Lords Sitting of 25 January 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Magistrates' Courts: Annual Expenditure
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I ask the Minister to be good enough to read out the figures at dictation speed?
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the figures for expenditure on magistrates' courts for each year between 1979 and estimated 1985–86 at constant prices, taking 1979 at £72 million.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Government plans public expenditure in cash rather than on the basis of constant prices. The figures I shall give have, however, been adjusted by the deflator for gross domestic product at market prices taking 1979–80 as the base year. Information about plans for 1985–86 will be given in the forthcoming Public Expenditure White Paper. The outturn for 1979–80 was £72·5 million, for 1980–81 it was £79·1 million and for 1981–82 it was £82·6 million. For 1982–83 the provisional outturn is £85 million, for 1983–84 the forecast outturn is £87·9 million and the planned figure for 1984–85 is £88·9 million. The figures show that, even after allowance is made, so far as is possible, for the effect of inflation, current expenditure has increased from year to year.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in providing me with these figures. May I ask him whether he recollects that, in reply to a Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, towards the end of November of last year, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave figures indicating a very substantial increase indeed—so substantial an increase that no less a person than the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was disposed to call them "very impressive figures"? These figures were given in current cost terms and led the House to believe that there had been a very substantial increase in this expenditure over a period of six years, and in particular over the year being inquired into by the questioner.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Diamond: The Question, in case the Chief Whip has forgotten it, is: does the noble Lord recollect that this happened? Does the noble Lord further recollect that the figures given for the relevant years which were under inquiry by the noble Baroness showed an increase of some £6 million? On the figures now given by the noble Lord, the accurate figure is £1 million—£1 million as against £11 million.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind to give way. He is raising a number of points at some length. It is easier to deal with them one by one rather than to have a collection of points put to me at length. I cannot say that I recollect the occasion to which the noble Lord refers, because it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who answered the Question. He was good enough to do so because I could not be here. I have, however, read the account in the record and can vouch for everything that my noble and learned friend said. I have the figures before me. They were rounded down, which makes them less ambitious than the noble Lord is seeming to infer. They relate exactly to the figures I have given, which were adjusted as the noble Lord asked me to adjust them.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the question is: is it not in the best interests of this House that Ministers should be in a position to give significant comparisons rather than comparisons which lay it open for the Members of this House to be misled?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is in the best tradition of this House, which my noble and learned friend impeccably followed, to answer Questions according to the terms in which they are asked.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I recall the Question that was addressed to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Prys-Davies: May I ask the noble Lord whether there is evidence of undue delay in the hearing of cases before magistrates' courts? If so, it would be a cause for concern, because justice delayed is justice denied.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not quite sure how I can relate that question to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, has the Minister any figures relating to the productivity of these courts? In other words, what is the quantity of fines levied over these periods?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I genuinely regret that I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I shall write to my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the figures are broken down between juvenile and adult courts and, if so, what is the cost of the juvenile courts?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am afraid that if I were to have the full range of information in such detail in my hands it would scarcely be portable, but, again, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel that our lay magisterial courts justify this expenditure? Are they not too often run by a clerk whose ego seems to outstrip his intelligence?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that magistrates who give voluntarily of their time are an invaluable feature of the British judicial system.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since my name has been raised in connection with this matter, I should like to put a question to the noble Lord the Minister. The Question which appears on the Order Paper is not entirely along the lines of that which I asked. Will the Minister therefore reiterate that he is satisfied that expenditure on magistrates' courts at the moment is achieving the purpose of the Government in maintaining the quality of law and order to which we have become accustomed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the answer—if I may be brief—is, yes.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that lay magistrates are among the most effective and well-regarded of the institutions of this country; that they play a remarkable role in the defence of our liberties under the law; and that they should be given the necessary resources to do their work even more effectively in the future?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the whole of the first part of the noble Lord's question, I entirely agree. As to the resources devoted to the discharge of their functions, I believe they are adequate and, as both my noble and learned friend and I have sought to say, they are also increasing.

Home Industries: Fire Hazards
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the number of serious fires at domestic premises where attempts at home industry are being carried on without any special insurance against fire or accident has recently increased; and whether they will introduce regulations for increased safety with aid for additional insurance costs where practicable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, such information as is available does not suggest that there has been any increase in recent years in the frequency with which serious fires occur in these and similar premises. No information is available as to whether the premises are insured against fire or accident.
The Government believe that the present law is adequate to secure the safety of those occupying premises of this type. We are however reviewing the way in which we seek to identify and inspect small premises for fire and safety hazards in the light of the tragic fires which occurred recently in the Mile End Road and Gravesend. We have no proposals to provide aid for additional insurance costs in respect of those and other similar premises.
Lord Hale: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that information. The Question clearly relates to
236
the Fire Precautions Act 1971. We had a long-drawn-out debate and discussion during the passage of that legislation about what was being done regarding the registration of premises against fire, and about the fire precautions in designated premises. The answer to the last Question that I put down on the matter was that 11,526 premises had been inspected and that at least 10,000 more which had been partially inspected would need certificates. May I ask how many certificates have been issued and what has happened to this extraordinarily useful precaution which seems to have fallen to some extent in abeyance?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will be in a better position to reassure the noble Lord when I come to answer his next Question. I can tell him at this stage that we believe that the process of inspection is proceeding apace. In fact, about 95 per cent. of the premises to which the noble Lord is referring have already been inspected.

Hotels: Fire Hazards
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the programme of inspection of all licensed or unlicensed residential hotels within the Greater London Area, including full inspections by the local fire brigade and inspection of the emergency exists and full advice on fire proofing, is now completed; or, if not, how many premises still await inspection.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the inspection and certification of hotels and boarding houses under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is carried out in inner London by the architect's department of the Greater London Council and in outer London by the London Fire Brigade. I understand that as at 31st December 1983, out of a total of 1,866 premises known to those bodies 1,766 had been fully inspected and issued with a fire certificate; 79 had been inspected and issued with a notice of steps to be taken before a fire certificate would be issued; and 21 remained to be dealt with.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information and for what he added about the previous Question. He did get into some difficulty after about five other noble Lords in different parts of the House tried to ask supplementary questions.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, arising from this Question—and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this relates to it—may I ask the Minister whether inspections by local fire brigades are carried out at Her Majesty's prisons? In particular, are they carried out at Her Majesty's prison at Strangeways—a matter about which prison visitors have recently expressed some anxiety?
Lord Elton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government always have the fire precautions at prisons very much in mind, particularly in the light of recent experience.

237
The fire prevention officers in that case have been consulted.
Lord Byers: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister who will be responsible for the inspections now undertaken by the architect's department of the GLC when the GLC is abolished?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the change in our proposals for the government of London will bring very little change to these arrangements. The only substantive change will be that the London Fire Brigade will probably take on responsibility for the certification of hotels throughout the whole of the Greater London area, instead of for just outer London as at present; but that should not slow down the progress of certification.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, arising from the last supplementary question, is the noble Lord aware that it is hoped in increasingly wide circles that the Government will change their minds and will not in fact abolish the GLC?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have noticed the noble Lord's optimism always, particularly in regard to what might be on the Order Paper.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, may I bring the noble Lord back to his reply to the noble Lord who asked the question about the abolition of the GLC? The noble Lord's reply sounded rather complacent to me when I understand that, if the GLC is abolished, the biggest problem for the inspection of these unlicensed and licensed premises will be in inner London. Is the noble Lord sure that sufficient provision will be made for the continued inspection of those premises?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is intended that the fire authority for London shall be a joint board drawn from the constituent borough councils. They will have exactly the same locus standi with the fire brigades as the GLC, as fire authority, now has. There should really be no difficulty in this at all.

Westminster Hospital and Medical School
3.52 p.m.
Lord Segal: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their long and short term policy on the future of Westminster Hospital and its medical school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Government welcome the decision of the University of London that the Westminster Hospital Medical School and the Charing Cross Hospital Medical School should be amalgamated. I understand that legislation is being prepared to create the new school later this year. As to the Westminster Hospital, we do not foresee any major change in its role in the immediate future.
Lord Segal: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, I would like to ask him this question. Since the removal of St. George's Hospital and Charing Cross Hospital to the suburbs, is the number of beds available in the west of London able to cope with major emergencies such as the recent Harrods bomb disaster, and does not this emphasise the importance of retaining Westminster Hospital and all its departments as the utmost degree of efficiency?
As regards the second part of my question, arising out of this, would it not be better if every effort were made to allow the Westminster Medical School to retain its independent identity?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear in my original Answer, so far as the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, that it has been agreed, and the Government have welcomed the decision, to amalgamate the Charing Cross Hospital Medical School with the Westminster Hospital Medical School.
So far as concerns the noble Lord's first supplementary question about the importance of Westminster in relation to the Harrods bombing, which I think is the point he makes, yes, my Lords, I am aware of the important role Westminster played in this. I should certainly like to add my voice to the many who have not only condemned the mindless atrocity of that act but also praised the excellent treatment provided to the casualties by the hospitals in the area, including the Westminster Hospital. But, my Lords, there is no present intention, no formal proposal, to close Westminster Hospital. Should such proposals be made, then, of course, every consideration will be given to them on their merits, and they will only be allowed to go ahead if we are convinced that to do so would be to the benefit of patient services within the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that when the amalgamation takes place there will be no diminution of staff, either from Charing Cross or Westminster, or diminution of pupils when the medical schools are joined together? Can the noble Lord further state quite clearly that the apprehensions which are now extant in Westminster Hospital about the future are unfounded? Will he take advantage of this opportunity to remove those apprehensions completely and say that Westminster Hospital is quite safe from any future Government intervention to destroy it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, documents have been issued by the Victoria Health Authority, but these have been of an informative nature, setting out the context in which strategic proposals need to be developed. The most recent of these, which was issued in June last year, mentioned that a variety of options had been the subject of public speculation, including closure of one or more hospitals in the district; the document made it clear that further consideration and discussion would be needed before proposals were issued for public consultation.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord's rather lengthy reply mean yes, and, if it does, would he tell us so?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the answer in Hansard, he will discover that I did not say either yes or no.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would it not be helpful if the noble Lord would pass the encouraging answer he first gave to the Victoria Health District? Is he aware, bearing in mind that they have suffered a cash cut of £1.8 million in 1984–85 and expect a further cash cut of £1.8 million in 1985–86, that the health district have informed me today that the options they were considering included the total closure of the Westminster Hospital? Another was a substantial reduction in beds, including the closing of the accident and emergency unit to which tribute has already been paid for the role that it played at the time of the tragic Harrods bombing just before Christmas. If the noble Lord is telling the House that the Westminster Hospital is safe, can he accept that, because so many noble Lords owe their lives to the skills of the doctors and nurses in that hospital, there will be a cheer from all sides of the House? But will he also tell the health district, which is responsible, that that is the situation that the Minister has decided upon?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Health are, of course, in touch with the Victoria Health Authority on these proposals. I do not think that the noble Lord's claim that it is not aware of what is going on is the case at all. For the longer term, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State awaits the strategic proposals now being developed by the Victoria Health Authority for the future of health services for which that authority is responsible, and also the strategic plan being prepared by the North West Thames Regional Health Authority.
We remain committed to the policy of securing a fairer distribution of National Health Service resources across the country. This refers to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. Significant inequalities still remain which will be greatly reduced over the next 10 years or so by differential allocations of growth money and some reductions in revenue for the most over-provided regions, such as the North West Thames. Within North West Thames, Victoria is the district with the highest level of NHS resources per head of population served, and must therefore plan on the assumption that its revenue allocations will be reduced.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, the assurance he gave in the answer to my noble friend Lord Segal, that no changes were proposed in the role of the Westminster Hospital seems now to have been changed. Can he say whether his last answer or the original answer that he gave was correct?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was asked if there were any firm plans to close Westminster Hospital and the answer that I gave was that there are no firm plans to close it, but there are proposals that are being considered which may or may not include closure. No decision has been taken. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord Todd: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister perhaps agree that had the University of London accepted the proposals in the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education in 1968 the Question we are discussing today would have been quite unnecessary?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must confess that I am not familiar off the top of my head with the proposals which the noble Lord mentions. I will, of course, look at them, and if I can answer that question in writing I shall do so.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord wisely said, in the response to the first part of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that his answer was neither yes nor no. I very much hope that the noble Lord's answer to the second part of the supplementary question is a firm no, because the noble Lord will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, asked whether we could go back to square one and have an entirely independent Westminster Medical School and that the merger between the Charing Cross Medical School and the Westminster Medical School should not take place. Is the noble Lord aware that the University of London—no doubt rather late off the mark as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, observed—has nevertheless been trying to reduce the number of medical schools in order to reduce costs? Is he further aware that this merger is the first major success which has been achieved in this programme? Does he agree that there is considerable scope for further mergers of this kind? Does he also agree that the capacity of beds as regards the needs of the medical schools in certain subjects, such as obstetrics, is sometimes twice the capacity needed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about the amalgamation. He asked one or two other questions and I may not be able to follow up all of them without reading what he said. As regards the implication that the University Grants Committee was responsible for the so-called rationalisation of the London medical schools, the answer is, "No, not at all". The proposals to combine some of the London medical schools into larger and more viable units were discussed by the University of London long before the reductions in funding referred to. I note that, despite the reduced level of funding, the London medical schools were able to expand their intake by nearly 7 per cent. between 1980 and 1982.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister simply do nothing more than acknowledge that the staff of the Westminister Hospital are perturbed when they hear statements from the Victoria Health Authority and ministerial statements which cause distress because the staff do not know which to believe? Will the Minister at least say that as soon as humanly possible he will make a statement which will clear up all the doubts and let the staff of this famous hospital, who have contributed so much, know where they stand?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I hope I explained earlier, no firm decisions have been reached and, therefore, rumours will circulate, as they always do,

241
until a decision is made. But no decision has been made and, when it is, and if it is thought proper to announce it here, I dare say I shall have an opportunity to do so.
Lord Segal: My Lords, is it not of the utmost importance, where human life is at stake, that a patient should be admitted to the nearest hospital, whether it is public or private?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, but, as I said, there is sometimes also the problem of rationalising services within the National Health Service generally.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to being made in another place on the Government Communictions Headquarters and the Employment Protection Acts.
It has become customary for me to say a brief word about the timing of speeches in the short debates. The principle adopted is that the mover shall be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. The number of speakers in the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Kimberley are such that on that basis succeeding speakers would be entitled to slightly longer than the two movers. I therefore suggest that while no formal time limit needs to be proposed, noble Lords should try not to exceed the 15 minutes customarily permitted to the mover of the debate.

Procedure of the House
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be agreed to.
The report read as follows:
1. STARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee have considered the terms of Standing Order 40 which provides that, in reckoning the period of notice for Starred Questions, no account shall be taken of any time when the House is in recess.
The Committee are of the opinion that this condition leads to a lack of topicality, particularly on the eve of the summer recess when Starred Questions can be tabled for a date more than two months in the future. In order to meet this difficulty they recommend that the period of notice should in future be a month inclusive of recesses and that Standing Order 40 should be amended accordingly. They recommend that the change should take effect in time for the summer recess in 1984.
2. TIME-LIMITED DEBATES
The Committee took note of the procedure for Short Debates limited to 2½ hours and of the fact that this procedure had been successfully applied to debates other than those selected by ballot. They are of the opinion that the procedure for timed debates should be extended to provide for the possibility of debates of a maximum duration of 5 hours. They recommend that the House should
242
exercise this option by means of an appropriate motion applying the time limit in each case. Within the overall limit, the amount of time allotted to particular speakers should be agreed in advance and announced to the House as it is at present for Short Debates.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that I need say only a few words about the first recommendation in the report on Starred Questions. Your Lordships will recall that this matter was first raised in the House in a Starred Question itself by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, on 16th November and it was referred to the Committee. The Committee was happy to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and the result is the first recommendation which we hope will ensure greater topicality of Questions when we reassemble after a Summer Recess.
The second recommendation raises rather more serious issues on the subject of time-limited debates. It arose from a joint letter which was written to me from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on 16th November last advocating the introduction of debates limited to five hours. The Committee had this letter before it. It also had a memorandum from me of a purely factual nature, and it had a memorandum from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who unluckily was abroad at the time and unable to attend the Committee. His memorandum argued forcefully against the proposal and was supported, also in his absence, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
The Committee had a very thorough debate on these proposals and took full note of the objections that were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. But in the end it was decided unanimously by those members present in the Committee—and there were, in fact, 23 members present out of the 29 members on the Committee—that the recommendation should be put to the House that we should have a modest experiment of debates limited to five hours.
I have no doubt that some of your Lordships will wish to argue the pros and cons of this proposal, but I think that I should just make one point: the proposal is a very modest one. In the first place, it would not apply to any debates on Second Reading. In the second place, it would only be proposed for a general debate with the approval of the mover of the Motion and after discussion through the usual channels. In the third place, in each case a Motion applying the time limit would have to be put to the House itself.
As far as the mechanics of the five-hour debate are concerned, if the recommendation should appeal to your Lordships, then the procedure would be similar to the procedures which have worked so successfully with short debates limited to two and a half hours, and we have heard the mechanics outlined this afternoon by the Chief Whip. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has indicated, although I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure I was not able, owing to a business trip abroad—and, if he will allow me to say so, also to the rather short notice at which this subject was brought forward—to attend the Select Committee; although in his usual

243
courteous way he allowed me to circulate a paper. But as your Lordships will be only too well aware, circulation of a paper without the opportunity to answer the arguments put forward—though no doubt better than nothing—is a fairly inadequate reply.
I rise to suggest to your Lordships that, despite the moderate and restricted terms in which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has put this forward, your Lordships should view this proposal—as I suggest your Lordships should view all proposals involving restriction on their freedom of action in debate—with a good deal of caution: indeed, perhaps even with a modicum of suspicion. I know—and the House will in a few moments be taking part in two such debates—that we have a system of short debates in which an analogous system operates even though its consequences, as appeared from the statement of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, are sometimes rather comic in their effect.
There is, of course, an enormous difference between those short debates. which the House accepts, I think—because it is only with that limited allotment of time that those debates are possible at all—and the general debates to which in certain cases the proposal of the Select Committee would extend this restrictive process. I am sure that I do not need to say that the general debates which your Lordships' House puts on on occasions are a major part of the activity of the House. I think that their standard and quality account for a good deal of the very high reputation that your Lordships' House has outside. I suggest that we want to be very careful indeed before we do anything by way of restriction which might adversely affect the conduct of those debates. I also pray in aid the traditional historic right of a Peer to give expression to his views in debate, without let or hindrance, although subject of course always, if he seeks to abuse that right, to a Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard—a Motion which is from time to time necessarily proposed. Subject to that, your Lordships have an ancient right to address the House without restriction.
If one comes then to this specific proposal, it has one rather paradoxical effect. If only a small number of Peers put their names down to speak in a debate, as apparently has happened in respect of this afternoon's short debates, an ample allocation of time is made. But, as the amount of time allotted is, as I understand it, simply a mathematical process of taking the amount of time, apart from that allocated to the Minister and to the opener, and dividing it by the number of noble Lords who have given notice that they wish to speak, the effect is that, if a subject is popular and of very great importance, the shorter is the time allotted to each noble Lord, and there is indeed no minimum guaranteed length at all.
There are other substantial difficulties which I shall not weary the House with at this stage, save to mention two. First of all, these general debates—in some of which I have taken part—raise matters of controversy among the parties. This proposal makes no provision for extra or additional time for those who speak for the political parties, with the exception of the Minister. There is no provision for extra time for those who speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box or indeed for those who represent the other parties in the House.
244
If I may quote an example of that from a debate which I had the privilege of opening on 23rd November, there was a speech in that debate which raised very serious party political issues affecting public and private ownership. It was a speech from that Dispatch Box made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. It lasted 28 minutes, and every minute of it was worthwhile, because it was a closely reasoned and powerful exposition of a point of view with which I wholly disagree. If we adopt this proposal, and it is applied to that sort of debate, a speech like that of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, would have to be cut in two, if not in three.
The proposal also militates against what one might call the debating type of speech. If a noble Lord decides simply to read or to speak from something that he has prepared, he does not have to give way and he can probably limit the length of his speech in accordance with the time allotted to him. But if he makes a debating speech, it is the very proper convention of the House that he gives way to an intervention, particularly from another noble Lord opposite to whom he has referred. Under the proposed system, how is that time to be handled? Either the intervention simply comes out of the time of the noble Lord who is speaking or it comes out of the time of some subsequent speaker to whom it has been allotted.
With very great respect to a Select Committee of which I happen to be a member, it seems to me that this somewhat hurried recommendation has not been thoroughly thought through in all its implications in its application to these general debates. Therefore, I would counsel considerable caution. I add only one further comment. The report, which is not unduly full of information, ends with the sentence:
"Within the overall limit"—
that is the five hours—
"the amount of time allotted to particular speakers should be agreed in advance and announced to the House as it is at present for Short Debates".
I ask this question: agreed in advance by whom and on behalf of whom? If it is on behalf of all those taking part who have given their names in to speak, it may well be that agreement can be reached or that it cannot be reached. If it cannot be reached, I assume the Motion would not be moved. But if it is—in accordance with, I think, the practice in other directions—simply to be agreed between the Whips, I would see the very greatest objection to that.
I speak as one who is an almost passionate admirer of my noble friend the Government Chief Whip and an almost equally passionate admirer of the Opposition Chief Whip. It is naturally in the interests of the Whips to have such limits in the arrangement of business. They then know exactly by when the business will be concluded. They will have a natural temptation to move such a Motion, and—although they are of course not like Oscar Wilde, able to resist anything except temptation—they might perhaps yield to it on occasions. Therefore, I should like to hear from someone who speaks on behalf of these proposals whose agreement would be required if such a Motion were to be moved.
Subject to that, I rise simply to express doubts and a belief that the adoption of this proposal, even in a

245
limited number of cases—from which it might spread—would be harmful to the conduct of our general debates which are to some extent the pride of this House. In the words of Lord Melbourne, I would say to your Lordships: why not leave it alone?
3.17 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I am surprised at the heat engendered by this proposal. It is very modest. It does not try to take away any of the procedures of debate that we have at the moment. At present it is possible to make a recommendation to the House that on such-and-such a day there will be two debates of two and a half hours each, instead of a general debate without a time limit. That is possible at the moment, and it is done. The proposal is merely that, in addition to that, it should be possible to propose that a debate be a five-hour debate, and that would also need the formal approval of the House. The House will decide, not in general, but on each occasion. The proposal would never be put to the House without the support of the person moving the Motion before the House. Whether it should be a five-hour debate or a debate without a time limit depends upon the subject. We are merely proposing to have facilities available so that we can adopt one course or the other. It is a very modest proposal.
I submit to the House that the possibility of a five-hour debate offers several advantages. First, it would encourage noble Lords with specialised knowledge and experience but who are short of time to be prepared either to propose Motions to the House or to speak in debates because they would know the time for which they were expected to sit. In that respect it would be a considerable advantage. Secondly, in accordance with our experience of two and a half hour debates, there is every indication that speeches would tend to be shorter without their value being seriously diminished.
I would remind the House that the length of a speech depends not so much upon the speaker's knowledge of the subject but upon the extent to which he has marshalled his thoughts so that he can convey them to the House logically and concisely. If we encourage that, we shall get somewhere, will we not, my Lords?
I would also suggest that if as a result of the change we have shorter speeches, it is likely that there will be more Peers in the Chamber during the debate; the debate will be more interesting if there are more speakers making shorter speeches. Then, very occasionally there is a Division after a debate. If there is to be a Division, everybody will know the approximate time when it is to take place; and that, of course, will be an advantage.
I come to the final advantage that I can see. One of the treasured procedures of this House is the Unstarred Question, which enables Members of the House to probe and debate policy and to put forward alternatives and amendments to policy without embarrassing anyone. There is never any Division on an Unstarred Question; it is a debate, a discussion. Unfortunately, Unstarred Questions come at the end of the day and sometimes not at the end of the day, but at the beginning of the next day. With a time limit on
246
debate there will be the advantage that if an Unstarred Question is to follow, everyone will know the approximate time it is to be asked and there may be a little more time available for those who want to take part in the debate.
I feel that what is being proposed will be a worthwhile experiment. There were 23 members of the Committee present. They agreed unanimously to submit the recommendation to the House, and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, but there is one matter that I should like to point out. As we all know, I hope, in this House order is supposed to be kept by the Back-Benchers. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that all Back-Benchers make themselves thoroughly familiar with the Standing Orders and with the Companion to the Standing Orders, and the leaders of each party should impress this on the "new boys".
Secondly, with regard to the first part of the report of the Procedure Committee, I wonder whether the Procedure Committee would consider having one Starred Question at a week's notice. I cannot believe that I am alone in having wanted to ask a Question on a highly topical matter, only to find that I could not do so for a month, all the Starred Questions being booked up. By that time there would be no point in asking the Question. If the Procedure Committee could agree to my suggestion, more Starred Questions would be asked for information only, in accordance with Standing Order No. 31, and there would be fewer with the thinly-veiled object of chivying the Government on a pet subject.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly support the case made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because, like him, owing to the short notice given, I was unable to attend the meeting of the Procedure Committee on 8th December. I think that the only major point I wish to add to the admirable case which he has put is as follows. In the nature of things a debate lasting five hours will be a more important debate than one lasting two and a half hours, it will have a wider scope, and the subject itself will be a bigger subject. Therefore, during any such debate there will be some Back-Bench speeches which should not be limited by the mathematical accident of dividing the number of minutes available by the number of Back-Bench speakers. There should be scope for those Peers with special knowledge to make a contribution to the debate which may exceed the average length of time.
For example, we have had interesting debates on the Falkland Islands. Very few of us have had the advantage of going there, but those noble Lords who have been there have been given—and should always be given—a fairly extensive hearing. I give that as but one example. So I most warmly support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in what he has said in this matter.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I rise in support of what my noble friend has said. I think that I now have very nearly 40 years of parliamentary experience, and I am still waiting for one new

247
experience: that is, to hear the speech which is too short. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to an admirable speech made by my noble friend Lord Barnett, and he said that it took 28 minutes. I am sure that it was an admirable speech. I heard most of it. But I believe that there are very few speeches, and indeed very few arguments, that cannot with benefit be reduced in length. So far as writing is concerned, one can go through an article 20 times and still find a word that can with advantage be omitted. That is a discipline which is of value if it is imposed upon us.
The other point which seems to have been put as a criticism is that the Whips have a special interest because what is proposed would enable them to know how long a debate would last and when the next business would be taken. I venture to say that that is not an advantage to the Whips, it is an advantage to us. That is what we want to know, and it is a great advantage to us if we do know.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is going to push his argument to the vote. I hope that he does, because I believe that we have heard a division of view which justifies the House as a whole coming to a conclusion. I believe that the fundamental point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter at the end of his speech was one that we ought to take into account.
If I really felt that both Houses—and this House in particular—would always be full of angels who would never do anything wrong, and that there was no possibility of anyone in future taking advantage of anything, I would accept the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, without question. But I do not think that this House will always be full of people of that kind.
If we add this extra restriction to the mechanics of the House we shall be giving an extra power to the Executive, to the detriment of the freedom of the Back-Bench; and I do not believe that we ought to do that, I consider that the ultimate freedom lies in the fact that the Back-Benchers who have no Government axe to grind, who have no vested interest, should have no unnecessary restrictions placed upon them.
One does not want to be at all critical of the Whips system, which has been practised to very good effect in the whole of Parliament for a long time. But we know that the Whipping system gives them power in influencing people much beyond any power held by ordinary Members of this House. If a certain subject which is important enough to be considered for more than five hours does not suit the Executive, they could keep it down. We know that they can bring to bear influence by the issue of a Whip, or by a nod and a wink, to get the matter through. I do not believe that that extra power ought to be given to the Executive.
I have no problems in this regard at the moment; I should be very happy to hand over almost all my powers to the present Executive. But we do not know how long that is to last. The essence of our Parliament is that it changes, and that means that the Executive changes, too. I can envisage circumstances—and I am not being melodramatic about this—where it would suit the Executive to truncate the kind of debate that
248
would be of interest to the nation and which the Back-Benchers would like to pursue but would not suit the Government of the day.
The very modest nature of what is proposed shows that it is not all that important. It does not affect Second Readings. Motions would have to be moved, and possibly it would have the effect of shortening the speeches. These pluses are not fundamental points, but I believe that the removal of ultimate freedom from the Back-Benchers is fundamental, and it ought to be resisted. That is why I hope my noble friend will push the matter to a vote, so that the House as a whole can express its views on it.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee, I was present for the whole of the time. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, that every possible consideration was given both for and against this particular suggestion. I do not think that if they had been present they could have crossed any t's or dotted any i's. If I may say so, it has nothing to do with the question of power. It is a question of providing a new length—a definite length—for debate. Many of us who have sat in this House for some years have known occasions when halfway through a debate for which there is a list of 30, 35 or 38 wishing to take part, those who have spoken have gone and, for the rest of the evening—sometimes for several hours—there have been not a dozen people in your Lordships' Chamber.
Surely, the limit of five hours will concentrate people's minds—because people's minds in your Lordships' House can be concentrated. It has not happened often enough. I believe that the limit would be an asset. I only hope the House will realise that the proposal was not simply passed without any consideration at all. It was, in fact, discussed in very considerable detail. I feel, along with all the others, that it will be to the ultimate advantage of the House. It has nothing to do with the power of the Whips. It is to do with good debating in your Lordships' House.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I suppose that I should apologise for pursuing this debate. I am not going to offer an apology because what has occurred is something that has bothered me ever since I became a Member of this Assembly. In my judgment—I have expressed it both here and elsewhere—the House of Lords is the most remarkable Assembly in the world. It contains, I believe, 13 Members who are Fellows of the Royal Society. That is a great achievement itself. We have remarkable scientists, educationists and philosophers, some of whom regard themselves as philosophers but who are not very philosophical. I shall mention no names. I have no desire to indulge in any offence or criticism.
Like my noble friend Lord Paget, who is sitting beside me, I have been a Member of this House for 14 years and have taken part in many debates, probably to disadvantage. That cannot be helped. It depends upon one's opinion, one's objective and one's purpose in life and how one regards this Assembly and what use can be made of it. I think great use can be made of it. More use can be made of it than hitherto has happened. I am much concerned about procedure. If

249
I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees, I am not so much concerned about the report from this Committee; I am concerned with the implications arising from this discussion, initiated largely by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose experience and judgment we hold in high respect.
This is what I wanted to say. It will not take long. We can talk our heads off until we are black or blue in the face. We can have speeches that are short and long. We can have speeches that are remarkable in an oratorical sense or in a logical sense. We understand all that. It is a matter of judgment whether a speech is illogical. It is not so much whether the matter is really logical or how it appeals to one. One could say a great deal about that. What concerns me is this. We have remarkable debates but we never come to a decision. There is no implementation. What is the purpose of this Assembly if we talk our heads off but there is no actual implementation of any sort?
This is not a criticism of the present Government. It is a criticism of every Government that I have known. I know this myself because I have been a member of them. Governments pay not the slightest attention. The Government Front Bench, the Whips and those with authority listen, but the matter is completely ignored. Nothing happens. There is the odd reference in the press—hardly anything at all.
All of us know that what matters for the reputation of a politician is not his speech but whether he gets an item in the newspapers. That is what counts—and there is little of it. However, I set that aside. I conclude on this point. Let us have our debates long or short, starred or unstarred. I am not particularly concerned whether they are starred or unstarred, this way or that. I am concerned that when a speech is made by some of the best and ablest Members—I say best but there is no such thing as best in this House—when some of the ablest Members have participated, the Government have to take notice.
This is an appeal to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who is not present. I am sorry about that. But the Chief Whip is present, and so is the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Other members of the Government are present. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, might take note of this because it affects her very much indeed, as a former Leader of the House. I beg the Government to pay attention to what is stated by Members of your Lordships' House and not completely to ignore a variety of oratory.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, we are going to debate before we have a debate, how long it should last, would we not be in great danger, in the light of what has happened this afternoon, of spending an hour or two deciding whether it should be five hours or two and a half hours?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has provided a very good answer to the remark of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that this matter would not still be in the hands of Back-Benchers. Of course it would. When a Motion is put before the House to introduce a time-limited debate in this way, it would be for the House to give its
250
approval or not. So the House could decide, if it felt it was inappropriate, that it was not right to do so. Personally, I have rather more confidence than my noble friend in the good judgment of the Whips in this matter. I have no doubt that if it were a subject of great party controversy then discussion through the usual channels would almost certainly decide that it would be better not to have a time limit and to allow it to run its full length.
There was one point to which I should like to reply. It was made cogently by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who felt that the liberty of noble Members of the House and their right to speak would be limited by this sugestion. In fact, the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and myself, as instigators of this idea—it was previously ventilated five years ago by myself on the Procedure Committee—is quite the reverse. It is for the convenience of the House. There is no doubt that a number of Peers are deterred from putting down their names for major debates because they know that the debate will continue for a long time. There could be over 30 speakers.
The individual Peer feels that he must be present at the end of the debate but he has, perhaps, some other engagement or the hour will be too late. One way or another, he is deterred. There are also some noble Lords who have outside engagements and who have to make their apologies, if they choose to take part in the debate, for not being present at the end. One of our most important duties, as I see it and as, I am sure, most noble Lords see it, is that if we take part in debates, we must be present at the end. That convention is not always observed.
This suggestion would make it very much easier for everybody and distinguished noble Lords, if they knew that a limited time debate was going to end somewhere around 8 o'clock or 8.30, would be encouraged to put their names down and give us very valuable contributions which we should not otherwise get. So there is a point of convenience here and, taking the practical logistics which we all well understand, when debates go on to 10 or 11 o'clock at night a number of Peers will be deterred from taking part because it is too late for them in one way or another. To that extent, Peers are limited as to when they can take part, but if we had this arrangement they would not be so limited because they could come in and make their contribution and we should all be very glad of it.
I felt that it was worth making the point that this is proposed as an arrangement of convenience for your Lordships. It might be suitable in certain cases and would thus give us the benefit of contributions from Peers which we should otherwise not get. We should have limited the debate in time, for the benefit of everybody. I most certainly agree with noble Lords who have said that we have never yet heard a speech that is too short, and, with that, I will sit down.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, I think it is just possible that I may be the oldest sitting Member in the House today, because I have been here for 45 years. I have seen a number of changes in the House. Our numbers have increased enormously. We have far more natural orators than we used to have, and we have a great many people from another place who are pregnant

251
with speeches that were never made there and who are naturally very pleased to be able to exercise their privilege to utter them here.
Therefore, I think that we ought to impose the limit which is proposed. I may say that, when I was a member of the General Synod and the Church Assembly, there were always limits of this kind on the debates. The general saying among the most eminent of divines was, "If you can't say it in 10 minutes, its not worth saying at all". Many a time I and others have proposed as the debates have gone on—and there is no list of speakers there—that speeches might be limited to five minutes, and speeches have been limited to five minutes as people have learnt to be short. I think that we ought to support this proposal and that we ought to have a vote now.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, consider making it clear when he replies to this discussion that any such restriction as is contemplated is subject to two conditions?—first, the agreement of the usual channels of all the parties and, secondly, the Motion before the House decided by a majority of the House if necessary. I think it is necessary that these two conditions should be clearly understood in order to eliminate the, perhaps at this moment, academic possibility (but the one that has been raised) of a party majority in this House using its majority for the purpose of restricting debate against the wishes of the other parties.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should just like to put one matter to your Lordships. If the openers in the batting order speak too long and the time for debate is limited to five hours, those of us who are put in as nightwatchmen or whatever it may be, may be forced to speak for one and a half seconds. That may be a good thing—I quite concede that. But what your Lordships are then suggesting is that those at the top of the batting order can make 100 and those at the bottom of the batting order have all got to be out for one. How will that be controlled properly? If, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has suggested, everyone were limited to a set time as at the party political conferences, it would be very fair and very correct. But it seems to me very difficult for those at the end of the batting order who may be being bullied while those at the top of the batting order take advantage of it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to make one point and that is simply that if your Lordships' House contained a higher proportion of noble Baronesses, noted for their brevity, this proposition would never have arisen.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as one who first took his seat in this House in 1938, I have never made a long speech, and I do not intend to make one now. I do not believe that there is any subject on earth—except something in which there are enormous complications, which is possibly a matter for a Government speech—on which anybody need make any speech longer than a very few minutes. Therefore, I thoroughly support the present proposals.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, in the interests of brevity perhaps I may intervene at this moment. I do not think that it is really up to me to elaborate any further on the merits of the proposals. Your Lordships have heard those who support the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, and those who do not do so, put their case most eloquently and briefly this afternoon. I am sure that your Lordships are willing to come to a decision.
I should like briefly to make two points. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me a specific question. I thought that I had made it clear. but I shall repeat that any debate that was going to be subject to the five-hour limit would, indeed, have had to be agreed through the usual channels, which comprise all the parties; it would have had to be agreed by the House itself on a special Motion: and. in addition, it would have had to have the agreement of the mover of the Motion. So in the case of the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred, he would of course have had to agree to the debate being limited to five hours.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? He has referred to that particular debate and it may be relevant to this issue to note that, with no limitations on that debate, it took four hours and 40 minutes.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, it was an excellent debate and we are hoping that others may be kept as brief.
The other point was raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who mentioned Starred Questions. I can assure the noble Lady that the Procedure Committee keeps this matter under constant review. We discussed the whole matter of Starred Questions only last February, but of course it is open to any Member of the House to put proposals to the Procedure Committee, should he so wish.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, will the noble Lord clear up the point made by the right reverend Prelate? Would the decision of the House be taken without debate?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, the proposal would be put in the normal way, exactly as it is now in the case of a two and a half hour debate when the two and a half hour limit is applied specially to a debate which is not otherwise limited to two and a half hours. This happens occasionally now. The Motion would be put, presumably by the Leader of the House, that a certain debate should be limited to five hours. There would be no debate on how long it would be—it would be limited to five hours if this proposal is accepted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GCHQ and Employment Protection Acts
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned

253
friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on Government Communications Headquarters and the Employment Protection Acts.
"As the House knows, the Employment Protection Acts contain provisions which enable the Government to except Crown employees from the application of the Acts. These provisions can be used only for the purposes of safeguarding national security, and reflect the acknowledged need for particularly sensitive functions of Government to be protected so far as possible from the risk of exposure or disruption.
"Government Communications Headquarters is responsible for intelligence work of crucial importance to our national security. To be effective this work must be conducted secretly. Moreover, GCHQ must provide a service which can be relied on with confidence at all times. It is clear, therefore, that the conditions envisaged in the special provisions of the Employment Protection Acts exist in this case.
"The House will wish to know that, for these reasons. I have today signed certificates under Section 121(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and Section 138(4) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, excepting GCHQ employees from the application of the relevant provision.
"The certificates have immediate effect and new conditions of service are at the same time being introduced at GCHQ. Under these new conditions, staff will be permitted in future to belong only to a departmental staff association approved by their director.
"The very special nature of the work of GCHQ will be apparent from what I have said. The action which I have taken stems directly from that. The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union, and it is only the special nature of the work of the GCHQ which has led us to take these measures. I can assure the House therefore that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence.
"GCHQ staff are being informed of these measures this afternoon. Those who decide to remain at GCHQ will each receive a payment of £1,000 in recognition of the fact that certain rights which they have hitherto enjoyed are being withdrawn from them in the interests of national security. Those who do not wish to continue to serve at GCHQ will be offered the opportunity of seeking a transfer to another part of the Civil Service."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We recognise the crucial importance of national security, but as this Statement has been presented without notice, clearly we shall need more time to consider the full implications of the proposals which the noble
254
Baroness has just read out, and to consider especially whether or not there are adequate grounds to justify them.
We should be told why this serious step is being taken now. Is there some special reason to make this necessary at this stage? If there is, that should be made known. Can the noble Baroness comment on the industrial record of this group of employees? What is their record on industrial disputes? Have there been any industrial disputes over the last few years and, if so, can the noble Baroness say how many and what was their nature? May I assume, as would normally be the case, that there has been full consultation with the parties concerned, and will the noble Baroness tell us their reaction? For example, was the £1,000 compensation an agreed sum with the parties in question? Finally, are the Government proposing to invite the Security Commission to consider the matter?—as the commission seems to me to be ideally suited to inquire into it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having repeated this Statement. Clearly the Government are taking a very serious step this afternoon and, like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, we shall need to give it further consideration.
Our first reaction—perhaps somewhat like the noble Lord's—is that, although we can understand that there may be considerations of security which justify the Government withholding from employees engaged on work as sensitive as that referred to in this Statement the right to withdraw their labour, in the absence of more information than we have been given we are indeed reluctant to concur in a step which has the effect of denying the employees concerned the right to belong to a trade union. Indeed, the process under which the people concerned are, it seems, to be "bought out", if I may use that expression, at £1,000 a time merely serves to increase our qualms.
The only other point that I can usefully raise at this short notice, in support of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said in this House, is also to inquire of the noble Baroness whether, in what we must acknowledge is a very delicate field, nevertheless there is any further information that she can now give us which may help to resolve our doubts as to the wisdom of the course which the Government have decided to take.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful that both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Rochester, recognise that this is a particulary delicate situation. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked the reason for this decision. Of course, it is a decision which puts the employees of GCHQ in exactly the same position as other employees in security services in the Government and the armed services.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about industrial disputes at GCHQ. Since 1979 there have been industrial disputes, and strikes took place between 1979 and 1981. On the question whether or not there was discussion about the compensation of £1,000 for those who decide to remain at GCHQ, I confirm that it would not have been appropriate to

255
engage in extensive consulations with the staff on this matter, and the unions represented at GCHQ were not consulted. But, in parallel with the announcement, letters are being sent to GCHQ staff, and the non-industrial civil service trade unions are being informed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the Security Commission. The Security Commission has not been consulted. This is not a matter for the Security Commission itself. The commission is normally involved only when there has been a breach of security.
I hope that the answers that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, cover the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, because I believe that they were of a similar nature.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many noble Peers will be disturbed at receiving such an important announcement at such short notice, and that they would have preferred more notice in order to understand the implications of the Government's action? Is the noble Baroness aware that the way in which trade unionists have been ignored on this matter carries undertones which suggest that to be a member of a trade union could indicate some disloyalty to the Crown?—in spite of the fact that past efforts in this country, certainly as recent as the Falklands affair, have shown that that is not the case and that trade unionists are as loyal to the Crown, the Government and the people of this country as any other sector. I am amazed that the Government have become involved in such action without discussing the matter. I am not suggesting that they are not entitled to take the decision—that is their prerogative. But I am amazed that they have taken such a far-reaching decision without consulting the responsible trade unionists who have represented these people over a number of years. I hope that I shall not be proved right if I say that in some respects they may regret the decision they have taken.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has made. I should like to make it quite clear that this in no way implies disloyalty among trade unionists. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the purpose of the decision which the Government have taken in this matter is to bring GCHQ into line with other security services.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who in the past have had responsibility in the field of Civil Service administration realise better than most what a difficult step this must have been to take, and are therefore the more reassured by the firmness and determination of the Government to preserve national security by resolute action?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for what he has said, and I entirely agree with the points that he has made.
4 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would be good enough to
256
deal with one of my questions, which she inadvertently overlooked; namely, was there any specific reason for taking this step now, given that, clearly, there has been no unusual difficulty, and especially given her assurance that there is no doubt about the loyalty of trade unionists in this country? Indeed, given the history of the last 50 years, the trade unions stand out as about the most loyal section of the community.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should be glad to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that this is in no sense an attack on trade unions or on their members. I should like to repeat the assurance that I have already given in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. The Government believe that special conditions apply in security and intelligence work, and that, in the case of GCHQ, they are bringing the employees in line with the same conditions as apply to those employed at the present time in other security establishments.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would be kind enough to dwell a little more closely on the question troubling the noble Lord who asked the previous question and, I am sure, many others of your Lordships? Although we well understand the view of the Government that this particular department should be brought in line with other intelligence departments, what is difficult to understand, in the absence of anything which has triggered this off, is why a decision should be made so precipitately and so unusually without consultation with the parties involved.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the decision was taken for the reasons that I have already given to the House. The Government, because of the difficult nature of the decision and the particular circumstances, felt that it was not a matter that could be discussed before the final decision was taken.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to believe that some of us feel some doubt about this but at the same time we realise that if there was a particular reason for taking this decision at this moment—and I do not say whether there was or there was not—it would not have been appropriate for us, in the nature of security circumstances, to demand to be told what that reason was. It seems to me quite obvious that in this field, when you have to take a decision of this kind, you do not reveal the reason at the time for taking that decision. I find this consideration completely overriding, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with me in this case.
I do not know whether my noble friend could tell the House how many members of trade unions are involved in this. I do not know that it would do more than put the matter in perspective; but, for my part, I am quite satisfied that it is not appropriate to demand to know the reason why this decision has been taken at this moment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for his understanding of the particular circumstances and of the answers which I must, of necessity, give under these circumstances. My noble friend asked how many

257
staff are affected. I should like to confirm that all staff at GCHQ are affected by the Statement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to come back so soon, and I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy and the way she has answered the probing questions that have been put. However, there will be no doubt in my mind—I may be wrong, but I have an idea that I will not be—that it will be taken by outsiders that somebody's loyalty was in question. I do not think you can draw any inference other than the fact that the Government have taken a decision that people in certain places, in certain jobs, cannot be totally trusted.
I have to cast noble Lords' minds back to the last war, when I was employed as an apprentice and when the trade unions, at the request of Winston Churchill, literally tore up their own rule books in order to defend this country and what it stood for. It is sad if the Government have taken this precipitate action. It may have been necessary at the end of the day, but to have done it without discussion of the full implications with the people representing those responsible is a disaster. It will be a disaster for the Government in their industrial relations with people in sensitive jobs.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can appreciate the strong feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, because he has only just heard the Statement. But I hope he will reflect upon what has been said this afternoon and no doubt read Hansard. I hope that he will consider first what I have said, that this is in no sense an attack on trade unions or trade unionists, whose loyalty is not in doubt; and, secondly, that the arrangements that are being made in GCHQ are precisely those that apply now, and have applied, to other security establishments—no more, no less—and that no one is being singled out in this way.

Salmonella Infections
4.7 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to call attention to the danger to animals and man posed by salmonella infections; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my task this afternoon to set the stage for subsequent speakers. This short debate does not concern, as one might surmise from the title, diseases of game fish, however interesting that might be to some noble Lords interested in fishing, and that includes myself. As everyone participating in the debate and others listening are aware, we are considering the problems caused by bacteria of the genus salmonella which can inhabit the intestines of nearly all animals. The genus is named after the American pathologist Daniel Elmer Salmon, who lived from 1850 to 1914, and he first described the culprit. Now, 130 years after his birth, more than 2,000 strains of salmonella have been identified in animals and man.
The leading member of this international intestinal Mafia is salmonella typhi, the causative organism of typhoid fever—a disease peculiar to man, though often spread through food products. Today, however, we are
258
not considering the chief Mafioso himself but a group of bacteria in the same genus, or gang, which can cause food poisoning in man and scours—that is diarrhoea—and abortion in cattle, pigs and sheep, particularly young animals.
There are a number of strains of salmonella which can cause disease, or are carried in both live animals and in man, and are thus classified as zoonoses. Other zoonoses with which noble Lords may be familiar are bovine tuberculosis, which is milk-carried tuberculosis, and brucellosis, also shared between cow or goat and man, about both of which there has been legislation which has been debated in this House and another place. There are many other zoonoses, some interesting but rare, and some of great importance especially in tropical areas—yellow fever, to name one important disease.
The topic of salmonellosis is important because diarrhoeal disease is a world problem, and it appears to be increasing in this country and in some other developed countries as well. According to the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre at Colindale there were 14,325 identified cases of human salmonella infection in 1983 compared with only 8.500 in 1979. Every year there are about 40 human deaths affecting mainly the vulnerable age groups—that is, those under five and those over 65, particularly the latter, although it is an important cause of outbreaks particularly in hospitals, more particularly in maternity hospitals.
This figure is a gross under-estimate of the real incidence because only a very small minority of the episodes of gastrointestinal infection are investigated to the extent that a specimen is sent for laboratory identification. This low notification rate of salmonella is partly because the disease is, luckily, relatively mild and usually lasts less than a week, yet it is still the major cause of sickness absence from work, quite apart from the unpleasantness, pain and suffering that it causes. Few attempts to calculate the economic costs are made, but in a recent outbreak in Scotland, in which 31 cases were notified, a costing estimate of more than £6,000 was made which amounts to some £200 per case. If extrapolated to the 14,000 notified cases in the country, this could add up to £2·8 million. Since we know that the identified cases may be only one-tenth of the total, it is possible that we are dealing with over £20 million of economic cost to the country as a whole.
This does not consider the agricultural losses. In agriculture salmonellosis is of considerable importance. For instance, some 4 to 5 per cent. of all calves die. That is, one in 20 to 25. About half these deaths are due to scouring, that is a diarrhoeal disease in which salmonella species are the most important identifiable pathogens. Sheep also suffer from serious scours due to samonella which can also cause abortion in both cattle and sheep. Pigs and other farm animals are also affected.
Salmonella is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. But of the 2,000 known strains very few concern man and his food animals. Ten strains alone cause about 75 per cent. of the recorded incidents. As I said, some strains cause disease in both man and animals. One of these is salmonella typhimurium, so described because

259
it causes a typhoid-like disease in mice. This is a worrying one because of its ability to develop resistance to most known antibiotics. Other strains can cause disease in man and are carried in animals without causing them very much harm. Most of the salmonellae which are found in poultry fall into this category.
For the purposes of today's discussion I shall confine my remarks to the salmonellae strains which affect cattle and hence dairy products, and poultry, since some 70 to 80 per cent. of the human food poisoning outbreaks can be traced to infections from these two sources—poultry being the commonest. Other noble Lords may have information on salmonella as it affects sheep and pigs; it is still an important economic problem for them but it less often leads to disease in humans.
As far as human disease due to salmonella is concerned, it should be said at this point that adequate cooking of meat, which implies proper defrosting of frozen meat and heat-treatment of milk, renders the product safe. But as long as the animals and poultry carry pathogenic bacteria, there is always a danger, due to human error, that disease can occur. The object of our discussion today is to try to identify ways in which pathways of infection can be reduced, thus reducing disease both in humans and animals.
Inevitably somebody along the line will have to alter their behaviour, and costs will be incurred. As with any other public health measure, they will say, "There is no money. It will ruin us", as the London water companies did after the 1853 cholera outbreak. However, when the health of the people of this country is at stake and legislation is introduced, they have a habit of coming round.
Before considering what can be done to control the problem, it is worth considering the original sources of infection and their spread among food animals. There is existing legislation which aims to control the problem; but, as I hope to point out, we are not sure how effective it is and its application may need to be more rigorous. I refer here to the Zoonoses Order of 1975, the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order, the Importation of Processed Animal Protein Order and the Poultry Processing Order, all of 1981, as well as various other prior regulations affecting animal marketing and processing. I am not a legal beagle and it is a complicated area. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will be more well versed in this legislation.
Another important consideration is the effect of EC regulations and how our legislation may mesh with these. There are certain areas, apart from these orders and the existing legislation, where new measures may need to be enacted. The problem is highly complex and highly technical and I do not think we can more than skate over the surface of the problem in a debate such as this. We are hoping that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government also take these problems seriously and might, for example, set up a small working group of experts to look further into the matter and to make more detailed recommendations; and that the Government would act—not sit—on these.
As a first example, I should like to consider salmonellosis in calves. Calves born to dairy cows are separated from their mothers very soon after birth; often after 24 hours or less when they have obtained only a small proportion of the colostrum they need. This is different from ordinary milk, being very rich in globulins, the protein fraction which contains antibodies against disease. It is secreted by the cow for four to five days after birth and gives the calf immunity to the numerous pathogens—bacterial, protozoal and viral—which are present in the environment, during the critical first few weeks when its own immune defence system is immature and not fully functioning.
The male calf, thus vulnerable to infection, is taken to market, often when it is only a few days old, where, if it is lucky, it will be bought directly by a beef producer and go to its new home with minimal stress or mixing with other calves. More commonly, however, it will be bought by a dealer who may take it to another market a few days or a week later, in hope of a profit. The calf is stressed by the journeys and its abrupt weaning and it is brought into contact with other calves from different farms with different bacterial flora. The less healthy the calf, the more likely it is to be resold and subjected to these multiple stresses.
Sometimes these very young calves are sold three, four or five times over in one month. The lorries and pens at the market may be contaminated with the faeces of the previous occupants so that infection of the calf is very likely from these sources as well as directly from other calves from different farms with which they have mixed. It takes only one calf with salmonella typhimurium or salmonella dublin—the two commonest salmonella pathogens in cattle—to initiate widespread infection and this often happens.
Measures to cut down cross-infection in the market could be applied more vigorously. One which the British Veterinary Association is vigorously promoting is a prohibition on the marketing of calves more often than once in 28 days. Their coats could be clipped in an identifiable way at the time of sale so that they could be recognised if they were presented for sale again within the 28-day period. Another measure, apart from careful disinfection of pens at markets, would be the compulsory cleaning out and disinfection of lorries at markets which at present take several lorry loads of calves without being adequately cleaned between loads. Only a minority of markets at present have adequate facilities for this.
A further interesting suggestion is that the farmers or auctioneers offering calves for sale could have a simple haemaglutination test done on each calf which would be able to identify whether the gamma globulin level in their blood was high enough to give good resistance to infection. This level would be provided by adequate colostrum intake from the cow. This would require at least three to four days suckling after birth and before weaning. A better price could probably be obtained for the calf with a satisfactory level, and this would encourage dairy farmers to keep the calves with their mothers for a few days longer. This measure would, I think, appeal to those noble Lords who are interested in animal welfare as well as animal health.
The second example that I am going to take concerns poultry farming and processing. It has been shown that up to 79 per cent. of frozen chickens offered for sale in this country contain potentially pathogenic salmonellae. One may ask how this unpleasant situation has come about. I do not find it altogether reasssuring that proper defrosting and cooking will kill the infection. I hope that other speakers may point out how easy it is for mistakes to occur in cooking and especially in large-scale catering.
The original source of the salmonellae concerned is most often the feedstuff given to poultry. Sometimes the infection is "vertical"—that is, passed from chicken to egg to chick. This type of transmission could be reduced by various methods of treatment of the eggs which hatch into chicks which are subsequently raised for human consumption. Sometimes the infection is "horizontal"—from external source to chicken and from chicken to chicken via faecal contamination.
The villain of the piece is imported, processed, protein feed, against which the 1981 orders that I mentioned were aimed. This product contains animal or fish protein obtained from knackers' yards and other unmentionable sources of animal or fish which are unfit for human consumption. This product often comes from countries where there is an overall protein deficiency in the population, so that the protein that is deemed unfit for human consumption must be very unfit indeed. The archetype of this type of infection is salmonella agona, which first began to appear in this country following the importation of large quantities of Peruvian fishmeal.
The orders that I have mentioned go some way to remove this source of infection, but doubts have been expressed about their effectiveness, especially the adequacy of the sampling requirement for imported feeds. This, it is felt, could be tightened up or the feedstuffs themselves might be required to be treated to render them sterile. This is an area which needs closer examination, as I hope the noble Lord the Minister will agree.
Once the infection has reached the young birds, the intensive methods of rearing lead to cross-infection once the infection has reached the chicks. Although the young birds are not noticeably ill, the infection level is often very high at eight weeks of age—possibly before they, like the young calves in the previous example, have developed fully their immune defence system. If they are left a further four weeks, the infection level becomes very much less and nearly all birds will have eliminated the salmonella bacteria. However, so intensive and competitive is the poultry industry that it is not economic to wait this extra month since maximum growth takes place in the first two months.
But it is in the processing of the slaughtered birds that salmonellae are spread most effectively. Plucking and disembowelling (or cleaning) the dead birds is an obvious area where this can occur since it is very difficult and expensive to sterilise equipment between the processing of each bird. The worst part of the chain, however, occurs in the spin-chiller, in which large numbers of killed and disembowelled birds are immersed in cold water together prior to freezing. It
262
has been shown that infection rates are multiplied several times during the chain of processing prior to freezing.
I think that I have said enough now about the problem. I have learned a great deal myself while doing the groundwork for this debate and I must thank all my informants for the time and hospitality that they have given me. I should particularly like to mention Dr. Gibson of the British Veterinary Association, Dr. Tony Andrews of the Royal Veterinary College and Dr. Rowe of the Central Public Health Laboratories at Colindale. I have been able to give only the bare outline of the subject. For instance, I have not discussed the possible important role of vaccines to prevent infection and the treatment of infected animals or poultry with antibiotics. Other noble Lords are perhaps better qualified to speak on this matter, especially the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who chaired the important committee which looked into the role of antibiotics in agriculture and which reported in 1969.
I think that improved measures to deal with salmonella will also help to cut down other infections which may follow some of the same pathways. I refer particularly to the genus campylobacter which has recently been shown to be even more important than salmonella as a cause of human gastrointestinal infection. In each year since 1981, the number of laboratory isolations of campylobacter has exceeded those of salmonella. This disease can be equally, if not more, unpleasant. Its epidemiology is not yet fully worked out but it is already clear that animal transmission plays a major role in its spread.
I look forward greatly to the contributions of other noble Lords and to the Minister's reply which I hope will indicate the Government's concern and willingness to initiate action in this area, which is of great importance both to the health of animals and humans in this country. I beg to move for Papers.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful—as, indeed, should we all be—to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for drawing the attention of your Lordships to this very important and somewhat neglected subject of food-borne infections. I am grateful to him for doing so with such deep professional knowledge and understanding. Perhaps I should say at the outset to the noble Lord that as a professional medical colleague of his I have not, to my knowledge, had close contact with a case of salmonella for a very long time, although I agree with the noble Lord that many cases go undiagnosed. In fact, the last positively-identified case of salmonella typhimurium with which I was concerned arose at Eskdale, very close to the home of the noble Lord's kinsman, the last Lord Rea, who lived there. I hasten to say that there was no connection between the residence of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the occurrence of this particular case. I mention it merely so that the noble Lord will know how long it is since I have had personal professional involvement in a case of this kind.
No doubt, as the noble Lord has made clear, there are many lines of defence available to us against food-borne infections, and, equally, in my view—and, I

263
think, in the view of the noble Lord—perhaps the first line of defence, and one of the most important lines, rests in the hands of the veterinary profession. I speak as an honorary vice-president of the British Veterinary Association. I must emphasise the word "honorary" very carefully to make it utterly clear to noble Lords that, while I am very glad to advise them and assist them on matters of their own health from time to time, I am not professionally competent to advise them professionally about the health of their dogs, their cats or even their racehorses. But I keep in close contact with friends and colleagues in the veterinary profession, and I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has brought to the attention of your Lordships' House some of the points made by the British Veterinary Association on this issue. I do not want to go over them again, but I would emphasise one or two.
We are discussing human infections which have resulted from the consumption of contaminated milk, meat or eggs. We must agree, I am sure, that the control of salmonella infection in food animals is, therefore, a matter of the utmost importance. It should be looked after, and we should listen to the advice given to us by the veterinary profession. It seems to me that much of the advice falls into a number of different areas, which the noble Lord himself has dealt with.
Firstly, there are matters to do with the sale of food animals. There is no question at all, I believe, that the presence of sick or scouring calves at markets poses a certain threat. Steps should be taken to ensure that sick calves are not presented for sale, and certainly not presented for sale on a repetitive basis from one place to another. There might be an opportunity for infection being spread. The veterinary profession, I think, would like an assurance that no calf should be offered for sale more than once in any period of 28 days. I believe that the British Veterinary Association has given certain advice to the Ministry of Agriculture as to how that aim might be achieved.
The next important point after the sale is the time of slaughter. That is the time when there are opportunities for infections to be conveyed from one infected animal to another, and when the animals are under stress. The veterinary profession believe that perhaps standards of hygiene in the slaughterhouses are not always maintained with the degree of thoroughness that they ought to be. They maintain that the protein processing order of 1981, to which the noble Lord referred, might be applied with greater rigour than is now the case.
The noble Lord referred to another matter about which the veterinary profession are concerned, and that is the important matter of the transportation of food animals. There are many opportunities here for infections to be transmitted from one animal to another in these circumstances. The Transit of Animals (Rail and Road) Order 1975 surely should be applied more stringently to require the disinfection of all animal transporters after off-loading at a market. That really means that vehicles conveying food animals should not make a number of stops and take new passengers on board, as it were, without some kind of sterilising or cleansing process being conducted in between. The noble Lord made these points very
264
strongly, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord the Minister is well aware of them and that there is discussion about them within his department.
I turn now to the area which is perhaps the last line of defence. Certainly it is the most important line of defence in relation to food-borne infections; that is to say, the whole question of hygiene in the kitchen and in the home. In this country we are very fond of believing that hygiene is something which begins and ends here, and that once you cross the Channel you find immediately that typhoid and cholera are raging. That is very far from being the case. There is no question in my mind that many other countries in Europe have much higher standards of hygiene than we have ourselves. Indeed, there are some Eastern countries which I think are a little more particular about hygiene in relation to animals than we are. But there is this tendency for us to think that we in this country are very hygienic.
I think there have been many changes in recent years, possibly brought about by the fact that many of the men and women in our country can no longer cook. I do not in any sense blame that fact on the feminist movement—there is no element of chauvinism in what I have said—but I do believe that people are eating more and more heated-up food. I think the noble Lord would confirm that the danger periods for the infection of food occur at certain critical temperatures. Food can become infected on the way up in temperature and also infected on the way down. There is a vast difference between eating recooked food which has once again been brought to a temperature at which contaminants and infections and various pathogenic organisms are destroyed, and eating food which, once having been cooked, is allowed to cool and then is warmed up again later.
I think the time has perhaps come when health educationalists should be thinking a little more about reminding our population of the basic elements of human hygiene in the kitchen, in the home and in the cooking process. We have all seen these notices everywhere which say, "Now wash your hands". We take about as much notice of them as we do of the notices which say, "Keep Britain Tidy", and, "Take your Litter Home". Many people take no notice at all of those. So let us not forget that there is a very important role in this field for the veterinary profession and a very important role to be played by all engaged in agriculture, together with the Ministry of Agriculture.
There is also a very important role for the medical profession as and when people contract some kind of food-borne infection. But, fundamentally, the crucial line of defence is in the home, and that is an area which I think in recent years we have come to neglect more and more because of different eating habits and different methods of preparing food which are no longer perhaps so safe as they were in days gone by.
The time has come for a new reminder about hygiene in the home, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having given us an opportunity to discuss this important question. It is one of which we often get sharp reminders ourselves in cases of so-called food poisoning. It is not poisoning, but nearly always an infection; and I think the realisation among

265
the British public of the extent to which food can become infected has diminished and is not sufficiently acute. I hope this debate today will have done something to stimulate a greater understanding of the matter.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising this matter. I am sure, like him and others, that this is quite a serious hazard. When one talks about food poisoning, one tends to think of a few days or weeks of discomfort, and very often no more than that. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, a number of people, although not many, die from it. The reason is usually that the salmonella bacterium has gone out of their intestines and into their blood. One might normally expect that to be controlled by antibiotics but, as the noble Lord mentioned, it is becoming increasingly clear that quite a lot of the salmonella bugs have become resistant to bacteria, and indeed some of them have become alarmingly multiply resistant.
May I quote a couple of instances? I refer to this same tiresome bacterium, salmonella typhimurium, which has a great many different types. Type 204 is resistant to chloramphenicol, the main antibiotic used against typhoid, and also simultaneously streptomycin, the sulphonamides and the tetracyclines; and Type 193 is resistant simultaneously to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, neomycinkanamycin, streptomycin, sulphonamides and tetracyclines.
The situation in one sense has indeed got worse, and it was because some 15 years ago or more this phenomenon of resistance to antibiotics was being noticed that the committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred and which I chaired was set up. We did not know as much then as we know now about bacteria and antibiotics, but we knew quite a bit. We realised that a fair degree of antibiotic resistance was inevitable unless you were simply going to stop using antibiotics; and that, of course, is not a practical proposition in much veterinary work, for both welfare reasons and economic reasons.
On the other hand, there are certain uses of antibiotics in veterinary medicine which we looked at rather closely, and we came to the conclusion that they should be much more rigorously controlled. That was the practice, which still goes on, of using small amounts of antibiotics in animal foodstuffs to get better growth. Exactly why small doses of antibiotics give better growth in certain circumstances was not clear, and indeed it still is not clear now. In essence, what we decided to recommend and what was accepted by the Government of the day was that certain antibiotics which had no great therapeutic use in human medicine should be allowed to be used without a prescription, but that those which did have a therapeutic use could be put into foodstuffs only on a veterinary surgeon's say-so, when dealing with the animals that he had under his eye. We were not certain whether this would work, but it seemed to be the only practical method of controlling antibiotics which we thought was a political starter.
At the same time, we made a lot of recommendations about husbandry and hygiene, but the report
266
has generally become associated with the recommendations about antibiotics. A year or two after this report and following various Government actions, the use of antibiotics in animal feedstuffs actually dropped to about half. But such is human nature that within a few years it was back again where it was when we first deliberated on it. Therefore the recommendations were never given a proper chance to work. However, I now think—and so do all the experts in it—that they probably would not have worked anyway.
I became rather forcibly aware of this some three or four years ago. I should explain that Government reports are generally designated by the name of the chairman. My eye was caught by a headline in the British Medical Journal: "Has Swann failed?" A year or so later there was no element of doubt about it. Another headline read, "Why has Swann failed?" More recently still, another headline said, more woundingly than the others, "Need for a new Swann".
The reason that the initiative failed, and perhaps was doomed to fail, was that the other forms of using antibiotics in human medicine and veterinary medicine for therapeutic processes themselves generate a great deal of antibiotic resistance. The second reason relates to the very peculiar—what, for want of a better word, one can only call sexual habits of bacteria. They are not like the sexual habits of any higher animal, but they are complicated. They result in genetic capacities shifting around the population of bacteria with alarming speed and in complicated and now much better understood ways which can all get together and give multiple resistance.
The situation is reasonably under control in this country but it is far from being totally under control. It is very much not under control in a great many countries of the world, particularly in the underdeveloped countries and in a number of the developing countries where, among other things, antibiotics are almost totally uncontrolled and available over any counter if one cares to buy them. But even the highly developed and, one assumes, highly hygienic countries occasionally have major disasters. There was a notable disaster in Philadelphia in the United States. The Americans, being given to doing total costings, came up with a total costing which was alarmingly much greater than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, quoted for Scotland, but the Americans put absolutely everything into the costing. The epidemic of salmonellosis in Philadelphia in the 1960s was reckoned to have cost about £100 million dollars, the equivalent now of much more than £100 million. So there is an economic angle. There is also a very considerable health hazard. With some strains showing increasing virulence and with quite a lot of strains showing multiple resistance to antibiotics, it is by no means inconceivable that there could be major hazards even in this country.
What can one do about this? It is probably too late, and perhaps was always a lost cause, to think that you could do much about it by controlling antibiotics. The only kind of control which might do good would be so drastic and draconian that it would in effect hamstring both veterinary and human medicine. Therefore one comes to the conclusion (both noble Lords have spoken in this sense) that the old-fashioned methods of

267
controlling disease—isolating it where we can, and so on—are what we need to do.
Perhaps I can do no better than quote one very distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society, who was a Professor of Microbiology and who is now Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University, Professor Mark Richmond. This is how he sums up his views on the question. He believes that Swann succeeded by being a failure:
"The report focused attention on the growing problems of antibiotic resistance and by its failure has forced the opinion that the control of infection by multiply resistant pathogens must be pursued along conventional epidemiological lines and not solely by imposing more stringent restrictions on antibiotic use."
Both noble Lords have already referred briefly to the kind of action that can be taken. There is a list of possibilities as long as your arm and I shall not weary your Lordships with the details. Let me, however, return to the article that had as its headline, "Need for a new Swann". I want to quote another veterinary expert. Professor Walton of Liverpool, who concludes another learned article by saying:
"It may be said in summary that the overall situation with regard to salmonellosis in man and animals is not showing any real improvement. There are still too many people looking only for different salmonella isolates. The time is long past for a full reassessment of all the information available on salmonellosis to enable weak links in the environmental recycling of salmonellae to be identified and rigorously controlled".
Some of the "recycling", as Professor Walton calls it, is obvious enough. We have heard about what happens to cows in the market context. Many noble Lords know about what goes on in farms. There is lack of hygiene. Slurry is seeping along public highways from farms. One knows what goes on in slaughterhouses, food packaging factories and so on. Very stringent precautions need to be taken if salmonellosis is not to escape and cause sometimes mild infections but occasionally very serious infections indeed.
A new report of some kind is needed. Of that there can be no question. A new investigation needs to be carried out by experts, in the light of the much greater knowledge that we have now than we had 15 years ago. There are developments in the technical laboratory-science world which need to be looked at. The epidemiology of these infections needs to be investigated. There is also a need to look at the variety of ways in which the disease can be isolated and controlled and possibly dangerous links in the recycling discovered. All this needs to be investigated in the light of present knowledge. How much at the end of the day will depend upon Government initiatives—legislation, orders and so on—I do not know. At the same time, a major educational effort is required by everyone, from the farmer direct to the housewife who cooks the meal. Once again may I emphasise that—though, Heaven help me, it shall not be me—another Government committee ought to look at this problem.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and my noble friend Lord Rea, I rise with diffidence to speak in this debate. Both noble Lords have dwelt upon what I would call the animal side of salmonella infection. I
268
shall not try to equal their expert knowlege. It would be beyond me. First, I have not had their education. Secondly, some of the words are so technical and so difficult to pronounce that I should get into great difficulties. However, may I emphasise another aspect of the debate—the point Lord Rea mentioned when he began his speech, that salmonella food poisoning is an important cause of sickness in human beings as well as in animals. The noble Lord followed up that statement with certain figures.
May I remind noble Lords that the district councils and the metropolitan districts have a statutory duty to look after food safety for the consumer. This is achieved by the environmental health officers who carry out routine spot checks on all food premises under their control. There is regular monitoring of what they call "at risk" foods by sampling for microbiological levels. There is the closest contact between the environmental health authorities and the Public Health Laboratory Service at Colindale. I understand that the Institute of Environmental Health Officers conduct what are described as cleaner food courses.
I am sure they go a very long way in providing education for food handlers who work outside the home environment. The noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Swann, emphasised how important it is that housewives themselves should be aware of good food hygiene. Perhaps it would be a sensible proposition to extend that service so that it could be provided to women's organisations and possibly in schools' home economic courses.
There is ample evidence that the type of catering normally arranged in the form of a buffet and sandwiches for those types of gatherings which attract large numbers of persons shows an increase in the risk of salmonella infection; gala days. sales presentation lunches, wedding receptions and. on certain other occasions, even mayoral banquets are instances of events which have been publicised as being those where salmonella infection has occurred.
I am fully aware that strict hygiene conditions are required in food preparation areas and that standards are laid down. I feel sure that they are readily understood by those who are constantly engaged in food preparation for the consumer, but it is of the utmost importance that these procedures are related also, in no uncertain way, to the temporary, untrained catering staff who are very often employed for special occasions. One has to deplore the practice of laying out meals containing turkey and poultry, especially many hours before it will be eaten. That is a very bad practice, and it is one that should not be tolerated under any circumstances because it is bad for public health. Perhaps there needs to be more regular medical surveillance of those food handlers who are engaged in the more vulnerable sections of food preparation. I have given as one example mass catering.
We have just left the festive season behind us—and with it, the public announcements which were made on TV and radio giving advice on the thawing, roasting and storing of the traditional turkey. That advice was very much welcomed by housewives and other consumers—but in my view it needs to be reinforced regularly throughout the whole year and not just at the

269
Christmas season. Frozen poultry now comprises a large part of the food intake of most families. Perhaps the Government will ask the trade to consider displaying suitable notices on the deep freezers which are in most supermarkets these days, emphasising the specific points to remember in the storage, thawing and cooking of poultry.
I know that the turkey and poultry producers' organisations are well aware of the problems of salmonella contamination in respect of their breeding methods. They are most important, but those precautions will be negated if the consumer is not constantly reminded of the correct methods of thawing and cooking, and of refrigeration if the commodity is to be used at a later date.
Turning to another aspect of the debate this afternoon, can the noble Lord who is to reply provide a date by which legislation will become operative making it compulsory for all milk sold in the United Kingdom to be pasturised? Government grants are available to provide financial help to farmers, towards the cost of heat treatment of milk, but my information is that raw milk is still sold. That continuing practice is a cause for concern in respect of the possibility of salmonella infection.
I should like to pose two other questions to the noble Lord the Minister. First, when did the Department of Health and Social Security last update their instructions on the control of food poisoning, and are fresh guidance notes now necessary? Secondly, are food importers subjected to any regulations which need strengthening?
I know that there are many very reputable food importers, wholesalers and retailers, but cheap imports do find their way into this country and to the kind of markets which can be found in one place on one day and in another place the next, and which sell food at what are called "bargain prices". There was a report of a serious outbreak concerning some form of chocolate bars which were imported from Italy, and which caused illness among a great number of children. Those chocolate bars were sold at markets in the south of England. They were removed by environmental health officers and returned to the supplier when the cause of the infection was traced. It is in respect of that kind of food import that I particularly ask the Minister to review whether the regulations are tight enough.
Although I said at the outset that my own knowledge of this subject is not a medical one but purely that of a consumer, I have in fact had a medical involvement as a patient. What I am now going to say follows on the point that I became a patient after visiting Kenya. It may be advisable for people taking holidays abroad and returning to this country with some form of gastroenteritis to consult their GP, so that checks can be made that will rule out any possibility of the human carrier element in salmonella infection. I had to be in solitary isolation for three weeks when I returned from that particular holiday in Kenya.
My noble friend Lord Rea has raised an important issue concerning public health this afternoon. He has shown that deaths from salmonella food poisoning are by no means rare. They occur, as he said, primarily in
270
the older age group and among the very young. It is in respect of the older age group that I wish to comment in support of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regarding the problem of recooked and rewarmed food. It is important that elderly members of the community are told quite clearly that rewarming food is dangerous.
It is an understandable and common practice for many elderly people to cook more food than they need to eat on one occasion and then to store it for another day. It should be emphasised more clearly to those who have greater experience of working with elderly people that it is a dangerous practice, and one that can cause diarrhoea and serious intestinal problems. I am, perhaps, speaking a little too long—especially following the debate we had earlier concerning how long one should speak. I do want to emphasise what Lord Rea said, that salmonella food poisoning is a very unpleasant complaint for the individual concerned, and of course it results in loss of wages. But I would also point out that it is costly in terms of investigation.
This service provided by the local authority, though generally considered a Cinderella service, must be maintained at high levels, and, I would hope, not considered as suitable for cutting as a result of rate reductions. Proper control work and thorough investigation must be undertaken by local authorities when an outbreak accurs. I would appeal to the general public, to medical practitioners, and to hospitals as well, to realise that as soon as outbreaks occur it is important that the environmental health officers come quickly to the scene to try to control the outbreak and find the source. Although environmental health officers sometimes feel that they are a Cinderella service provided by local authorities, let us remember that public health was one of the first and original items of legislation in relation to local government, and although this has changed many times over the last 50 or 60 years their work in relation to control of food standards is still very important and must not be underestimated.
Constant vigilance and constant reminding of good practice in food production and food handling are necessary to reduce outbreaks of food poisoning. Any measures designed to lessen the hazard are worthy of consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has given us the opportunity of this debate. I hope it has contributed to the realisation of the need for constant vigilance and perhaps to an extra effort on the Government's part to maintain the very good health standards necessary to make quite sure that the consumer has good food produced and good food sold.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for choosing this subject for debate and for his careful opening analysis. I would also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Swann, for his distinguished contribution to the debate. I recall the day that he presented to me the report of his Committee on Antibiotics in Animal Feedingstuffs, as I was the Minister responsible at the time. I had the task of reading his report and absorbing it, and indeed answering questions on it in another place, and

271
subsequently deciding what to do about his report. As he has said, I accepted his recommendations and sought then to implement them. I do not think the noble Lord's report was a failure, as he has sought to say. I believe it was an important report, and if it was overtaken by subsequent developments that does not mean that it was unnecessary or that it failed in any way. As he has advised the House, the time may now be ripe for a new investigation into this subject, and I would certainly be very glad to support him in recommending that to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his important contribution. I always listen to him with great respect because of his authority and experience in these matters, and I much enjoyed his speech. Again, my noble friend Lady Fisher has made what one has come to expect of her, namely, a sensible and a practical speech from the consumer viewpoint. On this occasion I think nothing could be more important. I think her point about the pasteurisation of milk was particularly timely.
It is an opportune moment for the House to consider the incidence of this disease and its implications; and also what may be done to deal with it. I would like to repeat the tribute which my noble friend Lord Rea paid to the British Veterinary Association. They have shown a particular concern in salmonellosis and its spread in Britain, and have publicised ways and means of keeping it under control, and, if possible, eradicating it. They arranged a symposium here in London on salmonellosis some two years ago and over the last few days I have read the report with great interest. Shortly after that symposium, on 18th November 1981, it is interesting to note, we had a short debate in this House on the report of our Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs Committee on Poultry Meat Hygiene, which as chairman of the committee at that time I had the honour to open. It was made clear to the committee in evidence, and subsequently in the report, that salmonellosis is a growing danger, and that Government, local authorities, poultry producers, meat processors, and especially the individual consumer must be made more aware of its insidious growth and of the steps which should be taken to counter it.
In the developed world, where medical services and sanitation are good, salmonella food poisoning affects between 10 and 70 individuals per 100,000 of the population every year. The disease is costly to the patient in loss of wages and physical and emotional stress. It is costly to the health and social services for treatment, investigation, and social security benefits, and it is costly to the food industry due to had publicity and sometimes litigation which follows. These losses appear not to have been estimated in this country, but the World Health Organisation report for 1980 states that losses due to salmonellosis in the United States amount to 480 million dollars a year for medical expenses alone. The statistics are disturbing, as I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would agree.
The Public Health Laboratory Services communicable disease report issued on 6th January last records that the laboratory received 14,325 reports of salmonella food poisoning during 1983, the
272
number having risen to that total from 3,898 reports in 1966—a sharp increase. Salmonella food poisoning, although unpleasant, is not usually fatal. My noble friend Lady Fisher referred to deaths, and there are indeed an average of six deaths per 1,000 cases, which occur primarily but not exclusively in persons between 60 and 80 years of age. The majority of human infections are derived from food of animal origin, mainly by the consumption of contaminated milk, meat and eggs. Some outbreaks, however, are the result of person to person spread, and 11 per cent. of outbreaks in hospitals in Scotland were caused in this way.
In the domestic animal a high proportion of infections are non-clinical, although they form an important source of human infections through the food chain. Overt disease is commonly precipitated by stress, such as transport, crowding, exposure in markets, recent parturition, and they can result in heavy losses due to unthriftiness and death. Recovered animals often remain sources of infection for other animals and for man.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, poultry are an important source of salmonella food poisoning in man. That was the subject of our report in this House. Over the last six years records show that between 30 and 40 per cent. of food poisoning incidents were caused by poultry. It is well established that between 30 and 70 per cent. of broiler chickens purchased in shops in England and Wales are contaminated with salmonellae. Chickens may derive infection in various ways, but the most important is apparently the feeding of compounded food containing contaminated animal protein, a subject dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Swann. The problem has been increased by intensification of the industry. Broilers are now slaughtered earlier, before they have had time to throw off their salmonella infections.
As my noble friend said, supported by my noble friend Lord Winstanley, the important point for the consumer to realise is that food poisoning will not follow the consumption of contaminated birds if cooking is thorough. The majority of chickens sold nowadays are accompanied by thawing and cooking instructions which, if properly followed, will result in the destruction of any salmonella present. However, contamination of kitchen surfaces and chopping boards may occur during the preparation of the bird for the oven. Unless these are thoroughly cleaned the cooked bird or other food may be reinfected from the contaminated surfaces. There is an important job still to be done in stressing the dangers to housewives in this country so that simple precautions are taken to reduce the hazard of food poisoning from chickens.
Many cases of salmonella food poisoning occur in catering establishments. Practices such as partial cooking and finishing or reheating can be dangerous, as has been mentioned, and when contamination occurs many more people may be exposed to infection at banquets and other functions than in the home. The initiative of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers in issuing a news release on this subject in December last is to be warmly commended.
My noble friend mentioned legislation. As the House will be aware, important weapons in the fight to

273
reduce salmonella infection are the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 and the Importation of Processed Animal Protein Order 1981. These orders, which became effective in April 1982, require all animal-based or fish protein for animal feed to be processed to render it free from salmonellae. This will reduce the flow of salmonellae to farmstock and correspondingly reduce the incidence of non-clinical infections in farm animals.
There are, however, problems in implementing the orders because of the large volumes of food to be sampled and unless this is pursued relentlessly the main effect of the orders will be lost. Protein feed which has been made salmonella-free may, however, be recontaminated during transport and handling so the pelleting of food is an additional safeguard. It has been put to me that this pelleting safeguard should be given greater publicity.
When swill feeding is practised the treatment of swill as required by the Waste Foods Order 1974 will ensure that the food is free from salmonella. The use of irradiation, which I shall mention later, could also be used to ensure that farm animals receive salmonella-free food. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to confirm that he and the Ministry vets are satisfied that the orders are being implemented thoroughly and that adequate sampling is taking place.
Much work has been done in recent years to reduce the contamination of poultry carcases after slaughter, especially by improvements to the spin chiller, referred to by my noble friend. The exposure of batches of birds to the chilling process in the spin chiller is an obvious cause of contamination unless the equipment is operating properly. Other methods of chilling are not without their problems and there is need for all concerned to continue their efforts to minimise contamination at the processing stage.
My noble friend referred to calves. I merely say that the calf trade is responsible for widespread dissemination of salmonella infection. The dairy farmer often disposes of his surplus calves through the market to rearers. The calves are exposed to stress during transport and some may be exposed in markets several times in as short a time as a week before they find a buyer. I said earlier, and others made the same point, that stress is an important factor in triggering salmonella infection and the marketing of calves is a prime example.
My noble friend has described the steps which the BVA are recommending should be taken. I was interested to read in the Farmers' Guardian of 13th January that auctioneers at the Derby livestock mart have yielded to pressure from the farmers to sell only farmers' calves and not those from dealers. I believe that to be a central point. This is a welcome step to reduce the risk of spreading salmonellosis in calves at that market.
Vehicles used for animal transport have great potential for the spread of salmonella. More stringent application of the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 would ensure that all animal transports are disinfected after off-loading at a market. It is a fact, however, that over one-third of all livestock markets in Great Britain lack vehicle washing facilities, and so vehicles must be washed and disinfected elsewhere,
274
with consequent risk of spreading infection. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. It is surely the responsibility of all market proprietors to supply such an essential facility as a vehicle wash. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would say whether he agrees with this and can say what steps he has in mind to ensure that these facilities are provided widely in the markets of this country.
Sewage, whether of human or animal origin, contains salmonellae and its careless disposal on agricultural land is liable to spread infection. This has been the subject of investigation at the Institute for Research on Animal Diseases at Compton, Berkshire, following which guidelines to reduce the dangers of application of sewage and slurry to pasture and other herbage crops have been formulated. They should be rigorously followed.
I mentioned irradiation. Looking to the future, the use of gamma-irradiation may have a place in the control of salmonellosis. Irradiation has been used to sterilise the diets of laboratory animals for at least 20 years without any ill-effects being observed in animals as a result. Irradiation can be applied after the food is packed. Thus the chicken inside its plastic bag can be sterilised at a small cost per bird, however heavily contaminated it has become. But the acceptability of this process to the consumer has yet to be ascertained. It must be investigated fully. I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security has a committee inquiring into this and other aspects. The findings are awaited with great interest. Again, I hope the noble Lord can give us some indication of when this report may be expected.
But whatever innovations may lie ahead, it seems to me clear that the damage from salmonellosis could be considerably reduced if the knowledge that is already available is fully used and the existing legislation rigorously applied.
Shortage of staff is too often the reason given currently for shortcomings in applying the law. If that reason is valid, then it is time that the shortage was remedied. Close co-operation between the medical and veterinary staffs and the environmental health officers also is essential. The arrangements for such co-operation which the Zoonoses Order provides are a welcome step in this direction. They must be fully applied. If this debate is to serve a purpose it must be to inspire all concerned to press ahead with determination to cut down the ravages that salmonella can cause. I ask the House to support my noble friend's Motion.
5.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising the problems of salmonella poisoning today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that we have to thank noble Lords for coming to make a series of very well-informed and interesting speeches on a subject which is a cause of worry and concern. It is a subject on which the Government have maintained increasingly close surveillance in recent years.
As has become clear from this short debate, the issues are, however, complex. The problems affect the

275
food chain both of human beings and of a variety of animals and birds, and lead researchers through a maze of causes and effects. It seems doubtful in our modern living conditions whether the complete answer to this problem will ever be found. On the other hand, encouraging progress has been made, especially with poultry. I am advised that the incidence of salmonellae in poultry reported under the Zoonoses Order has been reduced from 1,784 incidents in 1980 to 664 in 1983. We shall have to continue chipping away within the limits of available resources. Certainly there can be no prospect of significant further progress being made without parallel action being taken by the food industries and individuals concerned in trade in human and animal foodstuffs. These are all matters which have been mentioned during the past hour and a half.
I wonder whether I may, literally in the space of a minute, follow the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who at the beginning of the debate mentioned the current legislation, by mentioning it again briefly at the end. The principal instrument is the Zoonoses Order 1975 made under the powers available in the Animal Health Act. For this purpose, I should explain that zoonosis is a disease transmissible from animals or birds to man. The order provides powers to control salmonellosis in animals if there is a serious threat to human health. As your Lordships have made clear that you know, the other orders are those relating to protein processing. There is the domestic order and the importation order, but each has the same objective—to minimise the risk of salmonella infection being transmitted through animal feeding stuffs. I hope that what I have said follows the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in setting the scene.
In talking about legislation, the noble Lord asked me whether I would say a word about how the European Community meshes in with all this. The situation in regard to animal health legislation in general is that the United Kingdom participates in the Standing Committee in Brussels which formulates European Community directives, regulations or recommendations. As such, we have the opportunity of expressing our views and tailoring our legislation to suit our particular circumstances. That applies equally to legislation applicable to meat hygiene.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me whether the Government believed that the work of monitoring and sampling under both the orders was being carried out effectively. I have some details on that but I shall not weary your Lordships with them now. My answer is simply, yes. I am absolutely convinced from what I have read that good work is being done. In particular, what I have noticed from the advice that I have received is that there is a decline in the number of exotic stereotype incidents in food animals since the importation order took effect.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for mentioning the specific arrangement which is made under the auspices of the Zoonoses Order, under which local liaison groups have been established, comprising directors of public health laboratories, medical officers for environmental health, environmental health officers and nominated members of the
276
State Veterinary Service. Thus we have an arrangement under the 1975 Order to ensure the fullest possible exchange of information at what may best be termed working level. As a previous Minister of Agriculture, the noble Lord also expressed the hope that the veterinary and medical services build upon that statutory basis. I believe that they do indeed. Furthermore, all incidents of salmonellosis in animals reported under the Zoonoses Order to the State Veterinary Service are notified to the medical and environmental health authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke specifically about salmonellosis in calves and calf marketing, as did other noble Lords. Although I am advised that salmonellosis in calves has little impact on human health, it is a serious and increasing animal health problem. But, as is so often the situation, the answer is not clear-cut. The Government agree that the notion that the prevalence of infection might be reduced through introducing a limitation on the number of times calves may be marketed within a given period—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned 28 days as being the right kind of period—is good in principle. However, the problems of calf identification and enforcement in markets are equally apparent. I should like to give an assurance this afternoon that this is an issue which the State Veterinary Service has already discussed with the British Veterinary Association. The problems of identification to which I have referred remain to be further considered. The Farm Animal Welfare Council also is currently considering the question of the repeat marketing of calves.
In this context, both the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Winstanley, referred specifically to the cleansing and disinfection of lorries, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, but he carried the argument on to whether the correct facilities are provided in the markets for disinfection. So that there is no misunderstanding, I ought to make it clear that it is an offence if any vehicle used to carry farm livestock is not cleansed and disinfected afterwards. That must be done as soon as practicable after the unloading of the last animal and in any case before any animal or carcase is subsequently loaded into the vehicle. Local authorities are the bodies responsible for enforcing these provisions. As so often in this difficult field, the means to improvement is by underlining the need for enforcement of the rules. I very much hope that this debate will assist in that objective.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I would say that subordinate legislation under the Animal Health Act provides that cleansing and disinfection of markets and lorries should be undertaken to minimise the risk of animal disease and that the appropriate facilities to undertake cleansing should be available. Again, local authorities are responsible for the supervision of this work. The noble Lord asked me whether the Government were satisfied. We are not, but constant efforts are made to improve market facilities within the financial and physical constraints—for instance, the limitations of the site in question in a particular case. In addition to the efforts of local authorities, members of the veterinary profession, and in particular those belonging to the State Veterinary Service, are undertaking all the time a supervisory function. I

277
assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which we keep constantly in mind.
I wonder whether I may turn to the subject of salmonellosis in poultry. Before I came to this debate I thought that that was perhaps the most common form of the danger of salmonellosis infection. I was particularly pleased when I discovered that there had been this improvement in its incidence which I mentioned to your Lordships at the beginning of my speech. I think it is fair to claim that at least part of the improvement in the situation is the result of a number of measures which have been taken. The Ministry of Agriculture has promoted a development farm project on S. hadar in turkeys which enabled control methods to be developed in breeding flocks, for instance, by the introduction of special nest boxes and improved methods of hygiene.
Secondly, the industry has been very ready to agree codes of practice in its work. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Security has publicised the need to ensure the thorough cooking of poultry meat—a matter which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, among other noble Lords. It is now common practice for frozen poultry to be labelled with cooking instructions. Indeed, in 1977 the DHSS issued a health notice and local authority social service letter on the safe preparation of turkeys. I have already referred to the work being undertaken on protein processing.
Every noble Lord in the debate has spoken on aspects of salmonellosis in human beings. The figures that I have are a little different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Mine show that in 1982 there were nearly 14,000 known English cases of food poisoning from all causes originating in England. I admit that this was more than in 1981 and 1980 but it was less than in 1979. Overall there has been a slight increase in the number of cases due to S. Typhimurium and to other salmonellae, which is of course the most common food poisoning organism.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who identified hygiene in the home as a crucial factor in the debate. Education of food handlers and kitchen personnel in good food hygiene was one of the three lines of attack on the problem of control of human salmonellosis suggested in the World Health Organisation conference on food poisoning in 1980. The noble Baroness asked when did the Department of Health and Social Security last update its advice on food poisoning. I think I am right in saying that that was done in 1982, when the department published a revised edition of Memo 188/MED on, Food Poisoning—The Investigation on Control of Food Poisoning in England and Wales, as guidance for medical officers for environmental health officers and other medical personnel. The Institute of Environmental Health Officers has also published guidance, and it holds courses on food hygiene.
With respect to the noble Baroness's warning about precautions being particularly necessary at large gatherings of people when untrained staff are involved, I would point out that the World Health Organisation booklet on mass catering, by Dr. Charles of the DHSS, is intended for health officials who may have little
278
knowledge of commerial catering, and for food, trade and other officials and representatives of commercial interests who may have little knowledge of public health.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred briefly to the economic aspects of this whole subject, and the Government certainly agree that there are indeed economic aspects. As your Lordships will probably be aware, a World Health Organisation working group meeting held in Trier in September 1981 produced a report on Economic Aspects of Communicable Diseases. In that discussion, the economic aspects of salmonellosis were given particular emphasis and further areas for future research were outlined.
Before I conclude my remarks I should like to try to answer one or two questions with which I have not yet dealt. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, who I realise has done very valuable work in this field, made a most interesting speech, and I wish that I could be more forthcoming in the reply that I have to give him. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's commitment on the issues which he raised. The difficulty is that though we agree with so much of what the noble Lord says, we are most hesitant about the appointment of a new committee to look at the subject. As I have tried to indicate in my remarks, we believe that the problems associated with salmonella infection are of a continuing nature and clear-cut solutions are not possible. We have to do our best to try to press forward on all fronts. But the nature of the problems, as opposed to their solution, is not unclear. It will certainly be possible for consideration to be given by the Government and other organisations concerned—notably the British Veterinary Association—to such matters as the use of antibiotics in animals and the questions of resistance to them which arise. As I have already said, we are considering whether any steps can be taken in relation to calf marketing practices.
Without going into any detail, and, incidentally, without in any way trying to reflect criticism on much of the admirable and extremely hard work that goes on in our slaughterhouse systems, I should like to mention that, at the request of the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Government are planning to set up a thorough review of the meat inspection system.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and other noble Lords, mentioned the spin chiller system in poultry slaughtering. I should like to say that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 were, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, amended in 1979 to prescribe conditions which must be satisfied when poultry carcases are chilled in water. The spin chiller is such a method of chilling poultry. Published work shows that the improvements prescribed in the amending regulations have dramatically reduced cross-contamination occurring in the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked me a direct question about raw milk. It is a fact that the arrangements for the selling of raw milk were changed in 1980, when the Government took the view that those people wishing to purchase raw milk—green top milk—should be allowed to do so, provided that they were aware that they were buying untreated milk. Since 1983 virtually all cows' milk sold for human

279
consumption in Scotland has had to be pasteurised. It is the intention in England and Wales to prohibit the sale of raw milk through outlets such as schools, shops, and institutions from May 1985. It is believed that these measures will significantly reduce salmonella infection in humans from this source. I know that I have not answered two of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, and perhaps I may write to her.
Finally, I wish to take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made about food irradiation, which I am advised is in some countries recognised as an effective measure to reduce levels of pathogens and spoilage organisms in certain foodstuffs, including poultrymeat. The process, which I understand does not induce radioactivity in the food, is not permitted in the United Kingdom at the present time. The noble Lord asked about the report of the advisory committee which is currently reviewing the safety of irradiated foods for the consumer. Health and Agriculture Ministers expect the report during the summer.
I hope that what I have said will indicate the degree to which the Government have involved themselves in these difficult problems. I very much welcome today's debate, even though it has raised difficult questions and in some cases has put me in the position of having to try to answer them. However, I hope that the debate has provided for your Lordships an assurance that the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely, and would be prepared to take further action if it became clear that that would be useful or necessary.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we have had a most interesting, instructive and, I hope, useful debate this evening. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord the Minister that there has been some improvement on the poultry side, though I must admit to a certain disappointment over his reply. I have a feeling that the Government are being somewhat complacent in this area when the actual figures for salmonella infections are going up. I do not think that it is quite enough to expect that this debate in this House itself will change matters very much, but I can assure the Minister that we on these Benches will continue to remind the Government of the problem from time to time when figures are presented to us. It only remains for me to thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have contributed to this evening's debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Airbus A.320
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to call attention to the need for Her Majesty's Government to assist British Aerospace in the development of the Airbus A.320; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords. Her Majesty's Government must decide very soon—perhaps in the next few days—whether or not to accede to British Aerospace's request for launch aid for the Airbus
280
A.320 project. The decision will be a crucial one for our entire aerospace industry.
Since the last war the aerospace industry has had its ups and downs, but over the years the country has invested heavily, and in many cases I would say wisely, in this high technology industry. It is probably true that we once had too many civil aircraft projects. We are now in danger, however, of going to the other extreme, particularly if we should opt out of the A.320. Should this happen, Boeing would be laughing all the way to the bank as it would be given a virtual monopoly in the civil aircraft market.
Four and a half years ago, in June 1979, I said in your Lordships' House:
"Today France has the major share in European civil air transport". [Official Report; 28/6/79; col. 1669.]
Times do not change very much, but we must remember that we are partners in Airbus Industrie, so I think we can add ourselves to France in that instance. I maintain that there is a market for the A.320 and that it is being presented to us on a platter if we have the foresight to take it.
Today, in Britain, I think we can take a great pride in our air industry, which ranks second only in the Western world to that of the United States. The French might argue that they are our equal in aerospace, but I will claim that our industry's demonstrably superior strength in aero-engines and electronics systems puts us well ahead of them. Our aerospace industry employs 200,000 highly-trained workers. Its annual turnover, I believe, amounts to more than £6,000 million. Over half of this output is sold abroad, and its contribution to our annual trade balance currently exceeds £1,000 million.
The Prime Minister herself, speaking at the 1980 Farnborough air show dinner, said:
"Our aerospace industry is a great national asset. Its importance to our economy cannot be overstated."
It has also been said that the Prime Minister is concerned not to have another Concorde on her hands. Let us get one fact straight. Concorde, of which I was a supporter and still am, was an investment in the then unknown. The A.320 is quite the reverse. The A.320 is not a technological leap in the dark. It will be a match for anything that Boeing can produce in the timescale, and will be far superior, more economic and more efficient than the thousands of aircraft it is intended to replace. It is merely a rational development of Airbus Industrie's larger and now well proven A.300 and A.310 airliners.
The crux of the matter is this. The Government, not unnaturally, wish to be sure that the A.320 will, in due course, provide a satisfactory return on the monies invested in it. British Aerospace believes that the A.320 is, indeed, a sound commercial proposition. The company is asking for launch aid; that is, a loan—a loan that British Aerospace is quite convinced it will be able to repay.
British Aerospace is certain that there is a large market for a new 150-seat medium-haul airliner such as the A.320. Those who are best able to judge these matters agree that this is so: Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Merrill Lynch and others confidently predict that, by the end of this century, some 2,500 to

281
4,000 aging, noisy, fuel-thirsty, medium-haul, 150-seat-class airliners will just have to be replaced. The general estimate is 3,000 in the next 15 years.
British Aerospace believes that Airbus Industrie will be able to attract at least one-third of this market, for at the moment only two manufacturers are now competing for it, Boeing and Airbus Industrie. I believe that Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas have bowed out of this competition, at least temporarily.
Airbus Industrie needs to sell only some 400 A.320s to break even on the project. It has good reason to be confident that it will sell at least twice that number. The company has already established its reputation with the airlines with the A.300 and the A310, which have sold well. Airbus Industrie has already received orders and options from the airlines for 88 A.320s and this is a more than adequate launch base for the project. It has been established despite the recent recession in the fortunes of the airlines.
One might ask why Airbus Industrie needs to launch another enormously expensive project when it is doing so well with the A.300 and the A.310. The answer is that the Airbus Consortium needs to broaden its product base. Individual airlines operate a range of airliners—small, medium and large—but they prefer that their fleets should be supplied, if possible, by one manufacturer, for good commercial reasons. Boeing offers the airlines such a range of aircraft. By being able to offer the small A.320 as well as the medium-capacity A.310 and the larger A.300, Airbus Industrie can satisfy the needs of most airlines. Moreover, the availability of the A.320 would enhance further the sales prospects of the A.300 and the A.310.
The A.320, in my opinion, is a sound commercial project with every prospect of success. That the market for such an aircraft up to the year 2000 is there, even without growth, cannot be denied. British Aerospace, which has a 20 per cent. stake in Airbus Industrie, with several thousands of its workers producing high technology wings for these aircraft, is surely right in wanting to buy into the A.320 project.
Furthermore, British Aerospace makes the point that if it were possible to take on the 20 per cent. share of the A.320 programme without sensible long-term loan arrangement—in this case, launch aid—then the company would be the first to wish to do so. The company has, however, already made enormous investments in developing its space and communications business and other product lines such as the British Aerospace 125–800 business jet—an outstanding success from the outset—and the Jetstream 31, which is beginning to show signs of following the 125 in its success story. In fact, only last Friday another order came from California for more Jetstreams. The new British Aerospace 146 is demonstrating that it will sell well; and, yet again last week, Air Wisconsin ordered two more 146s.
The A.300 and the A.310 are already commercial successes. Since British Aerospace rejoined Airbus Industrie in 1977 it has financed the launch, development and initial production of the A.310, the A.310–300 and the A.300–600 a total of about £400 million entirely from the company's own resources. If one adds to this the company's other massive investments at the bottom end of the civil aircraft
282
range, one judges that it is reaching a prudent financial limit for the civil part of the business. If it were forced into excessive borrowing, the high cost of finance would eventually erode profits and undermine the business.
If Britain is to capitalise on Airbus Industrie's success and opt into the A.320, British Aerospace needs Government launch aid to tide the company over. The other European partners in Airbus Industrie already have similar support from their Governments, and have had on all previous airbus projects.
In the case of British Aerospace, launch aid will not cover all the costs. Much will still be borne by British Aerospace itself, which will fund all of the production work in progress while continuing to provide development funding for other airbus wide-body aircraft programmes. British Aerospace's investment in the A.320 alone will be worth some £200 million. Government launch aid, which relates to start-up costs comprising research and development, jigs, tools and education, will, in fact, represent approximately 70 per cent. of the total—in other words, some £430 million spread over several years, with peak annual requirements in the region of £97 million per annum in the years 1986 and 1987.
Without launch aid British Aerospace is adamant that it just cannot participate in the A.320 project. Let us be quite clear on that point—and on another. With or without Britain, France and her other European partners in Airbus will go ahead with the A.320. But what will be the consequences of Britain opting out? First, to opt out will be taken very badly by our European partners in the consortium, particularly by France and Germany, who will feel very badly let down. This could have a serious impact on our chances of involvement in future major collaborative aerospace projects such as, for instance, the future experimental fighter aircraft programme.
Secondly, a negative decision would spell the end of the United Kingdom industry's participation in the large civil aircraft, just as Europe is breaking down the stranglehold of the United States in this field. Britain will have no hope of retrieving the situation in future. Thirdly, if Britain opts out the chances of Rolls-Royce getting its engine accepted for the A.320 will be seriously affected. It is perhaps interesting to note here that the decision of British Airways on whether to order A.320s eventually will very largely depend on the aircraft having Rolls-Royce engines, as it makes a considerable economy on the maintenance of its power plants if they come from one manufacturer. I know that my noble friend Lord Bessborough is going to say a few words about that.
Finally, if Britain opts out, our aerospace industry will suffer reduced employment—some 10,000 jobs could go in British Aerospace and its subcontractors, and in the associated equipment industry. The industry's exports and its contribution to the nation's trade balance would inevitably decline. I repeat: since the last war Britain has invested heavily in aerospace. Today, we possess the technological know-how, the skilled workforce and the productive capacity which, together with our European partners, can be a challenge to the United States. Airbus Industrie, with British Aerospace, has already blazed the trail with the A.300 and the A.310.
So I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree with me that now is the time to capitalise on success and support our European partners. The risks are not as great as some would have us believe. On the other hand, the benefits of the A.320 being successful—which it almost certainly will be—to those who work in the industry and to our economy as a whole could be enormous. Britain must take up this challenge, as our European partners surely will. Not to do so would be sheer folly. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, it is almost 20 years since I lost my virginity in another place. I must confess that it seems to me that this is one of those experiences where familiarity does not yield assurance and therefore it is with at least as much trepidation as then that I crave your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon. I think that a maiden speech in this House has at least one advantage over a maiden speech in the other place—certainly at the time when I made mine—in that in those days, at any rate, it was considered wise or prudent to devote at least one-third of one's speech to praising the beauties, perceptiveness and intelligence, first of one's constituents for sending one there and, secondly, of one's predecessor who, by his death or other indisposition, had made your journey possible. As I understand it, those problems do not arise in this House, and so one can turn at once to the subject of the debate.
First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley for raising this matter this afternoon. Certainly his timing could not have been more perfect, for, as he reminded your Lordships, we know the Government are poised on the very brink of decision in this matter. Moreover, as a result of my noble friend's judicious choice of subject this afternoon my noble friend who is to reply to the debate will be able to participate in the making of that decision fortified by the wisdom and advice of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley spoke with an experience and knowledge of this industry which I cannot begin to match. He made a most powerful and effective case. Inevitably, I suppose, like my noble friend who is to reply to this debate, I am inclined to approach issues of public investment tarred with the Treasury brush. In fact, I must confess to having been a sort of "Treasury toady" long before I was summoned by bells to Great George Street in 1981—a "Treasury toady" at least in the sense that, while I recognised that the Treasury was often wrong, I had an inclination to feel (as I still have) that if we had accepted all the Treasury's judgments, right or wrong, over the years we might have been a somewhat richer and more prosperous country than we are today.
Of course, I have no idea whatever what will be the Treasury's judgment in the matter of the A.320 which is before your Lordships tonight. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Cockfield will be able to tell us that: perhaps not. But if one were looking at this proposition from within the Treasury, one might perhaps pause to consider the history of our support
284
for civil aviation in this country and certainly at least to ask a few questions about the present proposition.
I have made some inquiries, but it is extremely difficult to tell precisely what has been the total of our expenditure on civil aviation support over the whole of the post-war period, not least because, of course, during the period of the nationalisation of British Aerospace the concept of launch aid did not apply and it was the discipline of the external financial limit which counted. But the figures that I have obtained from the Library suggest that some sum in the range of £1,800 million may have been invested in all forms of support for civil aviation in this country over the last 30 years, and of that some £400 million or so is estimated to have come back. I must emphasise to your Lordships that that is not a dividend: it is more akin to a distribution by the receiver to the extent of 22p in the pound, because the total investment did not come back by any means.
We also know that of all the civil aircraft projects launched in this country since the war only one, the Viscount, has been in a position to return the initial capital investment in it by the taxpayer. As far as I know—and other noble Lords will be able to correct me on this—so far the Boeing 727 is the only civil jet in the world which has in fact made a commercial profit.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley rightly drew attention to the impressive success of Airbus Industrie in obtaining orders for its first two models. He also rightly drew your Lordships' attention to the large market which awaits the A.320 worldwide. However, I suggest to your Lordships that sales, like loyalty, are not enough. Sales must be achieved at a price which receives a commercial return. Sometimes that is an obligation which perhaps some of those in the civil aviation industry need to consider more closely than they always do.
Like others of your Lordships, this afternoon I have received some interesting briefing material from Airbus Industrie. I looked anxiously through it before this debate began, and my eyes seized on an item:
"A.320—new dimensions to profitability".
But unfortunately the new dimensions to profitability, to which it refers, are the prospects of profitability for those who will buy the A.320 rather than the prospects of certain profitability from the A.320 itself. Sometimes one could wish that Airbus Industrie had produced some figures to show what profits it is making from the aircraft that it has already developed.
Furthermore, it occurs to me that, if the prospects for the A.320 are so encouraging, is it really beyond the capacity of the City of London, unaided by Her Majesty's Government, to produce the finance which is required in this instance on the terms which British Aerospace says is essential—that is, with servicing and repayment deferred until the moment of cash flow in the 1990s? After all, the City of London was capable of generating thousands of millions of pounds for investment in North Sea oil at a time when, long before the first oil shot, the prospects of a return from that investment were at best highly hazardous. At the other end of the scale, it is worth recalling that no less than £12 million was generated for a most surprising project called Nimslo in just half an hour in the City.

285
Therefore, I should have thought that if, indeed, the prospects are so glittering, there is no reason on earth why British Aerospace should not be able to raise the finance that it needs, on the terms that it needs, within the City of London.
I also note—and it seems to be a matter for small preoccupation in this context—that at the present time the airframe manufacturers of the world seem to be awash with aircraft which they are unable to sell. We read that Boeing has actually been reduced to purchasing back from one of Airbus Industrie's respected customers Airbus aircraft that have not yet been delivered, so that the customer will buy Boeing instead. Apparently there is a dramatic crop of aircraft on the shelves awaiting customers going by the elegant name of "white-tails".
Again, as I understand it, sales in this area are conducted in dollars. At the present time this is, of couse, tremendously to the advantage of the European aircraft industry owing to the enormous soaring strength of the dollar. But will that last? Will the rate for the pound be 1·40 dollars when the time comes for Airbus Industrie to be paid, or will it be 2 dollars, or will it be 2·20 dollars, and, if it were, what would be the implications of that for the profitability of the whole project?
I know it is pointed out that, if we were not to proceed with this launch aid, we would expose the airlines of the world to a monopoly supplier in Boeing. But, as my noble friend reminded us, it has also been pointed out very clearly that, if we were not to proceed in this country, our partners would do so. I can appreciate that one or other of these propositions must be correct, but for the life of me I find it difficult to believe that both of them can be correct at the same time.
Finally, of course, I realise only too well that there is a vital issue which we cannot possibly ignore of the security of employment which would be achieved by making this public investment. However, at the same time we must recall a subject which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, introduced before your Lordships not very long ago about the desirability of public investment. Of course, the essence of investment is that it makes a commercial return, and I sometimes wonder whether perhaps one of the reasons for our uninspiring relative performance over the past 20 years or more may not be that the return which we have achieved on public sector investment, not least in the aircraft industry, has hardly by any means always been at commercial levels.
On 2nd December at column 1175 the Minister of State at the Department of Industry said in another place that the Government must:
"examine the prospects of the project yielding a commercial rate of return".
As my noble friend Lord Kimberley pointed out to your Lordships, that is the criteria which we would all accept. If the verdict of that examination is positive, let us proceed with a high heart. But if the verdict of that examination is negative, I am bound to suggest to your Lordships that our children, who would have to foot the bills in their taxation, would not necessarily thank us in years to come if we proceeded on that basis.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, before thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, it falls to me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, for his contribution. As he said, he is an ex-Treasury Minister, and those of us who listened to him today who were not Treasury Ministers will "recognise the breed", if I may put it that particular way. I should like to tell the noble Lord—and this has nothing to do with his speech this evening—how much I personally have enjoyed his articles in The Times between last June and today. I have not had time to digest his article on freeports today, but I am quite sure that I speak for the House when I say that we are very glad to have him. I hope that sometimes he will be able to speak to us with the authority of an ex-Treasury Minister, but not as an ex-Treasury Minister. In other words, I am trying politely to say that, although I have been delighted to hear him, I do not know whether I entirely agree with what he says. As we move on, perhaps I shall be able to say that.
I thought that the noble Lord must have been a journalist when I read his articles in The Times, and having chased up further details about him this afternoon I see that he was also the Paris correspondent for the Financial Times. Therefore, we welcome him: we are glad to have him. However, in spite of his last remarks, I do not think I would be wrong in assuming that really and truly he is not in favour of what we seek to obtain today by means of this Motion. To be perfectly fair, perhaps I should say that if it can be proved otherwise, I believe that the noble Lord would go along with it.
In common with everybody else, I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for raising this matter today. I think that his timing has been impeccable. We shall only know when we come to the end of the debate whether or not it has been successful. However, I should like to comment on something which the noble Earl mentioned in opening. He spoke of Concorde and I believe he said that the Prime Minister had said she did not want another Concorde on her back. Obviously, if the Prime Minister said that—and I have seen it quoted in several places—she would mean that she does not want such a financial burden, because, even to the layman, Concorde is a brilliant example of British aeronautical engineering.
I should only like, if I may—and I brought this in quite by chance—to quote two paragraphs from a letter in The Times of 16th January by Mr. James Moorhouse, MEP, who, as many Members of this House will know, is the Conservative spokesman on transport in the European Parliament. I have met Mr. Moorhouse several times. Whether or not one agrees with him, there is not the slightest doubt that he knows his subject. In case anybody else mentions Concorde, I should like to quote these twoparagraphs, if I may:
"It is very fashionable to say that the commercially unsuccessful Concorde is positive proof of the folly of all major projects. But it needs to be appreciated that the A.320 and the Concorde are two very different animals.
"While the supersonic Concorde was designed, as indeed was the de Havilland Comet, to push back the frontiers of knowledge and technology, the subsonic A.320, cast in a more conventional mode, will aim fully to exploit known technology while offering super-fuel economy and minimal maintenance costs.".

287
If it can do all those things I hope that it will win the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, on to our side.
I hope that the Government will support by offering launch aid to British Aerospace, which I believe has a 20 per cent. share in this, and which British Aerospace itself hopes will be 26 per cent. I think we are talking in terms of some £400 million plus as a loan. I thought that the Economist of 27th August carried a salutary warning in the article War in the Air, when its opening sentence read:
"The risk is that airlines will soon be able to buy any long-distance passenger aircraft so long as it is a Boeing."
That has worried quite a few of us during recent months.
That fear spreads much wider than readers of the Economist. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he comes to reply on this aspect, can say whether it is correct that the Americans want to oust Britain from the European airbus project? It would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, could help us there, because this is something I have heard repeated on very good authority from several sources.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Butcher, made an encouraging comment in another place on 19th December, when he said at column 87 that:
"the orders and options for the A.320 are at the largest pre-launch level achieved."
An encouragement in more than words has come from three airlines, and there are probably others. British Caledonian—and all credit to it—led the way in October last year by ordering seven A.320s for delivery in the spring of 1988, with options for a further three. Earlier this month the president of Airbus Industrie announced a contract to build 10 A.320s for the French domestic line Air Inter. And the Yugoslav airline, Inex-Adria, has ordered five of the aircraft, with options for a further three.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he comes to reply can also answer this point. I personally wish, and I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House would wish, that British Airways could have been on that list—I should have liked to add them to those names—instead of feeling that it could only place an order when the airbus was safely launched. Arising out of that, I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that British Airways' decision to lease rather than buy American jets outright at the present time really gives them more scope for endorsing the A.320 in the future? I should be grateful if he feels able to comment on that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has pointed out to us, obviously any new aircraft must carry some degree of financial risk where large sums of money are concerned. But the general feeling seems to be that the A.320, seating 150, will justify the optimism of those who have placed orders already, rather than the reverse. For one thing, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, this aircraft does not stand by itself. It stands with a group, or family, which includes the A.300, seating 265, and the A.310, seating 210.
288
In the summer, I returned from a civil aviation conference in Frankfurt and was fortunate enough to fly on the A.300. Personally, I have never experienced such comfortable seating and configuration on any economy flight. I do not know what it was like in the grander aspects, but I thought it was wonderfully comfortable. As of course is known by the industry—and I am sorry to keep going back to the noble Lord. Lord Bruce-Gardyne, but as an ex-Treasury Minister he is worth coming back to—the A.300 has been a success and it has reached a financial break-even point. It is important that we should remember that.
I for one, and very much as a layman, am prepared to accept the opinion of people well qualified to know that the A.320 will offer super-fuel economy and minimal maintenance costs, besides of course satisfying the new noise regulations. Some of those spare aircraft, which I was about to say are running around the world but they are lying around at the moment not being used, would not meet those minimal noise regulations which we know will come into force in 1986. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, can tell me whether it is true that the A.320 is British Aerospace's only major civil aircraft?
I feel that all of us who strongly support the European Community believe that an additional asset in all this is that in these matters we have a proven partnership with the French, German and Spanish industries and including, I believe, Belgium. Surely we would not wish, and the Government would not wish, that the A.320 should continue with new partners and minus Britain. As the House knows, we aim to build the wings plus, I am told, for the first time, virtually all the complicated wing flaps, securing some 4,500 jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know a great deal more about this than I do, but it is useful that lay Members know something. Then of course there is the opportunity which will be offered to Rolls-Royce. Others besides myself will have noted the comments made in another place on 19th December, by those particularly interested in this project, to the effect that it is just possible that the new Rolls-Royce engine may be ready in 1988 at the same time as the launch of the airbus.
I would not be competent to comment on a further point concerning Rolls-Royce, but I think it should be referred to. As I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, only three simple points, perhaps he will comment on this also when he comes to reply. It was said how unwise it would be for the United Kingdom not to get its Rolls-Royce power plant certificated for the A.320. Indeed, the point was made that Rolls-Royce must now bitterly regret the fact that it never got the RB-211 certificated for the B2–B4 and the A.310 airbus. The man who spoke to me, who was very knowledgeable, said that he was sure that the company feels today that it would never make the same mistake again.
I hope that the Government will provide financial aid for this project. If they do not feel able to offer the full amount, perhaps they could do two other things in addition to their own contribution: first, they could persuade others in Europe to help; and, secondly, they could demand some means of independent private

289
sector finance. My Lords, we all know really that the A.320 will be built with or without British participation. Airbus, British Aerospace and the Government have an opportunity here to seize the initiative, and I hope that we do not miss the bus this time.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, on his maiden speech in this House. I should also like to offer my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his informed and persistent advocacy of all that is good in aeronautics. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, gave some figures about the amount of public moneys put into the aircraft industry in the post-war period. I remember that some time ago I wrote a pamphlet about these moneys and I think if the noble Lord were ever to read it he would probably not disagree with a good deal of what I said.
If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, since public ownership no launch aid was asked for, none was given and, on the publicly-owned capital in British Aerospace, a proper dividend was declared each year. I am not unhopeful that that good practice will be continued in the future.
I am not absolutely convinced that the strictly commercial case for the A.320 airbus can properly be discussed in a Chamber of this kind. But I agree with the noble Baroness and with the noble Earl that there are wider issues which are properly the concern of Parliament and which should be taken into account if a decision is made to advance public funds.
On the strictly commercial side there are obviously facts and figures which are confidential. I can imagine that the method and amount of payment by Airbus Industrie to the constituent companies for work done are probably relevant to any commercial decision, but they cannot and should not be brought into public discussion.
However, as I have said, there is a wider national interest here. It will be bad for Britain if we do not build our share of the A.320 airbus. British Aerospace is a member of Airbus Industrie. We paid £50 million for our share of the assets when we joined. It was not a political decision to join; it was a commercial decision. In so far as there was Government pressure at the time it was to stay out, but BAe decided that it was better to be an equal partner of a European consortium rather than a sub-contractor of an American company—which latter option our embassy in Washington at the time was not backward in canvassing.
I have said that it will be bad for Britain if we back out of an Airbus Industrie decision to go ahead with the A.320 and I will give three broad reasons why I say that. First, it would be contrary to the Government's declared policy of supporting new industry based on modern technology. We are here talking about a growth industry. We are only on the threshold, as yet, of transport and communication in air and space. I have known the time when the military side of the aircraft industry was supported by the civil side. I can well see in the next decade or so that we could return to that position, given the right decisions now.
290
My second reason is that it will seriously weaken the position of the British partner in Airbus Industrie if we cannot take our share of what could be the most important project so far. We joined Airbus Industrie late and I always saw the need to develop our influence and the contribution of British personnel. Improvements were possible, but we shall reverse that process of development and slip back into a second-rate partnership if we cannot keep up with the others. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that the British position as a partner of Airbus Industrie will be near impossible if we have to withdraw each time the A.320 project comes up for discussion at board or technical committee level.
Thirdly, following from what I have just said, a negative decision by us would reflect upon our standing in Europe. I have always maintained that membership of AI was a much more realistic and cost-effective exercise in European co-operation than the bureaucratic extravagance in Brussels.
I firmly support the Government's refusal to continue an open-ended subsidy for the production of overpriced commodities which we cannot sell, but if at the same time as that refusal the Government also refuse to support precisely the kind of joint industrial ventures which they advocated at Stuttgart in June then their credentials as Europeans will be derisory.
I hope the Minister will agree that those three reasons will carry some weight in the Government's consideration. But I would agree with him, with others and with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, that those reasons should carry weight only on the understanding that over an appropriate period the A.320 project is judged to be a profitable venture showing a real return on the investment.
That leads to the question of who shall be the judge of potential profitability? I know of no better qualified authority than the manufacturers. I do not believe that British Aerospace would want to go ahead unless it was satisfied about the eventual return. Some will say—and I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, saying, as has been said in the press—that such a judgment is made easy if it is not one's own money at stake. In this case BAe will have its own money at stake. It will have a great deal of money at stake in production costs. My understanding is that the company will be committed to repaying the loan now under discussion. The precise nature of the repayment terms is no doubt a matter for negotiation, but I hope the Minister will make clear for the benefit of the critics that no one is here talking about the old style launch aid. I hope that he will make it doubly clear that there is not the slightest resemblance to the Concorde contract.
Commentators have made the point, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, that, in the past, very few aircraft projects have proved profitable. That is absolutely true, but it is the principal reason why the number of aircraft manufacturers has gradually dwindled. We are now nearing the situation when there will be only two major manufacturers of mainline aircraft in the Western world. In that situation profitability for the manufacturer becomes possible, together with a degree of competition which I should still like to see, to benefit the operator. A

291
decision to go ahead with the A.320 will mean that Europe will have one of those two remaining potentially profitable manufacturing bases.
Another commentator has suggested that the decision to launch should wait until enough machines have been sold to guarantee break even. I suggest that that is a formula for closing down the industry. It is about as sensible as saying that a motor manufacturer should not lay down a production line until enough drivers have paid a deposit on cars to guarantee success. As the noble Baroness said, and as I believe the noble Earl has already said, more A.320s have been sold than most marketeers had thought possible in today's depressed conditions. But to expect a break-even order book is just talking nonsense.
It is this very fact of the exceptionally long timescale between design study to a positive cash flow that makes it necessary and justifiable for the company to turn to the Government for funds. In that respect we are dealing here with an exceptional industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us reason for believing that funding will be forthcoming to enable British Aerospace to maintain its position in Airbus Industrie. I hope that he will be able to see—and I hope that the Treasury especially understand—the need to relate repayments to this long timescale which is necessarily involved. I am bound to add that if this Government, who are selling off thousands of millions of pounds of public assets accumulated over the years by successive Governments, cannot find the money for this promising venture, then it is a pretty bad outlook for Britain.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on his most interesting contribution, even if I could not exactly agree with him. He is clearly a great asset to your Lordships' House. His eloquence and humour this evening made it clear that we shall all want to hear him again very often. It is also clear that he is no longer, at any rate, just a "Treasury toady". I do not think that he ever was; but I agree with him that if the City were to invest in this project that would be ideal. I hope that inquiries are still proceeding in the City to see whether some risk capital cannot be raised there.
I am very glad indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I have discussed these matters with him at crucial moments. I remember especially 1970, when I became Minister of State responsible for aerospace. Over a period of seven years—for a short time in Government and at length in Opposition—I was a spokesman for the Conservative Party in these matters. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, this evening, and I agreed with every word he said. I shall tell your Lordships later why I find that a little surprising. I agreed also with every word that my noble friend Lord Kimberley said in introducing this Motion; and also with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. We certainly are at one.
All the arguments have already been deployed, and I shall not detain your Lordships for too long. But, having been spokesman on aerospace for all those
292
years, and especially at the time when, in 1969, Mr Benn, as Minister for Technology, withdrew Government support for the original A.300 airbus I recall that we, the Conservative Opposition, opposed him strongly. I remember in this connection my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and others. We greatly regretted that withdrawal, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—almost my noble friend—probably regretted it as well. Certainly he gives the impression of regretting it now.
My point is this. I should not like to see the present Government do what I might call "another Benn" in not granting launching aid to enable Britain to make its fair contribution to this aircraft, which, as already made clear, will be the only European wide-bodied aircraft to compete with Boeing and, perhaps, McDonnell Douglas. Having visited Seattle more than once, I need hardly say that I have the greatest admiration for Boeing's remarkable achievements in aerospace and their domination, more or less, of the world airline market. I am glad, too, that Boeing accept Rolls-Royce engines in their machines. They are our friends. Nonetheless, I should not like to see them gain a virtual world-wide monopoly which, in a curious way and in view of the anti-trust laws in the United States, I do not think that they themselves really want. European airbus or no European airbus, Boeing will do all right.
I believe strongly that Europe, the European Community, and perhaps its associated states, should be capable of putting up some kind of competition with our American friends and allies. Therefore, I support very much the arguments so ably deployed by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and by the noble Baroness. I will not repeat all their cogent arguments, with which, in general and in principle, I agree. I hope that British Airways will keep its options open to order the plane, as British Caledonian and others have done, even if as a stop gap and in the interim they have to order some Boeings.
Although, as a Minister and as an Opposition spokesman, I was one of those who supported the building of Concorde from the very outset and hope that a larger and more economic "Son of Concorde" will ultimately be produced with our French, American, Japanese and maybe other friends, I must emphasise, like my noble friend, that this airbus is not another Concorde. As my noble friend has said, it represents a known technology in which it should be well worth investing. As he says, it is, indeed, merely a development of the original A.300 and the A.310, which have proved themselves to be highly successful as commercial aircraft. I hope, of course, that the A.320 will eventually have a Rolls-Royce engine. I was glad to see in the Sunday Times this week that the Government will support Rolls-Royce's participation in the five-nation project to develop the new V-2500 engine. I hope, too, that the Government will support Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace in building the engine, the air-frame and, particularly, the wings—and the flaps, as the noble Baroness has said—of the A.320.
I agree very much with all that the noble Baroness said and with the letter that she read out from Mr. James Moorhouse, MEP in The Times. If we really

293
wish to be wholehearted supporters of European economic (and, to some extent, industrial) unity, I think that the Government should provide this support. This does not mean that we should not co-operate with the United States in other ways, including perhaps the building of other aircraft such as the Harrier jump jet and, particularly, as I have said, a more economic supersonic transport. In the mid-1960s, when Boeing were given the contract, later cancelled, to build America's first supersonic transport, I was in favour of bringing in Lockheed as a partner in Concorde, but neither BAC (later British Aerospace) nor Sud-Aviation (later Aerospatiale) would agree. They thought that if we did so Lockheed would take over the whole project. However, if we had had an American partner in that project, then perhaps there might have been a modest market for Concorde in the United States.
The A.320, the European airbus, is a very different proposition for there is, as your Lordships have already said, a recognised market for it in the United States and in other parts of the world. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cockfield, for whom I have a great admiration, recognises this. If we do not give Government launching aid, then, as I see it, the wings as well as the aero engine will be built in the United States. As a result, there will be unemployment, as has already been said, to the extent of some 10,000 jobs in a number of British Aerospace establishments and their sub-contractors. That unemployment will be considerable. I agree with my noble friend that Britain must take up this challenge.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in giving congratulations upon the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and I join them too in hoping that we shall hear from him again many times during the process of our business. I particularly want to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley—I join other noble Lords in doing so—for the timing of this debate and I would seek the understanding of your Lordships in having discarded the few notes that I had prepared to participate in this timely debate.
What I want to do is to emphasise, alongside the urgency and the importance of the contribution that is being sought from the Government for the aerospace contribution itself, to underline in a complex situation the importance of viewing the whole canvas that was presented so ably by the noble Earl. Almost everything that has been said in the debate contributes towards my assessment that this is a unique debate and a unique situation which has developed, if one looks at the positions taken up by so many of us at other times. I have a feeling that the Treasury are right on some things it is possible for them to be doing at present and in some attitudes. One needs to be careful, although purposely I do not want to be word perfect in speaking off the cuff. It would be churlish of me not to indicate that perhaps the position emerging as a result of the matter before us does not lead me to say that for once I would be on the side of the Treasury position too, because everything is tied up.
294
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned one of the things I had made a note of: how does this question affect the wider issues of European unity? I had a position which was very doubtful, to say the least of it, concerning the prospects of Europe as a whole. Here is the very essence and test as to whether things go on in a positive way or not. This is not a question of milk or mutton; it is a question of the very essence and future of the possibility of progress on the front we have in mind.
I do not submit to your Lordships that my contribution is other than a lay contribution, but I would direct your attention from the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, which reminded me of the maiden speech I made seven years ago. The attitudes I was seeking in that maiden speech for the RB.211 are being met in the prospects we have before us in the technology that has developed since that time—the silence of the Rolls-Royce engines and such factors. And if one were to look hack at the record of the time, seven years ago, it would be worth two minutes' reading.
I have sought to see whether I could use my short time in this debate to set pointers, and particularly one pointer, which is the importance of what is involved in our connections with Europe, whatever one's views are. Secondly, certainly it is an international competitive situation, a struggle—and I use the word advisedly—that we are involved in. One cannot complain, when one talks of Boeing, that the Americans are pro-American and that the aircraft groups are patriotic. What I do complain of—at least I suspect it—is that we are not pro-British enough in a robust assessment of what we need to do. Some of the factors that came out in the noble Earl's presentation carefully drew attention to this. I would hope that Government Ministers will bring their weight to bear on these important factors, rather than worrying too much about commercialism.
The future employment situation has been brought out by your Lordships in many ways. All the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, drew attention to are involved in looking at the whole canvas, and if in the few minutes I have been able to address your Lordships I have been able to stress that, my purpose will have been served.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Marley: My Lords, I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley for introducing this subject. It is an absolutely vital one and this debate was impeccably timed, as others have said. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on his excellent contribution to this debate.
I have myself travelled a fair amount throughout the world and in various types of aircraft. I should like to agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in that I have never travelled in a more comfortable, quiet and smooth-running aircraft than the current A.300. I really think it is a very, very fine aircraft. It is one of the few European-built aircraft to penetrate the impregnable fortress of the United States air network and I think that is most important to the European Community, particularly because of the number of countries contributing to the airbus.

295
Eastern Airlines is the airline I am referring to. They have in use at the moment 34 A.300s, and I had a report this morning from their headquarters in America. They are very pleased and satisfied with this aircraft. They find it has great "passenger appeal", as the Americans put it. They find that its operation is efficient and economical, and I think that they should be encouraged in every way, if possible, by our Government to take an option on the new A.320.
It is vital to speed up the promotion of the new A.320, particularly in view of the announcement a couple of days ago of the new Boeing 737-300 which, as reported at its inauguration, will be in direct competition with the airbus. It is very important that the Government should take note of the announcement. I hope that they will support British Aerospace in the development of this aircraft. If it does not happen now—and I mean now—it may well be too late.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, for his maiden speech. As other noble Lords have said, it sounded a cautionary note, which was welcome, although I did not agree with its general tenor. All noble Lords who have taken part in the debate are, with perhaps the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, of one view. Help is needed for the launching of the airbus. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for opening the debate with a well-informed speech, based upon his experience and knowledge.
This issue has been debated on five occasions in the two Houses. Two Adjournment debates were held in the other place in December of last year. A great deal of information is already available about this vital issue, therefore. My noble friend Lord Beswick, with all his experience of the industry, opened debates in your Lordships' House on two Unstarred Questions. They were held on 26th April 1982 and 5th July 1983. In the debate on 26th April 1982, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, speaking for the Government, said that an assessment of the commercial viability of the A.320 project had not yet been completed; therefore it would be premature to take a decision. Further information from British Aerospace was awaited; however, the Government certainly intended to reach a decision with the minimum delay compatible with a proper appraisal of the case. That debate took place nearly two years ago. In the debates which took place last December in the other place, Government Ministers said that it was hoped to deliver a decision by the end of January 1984. This, therefore, is the time for decision.
Ministers have said time and time again that the A.320 is vital for the future of the civil aviation industry in Britain. I shall not give the references. There can be no disagreement that Airbus Industrie is an outstanding example of productive European co-operation. The way in which Airbus Industrie brought on stream the A.300 and the A.310 is clear evidence of that fact. I do not possess detailed knowledge of the aircraft manufacturing industry, but it is claimed that
296
the A.300 and the A.310 are the most economical and operationally reliable of any of the wide-bodied aeroplanes. I have not heard anybody deny those facts.
As has been stressed by other speakers, both the A.300 and the A.310 have had a successful sales programme. May I remind your Lordships that over 352 firm orders have been placed for the A.300 and the A.310 aircraft by 46 airlines, with options for another 100 aircraft? It is important to note that 70 per cent. of these aeroplanes have been bought by airlines which are not partners of Airbus Industrie. This is a very important point. About 200 of the A.300 and A.310 aeroplanes are operating successfully in various parts of the world.
In the last debate, on 5th July 1983, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at col. 553 said:
"We are most gratified by the successes—I stress 'the successes'—which Airbus Industrie has achieved in establishing a position second only to Boeing as a manufacturer of wide-bodied civil aircraft and also in demonstrating that a European collaborative venture can rival the major United States manufacturers".
That was obviously an agreed Government statement. Almost precisely the same words were used by Mr. John Butcher, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in a debate in the other place on 19th December 1983. Therefore the Government recognise the success which has already been achieved and the importance of the programme to the British civil aviation industry.
There seems to be no argument that there will be a demand throughout the world for the replacement of many of the ageing and noisy aircraft. Government Ministers agree that there will be a demand for new aeroplanes in the next 20 years. Airbus Industrie have carried out research with airlines throughout the world into the type of aircraft that is required to meet these needs. Airbus Industrie claim, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the A.320 fully meets the requirements of the world's airlines, as expressed in the survey they have carried out. They have also carried out a survey which suggests that, even at the lowest figure, only 30 per cent. of the possible demand for aircraft would mean that about 700 of the A.320 aeroplanes would be required.
Reference has been made to the 88 orders and options which have already been secured for the A.320. I understand that until today there were 47 firm orders and 41 options, but I was told only this morning that another four firm orders have been placed and that another four options have been taken up by an existing A.310 customer. I should like noble Lords to keep that point in mind.
In the debate on 19th December in another place, Mr. John Butcher joined in the congratulations upon an order for five A.320s having been placed by the Yugoslavian State Airline. He said:
"It is further evidence of the commercial appeal of the A.320".
He agreed that it was absolutely right to say that orders and options for the A.320 were at the largest pre-launch level achieved. Mr. John Butcher recognised that an unusually large pre-launch order had been placed.
Airlines do not place orders on grounds of sentiment. Reference has been made to British Caledonian Airways. Sir Adam Thomson and his

297
board did not place that order merely on grounds of sentiment. I was present when Sir Adam Thomson was asked whether British involvement in a European enterprise was a factor in their decision. He said that the decision was taken almost solely on the commercial needs of British Caledonian and that it was necessary for them to have the A.320. I hope, as other noble Lords have already said, that British Airways will also place orders for aircraft. Airbus Industrie should be mentioned, as they offered to provide interim aircraft to BA on the same lease arrangements as those offered by Boeing.
In passing, perhaps I should say that many countries would love to enjoy the British situation of having a very efficient aeroplane manufacturer, as we have in British Aerospace; one of the world's leading aircraft engine manufacturers, as we have in Rolls-Royce; and one of the leading state airlines, as we have in the form of British Airways. I regret that we do not have all the collaboration between those three bodies which I should like to see, but there is not the slightest doubt that an order from British Airways will greatly enhance the prestige of the whole Airbus Industrie programme. As other noble Lords have said, there is already development in progress at Rolls-Royce on an engine which will be suitable for use in the A.320 programme.
My noble friend Lord Beswick emphasised the position of British Aerospace; that they believe this is a good aeroplane. As laymen, we must take note of those people who understand what is required in the production of an aeroplane. I should like to emphasise, as other noble Lords have done, that up to now there has been no development support given to British Aerospace, or required by British Aerospace, for their part of the production of the A.300 and A.310 programmes.
As more than one noble Lord has said, if the Government do not help with this matter, and if British Aerospace have to withdraw, nevertheless the A.320 programme will continue with the share of British Aerospace being offered to other members of the partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, asked a question about returns. When my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede spoke in the debate in July last year, he referred to the loans towards production costs incurred which Airbus Industrie had already repaid.
Airbus Industrie have made it quite clear that the share of the A.320 programme falling on British Aerospace might be nearer 26 per cent., rather than the 20 per cent. they had in the previous programme. I have heard Government Ministers echo that that could be so. We must bear in mind that British Aerospace and Airbus Industrie buy equipment from some 40 other British companies. We have also possibilities for Rolls-Royce engines because Airbus Industrie have made it clear that they will welcome the opportunity to offer the alternative Rolls-Royce engine to customers instead of that which is currently used.
Ministers have time and time again expressed the view that the success of the A.320 is vital for the future of our aerospace industry. One can refer to numerous speeches to prove that fact. If that is so, and if
298
Ministers do consider it vital for the future of our aerospace industry, then what will be the situation if we do not participate in the A.320?
It is essential that our participation in this great European construction effort should continue. It is generally agreed that production of this type of aircraft is far too large a project for any single European country. Therefore, if we did not participate and there was not the Airbus Industrie effort in our programme, then there would be sole reliance upon Boeing production. The Government decision could give a considerable impetus to Airbus Industrie. It could give great impetus to the A.320 programme, and it could have a considerable effect upon sales. There is clear evidence that the A. 300 and A.310 programmes have been successful and are continuing to be successful. There are no reliable grounds for believing that the A.320 programme could not be the same.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said on 5th July 1983, speaking on behalf of the Government:
"The Government recognise that the future of British Aerospace as a civil aircraft manufacturer is now very closely linked to participation in viable new air industry projects. The valuable opportunities which the A.320 could present to British engine and aircraft equipment manufacturers is also clearly recognised".—[Official Report, 5/7/83; col. 554.]
What I believe noble Lords are asking tonight is that that recognition should now be backed by real, positive assistance to the launch programme.
7.10 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, may I start by congratulating my noble friend and former colleague Lord Bruce-Gardyne on a thoughtful, well-argued and well-documented maiden speech. He brings to this House great experience in economic affairs, a penetrating insight into the activities of government, and a facility of expression which makes even the most trenchant criticism a pleasure to listen to.
As my noble friend Lord Kimberley, who initiated this debate, will readily appreciate, I am not in a position to make any announcement of the Government's intentions this evening. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend recognises that that is so. Nevertheless, the debate has served the valuable purpose of enabling us to survey the field as a whole, and it has given your Lordships an opportunity to make your views known. I can assure all noble Lords who have spoken that very careful consideration will be given to everything that has been said.
When British Aerospace was privatised in February 1981, it was stated that the company would have the same eligibility for Government finance as other companies in the private sector and as its predecessor companies had prior to nationalisation. That remains the position. We have made it clear that we are prepared in principle to consider launch aid for participation by British Aerospace, and indeed by other aerospace companies, in viable new projects. The present application by British Aerospace for launch aid is in respect of its share of the development costs of the A.320 airbus, and this will need to be judged on its merits.

299
It is important that I indicate the basis on which we approach these matters. Launch aid is not a subsidy—at least, it is not intended to be a subsidy, although it has very often ended up that way. Its intention is that when an enterprise operating in a field of public importance has a commercially viable proposition, the development costs of which are very heavy and which have to be incurred before—and sometimes long before—revenue from the project accrues, then in appropriate cases Government will assist by providing launch aid which will help to meet development costs and which will be repaid out of revenues when they accrue.
There is a parliamentary requirement that one should vote in accordance with one's voice. There is a commercial equivalent. One of the prime tests of commercial viability must be whether the enterprise promoting the project is prepared to back it with its own money. That is why when launch aid is sought the company concerned is usually expected to bear at least 50 per cent. of the cost itself. This risk sharing between the company and the Government means that the company still has a real incentive to ensure that the project does make sufficient money to meet the full development costs, including repayment of launch aid, as well as making a reasonable profit. To cover the whole of the development costs by launch aid would leave the company with no such incentive.
As my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne has said, the history of launch aid to the aerospace industry over the last 30 years or so has been far from a happy one. On the airframe side only the Viscount has been sold in sufficient numbers for the Government aid to have been repaid in full. Of the total launch aid or equivalent provided, revalued at current prices, only about one-seventh has been repaid. On the civil aero-engine side, only the Spey, Avon and Tyne have repaid the Government investment.
This is not in itself an acceptable situation, and the position is made even more difficult by the enormous escalation of the cost of new aircraft development and the competing claims which exist in the field of public expenditure. It is essential to realise just how large the sums sought for aerospace programmes are. The total development cost of the A.320 at outturn prices is put at something like £2,000 million. British Aerospace are now seeking some £460 million at outturn prices in launch aid. This is 100 per cent. of British Aerospace's share of the total development cost.
In addition to the launch aid now being requested by British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce in their turn have submitted an application for launch aid of £113 million at 1983 prices for the V.2500 engine programme. The amount at outturn prices will, of course, be substantially greater than that. Nor is this the end of the story. Launch aid of £70 million has been approved for the Rolls-Royce 211.535/4 engine and £41 million for the Westland WG.30 helicopter. Still to come is the EH. 101 helicopter, a joint Anglo-Italian project. The amounts of money involved, both applied for and already given, are therefore very substantial.
Firm orders for the existing A.300 and A.310, including deliveries already made, have totalled some 350 aircraft from 46 airlines around the world. This
300
gives Airbus a valuable customer base on which the A.320 can draw. This, I imagine, is one of the points my noble friend Lord Kimberley had in mind when he said that there was a market for the A.320 which is presented to us on a platter. But we must equally face the fact that the United States manufacturers who currently dominate this section of the market will offer the strongest competition. The rolling out of the new Boeing 737.300 last Wednesday amply illustrates that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, asked whether it is true that the Americans want to oust Britain from the Airbus consortium. Obviously there will be those in the American industry who would prefer to see the United Kingdom industry not participate in the A.320 project, but I am assured that Boeing themselves have denied that this is their view. It follows that with the development costs of the Airbus 320 likely to come out at some £2,000 million, as I have said, high volume production running at the level achieved in recent years only by the major United States companies will be essential to recover the investment involved.
Of key importance for the A.320 will be improvements in productivity to match the levels achieved in the United States aerospace industry. The question whether such improvements can be achieved must be one of the major factors in deciding whether launch aid should be given. What we have to face is that the civil aviation market is almost wholly denominated in United States dollars regardless of where the aircraft are built or sold. The selling price of the A.320 will, therefore, be conditioned by the dollar price of competing United States aircraft. The economic viability of the A.320 will thus be influenced by the pricing policies of United States manufacturers and by movements in currency exchange rates. We need to match United States levels of productivity if we are to have a product saleable in world markets.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He is emphasising this point of productivity and the importance of the exchange rates. To what extent is the situation with the proposed 320 any different at all as compared with the 300 and 310, where we have matched the Americans? Why does he not accept the fact?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord is supporting the point I am making, no doubt much to his surprise. It is very important that we do match the United States levels of productivity, and I am glad that he entirely agrees on this point. I do not understand really what the noble Lord is arguing about, because this is clearly one of the factors that have to be taken into account. The evidence produced by British Aerospace on this point is being considered very carefully.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, it is obvious that the noble Lord did not understand what I was talking about, otherwise he would not have given that answer. The noble Lord was advancing that the difficulty with a positive decision on the A.320 arises because, he said, we have to match productivity; and he said it in such a way as to suggest that there was doubt about this. I am asking him, will he not accept as evidence the fact that we have matched them in productivity in the 300 and the 310?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am not in a position, off the cuff, to give actual figures for productivity on the A.300 and the A.310. It nevertheless remains absolutely true that one of the crucial issues is that we must match productivity. The noble Lord is saying that he is certain that we will match United States levels of productivity. If we do, that is splendid, but it must be, and it must continue to be, a matter of considerable concern in this field. This is particularly so because we are looking at a 20-year programme, and it would be quite wrong to believe that United States levels of productivity will remain exactly where they are. The point I am putting to the noble Lord—and I really do not know why he is disputing this—is that we really need to look at all of the factors involved; and this we are doing. We look at them with an open mind, and I hope the noble Lord does the same.
May I go on to a further point here. The share of the A.320 programme for which it is proposed British Aerospace should have design responsibility is about 26 per cent., which is somewhat larger than their 16 to 18 percent. stake in the current programme. Although the work share is based primarily on the design and manufacture of the wings, as was the case with the A.300 programme, British Aerospace would have overall control of the complete wing design, and in addition responsibility for the undercarriage and load alleviation system.
As a full partner in Airbus, the United Kingdom is entitled to look for a share of equipment broadly proportionate to our partnership share. We recognise that there are historical and commercial reasons for the low levels of participation by British equipment suppliers in the original A.300 programme. There have been some modest improvements in our share in the A.310 and A.300–600. However, there is scope for further improvement in this area, and if Government support for the A.320 programme is given we should want to ensure that British equipment companies, which can offer commercially and technically competitive products, have a fair opportunity to participate in the programme.
The depth of the recession which the air transport industry has recently experienced and the consequent financial problems facing the great majority of the world's airlines have inhibited them from committing themselves to purchases of new generation aircraft for delivery some five years or so from now. Airbus Industrie has therefore faced difficulties in obtaining launch orders for the A.320. But the A.320 does have the advantage that it is aimed predominantly at replacement of existing aircraft rather than on a market sector dependent upon future traffic growth.
The British Caledonian order for seven A.320s is encouraging; and it is the response of the airlines like British Caledonian operating in a highly competitive market environment which will determine whether the A.320 will be commercially attractive, In all, 47 orders and 41 options have been obtained to date. I gather that the additional orders and options mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not, in fact, be finalised and announced until mid-February, but that does not significantly alter the total figures.
302
However, it is important to remember the sort of numbers involved in the successful United States civil aircraft programmes. The Boeing 727 production line has just closed after the sale of some 1,800 aircraft: the one-thousandth Boeing 737 has just been completed. Over 1,000 DC9s have been sold. The A.320 will likewise need to achieve very substantial sales if it is to provide an adequate return on investment.
Initially the A.320 is being offered with the derivative CFM56–4 engine. But we believe that the aircraft's sales potential will be maximised by the availability of an advanced technology engine to complement the advanced technology airframe specification. The V.2500 engine, in which Rolls-Royce would have a 30 per cent. stake, thus offers valuable prospects for the A.320 in a new technology engined version. The companies concerned are studying whether the V.2500 could be available to match the A.320's projected 1988 entry into service date. That answers the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
Rolls-Royce have submitted an application to the Government for launch aid in respect of their participation in the V.2500 engine programme and a decision on this will be taken broadly on the same timescale as on the A.320 application.
There is one further point, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, relating to British Airways. The British Airways statement which announced the Boeing 737 short-term leasing arrangements specifically pointed out that these provided the airline with the flexibility to review, without long-term commitment, its aircraft requirements for the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when the next generation of short-haul aircraft such as the A.320 are expected to become available.
Of the four prospective partners in the Airbus 320 consortium, France and Spain—and Spain has a relatively small share—have specified their willingness to support the project. Germany, like ourselves, has not yet reached a decision but is likely to do so very shortly. I appreciate the concern and hopes of all those involved in the civil aerospace industry about this matter. These concerns and hopes have been expressed in your Lordships' House this evening, as they have on previous occasions. I assure my noble friend, and all your Lordships who have spoken, that the most careful consideration will be given to what has been said this evening. My noble friend's felicity of timing means that your Lordships' views will form part of the input into the decision.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne on his maiden speech. I also thank him for the very kind words he said about me. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we all hope we shall hear a lot more from him. I agree with him that sales must achieve a commercial return and, like that noble aeroplane the Viscount, I am sure that the A.320 will. I agree with every word said by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Would that I had her gift of oratory, because she puts my case much better than I can. I was very encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said about the money which has gone to British Aerospace in the past four years. I thought he

303
was completely right in emphasising that what is needed is a wider national interest. We joined Airbus Industrie perhaps too late, but at least we got there. Whatever we do we must not reverse the decision now. The noble Lord asked, "Who is to judge?" and "Who better to judge than the manufacturer?" If noble Lords will bear with me for a moment, I should like to quote what Sir Austin Pearce said in his New Year message to British Aerospace in British Aerospace News:
"So we have to demonstrate we've got a good product and are prepared to produce it in a way that makes it really competitive with Boeing, because that's who we're up against. I think we can. I am optimistic we can.
"We do, however, require an awful lot of support from the work force, and provided we can get that then I am quite clear that the outlook for the A.320 will be encouraging. But we've also got to convince the Government to help us with launch aid. If we can't do that, then we've got problems, very severe problems.
"I'm hoping that it won't be too long into the New Year before we hear the Government's decision, and then I'm hoping—but, of course, I can't guarantee it now—that we shall be able to go ahead.".
I think that those are probably very prophetic and true words, because Sir Austin Pearce is a very capable, commercially minded and able business man.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough again emphasised how right we must be about Europe. It is only if we stay with Europe that we can have any competition with the United States. There is no doubt that competitiveness is a good thing.
I particularly liked the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw. I thought he made a wonderful speech. He hides his light under a bushel in saying that he is a layman. He knows a lot about Rolls-Royce engines and a lot about Europe. He is right to say that the only people who will be pro-British are us, the British. We must be more pro-British. I liked what was said by my noble friend Lord Marley. He has flown all over the world in many types of airliners. He knows a lot about the airbus, and is right in what he says.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the five debates we have had in the two Houses. We must have productive European co-operation. He mentioned what my noble friend Lord Lyell and the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. Mr. John Butcher, said on 19th December 1983. I want to emphasise what he said. He spoke about the importance of the A.320 programme. He went on to say that we have the largest pre-launch level for an aeroplane. I think that we should have a much larger pre-launch level if the industry knew that we would give British Aerospace the launch aid that it requires. We must not forget that 40 other companies are affected by this.
I did not expect my noble friend the Minister to give me an answer tonight. I am sure that he and many others will have noted the feeling in your Lordships' House tonight. Last night as I was leaving the House I saw my noble friend and said, "We are going to do battle tomorrow evening". He said, "No. We are going to bandy words". I think that we have done that fairly successfully this evening.
I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who have participated in the debate for their support. It can leave no possible doubt in the Government's mind that, if democracy is to work and the House of Lords
304
required that launch aid be given to the A.320, it would be. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UNESCO Conference
7.31 p.m.
Lord Vaizey Lord Vaizey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the outcome of the 22nd session Of the UNESCO General Conference.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, so far as I can discover, this is the first time that the subject of UNESCO has been raised on the Floor of either House for a considerable time. As the organisation is at a turning point in its affairs, I think that it is an appropriate occasion to put a number of specific questions to the Government about British participation and policy. They may well welcome the opportunity to take counsel with your Lordships on the matter. May I say how much we welcome back to the Front Bench from her journeys my noble friend Lady Young. She has been to Grenada and the Falkland Islands. Every troubled island in the world seems to have received a visit from my noble friend this Christmas and New Year.
The five specific questions that I want to put to my noble friend—and I have given her notice of them—are as follows. First, are the Government satisfied that, with other like-minded Governments, we have exerted sufficient pressure to contain the budgetary expansion of UNESCO? Secondly, are they satisfied that every effort is being made to restrain the extravagance and inefficiency at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris? I do not speak about the work in the field. Thirdly, are they satisfied that Mr. M'Bow has proved an effective director general of this United Nations agency, and what attitude will they take to his forthcoming campaign for re-election? Fourthly, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the threat to the free flow of information caused by UNESCO's proposed third world censorship programme has been staved off? Lastly, are the Government satisfied that the serious damage to human rights entailed in UNESCO's support of so-called people's rights has also been limited?
Behind these five specific questions lies a more general anxiety. It is this. Successive Western Governments have not taken UNESCO seriously. It has been allowed to become a major centre of anti-Western agitation and propaganda. When Israel was expelled from UNESCO in the mid-1970s the United States, under the then presidency of President Carter, withdrew its support and Israel was promptly re-admitted. Now the United States has finally announced that it will resign from the organisation.
I speak with 25 years experience of UNESCO. Many of us feel that, on balance, other Western Governments, including our own, should also cut their losses—though I must admit that the Foreign Office has already, announced that we shall not withdraw. I wonder whether that decision is correct and whether it is not a bit precipitate.
The Glasgow Herald, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Spectator and the Economist have all argued that the United Kingdom should also withdraw. I know that many other knowledgeable people share that view. I have had a great many letters from people of great distinction and authority asking me to suggest in this House that the Government should seriously consider withdrawal. I shall listen with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with his many years of experience of United Nations work, has to say, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who is probably the country's leading expert on overseas aid to the third world.
If I may take us back a little to the origins of UNESCO, it was set up in London in 1946 and then transferred to Paris. It is now a significant item in the French balance of payments, because three-quarters of its budget is spent in France. Its first director general was Sir Julian Huxley, a distinguished man but no great shakes as an administrator. The Soviet Union joined in 1956. Sir Julian was then followed by two short-lived directors general. UNESCO then had a very distinguished French director general, M. Maheu, who has recently died. The director general now is from Senegal. Mr. M'Bow administers a sizeable programme, to which our annual contribution is rather less than £5 million, which is not an insignificant sum. If I may give a comparison, it is almost enough to save Calke Abbey, as it is half the annual grant to the National Heritage Fund.
That bit of UNESCO's expenditure which is not spent in Paris has shifted heavily towards the third world. The push in that direction was given by the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, when he was education Minister. I think that it is increasingly realised that he was the most distinguished education Minister that we have had since the war, and his views will be particularly important and relevant. Mrs. Castle, when she was Minister for Overseas Development and the responsibilities for UNESCO were transferred from education to overseas development, also tried to push effort into work in the field in education. I shall listen with care to what the noble Viscount has to say. Those two important efforts by British Ministers have not been carried through.
UNESCO is governed by biennial conferences, to which we send small delegations. It is also governed by an executive board on which a British subject usually sits. Customarily it has been a retired middle-level civil servant. I think it is fair to say that, with the exceptions to which I have drawn attention—the noble Viscount and Mrs. Castle—there has been little ministerial interest in the organisation over the years. Of the three surviving former British executive board members, I think that the most distinguished also favours withdrawal. It is fair to say that the Labour nominee, Mr. Matheson, who left the executive board in 1974, does not. He thinks that we should definitely stay and that one of the reasons for the weakness in UNESCO is the lack of interest by the United States delegation. That was true in the Carter years but it is not true now. The United States has a distinguished delegate in Paris, as we have had, too.
UNESCO's constitution, governed as it is by this biennial conference and the transient body of the executive board, gives enormous power to the director
306
general. It must be said that he increases that power by political manipulation. The present director general, for whom the United Kingdom has twice voted, both when the Labour Government were in office and during Mrs. Thatcher's first Administration, was described forcefully, accurately and most impressively by Mrs. Rosemary Righter in a brilliant article in the Sunday Times. She described the arbitrary tyranny which is exercised in Paris over the staff. Only 4 per cent. of the staff said that they had confidence in the director general. He has tried to disband the staff organisation and dissuade people from joining it. This tyranny also extends over many delegates. There is deep dissatisfaction indeed.
These are strong words, but I can assure your Lordships that those of us who go regularly to Paris to see the organisation think that the words are just and fair. The director general will be seeking re-election for a future term of six years. It is most important to find an alternative candidate if we are to stay in the organisation. There are very few constitutional checks on his power.
I should like to ask the Government to take steps to initiate an inquiry into the functioning of the organisation at headquarters and the dissatisfaction to which Mrs. Righter draws our attention in her thoroughly well researched article in the Sunday Times. Mrs. Righter, and many other journalists of great distinction, have gone on to say that UNESCO is overwhelmingly inefficient and extravagant. I believe that that assertion would be backed up by almost everybody who has served in a British delegation to UNESCO. The question which is really before the Government is whether or not the rot has gone so far that the organisation is no longer remediable. On balance, I would think that that is so; I think that it has gone so far.
The one section of the organisation for which I had great respect was the International Institute for Educational Planning, which did very valuable work; but the independence of the governing board of that body has been destroyed and the independence of its staff put under the control of the secretariat, which means that the last section that was outstanding has diminished.
I must say that if inefficiency and extravagance were the sole charge, it might be said that UNESCO was a fairly cheap way for the British to meet and influence third world delegations. Personally, I think that that is a weak argument. There are plenty of other places for our diplomats and experts to meet people from the third world—notably, of course, from the Commonwealth, where we have an admirable record in educational aid and scientific collaboration. UNESCO's small programmes in marine biology and archaeological preservation could certainly be far more cheaply performed by properly constituted scientific bodies.
It is not just extravagance; it is not just inefficiency. There are two areas where the torrent of anti-Western propaganda represents a real danger to Western values, which are upheld in all parts of this House. The first concerns human rights, which is the one issue about which I feel absolutely passionately. UNESCO has got into the human rights act on the somewhat

307
spurious ground of education for human rights and research into the question. The Swiss national who is responsible for this part of UNESCO's programme has resigned on principle and has been replaced by a Trinidadian, Mrs. O'Callaghan, a far Left Marxist, who has pursued the director general's concept (borrowed from the Soviet Union) of people's rights.
People's rights are the direct opposite of human rights. Human rights are, of course, dismissed as a bourgeois fantasy, and people's rights are based on the concept of tribal and racial purity. They are, for example, the basis of virulent anti-Semitism and bitter hostility to the state of Israel. Those people who have not listened to the debates at UNESCO ought to go and listen to them, because they are quite horrifying.
The usual anti-apartheid resolutions are also passed, but there is never any serious attempt to understand or to interpret the roots of apartheid. The propaganda is so one-sided. There is never any reference to the Ayatollah and the position of people in Iran, for example, let alone any references to other parts of the third world; nor, of course, to the Soviet empire.
The development of the concept of people's rights is a most sinister and deplorable aspect of United Nations activities. Those of us who are deeply concerned with human rights now regard UNESCO not as a neutral party but as a dangerous enemy of the rights of the individual. I may say that the rights of individuals, whatever the colour of their skins, are equally important, and they must not be dismissed merely as a package of Western values which the imperialists are trying to impose on the ex-colonial people. But that is the way they are dismissed at the moment by the Soviet bloc and its supporters.
The other aspect of UNESCO's programme which is deeply sinister is the communications programme. The UNESCO proposals have been doubling up for some years. They come, of course, from the Soviet Union, via Cuba and the so-called group of non-aligned states, and they start from the premise that all world information is biased in a pro-capitalist direction because Reuters, the Press Association, Agence France-Presse, and so on, are part of the capitalist superstructure.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, with all his great authority, is to speak on this aspect of UNESCO's programme, but I would say that this whole programme has been the immediate cause of the United States decision to withdraw. What is being proposed is the setting up of a series of third world agencies, sponsored by Governments, and the licensing of journalists, so that the third world receives more favourable coverage, Western journalists are curbed, and in relation to the press and the media Governments assume the role which they have in the Soviet empire of rewriting and inventing the news.
There was some movement at the conference which ended in November because people were getting wind of the fact that the United States was going to withdraw and so reduce the UNESCO budget by 25 per cent. I think that the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in a very important pamphlet, that,
"UNESCO may be approaching a tragic situation in which free countries can compromise no further",
308
is something to which we must pay very great attention. Every responsible person in the press in the West is terrified of this activity which is taking place in Paris.
The evening is drawing on, and I shall bring my remarks to a close. I want very much to hear what other noble Lord have to say. The Government may take the view that our subscription and the costs of our delegation, at about £5 million a year, are negligible. For myself, I do not think that that is an appropriate attitude to take to any public expenditure, large or small, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will not take that line. It is true that other Western states, excepting the United States, will not leave UNESCO. Obviously, France will not leave. If it receives 300 million dollars each year, that is a very concrete reason for it to stay in UNESCO. I think probably the rest of the Common Market, for one reason or another, will also stay in.
However, I believe that there is a possibility that New Zealand will withdraw; and, if the Conservatives win the election in Canada, I should certainly be surprised if Canada stays in. This is an occasion, I think, when the United States has acted on behalf of the free nations, following intolerable acts and words by the agency and the group that dominates it. I believe that, in this particular instance, we should pay great attention to what the United States has decided to do.
Above all, we are reaping where we have sown. This is not in any sense an attack on the present Minister, nor on the delegations which we have sent out there. They have been very small, but extremely impressive. However, we have treated the election and re-election of people such as Mr. M'Bow casually. We have allowed the situation in Paris to deteriorate until the staff has become frightened and is now of low calibre. We have not seized the political opportunities of replying to the constent torrent of Soviet propaganda by a sober recital of what they are really up to. I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to reply strongly on our behalf.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, tabled his Unstarred Question before the United States announced its intention to withdraw from UNESCO, but that decision and the controversy that has arisen as a result of it, I suggest, makes the noble Lord's Question this evening all the more significant and timely, and I congratulate him at least on that aspect of his inquiries. It is important in the light of the American decision that we should learn what the attitude of our own Government is, and therefore we look forward with more than usual interest to the reply at the end of the debate from the noble Baroness.
Of course, during the recess we had a brief preview both of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this matter and of the Government's attitude, because Lord Vaizey wrote to The Times on the 2nd January casting doubt on whether the United Kingdom should continue its membership of UNESCO. I think this evening he has expressed himself on that point even more strongly than he did

309
in his letter. As he has said, we also had at that time a statement from the Foreign Office indicating that the Government had no intention of following the United States in this matter.
I certainly welcome the Government's view—if it still is the Government's view—that it is better to seek improvements (and improvements there undoubtedly need to be) within an organisation than to walk away from it. I hope the Minister when she replies this evening will firmly reiterate that that is still the Government's attitude. In my view, it is highly regrettable that the United States has proclaimed its intention of abandoning UNESCO in a year's time, and, in my view, Britain must not follow suit. If we are dissatisfied with some aspects of the performance of UNESCO—and I share some of the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has put forward—we must use our membership to remedy those defects rather than give up membership.
It was my privilege some 15 or more years ago to lead the British UNESCO delegation to Paris. I do not begin to claim that that qualifies me to speak with any special authority on the present situation, but it does enable me to recall certain general impressions, particularly in relation to the debate about which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, spoke. I remember that I was dissatisfied, particularly in the debates in the General Session, not only about the views expressed by some delegates but that it was simply a platform for making set speeches for consumption at home. That is a weakness which one recognises in many international organisations, and I am not at all sure that we can avoid it. After all, in the history of the human race the very few decades that we have had in these international organisations should mean that we do not expect too much too soon; but certainly I think there is room for improvement in these matters, and for economies. I recognise that the way things are conducted at headquarters could be improved. I would stress that that kind of problem and that kind of expense are not easy to avoid. Certainly, simply throwing in the sponge and walking away does not seem to me to be a helpful attitude.
What are the major criticisms of UNESCO which the noble Lord has put forward this evening, and which I think have been put forward by the United States in its explanation of why it proposes to withdraw? First, the criticism is that the organisation is spendthrift and financially irresponsible. I recall that even 15 years ago the budget was hotly disputed. I ask: what is the yardstick by which the size of the budget of such an organisation as UNESCO should be assessed? UNESCO's mandate covers, after all, all the activities of the human mind and spirit, and its geographical coverage is worldwide, including the vast population and cultural heritage of the Republic of China. Any sum of money can be said to be totally inadequate for such a task.
In cultural matters, where tastes and judgment are of the essence, it is easy for one person to condemn something as wasteful which another person regards as vital; so we are in a very difficult area when we try to measure value for money in these matters. It should be recalled, as I am sure the Minister opposite will recall, because it was made clear in the Foreign Office statement earlier, that the British delegation has been
310
diligent in these matters and has helped to reduce UNESCO's budget, and the much criticised director general himself proposed a reduction in the growth over the next two years. The executive board recommended a growth of something like 6 per cent., and he recommended 4 per cent. I do not think that can be taken as an irresponsible attitude to UNESCO's finance.
Secondly—and again the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, made this point—UNESCO has been accused of meddling in politics beyond the confines of its mandate. I think we need to look carefully at this question. What are the issues that are involved here? The noble Lord drew attention to some of them. He particularly instanced the question of the attitudes to Israel, and I, as a committed friend of the state of Israel, echo some of his sentiments. What, after all, UNESCO is basically concerned with in its resolutions on this subject is the education of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; and other matters, I agree. I see the noble Lord shakes his head, but that is one of the things with which they are concerned.
UNESCO also concerns itself with the maintenance of peace and, as the noble Lord has said, with the question of human rights. Of course, all these questions are political issues; that cannot be in doubt. The question is: does UNESCO exceed its mandate when it deals with subjects such as these? I suggest we need look no further than the preamble to its constitution, and I will quote from it:
"Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed, and peace must be founded on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind."
What are termed political issues, I suggest, fall within the purpose of that preamble.
I suggest that such subjects cannot but comprehend conflicts of ideology. Indeed, where else in the world is there some hope of reconciling these ideologies in a rational spirit other than in UNESCO? It may be open to all sorts of criticism, but I suggest that, on a worldwide scale, it is the organisation that we have for these purposes and we should use it to the best of our ability.
Another UNESCO proposal which has been criticised—and again the noble Lord took up this point—is the proposal for a new world information and communications order. It is perfectly understandable to me that the Western delegations have been very defensive on this point. I am always very wary of such sweeping worldwide concepts as "new world orders", et cetera. I endorse what I understand to be the Government's position on this matter and I should like to quote from the journal of the Overseas Development Administration which is entitled, Overseas Development. It says:
"She"—
that is, Her Majesty's Government—
"would find it unacceptable for UNESCO to adopt objectives which could be interpreted as eroding the organisation's cardinal commitment to freedom of expression, or as enhancing government or international control of the media".
I also welcome another comment that I read in that same journal:
"Any NWICO [new world information and communications order] would be of an evolving nature"—

311
there is nothing wide-sweeping in this approach. It goes on to say that it:
"should move towards practical measures for specific problems—not towards imposing international norms and constraints".
I personally have seen the training courses which the ODA supports and I believe them to be entirely on the right lines. The only point I would make in that connection is that I wish that they were on a much larger scale which would begin to meet the problem of the media so far as the developing countries are concerned.
We ought at least to note the motivation for the UNESCO proposal. Without accepting it one should look at what I believe to be the motivation, and one should look at it for a moment through the eyes of the Governments of developing countries who are, after all, the poor relations in every sense in terms of information techniques and machinery. Perhaps I may quote a domestic example. We in the Labour Party on this side of your Lordships' House know only too well what it is like to be the poor relations as regards newspapers and broadcasting, because we are faced daily by a a huge barrage of anti-Labour press and we have no press of our own. Money and resources talk in these matters, both at home and abroad. I believe that that is the position in which the developing countries feel themselves to be and it is that imbalance which they are anxious to overcome. I agree that it may be that they are going about it in the wrong way, but at least one can understand why they are concerned about this matter.
So much for the criticisms of UNESCO. However, I suggest that those criticisms are in danger of concentrating on the lesser parts of UNESCO's activities and underrating UNESCO's overall achievements. For instance, UNESCO's impact on educational development in the third world, particularly in the field of literacy, has been significant. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am advised otherwise. The noble Lord quoted from an issue of The Times and I am glad to quote from, I think, the very issue which contained his letter. It is therefore a particularly interesting edition, and the following quotation is a very good assessment. It says:
"About thirty seven per cent. of its budget goes towards educational programmes, thirty per cent. to science and eleven per cent. to culture. The more objectionable activities take a very small part of the budget".
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, the central point is not whether the dollar is labelled "education", but where the dollar is spent. Of course the dollars are not spent in Botswana and places like that; they are spent in Paris, producing enormous documents, and I have a large number here from which I could read. It is totally incomprehensible. That is the criticism. It is as though the entire education budget or the entire National Health Service budget were spent in the headquarters of the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education. That is the point I am making.
Lord Oram: My Lords, it is a point that I accept. It is a top-heavy organisation. However, in the opening sentences of the noble Lord's speech he did hint that he certainly approved of the activities of UNESCO in the
312
field, and it is that which is dealt with by The Times. The noble Lord not only interrupted me but he more seriously interrupted a quotation from The Times. Perhaps I may continue. It says:
"If the United States wants to make a persuasive case for leaving it must explain why it thinks that the main core of practical programmes is not worth supporting. Would someone else take over UNESCO's role in teaching Cambodian refugees to read? Would someone else send scientists to hold back the encroaching deserts of northern Kenya? Would someone else have rescued the temple of Abu Simbel? Would someone else take over UNESCO's attempts to restore the Buddhist temples of Java and conserve the Valley of Katmandu?"
That is a very cryptic and effective summary of some of the work in the field for which UNESCO can take credit.
If the criticisms that the United States puts forward are to be taken at face value, then I believe that those criticisms should be met within UNESCO. But it is my belief that there is a stronger motive underlying the complaints—namely, that the United States feels frustrated at not being able to control the organisation. UNESCO, after all, is not the only example. We have had the recent example of the reduction of the United States' contribution to the International Development Association, and there have been other examples. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read another quotation from the same article in The Times. It says:
"Great powers tend to lose dignity when they appear too thin-skinned or too upset when a joint enterprise does not go entirely their way".
I would like to conclude by asking the Minister what the British Government are proposing to do following the announcement from the United States in respect of UNESCO. I saw it reported that France, West Germany and the Netherlands all tried to dissuade the United States from withdrawing. But I did not see any mention of activity by the United Kingdom in that respect and I would like to ask the Minister whether the United Kingdom did join with our European colleagues in making those representations. It is, after all, a substantial and urgent matter, because the United States' contribution is one quarter of the total UNESCO budget. In practice I suppose this means that out of every four staff members, one must have been given notice by now. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, may say that there is plenty of scope for that kind of activity. But I suggest that it is rather drastic and rapid surgery that is being applied, however corpulent the body that is being dealt with.
On the other hand, it is only notice of withdrawal that the United States has given. As I understand it, the actual withdrawal takes effect at the end of the year, so something like 12 months remain. I understand that steps are being taken to persuade the United States to change its mind, as, indeed, it has in the past in connection with other international organisations changed its mind after representations. If the Minister confirms, as I fully hope she will, that we intend to stay in UNESCO, I hope that we will go a bit further and try to persuade the United States to stay in as well. As I say, this kind of representation has had good effect in the past and I hope that the British Government will again put forward the reasons for their own continuing membership as reasons for the United States also staving in membership.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, so kindly suggested, I fear that I am no expert on UNESCO; in fact, I know practically nothing about it. I would just say at the start that, if what is reported in the article on the director general, Mr. M'Bow, which appeared in the Sunday Times on 8th January, is true, this organisation, as at present organised, is something of a scandal. I repeat, I just do not know enough; I simply do not know whether or not such a conclusion is justified. It may well be that some of the projects which it undertakes are worthy of support; as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, suggested: quite likely they are.
However, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I shall, by way of trying to put into perspective what our attitude towards this organisation might now be, just venture a few reflections on the general philosophy which I believe lay behind the creation of this organisation after the war and on how far this would still seem to apply.
As it seems to me, whether one thinks that UNESCO serves a useful purpose largely depends on whether one believes that, what one might call "Western" values, or at least some of them, are fully applicable to non-Western and, indeed, older civilisations, such as those of Asia—to say nothing of those states which only in the last century have emerged from the millennia of tribalism. Even this belief surely depends on whether the Western world itself is still firm in its faith in, for instance, the universal applicability of human rights; in what is known as "pluralistic" democracy; in industrialisation; in the essentially beneficent effect of progress; and in the ultimate ability of science (to say nothing of some divine purpose) to solve the problems and to avert the appalling dangers that continue to confront the human race.
I must say that one has to be rather optimistic to hold that these values now generally apply, except in the countries where they originated—that is to say, Europe and North America—and in a few other places where they have, so to speak, been transplanted. Can we really—always in the presumed absence of nuclear war—envisage, for instance, a fully industrialised and democratic China, or even India, complete with modern cities of some 30 million to 40 million people, not surrounded by appalling shanty towns but constructed rather on the model of Dallas or Los Angeles, the peaceful and humane inhabitants of which, all duly exercising their right to vote for the party of their choice and linked together by motorways extending over the entire extent of the Yangtze or the Ganges valleys, with agriculture in the intervening space, when not covered by concrete, being operated technologically by some 5 per cent. of the enormous population?
Even if we could, would such developments be possible without some impossible drain on natural resources? Nor would they seem to be in accordance with the ancient beliefs and practices of the people inhabiting these great sub-continents. No, the plain, if distressing, fact is that Western values—always supposing that they are maintained in their homelands (and even there they are now challenged)—are not of worldwide application.
314
Let us simply look about us. Out of some 160 existing independent countries, not more than 30 (if one excludes a few dots on the map) can be said to be genuine industrialised democracies in the Western sense, with a literate population of no more than 36 per cent., which would seem to exclude a democratic, though only a very partially industrialised, India. In all, they merely account for some 700 million people, or only about 18 per cent. of the entire population of the world. The remainder, other than India, are either totalitarian, containing about 1,400 million people, or dictatorships of one kind or another, mostly military, which account for another billion or so.
In spite of the Argentine—which I think has been rather cancelled out by Nigeria—there are few signs that this situation will change. Certainly it will not unless we revive world trade and improve the conditions of the so-called third world. If it did change, I am afraid that it would probably be in the direction of more dictatorships. It need scarcely be added that only in pluralistic democracies can human rights be fully exercised; in totalitarian countries for all practical purposes they are non-existent.
What, then, are the prospects of success of an international organisation which I believe is supposed to arrive at world agreement on means to promote education, science and culture (whatever culture may be deemed to be)? On the face of it, its role should be modest, concentrating on simple measures that might conceivably be generally acceptable, such as the exchange of scholars, the formation of libraries, the best means of promoting literacy, ways of teaching subsistance farming with new techniques, and so on. For as long as the background of the various nations differs so immeasurably, it can hardly with success do anything else.
However, even in such spheres, things being as they are, politics will no doubt raise its ugly head. For instance, as I think has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, attempts to compel the more advanced nations—that is, advanced in the application of Western values—to accept restrictions on the dissemination of ideas and news by any of the media will simply give rise to battles which nobody will win, as will suggestions that the richer nations are simply clinging to power at the expense of the poor.
That is not to say that the richer, or Westernised, nations have no responsibility for doing what they can to raise the standard of living of the many states that are now existing—often through no fault of their own—below the poverty line, even if that might result in some fall in their own standard of living. But such efforts should surely be made either directly or within the framework of new, agreed economic policies, mostly concerted with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund among other organisations. To endeavour through yet another international agency to lessen disparities and to create harmony by urging, as I understand it, the adoption by a great majority of Governments of Western values, which on the whole mean little or nothing to them, does not seem to make much sense, more especially when attempts to do anything of the kind are usually denounced as "cultural imperialism."

315
I do not, of course, mean to say that the states concerned may not want to be Westernised. On the contrary, most of them are probably spellbound by what they see on TV, such as soap operas, and would like nothing better than to achieve the sort of standard of living that they imagine is typical of Europe and the United States. Originally they thought that they could attain this end by immediately investing in heavy industry, but that has not proved to be very satisfactory. In any case, it is not at all certain that they would really be happy in a completely Westernised society. The magic of industrialisation is probably therefore wearing off. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the dreadful drift to the cities will necessarily stop.
Though, as I say, my personal experience of UNESCO is virtually nil, and though I am quite prepared to change my mind after hearing the views of really well-informed noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in this debate, for which we are all so greatly indebted to Lord Vaizey, I must say that my present inclination is to think that failing reform—I say, failing reform—it would not matter very much if UNESCO did fold up.
I see, of course, the disadvantages of withdrawal. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to wind up will dwell on them. The Soviet Government would no doubt try to dominate the institution, and might even, I suppose, agree to make up much of the 25 per cent. reduction, or whatever it might be, in its income, all the time professing support for "Western" values, which in practice it repudiates. It might also perhaps have some success in using UNESCO for purposes for anti-Western propaganda, more especially if the world slump—to say nothing of the present deplorable American financial policy—persists. But whether we ourselves can successfully combat such tendencies from within if the Americans do withdraw is perhaps open to some doubt. I should like to be reassured on that. In any case, I look forward eagerly to hearing the views of the noble Baroness when she winds up.
What is perhaps more important is what we in the West think that we stand for and what we now ought to do. I suggest that if we ourselves really want to promote education, science and culture we ought to aim at least at less state control, less centralisation of individual energies, less concentration of scientific effort on nuclear arms, star wars, and the eventual colonisation of planets, to say nothing of genetic engineering, and more on how best to make use of the leisure enforced by our latest inventions for the production of goods and indeed of food. In this way we might at the same time set an example to the underdeveloped nations and do much to safeguard our ancient liberties against "Orwellian" tendencies during 1984 and beyond.
If your Lordships will permit me to continue for another minute or two, I will end with a personal experience. At the famous conference in 1945 in San Francisco the Soviet legal advisor was a charming, highly competent and even friendly lawyer of a rather old-fashioned type, called Professor Golunsky. Luckily I can tell this story because he is long since dead. The professor, who would occasionally dine with us without a "minder", was, in spite of his
316
friendly charm, the most pessimistic man that I have ever met.
According to him the human race could, since the Industrial Revolution, be compared to a proliferation of bacilli which normally exist in a state of symbiosis with their surroundings but which occasionally, as it were, collectively explode, eventually eliminating themselves altogether owing to a failure of the means of subsistence and poisoned by their own excreta. Even so, said the professor, the human race, which until comparatively lately had lived in a state of symbiosis with nature—in other words, the rest of God's creation—was at present engaged in rapidly destroying it. Soon all the forests would go, the oceans and the air would be polluted, and if nothing but uninhabitable deserts were to be left, the "proliferation" of the human race must somehow or other be impeded.
You do not have to be as pessimistic as the professor—I am sure none of you is—but all the same it does look as if there was at least something in his thesis. I know that Malthus has (for the time being at any rate) been proved to be wrong by "science", but unless we look out I think the old boy may be proved right in the end. True, industrialisation results—it seems after a pretty long period—in stabilisation at a low birth rate, but there also results a huge increase in the exploitation of what are probably irreplaceable natural resources.
Should this general process be extended to the 75 per cent. of humanity which is not yet fully industrialised, then surely we may expect the worst. If we were to have a really high-powered and preferably nonpolitical institution that dispassionately considered these great issues, and proposed solutions, such as ways and means of enforcing a fall in the birth rate, that might indeed be a good thing. But I must say I cannot believe that UNESCO as at present organised—I repeat, as at present organised—is likely to fill any such role.
We must, after all, take things as they are and face realities, however unpleasant. A vague belief in "progress" is not likely by itself to get us out of the present mess, and it requires a great effort of imagination to believe, as some scientists believe, that humanity will eventually be saved by the peaceful application of nuclear fission or fusion.
So—and this is my final word—I repeat, what seems in practice to be needed, apart from getting trade with the third world going, is some worldwide scheme for the management of good subsistence farming and local industries, coupled perhaps with some new and hitherto unthought of means of lowering the birth rate and thus checking the ghastly development of the shanty towns. If UNESCO by any chance can help towards that end, then surely it is a good thing and must be preserved, but I rather doubt it. Whatever defects there may be in the latest Chinese policies for encouraging small development and restricting the population, they seem to have had some success in both these directions. When I was in China a little while ago I urged all my Chinese friends not to go in for industrialisation on the lines of Japan. Who knows? Perhaps it will eventually be a case of ex oriente lux! Let us hope so.
8.27 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vaizey has raised a very sad question. Anyone who cares for education and culture must regret that UNESCO has been so great a failure. The rot set in long ago, and it has really become intolerable. The United States, having lost patience, has given notice to withdraw, and I am going to urge upon the Government that we do the same and withdraw and then rejoin when the organisation has accepted a root and branch reform. So what are the prospects of such a reform?
We paid dearly for a mistake made at UNESCO's birth, and made I think by Sir Julian Huxley. Science was included as one of the three then equal objectives. It should not have been. Science had many strong supporters both public and private, whereas education and culture, which are allied subjects, had no other international umbrella. The inclusion of science, as I saw very well for myself on the many occasions when I led our delegation, fragmented and weakened the whole organisation. Therefore, let us make it a condition of rejoining UNESCO that science should be dropped; and I shall say something more about that presently.
I am sure your Lordships know how UNESCO recruits its staff. A quota is allotted to every one of the 160 member states. The secretary general fills, or sometimes leaves partly unfilled, these quotas with an eye, especially for the senior jobs, on those who share his views. He did not fill the United States' quota of 3 per cent. out of a staff of over 2,700, and that is to be compared with their subscription of 25 per cent. The result is that many of the staff never have and never will have adequate qualifications for their jobs. Most of them mill round the headquarters in Paris. Again, as your Lordships know, French food and wine, French nightclubs and Parisian pleasures can add up to a rich reward for a political friend or a member of one's family, especially if he or she comes from one of the smaller member states.
So what happens? The new arrivals, knowing little about science, education or culture, look round for similarly misplaced colleagues with whom they can talk about perks and politics. Recruitment after that fashion has ruined the budget. I believe my noble friend Lord Vaizey told us that 75 per cent. of every dollar in UNESCO's income—that is the real answer to Lord Oram's list—is spent in Paris. It was 70 per cent. in my day, so it is now even worse. The big subscribers should have moved in long ago to stop this folly. Think what we could do at the British Council if we had the millions which we subscribe to UNESCO. Every possible dollar of UNESCO's income should have been spent outside Paris. One has only to remember the millions of children scattered throughout the world without adequate schools, books or teachers. Now I shall be told that UNESCO has undertaken some worthwhile projects in the educational field. Yes, that is true, but the bias has been towards jobs for the intellectual élite and not towards the humble needs of the uneducated.
In any case, what stares one in the face is the scandalously small proportion of the whole budget which has not been spent on overheads in Paris. If we
318
cite those projects which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, cited, let him add the cost of those projects and compare it to the total budget. He will then see how the money has been wasted.
In the cultural field it is the same story. I give one example. Why has UNESCO neglected crafts? Many of the less developed countries have no tradition of fine arts as we define them in Europe. Their national heritage, their cultural identity, lives or dies by the exercise of such crafts as pottery, wood-carving, weaving and printed fabrics. I myself warned Mr. M'Bow that the tourist trade and airport shops were destroying the traditional skills of Africa—from which, incidentally, he comes—of the Pacific and of a large part of Latin America. UNESCO did almost nothing for the World Crafts Council while it went on subsidising arts in Paris.
The first mistake is the method of recruitment and the second is the poor priorities. Those are faults which the large subscribers, if they stand together, should be able to put right. What about the third defect? What about the infiltration of Marxist politics throughout the whole range of the organisation? Mr. Gregory Newell, in his report to the United States Government, finds that the attack has been steadily and increasingly viciously prosecuted against both the economic and political systems of the West.
On the first count I have often heard the Left Wing members of UNESCO insisting that their countries are poor because the industrialised countries are rich and that the industrialised countries are rich only because they have exploited the third world. That is manifestly untrue. Where would the less developed countries be without Western capital, medicine and technology? We can win that argument if we send the right people to represent us at UNESCO and other Western countries do the same.
However, the infiltration of political ideas is another matter. Let us take, for example, the belief that the truth will make individual men and women free. The Communists do not share that view. In their countries and in some military dictatorships the interests of the power of the state are put in front of human rights. In UNESCO the Marxists have been attacking subjects such as freedom of speech quite openly.
I remember the beginning of this. The Soviet bloc began this battle about 10 years ago when the Russian delegation to a cultural conference at Helsinki was led by a brilliant, aggressive, splendidly attractive woman, Ekaterina Furtseva. I was her opposite number and we argued in public and in private about the free circulation of information and the right of artists to criticise their Governments. Furtseva foresaw the coming of satellite broadcasting which the Soviet might be unable to jam. "This," she said "would be an interference with the internal affairs. It must be stopped. No properly constituted Government had a duty to give its enemies a sporting chance to destroy its basic philosophy." I reminded Furtseva that for many years the Soviets had been trying to undermine our philosophy inside our borders. "Yes," she said, "We have, but our system is so obviously right that it is above criticism and yours is so rotten that it deserves to be buried."

319
Here we have a fundamental difference of view. We cannot, by changing the rules of UNESCO, keep it out of the debates. Education and culture cannot be fenced off from such political questions as free speech and censorship. What is taught in schools and how much freedom artists have to say what they like reflect and mould the society in which we live. Therefore the argument must go on, but we should see that it is fairly conducted. It is not fairly conducted in UNESCO.
Britain, like the United States, is financing an organisation which is using our taxpayers' money to attack our way of life. Our beliefs and our proposals are deliberately flouted by organised political opponents. Clearly, on that sort of issue agreement will be very difficult to reach unless we are seen to be in the closest alliance with the Americans and others who think like us.
UNESCO may have been the easiest of the United Nations agencies to sabotage, but let no one think that if we accept defeat there the rot will not spread to other parts of the United Nations. I beg Her Majesty's Government not to fudge the truth about UNESCO. Together with the Americans, let us think about dropping science from the organisation's objectives, so that the resources can be concentrated on education and culture. Out of the total of those resources, let us undertake that the major part—let us say 75 per cent. not including the overheads—shall be spent on projects in the less developed countries. If we want a reform of UNESCO, we must propose a new system which is seen to be of real interest to the majority of the countries in the third world; and that is easy to do if we can persuade UNESCO to chop its expenses in Paris and spend most of its money where it is really needed.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say that, by refusing to withdraw and staying inside, it is going to be much more difficult to negotiate a reform. With the Americans outside, we are going to have very little influence inside. The right policy for us, therefore, is to withdraw, to bargain hard with the help of all the friends that we can muster and then to rejoin on conditions which guarantee the less-developed countries a much better deal than they are getting now out of the squandered resources in Paris. That is really not very difficult to do. So I ask this question: Is it too much for our Government to take a leading part in cleaning up this sorry business? I await with great anxiety what the noble Baroness is going to say.
8.41 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, like other speakers, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this significant, very important and, I think, very difficult question. I speak with great hesitation because my knowledge of UNESCO is slight and recent, as compared with that of other speakers. My involvement has arisen in respect of Lord Vaizey's fourth and fifth questions about the threats to the free flow of information and human rights.
Some six years ago an informal group was brought together by the International Press Institute under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Pickering, who, among his other dignities, is the chairman of the Commonwealth Press Union. The function of the
320
group was to combat what were then felt to be developments in UNESCO dangerous to a free press. This group has sustained a steady quarrel with UNESCO on many of the discontents stated so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. These discontents, as far as freedom of expression and the independence of the media were concerned, stemmed (as the noble Viscount has just said), in the early to mid-1970s, in part from fears voiced by the nonaligned movement supported by the Soviet bloc that their dependence upon the industrialised West for news, information and entertainment constituted a subjection to cultural imperialism—a new form of colonialism, in the widely-used phrase.
This dependence was regarded as the more repugnant because those services were mostly delivered by multinational corporations; that is, by organisations which came high in the third world's demonology and were set against the peevish nationalism which forms an important part of such beliefs. The result was a declaration from a UNESCO conference in Nairobi in 1976 which placed upon the media the duty to mobilise international opinion behind concurrent demands for a new world information and communication order and for a new international economic order. The non-aligned movement has always spoken of these two new orders as being verbal Siamese twins.
The declaration also gave approval as a matter of principle to the use of media by Government and declared:
"States are responsible for the activities in the international sphere of all mass media under their jurisdiction".
This so-called principle of state responsibility has been widely promulgated, and has exacerbated the conflict over the media within UNESCO and beyond. What is acceptable to Governments which control media may be abhorrent to those with independent media; and one should remember that, of the member states of UNESCO, some 130 use their media, as a matter of course, as an instrument of government for promoting economic development, national unity and cultural identity. On most ratings, there are within UNESCO only about 30 member states with media independent of government and performing the function which democrats allot to the press of criticising all concentrations of power, including government. Nevertheless, the principle of state responsibility became central to discussions in 1982 at the United Nations General Assembly, when possible controls over direct broadcasting by satellite were being considered, and they came under discussion for the reasons which the noble Viscount has given us.
In 1977 the director general of UNESCO set up an international commission for the study of communication problems under the chairmanship of Mr. Sean MacBride, Nobel and Lenin prizewinner and, I believe, sometime chief of staff of the IRA. The report of this body alerted Western Governments, which had been very slow to respond effectively to these developments. Most newspapermen and broadcasters were uninterested and treated attempts to alert them as alarmist over-reaction. They thought that there was very little to worry about, but that UNESCO possessed neither real power nor any means to enforce the declarations in which it indulged.

321
In the early days of the campaign for a new world information and communication order they underestimated the legitimacy which UNESCO approval could confer on proposals to impose restrictions on the international media. They also failed to weigh the moral authority upon which Governments could thereby draw when abolishing freedom of expression or resisting demands for it.
Belatedly, the free world media have now begun to stand their ground collectively in order to oppose such developments, which will take place whether we remain in UNESCO or depart from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, rightly pointed out, the attack on the free flow of information through the demands within UNESCO for a new world information and communication order has been extended by demands for people's rights to be informed and people's rights to communicate, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, laid considerable stress.
These newly-asserted rights in the field of communication and information add nothing to existing declarations. For example, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 states that—
"everyone has the right to freedom of information and of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
How then, one may ask, does a people's right to communicate or a people's right to be informed differ from a right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, other than in the fact that the right in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is an individual right and the new rights that are being asserted are collective rights?
I suspect that the emphasis which is now being placed in UNESCO upon collective rights will lead to a move for a codification of all the old and new rights to communicate and the code thus derived will then become a new legal order, buttressing the new world information and communication order; and UNESCO will then set itself up as the enforcement agency for a body of collective as well as of individual rights. And when that happens, very little further will be heard about individual rights.
The British role in maintaining the importance of an independent press and the integrity of a system of human rights has been most effectively and forcefully performed at the general conferences of UNESCO in recent years; and I wish to pay a tribute, which I know will be echoed by many practitioners in the media, to the vigour and skill with which Ministers and officials have made the British case. One is bound to say that Ministers have not always been assisted by the sometimes frequent and sudden changes in policy by the United States in this field. At the General Conference in Paris last year, which I attended, it was clear that the new world information and communication order juggernaut, which was rolling fast from the previous grotesque conference in Mexico City, had been halted at least for the time being and it now seems that our position, at least on the media, has been considerably improved.
322
Against that background, I find the question, "Ought we to leave?" so finely balanced as to be very hard to reach a decision on and there is a strong temptation to take refuge in delaying tactics. It is right that UNESCO should be put on serious notice that if it continues along its present lines we shall depart. I have no doubt about that; and such statements seem to me to be a proper sanction by means of which we might hope to secure a radical reform within UNESCO. Whether, as the noble Viscount suggested, we should leave first and hope to secure the improvements afterwards, or whether we should stay in and seek the radical changes before we depart, is a matter of policy on which I could not attempt to make a judgment.
However, certain considerations point to caution, at any rate in the short run. In the first place, an early withdrawal would save us nothing. We have paid our subscription for this year and we can resign at any time up to the end of the year, so there will be no financial saving from leaving now. Might we not therefore use the next six or nine months to assess the advantages and disadvantages and the likely consequences of leaving or of staying in and also perhaps to stimulate a public debate?
Many questions need to be answered. What do like-minded countries think? What of the Commonwealth? What of our partners in the Community, with whom we have been seeking, as I understand it, to establish effective Community political action? To be the only member of the Community to leave would not contribute to that endeavour, and it seems clear that no other member of the Community is going to leave. What of the interests at home of those who will be most affected?
Finally, from the point of view of the Western media, may we not gain more from staying in and arguing and battling on? We shall then at least know what are the trends of opinion and what is the nature of the criticisms we have to meet—and we shall have to meet them whether we are in UNESCO or out of it. I am more optimistic about the magic of industrialism, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, called it, than he is. But to discuss that would be to embark on another debate in order to answer yet one more unanswerable question. I should like to conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for putting his Unstarred Question down and giving us this opportunity to discuss it.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, it is with conviction and pleasure that I endorse the questions and arguments of my noble friend Lord Vaizey, and those of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We should not censure the American notice of withdrawal from UNESCO, but follow it. That step was not an act of pique or isolationism but an appropriate and long overdue reaction to an anomalous situation. My noble friend Lord Vaizey, who is highly qualified on this subject, has listed some of the anomalies of UNESCO. But he could acquaint this House with only the tip of the iceberg. Noble Lords who wish for fuller information will find it in an illuminating article by Mr. Tom Bethell in the spring 1983 issue of Policy Review, an American quarterly, and also in an editorial in the Spectator of 14th January.

323
The central anomaly is, of course, that the countries which provide most of the budget have no control over the organisation, which serves as platform and instrument for sustained and virulent attacks on them. The handful of Western countries which supply the bulk of the funds are outvoted by the hosts of third world and Eastern bloc delegates, many of countries whose contributions are a mere few thousand dollars. They can vote even if they do not pay their contributions. And the organisation and its activities are pervaded by hostility to the West. The United States is by far the largest contributor to UNESCO, and simultaneously the principal target of its enmity.
Is it possible to remove these anomalies? They may be slightly modified, or made less obvious by cosmetic changes. They will not be much diminished, let alone removed. They are endemic in major United Nations affiliates, notably UNESCO, FAO, UNCTAD and the United Nations Development Programme.
Hostility to the West is long-standing in UNESCO. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has reminded us, the advocacy of a new world information order emerged in the early 1970s, emerged simultaneously with that of a new international economic order. The latter is designed to tax Western citizens for the benefit of third world governments. The new world information order is designed to eliminate what is left of honest reporting of third world affairs, especially of the anti-Western stances and of the domestic conduct of despotic, totalitarian governments.
One example will show how long-standing is the bias of UNESCO against the West and its institutions. In 1970, on the occasion of the centenary of Lenin's birth, UNESCO called on all member governments to pay tribute to his memory as a great humanitarian. Lenin's achievement was indeed momentous. He made himself master of a large country which, partly through him, became a super-power. But to term him a great humanitarian is a perversion of the language, especially inappropriate to an organisation purporting to serve education, science and culture.
Does UNESCO promote international goodwill or nourish fruitful cultural contacts? The persistent hostility to the West does not promote international amity. The so-called new world information order would restrict international contacts, not expand them. Scholars, writers and journalists do not need UNESCO for contacts with their opposite numbers elsewhere. My own experience over decades, and that of my colleagues in academic life and related activities, both in the West and in the third world, makes this clear. The vast volume of outpourings from UNESCO—more than 300 million pages a year, according to the Spectator article, much of it hollow or biased rhetoric—impairs, even smothers, worthwhile cultural relations.
UNESCO's contribution to third world literacy—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oram—is also dubious. Much of the growth of literacy under its programmes is purely illusory, statistical; and in any case the value of literacy depends on the content and purpose of the instruction. In this realm bilateral aid is far more effective. The activities of the British Council are greatly appreciated by many ordinary people in the
324
third world. This is conspicuous, for example, in India. And scholars from this country, as distinct from pedlars of political causes, find the British Council far more helpful than UNESCO.
A useful reform of the organisation would be to transfer it from Paris to a third world city such as Calcutta, Addis Ababa or Caracas. This would reduce the attraction of UNESCO for those who take part in it only for what they can get out of it. It would also help the host country by providing income and employment there.
My Lords, until well after the Second World War it was a firmly established principle that the modest grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare schemes should go only to governments for whose conduct the Secretary of State was answerable to Parliament. We have descended a long way down the wrong road since then. Parliament can know little about the activities of UNESCO, and has no control over them. Would it not be better to divert our contribution to the British Council which, whatever its shortcomings, is far more helpful to this country and to the citizens of the third world than is UNESCO?
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, given the current interest in UNESCO arising from the American announcement of withdrawal at the end of 1983, this is a timely Question. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey for asking it. He is particularly at home with the subject, because he is one of the members of our national commission which provides us with valuable advice on the workings of UNESCO. I am also grateful to my noble friend for having given me notice of the questions he was to ask. However, I shall begin by saying something about the outcome of the general conference, the subject of the Unstarred Question.
The answer to this Question is a qualified affirmative. For the United Kingdom this was a fairly successful conference. Apart from a few outbursts, political excesses of the sort we have known at previous conferences were markedly absent. Before the conference, we had identified three areas of particular concern to the United Kingdom. These were issues concerning the media, the size of the budget, and questions of human rights. These three issues were specifically referred to tonight by my noble friend Lord Eccles and by the noble Lords, Lord Oram and Lord McGregor of Durris.
At the conference, we and other like-minded countries successfully resisted any further advances towards an unsatisfactory new world information and communication order or any other attempt to shackle the freedom of the media. The proposed budget was reduced by some 10 million dollars, although the final approved figure still contained an element of real growth difficult to accept in today's economic climate. The outcome on human rights was less clear-cut—but even here, no lasting damage was done to the Western position.
The main focus of the conference was on UNESCO's core programmes in education, science and culture, where there were welcome signs of increased support for our long-held policy of seeking

325
to make UNESCO's programmes more relevant to the needs of developing countries. This was a theme well expressed by my noble friend Lord Eccles.
Here, I should like to pay tribute to the efforts which have been made by previous British Ministers in this respect. In his speech, my noble friend Lord Vaizey referred to the lasting impact made by my noble friend Lord Eccles at the 1960 General Conference, when he urged UNESCO to concentrate its activities on education in the developing countries. I know, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, when he was responsible for relations with UNESCO, pursued this line with vigour. And it has over the years had an effect. This is what really matters. A UNESCO General Conference can only be judged by the effects the discussions and decisions have on subsequent UNESCO programmes. In this case these should, to a considerable extent, be positive.
I will turn now to the five specific questions posed by my noble friend Lord Vaizey. First, the budget. Obviously we cannot be fully satisfied that enough was done before and during the conference to contain the budget, as the final approved figure was larger than we should have liked. But some progress was made and I believe that we can build on this in the future.
The director general had proposed a figure of approximately 385 million dollars for the two years 1984 and 1985. This was based on a real growth rate of 6·1 per cent. which was not acceptable to the main Western donors, who had, in 1981, issued a statement arguing for zero growth in real terms for the United Nations agencies for the first half of the 1980s. The Minister for Overseas Development wrote to the director general in September expressing our deep concern. We also took the lead in preparing and submitting a draft resolution proposing an alternative figure based on zero real growth. This was cosponsored by five other member states; the U.S.A., the Federal German Republic, Netherlands, Canada and Switzerland. This was the first time that such a step had been taken in UNESCO for many years.
In a search for a compromise solution, the Nordic countries introduced a proposal for 374.5 million dollars, which represented approximately 4 per cent. growth. Somewhat to our surprise, at the last minute the director general indicated that he would adopt this proposal as his own. It was a long way from the British proposal but represented a saving of more than 10 million dollars. Moreover, we were able to keep our own resolution on the table. Our only concession was to abstain in the vote on the director general's formal proposal, rather than vote against.
As regards the use to which the money is put—that is, the question of possible extravagance and inefficiency in Paris to which several noble Lords have referred—this is a very complicated issue to which it is difficult to do real justice in a speech of this nature. May I say first of all that, on the whole, I agree with the criticisms which have been voiced. One of our major doubts about UNESCO is that it represents such poor value for money compared with bilateral aid programmes; a point made by my noble friend Lord Bauer. In the past, we have argued consistently for decentralisation, better management, and, above all,
326
effective evaluation. This has had some effect, but much more needs to be done. Our hope is that the shock administered by the United States withdrawal will produce a climate of opinion in which reform is seen as both desirable and necessary.
The biggest obstacle in the past has been inbuilt inertia and reluctance to change in both other delegations, and the secretariat. We have already started discussions in Paris with like-minded countries, and are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of drawing up well before the spring meeting of the executive board, which is to discuss the implications of the United States withdrawal, an agreed list of changes that we could then press to be introduced as soon as possible. We will also consider the possibility of seeking the involvement of some outside agency, such as management consultants, in the process of improvement.
My noble friend's third question concerned the key figure of the director general, Mr. M'Bow of Senegal. He was elected to the post in 1974 and re-elected in 1980—in both cases, unopposed. I do not feel able to comment in detail on unsubstantiated press criticism of him. As regards our own attitude, our general unease and dissatisfaction with UNESCO's performance in recent years must to some extent reflect upon its chief executive. But he is responsible to the executive board and General Conference and cannot fairly be blamed for implementing decisions of those bodies of which we disapproved, even if we had joined, reluctantly, in a consensus. Ever since he became director general, Mr. M'Bow has promoted the principle of consensus in decision making wherever possible. This has on balance worked in the interests of the Western minority. We have always found him ready to listen to our views, even when he clearly disagrees with them.
In any case, UNESCO's failings are deep rooted and cannot be blamed on any single individual. His current term of office does not expire until 1987, so it is premature to consider what attitude we will take if he seeks re-election (which at this stage is by no means certain). The question of who should be the next director general of UNESCO is, however, one that we shall be pursuing in our discussions with a broad range of other member states in the fairly near future.
The fourth question was on the media. Media issues have been a source of controversy at successive UNESCO General Conferences since 1972. As I said earlier, we consider the outcome of the recent conference as broadly satisfactory. In particular, no attempts were made to define the concept of the so-called new world information and communication order under the acronym NWICO, which has overshadowed UNESCO's recent work in this field. The United Kingdom, in common with most Western countries, views the demands for any new order as a practical problem of development, no different for communication and media requirements than for any other sector.
On the other hand, a minority of countries have argued that a NWICO should be a new international code of conduct governing the operations of the media, with an implicit assumption of increased state supervision. Within these arguments, certain member

327
states have sought to gain legitimacy for practices of repression and control over the media, including those to which my noble friend referred, and those referred to at length by Lord McGregor. These are anathema to us; we are firmly committed to media freedom and we have consistently warned UNESCO that such a move would be wholly unacceptable. The threat of codification of a NWICO has in fact receded as a result of the General Conference. There is now agreement that any NWICO must be seen as an evolving and continuous process within the context of development. The United Kingdom efforts played a major part in achieving this.
The conference also agreed that political barriers to the free flow of information, including censorship by Governments, merited study by UNESCO on an equal footing with those barriers of a technical or financial nature. UNESCO will conduct research into this and other critical areas, such as the concept of the "right to communicate". We will ensure that the United Kingdom's opinion on these topics is made known to the organisation. The focus of attention for developing countries was the International Programme for the Development of Communication, which they view as a welcome new multilateral aid source. They requested substantial voluntary financial contributions from the developed countries into the IPDC fund. The United Kingdom has declined to contribute to the IPDC, stating its preference for working through its bilateral aid programme. I should like to stress the active part traditionally played by the United Kingdom public and private sector in media development and training through organisations such as the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association, the Commonwealth Press Union, the Commonwealth Journalists' Association, the Thomson Foundation and the Commonwealth Foundation. Our professional experience has much to offer.
The fifth question that my noble friend asked was on the subject of human rights. These have been a proper concern of UNESCO since its foundation.
The current key issue is the extent to which UNESCO should become involved with research into the concept of the "rights of peoples". At the General Conference, the USA argued strongly for the deletion of this aspect of the programme. But this was a difficult argument to sustain, as it had been accepted a year earlier in the consensus agreement on the Medium Term Plan. At that particular conference, the main theme of the British keynote intervention was that the guiding principle for all UNESCO's future activities should be that the interests of the individual are paramount and should never be overlooked. The Africans took a lead in these discussions, basing themselves on a recent OAU Charter on Human Rights and the Rights of Peoples. The Soviet bloc were firmly in support. Eventually an uneasy compromise was patched up; the US withdrew their objection but insisted on a revision of the text of the relevant resolution to the effect that there was a distinction to be drawn between universally recognised individual human rights and the rights of peoples, but that the relationship warranted examination.
This is an issue to which many developing countries attach considerable importance. It also provides a
328
platform for the Soviet bloc to promote values which are anathema to the West. The outcome was uncertain, and there are obviously major battles to be fought in this area in the future if the trend towards the strengthening of collective rights at the expense of individual rights is to be halted and turned back.
This is certainly an aspect of UNESCO's programmes to which we shall devote greater attention in future, and which we shall be discussing with our friends. Our main aim will be to deflect UNESCO's energies in this area into activities which will have the effect within its fields of competence of promoting those universally recognised human rights defined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948.
Turning now to our general attitude towards UNESCO, we had for some time been concerned about certain trends in UNESCO. We had taken a leading role in criticising the organisation's performance in many areas. In addition to the specific concerns on media and human rights, we were above all not satisfied that we and other member states received good value for money. We had achieved some limited successes up until the middle of 1983, but were far from satisfied. Before the conference we had decided that we should seriously consider withdrawal if the results were in some major way unsatisfactory.
In the event this was not the case, and, with the exception of the United States, our informal contacts with other delegates indicated that there was little prospect, if any, of other withdrawals. On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked whether we sought to dissuade the United States from leaving. I can only say that we regard it as a matter for each country to decide for itself.
Shortly after the conference my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is responsible for United Kingdom relations with UNESCO, held a meeting—that is, last December—with the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO (an advisory body consisting of some 70 people eminent in the fields covered by UNESCO) to consider the outcome of the conference and to seek the views of members on UNESCO.
The meeting was frank and revealing. A few members argued for United Kingdom withdrawal, but the clear majority, of those who spoke were in favour of our staying in on the grounds that to leave would be to turn our back on an important channel of communication and co-operation with developing countries. Most argued for continuing to fight for improvements from within. The point was made that we had had a fair measure of success over the years, both in defending British interests—that is, in communication and media issues—and also in obtaining better value for money. But there was widespread recognition that much remained to be done. There was much trenchant criticism of such issues as the growth in overall resources; budgetary techniques and practices; political aspects of certain programmes—for example, communication and human rights—staffing; management; effectiveness; and the need for more and better evaluation.

329
In the light of all this Ministers gave careful consideration to the possibility of United Kingdom withdrawal. The balance of argument was a fine one. On the one hand, there were the sums of money we spend on UNESCO. I hope that by saying that I answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, who asked whether we thought this was just a small sum. We recognise the sums of money that we spend on UNESCO, which we feel could be better spent in other ways, and the misuse of UNESCO for political purposes. On the other hand, there was a natural reluctance to breach the principle of universality, particularly for an organisation which, rightly or wrongly, is highly valued by many developing countries; and a recognition that most of UNESCO's activities remain in principle worthwhile.
Here may I say that I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's suggestion that much of the more worthwhile of UNESCO's activities could be undertaken through some different, and cheaper, mechanism. This is something we shall be discussing with our friends during this year. It could also be argued that we can best defend important British interests, in such areas as freedom of the media and human rights, by continuing to argue from within. Nor could we ignore the fact that none of our European partners had, so far as we know, seriously contemplated withdrawal.
We eventually decided that the right course for the United Kingdom, at least for the time being, was to stay in UNESCO and fight for reform from within. We indicated this decision to the United States authorities before they decided to withdraw. We fully understand the reasons which led the United States to take its decision.
The United Kingdom will continue to make every effort to improve significantly the organisation's programme and management. We are seeking to coordinate our actions with those of like-minded countries. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write in due course to the director general indicating to him that we think radical changes are necessary and spelling out those areas of UNESCO's programmes and management in which we seek improvements. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Finally, I can assure noble Lords that the situation will be reviewed carefully towards the end of 1984, and if satisfactory progress has not been made United Kingdom withdrawal will again be seriously considered. Since withdrawal takes effect at the end of the calendar year following the year in which formal notice of withdrawal is made, there is no point in reconsidering our decision earlier.
I started by thanking my noble friend Lord Vaizey for introducing this Unstarred Question this evening. I think that we have had a very valuable debate. We have had most interesting speeches from a number of noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on the subject of UNESCO. I think that it has been a valuable occasion. I shall certainly draw the debate to the
330
attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past nine o'clock.