Lords Sitting of 29 October 1986

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

Dangerous Drugs: Control
Lord Inglewood: 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 whether they will encourage all the countries in the EC to raise and train voluntary constabulary or auxiliaries, to enable them to back up their regular police forces, and in particular to help in the control of dangerous drugs.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we encourage all chief constables to recruit a reserve force to help the regular force. These are known in this country as special constables. Each country in the Economic Community is responsible for its own police force, and if a government seek our advice we will gladly help.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, so far, the noble Earl has gone a short distance, but he has not shown any great interest in the international side (which I mentioned in my Question) or in the co-operation, or, particularly, in connection with the control of dangerous drugs.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the House will be aware, there is considerable co-operation between the police forces throughout Europe on the matter of drugs. Whether special constables have a role in combating drugs offences is, we think, questionable because of the high specialist requirements that the drugs squads and the regional crime squads need.

Acid Rain: EC Discussions
2.39 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Molloy, and with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
The Question was follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether during the British presidency of the Council of the EC they will initiate discussions with all countries concerned on the question of acid rain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, proposals for tackling the problem of acid rain have been under discussion within the European Community for some time. No agreement has been reached because of the widely divergent views of
710
different member states. As the Presidency, we hope to advance the discussions with a view to promoting agreement on a package of measures which would be generally acceptable to member states.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Now that the Government admit the link between sulphur emissions and acid deposition, perhaps I may ask him whether they will bring forward their target for reduction in line with other European countries.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to whether or not the United Kingdom should join the "Thirty per cent. Club". We recognise the importance of the club as a symbol of international concern about acid rain. However, being a member of the club does not necessarily mean that one is doing more than a non-member. The House will know that we reduced our sulphur dioxide emissions by 24 per cent. before the club's starting date, which was in 1980. We are now over 40 per cent. down on the peak levels of 1970. Therefore we have already done more than some members of the club which were still increasing their emissions during the 1970s. However, we are keeping the possibility of membership of the club under continuing review.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that emissions of nitrous oxides from vehicles are probably as important as sulphur emissions from power stations; and, if he agrees, will he therefore ensure that this problem also is taken into account in any discussions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. That is why the Central Electricity Generating Board, for example is doing an enormous amount of research work into low nitrogen oxide-producing grates and other ways of heating water to make electricity.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it the opinion of the Government that alleged pollution by acid in Galloway is due to emissions from power stations? If so, which power stations; and, if not, to what do they attribute it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there has been a very long-term experiment in the lakes in Galloway. I understand it has been going on since about 1909; so we know that the water is becoming more and more acidified—in fact, by one degree on the scale over that period. It is certain from those experiments that this has been a long-term problem which has been building up and which started with the industrial revolution.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact, despite the progress that the Minister indicated in answer to a previous supplementary question, that we still have the reputation of being the biggest polluter in Europe in our production of acid rain? Can the Minister tell us when we can expect substantial progress towards eliminating acid rain entirely?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have a reputation which I believe to be somewhat undeserved. In fact, we produce 66 kilograms of sulphur per person per annum. That is 25 per cent. less than Spain and the United States and 15 per cent. less than Finland and Luxembourg. This is something which we have continued to reduce and it is our firm intention to carry on doing just that.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, apart from the fact that the generating board has been somewhat unfairly accused of adding seriously to acid rain by its emissions, the major factor is undoubtedly lead emissions from motor car exhausts? Therefore will not the Government's campaign—in fact, their programme—to reduce lead in petrol make a major contribution to reducing acid rain?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There is also the fact, which has nothing to do with the Government, that more and more people are now driving diesel cars, which of course are lead-free.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer the previous question? He did not mention the Russian satellite countries, and my information is that they are using coal with 5 per cent. sulphur and that they are the major polluters in Europe, particularly in Germany where the forests are dying.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. I did not add that a staggering 240 kilograms per person are emitted from East Germany every year.

Nuclear Incidents Emergency Plans
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 steps they will take to ensure that local authorities, fire services, police forces, emergency planning teams and others with responsibility for protecting people from the effects of peacetime disasters, are fully prepared, equipped and trained to deal with radioactive fallout caused by power station accidents at home or abroad.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, detailed plans exist for dealing with emergencies at civil nuclear power stations in this country. Regular exercises are held involving organisations concerned. Following the accident at Chernobyl, the Government are conducting a thorough review of contingency plans and procedures for nuclear incidents both in this country and overseas. We will ensure that all the implications are properly addressed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply? May I ask him whether it means
712
that the Government accept that there could be another Chernobyl-type disaster on the Continent which could badly affect London and other places in this country? Can he say when it is proposed to publish the report of the inquiries which he is holding?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the results of the Government's inquiries, I cannot give the House a firm commitment on this. We are keen to make rapid progress, but I am sure that the House will realise that there is a great deal of work involved. It was only at the end of August that the Soviet Union provided full technical information about the accident to the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think it would be wrong for me to comment on my noble friend's question as to whether or not we thought there would be another Chernobyl.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what machinery exists for liaising with the local authorities (other than sending out circulars) in order that they may be kept up to date with the necessary research and the necessary activity, from their own point of view, should such an incident occur?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are two aspects to that question. The first is, what would happen if there were an accident in this country. It is of course up to the operator of the plant to provide a suitable scheme to take account of any accident, and preferably of course to prevent the accident from happening. The nuclear industry in this country has a very good safety record on that front. With regard to an accident overseas, that is one of the matters that we are addressing in our work at the moment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as one who lives in part of the Lake District which was exposed to the Chernobyl cloud at a time of very heavy rainfall, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that what we want to know is to whom we should apply for information about whether or not our water supplies or our land have become radidactive? My wife insists that our vegetables and fruit have been "Chernobyled". I cannot dispute that with her unless I have the necessary information. I asked the Ministry of Agriculture about this weeks ago and have heard nothing. I could ask my friends at Sellafield to do tests, but that would be hardly fair since they did not cause the cloud. Who should we ask?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord was right to write to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that human error is often an element in these accidents and it is the fact that human error is not confined to any particular part of the world that makes it impossible to say that such a disaster might not occur in this country? In the light of that, ought we not to view the development of further nuclear energy with very grave doubts?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is rehearsing questions and arguments that are well known to the House. As he will of course be aware, the

713
design defects at Chernobyl are not found in United Kingdom installations.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some years ago when I was chairman of the Devon Emergency Volunteers (in which we were trained, inter alia, to do the things mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton) we had a meeting to discuss what we had done to help the floods in Newton Abbot, and the local CND came and broke it up because we included in our training the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton? Would it not be a good idea to get over to the nuclear disarmers this thought: what we are trying to do to replace the old Civil Defence is to our mutual benefit and is not an argument for doing the things the CND have suggested?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate that there is a small body of people wishing to prevent us making progress on all aspects of civil defence. Indeed, we have been able to make considerable progress and that is in large measure due to the Bill which my noble friend Lord Renton piloted through the House earlier this Session.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he had written to the Ministry of Agriculture and had not received a reply. When is he likely to get one?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall consult my noble friend Lord Belstead. The letter may have been mislaid in the post, and no doubt the noble Lord would like to send a reminder.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to go a bit further in relation to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mishcon regarding foreign nuclear power stations? He will be aware that only 30 miles away in France, and in Gravelines in particular, there is a huge body of nuclear energy in nuclear power stations. Are there arrangements, with France in particular, that British authorities should be informed of any accident to those power stations which may affect this country and particularly the East Coast towns?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, there is a formal agreement between the United Kingdom and France to exchange information about emergencies in one country with radiological consequences for the other.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the protection of the people of this country depends upon co-operation in the arrangements made by the Home Office and by all local authorities, whatever their political complexion? Can he give us an undertaking that that is being brought to the notice of all local authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that it is up to all of us, including the local authorities, when it comes to matters of this importance. I assure the House that in July proposals
714
were announced for a rolling three-year planned programme for implementation of civil defence regulations. That will set priorities and a timetable for systematic monitoring, providing a framework for more rapid and consistent progress. The programme will be issued to local authorities very shortly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply that he gave to my original supplementary question, even though it was not a reply to the question I put. Will he kindly indicate to the House what organisation exists so that all local authorities join in the information that is available and in planning the necessary activity so far as they are concerned in order to deal with the matters raised in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton? Does he deem the matter to be of sufficient importance for a proper Statement to be made in regard to these matters in this House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, detailed plans exist for dealing with emergencies at civil nuclear power stations in this country and regular exercises are held involving the organisations concerned. With regard to an accident that could happen abroad, we are looking at that possibility to see whether the information can be improved and whether liaison can perhaps be made better than it is at the moment. I take the noble Lord's point and we shall note what he says.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I refer to my noble friend's point about co-operation? Are there now detailed plans between the French and British police?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, there is a formal agreement between the United Kingdom and France that covers all aspects, including the use of police as and when necessary.

Drug Trafficking Confiscation Orders
2.54 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 whether any order has yet been made under Section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and whether they intend to extend this process to any further offences, and if so, which.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the provisions of the Act empowering the courts to make confiscation orders are not yet in force; we expect to be able to bring them into effect by the turn of the year. We would wish to take the opportunity of a future criminal justice Bill to empower the courts to confiscate the proceeds of other serious crimes where the offender has profited substantially.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware of the excellent presentation that his honourable friend Mr. Mellor gave to the EC Interior Ministers at a recent conference in Lancaster House? Can he tell the House what results came from that conference?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I endorse his statement that it was a very successful conference. In addition to the confiscation powers, the Act creates offences of laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking and of prejudicing an investigation. It also provides for reciprocal enforcement arrangements to be concluded with other countries in due course, and that is what we are doing with a number of EC countries.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister how many other European countries have such legislation and whether Interpol will be helpful when the legislation comes into force.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to answer my noble kinswoman. Perhaps I may write to her on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while no one wishes to forecast legislation which one day may be before us, will the noble Earl have it firmly fixed in his mind that when we dealt with the penalties and possibilities in regard to drug offences we were dealing with exceptional matters, and that they must not always be used as precedents in our criminal law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have read with interest our discussions as the Bill progressed through your Lordships' House. Not all the powers contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act will be appropriate in a wider context. However, we believe that some of those powers could he usefully used to stop offenders enjoying the profits of their crime when they are released from prison.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the South Atlantic Fisheries.

Aberystwyth Harbour Bill
London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill
Pontypridd Markets Fairs and Town Hall Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise for yet another Motion enabling Private Bills to be carried over from this Session to the next. These three Bills are Commons Bills which are now in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with them, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
716
That, if any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords. I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT, COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill (98) as first printed by the Lords.]
[Commons amendments etc. are printed in italics.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of local authorities with respect to persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) it does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence and it is inappropriate for his needs, or it is unreasonable for him to continue to live in it."
(3) In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above "accommodation" shall be defined as either—

(a) a separate dwelling house that shall not be overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and shall meet the tolerable standard as defined in section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974, or

(b) in exceptional circumstances where a separate dwelling house as defined in (a) above is not appropriate to the needs of an applicant accommodation that is appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances." ")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:
2 Because the Amendment would give rise to problems of interpretation and would impose excessive additional duties on local authorities.
MOTION MOVED IN CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
2A The Lord Tordoff rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 2 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of local authorities with respect to persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) it is overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and may endanger the health of the occupants."
In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above "accommodation" shall be defined as accommodation that shall not be overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and which does not pose a threat to the health of the occupants.".")
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 2 but propose the said amendment in lieu thereof. The amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who offers his regrets to the House that he cannot be here as he had to attend a family funeral. I am sure that your Lordships will understand. In moving—
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me for a moment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate at this point that in the light of events the Government are disposed to accept Amendment No. 2A on the Marshalled List, which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is moving on behalf of his noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wish that my noble friend could be here to relish this himself. I am most grateful to the Minister. That will save the House a considerable amount of time.
I think the Government should be credited with taking a rational view of the relationship between the amendment which is on the Marshalled List today and what happened in your Lordships' House last night. There is no doubt that the principle lying behind this amendment is precisely the same as that which lay behind the amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill which your Lordships carried last night. Were this amendment to have been defeated this afternoon, the Scottish legislation would have been set in concrete and there would have been no opportunity for the Government to have further thoughts about the matter.
I hope this means that the Government are going to take note of what was said yesterday. I do not intend
718
to rehearse any of those arguments in the light of what has been said. I merely thank the Government for the statement which has been made, and I beg formally to move this amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 2 but propose the said amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Tordoff.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, although the sincerity of the purpose of this amendment is wholly accepted, it is an avowedly interventionist amendment in the affairs of local government and, even more, is based on the misconception which permeated the proceedings last night on the effect of Puhlhofer. The amendment is open to objection on the ground that the import of the statutory minimum standard on overcrowding, which could well become the norm, would preclude the exercise of any more generous approach, and the lot of those living in substandard accommodation could well be worsened rather than improved.
The import of the other concept of endangering health will give rise assuredly to conflicts of evidence between the medical experts and other experts. At the end of the day, the local authority will have to resolve those questions and those decisions of the local authority will not be subject to judicial review. In the present situation under Puhlhofer, the noble Baroness, Lady David, appeared with the greatest respect to her—she is not in her place, but perhaps I may say this—to be labouring under a misapprehension that the judgment in Puhlhofer did a wrong and did a violence to the intention of Parliament. With respect to her, such is not the case. It is a satisfactory judgment, if one accepts that this is a matter which lies within the judgment and discretion of a local authority and it is not appropriate for the judgment and discretion of a local authority to be subject to judicial review, save on bad faith, ultra vires, procedural irregularity or manifest absurdity.
The decision in Puhlhofer, which was mentioned by the noble Lord as the basis on which your Lordships should accept this amendment, in view of the fact that it was accepted, as I respectfully suggest, under a misapprehension last night, is simply this. Your Lordships' Appellate Committee held quite simply that accommodation must be capable of accommodating the applicant and all other persons living with him. Then the committee went on to hold that there are no other rules—none—which ordain. It is a question of fact for the local authority in every case, so that in some circumstances overcrowding or danger to health—the matters with which this amendment is concerned—might disqualify and in other cases they might not. In this context, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House rejected the concept that the statutory definition of overcrowding had no relevance and ought to be disregarded.
Furthermore, as noble Lords may appreciate, the trigger clause which introduces these provisions—"shall have regard to"—by judicial interpretation lacks legal efficacy as affording any right of appeal or any access to judicial review, save on the Wednesbury principles to which I have referred. It was held in Puhlhofer—and rightly held, your Lordships

719
may well think, bearing in mind the attitude on all sides of the House when the functions of local authorities came up for consideration, albeit in other contexts—that it is not appropriate that the judgment and discretion of local authorities in the discharge of these and indeed other statutory duties should be monitored by the courts. Those were the words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and indeed they were wholly apt.
Furthermore, there is another problem in that Puhlhofer is a decision of general application in the realm of public administrative law as affecting the exercise of discretion by local authorities in the discharge of their duties. It would hardly be appropriate—indeed, it would be premature; even perhaps not necessary—to seek to erode the reasoning of that important decision, so to speak, piecemeal. If this amendment were to be carried, in some cases—just some, I agree—harsher standards would apply than those which obtain now, and in the result, although such is not the intention, I know, the lot of those living in substandard accommodation could well be worsened rather than improved. This amendment, if carried in these circumstances, could well create difficulties and indeed anomalies rather than resolve them. I know that such is not the intention. It is for those reasons that, with respect, although I understand fully and sympathise with the objective of the amendment, I oppose it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I have not had an opportunity to speak before on these matters which have arisen under both the English Acts and the Scottish Acts, but as Master of the Rolls I was involved in nearly all the cases arising under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and I can tell your Lordships of the great difficulty of interpretation which has arisen because of the wording of it, the ambiguity and so on.
I agree with the House of Commons in rejecting the amendment and I should prefer to restore altogether the decision of the House of Lords in the Puhlhofer case. I am afraid that most of those cases which came before us were sponsored by an organisation called Shelter. Let me give your Lordships two or three examples of those cases.
First, an Italian couple, aged 21 and 23, came into Gatwick with their baby children. Now that we are in the Common Market, there is freedom of movement. People can come into Gatwick if they please, without getting permission; and so they did. They were in Naples in not very good accommodation and could not get work there. They had a relative living near Gatwick who said, "Come over to us", which they did. They came over to Gatwick. They were with the relative for a few weeks and then the relative said to them, "I have not got room for you any more. You must go." They said, "That's all right. We will go to the local council. They are under a duty to provide homes for us. We are now homeless."
That was the point which came before the court over which I presided, and the court held that in leaving Italy, as they did, where they had a home and coming over to England, as they thought, to put upon
720
us they had rendered themselves intentionally homeless. The local authority took the view, "We have hundreds of young married couples on our waiting lists, with two small babies" or whatever it may be. "Are we to give these people from Italy priority over our own couples here?" So in that case the Court of Appeal did not allow the couple to obtain accommodation here against the will of the local authority.
The next case was from Bangladesh. There was a man who had been in England for some years and had his work here and had settled here. He used to go home for holidays to Bangladesh, where he had four children by his wife. "Oh", he said, "I'll bring them over to England". And so he did. He brought his wife and four babies over to England and put them up with a relative for a few weeks. But then the relative said, "I haven't room for you any more; out you go". There it was. What was the local authority to do? In that case, the Court of Appeal held that they were intentionally homeless in leaving Bangladesh as they did. But I am afraid that the Court of Appeal decision was reversed by the House of Lords, and so in a way they managed to come here. Hillingdon is close to the airport and Hillingdon people had to find accommodation for them.
Then there is the last case, which came to the House of Lords—the Puhlhofer case. It is awfully difficult to spell. Let us consider the facts of the case. It involved a young man of 17 or just coming up to 18. He had been over to America for a time and then he came back, unemployed and homeless. Hillingdon council found him room in a guesthouse. In that guesthouse was a young woman of about his age who had a baby already. As you can imagine, the couple joined forces, and before long she was pregnant again with another child and they moved in together, the guesthouse being paid for by the local authority. So there they were—this boy of 17 or 18, the girl about the same age, and two small babies in one room with which they had been provided at the beginning by the local authority. They had no work, of course; they were living on state benefits and the like.
Hillingdon council was faced with a problem—a young couple and two babies in one room. They were in awfully crowded accommodation and things were very difficult for them, but they were managing. Hillingdon council said, "You have accommodation. We cannot put you in another house and put you above our young married couples here who are waiting. If you have one child you will not get a house here. You have to have two; everyone knows that". But at all events there they were—a young couple of 17 or 18 years of age, unemployed, with two babies in one room.
The local authority looked at the position as best it could and, interpreting the Act, said, "They have accommodation. They are not homeless". The case was taken—I am afraid that Shelter takes up all these cases—first to the judge, who said that this was not proper accommodation for them. The Court of Appeal said that it was, so the case went to the House of Lords. This is the case that has given all the trouble—the Puhlhofer case in the House of Lords.
I should like to say from a distance, because I am not sitting there any more, that the judgment of the

721
House of Lords sitting judicially was completely right. They said that it was a question of fact for the local authority, that it had to decide, whether or not it was a question of accommodation. Looking at this particular case, it said, "This young couple is accommodated. We really cannot buy up other accommodation and put them into a hotel or anything like that. They really must carry on as they are". The local authority said that that was the case. The House of Lords said, "In questions of this kind do not interfere with the local authority. Local authorities have the big problem imposed on them by statute of housing the homeless on one side and dealing with all the priority needs of our young couples on the other. For goodness sake, do not interfere with the local authority's decision on a question of fact".
That is the first thing the House of Lords said. The other thing they said was, "Do not extend this interference by the courts too much". In recent times we have developed extraordinarily a system called judicial review where we review the decisions of local authorities and others if they have gone wrong in law or have been totally unreasonable. The House of Lords said, "For goodness sake, do not carry this system of review so far that you are challenging the decisions of local authorities all the time; please restrain the system of judicial review". That is what the House of Lords said.
I have said so much because this is an important question of whether or not Parliament should uphold the unanimous decision by the House of Lords on Puhlhofer. I was not able to speak in the earlier debates but I entirely agree with the House of Commons and say, "Do not reverse that case, but let it stand as law. Do not go tinkering with it by making amendments because you will get into all sorts of trouble. I am afraid that if the next amendment is accepted you will have lots more trouble; but that is only my word. I understand that for reasons of practical politics the Government are prepared to accept it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. It has been an interesting tour d'horizon. It is perhaps a pity that the noble and learned Lord did not give us the benefit of his experience at an earlier stage of the Bill. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, it seems to me that his speech and to a certain extent the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, were speeches against the 1977 Act. Indeed, some of the references of the noble and learned Lord snowed that that Act could be made to work for those people who were, at least in his opinion, trying to abuse the Act.
I do not think that we are at that position today. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, wishes to say a few words on the intervention by his noble friend; but I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to accept that this amendment may be nothing more than a device to keep the options open for the Government to have another look at the workings of the 1977 Act in relation to this Bill and the Bill that was before your Lordships yesterday. It is on the basis that I formally move what I said before, and I hope that the Government can work on it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here at the earlier discussions. There are occasions when one cannot be here, so I am a little late. I have said what I have said only because I see difficulties ahead.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for their remarks. I could equally have deployed many of the arguments that were deployed by my noble friend Lord Campbell had these been different. On this occasion I hope that I am trying to be helpful in view of the fact that your Lordships' House expressed a view yesterday. The Government were unable to agree to Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List for the reasons set out—that it would give rise to problems of interpretation and would impose excessive additional duties on local authorities. I accept that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is intended to meet most of the objections that were raised to the earlier version. I am also aware of the strong feelings of your Lordships which were evident in our earlier discussions and indeed in the amendment that was carried last night.
The Government's position is well known. We believe that the amendment is premature. However, I accept that on the whole your Lordships feel that we should act now to pre-empt possible adverse consequences of the decision taken by the Law Lords rather than wait to see if the decision has the effect feared and then respond to it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his willingness to bring forward an alternative amendment to try to meet some of our concerns about his earlier version. I have to say that there remain one or two areas where we fear that his new amendment might still give rise to difficulties of interpretation. I believe that to be the same point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell. For example, as he said, there is no definition of the phrase,
"may endanger the health of the occupants".
However, I believe that the spirit of the amendment is clear, and that is why the Government are prepared to accept the alternative version.
My noble friend raised the matter of judicial review and I accept that this amendment could open local authorities to additional grounds for judicial review, but I believe it is less unsatisfactory in this respect than the earlier amendment to the Bill which was carried. In indicating that the Government will not oppose this, I recognise the clearly expressed wish of the House that the Act should be amended now; but if problems emerge we of course reserve the right to return to the matter at some future point.
I could go on to explain in detail how we propose to monitor the possible effects of this change. However, may I simply say that we will monitor the position, as we undertook to do earlier, through the regular quarterly statistical returns submitted to the Scottish Development Department by district and island authorities, which are known as the homeless household case returns. In addition, we are about to launch a research project which will look at differences between local authorities in Scotland in the way they

723
operate the homeless persons Act. The second stage of the research will make contact with a sample of applicants to establish what their experience of the homeless persons Act has been and to assess how the system has met their needs.
Finally, as we said we would, we are in addition prepared to consider any evidence which Shelter or other organisations might provide. However, I stress that if it emerges from this study that the amendment which the noble Lord moved is giving rise to technical difficulties of the sort which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway explained, we might return with alternative proposals at some point in the future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his remarks and I think we all accept the fact that we are still groping with a great many uncertainties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed to some of the problems.
As this is a Scottish Bill perhaps I should add that, far from it merely being Shelter, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I can assure the House that the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church in Glasgow and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, with their very great experience and following the decision in the Puhlhofer case, are extremely worried. We all know that there can be abuses of the definition of "homelessness". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave some very hard cases. I know that the bodies I have mentioned who are very much involved in the Scottish scene can give equally hard cases to show how the Act operates badly for them. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Minister has accepted this amendment.
There is only one question that I wish to put to him. I have a copy of the department's homeless household case returns, compiled from form HL1 (revised). I urge the Minister to have a look at that form. I have considered it very closely and people who know about housing statistics have also looked at it. It appears to me, at least—unless the Minister can correct me—that it is almost impossible from that form to obtain any idea of the actual status of accommodation. It is a small but important point. It would be terrible if we had three months of these forms and no real results at the end of the exercise. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider that point.
Having said that, and realising the difficulties, we are very grateful for what we have obtained from the Minister. I support him in his acceptance of this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that point.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and particularly to the noble Lord the Minister. We have made tremendous progress this week, through the activities of this House, on the subject of homelessness. It is an important subject. After being unfed, being unsheltered is the worst thing that can happen to a human being.
724
We on these Benches view the 1977 Act with particular pride because it was introduced originally by my honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, but feel it was being undermined by the statement handed down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and others. It was to prevent the original meaning of that Act being changed—the original intention of Parliament—that these amendments have been brought forward. Of course they are likely to be imperfect. All amendments from Opposition Benches are imperfect in the eyes of parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers' advisers. However, the message we always wanted to get across, and which I believe we now have got across, is that it is the principle we are worried about. No one is more delighted than I am, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the principle has now been accepted by the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 3. In the first line the figure "3" should be deleted.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 1, page 21, line 37, at end insert—
( ) where a landlord so mentioned has at no time let (or had available for letting) more than 250 dwellings; or".
The Commons agree to the above amendment with the following amendment:
4 Line 3, leave out ("250") and insert ("100").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.
The Government felt that the limit of 250 houses was too high. That figure was agreed at an earlier stage by your Lordships. We had to balance the possible difficulties faced by smaller associations in dealing with sales against the understandable desire of their tenants to exercise their right to buy. We came to the view that it was only in the early stages of an association's formation, or where an association chose to remain at a very low level of stock, that there would be difficulties posed by the right to buy. Therefore, we proposed an amendment in the other place which reduced the limit from 250 houses to 100.
We think that is a reasonable compromise and I understand that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations is of a similar view. The effect of this change is to extend the right to buy to about a further 1,700 people. Associations with a stock of fewer than 100 houses tend to be very small and the 22 such associations in total hold 400 houses.
On that basis I commend to the House the Commons Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think we should be grateful for at least being given the 100 houses owned by a housing association, although we would much rather have had the figure of 250 dwellings included in the Bill.

725
I am sure that the Minister will have read the Committee stage of the Bill which took place during the earlier part of the summer. At that time all the arguments were put forward about the efficiency of 250 against 100. I felt quite elated when I received a reply on 10th June from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who was at that time most efficiently carrying out his duties on the Government Front Bench. It is a mystery why he is not still on the Front Bench, but that is no disrespect to the extremely able noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
In his letter the noble Lord, Lord Gray, implied total acceptance of the figure of 250 houses. Referring to the amendment proposed by the Government he said:
"The amendment we propose therefore provides that once an association has entered the right to buy, by its stock achieving 250 dwellings let, or available for letting, it remains in the right, even if its stock subsequently reduces".
That is quite fair, because it would be difficult if the figure went above 250; the association would then come out. The noble Lord added:
"I am sure you will see this as within the spirit of the original amendment but tempered by practical considerations".
I agree with that but I am rather sad that the practical considerations have meant such a drastic reduction—from 250 to 100.
However, as the Minister said, it seems to affect rather fewer associations than perhaps we originally thought, and since I have had little correspondence—certainly not very angry correspondence—from the associations in Scotland, I take the opportunity of welcoming at least what we have and hope that later, when the housing associations become rather more widespread and perhaps bigger, we may look at this figure again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Schedule 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 22 and insert
("is, by virtue of section 360(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (special exemptions for charities), exempt from tax; or")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
6 Page 22, line 1, leave out ("3 October 1980") and insert ("14 November 1985")
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do not agree to the Commons Amendment No. 6 proposed in lieu thereof.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 6 in lieu thereof—(Lord Glenarthur).
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I shall now call Amendment No. 6A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 6
6A At end insert (", or from the date of first being registered by the Housing Corporation (whichever is the later,")
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6A which stands in my name and in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Perhaps I may go back a little in history. As soon as I learned that the amendment that we passed at Report stage on May 13th—which was a memorable day for me—had been amended in another place, I thought the right thing to do was to seek a compromise which still allowed new charitable housing associations to be set up in Scotland in the same way as they are in England and Wales, but only after November 1985, which is the date inserted by the other place. In other words, I am proposing an addition to the other amendment and not an alternative.
Having decided that it would be good to seek some way of reaching a compromise, I consulted the Public Bill Office and my amendment is due to the work done by the officials there. I gave them a general idea of what I wanted and they put it into terms. I am quite clear that without their help I should not have got it right—I am not even sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would have got it right—and I want to thank them very much for their help. During the past several months, I have also had the opportunity of talking at great length on this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and Mr. Michael Ancram. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was with me on both occasions. I am sorry to tell your Lordships that we did not feel persuaded by what they wanted us to do and hence we tabled the amendment as you see it.
The amendment is very simple. It allows new charitable housing associations to be set up in Scotland in the future—that is, after November 1985—if the charities have been approved by the Housing Corporation and by the Inland Revenue. I feel very strongly that it is right that this should be allowed for the future in Scotland in exactly the same way as it is allowed in England and Wales or not exactly but nearly the same way, given that Scotland has a different form of charity law. However, the different form of charity law should not mean that in the future there cannot be charitable housing associations.
As your Lordships will have heard—I certainly have—the Government have objected to this amendment on several grounds. I shall mention only two of them. First, they say that it is not necessary because certain defined charitable categories have already been exempted and that ought to be enough. It is worth while recalling what was said in the debate at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, which can be found at col. 1088:
"We are anxious to protect the legitimate interests of the charitable housing association and we believe that the Bill does so for the great majority".
I emphasise the words "the great majority". In other words, in this statement the Government recognise that the measure would not cover all of them.
Their second argument is that it will cause a great deal of extra work to vet what will anyhow be few cases, because they have already said that what they are doing will cover the greater part. All I can say is that if there are very few cases—and I believe that is right—it will not mean a great deal of work. You cannot have it both ways. There are either a lot of cases and a lot of work or very few cases and little work. Frankly I do not think that argument is a good one.

727
I have been asked what type of charitable housing I have in mind for the future which is not covered by the existing exemptions. I do not know. I do not know what a philanthropist or philanthropists' group might wish to establish in the future in the way of charitable housing. But I know—and I stress this—that if somebody was considering making a gift for this charitable housing purpose and possibly seeking finance not only from the Housing Corporation but from private sources, and if he knew that therein lay the threat that the right to buy would be exercised after a period of time resulting in a considerable loss to his gift, he would be deterred from even considering it.
It is for that reason that we must try to work out something which, as I have said already, is an addition but not an alternative to the amendment of the other place. In this amendment I am seeking with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I hope with the support of your Lordships, to find something which will give Scotland a parallel very close to that pertaining in England and Wales and will ensure that if in the future someone wants to set up such a housing association he will be enabled to do so. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with Amendment No. 6A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6.—(The Earl of Perth.)
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister seemed to indicate when moving the earlier Motion that he was not likely to accept this amendment. Let me say that I am very surprised at the Government's attitude. I regret to say that in Scotland the Labour Party generally and Labour-controlled authorities in particular were much slower than the Conservative Party to recognise the benefits of housing associations. It was due very much to Conservative government activities that the housing association movement in Scotland got off the ground. Today housing associations are not a matter for partisan argument in Scotland or anywhere else. Therefore it seems to me amazing that the party which did so much to create the opportunities in Scotland should apparently be setting its face against the creation of new charitable associations along the lines mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is not asking for a wide open door, because with this amendment there are two conditions which must be satisfied before this new charitable association is accepted. It has to be accepted by the Housing Corporation—that is the first vetting that has to take place—and, secondly, it has to be accepted as a genuine charitable organisation for Inland Revenue purposes. There is not to be a great mass of fly-by-nights coming in pretending to be charitable housing associations.
I beg the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment. The only difference from what the Government are doing is that, in so far as they changed attitude, the first position was that any new associations set up after 1980 were not to get through. Then the Government gave way to the extent that they said that any set up before 14th November 1985 should get through. All that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is asking is that genuine bodies set up after that
728
date should also be allowed to function. I strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, two very delightful, very appealing speeches have just been made by two very experienced politicians, one noble Lord from the Cross-Benches and one from the Labour Benches. From what they have said, one would think that the proposal that is now being made to alter what the other place has said is really nothing—just a wee addition; that it is having very little effect on the people of Scotland and means very little to them.
The discussion on this part of the Bill, the two speeches that have just been made and the copious lobbying that has been going on among your Lordships in the past week or two, if not the past month or two, is, if I may say so, entirely from the point of view of charitable housing associations, the people who run them and the work they do. The wonderful work that the charitable housing associations in Scotland do has been pointed out. It has been demonstrated that they are somewhat different. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, they came at an earlier stage. One notable difference is that there are far more general needs houses in Scottish housing associations than there are in England. As your Lordships will be aware, at present, we are discussing only general needs houses.
We have heard of the wonderful work that has been done in providing rented accommodation, and some tenants can buy houses at the valuer's price. It is being said: why should this wonderful work be wrecked by the Government when it is endorsed now by the other place, which wants the tenants of those ordinary needs houses of housing associations to have the right to buy? In this House, let us think of the tenants, the customers, for whom the housing associations exist. What about those tenants? The tenants of houses built for general needs by charitable housing associations cannot buy at a discount. The tenants of local authority houses can: they have the choice to buy their houses at a considerable discount. Local authority houses and charitable housing association houses are built with public money. A little private money goes into Scottish charitable housing associations. My information is that it is under 1 per cent. of the total, so that the total is 99 per cent. and that is the only difference.
Why should the tenants of charitable housing associations in Scotland be penalised when their houses are built by public money—they are to all intents and purposes public sector houses—and not be given the right to buy? It is about that that your Lordships must think. Of course rented accommodation is needed, and much more of it, in Scotland. The way to arrive at that, now that we have the right to buy local authority houses in Scotland, is a quite different mechanism. The situation for charitable housing associations has totally changed. The situation in Scotland is not the same as it is in England. We should be thinking of the customers, the people for whom these houses are built.
To hear the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, say from the Opposition Front Bench on an earlier amendment that we must be grateful for

729
having got 150 more houses regarding which the tenants are precluded the right to buy seems to me the most extraordinary happening. I hope that we are going to uphold what the elected House has said on this matter, uphold its defence of the people who are the tenants of these housing associations and look to other ways of providing rented accommodation for people who need it in Scotland.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am drawn to my feet, if that is the right expression, by the extremely appealing speech of the noble Baroness to whom we have just listened. She spoke of the customers. I must say once again (because it has often been said before) that many of the customers in Scotland want rented accommodation. There is an enormous demand for rented accommodation. If we want a mobile labour force, we have to ensure that there is rented accommodation, or else people cannot move. The noble Baroness, I know, appreciates this, and indeed she mentioned it; but she said that the situation should be met in other ways.
It may be that there will be other ways of providing this accommodation, but at present one of the best ways is through the housing associations. To destroy that advantage which has proved so useful in Scotland would, I think, be a great mistake. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that among the customers, and very prominent among them, are people who want houses to let and who cannot buy houses.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this point. I am very aware of the importance attached to it by the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk, and they have been very faithful in following their beliefs on the importance of charitable housing. In re-reading the debate, I was reminded of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a special journey on his birthday to be present for this series of amendments.
I fail to see how the Government can justify the case that they have put. It seems to be a very simple case which will affect a number of houses of a very special kind. Perhaps I may correct the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when she said that I was enthusiastic about gaining another 150 houses. I think that she could not have been listening with her usual acuteness. In fact, I was lamenting the fact that under the amendment we had lost a total of 150. Originally in the small housing associations the number to allow for exemption from purchase was 250, and the Government tabled an amendment to make 100 exempt.
One of the important things about housing associations is the enthusiasm that they engender in an area and the fact that people give a great deal of time. That is one of the reasons that we felt that 250 houses represented about the right figure. With regard to 100 houses, the enthusiasm of the group trying to build the houses is important; and much more so, I suggest to the Minister, in the case of charitable houses.
One is aware of the enthusiasm of the people who are willing to raise the money to fund a charitable organisation, almost always for a special purpose. These people have a particular knowledge of the special needs of groups in the community and,
730
whatever their reason for deciding to help such a group, that help is given with great enthusiasm. It may be that for historical reasons they are anxious to preserve a small community. It may be that they wish to preserve particular types of houses or blocks of houses. We are getting that more and more in Scotland. I do not suggest that these are appropriate, but we are having conversions in our cities, especially in Glasgow, where some fine old buildings have been preserved and have been or are being successfully divided into flats.
I can foresee a charity coming along and saying that a building is particularly important; that it is an 18th century building and one that should be preserved. It may say that it can pre 12 or some other number of houses, and, "Let us raise the money and do so." I know that 12 houses would be exempt under the concession that the Minister has already made. There are many factories in Glasgow—there is one in Monklands Canal area now—which are likely to be converted. They will almost certainly have more than 100 flats. If that were done by a charity, the people who raised the money would rightly be annoyed if a few months after its own screening process, when it looks for the type of people that it wants in the houses who perhaps have a connection with the area, all its efforts and the money spent were nullified because the houses began to change hands and a different type of person came into them. They may be either upwardly or downwardly motivated. They would not be the people that those who spent their time and money starting a housing association wanted.
I hope that the Minister will be as generous with this amendment as he was with the first one, especially in view of the people who have spoken and who feel passionately about this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, made an important point about rented accommodation. No matter how many houses are sold or how high the discount is, there will always be a need for rented housing in Scotland. I know that that is something about which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is concerned. All of us who live in Scotland and see the mobility problems realise that rented housing is vital. Charitable associations, such as the New Lanark Housing Association, want to provide housing for rent for a particular type of person. I hope that the Minister will have those points in mind when he replies.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for what he said. There is and there will continue to be an enormous demand for rented houses in Scotland. The story of housing associations goes back 12 years. They were the result of an agreement between Mr. Crosland and Mrs. Thatcher that they would build up rented property through housing associations. It was a common policy. The Bill directly overrides that. The contract whereby a corporation let houses for rent to housing associations has been directly overriden by the Bill. The Bill makes it obligatory for housing associations to sell houses to people if they are asked to do so.
We are only asking for a small thing: that outside the limit there should be charitable housing associations

731
which will not have to sell houses. For some reason—and I cannot tell your Lordships why—a block has been put on charitable associations. Some of your Lordships may have seen the Prince of Wales on television last night. I feel great sympathy for the observations that he made.
Over the past 20 years we in Scotland have increased the number of our council houses by about 10 per cent. We have increased owner-occupation by some 30 per cent. That shows that the scheme is going extremely well, as it is at present. We have lost 75 per cent. of our private rented property. That must be made up somehow. At present, housing associations have 40,000 applications for houses. The Bill will reduce the number of houses available. That is serious.
I am only asking that rented property should be allowed to go on. It must be. This is an important period. Building societies have just been given wider powers. They will have £5 billion to spend on houses. Are we going to get that in Scotland or not?
The Government proposed to the Treasury, and succeeded in getting its agreement, that a charity could sell its houses below market price. It is generally regarded as a pretty definite rule that a charity does not sell below market price. They are allowed to do so. No charitable donor will put his money into a property which will possibly be sold at nearly half its market price. As long as that rule continues, no charitable money will come into housing.
I want the Government to collect as much of that money as possible. Building societies can perfectly well form charities. There is no reason why they should not. I believe that they will do so. I believe that this provision will result in a great loss to Scotland. My noble friend Lady Carnegy talked about the customers. Who are the customers? Where are the queues for houses? They are with local authorities and housing associations. There is no queue for owner-occupation. There are plenty of houses for people to buy.
I believe the idea in the Government's head is that everyone wants to own a house. They do, but not all will succeed in doing so, especially at the time when they want to. There will always be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the population which will not be able to do so. Those are the people whom we are seeking to provide for.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen housing associations in operation. In my opinion, they are doing a remarkable job. They tackle problems with originality. I know that in Glasgow and Edinburgh they have tackled the problem of the big stone houses built in about 1890. Local authorities have been afraid to make the change; but housing associations have adapted the houses to provide proper and good accommodation. That is a great achievement.
There is another even more important achievement. Housing associations have worked extremely closely with tenants and landlords. Their relationship has always been a great problem, but the housing associations have succeeded. They have set up tenants' committees which meet the managers. I believe that is of tremendous importance. I should like to see housing
732
associations increase rapidly and extensively. They can play a big part in Scotland's housing history.
I do not know how your Lordships regard housing. I think it is the basic social requirement. If you are not brought up in a proper house, especially in your early years, are you likely to be able to benefit from education or to have a healthy life? However, those matters are subordinate to the basic requirements of housing. I am asking for a very little, but I beg the noble Lord to agree to it.
4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for their pursuit of the protection, as they see it, of housing associations. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, called this a simple amendment. I would say that it is really rather complicated. It is intended, as they have explained, to provide that the right to buy should not apply to new charitable housing associations which may form in Scotland. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Earl and to my noble friend for giving me some idea in advance of the thinking that lies behind their approach.
I have to say that at first sight the amendment appears to be useful. It appears to be attractive. There are indeed many who are attracted to it. I am far from convinced, however, that the amendment is necessary in order to achieve the encouragement of philanthropic donations, such as those suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to housing associations. I respect of course the fervent way in which the noble Earl supports them. Nor am I convinced that it is fair to the tenants of such associations that they should be denied the right to buy when their neighbours in what may be very similar houses but belonging to a different kind of housing association will have that right.
At one time, in the early months of the progress of this Bill, there was real cause for concern about the compatibility of charitable tax status of housing associations in Scotland and the right to buy. I must stress to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who brought this into his remarks, that the Inland Revenue has considered its position carefully over many months. We have heard that the right to buy will have no effect on the charitable status of new associations. As that is so, there is no reason to treat them differently from other new associations. The tax advantages which accrue to charities and charitable associations will be available to any charitable housing association in Scotland, and, perhaps even more importantly, from the point of view of the philanthropist, the tax advantages to the donor will be equally available. In other words, where the donor gives money over a period under a covenant, then the tax that he has paid will be available to the receiving association.
But the noble Earl and my noble friend have suggested that philanthropists may not give their money to associations if they think that tenants of those associations will be able to buy houses at substantial discount. We have to remember that in considering this matter there are other exemptions—indeed, the noble Earl referred to this—from the right to buy than those of the association itself. For example, if a philanthropist

733
gives his money for the building of sheltered housing or housing adapted for the disabled, then those houses are in themselves exempt from the right to buy. The Bill, and the Act it amends, the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, contain a variety of exemptions which we loosely describe as exemptions for special needs housing. These also include houses in small groups for people who are mentally or physically handicapped; those who have recently come out of prison or other institutions; those suffering from addictions; or young people leaving the care of local authorities.
In addition, the Secretary of State has power to add further classes to these exemptions. So many, if not most, of the houses which charitable housing associations would be interested in providing will be exempt from the right to buy. If there was a risk that any association might have other activities, it would of course be open to the donor to specify that his money be used only for purposes beyond the right to buy such as these exempt houses or for the provision of common facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question of new houses. The cost floor provisions of the Bill and the 1980 Act are likely to limit the number of newly-provided houses that are bought by their tenants.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I hope that I did not give the impression that I was speaking about totally new build. I was almost totally concerned—I thought that I had made this clear—with alterations and the adaptation of existing buildings.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise if I got the noble Lord wrong. I took it that he was referring to new buildings. My noble friend Lord Selkirk raised the matter of the importance of philanthropic donations to this business. Yes, I am the first to agree that they are important. But we have to bear in mind and keep in context the relative figures. So far as we can tell, looking at the accounts of a number of charitable housing associations in Scotland—they include Key, Ark, Whitedale, Kirk Care, Bield, Govanhill, Hanover, and Pollockshields—these associations in one year received only £32,000 in charitable donations compared to total funding, almost entirely from the Housing Corporation, approaching £20 million. This demonstrates, I believe, that while charitable funding is important to those who make the donations—any money that comes in is of course welcome—the two figures have to be borne in mind and kept in context.
But philanthropy, important as it is, is not the only source of non-government funds for the housing association movement. It is now clear that the building societies, banks and other investors have a significant contribution to make. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said, that these investors do see problems. But these problems do not have their root in the right to buy. It is more that the rental income from housing association properties falls short of what is required to produce a useful return for this investment. We are giving close consideration to how this difficulty may be overcome and there are various methods under examination. In England and Wales, forms of
734
tenure which do not lead to a fair rent being imposed are already in use, and it may well be that some adjustment of the rent regime is what is required. But I cannot anticipate what changes, if any, will emerge from this work and I do not believe that a tinkering alteration in a Bill which is only marginally related to the subject would have the beneficial effect that some think it might have.
What I can say—this perhaps answers the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and that was the main burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selkirk—is that the Government are determined to increase the diversity of housing provision. My noble friend described how he felt that the rental sector was the most neglected sector. We need to expand the range of tenures available and the variety of sources of housing. The housing association movement certainly has a central part to play in this expansion. The introduction of schemes involving both public and private funding will be a component. It is true that the private rented sector, meaning houses rented from private landlords, has declined. But the housing association movement in Scotland has made some rapid strides and now provides over 3,000 houses a year which are in many ways a part of the private rented sector.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the right to buy requiring mobility, a person, I would suggest, is much more likely to be able to move to another area, for example, for job reasons, if he owns his house rather than if he rents his house.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot really believe that. Does the Minister not realise that a great problem in the South of England is that the price of houses is so great that the unemployed who come to look for jobs go home again? One can buy a house in the North-West or the North-East for a price at which one could not buy a hen coop in this part of the country. It is the need for rented accommodation to give mobility that is the whole point.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I accept to a limited degree what the noble Baroness says. If, however, the noble Baroness extends her view a little further north to the North-East of Scotland, she will find that there the situation has been rather different over the past 10 or 15 years. I accept that there is a need for a variety of different housing availability. That is the point that I made in my earlier remarks. The diversity of housing provision is something with which we need to deal. We need to expand the range available.
I should like to pick up one point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The Government have given tenants a range of rights: security of tenure, the right to a written lease and the right to carry out repairs, as well as the right to buy. The intention in this Bill is to extend the right to buy as widely as possible, making exemptions only where the house is needed for a specific purpose which cannot be met by any other means. If this amendment were passed we should be creating a group of tenants who have only second-rate rights. I am sure that that is not what the proposers of this amendment seek to achieve.

735
I have to say also that the scope of charitable associations in Scotland is different from that of associations in England and Wales—a point made by my noble friend. Scottish associations often provide a very wide range of houses. Many of them also have a spectrum of stock not all that different in proportional terms from that of a small district council whose tenants have the right to buy. In England and Wales associations which are registered charities have a much narrower range of activities. If the right to buy is not to apply to their sister associations in Scotland, Scottish associations will have to accept a similar narrowed range. I doubt whether they would wish that, and nor would we.
I am afraid that this amendment opens the way for abuse of exemptions to the right to buy. It is easy to see that any association wishing to avoid selling houses to its tenants, for whatever reason, might well look to setting up a new charitable satellite and perhaps transferring houses to that association. To avoid that kind of abuse tighter control of the registration of new charitable associations in Scotland will be necessary.
Also if a new charitable association is set up it will be necessary to ensure that it builds houses only for its prime purpose and does not gradually evolve into an association providing houses whose tenants would fairly expect to be able to buy them. This is not by any means a threat. It is simply careful management to ensure that the resources available are used to the benefit of tenants and that exceptions provided by Parliament are not misused.
I know that no thought of this lies with either my noble friend or the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who both acknowledge that there is a place for the right to buy. But the amendment has that problem. It denies tenants the rights they will expect. I therefore cannot commend the amendment to the House. I hope that the noble Earl will see the force of those arguments and feel able to withdraw his amendment. If he does not, I must urge your Lordships to resist it.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask this question? I understood him to say that where a tenant does not have the right to buy, that would prevent him from going into the home buying market. Does the noble Lord not accept the case that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that some tenants who have had the right to buy have bought at a discount price and then carried out the obscene practice of going into the private selling market? They can make excessive profits and move that way into the home buying market. There is nothing to stop a person—or does the Minister suggest that there is?—who is in a property which he does not have the right to buy voluntarily leaving and going into the private market if he so wishes.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord must accept that the number of houses for people in a wide range of walks of life in the public sector which have been made available over the last few years has been an enormous success. I do not think anyone would deny that. If the noble Lord wishes to claim that it has not been a success, that is all very well, but I do
736
not believe he can do so. We are here talking about a fairly small number of people who are catered for by the exceptions that already exist within the Bill. I hope I have explained adequately that that is what covers the situation, and for this reason I have also been able to explain to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the philanthropic argument he advocates is met.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not deny at all—
Noble Lords: Order! By leave, my Lords.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not know I was out of order. I do not deny at all that if one measures the success of the home buying market by the number of houses sold, it has been a success. But there are other people who have paid the price and those are the people who cannot afford to go into the buying market.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it is also true to say that those who buy, although they may need to move for some very good reason, on the whole do not move. The reason they buy their houses is that they like them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: And a nice profit, my Lords.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first I want to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who helped me in supporting this amendment. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, there has been only one (namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy) who argued against it. In listening to her argument I felt that she was confusing what we are trying to do. Neither the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, nor myself nor many people who support this argument are against the right to buy; far from it. We have seen that happening and we think that that is fine. We are trying to establish in a very limited field that where a charitable organisation (a housing association) has got over two hurdles—the hurdle of the Inland Revenue, and of the Housing Corporation—is therefore genuinely for charitable purposes, will not cheat, as was suggested in one way or another, but in this limited field wishes to go ahead and set up a new establishment, I am clear in my own mind that as a matter of principle it should be allowed to do so.
It is all very well to say, "We are covering everything". I do not believe that anybody can cover everything. This is therefore an attempt to cover cases that could arise in the future. As I have already said, I believe very strongly that people who have been contemplating such charitable housing will be undoubtedly deterred if they feel that they will see some of their capital disappearing as a result of the right to buy in this limited case. Therefore, much as I appreciate the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I feel that no other course is open but to ask the House to support me in moving my amendment.

737
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6A), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144: Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Amherst, E.

Kintore, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brightman, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Brockway, L.

Moran, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Chitnis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Craigavon, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denning, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Devonshire, D.

Porritt, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reilly, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Renton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Seebohm, L.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gibson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gray, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Hayter, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vernon, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vickers, B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

738

Willis, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bauer, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Knollys, V.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caccia, L.

Lothian, M.

Caithness, E.

Lovat, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cayzer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mersey, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigton, L.

Newall, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dormer, L.

Portland, D.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ferrier, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gormanston, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Westbury, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Young, B.

Holderness, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 6, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendments Nos. 6B to 6D:
LORDS AMENDMENTS
[As consequential amendments to the Bill]
6B Page 22, line 6, at beginning insert—
("Where such exemption has not been claimed and granted in respect of all periods from the said date of registration.").
6C Page 22, line 8, leave out from ("at") to ("were") in line 10 and insert ("that date;").
6D Page 22, line 12, leave out ("the said date of registration") and insert ("that date").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

South Atlantic Fisheries
4.26 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 on South Atlantic fisheries which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government are today taking steps to establish a Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone (FICZ). It will be generally of 150 miles radius from the Falkland Islands. At the same time we are declaring the entitlement of the Falklands, under international law, to a fisheries limit of 200 miles, subject to delimitation with Argentina. We are also confirming our rights to jurisdiction over the continental shelf up to the limits prescribed by the rules of international law.
"The necessary legislative measures will be introduced shortly in the Falkland Islands. Our action is taken in agreement with the Governor and his executive council. We are informing the fishing nations, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, our allies and partners, the European Commission, the United Nations and other governments concerned, including Argentina. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
"The House will know that the rapid increase in fishing in the south-west Atlantic, with its serious impact on fish stocks there, has aroused widespread concern. The Government share that concern and have been active in trying to meet it.
"From the outset, the Government took the view that the problem would best be solved on a collaborative basis. Accordingly, as a result of a British initiative in March 1985, a study was launched last November at the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We gave it every support. We saw this as the first step to agreeing multilateral conservation and management arrangements under FAO auspices. In public, and directly to the Argentine Government, I made clear our view that a solution without prejudice to our respective positions on sovereignty could and should be found.
"However some fishing nations have not co-operated fully with the FAO study, and its preparation has been delayed.
"Pending completion of the study, we took steps to reduce by voluntary means the impact of the fishing effort in the 1986 season. We had hoped to extend these voluntary arrangements into 1987.
"Argentina has pursued a different course, and her actions have undermined the multilateral approach. In particular, Argentina has embarked on aggressive patrolling more than 200 miles from Patagonia and within 200 miles of the Falklands. Unlawful use of force by Argentina led in one case to loss of life and the sinking of a vessel. Argentina has concluded bilateral fisheries agreements with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. Through these agreements Argentina purports to exercise jurisdiction that is as a matter of international law the
740
entitlement of Falkland Islands. These agreements are incompatible with the multilateral initiative.
"In sum, the Argentine Government's recent actions show an indifference to conservation needs and a preference for obstruction rather than co-operation.
"The Government are determined that there should be adequate protection for the fishery. In view of the failure of Argentina to co-operate in a multilateral approach, we have therefore decided to establish unilaterally a conservation and managment regime. We remain, however, ready to work for a multilateral arrangement which would still be our preference, just as soon as that can be achieved. I have made this clear to the Argentine Foreign Minister and suggested to him that we should review how Britain and Argentina can co-operate to support conservation on a regional basis.
"The legislation to be introduced by the Falkland Islands Government will take effect from 1st February 1987. Its aim will be to preserve the viability of the fishery. Fishing within the conservation zone will be licensed by the Falkland Islands Government. Licensing will reflect conservation needs. The Falkland Islands Government will use its own civilian fisheries protection vessels and a surveillance aircraft. Revenue and costs will be for the Falkland Islands Government. The conservation zone for most of its circumference will be co-extensive with the protection zone. Our forces stationed at the Falklands will continue to deter Argentine aggression and maintain the integrity of the protection zone."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully recognise the need to organise fishing in these waters with a view to proper conservation and we have noted with concern the evidence of over-fishing to which the Statement refers. As the House is aware, we have had several exchanges here on this subject over the last few months and we are also conscious that we still await the FAO report.
The establishment of the new zone—the FICZ referred to in the Statement—is an important departure, although we do not necessarily dissent from it. The noble Baroness has often reiterated the Government's adherence to a multilaterial agreement based upon the FAO report. Indeed, in March she said that she was convinced that a multilateral arrangement offers the best prospect of meeting all needs. On 2nd April in this House she said that she thought that the FAO report was an essential preliminary to the imposition of a multilaterial regime. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness why the Government have decided to change direction now. Why have the Government decided to act unilaterally at this point before the publication of the FAO report? Furthermore, is the noble Baroness able to say when the report is likely to be published? When it is available will the Government then propose to move towards consultations with a view to a multilateral agreement?

741
Does the noble Baroness think that this unilateral action could create difficulties with the USSR and the Eastern European fishing nations whose fishing fleets are operating in these waters? We note that the Falkland Islands Government will use their own vessels and aircraft in these waters. Does the noble Baroness think that that is adequate, or is there a possibility of confrontation and some danger to the ships and the aircraft? I understand—and perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm this—that two ships are involved and of course those ships (as again I am sure the noble Baroness will confirm) are quite unarmed.
Given what the Statement says about the aggressive patrolling which is now going on, I assume that the Government will be prepared to defend the ships and the aircraft if that becomes necessary. Finally, will the noble Baroness tell the House how it is proposed to use the licence fee money? Is she able to give some estimate of what it might amount to? Will it be used to establish a company in the Falkland Islands to supply the full needs of the foreign fleets operating in the area?
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to obtain some multilateral agreement and regret that that has not been possible. I should like to ask further questions about the new fisheries zone. Has it been drawn up largely for reasons of international law or are the actual fishing conditions in the South Atlantic taken into account? It seems to me to be very much the same kind of zone as we have heard a good deal about in the North Sea. I should like to be assured that such matters as the migration of fish in the South Atlantic and the type of fishing—whether it is industrial fishing or whether we hope to establish some kind of in-shore shipping there—have also been taken into account.
It is a very large area indeed and it presumably runs from the heads of the land and will be extremely difficult to patrol. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, in addition to what has already been asked, what ships and aircraft the Falkland Islanders have at their disposal for this purpose. It is not enough to have aircraft, because some of the ships—clearly the Argentine ships—will not obey orders and may have to be boarded. It would be interesting to know what vessels the Falklanders have at their disposal other than those of the Navy for carrying out this task.
I remind your Lordships that the total population of the Falklands is about the size of a large village. Even by Orkney standards it is very small indeed. If Orkney had to enforce a 200-mile limit it would be hard put to do so.
First, are there courts in the Falkland Islands to try those who have been carrying out illegal fishing and are they empowered to enforce the very heavy penalties which are the only effective ones? The value of fishing catches is now enormous and unless the courts are empowered to levy very heavy fines or imprison skippers they will simply take no notice.
Finally, as regards licensing, are foreign nations to be allowed to apply for licences? I take the view that licensing is the ultimate solution to most fishing difficulties and that zones are very difficult to enforce. However, may I take it that other South American nations—and, indeed, other world nations—will be
742
entitled to apply for licences? If so, to whom do they apply and on what conditions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for their response to this Statement. I confirm again to both noble Lords that we have been very concerned about the conservation of fish stocks. I have been conscious that this point has been raised on many occasions by noble Lords from all parts of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me a number of quite specific points on the Statement. First, he quoted what I had said about the Government's hope that we would achieve a multilateral regime—a point, which the Statement itself makes. As again the Statement makes clear, the unilateral option was always available to us. We hope that we may move towards a multilateral regime, but in the meantime we have, as the Statement makes clear, proposed the arrangement of an interim zone.
The noble Lord asked me when we thought the FAO report would be published. So far as we know, it should be published by the end of the year. It is a technical study of the state of the fish stocks. We had hoped to receive it this summer and it is unfortunate that it has been delayed. Our latest information is that it is expected by the end of the year. The noble Lord then asked me whether we would be having consultations about this matter. Of course we would have to discuss the report, but the fact is that the fishing fleets would now be preparing to go to the South Atlantic because the fishing season starts early in the year, January-February, and therefore it is necessary to have something in place before the next season.
The noble Lord asked me specifically whether we thought there might be any difficulties either with the USSR or with the Eastern European fishing nations. Again, if I may repeat this point, we believe that it is in the interests of all fishing nations to ensure that the fishery remains viable both ecologically and commercially. We therefore look to all the nations that fish there to comply with the licensing regime which will enable that to take place.
The noble Lord then asked me whether we thought there might be some confrontation and possible danger to our ships. I do not think that this would be the case if the other fishing nations behaved lawfully. It is important in this connection to note that only two days ago there was a Brazilian proposal at the United Nations to establish a South Atlantic zone of peace. It was co-sponsored by Argentina with Brazil, and we supported it at the United Nations. I think that this indicates that Britain and Argentina can vote in the same way when we have a common interest, and we hope that all the fishing nations will recognise that there is a common interest in the preservation of the stocks.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about defending our ships and aircraft. The fact is that we hope there will be two civilian ships and a civilian aircraft. We hope that this will not be something that we are called upon to do; and certainly not if the fishing nations behave lawfully. But of course the fact of the matter is

743
that it is open to us to use armed forces should this be appropriate. However, it is our hope, for the reasons I have given, that this will not be necessary, and it is going to be patrolled by a civilian force.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about the ships and aircraft, and I hope he will accept that I have answered that question. He then went on to ask me whether there would be courts in the Falkland Islands able to try those fishing illegally. The answer is yes, there would be. There would be a magistrates' court. An ordinance is to be passed in the Falkland Islands early in November laying down the penalties.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us will warmly welcome her Statement today, because the previous policy of the Government, although well-intentioned, was taking much too long? In the meantime, the long-distance fleets from far away, such as Japan and the Soviet Union, were making serious inroads into the stocks of fish in that area.
As regards the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will my noble friend accept the congratulations of at least one Member of this House on having taken this decision now, because it was I who pressed in a Question and supplementaries at the end of July, just before the Recess, that the Government should make such a change? I am sure that many people will welcome the Statement today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his warm reception of this Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness and tell her that there is another Member of your Lordships' House who is pleased. The recommendation that I made four years and two months ago is finally being implemented. This has been a subject of continuous pressure on the Government, since those of us who knew about what was going on at the FAO had no belief that the Government would succeed in their multilateral approach, desirable though it was.
I believe that the Government were right to play it slowly and make every effort to get an agreement, notwithstanding the great pressure from the conservation world, which will greatly welcome this step to implement protective measures at this stage. I think that the reaction of the Argentine to the Government's efforts is very depressing indeed. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would agree, but there is still the danger of a cod war with unfortunate international implications in view of the attitude of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a fishing base in the Argentine, and the Soviet Union's indifference to our complaints about the agreement they had entered into, in our opinion illegally, with regard to fisheries in that area.
Would the noble Baroness also accept—and I speak as somebody who was until recently chairman of the East European Trade Council—that I have no doubt that East European countries, and particularly the
744
Poles, are only too eager to have a sensible regime, which this envisages? I also congratulate the noble Baroness on the fact that the Government have achieved this, so far as I can tell, with no cost at all to the British taxpayer. I just hope that the Falkland Islands will get some benefit financially from this.
Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness—and again I say this in the warmest and most congratulatory way—whether we shall have to wait another four years before we put fishing limits around South Georgia? This is also an area that we recommend should be protected in this way. South of the Antarctic convergence in particular is in danger of very heavy fishing.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his warm welcome of the Statement, It is even more welcome because, as we know, he recommended such a zone in his report published in 1982, and no one has been a stronger advocate of it. I am glad too that he believes that it has been the right policy to play it slowly. We have tried hard to achieve a multilateral regime. I am particularly pleased to hear from him that conservationists will welcome this, because it is such an important part of the argument.
The noble Lord asked me about the reaction of the Argentine Government. Of course, one does not know. They have been informed of this decision, and we hope that they too will see the argument about conservation. As I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we believe that the fact of the Brazilian proposal at the United Nations on a zone of peace should make people think carefully about settling any differences other than peacefully, and we are pleased that we were able to support this proposal as well as Argentina.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about Eastern Europe. We hope that if the Polish ships wish to continue to fish there they will apply for licences. So far as concerns the cost of the scheme, of course it will be run by the Falkland Islands government, who will issue the licences and will therefore collect the revenue. That will depend on the number of licences issued and how the cost works out. They clearly will need to look at this carefully, and I would not in any way want to overestimate the amount of revenue that might be achieved for the Falkland Islands government. What is most important is that the fishery should survive in the conservation area.
So far as concerns the water around South Georgia, the fishery is subject to existing international agreement—that is, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. We continue to regard this agreement as having the potential to develop into a truly effective conservation regime. We shall continue to work with other like-minded commission members at next year's meeting, which takes place in October 1987. So far, the CCAMLR has introduced a ban on all commercial fishing within 12 nautical miles of South Georgia.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, the agreement to which she referred is still not a very successful one. I hope therefore that she will agree that at the next meeting of

745
the Antarctic treaty powers (or the SCAR meeting) they will press strongly for more action; but there will still be the problem of enforceability.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall certainly note the important point that the noble Lord has made.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could clear up a small point which is bothering me. She said the conservation zone was to be of the same radius as the protection zone. When I was last in the Falklands, in July, the protection zone was only about 150 miles, whereas the conservation zone is to be 200 miles. Therefore, will the protection zone—or FIPZ, which I think is its exact name—have to be extended?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. The interim conservation zone is co-terminous with the Falkland Islands Protection Zone. We have claimed up to 200 miles but the actual area that will be licensed and will be patrolled will be of 150 miles radius. This is because most of the fishing is done within 150 miles radius and because it is coterminous with the Falkland Islands Protection Zone.

Public Order Bill
4.53 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 11 [Advance notice of public processions]:
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) Notice must be delivered to a police station—

(a) in the police area in which it is proposed the procession will start, or

(b) where it is proposed the procession will start in Scotland and cross into England, in the first police area in England on the proposed route.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name and in those of my noble friends. This is the third amendment in what I might call a procession of amendments. We discussed the matter at the earlier stages. It concerns the notice of a procession which is required to be given under Clause 11 by the organisers of it. If one assumes that there is to be a march from, let us say, Caithness to Dulwich, possibly to visit the Prime Minister, under the clause as it stands it would be necessary for the organisers to give notice in every police area through which that march would travel.
We thought that that was an unnecessary burden upon the organisers and, moreover, one which might very well bring them into conflict with the criminal law simply through ignorance, because failure to comply with the clause is a criminal offence. We pressed this very hard and I am extremely glad to have received from the noble Earl the amendment which is now on the Marshalled List—one very much better than its predecessors in the procession, having come from the source from which it has come; and it is one that I am very pleased to accept. I assume and hope that the Government will accept the amendment as it now
746
stands, catering, as it will, both for the situation in England and also for the situation which I posited a moment ago of a procession which begins in Scotland and ends in England.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, rightly says, we have had a couple of bites at this cherry already. But we are persuaded by the noble and learned Lord's arguments and are very happy to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Public performance of play]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 13, line 31, after ("circumstances") insert ("(and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that an amendment very similar to this one was moved by me at the Committee stage. The reason for wishing these words to be in the Bill was very straightforward. It was that they appeared in the equivalent section of the Theatres Act which was repealed by this Bill. In this clause of the Bill they had been replaced simply by the words,
"having regard to all the circumstances".
It seemed perfectly clear to all those who had anything to do with the theatre that the vital words,
"taking the performance as a whole"
were crucial when considering matters of racial hatred in a performance of a play.
Your Lordships will remember that much was said about "Othello" and "The Merchant of Venice". The noble Earl was kind enough to say that he would take the matter away and give it further consideration. There has been further consideration; there have been consultations and I gather that now the Government are prepared to accept the words of this amendment which differs in the addition of the words "in particular", so that it reads now,
"and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole".
With reference to the "Merchant of Venice", I ventured to say at the Report stage that I hoped that I would obtain my pound of flesh. I understand now that the happy position is going to be that I have obtained my pound of flesh without one jot of Christian blood being spilt.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for his dogged pursuit of this particular point. I am glad to say that in all the circumstances and taking the amendment as a whole, I am pleased to commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to direct trespassers to leave land]:
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 25, line 36, after ("than") insert ("—(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move this amendment and to speak to Amendment No. 4. At the Second Reading and also at Committee stage I expressed deep concern at the lack of protection against aggravated trespass on our ancient monuments. May I first thank the noble Earl for the constructive discussions which his department had with English Heritage and for the undertaking he gave during the Report stage to consider further the question of the desirability of bringing buildings which are scheduled monuments into the ambit of Clause 39, thereby enabling action to be taken by the police to direct trespassers to leave such buildings.
The amendment I am moving is intended to achieve that objective. I think the House will agree that it is an amendment totally within the spirit of the clause. Indeed, I would say that it is a serious omission that it is not already included, particularly as the provision was taken as a result of the abuses in recent years at or in the area surrounding one of our greatest scheduled monuments, Stonehenge. I am confident that there will be unanimity in the desire of this House (and, I think, in the country as well) to protect the most important of our treasury of ancient monuments; that is, those that are scheduled by virtue of being of national importance.
There are about 13,000 such monuments. They are scheduled by the Secretary of State for the Environment and we at English Heritage are charged by Parliament to protect them. Some of them are of such importance that the Government have already accepted them into ownership or guardianship—places like Whitby Abbey, Launceston Castle and Kenilworth. Those are just a few examples.
Since 1882 Governments have recognised the need to identify them and to protect them by scheduling, since they are part of the fabric of our history. It would seem odd, if having done so, we did not grasp the opportunity, when it arises, to carry that recognition to its sensible conclusion and give the additional protection provided under this clause—protection we feel they need. In practice, many of the monuments would already fall totally within the ambit of Clause 39. They are scheduled monuments on which no buildings stand and they include ancient hill forts such as Maiden Castle and many other earthworks and standing stones, such as Stonehenge itself.
However, it seems to me to be a serious weakness that some scheduled monuments may be outside this provision simply because they are buildings. A great many scheduled monuments have buildings with floors and roofs, and could certainly be used for the purpose of residing, even if in a pretty rough and ready way; but they are still very vulnerable to damage. That applies to many ruined castles and abbey ruins: yet all such buildings are excluded from the provision. In my view, this is a serious weakness and provides an easy loophole in a provision which otherwise I fully support.
The abuse which this clause remedies has so far affected land to a greater extent than buildings but I do not think we should confine our thinking to past abuses. We should think ahead to those which may
748
occur in the future and we must remember the determination and ingenuity of certain groups to find loopholes. By accepting this amendment the Government would help to provide further protection for an essential part of our heritage and would, I think, earn the nation's gratitude. They have already shown themselves sympathetic to, and supportive of, the preservation of the heritage. I hope that the way is now clear for them to demonstrate once, again their goodwill for the sake of future generations. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while we on these Benches have made it quite clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we do not like criminal trespass to be included in it, it now appears beyond doubt at this stage that it will remain in the Bill. In this case it would be quite wrong if, while agricultural buildings are to be given protection, scheduled monuments are left to take their chance against vandalism and all the other things which can occur to this very fragile part of our heritage.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has put the case so well and extensively that there is no need for me to repeat it. I certainly got a very strong impression when I spoke on Report that the noble Earl was very favourably disposed to this amendment and that we are now probably pushing at an open door. I hope he will be able to confirm this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend, having accepted two amendments, is now going to achieve his hat-trick!
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, may I briefly support this amendment? It seemed completely illogical, having got so far in the Bill, to leave these buildings without protection. I would go so far as to say that without it they might become more of a prime target than they have been previously, if they were so left out. Perhaps I might add my thanks to the Government for their help over this very vexed Clause 39, and to my own thanks I would add those of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. I would strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are indeed sympathetic to, and very supportive of, our heritage. We realise its very considerable importance and I am particularly grateful that the noble Baroness, with her vast experience in these matters, was able to take part in our debate this afternoon. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I am very happy to accept this amendment on behalf of the Government and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for pressing this particular point. As the noble Baroness said, this was in any case a fairly open door, and it was logical that this should be in the Bill. As I have been able to accept the hat-trick I would note that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is a cricketing supporter and that his average has come down from 1 for 20 to 2 for 22!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 25, line 38, after ("1967") insert (", or
(ii) scheduled monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we certainly will not let it pass without a word. While today all has been sweetness and light, it is a sombre thought that discussion of this Bill began way back on the 13th June last. It has dragged its slow length along during the whole of the summer months. It was introduced following a series of grave public disturbances and riots in our inner cities at a time of mounting crime.
Throughout the consideration of the Bill in both Houses—whose debates have, I think, improved the Bill a good deal since it was introduced, particularly in your Lordships' House—there has always arisen the problem of maintaining a balance between, on the one hand, the necessity of maintaining public order and, on the other, the need to preserve and protect the classic civil liberties of the subject: the right to freedom of speech and of lawful protest, the right of public assembly and of procession, all the hallmarks of a democratic society.
We have stressed also in the debates the importance at this time of maintaining and improving co-operation between the police and the public who they serve. On the Opposition Benches we have questioned strongly whether some of the Bill's proposals may not be more likely to alienate than to win public support. However, we must acknowledge—and I readily do so—that in another place the Under-Secretary and in this House the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and following him the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, took away some of the Bill's proposals and accepted the advice offered to them from time to time from the Opposition Benches.
We won an early concession from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he agreed to drop the proposed maximum penalty of life imprisonment for riot and to accept instead 10 years' imprisonment. I fear, however, that we achieved no further victories during the reign of the noble Lord, but we have done rather better under the ministrations of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, no doubt due in part to the fact that by then time was running out for the Government, quite apart from the noble Earl's own excellence and his intelligent anticipation that he should adopt our proposals.
We are grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the Government side for their courtesy, their ability and their willingness to look again at some of their proposals. The debates have indeed shown that the government mind, like a parachute, works only when properly opened. Have I got it quite right? I think I have.
750
We readily welcome the changes in the law, above all by Part III of the Bill which is directed against acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. When I was an attorney, I was frequently up against the difficulty of proving intent to stir up racial hatred. No doubt my noble friend had the same difficulty. Some extremely unpleasant racists got away by simply saying that nothing was further from their minds than the alleged intent. The Bill in Part III adds the alternative and very useful and valuable provision,
"having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby".
I shall not attempt at this stage to list either our victories or our defeats. We are sorry to see the introduction of criminal trespass, as my noble friend Lady Birk has indicated, and we regret some other elements in the Bill. Perhaps I ought to mention the most controversial part of the Bill which has survived attack from all quarters on the Opposition side. That is Clause 5 which creates the offence of disorderly behaviour. We tried to get rid of that in Committee and on Report but, alas, to no avail.
I must also record our regret at the refusal of our proposal to set up an appeal system to allow for appeals to be made against conditions imposed by senior police officers on assemblies and processions under Clauses 12 and 14. Another misfortune that remains in the Bill is the inclusion of the dangerously wide words "serious disruption to the life of the community" as one of the elements in Clauses 12 and 14 of the Bill.
We end with our gratitude for what has been conceded and in particular for Part III. We think the Bill has been improved by reason of the deliberations to which it has been submitted in this House. We think it might have been even better if all our proposals has been accepted.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I welcome in every detail the passing of the Bill? I should first like to thank the Law Commission for their excellent report which has restated in statutory form the common law as to riot, affray and unlawful assembly. Previously the position was vague and indeterminent, depending entirely on the dicta of judges. Now these matters have been brought into proper form and are clear and intelligible to everyone.
I welcome the additional provisions concerning harassment or disorderly behaviour. That is very necessary today. Of course we have our fundamental freedoms of speech, of assembly and of demonstration; but we must always realise that those freedoms must be exercised with regard to the freedoms of others. Indeed, they must be exercised without violence, disorder or anything of that kind. It is a matter of keeping the right balance.
As regards provisions concerning harassment and disorderly behaviour, how much we need them today in regard to freedom of speech when one who goes to universities to speak to students may be disrupted by violent disorder. It is a good thing that we have this new clause to deal with disorderly behaviour of that kind. That is the position under common law but how good it is also that processions and the right to demonstrate should be controlled. If I may I should also add the new offences dealing with new matters,

751
whether that be trespass, racist behaviour or whatever it may be. On the whole, I should say this is a very good Bill all the way through and everyone should be grateful for its passing.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, also pay tribute to the noble Earl the Minister and express our admiration for the way that he has guided this Bill through the choppy seas (stirred up largely, I am afraid, by a battery of lawyers), and for the way he has managed to bring the Bill to harbour having come to the steering wheel in the middle of the voyage. We appreciate and are grateful for his co-operative and helpful attitude throughout the time he has been in charge of the Bill.
Having said that, I would express my sadness that we have not been able to amend the Bill in any fundamental way. In a Bill of such paramount importance for our civil rights and liberties, it is also sad that we have divided along party lines. In Committee there was at one moment some support from two or three distinguished noble Lords opposite, some of whom I see here today. That support faded away on Report and the Divisions were of that kind.
The Bill starts well, and, in so far as it follows the Law Commission's report in rationalising the common law (as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just said) it is in many ways an admirable Bill. However, I should like to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that regarding Clause 4, when read with Clause 6, the Bill really has been left in what one can only describe as a real mess for the courts to deal with in regard to the states of mind of accused persons and of victims.
Equally, in Clause 5 the concept of disorderly behaviour and harassment, alarm and distress is so wide and of such catch-all phraseology that I fear that this part of the Bill will be abused when it comes into force. I suggest that the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that this part of the Bill is an unwarrantable extension of criminalisation of people's behaviour is a view which is nearer the truth than the view which has just been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
I find Part II of the Bill verbose and loose with the concept of serious public disruption and such wide power being given to the police and the court to interpret. Again, one cannot help feeling that this part of the Bill will be open to abuse. One can only hope that the concern of those of us on this side of the House with regard to those parts of the Bill will not be borne out in future years. Otherwise, we give this Bill a fair wind and hope that it contributes to this very serious matter of our fundamental rights of public meeting and procession. We sincerely hope that our concerns will not be borne out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, in contrast to some of our earlier proceedings this afternoon all has been sweetness and light. Indeed, the proceedings on amendments did something to convert me—who, having come from the Commons, always regarded
752
amendments on Third Reading with some suspicion—as to their value. With due deference to those who put them down, on this occasion they were just the sort of amendments that justify being put down on Third Reading; whereas on certain other measures the constant reiteration of highly controversial issues which had already been fully debated at earlier stages sometimes struck one as an abuse. But certainly this afternoon's proceedings have shown the value of this procedure, provided that it is, as it has been this afternoon, properly used.
I think at this moment your Lordships will also want to cast your minds back to the circumstances in which the Bill was introduced and the circumstances with which it was intended to deal and I hope will deal. It was introduced against the background of very grave disorders indeed, of riots, of serious injuries to policemen, of intimidation of individuals, of a great deal of damage and of a great deal of alarm. I think that the Government had no option but to respond to the very strong demand for a strengthening of the law to deal with situations of that kind. Whether they have the answer completely right is a matter on which there may be, as has been expressed this afternoon, reservations, but the need to legislate on this subject was, I think, very strongly felt by the public as a whole.
After all, the preservation of law and order and the security of the citizen to go about his life and work free from interference and violence is the basic duty of government. Indeed if one casts one's mind back, it was largely for that purpose that at the dawn of history governments were formed at all and societies came together for the protection that that would give.
It is in that context that I have my own reservation. I was disappointed when my noble friend Lord Glenarthur gave way to the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on Clause 1 and accepted the diminution of the sentence for riot from life to 10 years. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur had the support of noble Lords on this side of the House for maintaining that sentence, and, in my view, the offence of riot is so serious that the maximum penalty should be a great deal higher than 10 years. That must be even more the case where there is a second or subsequent offence.
Riot, as so defined, endangers the whole structure of society and it is—I say it at this stage with regret—a pity that a Bill that does much to strengthen the law for the protection of order and the stability of society should now open with so relatively weak a penalty for that most serious offence, particularly in the case of second and subsequent offences. I hope that our experience in the next few years may not be such as to cause us to regret this decision. But it is at least possible, if that hope is frustrated, that my noble friend may well find himself under considerable pressure to restore the Bill to the position in this respect in which it started.
On other matters I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, with respect—as I always do with respect—on criminal trespass. I am glad that the Bill seems to deal in considerable measure with the habit which developed this summer of people arriving and squatting on other

753
people's land and property and refusing to move. The Bill, which gives the power to a policeman to order them to leave, with penalties if they decline to carry out that order, should make a repetition of that kind of thing in the future impossible, and I very much hope that it will turn out to be effective.
On the whole, I should like to give my good wishes to the Bill. I share the high regard which most noble Lords have already expressed for the way in which it has been conducted by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—with the one exception to which I referred a moment ago—and by my noble friend Lord Caithness, both of whom have shown patience, consideration for the House and clarity of thought in handling difficult amendments. That is all the more astonishing in view of the fact that there they were as, from the legal point of view, laymen competing with, among others, a former Lord Chancellor. Many people would have thought that was grossly unfair to them, but there were moments when I think the former Lord Chancellor was rather inclined to think it was unfair to him, and no higher compliment can be paid to my noble friend and his predecessor than to say that. In this connection, we have been fortunate with the Scottish connection.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, let me briefly say that I dislike this Bill very much indeed. My role in it has been to follow my noble friends through the Lobbies in their endeavours to make it less bad than it otherwise would have been. As my noble friend has shown, we have not, alas, been as successful as we should have wished on all occasions.
My other purpose in rising is, perhaps unusually, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, because he has succeeded in protecting the special interests of the theatre. The Bill could have made a total fool of itself in that area and I think noble Lords on both sides of the House feel that a considerable improvement has been made. We have been in association with each other on this matter and my name is not on the amendment on the Marshalled List through sheer inadvertence. I am as enthusiastic about it as the rest of your Lordships. We are very happy with that outcome, much as we may regret some aspects of the Bill itself.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, like my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, I, too, thought everything was brightness, light and general contentment, especially when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, say that he approved today of the behaviour both of the Government and of the Opposition. This is indeed a unique day in the parliamentary history of this generation. But I saw very soon a slight cloud, a slight darkness—almost a reactionary darkness in that cloud—over our general enjoyment when he objected to a sentence of 10 years only for the offence of riot. I do not claim any monopolistic right on behalf of my noble friends in making that suggestion. It was indeed the suggestion of the Law Commission itself that it should be only 10 years, and when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, finds himself even behind the Law Commission in its thoughts about matters, maybe we can return to a spirit of complete contentment.
754
I go on, if I may, to make just a few brief remarks on matters which I hope your Lordships will agree have not so far been touched on. We realise that legislation of some kind was necessary in order to deal with the difficulties of our time, which all of us regret wherever we may sit in this House. I hope that a message will go out from your Lordships, wherever you may sit, that on the passing of this important Bill the police, whose relationship with the community is so important, will realise that Parliament, from all parties, expects them to be opposers of violence but also protectors of the proper civil rights of the citizen.
I also hope that in any circulars or directives that go out from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs the position of the police will be made abundantly clear; that is, that those who peacefully wish to exercise the age-old free traditions of which we are so proud in this country are to be protected when they do that and that those who offend against those rights by using violence and improper and illegal means will be punished as they deserve to be punished.
I almost said that I wanted to move from here to trespass, but that sounded rather funny, even in my mind, before I uttered the sentence. But what I wanted to do in that connection was not to repeat any of the things that have been said in arguments as to the difficulties of criminal trespass but to say this. I regret that in connection with a matter which does affect our criminal law there should now be an offence which makes complete nonsense to anybody who reads it—that of 12 vehicles entering upon land perfectly peacefully; nobody insulting anybody, nobody perpetrating any damage.
Anyone who is the cause of those 12 vehicles—and indeed the 12 vehicle drivers themselves—will be guilty of an offence if they do not obey a police direction. But if they be only 11 vehicles they are as innocent and as free in connection with our criminal law. If Parliament passes such a measure, as it now will presumably, Parliament must be prepared for some rather extraordinary remarks from our courts and for extraordinary remarks from those who will have to be in charge of prosecutions in the future.
My closing remarks are in connection with the race relations clauses of this Bill. I want to say only this in regard to it. I tried from these Benches on behalf of my noble friends and with the help of others on this side of the House to see that a duty was cast upon local authorities to remove racially offensive graffiti as soon as practicable. I was unsuccessful when trying to take this through the Division Lobby and this is my last attempt. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister will understand me when I say that I think it is a proper last attempt. I hope that when saying goodbye to this Bill and to those who have discussed it, as he will do in a moment, he will be able to say something helpful about that matter in regard at least to a wish to be expressed to the local authorities that they will carry out this work, because it is so offensive and so damaging to our national life.
In my last sentence perhaps I may join those who have paid tribute to the noble Earl, to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who has sat by his side assisting him with, I am sure, great ability, and to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I recollect that the noble Earl

755
was thrown into the middle of this Bill by a sudden appointment to the "Ministership", if I can use that dreadful word, that he know adorns. I think he is especially to be congratulated on the way in which, if I may continue the cricketing metaphor, he picked up the ball when the captain threw it at him, and he has bowled rather well.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is now a number of months, but months well used, since my noble friend Lord Glenarthur recommended this Bill to your Lordships on Second Reading. We have spent some 35 hours in consideration of the Bill. The other place will need to consider about 40 amendments made to the Bill by your Lordships during its various stages. That only goes to prove that the Government mind has been shown always to be open and that there has never been a need for a parachute. Some of the changes we have made to the Bill have been technical and have improved its form rather than its substance. Others, on some of which I shall comment further shortly, have added new important measures. Your Lordships have done sterling work on this Bill and we return it to another place strengthened and burnished by its passage through this House.
The Public Order Bill achieves a necessary balance. It protects cherished democratic freedoms such as the right to demonstrate and march peacefully, while strengthening the protection afforded everyone to go about their business free from disorder, intimidation and unnecessary disruption. The Bill is designed to give important new protection to ordinary people from the hooliganism and violence than can destroy their peace and tranquillity. It aims above all to preserve order, on which depends the rights and freedoms which characterise a democratic and civilised society.
We have made important changes to the Bill. In the course of its passage through this House we have agreed to a number of points made by noble Lords opposite. In Part I we accepted an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to reduce the maximum sentence for riot to 10 years' imprisonment. In Part II we have provided for banning orders under Clause 13 to be made in writing wherever possible, in response to another amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We have just agreed that in relation to marches which pass through more than one police force area, notice need be given only in the police force area where the march begins—an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich. In addition in response to a commitment given to the Opposition in another place we have substantially improved Part III of the Bill by bringing broadcasting, films, video tapes, sound tapes and other media within the incitement to racial hatred provisions, and in response to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, we have made clear that the theatrical performance needs to be considered as a whole.
Part III of the Bill is of course mainly concerned with protecting against threats to public order. Our
756
debates have also looked at wider issues and touched on the need, especially for those in positions of authority, to work for a society in which all our people have equal opportunities and in which sections of the community do not feel themselves under attack because of their racial origin.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised many matters of importance during our debates. In particular, he gave the House the opportunity to discuss the problem of racist graffiti. Although we were not able to accept the particular amendments he moved, we all share the distaste and abhorrence which he expressed so eloquently. Our debates on this problem served to underline the harm which racist graffiti can do. I can assure the noble Lord that this has already been noted by at least one local authority and I am sure that the others have taken note of what your Lordships have said on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said on Second Reading, racists have few friends anywhere and certainly none in this House. Part III of the Bill contains the strongest measures against incitement to racial hatred to be proposed by any Government. They prove in a way which mere speeches cannot that we will not tolerate the incitement of hatred of anyone because of the colour of his skin or the nature of his ethnic background.
Your Lordships have also accepted two important new measures. First, Clause 38 of the Bill strengthens the law to deal with those who cause so much mischief by contaminating consumer products or by issuing threats or claims. The message of your Lordships' House is absolutely clear: in a democratic country, no matter how strongly views are held, this can never be an excuse for endangering the lives of others or causing public alarm by what amounts to cowardly blackmail.
Clause 39 gives the police a new power to deal with aggravated trespass. Our debates on this have been full so I need not dwell on this important new power at any great length. Your Lordships have reacted swiftly to ensure that the disgraceful scenes we witnessed this summer including the abominable harassment of farmers by the hippy convoy shall be met in future with a swift and effective response. In particular, I should like to mention the unflagging work of my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in helping us to make sure that Clause 39 is a sound, sensible and workable provision.
I shall not delay the House by listing the many other improvements that we have made to the Bill. Suffice it to say that your Lordships have yet again proved to the full the worth of this House as a revising chamber. The Bill returns to another place in much better order than it arrived.
Before I conclude I wish to place on the record my appeciation to all your Lordships. Because of the pressures of business and the importance of the measures the Bill now contains, work on the Bill has placed particularly hard demands on noble Lords. These demands have been impressively coped with, with unflagging courtesy and a deal of good humour. For their advice, help and criticism I am grateful to my noble friends: in particular, my noble friends Lord

757
Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, but I do not forget the others although time prevents me from mentioning them by name.
I should also like to thank noble Lords opposite. As is right and proper our detailed debates have been hard-fought with strong views held on both sides. I shall not disguise the fact that when I took over this Bill halfway through its passage I did so with some trepidation. However, while the intellectual battle has raged, the personal courtesy shown to me by noble Lords opposite has never wavered, and I am grateful to them. They always listened to my arguments with care, notwithstanding that they have profoundly disagreed with some of them; and they themselves are owed respect because of the rich experience that they bring to our debates.
I hope that Members in another place will appreciate the work we have done on this Bill and will give the amendments we have made a fair wind. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Developing Countries: Health
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent health and family planning are considered as part of development projects, bearing in mind the high rate of maternal and infant mortality in developing countries.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in asking this Question I am conscious of the fact that the time is not quite what we had anticipated and as a consequence I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who is chairing an important meeting which she originally expected to be concluded before this debate began.
The linked subjects of health and family planning in the third world arc not, regrettably, items to arouse a great deal of interest. It seems that it is only when an issue can be dramatised that our imaginations and consciences are aroused. For example, witness the magnificent response during the past two years or so to the efforts inspired largely by Bob Geldof in order to bring relief to the famine-stricken areas of Africa. Yet the more pervasive problems of infant and maternal mortality do not of themselves evoke such a response.
At a conference of European parliamentarians at The Hague earlier this year, sponsored jointly by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the World Health Organisation, and the United Nations Children's Fund, Doctor Inayatullah, Pakistan's Minister of State for Population, said:
"Every year some 17 million children die from simple preventable diseases—more than those dying from the famines which have been brought to many of us so vividly on our screens over the past year".
She said that in some African countries infant mortality rates reach over 200 per 1,000 live births. She then went on to deal with maternal mortality. Again, I quote:
"The maternal mortality rate in Sweden is near one per 100,000 live births; in the developing world as a whole it is around 400 for every 100,000 live births, and as high as 1,000 per 100,000 in some
758
sub-Saharan African countries where a woman has a one in 50 lifetime chance of surviving her six successive child births".
Those are appalling figures, and they represent human lives. Imagine, for example, if every six hours, day in day out, a jumbo jet crashed killing its 250 passengers, who were all women, who were all pregnant or who had just delivered a baby. That is how the World Health Organisation described the situation in the poorest countries of the world at its first international conference on the prevention of maternal mortality in November of last year. What horrifying pictures would fill our television screens if that were how these women died. What an immediate response there would be both from governments and from individuals. As it is, these women and their babies die unseen and largely unnoticed by the rest of the world.
The immediate cause of the disastrous famine in Africa was drought. But, as we all know, that is only part of the problem. Another and perhaps more fundamental cause is the pressure of the growth of population on the resources and on the environment of the region. In many of the African countries the population is set to double in the next 20 years. Dr. Fred Sai, senior population adviser to the World Bank, said to a recent meeting of the British Parliamentary Group on Population and Development that there was nothing that we could do to prevent a doubling of the population of Africa over the next 20 years. The problem was whether we could prevent it quadrupling thereafter.
On 15th May this year the Herald, a daily newspaper in Harare, described the situation as "Africa's time bomb". The paper referred to figures which indicate that, for example, Zimbabwe's population of 9 million is growing at 3·5 per cent. per annum and is likely to be 14·9 million by the year 2000 and 38·3 million by the year 2100. Kenya, with a population of 21 million, growing at the rate of 4·2 per cent. per annum, will have 35·8 million people by the year 2000 and 116·4 million by the year 2100. In Nigeria the population of 105·4 million, growing at 3 per cent. per annum, will reach 159·2 million by the year 2000 and 508·8 million by the year 2100. Those are horrifying figures.
But, one might ask, what is that to do with maternal and infant mortality rates? The two problems are integrated. On the one hand are the economic and social problems—that is, malnutrition, lack of water, lack of sanitation and hygiene, inadequate health care, inadequate housing, inadequate education, bad farming and forestry methods. Those represent one side of the problem. The other side is population growth. This population growth involves, in particular, infant mortality and maternal mortality rates in high risk areas. The high risk areas are usually described as those areas which include women who are too young, too old or who have too many children too close together; that is, pregnancies before the age of 18 or after the age of 35, pregnancies after four births and pregnancies less than two years apart. The greatest risk of infant deaths is found among those high risk pregnancy groups. Some of those groups are prevalent in the developed countries, too, and they were certainly prevalent during the Industrial Revolution, just as they are prevalent in the developing countries today.
Among the factors influencing these high risk groups is the age of marriage. Girls who marry before the age of 18 and have babies before that age are at very high risk, and so are their babies. Another factor is education and literacy. This is particularly important for women, because women's education is an important factor in their status in society, and their status in society often influences the state of their health. The third influence is the use and knowledge of family planning. Here I would say that it is important that women should know of, and have available to them, family planning services. It is important, too, that men should be aware of the services and be aware of their importance, in particular when they are linked to the health of their wives and babies; so there is a great need for more to be done in that area.
Family planning is a difficult and delicate issue for us in the West, with our different culture. Yet family planning is not new to African countries. Especially is it not new in the sense of spacing the birth of children, which is a most crucial element in the health of mothers and babies. But the cultures in Africa and in developing countries which very often led to the spacing of children are now crumbling and one is left with a new situation.
However, all is not entirely gloom. It is encouraging to note that there are changes in the attitudes of government. For example, there is a growing political realisation that the health and wellbeing of families, and thus of communities, rests not on the number of children that a woman bears but on their healthy survival and on the ability of couples to choose the number of children that they will have and can support. In other words, it is increasingly recognised that family planning must be part of development. International conferences throughout the world have indicated this and the United Nations Women's Conference in Nairobi this year added its weight to this commitment. In May this year, too, an All-African Parliamentary Conference held in Harare was described by Charles Morrison, MP, who is chairman of the British population and development group, as one of the most encouraging that he had attended.
So we are not dealing with a situation in which the developed countries are foisting unwanted policies on developing countries. As I say, there is a growing recognition in these countries themselves that uncontrolled population growth is disastrous. Therefore I think it is more than ever appropriate that a family planning component linked to primary health care should be an integral part of Britain's aid to developing countries, and I should like to ask the Minister a number of specific questions on this subject.
First, what is the Government's policy on integrating family planning into all appropriate development projects? I understand that the Government issued guidelines on this matter in 1979. In view of the increased awareness of the relationship of family planning to the health of mothers and children, will it be possible to review those guidelines, which may now not be so relevant as perhaps they were then?
Secondly, the Government have generously increased support for multilateral agencies such as IPPF, UNFPA and WHO, but it is a fact that within
760
the whole of the overseas aid budget only about 1 per cent. is spent on population activities. I ask the Minister: is this enough? Thirdly, I understand that the ODA offers expert technical advice and assistance on health and population matters to those countries lacking a proper health infrastructure. Again, I ask the Minister: is this technical expertise adequate to meet the growing needs of developing countries?
We know from the world fertility survey and other research that women would like more family planning services and that they will use appropriately offered and accessible services. We know too that governments in developing countries are increasingly committed politically to population policies. Therefore, as I have said, it is not a question of imposing our values on them but of assisting them to overcome those gigantic problems.
This is a moral question. The morality lies in protecting the health of women and children. The question of the right to life arises here. It is the right of women to continue to live and not face death through continued childbearing, and it is the right of children to survive and to live a healthy life.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her Question and for her eloquent speech. My remarks will focus on the linking of aid to birth control.
The heavy toll of infant, child and maternal mortality in LDCs must arouse compassion and concern. But we should be wary of trying to influence people to limit their families. The reason for this was epitomised in this House by the notably compassionate noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, exactly two years ago to the day, on 29th October 1984. Rebuking other speakers, the noble Baroness said:
"What right have they to tell other people how exactly they are going to have their families—whether large or small?".
This is the heart of the matter. Do we have the right to press people in their most vital private decisions? People in the third world do not procreate heedless of consequences. They know about birth control. Traditional methods of birth control were widely practised in societies that were far more backward than the high-fertility contemporary LDCs, where moreover, people have access to cheap Western contraceptives and where for many years now cheap Western-style goods—hardware, cosmetics, soft drinks and cameras—have been ubiquitous. Yet the use of condoms, the Pill and interuterine devices has spread only slowly, even when they are subsidised. Western-style contraceptives are often absent when sophisticated articles of feminine hygiene are on sale, as in Nigeria. All this suggests that people do not want to restrict their families or prefer other methods.
In LDCs, as in the West, the great majority of people want the children that they have. Children give satisfaction; they provide an outlet for affection; they enable people to project themselves into the future; and much more than in this country, they contribute significantly to family income and serve as a support for old age. They often also bring prestige and influence. In all these contexts, the benefits to the parents outweigh the cost and the benefits from one

761
highly successful child exceed the cost of the others. Most of these benefits are not registered in the national income, which, though useful as an accounting concept, does not measure welfare.
Thus in the third world the children who are born are generally desired. They are certainly avoidable. To deny this amounts to saying that third world parents are both ignorant and driven by uncontrollable sexual urges. This treats people with unwarranted condescension or even contempt. Intense pressure against prevailing mores induces insecurity and tension. Morevover, in LDCs more than in the West, advice, education and persuasion shade readily into coercion. The notorious compulsory sterilisation campaign in India in the 1970s and the brutal forcible abortions in China are only extreme cases. In India, allocation of trading and taxi licences, access to subsidised housing and promotion in the civil service have all been used to force people to limit their families.
It is often said—it was clearly suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and had been said here in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—that without pressure by the West the population in LDCs would be unmanageable by the year 2000. This is unwarranted. To begin with, these forecasts are normally wildly out. In the 1930s, the population scare meant the prospective depopulation of the world. If the numbers really threatened people's welfare in LDCs, they would modify their reproductive habits as people have done in the West.
The linking of foreign aid to birth control also arouses political suspicions. I was told repreatedly in Africa that Western insistence on birth control there reflects Western fears that larger numbers inevitably bring greater political influence. Such suspicions are understandable, even if unfounded.
Genuinely voluntary family limitation will, however, come about through external commercial contacts for people at large. These bring about uncoerced changes in attitudes. They have already resulted in voluntary family limitation in much of the third world, and will result in more if they are extended. On this ground, as well as on others, the aid programme, while and where it operates, should be directed towards governments who foster economic advance through humane leadership, effective limitation and personal freedom. Linking age to birth control works in the opposite direction.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am glad to support the Question which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has tabled and the way in which she presented it.
The subject of the Question is similar to and partly stems from a conference that I attended in February this year organised by the United Nations in The Hague for parliamentarians in Europe. This has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
The full title of the conference was "European Parliamentarians' Forum on Child Survival, Women and Population: Integrated Strategies". The reference to integration was to emphasise the connected aspects of those subjects as well as being a reminder of the
762
integrated efforts of the three arms of the United Nations, which had joined together to organise this forum—the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
As well as the conference being addressed by the heads of those organisations, the main speakers were mostly from developing countries offering their own experience and feedbacks, on the basis of which discussions took place in groups consisting mainly of European MPs. From those groups recommendations emerged for political action and progress in terms that politicians use and can understand.
Needless to say, there was no one simple or unitary solution to the problems posed in these varied fields, but it was a most useful and successful conference, and one which concentrated on the need for the integration of efforts in these fields of child and maternal health, and population.
While being mindful of this relatedness, I should say that my particular field of interest is population, as I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on population and development, a group that was originally conceived and nurtured into existence by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who is currently its president.
The report of the forum is now available from any of the sponsoring UN agencies, and I recommend it to the Government and to anyone else interested in this subject. There is also a copy in the Library of the House of Lords and in the Library of the House of Commons.
I should say that the report is not some manifesto imposed by the UN, but a practical attempt by working politicians to suggest how parliamentarians can contribute in these areas. The report of the conference is far too detailed even to begin to sum up here, but part of what I will be saying tonight derives from my experiences there.
I hope that the Government will support the integrated approach advocated at the conference as well as encouraging UN agencies, in particular UNFPA, by their wholehearted support—support not least to UNFPA financially—following pressures and effective withdrawal of funding by the American Government. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister can comment on this. I would hope that we could now increase our funding to UNFPA as soon as possible, not only to give a lead to other countries, but to show that we do not share the reasoning of the United States in this. I believe that the Netherlands and, indeed, Finland have already given a substantial lead in that direction.
I would also advocate increased funding, if I may say so at this point, for the IPPF—the International Planned Parenthood Federation—which, following similar American vicissitudes, has been extremely energetic in trying to obtain alternative funding. Again we should continue to recognise those increased efforts and encourage its excellent work financially even more.
To return more directly to the question on the Order Paper, one thing particularly that became clearer to me at the European conference was the scandalous level of maternal and infant mortality, much of which

763
could be prevented at minimal cost by the right integrated approach and organisation.
Family planning elements can form part of that approach, and are extremely cost-effective in reducing mortality. This is particularly so in contributing to effective child spacing, which allows the mother and children time to become stronger, and for the mother to avoid pregnancy at times in her life when she is most at risk. Family life must be enhanced by strong mothers with strong children.
It has been estimated that in the developing countries today 5.6 million infant deaths and 200,000 maternal deaths could be avoided if women were able to choose to have their children within the safest years of their lives, and with adequate spacing between births and completed families of moderate size. This represents half of all infant and maternal deaths now occurring.
For detailed argument on this very important area, which is central to Lady Lockwood's Question, may I refer anyone interested to just one remarkable paper given at this European forum, and mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that by Dr. Attiya Inayatullah, who is Minister of State for Population in Pakistan. It is printed in the report and is entitled, "Child Spacing, Child Survival and Maternal Health".
If understanding and appreciation of the problems referred to in the Question is increasing, as I believe it is, slowly and inexorably, what can we in this country do, and what can the Government do? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will note that I am not here asking for more money, but for a redistribution in emphasis to this area, particularly family planning components. By that I mean within the ODA and the effect that department has on its development projects.
Without expecting answers tonight, and in view of the increasing importance of population matters, I ask whether there are enough staff within the department allocated to that area? Do staff generally have training so that they are aware of the population aspects of whatever they are doing?
Externally, the ODA obviously has great experience in responding to and assessing requests from other countries. It clearly would not push family planning and health components in inappropriate circumstances. With the often desperate needs of today's developing world, many requests must be for projects showing immediate or short-term results. I believe that we have a duty also to encourage the longer term thinking and benefits involved in some health and family planning projects. We should find ways of encouraging countries to come forward for funding in this area.
We know that the world fertility survey has shown the massive unmet need for modern contraceptive methods in the developing world. That is from those who have said that they would want to use such methods if they were available.
We are now, for example, aware of the desperate and immediate problems in Africa. Last June, The Times, in a leading editorial entitled "Africa: Help for Self-Help" used the words "frantic" and "frightening" to describe Africa's population growth. That was
764
echoed during the same week in a letter to The Times from the chairman of the all-party group on population and development as he had recently returned from a conference in Zimbabwe. I shall quote three sentences from the letter where, after giving some examples of stresses caused by rapid population growth, he said:
"There is keen awareness among African parliamentarians of the stresses that rapid population growth places on national development and a growing recognition of the part that family planning services can play in reducing some of these stresses. These perceptions were very much in evidence at the All-Africa Parliamentarian Conference on Population and Development held in Harare last month and attended by parliamentarians from 31 countries in Africa. It is vital for developed nations to respond positively to help the Africans to help themselves in the long-term task of slowing down population growth."
Finally, it has always struck me as a poignant paradox that so much of the thought in this area has been about numbers: numbers surviving or merely existing—the quantity of population. We should always bear in mind that in the long run the quality of life that people lead is also important. I hope that what I have said ultimately points in that direction.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend has chosen one of the most important topics in the modern world today. She should be congratulated on that. She is right to link the problems of rapid population growth in the developing world with the problem of excessive child and maternity mortality. I have been interested in this topic for a number of years. Last year I was fortunate enough to be the United Kingdom observer at a IPU-WHO conference in Thailand on health and development.
For many hears it was thought that where there was a problem of a rapidly expanding population, equalling or outstripping the growth in national income, it was illogical to spend resources on lowering the mortality rate of children, as increasing the chances of child survival would only exacerbate the problem. Some of us who were concerned with lowering excessively high child mortality and suffering in the third world feared that we might not be helping the problem in the long term but might even be exacerbating it by increasing the population.
In fact, experience over the years has shown that those countries that have been the most successful in improving the position of women and children and in lowering their mortality rate have shown the greatest progress in reducing their fertility rate. It is not difficult to see why that has been the case. Countries which have high child and maternal mortality rates are, paradoxically, the ones in which at present the population increase is the greatest. That applies especially to Africa, south of the Sahara, South Asia and parts of Latin America. In those countries it makes economic sense for families, as the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, pointed out, to have as many children as possible for several reasons. Where there is no social security system parents expect children to provide for them in their old age. They are an economic asset to them even in childhood.
In one study it has been calculated that a child can, by the age of 15, have repaid all the expenditure on it until that age. In such an economy, from the age of

765
seven a child can start to be useful around the house and on the farm by, for example, caring for younger children; by the age of nine, by fetching water, caring for goats and cattle, cutting crops and harvesting or transplanting rice; by the age of 12, if there are jobs available, children are capable of working for wages and adding to the family income; by the age of 13, they may be useful tilling the land. Those activities have been observed in a study in Java. That is paralleled in many other countries.
Where one child in four dies on average, there will be many families where two, three or even all the children in a family die and so for insurance the desired family size will be over four and perhaps six, seven or even more children. However, in those countries which have succeeded in reducing the number of child deaths, there is a decline in the birth rate within one generation. Once parents have confidence that their children will survive, the need to have many children declines. The Oxfam field directors' handbook puts that well:
"Most people will choose to have small, well-spaced families only when they have sufficient economic and emotional security not to have to depend on their offspring".
Until the second half of this century, it took one or two generations for the birth rate to fall after the fall of the child death rate. Now it takes less than a generation. A fall in child deaths has been found time and again to come before a fall in the birth rate. Paradoxically, if more children survive now, the world population will eventually be lower; in other words, a stable state such as the industrialised countries now enjoy with low mortality will be reached earlier.
Demographic trends over the past few hundred years have had three phases. First, there is a stable phase with a high birth rate and a high mortality rate. That existed all over the world until the Industrial Revolution. It still exists in some of the most remote communities. In Europe, slowly during the 19th century, with increasing prosperity, mortality rates began to fall and the population began to rise quite dramatically. We had our own population explosion in the last century. The population more than trebled in Britain between 1800 and 1900.
That is the unstable phase, with decreasing mortality but persistently high birth rates. It is the phase through which the developing world is passing today. Even after the birth rate comes down, there is still an increase of population because of the large proportion of young people after a rapid population increase. Even if we were able to bring the birth rate down to two children per couple, there would be a continuing increase in the world population well into the 21st century.
Until the third or stable phase is reached, with low birth and death rates balancing each other, the increase in the population of parts of the third world, especially Africa, is occurring now at a much more rapid rate than in the industrial North a century ago. Equally, and luckily, there are signs that a decrease in birth rate is occurring more rapidly in some countries than it did in Britain, Europe and the United States. I would emphasise that the situation is far from hopeless. We have seen quite dramatic decreases in fertility in some countries over the past two decades, with China leading the way and Cuba in second place.
766
Many other countries, particularly in South East Asia, have also been quite successful in reducing their fertility rates. In parts of some countries success in reducing the birth rate has been greater than in the country as a whole. In the State of Kerala in South India, for instance, total fertility fell from 4.1 per 1000 in 1972 to 2.1 in 1978—after only six years—despite that state being very poor.
It is worth looking at those three places—China, Cuba and the State of Kerala—and asking why they have been more successful than some other countries, particularly in Africa south of the Sahara. In all three there has been a positive policy on the part of the government to upgrade the state of the rural peasantry by actively promoting community development and particularly by encouraging literacy among girls as well as boys. One of the most striking correlations throughout the third world is between female literacy and both a low infant mortality rate and a decreasing birth rate.
The better educated a woman becomes the less is she content to spend the best years of her life raising a very large family. She is more able to see the possibility of other activities, such as engaging in small cottage industries, thus increasing her income, and she is better able to understand any health or contraceptive advice which is given to her through her primary health care clinic or health post. That applies both in the rural situation and in the many urban shanty town conglomerates. In the rural areas lack of such facilities may result in a continuing high birth rate but in the cities it is quite likely to lead to a high abortion rate. In those circumstances that will lead to hight mortality among women because of the complications of illegal back-street abortion.
Because there are signs of some success in certain countries, it does not mean that the situation is not urgent in a large part of the developing world, where child mortality rates are still alarmingly high and half of all deaths may occur in children under 15. Most governments in developing countries now recognise the need to do something about this, but the will, I would suggest, is not enough. There is a tremendous amount of experience and expertise throughout the world, but especially in this country, on how to tackle this problem both tactfully and effectively. Family planning activities are nothing like as effective if they are sporadic and not part of a continuing primary health care coverage. That is what the World Health Organisation's call for "Health for all by the year 2000" really means.
Aid from the industrial north, if it is to be effective in this area, should be channelled so that it reaches the very poorest people in every country—the majority. If it reaches only a few the demographic impact will be minimal. Primary health care provision is much more effective if it can be simultaneously linked to programmes which increase education and encourage small communities to become more self-sufficient and self-directing by the provision, for instance, of help with improving agriculture, developing local water resources and in marketing of agricultural or industrial products. The setting up of rural industries with appropriate technology should be part of these schemes.

767
Some of these activities are as applicable to the shanty towns as they are in rural areas. I think that many noble Lords are aware that much excellent work is being done throughout the world and much of it through non-governmental agencies. I would encourage the Government to collaborate closely with these non-governmental organisations and to help them perhaps by even more than the "pound for pound" assistance which they now give. I also feel that this country's expertise could be used far more in bilateral assistance programmes than it is at the moment. It is often easier to see that money is well spent in this way. Our expertise in this country, which has been developed over decades, needs to be used. It is rather disappointing to see that the proportion of government aid that is devoted to population activities seems not to have changed over the years.
Perhaps I have over-simplified the case. It is enormously complex. My basic point is that the measures which are most effective' in reducing infant, child and maternal mortality rates are the very same as those which lead parents to aim for smaller families. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. It is the wish of parents to reduce the birth rate which matters, rather than the wish of governments. The measures necessary in order of importance are these: education, especially of women; the provision of basic health care and improved nutritional education; and a degree of economic stability and progress. Many of these measures depend upon a new deal for third world countries, such as lifting or limiting the debt burden, stable prices for commodities and some protection for and investment in local industry and agriculture for local consumption. This is a small price to pay for averting the kind of disastrous situation we see in parts of Africa today.
Over many years of involvement in the development of tropical countries this country has built up an impressive battery of expertise. But we hear at present of staff cuts and the closing down of units financed by the Overseas Development Administration across the whole range of technical assistance. We have the most enterprising publishing houses in the world in the United Kingdom. What are the Government doing to aid and encourage the flow of books, for instance, and teaching materials to satisfy the tremendous thirst for knowledge which exists in the third world? I think that this, as much as the provision of contraceptives, would help the world to reach the third and stable demographic state which I mentioned earlier.
The Government should take the long-term view and not penny pinch now. The kind of investment that I have outlined would reap benefits of good will, and later of trade, which would greatly ontweigh the small extra that it may incur at the moment.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I want to approach this important subject from a slightly different point of view from that of those who have already spoken, though our objectives are no doubt much the same, except for the views and objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who seems, when he hears
768
the words "development" to salivate like Pavlov's dog and becomes almost rabid. The truth is, I think that the noble Lord would have addressed Dr. Jenner in the 18th century in much the same terms as he addressed the House this afternoon. I think that is probably the short answer to the noble Lord, though I shall refer to him later in my speech.
My point of view is that which was taken in the debate in this House on 14th May on the importance of the prevention of disability. Thus the ill-health associated with ill-planned or unplanned pregnancies and the disease and disability of children born as a result of those pregnancies should, in my view be looked at as preventable and avoidable disabilities. In those developing countries that have proved unresponsive to family planning, perhaps the most persuasive way of winning acceptance and consent is to present it as an essential part of any primary health service which includes, as a matter of course, preventive medicine. We have been pioneers in preventive medicine in this country. The rest of the world has benefited accordingly. One cannot promote health without taking steps to avoid disability by the prevention and by the alleviation of disabling conditions.
The noble Baroness Lady Hooper, replying to the debate on 14th May, said:
"Developing countries in particular can now be expected to do more to prevent disabling conditions arising from, for example, poor perinatal care, malnutrition and infections. A net result should and we hope will be a reduction of new disability among children and infants".—[Official Report. 14/5/86; col. 1185.]
I would add the words "among mothers as well" as, indeed, did Mr.Tim Eggar at the end of a debate in another place on 25th July. He said that,
"we must recognise that family planning is a key preventive health measure and that in poor countries it is a real force for improving child survival and maternal health".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/86; col. 848.]
Those two ministerial statements, one in either of the two Houses of Parliament, are immensely encouraging. But we should press the Government to step up, if possible, the proportion of aid spent on population activities and family planning. Most of those who have spoken in this House feel, I believe, that the percentage is at present too low. The specific earmarking or dedication of funds within the total aid programme should ensure that those funds reach their intended destination.
We have all talked about developing countries. That is a useful concept. I was particularly struck by the leading article in the Economist last week entitled "Richer than you" stating that it is, in economic terms, better to think of a four-way split instead of a two-way split among the non-comunist countries. In the first category, the article put Japan alone, and, in the second category, North America and Western Europe, those categories comprising what we normally call the developed countries. The third category consisted of the NICs, or newly industrialising countries—so called because their economies are moving so fast—pre-eminently South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. However, according to the Economist, most of Asia and Latin America are within that group, or soon could be. Last, there was the fourth category, the Continent of Africa, where

769
movement is hardly discernible. This concept of a four-way split can be useful when considering the distribution of resources, which are the subject of the Question.
It can be argued that the newly industrialising countries will, as they develop and grow richer, accord greater respect to women and increasingly provide Western standards of preventive medicine, including family planning and, where necessary, abortion. There is considerable evidence that as a country prospers, so also does its health improve and its population stabilise. On that argument, although the newly industrialising countries need every penny they can get now, we hope that they will increasingly be less dependent upon us. By contrast, those in the first two categories, the developed countries, should be concentrating their greatest efforts on the Continent of Africa which does not look as if it can pull itself up by its own bootstraps unaided.
A recent issue of a magazine called People, published by the IPPF, was devoted entirely to Africa, including the Francophone areas. I should like to paraphrase if not exactly quote a number of considerations put forward by black African men and women in that magazine. The first comment was that population policies must be based on specific African social and cultural features. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, might agree with that. Another comment was that family planning can only be introduced as a support for traditional child spacing and the other needs of the people. Here again, I would hope to carry the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, with me in respect of that statement made by an African person.
Another comment was that a particular effort should be made to integrate the anthropological dimension into research and programmes concerned with population, health and development in African societies. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, would, I hope, agree. A further comment was that we need to carry out better research into the social situations when considering the introduction of family planning. I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she agrees with those sentiments put so recently in People, issued under the auspices of the IPPF.
The most notable observation was made by the Togolese director of family health for the United Nations in South Africa. I recommend what she says, as an African woman, as being more important in this debate than the remarks of a European man who has contributed words to a contrary effect. She says that West African women may not be directly aware of the social and economic arguments for reducing the high fertility rate prevailing in most of the region. She is saying that they may be ignorant, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, of the benefits that are available. But she goes on to say that these women definitely want help in spacing their families.
If they want help in spacing their families—we are told by an African woman that they do—who are we to deny it to them? She goes on to say:
"Family planning in Francophone countries has usually been integrated with other developmental improvements, which lays firmer foundations for the future".
That is an expression by a highly experienced African woman with which we can all agree,
770
Finally, I should like to quote from WHO's regional director for Africa, Dr. Monekosso, who is another African expert, speaking on this subject. He said:
"A lot of countries in Africa have shifted their approach to family planning and quite a few countries are now requesting programmes of family planning, particularly if these are integrated into maternal and child health services".
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Bauer: if these countries are requesting such programmes for family planning who are we to deny them if we are capable of delivering what they are asking for?
In conclusion, I should like to repeat what I said at the outset: that these matters are best considered as part of a health package of aid—primary health care—which if necessary can be separated from other forms of aid such as food aid. However, in my view and the view of the Africans whom I have quoted, it is best presented as part of a total package of primary health care.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, like other noble Lords in this debate, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has raised some very important issues in the question that she has asked. These are issues which are all too often swept under the carpet because on the whole politicians are unwilling to face up to the implications of unrestricted population growth in the third world. This is largely because the effect of such growth will not be felt for several years, and several years is a long time in politics. Also, there is a body of opinion in this country, perhaps represented by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who believe that in any case the third world should be left to their own devices and we should not interfere. On the other hand, I believe that we are a single world now—
Lord Bauer: My Lords—
Lord Vernon: My Lords, did the noble Lord want to interrupt?
Lord Bauer: No, my Lords.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I believe that we are a single world now, and we cannot escape our responsibility to help others less fortunate than ourselves, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, when they ask for it.
While I was very interested to listen to the remarks of the noble Lord, I found that I could agree with very little that he said.
Before I continue, perhaps I should declare an interest. I am the chairman of a UK charity called "Population Concern". Our aims are to raise funds for population and development programmes around the world, and also to raise awareness about the nature, size and complexity of world population, especially as it affects the social and economic development of mankind. We work in close co-operation with the IPPF, with the ODA and with the United Nations fund for population activity.
The high rate of maternal and infant mortality in developing countries is one of the more disturbing symptoms of our exploding population growth. To

771
give a single example, in Bangladesh, which is the most densely populated country in the world excluding island and city states, and where the present population of 104 million will double in 26 years, one in seven of the children will die in their first year. Eighty-one per cent. of women are illiterate. That refers back to what my noble friend Lord Rae had to say on the subject of literacy.
I sometimes wonder what people like the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, would think if we were told that the United Kingdom population of 56 million was going to double within the next 26 years. Would we do anything about it? Of course we would.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, it is not a question of the population of the United Kingdom, or the population of Bangladesh. The question is what parents decide about the number of children they want to have. I tried to introduce my remarks by directly referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell said on this subject. It is not an abstract concept such as the United Kingdom or Bangladesh. It is the decision made by parents about the size of their families. This is what matters.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I understood that point perfectly when the noble Lord made it. However, I was talking about Bangladesh. If one allows every woman in Bangladesh to have as many children as she wants, the result is going to be absolute disaster. I quote Bangladesh as one of many similar examples because it is a country where Population Concern has helped to bring health and family planning services to 42,000 couples in the slum areas of Chittagong. We have done so partly as a result of the tireless efforts of the well known actress Susan Hampshire who has personally raised more than £30,000 for the project, but also because of the substantial grants which we have received from ODA. I should like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for this very welcome government assistance.
The health of mothers and their babies is only one aspect of the rapid rate of population growth which is taking place in the third world. It is a little difficult to grasp the scale of the crisis in human terms with which we shall be faced within the next three decades. There will be twice as many people on the face of the globe as we have today. The increase coming almost exclusively from the poorer countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is not just a question of how they will be fed—they probably can be fed—but in what conditions they will live, and how, if at all, they will be employed. It is not the fact of population growth which is so disturbing, it is the speed with which it is happening. There is an important distinction here which is often overlooked.
Then there is the effect of people on the environment. The United Nations Environmental Programme Report of 1985 stated that population growth was outpacing the capacity of a number of developing countries to provide for their economic and social well-being. The pressures thus generated were depleting natural resources faster than they could be regenerated. Some of the more visible consequences
772
of this degradation are to be seen in the deforestation, desertification, soil erosion and slum proliferation which is already taking place.
On the subject of deforestation, I should like to read something to your Lordships. This quotation is from the World Bank report. It says that in Gambia and Tanzania the population growth has made wood so scarce that each household spends 250 to 300 worker days gathering the wood it needs, that is in addition to the commercial timber which is being felled.
In a speech to the United Nations special session on Africa on 28th May this year, the Foreign Secretary said that safeguarding the environment and facing the problem of population growth were two issues where the lead has to come from government. He also said that government would give any help that they could. I should like to ask the Minister, when she comes to reply, whether, in the light of those encouraging remarks from the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office will reconsider—and this question has already been asked by the noble Baroness—the proportion of overseas aid allocated to population and family planning. I am not asking for more funds for overseas aid as a whole; I am merely asking that there should be a redistribution of the existing funds.
In view of the present serious situation which the Foreign Secretary himself recognises, surely the existing tiny proportion of 1 per cent. could be substantially increased. If the ODA were able to make more funds available for these purposes, then organisations like that which I represent would be able to respond positively to some of the many requests which we now have to refuse.
These are complex issues and there is no simple solution. However, we know that appropriate and accessible family planning services reduce the toll of infant and maternal mortality and slow down the destructive rate of population growth. If no further action is taken or if it is taken too late, one of two things is likely to happen: either coercive measures of an unpleasant kind to restrict population growth will have to be undertaken by the governments of the countries concerned—rather like those measures which the Government of China have already introduced, which no one would like but which are very necessary in the circumstances in which they find themselves—or more likely, the job will be done for us by nature, and nature does not always act very kindly.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he consider the third possibility; namely, that people will modify their reproductive habits if numbers threaten their welfare?
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite catch the beginning of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I am so sorry. Has the noble Lord considered the third possibility: that if the growth in numbers genuinely threatens people's welfare, they will modify their reproductive habits in the third world in exactly the same way as they have done in the West?
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I think that they may do so to some extent, but evidently the Chinese, who have great experience in this matter, did not think that it would be effective.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, first, I should like to join with others who have spoken in this debate in complimenting my noble friend Lady Lockwood not only on the nature and purpose of her Unstarred Question, and, indeed, on the speech with which she introduced it, but also on her perseverance in bringing this important matter to your Lordships' attention. Your Lordships will recall that she tried to do so last June when she first tabled this Question, but unfortunately at that time she was a casualty of a very congested timetable in your Lordships' House. It is still congested, but at least we seem to have come to discuss this Question at a more reasonable hour than was possible when my noble friend first raised the subject.
My noble friend and others—notably, my noble friend Lord Rea—have dealt in detail and specifically with the problems of maternal and infant mortality in developing countries, and there is little that I need add in a statistical or analytical sense on that aspect of the matter. I should like to make some more general comments which are prompted by the nature of my noble friend's Question.
My noble friend's Question was urgent last June; it is urgent now; and unfortunately it will continue to be urgent for the foreseeable future because the interrelated problem of ill-health, on the one hand, and rapidly increasing population, on the other, needs to be constantly brought to the attention of the public. I am glad that my noble friend is taking this opportunity to do so.
Sometimes when we face this and similar problems in the third world the problems are so immense that one wonders whether debates such as this do any more than add one tiny drop in an ocean of compassion. However, I am sure that this kind of debate produces results. My mind goes back 20 years to when I had the privilege, together with my right honourable friend Barbara Castle, of establishing the Ministry of Overseas Development. I recall that my right honourable friend was very keen and very forthright in identifying the population problem as one that needed firm action from the new ministry and vastly increased resources. I also remember that when she brought up the subject she encountered quite a bit of diffidence from the officials. It was considered to be a subject of some embarrassment at that time—perhaps one that ought not to be discussed in front of the children or even in front of bashful civil servants. However, she persisted and ever since then, under governments of both complexions, it is true to say that the ODM as it was then, and the ODA as it is now, has had a good record in matters of population control.
Today the whole question of family planning is much more openly and frankly discussed in government and other circles, and, indeed, in international circles. I recall that when I went to conferences in those days, especially those in Africa, I was advised to be very cautious when raising the
774
question of family planning in the hearing of representatives of African governments.
However, we have heard this evening that that picture has considerably changed. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and, I think, my noble friend Lady Lockwood, told us about various conferences which have come under the auspices of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Population and Development. In particular, there was a reference to the attendance of Mr. Morrison at an African conference in that series. He reported that the conference was attended by 40 African countries. The noble Viscount mentioned the figure of 31. I think that there were 31 countries with parliamentary governments and another nine which did not have parliamentary governments, so there were 40 African governments at that recent conference.
As I recall, he reported in a debate in another place that those African governments were now quite forthright in having a strong commitment on matters of population control. The opinions which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has brought forward from African spokesmen seem effectively to contradict the views which the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, said he picked up from contacts in Africa. Certainly there is a real change in the atmosphere in which these matters are discussed and dealt with.
I very much welcome the way in which in her Question my noble friend links concern for health and family planning with economic development. In that connection I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, took part in the debate this evening not only because of the effective speech to which we have just listened, but because he will recall that he and I were together a decade ago at a conference held at St. Ermin's Hotel which initiated this series of all-party parliamentary groups on population and development. I recall, as I am sure the noble Lord does, that at that conference and in Berlin a few days later we insisted that it was not enough just to direct our attention to family planning and population questions, but we should indicate the essential link between health, education and other development matters and the question of size of family and other family planning questions. That is why I was pleased to find in my noble friend's Question stress put upon the interaction between population programmes and development.
But I should like to point to a danger which can emerge from this stress on economic development. The danger was highlighted only a few minutes ago by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. The emphasis on the need for development is seized upon by opponents of programmes of population control who say that the special provision of contraceptives and family planning advice is not necessary. They say that we should simply concern ourselves with development, with uplifting the living standards of the people of the third world, and then the population problem will go away much as it did, so it is asserted, in the European and North American scenes. They point to Western economies where increasing standards of living have brought about smaller families and slower increases in population.

775
That thesis I believe to be entirely misguided. In the present world, in the present situation in the third world, it is the staggering pace of population increases and the way in which resources are being outstripped that is so devastating. We are faced with rapid increases in population in many third world countries which are far exceeding the resources available for feeding those populations.
For example, if we can, as I think we should, take the African scene as of crucial importance in these matters, the growth in Africa's food supply compares favourably with that in the world as a whole, but its increase in human numbers is far more rapid. Plagued as Africa is by the fastest population growth of any continent in history, as well as by widespread soil erosion and the spread of deserts, Africa's food production per person has fallen by 11 per cent. since 1970.
That is the sad illustration. But fortunately recent experience has shown that countries with broad-based but inexpensive health care systems, and well-designed family planning programmes that encourage small families, can bring fertility down even without a widespread economic gain similar to that in industrial societies. The outstanding example, which has been referred to by a number of speakers, is China. As part of the post-Mao reassessment Chinese leaders projected future population size based on the assumption that couples would have only two children. Even under that assumption, given the country's youthful age—and I have been to China a number of times recently and the youthfulness of their population strikes one—China would add another 300 million or 400 million people before growth of population ceased.
Therefore, the leaders in China, after relating these projections to the availability of economic resources, concluded that they had no choice but to go further than the two-child family. They went to the one-child family, and through that means over the last decade they have reduced the birthrate by 41 per cent. All that in one decade. But it shows that direct family planning programmes are necessary and that it is not sufficient to reply solely on the indirect effect of economic development.
This brings me to the point that it is necessary for us to do all that we can, as others have said, to back up the work of such organisations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund For Population Activities. I am sure that the Minister when she replies will be able to give us information of the good record of the Government in support of those two organisations. As I think my noble friend Lord Henderson, or another speaker, said that is particularly welcome in view of the contrary policy that was pursued by the United States in respect of financial support for those two organisations. We were glad that the British Government resisted the example and the advice of the United States in these matters, and I feel confident that having resisted that advice from the United States the Government will resist the advice coming from the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, in these matters.
776
I nevertheless point out—and here I echo my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton—that though we are glad about what has been done, the resources in relation to the size of the problem are inadequate. I hope that the Minister has been listening to the pleas from speakers in this debate that more should be done and more resources should be made available. In that connection I repeat what I think my noble friend Lady Lockwood said. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the ODA continues to implement, and indeed update, the undertakings given some years ago now that all its development projects would be vetted to ensure that, wherever possible, population control methods should be linked with development projects in an integrated way.
The great value, as I see it, of the wording in my noble friend's Question is to put stress on that point. The provision of family planning advice and the physical resources for contraception need to be seen not as projects in isolation. They need to be integrated with other programmes, particularly in relation, as the Question suggests, to health and the care of mothers and children.
On that note, perhaps I may quote again from the publication that my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton quoted from, although from a different edition, because I came across a pertinent illustration of this at the grass roots. It was a question being asked of a Chinese family planning worker. She was asked what changes she had seen recently. She replied:
"Because maternal and child health care and family planning came to be carried on side by side, the attitude of the residents towards us softened and today they greet us with a smile".
That I believe to be the most important aspect—that integrated projects have a much better reception from those to whom the message is directed. I hope that the Government agree with this, as I feel sure they do, and that they will do all that they can to ensure that that is the way our population programmes are implemented.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for raising this important issue this evening. The link between health and family planning is an important one. Family planning raises fundamental questions about family life. Large families are customary throughout the developing world, especially in rural areas where a person's status is often measured by the size of his family. In Africa, the population is rising particularly fast. The tragedy of Africa's immense human and economic problems has undoubtedly made population growth an important part of the development agenda. In the past decade governments have increased support for family planning programmes, particularly in Africa. Zimbabwe, Kenya and Botswana have already put programmes in place to provide family planning services to all couples and individuals. Other governments are following, often with help from aid donors such as ourselves.
We certainly recognise that family planning is of particular significance as a preventive health measure. High levels of infant mortality are a major factor in the desire of many people in developing countries to have large families. Each year more than 15 million

777
children die for simple and often preventable causes such as poor nutrition, pneumonia of measles. Children born into large, closely-spaced families are at particular risk. Yet parents will not want smaller families until they are confident that their children will survive. Maternal mortality is also influenced by the number of children a woman has had. Family planning is therefore acknowledged as being a major force for improving child survival and maternal health. The Hague Conference, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood and by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, highlighted these issues. I have read the report with great interest.
The Overseas Development Administration is taking positive measures in this area. Bilateral and multilateral contributions in the health, population and nutrition fields, have risen from £20 million in 1981 to over £30 million in 1985. ODA officials make special efforts to ensure that all new aid projects take into account population implications wherever possible and appropriate. I hope that that answers the first of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and confirms the point that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, made in his winding-up speech. Clearly there are some areas such as engineering or transport projects that do not by their nature accommodate population components, but I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that social and environmental factors are taken into account in bilateral aid projects. The noble Baroness went on to ask me whether expert advice that is given is enough.
Professional advice on health and population is vital and the ODA use both in-house specialists and outside sources for advice and expertise. However, it must be remembered that such programmes can only be implemented with the co-operation of third world governments backed by their own health professionals. Moreover, basic decisions on the focus of programmes must be left to the recipient governments. I was also asked a number of questions about resources. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked me about multilateral population activities, in particular, the support for the IPPF and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the United States Government decision to withdraw support to the IPPF and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities reflects a domestic decision to withdraw from all programmes in which abortion or abortion-related activities take place. Our understanding is that the decision does not reflect an assessment of the ethics or value of the work of either organisation. The ODA intends to continue its support for both programmes. Indeed, we have substantially increased our contributions to both organisations in recent years, and we shall take account of this loss of income in planning our contributions for 1987.
I should also comment at the same time on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, about staff and say that ODA has an agreed complement of a chief medical and health services adviser, two medical advisers, two nursing advisers, two population advisers and a part-time nutrition adviser, all at headquarters in London. There are a number of
778
vacancies at present although all except the senior posts are being filled on a temporary and, in some cases, a part-time basis. We are currently recruiting new nursing and medical advisers and we hope that the posts will be filled early this next year.
On this point on resources, finally, may I comment on the point raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, on the percentage of aid spent on family planning. In recent years, spending on population activities; that is, family planning, maternal and child health, has represented about 1 per cent. of gross total public expenditure on aid and we are hoping to increase this figure.
Our bilateral health assistance programmes attach particular importance to maternal and child health. For example, in Kenya, a country which is estimated to have the world's fastest-growing population, we are working with other donors on a project which integrates rural health and family planning. This is designed to create an interest in family planning services as well as improving the availability and quality of services offered at rural health and family planning clinics. In India, we are helping to improve the health of members in a dairy co-operative in Gujarat through mobile teams and by training a woman from each village to provide basic health care to mothers and children. We have developed health and population activities as part of other projects such as slum improvements, sewage disposal and water supply. We are currently evaluating the health impact of these improvements and working with local authorities to provide basic health services including mother-and-child health and family planning. These programmes will become more important as people in the developing world drift from the villages to the cities.
We are financing a number of multilateral programmes in both the health and population sectors. Much of this assistance is channelled through multilateral organisations to which I have referred, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. These contributions have more than doubled from £5·5 million in 1980 to just over £12 million in 1986.
In addition, about 40 per cent. of our total aid programme is channelled through the major multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, the European Community and the United Nations. All these organisations fund health and population projects. Under the European Community, health and population programmes are at an early stage of development and my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Developments intends to take this forward when he chairs a meeting of the Development Council next month.
The ODA also tries to improve financial and management practices by placing emphasis on increasing the effectiveness of health services in poor countries. This depends on two main factors. First, an ability to make widespread services affordable; and, second, to provide enough trained staff to run them. In response to shortages of health service staff, we finance a programme designed to strengthen health services, policies and strategies in poor countries. This is

779
complemented by a British training programme under which trainees can undertake courses either in this country or elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his speech and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, referred to non-governmental organisations and I was grateful for the acknowledgement that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, paid to ODA help over the project in Bangladesh. But we value the role of NGOs in improving the wellbeing of mothers and children and encouraging them to take responsibility for their own health. We provide a considerable level of support for these organisations; £7.7 million will be given this year, which will help to fund the over-1,000 volunteers working in developing countries. Assistance to the poorer sections of the community is very effectively achieved through the joint funding scheme under which the ODA provides matching contributions to projects run by 24 charitable agencies. This scheme involves £5.5 million this year, the bulk of which is dispersed through Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, CAFOD and Christian Aid. Current projects include a corrective surgery and rehabilitation and vocational training for handicapped children in India by the Save the Children fund, a rural health population project in Nigeria by CAFOD and a project devoted to the training and education of women in Tanzania by Oxfam.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, perhaps I may say that the ODA would certainly be prepared to consider requests from Population Concern for new activities. We are in a position to influence our multilateral expenditure, which takes the form of voluntary contributions to various multilaterial health and population programmes. Our record is good in this area. In 1985, we increased our contributions to multilateral population organisations by almost 50 per cent. over the 1984 levels, and in 1986 by a further 10 per cent. Spending on the bilateral programme is variable because the pattern of ODA's aid is broadly shaped by the demands from aid recipients.
We recognise that programmes under all these schemes must be implemented with care. Here I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, that individuals, couples and communities must not feel coerced. The links between child spacing, child survival and maternal health are now relatively well known in the third world. We must therefore educate people about maternal and child health and family planning and we must reassure them about its relevance to their lives and the lives of their families. In this respect, it is also important to remember the broad aims of our overseas aid programme. We want to help relieve poverty, raise living standards, improve the status of women and raise the standard and number of effective managers.
Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Henderson, to whom I listened with great interest, that yes, we agree with the points that he read out. I hope he will accept, from the figures that I have given and the points we have made, that we agree with the general thread of his argument on the correlation between family planning and maternity and child health.
780
Achieving the objectives which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, outlined in her remarks and the objectives of our overseas aid programme will of course have a significant impact not only on the health of individuals but also on families and communities and will also lead to smaller, well-spaced families.

Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.