months—one or two councils have begun to put pressure on employees to become union members or face dismissal. In the case of Miss Harris, the council have actually dismissed her, as we know.
I do not think that on any general principles there is any case at all for closed shops within local authorities, whatever one may feel about closed shops elsewhere. Even the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, whose expertise on industrial relations we all acknowledge and whose book defends closed shops on the grounds that these are sometimes necessary for efficient collective bargaining, could find no need for them among local authority staff. Unions have for a long time been able to achieve high levels of membership within local authorities and to negotiate effectively without closed shops.
Indeed, one of the unusual features in the cases that we are discussing tonight is that it has been the employer
1218
—not the union—which has set the pace. Often in closed shops employers say that union pressure requires them to agree to a closed shop. But here there is no evidence of union pressure. Rather it is the ideology of the councillors which has been the motivating force. I am not saying that the unions are free from blame. I have mentioned the uncompromising attitude of the local NALGO official Mr. Eric Faux and the union's vigorous pursuit of dissenters, which shows their own contempt for the TUC's guidance on closed shops —a document which urges flexibility and tolerance. Not much flexibility and no tolerance at all has been shown to Miss Harris, my Lords.
There is another unusual feature about these cases. What these councils have apparently been doing is to force all existing employees—those in post before any agreement—to join or face dismissal. Even before our legislation most closed shop agreements exempted such employees from membership. But these local authorities—which profess concern for the job security of their staff—show no such restraint in their ideological pursuit of a 100 per cent. union membership.
Government action has not been confined to expressions of regret and sympathy. In 1980 we changed the law—as we said we would in our election manifesto. I must say to my noble friend Lord Brookes and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that we have not broken faith with our manifesto as my noble friend appeared to imply. We did not make a manifesto commitment to outlaw the closed shop. Perhaps we should have done so, and perhaps we shall still do so; but we did not do so at that time. We said we would change the law to seek to protect individuals who suffered under closed shops and who suffered under the greatly extended immunities for union activitity which the previous Government had brought about. That was the extent of our manifesto commitment in 1979.
Until last year, until the Employment Act became law, these councils would have been able to proceed, without any risk of legal action, to dismiss nonunionists—except in the very rare case of the person who objected on religious grounds to membership of any union whatsoever. But in the Employment Act we made it unfair in legal terms to dismiss employees who were not union members when a closed shop is introduced. Indeed, the Act provides a legal remedy against any action by an employer to compel such an employee to join a union. There is no question, in the 1980 Act, of this employee needing conscientious objections—the fact that he was an existing employee is enough.
I do not think, therefore, that we can argue that in this case there are difficult legal issues. It is a simple question of fact. Were the employees in their jobs before the closed shop was introduced and have they declined to join the union? in these circumstances, while of course it must be up to the individual to decide whether or not to use his new rights, I have little doubt as to what would be the outcome if he does. I urge anyone who is dismissed to take his case to an industrial tribunal as the law provides.
My Lords, it has been said that this case shows that the remedies provided by our law are not sufficient to deter employers and unions, or to recompense the employee. Legal remedies are often only a poor

1219
substitute for the enjoyment of a satisfying job without harrassment. We all recognise that. But this question of the adequacy of any remedy, where an individual's legal rights have been infringed, is a new one. It did not figure in our debates on the Employment Bill last year. What concerned the House then was how widely drawn the provisions should be. For example, should all dismissals for non-membership be unfair, or should dismissal law apply where closed shops had not been reviewed?
In many of the speeches then, it was taken for granted that the remedies which
the law provides in cases of unfair dismissal would be sufficient, these are not insignificant. The law provides for compensation and orders of reinstatement; and if an employer unreasonably refuses to comply with a reinstatement order then he can be penalised by an additional sum, up to a year's salary for the employee concerned. Certainly, employers generally do not find the dismissal remedies a matter of no significance—indeed, in the wider context of dismissals generally, they complain that they can be only too effective as deterrents. And in fact, while the particular examples which are the subject of
this debate are very shocking, I hope that they will remain isolated ones. We certainly have no evidence that they are reflecting the experience of industry, whether private or public sector industry, as distinct from cases where political motivation is involved.
The fact that these were local authorities—where councillors do not pick up the bill for their unjustifiable actions—is of course important. But I am glad to say that the district auditor can intervene if unreasonable decisions lead to unwarranted expenditure for the ratepayer, like compensation for obviously unfair dismissal. The local district auditor for Sandwell has said in the local paper:—
"If councillors have ignored advice and acted recklessly or irresponsibly then they can be taken to court to get the money due from them".
Quite bluntly, that means that, if the appropriate legal actions are taken, councillors like Councillor John Edwards could suffer the consequences of their own actions in their own pockets.
I am not suprised that these cases, even if they are exceptional, isolated or ideologically motivated, have revived demands to make the closed shop unlawful. I of course understand that demand. I must point out that making a closed shop void and unlawful might not be able to stop an employer like Sandwell which is already infringing employees' rights by forcing them to join a union, from bringing unfair pressures to bear or behaving wickedly.
Indeed, the whole problem connected with this issue of the closed shop. particularly so far as the present Administration is concerned, is that our experience in 1971 when closed shops were made unlawful indicated to us that this drove the practices underground. The fact that the practices were driven underground made it impossible to protect or compensate individuals who suffered under them. The whole difficulty of outlawing the closed shop is that you need the co-operation of the employers, and employers sometimes withhold that co-operation. It was the noble Lord,
1220
Lord Brookes, himself, who has been very critical of us, who said:
"In this matter management does not necessarily have clean hands".
I also understand the demand for a remedy of enforced reinstatement in closed shop cases. This is what Miss Joanna Harris wanted. She did not want money; she wanted her job back. But we have all recognised, I think, that in the last analysis in an open society it is very difficult to force people to work together by law. In a situation where union members refuse to work with a non-unionist—and the 1971 legislation did throw up such cases—the courts themselves have recognised that enforced reinstatement simply will not work. Indeed the law has never enforced the specific performance of a contract of employment. Damages have always been the traditional remedy, and that is why in this case the law provides the method of redress so that if an action is successfully brought the result is monetary compensation rather than prescribed reinstatement. That is why I again urge people to use any current remedies which do provide for reinstatement orders and for compensation if they are not applied. We want to see that these legal remedies are effective, and that includes their deterrent effect. We shall certainly want to bear cases like Sandwell in mind as we continue to review the law; and we are continuing to review it, publicly and in this House—for instance, in only a week's time, when we have a debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton on our Green Paper on trade union immunities.
Finally, may I turn to specific questions which were asked of me? The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about a ballot at Sandwell. Our understanding is that there was a ballot of union members, but the non-union members were not given a chance to vote and the union ballot was of course held before the 1980 Act came into effect. On the issue of whether other non-unionists have been affected, in February when my Secretary of State saw Miss Harris, he himself met two other non-unionists. According to press reports, it seems that about 50 others may have been involved. We are not sure how many of them may have joined since, but, so far as we know, none has been drummed out for non-membership other than Miss Harris. However, they may, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, pointed out, have felt themselves forced to yield to this very wicked pressure.
May I also turn to the case of the Darlington council, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester? That council is requiring contractors who wish to remain on its tendering list to sign a statement saying that it employs only union members. Without any qualification, we condemn that action as thoroughly immoral. We have expressed our concern about this type of practice before, and in this House we accepted an amendment to the Employment Act in the name of my noble friend Lord De La Warr which means that an employer who insists on such a requirement in a commercial contract can be made to reimburse to a contractor any compensation that contractor has had to pay to any of the employees dismissed as a result; and our code of practice makes that quite clear. Darlington is ignoring this advice. In the Government's view, what they are doing could well constitute an anti-competitive practice within the meaning of the

1221
Competition Act, which the Government also passed last year, because their action prevents firms which might otherwise have submitted tenders to the council from submitting those tenders. Indeed, as I understand the position, out of some 50 contractors who were originally on Darlington's tendering list for house building, fewer than five could meet the council's requirement.
When there is thought to be an anti-competitive practice, the Director General of Fair Trading may conduct an investigation and subsequently an order may be made prohibiting such practices. I know that the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors have had some involvement with what is going on in Darlington and I do urge them and all others with an interest in this matter to let the Director General of Fair Trading know of their concern if they have not already done so.
May I in ending say to my noble friend Lord Brookes as uncompromisingly as I can that I do not defend and never have defended the closed shop? The Government would much prefer there not to be closed shops, but we cannot just wish away an institution which has grown up during our history and which now covers in excess of 5 million employees. We are determined to try to see that any legislation we put on the statute book will actually be observed, but we shall want to bear in mind continuously cases of abuse of our own or of previous legislation, with a view to changing the law should that become necessary. I shall certainly want to bear in mind throughout the period of consultation on our Green Paper on trade union immunities the cases which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has made available to us in this debate. I am therefore most grateful to him for the opportunity he has given me and the House to consider those cases, and we shall take serious note of everything he and others have said today.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the characteristic thoroughness with which he has dealt with the issues I raised in my speech and which were raised by other noble Lords, to whom I should also like to tender my gratitude for having spoken.
I hope I will not appear unreasonable if I cavil slightly at some of the terms in the noble Earl's answer, particularly on two points. One of them I did not give him advance notice of, and therefore I am in no position to complain. But I believe that the question raised by the Secretary of State himself—namely, the question of unlawful conduct—should be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown for their view, because I believe (I have taken advice on this point) that there are certain ways in which decisions by local authorities could be challenged by way of an injunction.
What I think virtually everybody who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said is that it is simply not good enough to give Miss Harris and others in a similar position financial compensation. I think what we all feel—and I suspect this is also the view of many who have not spoken, and indeed perhaps of the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House, and also, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of British public opinion—
1222
is that people should not be chucked out of their jobs like this by ideologically-motivated members of a union. Therefore, I would say to the noble Earl—and I hope he will bear this in mind in the consideration he and his right honourable friend are going to give to their Green Paper—that I entirely take notice of some part of the argument about enforced reinstatement; but I believe (I do not want to go into all sorts of complications in differentiating between different groups of employers, be they private employers or local authorities) that it is necessary to look at this in a rather new light.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, has pointed out, and indeed it is fairly common ground and has been mentioned by the noble Earl himself, there has been no great demand from the employees of the Sandwell District Council that they should have a closed shop policy. There has been no pressure from them: the pressure quite clearly came from the members of the local authority. Therefore, if there was, let us say, a requirement that there should be enforced reinstatement there would be none of the attendant difficulties and problems of the kind which were perfectly reasonably outlined by the Minister of State at the end of his speech. However, I should be grateful if he would look into the point of the law officers, and, no doubt, we can be in correspondence on that.
If I may briefly touch on one or two of the other speeches, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made a point of fundamental importance, that virtually every public opinion poll that we have seen in the last four or five years demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of trade unionists and their wives are as affronted by conduct of this kind as are all other elements of British public opinion. I have no doubt at all about that. The noble Lord Lord Brookes gave us an extremely disturbing account, based on his own knowledge of the situation in West Bromwich, of how these ballots were conducted. I think it raises exactly the kind of issue which was touched on by the Minister of State himself. There are grave questions about the behaviour both of the councillors and of some of the officials concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who raised the question of whether this was, indeed, unlawful conduct, agreed that what was present there was unfair dismissal. All I would say about that is that, if a local authority consciously, deliberately, sets about dismissing someone unfairly, according to the law of this country, there is absolutely no doubt that if financial compensation is awarded the district auditor should have an interest in the case, and I very much hope that he will take a keen personal interest in what develops here.
Lastly, coming to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, all I would say to him is this. He had a difficult speech to make. He, not unreasonably, pointed out—and he was entirely right in what he said—that I was a Minister in the previous Government. In fact, he asked—he did not put the matter quite as abrasively as this, but perhaps I can do so on his behalf—why did I not resign if I felt quite as strongly as that. I would say to him that he has—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for just a moment? I did not ask—the noble Lord will be able to ascertain this from

1223
Hansard—why did he not resign? I asked: why did he not protest at the time?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, so far as I am aware, I was never on a ministerial committee that considered this matter. That is the answer to the question. It affects Ministers of all Governments. It, no doubt, affected some of my former noble friends when they came into the Chamber to listen to me speaking on behalf of the Home Office. Ministers have to accept collective responsibility. Nevertheless, the fact is certainly clear that I was a member of a Government which did a number of things in the area of trade union reform, which I find, looking back on them, were highly distasteful, to put it at the very least. I must accept a measure of personal responsibility for having continued in office as a member of that Government.
The House will be relieved to know that I now come to my final point. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not put it in precisely these terms, but, basically, he asked: what, really, is all the fuss about? After all, hardship
can be dealt with by the industrial tribunal. He made some reference to the fact that Miss Harris had a grandfather who might have settled some money on her and, rather like the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, I find the relevance of that rather difficult to follow. Nevertheless, the answer to the noble Lord is this. I think that this House and Parliament should take an interest when a girl of 20 is hounded by a number of ideologically-motivated councillors and trade union officials and driven out of her job, as Miss Harris has been driven out of her job. It will be a sad day for British democracy when issues of this kind are not raised in Parliament and when redress is not demanded. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Marriage (Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Nugent of Guildford in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Marriage between relations by affinity not to be void]:
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("affinity") insert ("except a marriage between that person and a relation of his by affinity, being a relation who has been accepted by that person as a child of his family").
The right reverend Prelate said: Over the last weekend I was, perhaps wrongly from the point of view of a
1224
Bishop, very closely involved with the production of a new musical Passion and Resurrection play in Winchester Cathedral, and tomorrow I make my way to chair, once again, the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England. One might say that in those two events I am doing what I regard as the primary duty of a Bishop; telling a story concerned with the Gospel, if you like, and looking after, and looking for, the truth and guarding it for the Church.
So that, pressed by both of those very demanding activities, I must confess that on my way up here from Winchester this afternoon I was asking whether my journey was really necessary, for I do not want it to be though that, because there are four bishops present in the House at this moment, we regard the matter of this Bill as of prior interest to the Church. It is not. in my view, an ecclesiastical concern, but I speak because I am convinced that it is a concern for society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, whose absence this afternoon we deplore, because I believe it is on account of sickness, has promoted this Bill, as she has others, in the name of liberty and emancipation. But we have had experience in our past history of emancipation that misfires, and I venture to suggest to noble Lords that this could well be such a case. It often misfires because we do not appreciate the social function of negative safeguards—what in, the past, and in anthropological language, were called taboos. "Taboo" is an unpopular word. It is often laughed out of court as a matter of mere adherence to the past, to a meaningless tradition or even to a superstitition. But properly understood sociologically, a taboo is a fence to exclude certain fears, certain strains, certain anxieties and animosities from a particular relationship. It is a device to set the community free from anxiety, by making certain options unthinkable.
That is what lies behind the undoubtedly ancient taboos set there in the 18th chapter of the Book of Leviticus, which we know as the Table of Prohibited Degrees. They refer, of course, to an earlier tribal society when, as happens in many parts of Africa today, the whole of a village may be interrelated or consist of people who have married into that large, extended family, where there is a strict rule of exogamy, and where a young man or a young woman who seeks a marriage partner has to go outside the village, because any other course would disturb the equilibrium by introducing jealousies, fears or suspicions into that community's life.
In a large extended family society—you have to include grandmothers and all the rest—bishops of the Church of England are not today rushing in defence of innocent grandmothers fleeing from the lascivious advances of young men with odd proclivities. We are concerned with society as it exists today and the very much smaller family group—the household, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham called it in his speech at the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said
"To have conflicting marital interests within the household does, I submit, strike at the root of family life".
I believe that the family circle, whatever its size, must always be a charmed circle. Those who are within it are protected from certain possibilities in order that others may develop. In order that there can be the kind of total intimacy, total dependence upon one

1225
another, there must be removed the fear that this position could be exploited by somebody who began to feel other than familial desires within that circle.
Let us remember today that not everybody is as privileged as are most Members of this House in having perhaps two homes under our own name, or at least fairly reasonable houses where families can have room and space. I know only too many households where young marrieds must go on living in one or other of the parental homes for years before they can obtain a roof of their own. I know also of so many cases of divorce which invariably increase the number of children who are children of only one partner but who are adopted into that family circle and given exactly the same freedoms and securities of that sacrosanct family circle.
We say, as a joke, at our wedding parties, that we have lost a daughter but have gained a son. I believe it is possible that if this Bill goes through as it stands the mother, at least, or the father might feel that they had gained a potential rival: that the mother might wish to marry, if the daughter happened to die, the young man who was so attractive who had been accepted into that family circle. So we are concerned with the family. The executive director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews has expressed his belief that the Jewish community of this country is distressed by the prospect of this Bill and within its own law and custom has no intention of abandoning any part of the table of affinity that is set down in its ancient religion —again not an ecclesiastical concern but the time-honoured concern of the Jewish community for the family and its place in society.
The wording of this amendment, I believe, introduces a modest taboo that is appropriate to modern society. Where a man or woman has accepted a child or young person as a child of the family so as to be in loco parentis to that person, this amendment would preclude the possibility of marriage between them. It would not go further than that. People who had never been within that charmed circle together in a relationship of quasi parent and quasi child would be as free as the Bill would allow them to be. This would discourage a stepmother from considering the divorce of her husband because she found the stepson attractive, or a stepfather considering the possibility of marriage with a stepdaughter who had come to rely upon the openness of family relationship in perfect trust.
It may he argued that this is a difficult legal concept. I beg to differ. The concept of "child of the family" is not new to our law. The phrase has been used and defined in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. The interpretation given in Section 16 defines the phrase as:
"(a) any child of both parties;"—
that of course is certainly excluded from our considerations under the Bill—
"and (b) any other child of either party who has been accepted as one of the family by the other party".
A number of decided cases have been made on this point. Very briefly, I refer to Bowlas v. Bowlas in 1965, Dixon v. Dixon in 1967 and then, under the All England Law Report cases, H. v. H. in 1966 by his guardian's intervention and B. v. B. in 1968. In all those cases it was perfectly clear what the phrase
1226
"a child of the family" means. I submit that it is a phrase which has a clear legal connotation. So I ask that the family circle be once again established as sacrosanct and this modest taboo accepted in order that there may be safety and freedom from possible exploitation. I beg to move.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: May I say, first, that I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his remarks about my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. She is very sorry indeed not to be with your Lordships tonight. I am particularly sorry, not only because of her illness but also because I am afraid that I am an inadequate replacement for her. I am sure that we all join in wishing her a speedy recovery.
I quite appreciate the considerations which led the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop of Norwich to put down this amendment. However, there is a preliminary point which I feel bound to make. I am sorry to have to do so, but I do not think I should be doing my duty to the Committee if I did not make it. This is a major amendment which goes to the very roots of the Bill, yet it was not tabled until yesterday. So most of your Lordships will not have had a chance to see it until today. However, the Second Reading debate took place on 25th February, a month ago today. I feel, and I say this in the gentlest possible way that I can, that a little more regard really should be paid to the convenience of your Lordships. Rather similar considerations apply to the very big and major amendment, Amendment No. 3, which was put down only on Monday.
This amendment which is before us at the moment goes, as I have indicated, to the very roots of the Bill. It would indeed run counter to the whole principle of the Bill. In fact, it is about as close as one could possibly get to a wrecking amendment. I am bound to say that the right reverend Prelate has made my case for me. He has just made what was undoubtedly, I submit, a Second Reading speech. It is of course the case, as some of us have acknowledged before, that certain noble Lords simply would not wish to see a marriage at all between a stepchild and a step-parent, and particularly between a person and somebody who had acted in loco parentis towards her or him in the circumstances described by the right reverend Prelate. But it has been agreed generally in our previous debates—and there have been many—that there does not seem to be any way of excluding such cases from the provisions of the Bill without also excluding the sort of cases of real hardship which have been brought to the attention of your Lordships by my noble friend Lady Wootton and other noble Lords.
Let us look at some of the difficulties which the amendment would involve. It could be that for a short while the person related by reason of affinity had been accepted into the household as a child of the family but that thereafter that person went to live elsewhere and had no dealings directly with the other party and that when they came together much later on—perhaps around the time they found they would like to marry—the other party's wife or husband who had been in the household when the then child was accepted as a child of the family had long since died. That would of course be very different from the sort of case in which

1227
the original husband and wife had acted in effect all along in loco parentis to the child.
If this amendment were passed, it would rule out both types of case. This sort of case touches upon cases that we have considered all along in dealing with my noble friend's Bills. Indeed, many cases of this type have been among the very ones that this Bill is designed to help, for there has often been cited in the course of our debates the case of the stepdaughter whose mother dies and who is older than other children within the family—children of her stepfather and her own mother—and who acts then as a mother towards those other children, and who looks after the household and whose relationship with her stepfather develops quite naturally to the stage where they would wish to be joined in marriage. If this amendment were to be passed, such a couple would be prevented from taking what in those circumstances would be perhaps the most natural and desirable course in the world for all concerned, not least for the other younger children.
As the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, "a child of the family" (that is of course a legal technical phrase) might not be a child in terms of its age. Moreover, how would it be decided whether the particular circumstances amounted to the person having been accepted as a child of the family? That could well be open to dispute, as indeed is sometimes the case in divorce actions. There is no provision here to enable that to be decided. What provision is proposed to enable that to be decided? Ultimately, this could only be resolved by the court.
On this amendment I am not going to embark upon the practical problems involved in bringing the courts into these matters because we shall have to go into those on Amendment No. 3, but by passing this amendment we would immediately and automatically need to involve the courts, and the practical problems involved, not to mention the possible costs, would not be small. Let us not forget that it is the whole future of these couples that we are considering tonight. So, while I understand the motives behind this amendment, I hope that the right reverend Prelate may be disposed to withdraw it. As I have said, it goes to the very principles of the Bill and I feel it is only fair to say now that if this amendment were to be pressed I would need to invite your Lordships to resist it.
Viscount Hanworth: I find it really rather extraordinary that what is very nearly a wrecking amendment should have been produced right at the last moment, bearing in mind that this is a very simple Bill and there has been ample time for tabling amendments. I saw this amendment only when I came into the Chamber, because in fact I had asked for the amendments yesterday.
I think what must be realised is that, rightly or wrongly, we have ceased to dictate private morals. Nowadays we legislate only in regard to what is against outside or national interests, and the second amendment, which I think is extremely reasonable, means that this sort of liaison will not occur among juniors. We are going further than the age of majority today; we are going to 21. I really do not think that we should lay down and dictate to people how they should behave, so long as it is not against the national interest. That was precisely what I was going to say
1228
on a subsequent amendment—and I have now said a certain amount of it, unfortunately. I hope that your Lordships, having voted for this Bill, will not be deterred by this amendment, which should be negatived out of hand.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I hope your Lordships will allow me, on behalf of and with my brother Prelates, to say that if we have been discourteous to the Committee in the lateness of this amendment, naturally we are sorry, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boston's strictures on the amendment need looking at again, because as I read column 1116 in that very clear-cut debate that we had on Second Reading, it is this very issue about which the noble Baroness made such a strong point. Noble Lords will remember that she said:
"The current image which is mostly put forward of this Bill is that of the lascivious husband who now sees an attractive daughter of his wife by a former union and thinks she perhaps is to be preferred to the wife to whom he was already married and takes steps to get rid of that wife in order to marry her daughter".
This, says the noble Baroness—whose illness we are sorry about and whom we wish a speedy recovery—is the image. She then continues by saying that this is emphatically not what she means by this Bill. It therefore seemed very proper, as she disavowed this as her aim, that we should put a reasoned amendment which sought to disabuse the minds of the public of what is at first glance what this Bill could do.
In my optimistic and hopeful way I had imagined that this was such an obvious amendment, which would at least curtail the worst possible excesses of this Bill; that in wisdom and also in concern for the happiness and stability of family life your Lordships, whatever view you may hold about the main Bill, would agree that this is a proper amendment. This is an amendment which attempts to stop just this stepfather and the young stepdaughter situation at its most serious, putting the girl into a dreadfully exposed and dangerous situation and therefore cutting across what I understood to be the argument of the noble Baroness, in which she was seeking to recognise that on the one hand those opposed to her Bill were speaking on principle—Biblical principle, Levitical principle, prayer book principle and the long history of Church principle in our country and the hard cases which she enumerated and which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, reminded us in the archives of the Home Office come to a very small number of known cases over the last 15 or 20 years. So this is really taking a very large nutcracker to deal with a very small nut. I think that will appear in the very reasonable third amendment.
In this case we have both together the principle of caring for the family and the care for the individual girl in danger, and therefore it seems to me that whatever noble Lords may feel about the general principle of the Bill, this amendment is a real attempt to care for and watch over the cases of particularly young stepdaughters who I think we have a proper responsibility in your Lordships' House to care for in terms of care and compassion. Therefore, in my optimistic way I had imagined that this amendment would go through without anyone even attempting to divide the Committee on it; but as I gather this may happen, I should like to say that I support my brother right reverend prelate in his amendment.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Soper: I have no pleasure in finding myself in disagreement with my ecclesiastical friends, but nevertheless I feel there is a need to present certain evidence which hitherto I think has been stated but certainly not proven. May I preface what I have to say with a gentle comment about the relationship of a taboo to morality. A taboo is that which you persist in until you have got the sense to get rid of it. Therefore, I find no comfort in the idea that preservation of the Levitical code is an expression of the way in which we have developed in our spiritual understanding, for which, in a period of henotheism, as your Lordships will know, in which that code was first adumbrated, very different parameters were required than those which belong to a civilised society today.
Secondly, I must agree with those who feel that my ecclesiastical friend who proposed this amendment was in fact proposing the destruction of the Bill itself, and that the substance of his argument was very much that of a mountain which ultimately produced a very small mouse. I respect those—of course I do—who regard the whole concept of affinity as being one which should be regarded with care and with a certain precautionary view, but at the same time I believe there is a practical relationship of this question which must not be ignored. It is, of course, possible to imagine so distributing the human pieces on the social chess board as to result in the condition of checkmate.
It is possible to conceive of dangers that arise in this particular field, and they are dangers which, if they occurred, would, I think, be substantial. But I have been a long time in social work, and over the 55 years of my own experience I cannot remember a case in which this amendment would apply with profit and with success. Most of those cases which are envisaged are cases which can be seen upon the technical chess board, but the complications which prevail in the real world are such as to make it impossible to select an amendment of this kind and regard that as doing something to improve a Bill. There are innumerable other cases that belong to the complex of human relationships which, if this amendment were agreed, would also require to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. In that regard I entirely agree with those who would suggest that this is a matter of private rather than of social concern. At any rate, it is a matter which should not be exposed to the rigours of law which could not possibly anticipate the complexities of the human situation.
It is perfectly true, and no one would wish to doubt it, that marriage is a hazardous business anyhow. But the attempt to set up the safeguards, the stockades, that are suggested in this amendment, does not contribute anything towards that emancipation which I believe can contribute more to the welfare of the family than a return to the Levitical code, which should be outdated and regarded as obsolete, or at any rate transformed into something which is no longer a taboo uncritically accepted but a moral principle intelligently and progessively applied. It is for that reason that I for one will vote against this amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: When I saw my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, enter the Chamber,
1230
I knew that we were of course coming here for opposite purposes. When he speaks of the complexities of the human situation, we approach the matter from, I think one has to say, diametrically different psychological viewpoints, and it is proper that both should be well aired. In regard to all the amendments which have appeared on the Marshalled List in the past two or three days, I think it is fair for Lady Wootton to complain that she did not have much time. There she is on her sickbed; we wish her well, and of course no discourtesy to her was intended. On the other hand, I do not know how busy are noble Lords opposite, but I do know that I have the greatest difficulty, even with 15 days warning, to find the two or three hours extra which are necessary to settle down, master a Bill, master the argument and master the briefing, ring up one's friends and get one's mind ordered. Although it was sad that Lady Wootton should be confronted on her sickbed with amendments put down late, it is none the less a reality of life, in a non-professional part-time House, that some of us have great difficulty in getting down until just beforehand to the "nitty-gritty" of the particular problem that concerns us.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, I am surprised that this amendment evokes such resistance. There is one point about it to which I will refer in a moment on which I have a little niggling doubt, but the purpose of the amendment I should have thought was quite clear. From the way the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, presented her Bill for Second Reading, for the third time in a few years, one would have thought that her own very reasoned approach would be open to this particular very carefully reasoned and moderate amendment to protect stepsons and stepdaughters.
One point was made by the noble Lord Lord, Boston. He said he thought it was generally agreed in the previous debates that provision must be made to meet questions of hardship. I am not sure that there is quite the generality of agreement that he refers to. This Bill got a Second Reading in the previous Parliament. It was rejected on Second Reading in the last Session of this Parliament. It got through the other day, and I think it is only fair to say that had some of us not been busy with other matters it might not have got through the other day. At any rate, there are those in this House who sincerely believe it to be a bad Bill and mistimed, abolishing an absolute prohibition which is the result of many centuries of social experience of many countries and religions, threatening and designed to threaten the sanctity of privacy and decency, violating a deep sense protected by the concept of shame. Many of us feel this very deeply. I have finished my Second Reading speech; I quite appreciate that this was rather a lengthy point.
Turning to one other point to be made with regard to this amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggested that those of us who are critical of this Bill are trying to dictate private morals. Not a bit of it. What we are saying, at any rate what I am saying, is that the greater the plurality of society the greater the need for these anthropological taboos—not the less, the more. We are not trying to dictate matters, if you like, of private individual purity, but we are trying to protect the sanctuary of the home.
I have one point which I raise, and it may well be that my noble friend on the Front Bench when he

1231
comments on the amendment may allude to this. I wonder whether the word "child", despite its respectable legal antecedents, is quite the word we want. I wonder whether the word "ward" might not serve the purpose better. But whatever is the right wording, I feel I must declare straight away that if this amendment is pressed to a Division I shall certainly support it.
Lord Milverton: On this occasion I would support my noble friends the right reverend Prelates in their amendment. I was not able to be here during the Second Reading of the noble Baroness's Bill, but reading it, and listening carefully on other occasions when this subject has been discussed and listening carefully today, I, too, feel, as one who would support it, we are not wanting to be holier than thou, we are wanting to safeguard, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said, the holiness and the loveliness of marriage. There can be openness of affection without it being felt that that affection has got to lead to a man and woman becoming husband and wife; where there can just be that loving open affection in a household between men and women who can feel they have an affection without having to go to the extent of marriage, to the physical side. Surely, in having that feeling, we are not wanting to keep outdated taboos? We have the greatest feeling for men and women and the greatest feeling that young girls should be able to be brought up to realise that and to realise that men have respect for them.
At the same time young boys should also be able to grow up realising that and to grow into men and to have respect for women. That is why in perhaps simpleness—and I hope that it is not simpleness—I should like to support the right reverend Prelate. I do not think that we are being hard. We want to uphold the beauty and the loveliness of marriage, the love and affection which is involved, which is quite distinct from the love and affection in other relationships. So if the amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support the right reverend Prelates.
Viscount Hanworth: For goodness sake! let us get back to practicalities. Most people faced with this type of situation would simply live together. The people who we are considering are basically those who are religious and highly moral and who are prevented from marrying. There was the idea of course in older days that if people were living in adultery one encouraged them to marry. It is no good talking about this in "highfalutin'" terms. The plain facts are that in most cases they will simply live together. What you are doing is denying the possibility of marriage to people who are doing just that. I appeal again to noble Lords on the opposite Bench really to consider this matter from the practical point of view and not—as I think they have—from the idea of the church going back, which, of course, appeals to many of us. We must face where we are today and we must make the best of what we have got, and I think that this amendment certainly does not do that.
The Earl of Halsbury: I hope that the right reverend Prelates who have sponsored this amendment will not
1232
allow themselves to be intimated by some of the criticisms that have been addressed to them. I do not feel that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester made a Second Reading speech. The amount of legal cases that he quoted in the course of the proceedings in Committtee are clear evidence of having done his homework in detail on the points involved and if he chose to take his time over finalising the wording of his amendment then I think that he is absolutely entitled to do so. Both Front Benches on Government Bills sin over and over again by tabling amendments by the hundred which we have no time to consider at all before they have come up in Committee. if the right reverend Prelates choose to divide the House on this issue, I shall follow them into the Division Lobby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): I found it helpful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester spoke at the beginning of the speech which he made on this amendment in quite broad terms because it reminded me, at any rate, of some of the major issues which are raised by this Bill, and they are issues which we shall be discussing in the next few minutes when debating this Committee stage. I think that there is one broad issue that perhaps I ought to bring to the notice of the Committee and which was not put to your Lordships in quite this way on Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred to the law as it exists in other countries. I am also so sorry that the noble Baroness is unable to be here this evening and to learn the reason why she is absent. However, I thought that perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee in deciding on the amendments which we have before us, to have some further information about foreign law.
According to information furnished by the Council of Europe through our diplomatic respresentative in Strasbourg, there is only one of the member Countries of the Council—namely, Sweden—which has no general legal prohibition on marriage between persons related by affinity in the direct line. Six countries—Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland and Norway—have provision for dispensation to ameliorate the general prohibition, and the rest have restrictions which are as rigorous as or even more rigorous than, those contained in English law as it stands today.
The Council of Europe memorandum discusses the law of 17 of the 21 member countries, excluding only Cyprus and Liechtenstein as well as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. My right honourable friend's department then tried to pursue our explorations a little further with regard to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The net effect of the information which we have been able to gather was that only in Sweden, Australia and New Zealand is the law on prohibited degrees of affinity either non-existent or more relaxed than ours. So we are discussing a matter of which other countries throughout the world also take a very serious view—not just right reverend Prelates who have been speaking to your Lordships' Committee. Having said that—
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am most grateful to the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for giving way. I wonder whether he can help the Committee

1233
further on the points which he has raised in connection with his survey of overseas information. Can he say whether the comparisons which he has brought forward also involve a comparison as between this country and the first group of countries to which he referred—the EEC and other European countries—so far as their legal systems are concerned? Has any comparative exercise been done so far as that is concerned? Also, can he say whether or not he would agree that, as regards the other group of countries, and I am thinking in particular of the reference that he made to Australia and New Zealand, those are, in fact, the two countries which are most closely related to ourselves both in terms of social background and, indeed, their legal systems which are the same as ours?
Lord Belstead: I am afraid that I cannot answer the first question which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has put to me, but I think that it might go some way to satisfy the noble Lord if I say that arrangements could be made, if the Committee wishes, to place a copy of the document to which I referred in the Library of your Lordships' House.
As regards the second point which the noble Lord made, I would not wish to cross swords with him on that matter because he is a lawyer and I am not. I think that probably there is a great deal in what he has said. None the less I thought that it was important just to set in general context with regard to other countries, so far as the Home Office has been able to look at them, what the situation is and not, therefore, to assume that in some way this country is the odd man out. I think that it does show—and this is the point that I have tried to put to your Lordships—that in many, many other countries there is great concern about the subject matter of the Bill.
Having said that, this amendment, of course, goes a good deal wider than Amendment No. 2 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, inasmuch as the existence of the parent/child relationship in the context of a family unit at any time in the past would involve a continuing and indefinite bar to later marriage between the parties. On the other hand, I am interested that none of your Lordships, I think, has made the point that where the relationship of parent and child is of a technical character, in the sense that the parties concerned, although related by affinity in the direct line, have never formed part of the same family unit during the minority of either of them, there would be no impediment to marriage between the parties. In such circumstances, the effect of this amendment is, in fact, less rigorous than the amendment which I expect will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as such a marriage could be solemnised before the step-daughter attained the age of 21. Therefore, there is a matter of balance in looking at the amendment in the names of the right reverend Prelates.
After all this perhaps I could cut short my remarks. The Government fully understand the concern which is felt in many parts of the Committee about the effect of the Bill in relation to stepchildren to whom a stepparent had acted in loco parentis, and the desire of some of your Lordships to limit the application of the Bill in such cases. This can be done either by imposing a special age limit—as in the amendment which is to
1234
come—or by an amendment of the kind which we are now considering. Whichever approach is taken—if, indeed, either was to commend itself to your Lordships' Committee—I would suggest that amendments along these lines are bound to be something of a blunt instrument for the purpose of distinguishing those cases in which a marriage would be open to objections of the kind that have been voiced during the course of our deliberations.
If accepted by the Committee, the amendment of the right reverend Prelates would place persons who had at any time been a child of the family during minority in much the same position as a child by adoption, inasmuch as a marriage between parent and stepchild would thereafter be prohibited for all time.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, made a very important point when he said that this could lead to some difficult inquiries having to be pursued as to what period of time a child had been within the family circle. I think that there is possibly a technical defect in the amendment. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester referred to the wording "a child of his family". I am advised that the phrase is not sufficiently well-defined for the purpose of the Bill, and in that respect the amendment possibly contains a technical defect. But it is not on those grounds that I reach any conclusion. The Government have, of course, endeavoured to take a neutral attitude to this Bill, but your Lordships may wish to consider whether the effect of this amendment is too sweeping in maintaining a permanent bar to marriage between persons whose close personal relationships within a family unit had occurred in the distant past.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that your Lordships will think it proper to deal with this amendment, notwithstanding that it has a star against it. It is a perfectly simple amendment to understand and a profoundly important one. Again, there may be a technical defect in the amendment. Probably the age of the child ought to be defined. That might be done
by taking it in connection with Amendment No. 2. However, the child of the marriage is already statutorily defined and, for myself, I cannot see that there would be any difficulty in a cross-reference, making it quite plain at a later stage of the Bill what is meant by "child" so far as years are concerned.
The only other remark I wish to make is that I do not believe for a moment that
the sort of inquiries which might have to be made are by any means beyond the compass of a family court. They are the sort of problems which we had to
elucidate day in and day out. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that he had never come across this particular problem, and that I can well believe. For myself, I can only say that forensically I have come across the problem that is highlighted by this amendment, and of all the painful cases that come into a family court, it is probably the most painful of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, was I am sure quite right when he said that the sort of case he postulated would be excluded if this amendment was carried. On the other hand, with respect, the case that was put by the right referend Prelate is perfectly possible and, sad though the circumstances would be in the case

1235
that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, the circumstances envisaged by the right reverend Prelate would, I think, be quite excruciating. I can only give my witness that, on balance, it seems to me that the advantage would lie in carrying this amendment.
Lord Torphichen: I thought that this evening we had come to agree to put a safeguard into a Bill which—I shall not say accidentally—by persistence passed its Second Reading. I am not quite sure which is the favoured form of safeguard. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boston, could tell us which of the other amendments he favours, if he does not favour this one; or should we vote for each of them in turn?
Lord Boston of Faversham: Perhaps I can ask for the indulgence of the Committee in order not to speak again but to respond to the invitation which has just been made as to subsequent amendments. I shall be joining in inviting your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 2, and the one which is linked with it.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene not in any way to cast any aspersions upon the right reverend Prelates who are responsible for this amendment and who have spoken in support of it. I recognise—and I say this in all sincerity—the depth of their feeling on this matter. Let no one in this Committee think that this is an amendment upon which one can have the most decided views and regard people who do not have those decided views as being wrong. It is a question of balance. I do not think that I would have intervened but for the remarks that were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for whom we all have such a deep respect, especially those of us who happen to be engaged in the profession which he has graced.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that inquiries, of the nature that would have to be made under this amendment, would be relatively easy because the Family Division had often had to conduct inquiries of a similar nature. By those very remarks he had envisaged that Amendment No. 3 would be carried and that this Bill would have made it necessary for couples who wish to become married, and who come within the hitherto prohibited degrees but who would be admitted to marriage under this Bill, to apply to a court. I remember having resisted that concept, if I may humbly say so, when this Bill came before the House in the previous Session. I then begged the Committee—or begged the House as it was on Second Reading—rather to throw out this Bill than to put citizens of this country in the position where, in order to obtain permission to marry, they came, as it were, with sullied hands, which had to be cleansed by a court, which would go into the questions of whose fault it was if a divorce had taken place and who got the financial benefit from all this. I must not anticipate a speech on Amendment No. 3.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord allow me? That is not this amendment. That is a later amendment to which he is now speaking. As he is being courteous enough to allow me to intervene in his speech, he will no doubt be aware that under the
1236
New Zealand legislation there has to be recourse to the court, and so far as I know it has never caused any difficulty.
Lord Mishcon: I do not have to go to New Zealand to know what the reaction of the ordinary human beings may be. Whatever may be the experience in New Zealand, of which we have no evidence before the Committee, I can only say that people either ought to be admitted into the bond of marriage with our blessing or they ought to be refused it. But to have a certain category of citizen who has to go to the court to obtain permission to get married is a situation with which I can have no sympathy whatsoever.
That means—and this is why I am going to make a plea in a moment to the right reverend Prelates who have supported this amendment—that it would have to be an inquiry, unless one brings the court into this matter, of the registrar of marriages. I do not know how in any practical form the registrar of marriages, before allowing a marriage to take place, could satisfy himself that a child had, or had not, been a child of the family. In these circumstances the amendment as at present drawn is defective, and whether I would be in favour of it or not is irrelevant to the Committee, but I wonder whether the right reverend Prelates would consider withdrawing the amendment because of that particular defect, because otherwise they would be forcing this matter before the courts.
I raise one other point in my plea to the right reverend Prelates to withdraw this amendment and come back, if they see fit, with further thoughts—I am not trying to drive the amendment out of consideration of this Bill altogether—at Report stage or Third Reading. All their speeches were directed to the situation where the mother of the stepdaughter was still alive. I do not think they had in their minds—they will correct me if I am wrong—prohibiting a stepfather from marrying the stepdaughter long after the mother of that stepdaughter had died. When one is thinking in terms of a man who might be aged 60 at that stage with a stepdaughter of 40, I cannot believe that the right reverend Prelates had such a prohibition in mind.
Under this amendment, if the child had ever been in the position of being a child of the family, this marriage would be prohibited under their amendment for ever and aye and in spite of the death of the mother. I wonder whether they would not wish to go away and consider whether their amendment, within the spirit in which they have spoken tonight, should not be limited at least to the situation where the parents of the home to which they referred were both of them still alive. think they had in mind a case of divorce, or whatever.
It is because of the defects in this amendment—not technical ones but the real ones to which I ventured to draw the Committee's attention—that I wonder whether, having heard the speeches tonight and rather than having a vote which will be taken on a mixed appreciation of the principle of this amendment, and an understanding, too, of the defects to which I have tried to draw attention, it would not be better if this amendment were withdrawn, and after further consideration of the points I and other noble Lords have ventured to make this might be brought forward again without having the defects to which reference has been made.
Lord de Clifford: Before we go any further, I should like to support the right reverend Prelate. I hope he will press this amendment. This is always happening in your Lordships' House. People are urged to withdraw an amendment and recast it, and when it is recast they are told that they had better withdraw it again because it is still not right. I would invite noble Lords to put this amendment into the Bill, whether the noble Lord likes it or not, and let him recast it the way he thinks it should be. This is happening all the time in this House. I trust that the right reverend Prelate will press it, and I shall be with him all the way.
Lord Torphichen: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made the case identically for including in this Bill adopted children. Adopted children are not included in this Bill, and the case that the noble Lord made for. stepchildren is in that case no different, by his reasoning, from that of an adopted child.
Lord Boston of Faversham: It might be of help to deal with this point straight away. So far as adopted children are concerned, as indeed my noble friend Lady Wootton made clear on previous occasions, they are in precisely the same position—and always would be whether this Bill was an Act or not—as natural children. There could never in any circumstances be any question of marriage in those cases.
Lord Torphichen: I am sorry to start again—
Several noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): I think that the Question should now be put.
8.18 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28: Not-Contents 50.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Milverton, L.

Avon, E.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Norwich, Bp.

de Clifford, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Falkland, V.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gowrie, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Southwell, Bp. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Inglewood, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Winchester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gainford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gifford, L.

Blease, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hampton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

David, B. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dowding, L.

Jacques, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jeger, B. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

1238

Kimberley, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Robbins, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Rugby, L.

Listowel, E.

Soper, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stamp, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Monson, L.

Stone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rhodes, L.

White, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that at the date of the marriage both parties have attained the age of 21 years.").
The noble Lord said: I, too, am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is not able to be here this evening, and I wish her a speedy recovery. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for the favourable words he used about my amendment, but I am conscious of the need to explain it fully to the Committee, and with leave, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 6, which is consequential.
The aim of the amendment is primarily that which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned on Second Reading, namely to go some way to meet the concern which has been widely expressed in relation to the case of step-parents and stepchildren. I believe, however, that that concern applies to marriages within the other degrees of affinity, although perhaps to a lesser extent. If you believe, as I do, that the passing of the Bill would introduce potential conflicts of interest into family life, then there is a need to provide safeguards. In this respect, it has been suggested that the courts, social workers or marriage guidance counsellors might be involved, but as we have already seen tonight and may perhaps see later, there are difficulties which need to be overcome if that is to be the answer.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said at Committee stage in the last Parliament, on 15th March 1979—and repeated his view today—that, if one wanted to put protection in the Bill, it should be on the basis of an age limit of 21. It is because I believe that that protection is needed that I am proposing that no marriage within the rules of affinity should take place unless both parties have reached the age of 21. It will be reasonably questioned why the age should be 21 and not 18. My answer is that the reason is most clearly seen in the case where a person marries his or her stepchild, especially when the child has grown up as a child of the family and where the step-parent has acted as parent.
We must do what we can to minimise the circumstances where there can be abuse of filial loyalty, trust and obedience. To raise the limit from 18 to 21 would give that stepchild greater scope for an independent and maturer choice, having perhaps cast around rather more widely than might otherwise have been the case. Furthermore, it would give a longer interval

1239
between the time when the two parties enjoyed a parent-child relationship and the time when they enter a relationship of an entirely different kind. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am pleased and relieved that at this stage in our proceedings my noble friend and I are able to adopt a conciliatory approach, even though—and I would not be doing my duty if I did not add this—with a certain amount of reluctance. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will not mind my saying that (with, I hope, an abundance of grace, if I can muster that) because it will make his victory all the sweeter if he knows that it has not been a walk-over. As he will know, and as we have heard on previous occasions, there are in fact quite substantial arguments against the course which is proposed here, and which I support. There was the report of the Latey Committee 13 years ago into the age of majority. That committee made many recommendations reducing the age of majority, and for most purposes we have gradually applied full rights to people from the age of 18. After all, Parliament reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 not so very long ago, though I must confess that as a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law I was actually against that proposal when it was originally put forward, and spoke against it when it came up for debate in another place. So I can understand those who argue that now we should be consistent and stick to the age of 18 for all possible purposes.
However, in the context of this Bill anxieties have been expressed by a number of noble Lords and right reverend Prelates. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, himself has spoken of his own anxieties in putting forward the amendment. This is a matter on which there are deep feelings among many Members of your Lordships' Committee and therefore in all the circumstances my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and I feel that it would be right to join the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in commending his amendment to the Committee.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether it would be convenient to the Committee if at this stage I beliefly give the Government's point of view on this matter. It occurs to me that in, for instance, the case of a stepdaughter who has scarcely previously known her stepfather and who has never been a member of his household, it might be argued that it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill that a marriage between such a stepdaughter and her stepfather, who might, for instance, be a widower, should be forbidden, even for the three years until the girl reaches 21 years of age. However, I suggest that it must be accepted that a statute very rarely accommodates every single case that might conceivably arise. Moreover, the concern which has been expressed for the need to provide relief from the absolute bar which the Bill seeks to remove has generally focused on couples who are very much older than 21. Despite the possible general objection which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned, concerning the recommendations of the Latey Committee, the proposal regarding the age of 21 might go a long way to meeting the
1240
misgivings about the Bill felt by those of your Lordships who have expressed them.
If, on balance, the Committee is disposed to accept the amendments, I should certainly not wish to oppose them. I think that we may need to consider the drafting. I doubt whether the second amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke, which repeals a number of provisions but preserves them for under-21 marriages, is the best way of going about the matter. However, if the Committee decide to accept the amendments, perhaps I may consult the noble Lord, as well as the noble Baroness, when she has recovered, with a view to reconsidering the drafting, if necessary, at the Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.34 p.m.
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that both parties to the marriage have attained the age of twenty-one years and the Court has given its consent to the solemnization of the marriage.
( ) In determining whether to give such consent the Court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following matters, that is to say:

(a) the degree of relationship between the parties to the proposed marriage;

(b) the extent, if any, to which the dissolution of any previous marriage of either of those parties was caused by the conduct of the other;

(c) the value to either of those parties of any financial benefit which that party will have the chance of acquiring if the proposed marriage takes place;

(d) the interests of any children.

( ) Nothing in the preceding provisions shall be taken as affecting section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949 (marriage of persons under sixteen void) or section 3 thereof (consents required to the marriage of certain other unions).
( ) For the purposes of the section, "the Court" means the High Court or the county court of the district in which any applicant resides and rules of court may be made for enabling applications under this section—

(a) if made to the High Court, to be heard in chambers;

(b) if made to the county court, to be heard and determined by the registrar subject to an appeal to the judge;

( ) Nothing in this section shall dispense with the necessity of obtaining the consent of the High Court to the marriage of a ward of court.").
The noble Lady said: First, I should like to join with other members of your Lordships' Committee in saying how very sorry I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is ill, and I hope that she will be quite better very soon. I propose this amendment with great diffidence, as I have no legal qualifications whatsoever. The amendment has, however, been vetted by distinguished members of the legal profession who were of the opinion that it was workable.
Many of us are very unhappy at the prospect of the Bill becoming law as it stands, because we feel that to remove all prohibition against marriages between persons related by affinity, and especially between stepparents and stepchildren and parents-in-law and children-in-law, is a very dangerous step and constitutes a very real threat to the sanctity of family life. We do not feel that to permit such marriages with the only proviso that both parties must be over 21 years of age is sufficient safeguard from the family point of view. It is because we feel very strongly about this aspect of the Bill and believe it to be wrong that we have put

1241
down this amendment. I should like to apologise in her absence to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, (whose Bill this is) and her supporters for putting down the amendment so late. This was not intentional. The drafting and legal vetting took much longer than I had hoped it would, and much of it was done on bad telephone lines from the North of Scotland.
I want to emphasise that although a very long amendment to a very short Bill, it is in no way intended to be a wrecking amendment, but rather a constructive one, since it will enable hard cases to be dealt with by the courts, instead of by a personal Bill, as was necessary in the case of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward last year. I am advised that the expense would be very much less than the cost of a personal Bill. I am also advised that legal aid would be available, where necessary, whereas it is not for personal Bills. I hope that that removes the objection to the present system—that we have one law for the rich and another for the poor.
At the same time a hurdle remains, and it is quite a high fence to clear, although less formidable than the Becher's Brook of a personal Bill. I believe that those few hard cases—25 in 15 years, according to Home Office statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, during Second Reading—for which we are legislating would be quite willing to undergo the scrutiny of their private affairs which this amendment involves if they really wish to marry. It is not so long ago that people wanting divorces had to submit to very seaching public scrutiny of their conduct, unless they waited three years to get a divorce for desertion; but they endured that experience if they wanted the divorce badly enough.
The scrutiny proposed in the amendment would be private. It is based on the law regarding such cases in New Zealand, but it gives more specific guidelines to the court than does the New Zealand Act. It resembles quite closely the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in 1979, but there are certain differences. The amendment of the right reverend Prelate concerned only persons under the age of 21 years. This amendment applies to all cases over the age of 21. For those under 21 the law would remain as it is at present. Furthermore, the right reverend Prelate's amendment allowed these cases to be heard by courts of summary jurisdiction. This amendment allows them to be heard by the High Court or county courts only.
Rather late in the day may I seek the agreement of the Committee to speak also to Amendment No. 5, which is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): I should tell your Lordships' Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 4.
8.39 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: I have some sympathy with the objects of the amendment, but if one gets down to the practicalities I think it will be seen that it would be impossible to apply. I say that for two reasons. The court is being asked to open up a whole matrimonial case, or potential matrimonial case, whereas long ago
1242
we decided that in divorce proceedings that course did not lead in any useful direction. There might also be the problem that any matter before the court might be opposed by people with certain motives. In particular, take the financial provisions, which I think are in paragraph (c) of this amendment. What on earth would the court think about them? In fact, what is this provision in the amendment meant to imply? If there was a financial advantage, does the court turn it down? No, it simply will not do. I go back again to saying that if there are two people of the age of 21 who have decided, rightly or wrongly, to ask for marriage, then in today's society we cannot presume to decide what is good for them. We do not do that in other areas—and yet this amendment attempts to do just that.
From the court's point of view I would say that it is impossible. I do not mind what any noble Lord who is a lawyer says about this, because the thing is so openly drafted that they could not possibly conclude, unless they made up their own rules as to how to do it, what they should decide. No, this amendment is simply not on, despite the fact that I have sympathy with what it is trying to achieve.
Lord Boston of Faversham: As has been indicated, this is indeed an important amendment, and I want to say at the outset—and I am sure my noble friend Lady Wootton, too, would wish me to say this—that it has been put down with the best possible motives and, if I may say so, moved in that spirit by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Perhaps I may also say that I am sure that the Committee will be very much obliged—certainly I am—for what she has had to say about the tabling of the amendment and, in that connection, the difficulties about living in distant parts. As she has indicated, this amendment is somewhat similar to—although, as she says, not entirely the same as—one we debated two years ago, when an identical Bill was before your Lordships. A number of noble Lords raised objections to it then on practical grounds, including the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I did, too, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to some of those objections again tonight, and take a few moments to do so. Some of them, indeed, have been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his speech to the Committee.
Clearly, the basic principle involved here is that a couple related by reason of affinity only should be allowed to marry only if consent has been given by the court. If your Lordships pass this amendment, we should be requiring judges to take on what I would submit to be a very difficult role, different from any that they have at present and, I believe, a most unsuitable one for them. An entirely new system of jurisprudence, despite what the Family Division has been used to dealing with up until now, would have to be built up to cover it. Of course, the courts frequently have to grapple with difficult decisions—we know that—but the parties appearing before them take on an adversarial role. The courts take their decisions on the basis of the evidence adduced before them, and that evidence is in due course tested by the opposing side. We really do need to ask ourselves what sort of evidence should be brought before the court in a case of this kind—an unfamiliar sort of case—

1243
and no guidance at all about that evidence is proposed in the amendment.
We also need to know, in my submission, who would be the opposing sides and who would be testing the evidence. Certainly it would be quite wrong to involve the judge himself in any adversarial role, in any testing role of this kind; that is clear. In some cases, as we know, there is a requirement on the courts to exercise a quasi-parental discretion, and we have the example in some types of case involving children—cases where parental consent to marriage is refused. But in those cases there are the guiding criteria of the interests of the young persons themselves. The criteria proposed in this amendment are very different, and are more complex ones. All of them seem to involve some difficulties, and I feel there is really no alternative to looking at each of them in turn.
The amendment mentions the degree of relationship between the parties, but in mentioning that there is no attempt to define the closeness of the relationship which ought to cause the court to withhold consent. In fact, the court would have to consider the very question which Parliament itself might be thought to have settled in passing this Bill, if this Bill is eventually passed; that is to say, whether the degree of affinity in relation to the specific couple whose case is before the court should or should not be a bar to their marriage.
Again, there is the question of the extent, if any, to which either party has contributed to the breakdown of a previous marriage—a point which I think was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his speech. This really would go against the trend of recent legislation on divorce, ending the concept of the matrimonial offence and, indeed, of actions for enticement as well. One of the main aims of those reforms in family law was, I believe, to free the courts of the task of apportioning blame, which they had to do previously, with all that that involved—the battles between the parties, the anger generated and the effect all that had on the children. The court would have to decide about the cause of breakdown—there is no escape from that—and the amount of blame. In a marriage which might have ended some years before, it would have to perform that task. A third party might have been involved. Evidence would have to be called, with the need for representation and, perhaps, additional witnesses as well.
We notice, too, that the amendment does not require the court to refuse consent if there has been any contribution by either party to the breakdown. It does not give any guidance, in other words, as to how much or what sort of blame ought to be sufficient to cause it to withhold consent. So after the inquiry which the court would have to carry out into the question of blame, with perhaps old wounds being reopened in court and animosity being brought out between the parties, on the one hand, and the former partners, on the other, the court would nevertheless, in some cases, go ahead and grant consent. What a way that would be to begin a marriage! The animosity would not be easy to dispel afterwards, with all that that might mean for family unity and for family love.
Then there is the financial question, which has also
1244
been referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth —any financial benefits which might arise from the marriage itself. Here, to add to what the noble Viscount himself said, there could well be the need for a wide-ranging inquiry into, for example, the terms of any existing financial arrangements. Those can be very time-consuming, as those of us know who have been in any way involved in practice in the family courts, in divorce cases, with the need for repeated adjournments to produce, for example, successive affidavits about financial matters from the parties, perhaps involving documentary evidence from employers and others. In certain circumstances aspects of the inquiry could well grind to a halt completely because, for example, it would be impossible to examine the chances of a party benefiting under the wills of people not yet dead. There are many practical difficulties here; and there are no powers to carry out these investigations. The possible benefits might be changed by the testator; and the parties might not know of any prospects anyway.
No less important is what weight, after it had carried out those inquiries, the court ought to give to those matters. Why should those considerations, I would ask your Lordships to consider, outweigh other objections? Indeed, why should these particular couples be subjected to this sort of scrutiny anyway?
Then there is the question of any children of either party. It is true that the courts sometimes carry out a similar exercise on custody and guardianship cases. But those involve quite different considerations, for the outcome of the court's decision whether a couple may marry where neither is necessarily a parent of the children involved, is different. Then there is the general wording at the beginning of the amendment that:
"the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case".
That makes it clear that, apart from the specific points mentioned in the amendment, the discretion of the court would he at large. What is the court to make of the frankly expressed intention of the couple to the court to live together if consent is not granted? Is the court to commend them for their frankness, loyalty and devotion; or is it to condemn them for what the court may choose to regard as anti-social behaviour?
In my submission, it is clear that applications for consent are likely to involve delay and a difficult and complicated procedure and the likelihood that the parties would need to have legal representation and, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned, there may be eligibility for legal aid. That also—and I think in this House that we have to face it—would involve costs to public funds. There is the possibility that third parties would become involved in some cases, also needing representation and costs there and the need to call witnesses. All involves expense. There is also the point that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made in his speech last May on Second Reading of the Berry and Ward Bill, the difficulty of leaving matters of this kind to the judiciary.
I come back to the point that I made on Second Reading in connection with the matter we are now considering. The more I consider this matter of inquiry by the court and the need to seek consent, the more convinced I become that the question of marriage

1245
between a couple related by reason of affinity only really is a matter for them and for the advisers that they themselves choose to consult: their family, their religious advisers and others—something which I am sure very many couples, if not the vast majority of couples, do before they marry, anyway, and without the sort of complications that we are discussing in this connection tonight. There will still be the moral, social, family and religious restrainsts on those couples in cases where there is any doubt about the desirability or suitability of a particular proposed union.
I feel that it is immensely valuable for this whole matter to be aired. Therefore, I feel that the Committee owe a debt to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the others who put forward this amendment. But I hope, in view of the practical problems involved, and perhaps also in view of the amendment on the age of 21 that we recently passed, that it will prove possible for this amendment to be withdrawn. Perhaps it is only fair to the Committee to indicate that if it were to be pressed, I would need to invite your Lordships to resist it.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Lord Boston's beguiling persuasiveness is always difficult to resist but I must do the best I can, not being a lawyer. I take one point that he made and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made, which was that if people are living together anyway, why bother about denying them the status of marriage? That, I think, is not an unfair representation of what both noble Lords said. It is because the status of marriage is one ultimately conferred by society that it is safeguarded. When the noble Lord, Lord Boston, says that in the end this is a decision for the couple concerned, it is not a decision for the couple concerned; it is a decision ultimately for society, for the couple within society. If the couple propose to
continue to live together without the approbation of society, that is their affair. But society has over many generations in many countries and with many religions built up a system of approvals and disapprovals, and that is the context in which we look at this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that this raises many practical difficulties. I must apologise for not having drawn attention to this on Second Reading; but I thought I had said enough on this Bill in the last Parliament and in the last Session of this one. The Bill bristles with difficulties; it is spiky with difficulties. These amendments are endeavours seriously to meet these difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that this will involve a new system of jurisprudence. I thought it was most instructive when we heard from my noble friend Lord Belstead on the last amendment the list of countries, European and in the white Commonwealth, which, in fact, still maintain a very strong law in regard to affinity. To say that a new principle of jurisprudence will be involved surely flies in the face of the fact that New Zealand law and Australian law is very similar to our own. But these provisions that are incorporated in this amendment are drawn primarily from New Zealand experience. A notable leader in The Times some while ago said:
"There should be a hurdle—it should be a high hurdle".
1246
I believe that once we are confronted with the principle of this Bill having been accepted at Second Reading, our concern is to erect not only a hurdle but a high hurdle. It was well put by a New Zealand judge who said:
"The court's discretion should be exercised with care. I do not think the court should go so far as to exercise it only with reluctance because the Legislature in passing the statute obviously contemplated the consent of the court as being proper in certain circumstances".
But the care with which each case should be examined may best be indicated by remembering that the discretion now given is one enabling the court to relax in appropriate cases what has, until now, been an absolute prohibition. That is what we are talking about. The best protection we can now provide when an absolute prohibition of noble lineage is being set aside.
That, I think, is a simple case of writing in these guidelines. They are modelled on the experience in New Zealand where, so far from such provisions having proved unworkable, they have worked tolerably well. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, said that the degree of relationship should be defined. No doubt it should; but I am not a lawyer and, in putting down this amendment, we were not trying to tie the hands of the court in the exercise of discretion which, at the end of the day, is the purpose of the Bill. The object of this Bill is to confer a very wide discretion on all sorts of people. I believe that to define the degree of relationship would be to limit the court's discretion.
Then there is the point about a possible involvement in a previous marriage breakdown. Here is a guideline taken more or less word for word, or, anyway, taken in principle from a New Zealand Marriage Act of 1955. It may be said that it is retrograde to look at what went wrong in a previous marriage. It is nothing like as retrograde as this Bill. This Bill is back to pre-paleolithic times. This Bill is opening wide all sorts of gates to opportunism and chicanery which society over centuries and in many countries and religions has found must be safeguarded against. If we are accused of going backwards, this is because this Bill goes backwards. I sympathise with the position that it is sad to be invited or invite the courts to delve into the relative causes as between two partners or indeed a third interfering factor in a marriage breakdown. The whole concept is most unpleasant. It is like the concept that merely living together, because it is agreeable to the two people concerned, should have conferred upon it the status, standing, glory and sanctity of marriage.
This guideline signals that if one party has been involved in a marriage breakup that that person cannot except much sympathy from the court. And how right! The question of financial benefit is fairly obvious; and the position of the children is more obvious still. These are the two conditions suggested by the New Zealand experience. Apparently, very few cases have arisen in New Zealand. I am told that in fact there have been three. Two of them cleared the court hurdle quite easily. The third one was a proposed marriage between a stepfather and a stepdaughter—the situation that we are talking about here.
I must not be drawn aside, but I was tempted to refer to a noble Lord in this House who always talks

1247
about his grandmother's deceased sister, or something. We do not want to spend our lives thinking of hypothetical cases. The real case that is worrying many of us here is the stepfather,/stepdaughter possibility. As I say the third case that came up before the New Zealand courts, which was rejected, was a proposed marriage between stepfather and stepdaughter. The reason it was rejected was because it was altogether repugnant. We are talking here about matters that to the generality of society are altogether repugnant. I hope that the Committee will feel fit to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, myself and others in carrying this amendment to a Division.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wonder whether the Committee can bear to listen to one or two impudent remarks. One of the drawbacks to being in the House of Lords is that we go on talking about some things time and time again, and nothing ever happens. We have discussed this subject before. Very soon there will be a kind of collection of hardy annuals that will come forward each session to be debated afresh, passed in your Lordships' House and seen to be dying a lingering death along the corridor.
I have a Bill to add to the list—my pet animals Bill. We will also have the Bill of Rights and this one. Some noble Lords will live to debate this Bill 20 years from now because on the moral laws of England reforms amount to legislation by lottery. It is the bran-tub along the corridor that decides whether we reform the moral laws of England. It is just as much a lottery as the bran tub at a garden party on the vicar's lawn. This is how we do our business.
There was a time when it was rather the other way round. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is expecting me to refer to the marriage of a deceased wife's sister. It was the other place that passed it 11 times and sent it here only to get it rejected. The House of Lords must have talked about it until they were sick of it. The Bishops' Bench was full for that occasion—and not on many others—in order to turn it down.
Eventually Mr. Asquith said: "This scandal must come to an end". The Government took the Bill over; the Bishops walked out and the secular Lords passed it. This is the history of the reform. If one reads the debates on the subject of the marriage of the deceased wife's sister, one will read of all the horrors, the dreadful calamities, that were going to befall society if a man was allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister.
However, this is an awful amendment. Who wants to get married on these terms? Goodness me! Better just go and live together and have done with it than put up with this nonsense. Who wants to parade their private and family affairs in this way before a court in order to go into Holy wedlock? It is an insult to people aged over 21 who are fully able to decide for themselves and probably better able to decide for themselves than all the younger people aged 18 who are now able to get married whether or not their parents consent.
This is an age which we have now accepted in the Bill which is five years on from the age of consent and three years on from the age to enter into a contract
1248
and three years on from the age to get married—three years on to do anything in adult life whatsoever and have the full rights of citizenship. We have said to these people covered by this Bill: "We are going to put a handicap on you of three years' additional wisdom and we are going to assume that you will be three years' wiser than the other people who go into marriage tomorrow and make a mess of it within three years".
Can we not live in the world of today? This amendment can be put forward only by old men and women. I think we should cut the cackle, reject the amendment, pass the Bill and get on with it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: It would be a brave man who sought to follow that magnificent and rumbustious speech. I shall seek to be as brave as I may. May I refer to something which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said when he appeared to suggest that it was too difficult for the courts to tackle paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 3. Having listened to his magnificent, fluent and mellifluous speech as a lawyer clearly nothing—even such a small matter as that—will be passed into the law of our land and for the courts to deal with if the noble Lord can show how difficult this is to do. He appeared to think the court could not do it, but he used the words "Family Division". Surely the wealth of case law in the Family Division means that sui generis this would be an easy matter to deal with and not a difficult one. I do not think, therefore, that the speech he made stands up to the "difficulty" question.
In addition it seems to me, on the family unity and love point that he made, that it is for the express purpose of seeking to contain thousands of families within unity and love that, to quote The Timer, as quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, calls for a high hurdle. This is not a high hurdle: it is only half a high hurdle. It is a very moderate amendment. But the two fatal flaws in the argument of the noble and learned Lord are, first, that this whole Bill is itself an enormous change in the social mores of our country. The affinity situation has been so for hundreds of years and it has helped to hold together the whole de-sexualised larger family circle, and the dagger is thrust at that if this law goes through unamended.
The second fatal flaw in the argument is that there are hundreds of people, as it were, waiting to take advantage of it. But we know from the statistics produced by the Home Office that there is a tiny handful of people for whom this enormous change in the social mores of our country would provide help. Therefore this very reasoned, helpful and, I think, kindly amendment, would help people to realise that there is a moderate hurdle but that there are things to help them; there is even the possibility of legal aid. I have approached this whole Bill with a heavy heart. I believe there has not yet been the chance of its being discussed in full Church circles, although of course Canon B.21 of Canonical Law operates right against it and it would therefore automatically fall to the ground because of that. Therefore a major Church and State confrontation must take place if this Bill is passed unamended. At least this particular amendment would be a modest attempt to contain the really big changes which this small Bill would in fact bring.
9.11 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I cannot remember whether this Bill is before us now for the third or fourth time round, but I think it is quite possible that it will not get on to the Statute Book this year and it may be before us for a fourth or fifth time round. So I would not want anyone on that occasion to suppose that I had been a party to letting it go through on the nod. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose characteristic vigour always enchants your Lordships when he addresses us in bellicose mood, has drawn attention to the fact that a certain very famous Bill took eleven times round before it got through this House. I have been consistently against this Bill from the start, and the voting on it—what the noble Lord calls "the bran tub" depends very much on what day of the week it comes forward, what time of day it comes forward and what was the previous Business before the House. That is what controls the composition and cross-section of those who debate it; so it may be that it will come forward for a fifth, sixth or seventh time.
I would encourage my noble friend Lady Saltoun not to be intimidated by any wealth of legal opinion that may be brought against her. When people go to court they go there as plaintiff and defendant and each has been advised that the case was worth fighting. They emerge as winner and loser, and on that basis I would say that the chance of any particular piece of legal advice being right was not better than evens. Therefore, since the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has been advised legally on this, I would advise her to stand by it and, if she chooses to divide the Committee, I will be glad to follow her into the Division Lobby.
Lord Denham: I wonder whether I may intervene very briefly here. I have got myself an extremely unpopular name over various Bills in trying to push business through, and I assure your Lordships that I have absolutely no axe to grind on this occasion because the Government are neutral. However, I rather wonder—we having spent 39 minutes on this amendment—whether a lot more talk will change a lot of minds, and whether perhaps your Lordships have almost made up your minds on this point and might fairly soon come to a Division. I have no interest, as I say, in the matter because this is a Private Member's Bill and the Government are neutral; but I just put that forward for the consideration of your Lordships.
Viscount Hanworth: I never speak for more than about one and a half minutes, and what I should like to say in a second speech will take just that length of time. We must recognise that this amendment, as it stands—and I said that I had some sympathy with it—would be a lawyers' paradise. We would not know which way it was going to go, until there had been a great deal of case law; and, of course, any case might be opposed by a number of interested parties. Finally, it is no good saying that the present situation has been there for a number of years. The trouble with Britain today is that we have not made the gradual changes when they were required. For those reasons, I think that we should vote against the amendment. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, because I have taken only one and a half minutes.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Orkney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saltoun, Ly. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Southwell, Bp.

Gainford, L.

Spens, L.

Greenway, L.

Stamp, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Torphichen, L.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Norwich, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Gifford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Robbins, L.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tweeddale, M.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Jeger, B. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.23 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby Viscount Ingleby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that the High Court has given its consent to the solemnization of the marriage.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this amendment. In doing so, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, whom I so much admire. I should also like to congratulate her, because I think that she has here tonight a very able deputy.
There is a presumption that the kind of marriages contemplated by the Bill are unseemly and should be prohibited for that reason. However, I accept that there are perfectly genuine hard cases. Although I had a lot of sympathy for the
amendments which have been pressed to a Division I did not in fact support them. I believe that this is such a difficult field that one simply cannot lay down any ground rules other than the age limit of 21 to which we agreed earlier.
I feel that the best thing to do is to maintain a general prohibition against such marriages but to give to the court absolute discretion to grant permission where they see fit. I do not think that we can lay down rules in this sector. It would be wrong to abolish the whole thing lock, stock and barrel. Therefore my

1251
amendment proposes to give to the court absolute discretion as to whether or not to allow a marriage. I beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: First, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, very much indeed for his kind words and also to say that it is perfectly clear—and especially from what he has said—that this amendment was tabled with the best of motives and with the best of intentions. I think I should simply add this. Most of what I said on the last amendment on the principle of consent by the court and the applications to the court I should have said on this amendment, so I do not think there is any need to detain your Lordships so far as that is concerned.
Perhaps I should just add that the difficulty as I see it about this amendment, compared with the last amendment, is that it does not even contain the—admittedly to me—unacceptable guidelines of the last amendment, and therefore I think that we—and particularly the courts—would be in even greater difficulty in addressing our minds to these matters. Perhaps in view of the debate which has taken place the noble Viscount might feel able to withdraw this amendment, but if not it would be only fair to indicate to your Lordships that I would need to invite your Lordships to resist it.
Viscount Hanworth: I will add one brief note. Do people realise the cost of applying to the High Court, particularly if a case is opposed?
Viscount Ingleby: I should like to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but to reserve the right, if necessary, to bring it up at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("save in their application to a marriage not falling within the proviso to subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester The Lord Bishop of Winchester moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause:
("Saving for Clergy
. No clergyman of the Church of England or of the Church in Wales shall be compelled (a) to solemnize a marriage contracted between a person and any of that person's relations by affinity; or (b) to permit the marriage of such persons to be solemnized in the church or chapel of which he is the minister.").
The right reverend Prelate said: As your Lordships well know, the law of England and Wales requires the clergy of the Church of England to solemnise marriages for any of their parishioners who request it and on whom there is no bar to marriage. That is the
1252
Marriage Act of 1949. This obligation is not imposed upon other religious denominations. As I have already stated, on the authority of the executive director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish community is distressed by this Bill, but Jewish rabbis will not be compelled to marry people related by affinity because citizens of this country have no inherent right to be married according to the usage of the Jewish faith. Roman Catholics have no inherent right to be married according to the usage of their Church but any citizen does have the inherent right to be married according to the ceremonies of the Church of England, with the one exception which was allowed in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. It is on that concession that the wording of my amendment is based. It does not prevent such marriages taking place in the church if the parish priest is willing to perform the ceremony or to allow another priest to do so in his church, but a priest who in conscience considers that such marriages are contrary to scripture or that they offend against natural justice and social health, will not be acting against the law if he refuses to marry, or to allow his church to be used for a marriage of his parishioners in such circumstances.
Because the clergy of the Church in Wales are in the same legal position as those of the Church of England, the Church in Wales has requested that the amendment be extended to them, in the same way as happened with the 1965 Act. In that Act, Parliament considered it right to respect the conscience of clergy and laity who felt unhappy about the terms of the Act. There are, of course, a variety of reasons; we would not all agree in the reasons we might offer. Some would be purely biblicist; it is in the Bible and we cannot go against it. Others would have a more critical view of the Bible but would say they believe that for social reasons the principle underlying that biblical injunction can be applied in new terms for our modern age. That is the position I myself adopt.
I regret very much that we have to ask for this concession, because it takes one more step in the direction of turning the Church of England into another sect in our country, but, so long as we are faced with what seems to me to be the irresponsibility of those who say that in these matters of private concern the courts cannot act, the Church has to take upon itself some such responsibility, and desires, where conscience demands it, the freedom to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for the clear way in which he has explained the purposes of this amendment to the Committee. But for his speech I should have had two querries. One would have been to invite him to inform your Lordships about the present law so far as matters of this kind, marriage generally and solemnisation by the clergy to whom he has referred are concerned. Secondly, I should have asked him to clarify the position so far as the solemnisation or otherwise of the marriages of divorced persons is concerned. From what he has said, your Lordships will appreciate, as you know from the statute the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, that this amendment would not involve any new departure; in other words, we should not be creating, by accepting

1253
this amendment, any new category of person. There is the precedent that he himself mentioned. So I certainly—and this is the spirit in which my noble friend Lady Wootton approached this amendment when she heard about it—should not wish to seek to compel anyone to do something of this kind against his conscience. Therefore, I would join with the right reverend Prelate in commending the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Belstead: The Government also are certainly sympathetic to the intention of this amendment, which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, has precedent in a provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. But I think the amendment is defective in the sense that it does not quite achieve what the right reverend Prelates who have their name to it intend. As I understand the wording of the amendment, it would go too wide, inasmuch as it would enable a clergyman to refuse to marry, or allow another clergyman to marry in his church, persons related by affinity who, under the law as it stands today and as is also set out in Canon B.31 of the Church of England, are permitted to marry each other; for example, a man and the sister of his deceased wife I doubt whether that is what the right reverend Prelate really intends. I imagine that he would wish his proposal to be limited to cases of affinity in the direct line, whether ascending or descending, which, under this Bill, would for the first time fall outside the prohibited degrees of marriage. May I make a suggestion to the right reverend Prelate? It is that, if the Committee agree to the amendment, perhaps it could be moved into the Bill, and then could be further slightly amended at Report stage.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I shall be very happy for it to be handled in that way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Drumalbyn: May I make a short observation, with the consent of my noble friend on the Front Bench? It is simply in relation to Scotland. How does this Bill affect Scotland? What is the situation when two Scots come down to England and get married here within what used to be called forbidden relation ships? What happens when they go back to Scotland? Are they there married, or are they not? This seems to be a kind of Gretna in reverse.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for inviting me to respond. I have resolutely resisted throughout my legal life becoming involved and embroiled in what are to me the abstruse complexities of Scottish law and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I adhere to that principle.
Lord Belstead: There is a serious point here in the sense that I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who is not here this evening, that, of course, the Bill does not extend to Scotland and that this could cause certain problems. I ask the noble Baroness if she would perhaps consider whether it ought to extend to Scotland and, if so, the services of the Home Office, so far as we are able to make them available, would be at her disposal. The noble Baroness has not been able to respond, but maybe it is right for me to say a second time that perhaps the noble Baroness, advised by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, would like to think about this matter again before the Report stage.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am very grateful to the Minister for that generous offer, and on behalf of my noble friend I would say I am sure that we should like to take advantage of the guidance and advice from the noble Lord's department.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

East/Southern Africa: Economic Co-operation
9.38 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their policy is towards the attempts at greater economic co-operation in East and Southern Africa, as illustrated by the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference and the summit meeting held in Kampala.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. As the noble Lord the Minister knows, I have just returned from the area of Africa about which I am asking the Question tonight. In some ways it gives me a sense of déjà vu to return here. It reminds me very much of the days before the war, returning from the Continent of Europe to this country and finding so many people at the best apathetic and at the worst disinterested in what is happening in the outside world.
The area that I have come from is an area of war—there is simply no other way to describe it. It is a war caused by the last dying spasms of a malformed philosophy from South Africa which regularly causes raids on Mozambique, Angola and Zambia; which has spread throughout Central Africa and indeed, far beyond into our own continent; and the intelligence work of which the "Muldergate" scandal was but the tip of the iceberg. Immediately, and perhaps above all, there is the continued occupation of Namibia. I would suggest to the Government that when they—I think properly—protest against the occupation of Afghanistan, they should also consider that the principle is the same in Namibia.
I regret the cuts that have been made by this Government in overseas aid, particularly the cuts that have been made in the provision for higher education and the increased fees that are being charged to overseas students. Above all, this hits very deeply the technological training of many of the young people of Central Africa. I would echo many of the sentiments that were expressed yesterday in another place by my friends in the Labour Party. But I say to the Minister that this is not what I want to discuss. This is not the channel of argument that I want to follow tonight. Indeed, I would go much further and congratulate the Government on the part that they are playing in the Zimbabwe conference. I am particularly happy to see that the EEC and Britain are allocating a part of their increased aid to the regional development of Central Africa, meagre though that amount may be.
In 1953 this Parliament created the Federation of Central Africa. I believe that that was a great mistake. I believed it at the time and said so at the time. It was a mistake because it was an artificial forcing together against the will of the majority of the people of disparate countries under the control of a minority. In 1980 the same countries, now with the addition of six other countries, began planning and working towards a co-operative agreement which is different from that federation, but which they believe will be closer, more constructive and more productive for the people of that area.
It was less than a month after the Zimbabwe elections last year that the nine countries met together in Lusaka
1256
and unanimously agreed that their principle objective in co-operation was to release themselves from the thrall of South African economic domination. Since then there has been a further meeting in Maputo and the seriousness with which this is taken is shown by the very high level of representation at both those meetings.
It is about this form of co-operation and about the British responsibility to assist it that I want to spend the rest of the time that I have tonight. I would just make one reference to the other side of this form of co-operation—the East African side—which began in Kampala a few weeks ago, after the re-election of President Obote, and which brought together, hopefully, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. I believe that this is an extension of the spirit which was initiated in Lusaka 12 months ago. I hope that it will continue and expand, but of course there are special problems in Uganda at the moment.
So far as the nine are concerned, we are talking here about 55 million people. If one includes the South Africans who are intimately concerned and the people of Zaire, who very quickly came to associate themselves with the nine, then we are talking of over 100 million people. We are talking about an area which is extremely rich in minerals, in agricultural produce, in energy, in water supplies and, above all, in its people and in their skills, their tolerance, and their ambitions.
The central difference between the federation formed in 1953 and the co-operative association which came together in 1980 is that the leaders of these countries deliberately concentrated upon a functional approach. This is not a federation. It is not a common market. It is not a free trade area, because it has already been realised that the experience of the East African community has shown that when you get an unbalanced growth between the different countries then you run into difficulties.
I would take just one example; it is the one which is considered at the moment to have top priority, and it is in transport. The transport association has been based in Maputo, and it has already got to work. It is already planning, along with the Canadians, the extension of the railway in Malawi. But here is the very clear case for a vastly improved transport system in the whole of Central Africa. In Zimbabwe there is a bumper harvest of maize this year. It is hoped that it will reach 2 million tonnes. Yet Zimbabwe can mill only 750,000 tonnes of maize. What is going to happen to the 1¼ million tonnes left over?
There are people dying. Fifteen people died of hunger in Zambia itself just before Christmas. There are people dying in Tanzania. Drought has spread, as it always does, and has destroyed crops in many parts of East Africa. So that here you have a granary and you have people not very far away who are dying from starvation. Surely one cannot make a clearer case as to the importance of an immediate and vast improvement in the transport system, in the railways and on the roads. I am happy to see and applaud the initiative taken by Sonny Ramphal, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, in pointing this out and already suggesting a Commonwealth plan which can unite the production of Zimbabwe with the people of the rest of the area who are in such straits.
In all this discussion that is going on, all the planning,

1257
all the exchange of views, the country of Zambia is pivotal. Look at a map and you will see that it is geographically pivotal. If you know anything about the politics of the area it is obviously pivotal, as it was throughout the Zimbabwean war. But, and I do not blame the Government for this for one moment, it is a description of the situation in which the Government have to work. There is, I would say, in this country a sense of guilt that is coming through on the media, about the country of Zambia. The country and people of Zambia that are described in the media of this country are certainly not either the people or the country in which I have been living over the past four months. This is not understood by the Zambians, who are puzzled because they always thought they were friends of the British.
The media attack the President in their headlines and in what they say, whereas many noble Lords will be aware that the President has had a long, close and personal association with this country. Without naming the newspapers concerned, I shall quote a few of the headlines that have appeared: "Kaunda loses his excuse for his nation's ills"; "Poor leadership behind many of Zambia's economic crises"; "Russian advisers help build Zambian jets"; "Budget increase could kill Zambian aid hopes".
Those sorts of headline are being put to the British people daily, and unfortunately it extends beyond the newspapers—and the papers from which I have quoted are what would be considered to be respectable and friendly newspapers. Those of us who live abroad and listen regularly to the World Service of the BBC hear the same sort of things being said by their correspondents.
We in this country owe a great debt to President Kaunda. We asked him only 12 months after independence to apply sanctions to Southern Rhodesia. He put his life, his leadership and his political position on the block by agreeing to the proposals of the British Government, and I am talking about British Governments generally—not the present one, but Governments over the last 16 years. He was asked to apply sanctions against those who had rebelled against the British Crown, not against Zambia, so he was fighting our fight; and his personal position—it is no exaggeration to say his life—was put in jeopardy by those who disagreed with his consent to follow the policy of the British Government.
Have the correspondents who write about Zambia and those who talk on the subject in this country forgotten the history of the last 30 years? Have they forgotten that Zambia was forced against the will of the majority of its people into the Central African Federation, its resources milked to build up the economy of Southern Rhodesia? Have they forgotten the opposition of the British Administration to the nationalist movement in Zambia? Have they forgotten that an independent Zambia was left locked into the Southern Rhodesian economy and then asked to apply sanctions against Southern Rhodesia? Have they forgotten the war against the rebels, those who were rebelling against the British Crown? Have they forgotten the bombings the Zambians suffered and the number of martyred Zambian men, women and children? Have they forgotten the Bingham Report, which showed that British oil companies were supplying
1258
the oil to fly those planes? Have they forgotten that Zambia acted as hosts to the freedom fighters who eventually brought about the successful elections in Zimbabwe last year? And have they forgotten the tens of thousands of refugees from countries surrounding Zambia?
Has all that no effect upon the economy of the country? I believe that it has a deeper effect than has yet been realised. I believe that the major effect is to be found not among any of the more obvious impacts on the economy, but rather in the fact that because of sanctions Zambia was forced artificially to industrialise too soon. That was due partly to the influence of the multinational companies which dominate the mineral world in Zambia, and partly to companies in Southern Rhodesia which moved their subsidiaries to Zambia. That meant that Zambia started manufacturing substitute imports; that it became a consumer society; that there was very rapid urbanisation—the fastest urbanisation anywhere in Africa, where half the population lives in the towns, and where there are shanty towns around every town. When one visits the shanty towns, one finds that each household has its little patch of maize, its little groupings of sugar cane. People are building their own houses with bricks made from mud and dried in the sun. The effect of sanctions was to increase the rate of urbanisation, to diminish the planning and development of agriculture, and to destroy a great deal of the transport system and to divert other parts of it.
During the same period—from 1974 to 1979—the terms of trade turned against the Zambians by 50 per cent. That meant that people in this country were benefiting from the exchange of goods between this country and Zambia. We were paying less for our copper and cobalt than the Zambians had to pay for imported machines. When talking about copper and cobalt I hardly need to tell your Lordships' House that these are the two materials on which the foreign trade of Zambia depends almost entirely, and yet copper prices today hardly cover the cost of production. Sometimes they do not cover the cost, sometimes production runs at a loss.
So, yes, there have been intense pressures on the economy of Zambia ever since independence. Those pressures have come from the outside world, and we are partly responsible for the drastic results that have accrued. Yet at the same time President Kaunda and his series of Governments have been able to develop free universal education, build a university, establish a free medical service—how many countries in the world have a free medical service?—and perhaps above all develop a genuine non-racial community, in which no person of any colour need have any fear in any part of Zambia of being insulted or attacked because of the colour of his skin. That, I believe, is a tremendous achievement reached under the most adverse conditions that one can imagine.
Of course the countries that we are talking about were, before independence, ruled by either Britain or Portugal. I want to suggest to the Minister that we should now take some responsibility for assisting the people of these countries back on to the road they were on in the 1960s—when in Zambia the growth rate was 5 per cent. a year—back towards some hope for a decent standard of living in the foreseeable future.

1259
I will not again go through the proposals of the Brandt Report, but they all relate directly to Zambia. Indeed, Zambia is taken as a particularly apposite example of what the application of the principles of Brandt could do in a country such as Zambia.
Let me ask the Government to press ahead with what they have started in the Zimbabwean conference on assistance to regional development. I am not asking for a lot of money—I am not asking, necessarily, for more money, even, than the Government have already allocated—but I am asking for the application of that money to the special and constructive needs of this new, infant grouping of the nine states. For example, take the case of the port of Beira. From the beginning of this century the port of Beira has used British materials, British techniques, British equipment. It needs spares to get the port back to where it was before the war, and with some hope of progress. The same could be applied to Maputo; the same could be applied to Nacala. There is a need for spares, above all, with technical assistance to show them how to use those spares as they are needed.
Let me refer the Minister to railway engines. There is an important number of steam railway engines in the southern part of Zambia—built, I believe, in Doncaster. They are off the rails; they have not been used for years. They could very easily be put back into use with the help of a handful of technicians and, again, with the spares. Let me say at this point that the British High Commissioner in Lusaka and the overseas development administration representatives for that area are doing all they can. They and the new High Commissioner have made a great start. They are doing all they can to assist the local people to look to Britain for assistance in this way; and they are assisted by the interests of the OAU and by the Economic Commission for Africa. Prime Minister Mugabe and President Stevens of the OAU were in Lusaka within the last two weeks.
Finally, I believe that the Government and the House should take extremely seriously the proposition that the co-operation and healthy development of these nine countries—none of which has any intention whatever of attacking anybody—provides the only alternative (if there is an alternative) to war with South Africa. Beyond economic co-operation I believe they need a military alliance, because they are all of them subject to attack; and the war that is apparently coming is a war in which Zimbabwe and Namibia are only on the periphery. But here there is a very great danger, and the danger comes largely from the United States. The sentiments as expressed by President Reagan, by his security adviser, Mr. Allen, and by the United Nations' Ambassador, Mrs. Fitzgerald—all give hope to the South African Government: Hope that now they can begin to consider that they will not have to give up Namibia; that the northern boundary of Namibia can now become their front line; that now they can start again to support the organisation known as Unita in order to accomplish the destabilisation of Angola, in order to bring the cold war into this area—which would be disastrous to what is at the moment a very promising and constructive prospect. And the Americans do not understand that a non-aligned country is not a Communist country,
1260
that a non-aligned country looks to the interests of the third world and the non-aligned group and its own people on each issue; and that this does not make it into a Communist country. I believe that the British Government can do a great deal to explain this and to persuade Washington that this is the case and this must be the basis of the political, economic and military policy of the West. When the Americans tell us that President Kaunda gets his arms from the Soviet Union, let us remember that President Kaunda looked all over the West, right across the Atlantic, for arms to defend Lusaka, to defend the copper belt against South African attack before he finally had to turn to the Soviet Union.
In other words, the time for sitting on the fence on the great issue of Africa has gone. Apartheid, which is universally condemned, can never reform itself. There is no such thing as a reformed apartheid. The principle of colour discrimination lies at the heart of apartheid. Do not take my word for it but that of the honoured guest of the Government last week, President Shagari. Look at the figures and tell the Americans the figures; tell the Americans that they are importing nearly four times as much from Nigeria as they are from South Africa; and remember that we in Britain are exporting considerably more to Nigeria than we are to South Africa and that, following the visit of the President last week, there is hope that these export figures to Nigeria will increase. It was President Shagari who, I understand, last week begged Britain to stop supporting and strengthening the South African economy. I suggest that this—added to pressure on Pretoria, to all the leverage that the Government can muster both on Pretoria and Washington, together with the support of regional planning—may give just the chance that the South Africans will come to their senses before disaster strikes. This cannot be left merely to the businessman's judgment. This is crucial and is seen as crucial, not just in Africa, but in Asia, in Latin America and in all parts of the world. It is crucial to the future of British influence in the world and it brings together in happy marriage international morality and British self-interest.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, after the comprehensive speech of my noble friend I shall be brief. I regret that there were not more here to listen to my noble friend's speech. The remarkable knowledge which it expressed, the passionate sincerity which was behind it, almost made us forgive the fact that the noble Lord has been away for four months.
I want to raise some quite concrete questions. It is recognised now that most of the territories which we are discussing have unbalanced economies. Historically that was due to Imperial economic policy. I want to acknowledge that one has been disappointed that more has not been done since independence has been gained by many of these countries.
However, since Lusaka, followed by the recent conference at Kampala, great hope has emerged. The proposal that nine countries should co-ordinate their economies in a development plan, carrying out the urging by President Julius Nyerere at Lusaka for self-reliance, indicates the new mood that is in Africa

1261
today. This development among these nine nations shows that if their plans were fulfilled they would not only be able to meet the needs of their people, but would end hunger there and also end the dependence which now exists on external multinational companies and South Africa.
I want to take the situation in Zimbabwe (to which my noble friend referred) as an example of this. They have now a surplus of maize. In their neighbouring countries of Zambia and Tanzania people are dying from hunger for want of that maize. The difficulty is in developing the plan of distribution and the plan of transport. The first suggestion that I want to make to the Government is this: They should give the fullest support to the proposal by Mr. Ramphal of the Commonwealth Secretariat which suggests that there could be, by proper aid, a meeting of the problems that are involved.
The second concrete matter to which I want to refer is the proposal by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in what has been picturesquely termed a triangular fairy godmother system. That is a system by which a developed country should provide cash to buy grain from a second country to relieve hunger in a third country. I am asking that the Government should give the utmost support to that proposal by the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
The third quite concrete point I want to raise is this. The Food and Agriculture Organisation recently called a meeting of 38 potential donor countries to Southern Africa and at that meeting 12 countries announced increased donations. Those 12 even included the United States of America (despite its recent announcements of policy), Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and, subsequently, Italy. They did not include the United Kingdom, and I am asking the Government whether, since that gathering, the United Kingdom has agreed to co-operate with these other Governments in that support.
My next concrete suggestion is this. There has been a meeting in Kampala where co-ordination has been proposed between Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania; but the great obstacle to co-operation between those three nations is the closed frontier between Tanzania and Kenya. Will the Government do their utmost to try to bring about a solution to that problem, which has meant economic difficulties for Tanzania? Could not the Commonwealth Secretariat or the OAU be asked to initiate negotiations to end that difficulty? I have satisfied myself with raising those concrete points, but I do ask Her Majesty's Government to give the utmost assistance to these new regional plans in Africa—self-reliance by the African countries themselves—and to encourage them to fulfil their hopes by giving them the fullest aid that is possible.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, the peoples of Southern Africa will, I know, be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch for, by his Question, drawing attention to one area of Government policy and one element of what the Government's responsibilities should be at what is a critical period in the history of Southern Africa. We hold this debate within two months of
1262
military raids being carried out by the South African forces into the heart of Mozambique. We hold this debate within a month of gross threats of interference in the internal affairs of Angola being made by the new Reagan Administration.
It is against that background that this Question spotlights part of what the Government's response should be. So far as the whole question of Southern Africa is concerned we need a wider debate, and I think we should have one in the very near future. But this Question raises what our response should be to the demands of the independent states of Africa: those that have won their freedom, often after a bitter struggle, and are now faced with desperate problems of economic weakness and dependence, the legacy of their colonial past—dependence on an economic power, the Republic of South Africa, whose political interests are fundamentally opposed to their own.
Like my noble friend Lord Hatch in Zambia, I have seen concrete examples of this weakness and this dependence in Mozambique. I have seen some of the railways; for instance, the railway that leads from the port of Nacala, the lifeline for Malawi and for North-Western Mozambique, where the trains can go at only 40 kilometres an hour because of the weakness of the track, leaving those areas unsustained because of the paucity of the trains that can go week by week. I have seen the ports—ports which are rich in natural resources, but which are run-down, ill-equipped and left quite inadequate to supply the needs not only of Mozambique, but of the landlocked countries.
So far as dependence on South Africa is concerned, I have seen, perhaps most strikingly, the Cabora Bassa dam, where a whole hydro-electric complex is built to channel electricity, not to the surrounding poor countries that need it badly, but direct to Johannesburg, where it is fed into the South African grid, without any possibility of direct use for Mozambique and its neighbours. It is in the face of that, that a determined initiative has been made by the nine front line states.
At Lusaka, they put the challenge in graphic terms. After stating that Southern Africa is a focal point of conflict, they said this in the declaration made there on 1st April 1980 about the context of that conflict:
It is not the quest for liberation, but the entrenched racism, exploitation and oppression which is the cause of conflict in Southern Africa. The power behind this is in large measure economic. Economic liberation is, therefore, as vital as political freedom ".
It is in that spirit that they first made the declaration of Lusaka, and then followed it up by concrete programmes worked out at the Maputo Conference.
There is a quotation from the strategy paper presented to the Maputo Conference that deserves our attention, and it is this:
"This is the beginning of a movement which will stretch far into the future, affecting the lives of all of us in Southern Africa and all who have interests here. We seek at the Maputo Conference to know who stands with us. We seek therefore from our friends clear statements of their political and national support for the objectives, programmes and policies of SADCC.".
In response to that, our policy should be clear. There should be a commitment to back, generously and promptly, with all the resources that we can spare, the demands which come from these nine countries. But so far the response from Britain has been grievously disappointing. At the Maputo Conference itself, there

1263
were pledges from a wide spectrum of Western countries. In addition to a substantial pledge from the EEC, there were pledges from particular member states and Western countries—Holland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, West Germany, Denmark and Belgium, but not Great Britain. The Foreign Minister of Mozambique, Mr. Chissano, came to this country in January this year. He was received with great respect by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—respect justly due, having regard, in particular, to the part played by President Machel in the Lancaster House talks for the obtaining of independence for Zimbabwe. But when it came to the commitments for which he was asking as a member of the nine SADCC states, there was none. He was told that the requests were being processed. I fear that he was being fobbed off.
So what is the answer to the Question posed by my noble friend? What is the Government's policy? There will be many in Southern Africa, in all the countries, who will read the reply with intense interest. The very worst response, the very worst attitude, would be to hold back because of misguided political motivations, because of the fear of loosening the economic ties that bind this country to the apartheid Government of South Africa.
As President Shagari of Nigeria said during his state visit, the countries of Africa are the countries with a future. They are rich in resources. They are anxious to remain non-aligned, to receive aid, to welcome investment, to make honest bargains with countries and with businesses. So often British policy in Africa is based on ignorance and prejudice. Only 18 months ago substantial sections of the party opposite were branding Mr. Mugabe as a Communist and as a dangerous tool of the Soviet Union. We now respect him as the responsible political leader which he always has been.
In the same way there is a danger of isolating Mozambique and Angola because they, as is their right, as is their people's need, are pursuing a socialist path of development. We must not follow the wild prejudices of the new men in Washington. If we do, we bring about the very polarisation which we claim to deplore. The idea that any of the Governments, particularly the Governments of Mozambique and Angola, are in any way the puppets or the tools of any other power is an insult to them and is belied by a determined history of advancing the interests of their people against enormous odds: in these countries, as in Zambia, they are now building up programmes of health, of education, of popular participation in the running of the country.
I trust that that sort of motive will not be and is not the reason for what seems to be tardiness on the Government's part in responding to the Maputo Conference. On this question of economic liberation, as well as the question of political liberation, it is time a British Government expressed themselves as firmly on the side of those who are struggling to be free.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I apologise for not putting my name down to speak? However, I thought that I ought to add my pennyworth to this
1264
debate and support my noble friend. Although the situation so far as South Africa is concerned may provide the political motivation for the coming together of the nine, the co-ordination of their development is right in itself. Because it is right in itself and because it is important in world terms, we ought to give it every support.
We have many discussions, not always in this House but outside, about the North-South dialogue and its importance. I am not sure to what extent Her Majesty's Government have in fact understood the importance of the North-South dialogue. However, on this occasion we are talking of an important South-South dialogue, an important getting-together of countries that are regarded as part of the South. But they are countries with resources which, if pooled together, can make them very rich. This is the important point. If the resources are pooled together, they can provide a very good life for their people. They can, for example, feed themselves. A fair amount of energy will be available: hydro-electric and of course, coal. They are full of minerals which are important to the world. With these resources they can provide a good life for their people. By co-ordinating and bringing together these resources they can be used for the common good.
Their problem at this moment, as has been mentioned before by the previous speakers, concerns communications, road and rail transport and their ports. What they need at this moment is what I would call the "priming of the pump", by helping them, financially and with technical help, to increase and improve their communications, because once that is done the community—I will call it that, although they have not yet called it that—will rise and will be able to be a community about which the whole world can be proud.
The OAU has set AD 2000 as the date by which they hope to achieve an African common market. One does not know whether they will achieve that aim, but what one can say about this regional co-operation is that with proper support this regional co-operation can, in a few years, become an area of wealth, an area in which people will live well and comfortably, an area about which not only Africa but Europe as well could be proud.
What I am hoping is that the Minister will reply in a manner which will give us encouragement, because so far the Government have been tardy in their response. I hope that the Minister will give us the hope and the encouragement that we need.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, the hour is late, but this is a very important matter and I hope not to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. However, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for the comprehensive speech that he has made about Central and Southern Africa. He has very considerable first-hand knowledge of this vast area, and I am sure the Minister has listened with close attention to what he said. There were many important points, some of them disquieting, which he so graphically put to the House.
There are of course two outstanding facts about this huge area. It is an area where hostility and suspi-

1265
cion between whites and non-whites is an ever-present threat to its stability and prospects of peace. But it is also a region, as my noble friend Lord Pitt reminded us, very rich in minerals, many of them essential to Western industry and with an enormous agricultural potential. The whole purpose of the Lusaka Conference, carried on in Kampala—the whole objective of the Lusaka Nine—is somehow to intensify economic co-operation and development in this area. Surely this is a purpose which the United Kingdom and like-minded countries should actively support, not only because it is morally right but also because it is in our clear interests to do so.
As the Nigerian President reminded us last week, Central and Southern Africa is the United Kingdom's third largest trading partner, and certainly our trade, to our mutual benefit, with this enormous area could be doubled or trebled in a few years, if the resources of the area were enabled, through aid from the North and West, to promote the co-operation and development that the nine countries are seeking. But of course to do this they must have the technical assistance in men, money and machinery, and the developed countries of the West have been rather slow to grasp the need for this, although there are now signs that we are beginning to learn the facts of life as between North and South, that there is no future, certainly no prosperity, for either in isolation. The Brandt Commission has conclusively demonstrated that massive aid by the North to the South is at once a moral imperative on the North and an investment in friendship and prosperity between the two regions.
My noble friend rightly asked what our Government are doing about this, and I strongly reinforce his question. The other place had a most instructive debate yesterday about these matters. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm the figures given by my honourable friend Mr. Guy Barnett in an excellent speech, that the United Kingdom has cut its aid by 18 per cent. since 1979; that is about four or five times the cut it has imposed upon itself in its own public expenditure. By 1983 a further cut of 15·3 per cent. will have been effected in the somewhat inadequate aid we make available from our GNP. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how far short we are falling of the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP to be devoted to overseas aid. Two years ago we were within striking distance of that target; we had achieved 0·51 per cent. and 0·7 per cent. looked attainable, but by 1980 we had fallen back and fallen behind other countries in our overseas aid. We had fallen back to 0·34 per cent. which is less than half the United Nations target.
Our record in helping Zimbabwe is better—£75 million over three years and the prospect of a further substantial sum to be announced by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Soames, at the donors conference in Salisbury. Perhaps the Minister can give us details of this.
I truncate my remarks and put the final and substantial point I wanted to bring to the Minister and your Lordships. Economic aid is, of course, vital to the future development of regions like Central and Southern Africa, not only that of Zimbabwe, but Zambia, Botswana, Malawi and the others. But, vital as economic aid is, it cannot be truly effective
1266
unless the region achieves political stability. This is an area of racial tension erupting into actual armed conflict; the fact of war is already in Southern Africa. The provision of aid cannot be fully effective unless conditions of stability are also promoted at the same time as the aid is extended.
The principal cause of this political instability—it must be said and repeated—is the apartheid policy of the South African Republic. There are signs that there is a toughening of their attitude due to their, I hope, misreading of American policy. I hope that our Government—and I speak as a pro-American, a firm believer in the alliance and the special relationship—will speak with clarity in Washington. Namibia is a key country in Southern Africa whose resources are vital to the interests of the West, indeed to the survival of the West. Unless you have an independent successor state which has reason to be grateful to the West and reason to co-operate with it, then the consequences for the West will be dire indeed. So it is time to speak with clarity to our friends in Washington about the way in which their policy towards Namibia is proceeding at present.
I should like briefly to put three points to the Minister to convey to his colleagues and to think over himself. First, with like-minded countries in Western Europe, North America and certainly in the Commonwealth—and the Commonwealth showed last year what it could do in Africa; indeed, in Lusaka it achieved a historic U-turn in the way in which it dealt with what used to be called the "Rhodesian problem"—we should support morally and practically the efforts of the Lusaka Nine to achieve a comprehensive programme of development. It is their right that we should take the lead in this as the premier post-colonial power in the world. It is in our enlightened self-interest that we should do this.
Secondly, we should redouble our efforts to obtain a much more speedy programme of reform in race relations in South Africa—in the Republic—with the early total abandonment of apartheid. Apartheid has no future; its dissolution can only be marginally postponed. We used to say about Rhodesia that there was no future for the Smith idea of running the country. It would only postpone the inevitable—the desirably inevitable—for a year or two at a time. The end is clear. Let them make a virtue of necessity—a humane virtue of an imperative necessity, and institute the reforms at a fast pace so that the millions of deprived and underprivileged black Africans can see for themselves that the white man is in earnest about extending equal rights to them. That would be an investment that would pay in peace and friendship far beyond even the material aid that we have been talking about tonight.
Thirdly—and material aid is important, of course, for the reasons already given—we should really look again at our overseas aid programme. It has been reduced at a fast rate, as I have tried to show, and this is a moral reproach to us as the premier post colonial power, and a political and economic error of the first magnitude. There is a blindness about this, about reducing overseas aid—a blindness about the consequences in terms of forcing these new countries to turn to totalitarian sources for the necessities of development. Every penny that we can make available to these

1267
countries, positioned as they are and full of important resources as they are, will be an investment not only economically, but strategically and politically.
This has been a useful debate. I wish that it could have been held under more suitable conditions. But I am grateful to my noble friend for having persisted in his intention to raise this matter. It is one of the most important matters that this House can possibly discuss. I would say that, with the Middle East, Cent ral and Southern Africa is the most important area in the world not only in terms of its own stability and peace, but also in terms of the implications of getting this wrong for the rest of the world. I hope that this short but useful debate will spur on the Government to do in Central Africa as a whole what they have commendably begun to do in Zimbabwe. They have given themselves a reasonably good example in doing what they have done in Zimbabwe. Let them carry on in the same way in the rest of Africa.
10.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, at the outset may I say that I am a little croaky this evening and if I finally give up halfway through my speech, my noble friend Lord Avon has kindly agreed to take over, though I hope that that will not be necessary.
This has been a most interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am very glad to have this opportunity to set out the Government's policy on the issues which have been raised and where possible to answer questions and clarify some apparent misconceptions which I fear the debate has revealed.
Southern Africa has suffered greatly both in human and economic terms from the devastating war in Zimbabwe. But the Lancaster House settlement, followed
closely by Zimbabwe's independence, have helped us to bring greater stability to the region. If this stability is to continue, however, it is essential that the countries concerned have a sound economic base on which to formulate their policies.
As your Lordships will know, this Government attach great importance to increased economic cooperation between the individual states of Africa and particularly so in the East and Southern region of that continent. Moreover, the interdependence of their economics and the need for greater co-operation is fully recognised by the states themselves. In November last year, nine of them—Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Angola, Tanzania and Mozambique—held a conference in Maputo, the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. There they met a large number of mainly Western and multilateral donor organisations to discuss ways of strengthening their regional economic links.
This initiative was warmly welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, who were
represented at the conference by my honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. He expressed Britain's strong support for the conference's aim of identifying practical means of increasing regional co-operation for the economic benefit of the region as a whole. For it is certainly this Government's view that if increased economic co-operation within the region is to lead to a real improvement in living standards, to increased productivity and to
1268
increased prosperity, the benefits of this will be felt not only in East and Southern Africa but in the world beyond, and particularly in the countries with which this part of Africa trades. So it is very much in our own interests, as well as those of the African countries concerned, to encourage further moves towards economic integration in the region.
But clearly, words, resolutions and conferences are not enough by themselves to achieve the economic progress that everyone agrees is desirable and necessary. The objective must be to seek practical measures contributing towards the important goal of regional co-operation. Projects must be economically sound and defensible in themselves. It is not enough, for example—as some might think—for projects to be justified purely or even primarily on the contribution that they might make to reducing the dependence on South Africa of the African states that surround it. Whatever they and we might think of apartheid, in pure economic terms there are obvious overriding practical limits on the ability of the states surrounding South Africa to reduce their economic dependence on the republic. Conversely, there are equally obvious economic benefits in these states maintaining commercial and physical links with all countries of the region. Far better, therefore, for the countries of Central and Southern Africa to identify achievable plans which if successful will bring to the region prosperity, independence and the ability to choose to trade, or not to trade, on the basis of equal partnerships and from a position of economic strength.
The conference at Maputo identified three main areas—transport, agriculture and manpower—where the need for economic progress in the region is pressing. We are sure that this emphasis is right. The development of transport and communication links is a particular priority; and with many of the states concerned landlocked, it offers the most critical and tangible example of interstate co-operation.
In 1979, the last year for which we have full statistics, we spent some £140 million on aid to the nine Maputo Conference countries, plus Kenya and Uganda. Provisional figures indicate that we spent at least that amount in 1980 as well. I would ask those who are always ready to criticise the Government's performance in development matters to reflect a while on these impressive figures: they are worth more I think than expressions of solidarity, which is about all they get from the Eastern bloc.
A considerable proportion of these funds has gone to the transport and communications sector. For example: the Songea/Makambako Road in Tanzania, which is our biggest single aid project in the region; planning assistance for the development of Botswana Railways; rehabilitation of the railway track to Malawi's southern border with Mozambique; and in Mozambique itself, the construction of roads in Gaza and Cabo Delgado provinces. In Kenya, too, we are providing equipment to improve handling capacity at Mombasa port and we have allocated some £13 million to the building of the Embu—Meru road.
We already have plans to continue to help with the improvement of communications in the region. In Zambia we shall soon discuss how we might assist with the rehabilitation or replacement of the Kafue Rail Bridge. In Lesotho we have offered to provide

1269
funds for road construction. In Zimbabwe we have agreed to some £7 million for a major railway electrification project and should be happy to consider using funds for other transport projects should the Zimbabwe Government so wish. The Zimbabwe Donors' Conference is of course now in progress in Salisbury. It is too early to say what the final result of the conference will be, but we are very hopeful that it will be an important success with substantial pledges of aid being made by donor countries.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House tonight of the substantial aid pledged on behalf of the United Kingdom by my noble friend the Lord President. In addition to our existing bilateral aid to Zimbabwe of £96 million we have offered a further £10 million for land settlement, £5 million for training Zimbabweans in Britain, and £10 million for regional projects in the Southern African area. This is in addition to our military assistance to Zimbabwe and to £22 million of debts which we have written off. I suggest that these are figures of which the Government can be proud.
The exact use to which the new £10 million for regional projects will be put is not yet finally decided. But because of its central importance to communications in the area, it is expected that a substantial proportion of the funds will go to transport and communications projects in Mozambique. My noble friend has already mentioned at the Zimbabwe Conference that we have in mind in particular the improvement of the rail link from Salisbury to Beira; and the improvements to Beira Port. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, mentioned those points specifically.
Such projects will not only be of assistance to Mozambique itself; they will also be of direct benefit to countries on or near its borders. Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Swaziland, Botswana—all landlocked states—acknowledge that their economic prospects would be greatly improved if they were able to import and export their goods quickly and efficiently through Mozambique.
We will be moving as quickly as possible to reach decisions on how this new aid will be allocated; preliminary discussions on possible new projects are scheduled for early next month in Maputo. It is of course not only in the transport sector that we have been—and will continue to be—of help. Agriculture is clearly vital to the region. We are already providing substantial assistance for agriculture and rural development generally in many of the states of Southern and Eastern Africa. More initiatives are being planned, but perhaps our most significant contribution of all in this part of Africa is the provision of skilled personnel. Well over 2,000 experts in the region are partly or wholly financed from British aid, and are located as far as possible in key posts where skills can readily be passed on.
I have spoken so far of activities under our bilateral aid programmes. But let us not forget our substantial contributions to the multilateral bodies which are also assisting the economic development of the countries of East and Southern Africa. Nor should we ignore the significant benefits of membership of the Lomé Convention for these countries. Of course, not quite all of them are members. The two that are not, Angola and Mozambique, would stand to gain much from membership, which in view of their important
1270
harbour and rail facilities would in turn benefit neighbouring states.
I would add that Britain's role in the development of the region is not confined to aid, whether provided direct or through multilateral aid bodies. British companies have played an important part in the development of this part of Africa and there is much they can do in the future.
I have given particular attention so far to the outcome of and the initiatives arising from the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, which is the subject of the Question. But the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has referred specifically to East Africa as well. I am pleased to say that recent developments in that region have given rise to hopes for greater political stability and economic co-operation. President Obote has taken the initiative to restore Uganda's good relations with its neighbours. This has given impetus to the series of meetings this year between Government Ministers of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and other neighbouring countries. The Kampala Summit on 17th January is a tangible example of improved relations and has led to an agreement to hold further meetings at regular intervals to review the possibilities for greater regional co-operation.
The meeting in Dar es Salaam on 13th March shows the progress that is being made. If these meetings result in a strengthening of economic ties between the countries concerned and the amicable settlement of problems arising from the break-up of the East African Community in 1977, then we would regard them as a most welcome initiative.
Economic imperatives dictate that there must be some measure of regional economic co-operation in East Africa. The landlocked countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Zambia require access to the sea for their exports, and their economies and markets are interdependent. Moreover, economically, all three major East African countries, like most of the world, are going through difficult times. Tanzania suffers severe balance of payments problems. Uganda has suffered much from a lack of political stability and her economic and administrative infrastructure is in dire straits. Kenya, though stronger economically, nevertheless has increasingly been affected by adverse terms of trade and a high population growth rate. All to a greater or lesser extent have suffered from the rise in oil prices, the fluctuation of the world commodity market and the problem of drought and food shortage.
Ideally, therefore, the economic interests of the East African countries should coincide, particularly as regards trade and transportation. The road and rail link with Mombasa is vitally important for the economic health of the region, as are the port facilities at Dar es Salaam. Finance is available for regional projects from the European Development Fund, and I know that the European Commission would be particularly receptive to East African proposals for the abolition of trade barriers and the improvement of transportation links. Certainly we would encourage investment of this sort from the European Development Fund to which, of course, we contribute a substantial 18 per cent.
Much can be done to reduce the economic problems facing East Africa at the moment and, with Kenya soon to take up the chairmanship of the Organisation

1271
of African Unity, I hope the opportunity for promoting greater regional co-operation in the area will be taken. For, in East Africa, as in Southern Africa, the assistance that we and other donors can provide will be of real and lasting value only if it is matched by the genuine efforts of the recipient countries to work closely with each other for the greater economic good of the region as a whole.
I turn to some of the points that have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was of course particularly concerned about the position of Zambia and referred to critical reports about Zambia in the United Kingdom press. No matter what may be written in the British press, over which of course the Government have no control, our relations with Zambia are in fact most cordial. We have a substantial aid programme there; indeed, our recently announced £10,000 allocation for the SADCC projects would greatly benefit Zambia indirectly. And, as an example of our continuing close relations, we are sponsoring visits to this country by a group of officials and MPs from the United National Independence Party of Zambia and the editor of The Times of Zambia.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and other noble Lords also referred to the food surplus in Zimbabwe and to what might possibly be done with it. We have already offered to provide 14,000 tonnes of food aid to Mozambique and Zambia this year, and we have proposed that this food be purchased in and provided from Zimbabwe, which, as the noble Lord has rightly pointed out, is enjoying an impressive food surplus this year. That I think somewhat pre-empts Mr. Ramphal's ideas, which were referred to by both the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It is hoped that other donor countries will be able to make similar or parallel arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also referred to the Kenya—Tanzania border. Closure of the border between Kenya and Tanzania was one of the unhappy consequences of the break-up of the East African community. We should welcome any progress towards its reopening, but we understand the difficulties. In the first instance, it must of course be a matter for the two countries involved, but I hope that the current discussions between them, borne out by the new spirit of co-operation to which I have referred, will lead to an amicable agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the United States' policy, in
particular towards Angola. I imagine that he was referring to the possible appeal of the Clark amendment which, if it is carried through, will allow the United States Government to provide additional new aid for the Unita group in Angola. This is of course primarily a matter for the United States Government and Congress. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we are of course in normal cordial relationship with the Government of Angola and there can therefore be no question of our supporting any dissident group in that country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, too, referred to United States' policy more generally in the area of Southern Africa. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble
1272
friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Namibia with President Reagan and Mr. Haig on the occasion of their recent visit to Washington. They expressed the hope that the United States Administration would work with all those involved in the negotiations for an internationally-recognised settlement there. We understand that the new United States Administration are reviewing the complex of Southern African problems and intend to consult other Governments mainly concerned before formulating specific policies or taking policy decisions.
We are coming to the end of a most interesting and constructive debate. Many noble Lords have given us the benefit of their advice, and indeed expert knowledge, and I thank them for that. I would express the hope that in turn I have been able to apprise your Lordships of the Government's positive and substantial response to the economic needs of East and Southern Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to expand on just one point in his speech? I thank him for his very full and courteous reply. I hope that his voice will improve; perhaps a visit to Zambia would do his throat good. The noble Lord spoke, quite correctly, about the importance of skilled technicians being made available to the area that we have been considering. But can he give some advice to the vice-chancellor of the University of Zambia, for example? The vice-chancellor is now faced with a drastic cut, causing great dismay, in the British Government's support for members of staff that he and the administration would like to recruit in this country.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not of course have in front of me the details of the matter to which the noble Lord refers. All I can do is to make the general point that I have made to your Lordships on many occasions: we regret any cuts that may be necessary in our aid budget, but if we do not make our dispositions in accordance with the resources available, then in due course we shall have no resources at all.