Lords Sitting of 22 March 1990

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

London-Sheffield Rail Link
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering providing funds to enable British Rail to electrify the Midland main line between London and Sheffield.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government would be ready to consider proposals from British Rail for further main line electrification where that would be commercially worth while. So far British Rail has not made any proposals to my right honourable friend for electrifying the Midland main line.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press British Rail as regards this scheme for electrification of this important connection between London and the industrial area of Sheffield?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the problem is that the Midland main line has a higher proportion of curves, junctions and stations than other main lines. That means that the existing high speed trains cannot be used at their full speed on the line. Any major improvements in speed would require major works to the track and route as a whole, whatever the form of traction. Electrification would reduce journey times by only one or two minutes and not by 25 per cent. as has been claimed in some quarters.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is not the case for electrification justified by the fact that British Rail in its corporate plan, which was published as recently as December last year, included the Midland main line along with the East and West coast main lines as definite routes to assist with the flow of trains from the Channel Tunnel to the North via the King's Cross low level international station? In the light of the inclusion of the Midland main line in the corporate plan, why is there no reference at all to the Midland main line in the report which followed the Section 40 consultations which set out the British Rail routes for international rail travellers to the North?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that the Midland main line was not included in the 1989 corporate plan. That plan reported on six electrification schemes, one of which was the East coast main line. The British Rail Board's Section 40 plan. International Rail Services for the United Kingdom, serves a different purpose. It only
402
mentions one of the electrification schemes mentioned in the 1989 corporate plan. However, the two publications are entirely consistent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not amount to a strange alteration in the relations with British Rail for the Government to press it to undertake expenditure which they themselves do not recommend?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is absolutely correct. It is up to British Rail to put forward investment proposals within the parameters laid down by the Government.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that if this country is to derive the greatest benefit from the Channel Tunnel the infrastructure of the railways must be improved? As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has suggested, would it not be wise for the Government to encourage British Rail to electrify this line in order to obtain the greatest possible benefit from the Channel Tunnel?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I repeat that it is up to British Rail to put its proposals to the Government. As regards this line, excessive expenditure would be involved in taking up the track and relaying it in a straight line. The East coast main line runs in a straight line from London to Edinburgh. When I asked my adviser why the East coast line was straight while the Midland line was all curves, he informed me that the Romans had probably built the former line.

Maudsley Hospital
3.5 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their intention with regard to the funding crisis facing the Maudsley Hospital, which threatens bed closures, cuts in innovative community services and a reduction in training places for psychiatric nurses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we do not accept that there is a crisis. The Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals Special Health Authority has been allocated a budget of £ 27 million for the coming year. This represents a cash increase of almost £ 2 million or 71 per cent. It is for the authority to decide how best to use this allocation and to make more effective use of its very valuable clinical resources.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is she not aware that the increase that has been awarded for next year represents a 5 per cent. increase on the current year's funding? However, that is £ 630,000 short of what is required to meet nationally agreed pay scale increases. Does not the noble Baroness agree that it will be inappropriate, with the current accent on community care for the mentally ill, for the hospital which is the leading training school for psychiatric nurses to have to reduce its intake of nurse trainees?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, we have increased the budget for this special health authority considerably in line with the increases for other special health authorities. The department is currently considering future funding arrangements for such authorities which will seek to safeguard their special interests, particularly in the light of the Government's proposals for the reform of the National Health Service.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both the local and national press are complaining that Maudsley, which is one of the wonder hospitals of London as regards looking after mentally ill patients, is facing a crisis? It is no good for the noble Baroness to say that she knows nothing about that. The fact is that every newspaper states that. Why do the Government not take the initiative to get the matter straightened out?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are taking plenty of initiatives in the field of health care. The measures which are currently being proposed in the Maudsley Hospital reflect the changing pattern of need for mentally handicapped children and seriously disturbed adolescents. The shift in emphasis is to outreach facilities from hospital care. However, we believe that there is inbuilt in the budget and the allocation made to this special health authority the possibility for further savings within the authority's activities.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the walk-in service for psychiatric out-patients which I believe is managed by the emergency clinic at Maudsley?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the emergency clinic which provides a 24-hour walk-in service for people with psychiatric problems and a drop-in service for former in-patients is a highly rated service not only by patients who use its facilities but also by local general practitioners, social workers and voluntary organisations. In recognition of that and in addition to the budget increase to which I have referred, the department has agreed to fund a proposal to relocate this emergency clinic in new purpose built facilities on the Maudsley site. That funding amounts to an additional half a million pounds.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am absolutely amazed that she said that there is not a crisis at the Maudsley? A visit to the Maudsley and discussion with the consultants and the management team indicate that it is a crisis which, with a cut of £ 632,000, will mean reductions in the services for seriously mentally ill patients, the mentally handicapped at the Hilda Lewis hospital and the 24-hour emergency drop-in service. Does the Minister accept that the Maudsley is a national flagship of high quality services for the mentally ill and that for that hospital to have to make reductions after it has already made cuts of £ 1–4 million in the last three years is intolerable?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise that the Maudsley represents a centre of excellence. That is
404
why the Government have supported it and continue to support it. The special health authority is funded in a way which takes account of its teaching and research role. In the case of the examples to which the noble Lord referred— the Hilda Lewis House and the Tyson House adolescent unit— the changes being made are, as I indicated previously, a reflection of the general shift in the pattern of services away from using hospital beds towards outreach programmes in the community.
Lord Ennals: Not so!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in view of the anxiety about psychiatric treatment and training at the Maudsley, can the noble Baroness confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that the Cassel Hospital is also under threat of some closures, because that in its turn is an extremely famous hospital providing care and training in the same important field?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is a formal procedure which health authorities are required to follow when considering the closure or change of use of health buildings. The proposal to close the Cassel Hospital is currently out for consultation. As the matter may ultimately come before Ministers for decision it is not one on which I can comment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that should the closure proposal come to Ministers it will receive the most careful consideration before any decision is taken in view of the important work that we recognise is carried on there.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, are the Government not already giving serious consideration to the future of Cassel mental hospital at Richmond, which is of national and international importance and not just a local hospital, and in that respect like the Maudsley? Is the noble Baroness aware that a recommendation has been made by the Riverside Health Authority for the closure of the hospital? Since the final decision is to be made in June should not the Government already be giving some consideration to the future of the hospital after June?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps we are moving away from the Question on the Order Paper. However, in response to the noble Earl, I can say that any application of that kind receives the most careful consideration within the department.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, returning to the Question on the Order Paper, will the Minister please discuss the matter with her right honourable friend? Does she recognise that the suggestion that the proposal is all part of a natural tendency to changes in psychiatric services is not accepted at all by the consultants and the doctors at the Maudsley who are horrified by what is about to happen? As president of MIND perhaps I may say that I share their horror. Will the noble Baroness take the matter more seriously and discuss it with the Secretary of State?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting the Maudsley Hospital, seeing the work that is carried out and meeting many of the people who work there. I recognise that they would like to have more funds. That is normal where people are intensely interested in the work they do. We believe that they have been treated very fairly and that the rise in funding will be adequate to meet their needs.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her colleague, the Minister of State for Health, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, today visited the Maudsley Hospital? Will she make sure that the Minister is made fully aware of the concern of everyone who has spoken in the House this afternoon?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware that my honourable friend visited the Maudsley this morning. I had an opportunity to speak to her subsequently. She felt that she had been able to reassure the people she met as to their future. As I said previously, in any event the department is considering future funding arrangements for special health authorities to safeguard their special interests, particularly in the light of the new proposals for the reform of the health service.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has failed to respond to the request of my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Rea. They asked her whether she will convey to the Secretary of State the profound concern of this House about the possible future of the Maudsley Hospital. She has not said that she will. Will she be good enough to do so?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret having perhaps given a misleading impression. I feel that it almost goes without saying that I shall certainly refer the remarks that have been made in this dicussion to my right honourable friend.

Processed Food: Export Refunds
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to prevent the European Commission from forfeiting the right to pay refunds to processed food exporters under the common agricultural policy without simultaneously phasing out the two-tier pricing system for raw materials.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government are not aware of any proposals from the Commission to end the arrangements for payment of export refunds on processed products. The Community has made it clear that it is not prepared to abandon the two-tier pricing system for agricultural commodities, nor to abolish the export refund system.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that there has been considerable pressure from the United States and the Cairns Group— which I believe comprises Australians and New Zealanders— to have export refunds taken out of the Community system within the common agricultural policy and to treat those refunds as subsidies? Is it not the case that there is quite considerable concern that the Commission, in giving consideration to the proposal, is not being sufficiently strong in resisting it? Is it also true that the British Government have not been particularly firm in encouraging the Commission to be strong? Can my noble friend comment on that point?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the EC is currently engaged with other GATT members in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. Export refunds are an important issue in the negotiations. My noble friend is quite right. The United States and others are calling for their abolition. The European Community has made clear that that is unacceptable and has put forward alternative proposals to impose greater disciplines on export subsidisation.
The United Kingdon recognises the importance of adequate levels of support for exports of processed products. We have repeatedly emphasised that point in discussions in Brussels. Community proposals do not discriminate against food exports and would maintain the link with export refunds on the relevant raw materials.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, on this side of the House we are grateful for the assurances which the noble Baroness has given to the noble Lord in her second answer to him. We are very well aware of the difficult task the European negotiators under GATT have with the Cairns Group and the United States. Without prejudice to the outcome of those negotiations, would not the Community be in a stronger position overall if it studied some of the regimes with which it is currently apparently satisfied? In particular, will the noble Baroness urge her right honourable friend the Minister to ask the Community whether it is not possible to have a review of, for example, the sugar regime which is not scheduled to take place before June 1991 and where some of the worst effects of the two-tier system are to be found?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, refunds for processed products enable food exporters to benefit from aids which would have been paid on their agricultural raw materials. In fixing them food interests are taken into account as well as the needs of agricultural market management.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and invite her right honourable friend to suggest to the Commission that there is much room for improvement within the common agricultural policy, particularly in the sugar regime? When my noble friend said that the Commission was talking about greater disciplines within the export subsidies— a point which I think she mentioned in

407
her second answer— was she referring to that as export subsidies within other countries, or is that a hidden way in which the Commission is seeking to bring about what we fear; namely, reducing the export refunds?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Community proposes that subsidies to food exporters will be clearly limited to the difference between the price of raw materials on the domestic market and that on world markets. Where that difference is minimal, subsidies would not be available. Those proposals, if adopted, would not adversely affect food exporters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in considering those matters, will the noble Baroness bear in mind successive reports of the Court of Auditors, our own Comptroller and Auditor General here and the Select Committee of this House, that it is in precisely that area of export refunds that the greatest frauds against this country and the Community take place?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for lowering his decibels on this occasion. I should point out to him that this country has led the way in the European Community in bringing forward the question of fraud and taking appropriate action.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, when there is a Question on the Order Paper so difficult to understand as this one, it is a pleasure to hear an Answer that is so easy to follow?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is the only one that I have made up myself.

Flue Gas Desulphurisation
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have abandoned their commitment to install £ 2 billion worth of flue gas desulphurisation equipment in power stations.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing the United Kingdom's emissions of acid gases in accordance with the European Community's large combustion plants directive. Contracts have already been placed for the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the four gigawatt Drax power stations. Other retrofits are in prospect. A number of measures, including the burning of low-sulphur fuels, will also make a contribution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not an Answer to my Question. Is the noble Viscount aware that his own Government's consultation paper last August stated that the electricity supply industry would retrofit 12,000 megawatts of generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment?
408
Is he further aware that the Prime Minister told the United Nations in November:
"With regard to energy, we already have a £ 2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations",
yet in February the noble Viscount's department said that the £ 2 billion programme would not be completed? Will he answer the Question on the Order Paper in the light of that evidence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister were made nearly four months ago. Work on electricity privatisation has moved on since then. It is correct to say that, until fairly recently, it was the industry's expectation that it would have to meet the directive's requirements by retrofitting FGD equipment— if I may use that phrase— to 12 gigawatts of capacity. However, the advantages of combined cycle gas turbines, particularly their environmental benefits, have also become more widely appreciated. FGD retrofits will continue to form a part of the UK's programme for complying with the directive, but other measures will also contribute.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that 70 per cent. of the acid in Britain's rain comes from sulphur and that we are the largest emitters of sulphur dioxide in Europe? The Minister tells us that part of the programme to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise will depend on the import of low-sulphur coals. However, does he recall that in the past few years 49 low-sulphur coal-producing mines in this country have been closed? Will he reflect before he further damages the British mining industry by importing such fuels?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the burning of low-sulphur coal is an option open to the electricity generators as they prepare their plans to comply with the European Community large combustion plant directive. The source of such coal will be a matter for the generators. The best protection for the United Kingdom coal industry is for it to produce reliable supplies which are competitive on the world market.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when will that important but costly programme be completed? Will it be paid for by the consumers or the taxpayers, or a bit of each?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the order for the first four gigawatts that I mentioned in my original Answer was placed in February 1989. The capital cost of the programme and of further retrofits which will be required will be reflected in the capital structure of the two generators when they are marketed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that his Answer to the Question of my noble friend Lord Hatch means that, even with the improvements that he has announced, Great Britain will still be a massive contributor to acid rain and damage to the ozone layer? Does he realise that the programme that he has announced is not what was originally envisaged and announced by various Ministers, including the Prime Minister?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should point out that FGD technology is a retrograde technology and is environmentally disruptive. For instance, the FGD installation at a two gigawatt coal-fired power station would require some 300,000 tonnes of limestone per annum.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount kindly elucidate what he said about the installation of combined cycle gas stations? That is obviously for the future. There are no such stations in operation at the moment. Does he agree that what is at issue is the existing stations which will continue to operate for many years? Will he therefore confirm that the new owners of the industry will go ahead with the originally proposed plan for getting rid of acid rain emissions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not think that I can go any further than I went in my original Answer. I must reiterate that the United Kingdom Government will comply with the EC directive. It is, as the noble Lord will know, part of that directive that we should reduce our emissions in 1993 by 20 per cent., in 1998 by 40 per cent. and in 2003 by 60 per cunt. The last figure, which takes us into the next century, will allow the construction of the power plants that I discussed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that his previous answer is bound to cause a certain amount of confusion? Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard him say that flue gas desulphurisation was a retrograde technology. If that is so, is that something which has been learnt since the Prime Minister made her statement about retrofitting a certain number of power stations, or is it more to do with privatisation than with the retrograde nature, or whatever it may be, of flue gas desulphurisation? While I am on my feet, perhaps I may also ask the Minister what further progress is being made with fluidised bed combustion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, when I said that it was a retrograde technology, I meant that it also had those environmentally disruptive facets. Not only does it require the extensive mining of limestone: the FGD plants produce large quantities of gypsum as a by-product of the operation. I gave an example of what a 2 gigawatt station would require in terms of 300,000) tonnes of limestone. It would create between 400,000 and 500,000 tonnes of gypsum which would have.0 be removed from the station. Some of it might be sold but the rest would have to be disposed of to a suitable landfill site.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount did not answer my last point about fluidised bed combustion. The answer that I sought to elicit from him referred to the Prime Minister's statement. She must have known all that when she announced the £ 2,000 million programme. What has happened since to undermine that programme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not having answered his second question. Yes, the fluidised bed technique and also coal gasification are the techniques of the future for coal burn. A certain amount of investment is being made into the R&D of those processes.
In my answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I said that the advantages of combined cycle gas turbines, for instance, and in particular their environmental benefits, have recently become more widely appreciated. That is since the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the new proposals which concern a change in the way in which we are to carry out the directive have been cleared with the Commission in Brussels? Has the Commission said that it is satisfied that this is a proper or acceptable way of carrying out the directive? Does the noble Viscount realise that for 10 years now, ever since we tried to upgrade the environmental activity of the Community into a full directorate— which we finally achieved— the difficulty that friends of Britain have had all through Europe is that we have always seemed grudging about the implementation of every directive concerning the environment in matters such as this? Does he agree therefore that it is doubly important to take the Commission along with us and to have its approval?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not agree with the last part of the noble Lord's question. The United Kingdom's programme for complying with the directive has to be drawn up by the end of June. Discussions on the achievement of reductions with the generators and others who operate these large combustion plants are nearing completion and final decisions will be taken very soon.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not explained when the Government suddenly discovered that the FGD process, which they mentioned in the consultative paper and which was referred to by the Prime Minister only last November, had become what he calls retrograde. As I understand it, it will still be applied in the Drax power station. When did the Government make that discovery? Is it not the case that the real discovery was that the generating companies which are to take over were not prepared to put that kind of money into cleaning up their gases and that the Government apparently were not prepared to give them what they asked for, namely, what is commonly known as a green dowry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be wrong to say that fitting FGD is a panacea for getting rid of all the greenhouse gases. The noble Lord will know that in fact it lowers the efficiency of the plants and therefore, in order to produce the same amount of power, more carbon dioxide will have to be pumped into the atmosphere.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, then can the noble Viscount say why this system was adopted? Why did the Prime Minister adopt it? Will he answer the second part of my question? Is it not the case that the new generating companies refused to pay that money and that the Government refuse to subsidise them?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer to the last question is no. Flue gas desulphurisation is one of the techniques required to reduce our emissions of sulphur dioxide by the percentages of the EC directive.

Business of the House: Debate, 4th April
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey set down for 4th April shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2i hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".— (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Report received.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is part of a package of measures to promote greater competition and consumer choice in the supply of beer. It will give tenants of pubs the same protection as other business tenants under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The Bill arises from the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. The report was published on 21st March last year. On 10th July last year my noble friend the then Secretary of State announced details of the Government's
412
response to your Lordships' House. This Bill forms part of that response. Other measures were implemented through the supply of beer orders which were debated by your Lordships on 18th December and are now in force.
The starting point for considering the Bill is the MMC report itself and its recommendations. In its report the MMC said that,
"tenants of on-licensed premises are not, under the present arrangements, able fully to act as independent businessmen. We therefore consider that it is essential that a tenant's interest in on-licensed premises should be legally protected".
The commission recommended in consequence that the interests of all tenants of on-licensed premises should be brought within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 whether the premises were subject to a tie or not. The Bill is addressed to this recommendation.
The MMC also outlined a number of further measures to increase tenants' security. These included, in respect of tenants of licensed premises, disapplying the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act that allows parties to an agreement to agree to apply to the court to contract out of the Act and a recommendation that the Director General of Fair Trading renegotiate the current Brewers' Society's code of practice with all interested parties. The code would then be given some mandatory status.
Following publication of the MMC's report the Government listened to representations from all shades of opinion. These included the Brewers' Society, individual brewers, representative organisations of licensed trade tenants and managers, individual tenants, consumer associations, members of the public, and, of course, Members of your Lordships' House. It became clear that the issue with tenants' security was how to increase protection without making the tenancy system so unattractive commercially that it would be killed off.
The Government concluded that it would not be right to set up a special class of tenancy under the Act just for licensed premises. It is a fundamental feature of the 1954 Act that all business tenancies are treated alike no matter what the nature of the business. The Bill therefore provides that licensed tenants should simply be placed on all fours with other business tenants.
Before touching on the issues that arose on the Bill during consideration by the other place, it may be convenient if I briefly summarise the provisions of the Bill, and of the 1954 Act to which it is an amendment.
The 1954 Act sets out rules for both landlords and tenants of business premises with regard to the beginning and ending of tenancy agreements. Under these rules if a tenant has paid the agreed rent on time and complied with the tenancy agreement the landlord can only bring the tenancy to an end at or after the end of the current tenancy by serving the tenant with a notice of termination.
Upon receipt of the notice the tenant has the right to apply to the court for a new tenancy, which it is bound to grant unless the landlord can show grounds

413
for being granted possession. Such grounds include failure by the tenant to comply with the conditions of the tenancy or that the landlord wishes to occupy the premises himself for the purposes of running a business, residence or to reconstruct the premises.
At present, Section 43 (1) (d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act Part II exempts tenancies of on-licensed premises. Under the Bill Section 43 (1) (d) is repealed.
The transitional provisions are intended to ensure that tenancies agreed before 11th July 1989 are unaffected if they end before 11th July 1992. Most brewery tenancies are for terms of three years and the Act will therefore apply in those cases only when a new tenancy is agreed. The significance of the 1992 date is that it is three years after the 10th July 1989 Statement.
Clause 1 (3) provides that where the Landlord and Tenant Act provides for statutory notices to be given by a landlord or a tenant, these notices can be validly served before July 1992, where appropriate.
Since the Bill was published in December last, tenants' organisations have lobbied energetically for changes to enhance the protection available under the Act. We must, however, bear in mind that pub tenancies, like rented residential or any other form of property, are part of a market, with terms governed by supply and demand. A pub tenancy agreement is the result of a commercial negotiation; and while we can set out what are fair procedures for reaching agreement, we cannot force the agreement to be more or less favourable to one side than what the market dictates.
I have referred already to the importance the Government attach to maintaining the existing balance of rights and obligations in the 1954 Act.
During consideration of this Bill in another place arguments were put forward that the licensed trade was different in a number of respects from the normal run of business tenancies, and that this should be reflected in the Bill. In particular it was argued that some way should be found to take account of the good will that a tenant had contributed to the business if a request for a new tenancy was successfully opposed because the landlord intended to take the premises into management.
The Government have looked at this matter further. We do not accept the argument that one class of business tenant should be treated differently under the 1954 Act from others. However, I have also drawn attention to the fact that this Bill is one of a number of measures taken in the light of the MMC Report. We recognise that there may be special problems of a transitional nature as brewers adjust to the new obligations being placed upon them to open their estates to increased competition.
I can announce that after further consideration the Government intend to bring forward an amendment which will recognise that special arrangements for compensation should apply during the period of adjustment to a more open market. The amendment will provide that for a transitional period, additional and separate compensation will be payable to tenants of on-licensed premises to which the Landlord and
414
Tenant Act 1954 Part II will apply because of the Bill, and where the landlord wishes to use them as on-licensed premises himself.
The Government believe that taking account in compensation of actual good will contributed by a tenant raises too many technical difficulties to be practicable. The special compensation will therefore be based on a proportion of the rateable value of the premises. The proportion will vary on a sliding scale depending on occupation.
As I have suggested, this Bill represents a carefully struck balance between the interests of tenants and those of their landlords, who are in most cases brewers. In this the approach mirrors the one the Government have taken with all the measures to deal with the MMC's findings. It is natural that tenants should press the case for the greatest possible protection. I hope, however, that they can accept the logic of the Government's case that there must be a balance between the conflicting interests involved. This is not, as some have suggested, because we do not want to disadvantage brewers. We must recognise that brewers, like other landlords, own pubs and let them out on tenancies because it pays them to do so. If the balance of commercial advantage swings against such tenancies, landlords will exercise their option not to have tenants.
This Bill represents a substantial improvement in the position of tenants of public houses. The protection offered, while perhaps not being everything sought by tenants and their representative organisations, is significant and is welcomed by them. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Trefgarne.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill and explaining its various provisions and responding to some of the arguments that were put forward when the Bill was considered in another place.
From these Benches I wish to give the Bill a general welcome. It is a useful measure so far as it goes. If we have reservations, which we do, they are reservations on some of the details of the provisions outlined rather than the principle. The principle that tenants of public houses should have the same rights as tenants of other commercial premises seems to us to be a proper principle for the Government to adopt; and we support it. It was indeed recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as the noble Lord has stated; and we certainly support that.
If we have reservations, they are on points of detail. The noble Lord has covered some of the points. The first point that I wish to bring to the attention of the noble Lord is the problem of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill in front of us does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Bill could not apply to Scotland for the simple reason that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 does not apply to Scotland. Therefore a Bill which amends an Act which does not apply to Scotland could not apply to Scotland. It would be absurd to try to bring the whole of the Landlord

415
and Tenant Act 1954 into Scottish law through the mechanism of this Bill. We therefore recognise that there is a problem.
Nevertheless it surely is a matter of equity that tenants in Scotland be treated on exactly the samp basis as tenants in England and Wales. I have been advised that to try to amend this Bill to make it apply to Scotland will be outside the scope of the Bill. We shall therefore not be tabling amendments for that in Committee. However, I have also been advised that under Scottish law the position in Scotland is somewhat different from the landlord and tenant arrangements in England and Wales. The advice I have received is that there is no need for this or a similar Bill in Scotland since the Scottish Act corresponding to the English Act of 1954 already appears to extend to all shops, including retailers of intoxicating liquor. I understand that we ought to be looking at the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949, as amended, and to the Shops Act 1950, which defines the word "shop" and "retail trade or business" in one of its sections.
I am not an expert on Scottish law, as I am sure your Lordships will be the first to acknowledge, but I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could assure the House that my advice is true and honest and that the Government take the view that my advisers have given me: that the Bill is not necessary to Scotland, and that the same protection is available to Scottish tenants as will be available to English and Welsh tenants under the terms of the Bill if it is enacted. When the noble Lord winds up the debate I should be grateful if he could give me that assurance.
Our next reservation is on the timing of the starting date of the Bill. We wish to see the starting date of the Bill brought forward to Royal Assent. At present there is considerable agitation in the brewing industry. As a result of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and of the subsequent debates and negotiations to which the Minister referred, a number of brewers are considering whether to be wholly in retailing and out of brewing, wholly in brewing and out of retailing or part in one and part in the other. There is a state of flux within the industry.
During such times of major disturbances within the industry due to government action and not to the market, the people exposed are those with least protection. In this case they are the tenants. We wish to see the protection for the tenant which the Bill provides start before 1992. If we wait until then the whole structure of the brewing industry and the retailing of intoxicating liquor could have changed completely. That is not to mention any intervention from the Community when it makes a decision about the timing. That is our first major reservation about the Bill.
Secondly, we have a reservation about contracting out. The 1954 Act provides for contracting out if the tenant and the landlord agree. They can remove themselves and the tenancy from the purview of the 1954 Act. The Minister addressed himself to the problem but we are not satisfied that he has given
416
us the right answer. He said that the market must rule. Our belief, which has been underlined in all our debates on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, is that there is a complex monopoly in the brewing industry and that there are market failures. Therefore, the balance of power between the landlord and tenant in such cases is different from that in the ordinary run of cases under the 1954 Act. We argue that there should be a special provision for pub tenants giving them greater security than would normally be available under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
In its report the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that the right of first refusal should be granted to the tenant when the brewer puts the pub up for sale. If there is such a right of first refusal it must be at the market price. If the tenant could not meet that price the right of first refusal would not apply. However, we believe that it is an honest option and we can see no reason why it should not be written into the provisions which the Government have announced. I accept that this is only one of a package of provisions but we can seen no reason why it should not be written in.
The Minister spoke about the acquisition of goodwill built up by the tenant before the pub is taken back into brewery management, a subject which was discussed in another place. He announced an amendment and we must wait until Committee to see what it means. I understood the Minister to mean that there would be compensation during the transition period. We wish to interrogate him closely in order to ascertain whether the compensation, if it is based on rateable values, should not properly be extended beyond the transition period.
There is also the question of the right of a spouse of a deceased tenant to continue to live in the premises. Frequently there is great hardship when a tenant dies and a spouse must leave his or her home almost immediately. We accept that if the Bill is enacted it will give greater protection to the spouse. Nevertheless, if contracting out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is allowed protection for the spouse is removed and we wish to see it reinstated in the Bill.
I have mentioned a number of reservations about the Bill and amendments which we shall bring forward in Committee for consideration. That does not detract from the general welcome which we give in principle to the Bill. However, we are suspicious about the relationship between the Government and the brewers, particularly the Brewers' Society. From time to time under Conservative Governments we see strong measures being proposed but then whittled down in negotiations as they move between the Government and the brewers. After the publication of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission we saw retreat in the face of a heavyweight attack from the Brewers' Society. We saw a weak response from Government Ministers. In Committee we shall try to strengthen the Bill. A measurement of the Government's sincerity will be shown by their sympathetic view to the amendments. Are they prepared to risk the wrath of the Brewers'

417
Society and give proper security to the pub tenant or are they doing the minimum necessary to avoid yet another political row? We shall see.
3.55 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the Bill before us appears to be simple but it is deceptively complex. I compliment the Minister for outlining some of its aspects and difficulties. I wish to address some of the concerns felt by Members on these Benches. In many respects they reflect those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but I do not wish to articulate any suspicion about the relationship between the Government and the brewers. That would be somewhat over-egging the pudding. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball.
The Bill will bring the tenants of licensed premises under the scope of the 1954 Act. It gives the tenant security of tenure providing that he fulfils certain conditions. Tenancies of licensed premises were originally excluded from the Act primarily because it was thought that such security would prevent landlords from exercising their rights to evict tenants, even where a tenant's licence was revoked. Today that is not a relevant problem because of changes in the practices of licensing magistrates. Furthermore, a clause to cover such eventualities can be written into tenancy agreements.
That is not the reason why the Bill is before us today. If it were we should be happy to greet it without reservation and the status quo within the brewing industry would appear to fit adequately. That is not the case because the Bill is part of a package of measures which result from the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of the supply of beer. There are differences of opinion about whether the complex monopoly which the commission found is as damaging to competition as it maintained.
Among other measures the commission recommended that, given the imbalance of negotiating power between the landlord and the tenant, licensed premises should be included under the 1954 Act. It considered that there was a serious undermining of competition and of the tenant's position, vis-à -vis the landlord. Tenants, particularly those who want to buy products at competitive prices, cannot act as independent businessmen able to provide the wide range of products and services available in pubs.
Clearly, to give a tenant more security cannot itself achieve the aim but that is obviously a vital element in the package. We recognise that. It will enable the tenant to withstand pressure from the brewers because that has undoubtedly existed in various forms; for example, as regards the right to sell guest beers and the right to put a price on soft drinks. That is a matter close to my heart which I have raised previously in your Lordships' House. I have drawn attention to the scandal of the differential between soft drinks, low alcohol or non-alcoholic beers and other alcoholic drinks.
Having conceded that security is desirable, we must ask ourselves whether the measures in the Bill
418
achieve that. Since 1970 there has been a brewers' code of practice which was supposed and intended to give tenants the same security which they would have had under the 1954 Act. Of course, that is legally unenforceable and was seen, rightly or wrongly, by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to be ineffective.
Beside that, there are increasing numbers of licensed premises such as wine bars which are not owned by the brewers. Those tenants also deserve protection.
It seems that bringing licensed premises under the Act is generally the right way to provide tenants with the security they deserve and which the public interest demands. Therefore, we agree with the basic thrust of the Government's proposed legislation. However, we are somewhat surprised that they have chosen a form which makes it difficult to see how the public interest and competition are going to be served.
The 1954 Act allows landlord and tenant to opt out of the provisions of the Act so long as both petition the court. The value of having to petition the court is quite obvious. In going through that process the tenant will become aware of his legal situation and the possible effects of what he is agreeing to. Contracting out, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a common option. The information I have is that in 1986 there were 11,651 applications to contract out, set against a figure of 16,500 or so new business tenancies.
Therefore, it seems very likely that given the option in the normal way of things and the pressures upon them to maximise profits, the brewers will simply say to the tenant, "If you do not agree to come to court with me and apply to opt out of the Act, then I shall offer the tenancy to someone who is prepared to do that." There are plenty of people waiting to become tenants of public houses, it will be argued. There is anxiety within the National Licensed Victuallers Association which feels that that is the most likely result.
If tenants are forced out of the provisions of the Act they will have no security of tenure and will be wide open to brewery pressure. The Minister spoke about the free market. Indeed, his right honourable friend in another place effectively resigned himself to the scenario when he said that,
"a pub tenancy agreement is the result of a commercial negotiation, and while we can set out what are fair procedures for reaching agreement we cannot force the agreement to be more or less favourable to one side than what the market dictates".
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches do not believe that this is all that can be done. Unfettered and free markets can, and often do, provide results which are in the public interest. We do not deny that. However, free markets are not by definition synonymous with public interest although one might be forgiven for thinking that the Government adhere to that view. However, it is perfectly possible, when it is right to do so, to place certain constraints to provide an outcome which best serves the public interest.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has completed a detailed study and has concluded that

419
tenants of licensed premises should be more protected than those of other business premises. I did not quite understand from the noble Lord's remarks whether or not the Government took on board that point. It seems that if one increases the protection to tenants, then one can reasonably assume that the supply of premises will decrease. However, this does not seem to be a case where that necessarily follows. The measures introduced as a result of the report of the commission are having a quite profound effect on the drinks industry. In order for those measures to become effective, it seems that it is of great importance that wherever possible tenants must be able to resist brewery pressure.
I return to my uncertainty about the noble Lord's comments. The pressures in the relationship we are discussing are somewhat complicated. First, tenants of pubs are often working from home. The pub is their home. They live there, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with their wives and families. To lose a tenancy effectively means losing your home. Therefore, the likelihood of giving into pressures from the brewers must be greater.
Also, unusually, the landlord and the tenant are in the same business. I cannot think of many other areas of commercial activity where that is so. It gives the landlord scope to exert pressure. I do not wish to build up a picture of evil brewers exerting pressure for the fun of it because they are in the business of making money and want to maximise their profits. However, another aspect is that if the tenant works hard and is successful in his outlet, the landlord can simply remove him and seek to maximise his profits by putting in a manager in place of the tenant.
I absolutely agree with the Minister that there is an overriding need to create a balance between the brewers' and tenants' interests. However, can we really believe the brewers when they say, as they do, that disallowing the option to opt out will make tenancies unattractive so that they will not be able to offer them? I am sceptical about that. As I said, brewers are in the business of making money. They would obviously prefer not to give to tenants any rights which may eat into their profit potential.
It is a fact of life that in recent times brewers have been separating their property interests from their brewing interests. Moving back to installing their own managers is not seen as an attractive option. The difficulties, the complexities and the skills required in successfully managing a pub these days are very specialised. To put managers in often creates more problems than there were before.
If landlords and tenants cannot opt out of the Act, as I suggest, landlords will not need to renew a tenant's lease unless the tenant is persistently behind in his rent or refuses to pay, refuses to maintain the property or is in breach of obligations under the lease. He will then be entitled to a market rent for the property. Under those circumstances I do not think that brewers could claim to be hard done by. That seems to us to be the right balance between the landlord and the tenant.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to timing. We do not agree with him. I am happy to say the Government have it about right. There
420
seemed to be some confusion, on reading the proceedings in another place, with regard to the timing and implementation of the Bill. All new tenancies will be covered by the Bill and any remaining old tenancy agreements which are not renewed by 11th July 1992 will be covered by the Act as they are. July 1992 was chosen because most tenancies run for three years. The Government quite rightly— if I correctly read their intentions— wish to minimise the prospect of retrospective legislation while also phasing in the Bill at the same time as other measures which will increase competition in the supply of beer and other drinks.
Going with the drift of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we agree with the basic intentions of the legislation, bearing in mind the reservations I have articulated.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, there is no doubt that the National Licensed Victuallers Association has obtained an eloquent advocate in the shape of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. However, I am sure noble Lords do not want to be led down any road of sentimental attachment to the good publican, because we are discussing in this Bill a straight and profitable business relationship. I hope the House will remember that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that many of the effects of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the brewing industry can already be seen to be counter-productive. The rationale behind the Bill as it left another place, which places the relationship between brewer landlords and their tenants on the same footing as other businesses, is entirely understandable. What is critical is that that arrangement should be precisely that; no more and no less. Any suggestion that the arrangements between a brewer landlord and his tenant should be any different from those affecting other businesses is unreasonable and unjustified from any logical point of view.
The viability of a tenanted pub depends on a fair balance of benefits between the tenant and the landlord. The tenants of the major brewers have already been given an enormous concession, as was admitted by the noble Viscount, in that they now have the right to buy non-beer drinks outside the tie and they have the right to purchase a guest beer. That has already upset the existing relationship. A further tipping of the balance towards the tenant risks making tenancies an extremely unattractive proposition for brewers and places the whole system at risk.
Currently tenants of brewery owned pubs are protected by the code of practice. So often in this House we see that codes of practice of one decade become the law of another decade, in a somewhat modified form. As the legislation stands at the moment all the pre-11th July 1989 agreements have to be reviewed before 11th July 1992, involving over 30,000 new negotiations taking place.
The National Licensed Victuallers Association were demanding special treatment for when the

421
tenant is dispossessed. However, why should the compensation for the termination of a tenancy be treated differently from any other business? Why should the level of compensation for a pub tenant be greater than for any other business? The goodwill argument is simply not valid. The value of a public house is not based on its goodwill; it is assessed on what is called the "maintainable trade". If one uses the concept of maintainable trade and judges it against the hypothetical average tenant, goodwill has absolutely no value and is not reflected in the ingoing or outgoing valuation. The only matter that is of real value is the licence which is granted by the justices and that belongs to the brewery.
That has been a longstanding view of all professional valuers. They firmly take the view that when an exceptional licensee leaves, he takes that goodwill with him because he is the person who has created it. In fact it has no value to the ingoing landlord. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, tried to make— I will not say "mountain"— a hillock out of a molehill on the question of contracting out. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that contracting out agreements are openly negotiated by the court with both parties present. There are many arguments which say that this flexible arrangement is to the advantage of both the brewer and the incoming tenant for a short period. We should therefore view the question of "contracting out" in its true sense. It is not a way a brewer can get rid of a tenant and bring in one who is likely to be more compilable.
My noble friend the Minister will have to bring forward his amendments and we will see whether or not they can be supported by this side of the House. It is a very limited measure. It is a very doubtful necessity. I should like to think that if the committee of my noble friend Lord Rippon were judging what legislation should come forward, they might decide that in an over-burdened Session this was a little bit of legislation which was not necessary. However, I understand the rationale behind it and, provided my noble friend does not amend the Bill too drastically, we may be able to speed its progress.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the House for allowing me to intervene. I apologise for so doing. I shall be brief I declare an interest as the director of a regional brewery company and therefore it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to find that I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Kimball said.
More than any other business involving a landlord and tenant, the level of trade conducted in a pub depends very much on the licensee himself. I am therefore pleased to learn that goodwill will not be taken into account. However, I was concerned about compensation because the level of compensation already offered— six times rateable value, often exceeded by negotiation and agreement— is sufficient. I am worried that it may discourage brewers in their intentions to continue with tenanted public houses. As I believe I said when we were debating the matter of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last year, this Bill may have the effect
422
of reducing brewery tenancies. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, we shall have to wait and see, but I should be sorry to see that come about.
The contracting-out aspect is a good one because there are pubs in special circumstances where short tenancies are to everyone's advantage, and that should be allowed to prevail. Of course, much-needed probationary periods are desirable so that brewers can assess the suitability of licensees.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and I look forward to the next stages of the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe I am entitled to say that your Lordships have welcomed this Bill, even if that welcome is somewhat guarded and qualified. I shall endeavour to deal with some of the points raised without straying into too much detail, which no doubt your Lordships will want to do at the next stage.
I turn first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He referred to the need to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Landlord and Tenant Act does not, as the noble Lord knows, apply to Scotland and the Bill cannot therefore extend any of its provisions north of the Border. However, in terms of the issues addressed by the MMC, the Scottish Act— which I believe is called the Shops Act— already extends to retailers of intoxicating liquor. The need to consider the position of pub tenants in Scotland is much less acute since the pub tenancy system is much less prevalent in Scotland. I understand that only 3 per cent. of tenancies are north of the Border.
In Northern Ireland tenants are already covered by the Business Tenants Act 1964. The noble Lord asked whether the advice I have received agrees with the advice that he had. Since I believe we have the same advisers I daresay that it does.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was not aware that I was being advised by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not confine my advice to that given by the Department of Trade and Industry. There are many other sources of advice available to all Members of your Lordships' House and I am happy to avail myself of those facilities.
Turning to the transitional provisions, I believe the noble Lord suggested that some of the protections which are not due to come into effect until the middle of 1992 should be brought in earlier. In drawing up the transitional arrangements the Government have had regard to two prime considerations: that legislation should not, as far as possible, be retrospective and disturb the basis of existing agreements to the detriment of the parties; and that all pub tenants should be protected before November 1992 when the national brewers are required to have released a portion of their estates from ties altogether.
Most brewery tenancies have been for three years. Any such tenancies which existed before 10th July 1989, when the Government announced their

423
intention to bring them within the framework of the 1954 Act, will be unaffected. That is right and proper. A landlord who agreed to let a pub to a tenant for a certain period in the expectation that he could recover the premises should not suddenly find the basis for that transaction undermined. In a minority of cases where longer term tenancies have been entered into the Government have felt it right, nevertheless, to bring them within the 1954 Act by the deadline of July 1992. This is to ensure that the tenants have the security that they need to profit from the release of certain pubs from ties when that is completed.
I appreciate that some tenants would like immediate protection, but it would be wholly unreasonable for the Government arbitrarily to change the basis of so many tenancy agreements that were entered into in good faith before it has been made clear that they were to be brought within the 1954 Act.
In regard to contracting out, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Liverpool, the 1954 Act did not originally contain any provision for landlord and tenant to contract out of its provisions. Contracting out was actually introduced in 1969 because it had been found that the Act was discouraging landlords from letting some types of property, particularly where the landlord might wish to let it for only a short period of time. I accept that the relationship between brewer and tenant is an unequal one, but failure to allow contracted-out tenancies in circumstances where they might better suit the parties would only diminish the supply of tenanted pubs. The Government are particularly concerned that entry into the market might become more difficult for new or inexperienced tenants. If the only option available for a brewer is a fully secure tenancy he would be much less inclined to take the risk of granting a tenancy to someone whose skills are not fully proven.
In general, brewers will want to attract tenants who will make a success of the business. They will need to offer appropriate terms. If there are too few tenancies compared with the number of tenants, that would not be helped by discouraging the supply of tenanted property.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to first refusal. The issue being addressed by the Bill is security of tenure for pub tenants. A tenant's security under the 1954 Act is unaffected by a change in ownership of the premises. Therefore, I see no reason why provision should be made for the tenant to have the right to buy in this case. Indeed, there is no general right to buy for any private business premises. Of course, the Government would be pleased if opportunities arose for tenants to buy their premises, and a landlord interested in selling a pub will not generally wish to turn down an offer from a tenant that matches the best offer he can obtain on the open market.
The noble Lord also referred to protection of the spouse in the event of the death of the tenant. As the noble Lord accepts, the right of a spouse who inherits a late tenant's estate will be given greater
424
protection when the Bill takes effect. As for what happens when a tenancy is contracted out, I accept that the protection for a spouse will not then apply; but that is a fact that prospective tenants must take into account when deciding whether or not to enter into such a tenancy. No one has to enter into a tenancy if the terms are not acceptable. Brewers generally wish to attract good tenants, as I said earlier.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about the position of wine bar tenants. Wine bar tenants would fall for exclusion under Section 43 (1) (d) of the 1954 Act. As this provision is to be repealed by the present Bill they will in future be covered. The noble Viscount also asked about tenants of licensed premises having more protection than other business tenants. The Government's position is that tenants of licensed premises should be put on all-fours with other tenants. The 1954 Act provides a delicate and well-tested balance between the interests of tenants and of landlords.
The Government accept, of course, that this Bill is introduced in a special context; namely, the MMC report. To take account of this the Government propose that for a transitional period special compensation for tenants is appropriate. I referred to that in my opening remarks and we shall, of course, return to it in later stages of the Bill.
The noble Viscount also referred to model tenancy agreements— I think he had in mind a statutory code of practice. The Government and, indeed, successive governments, have rejected the concept of a standard model or form of lease or agreement. That would not sit well with the Government's policy that the market should operate freely. Landlords and tenants should be able to negotiate their own tenancy agreements as they wish. If the parties want to incorporate a code of practice in the agreement, it is up to them. It is entirely for the parties concerned to decide. The Government's concern is to ensure that the circumstances are flexible enough to deal with any situation which might arise.
I believe I have covered the principal points that have been raised, including those raised by my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Liverpool. We shall, of course, return to specific points at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Overseas Aid: Select Committee Report
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Overseas Aid [1st Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 16]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce this report on overseas aid which has been prepared by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. The contribution of science and technology to development is crucial. As

425
the Royal Society commented, excellence in this field,
"is a cornerstone of sustainable development".
I emphasise the word "sustainable" which runs through the whole of this report. I should like to thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, both oral and written, and all those who received the committee overseas and at the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute at Chatham. They gave us a very warm welcome and made extremely efficient arrangements for our visit.
In passing, I should like to say how impressed we were with the ODNRI at Chatham and with the work that it is doing in support of the ODA. I pay tribute to the members of the committee who worked extremely hard, contributing so much from their very wide experience. I am also most grateful for the dedicated work of our specialist adviser and our clerk who sifted through an enormous amount of written evidence and who drafted the report for us.
It was a very wide subject and it was impossible to visit all the countries involved. Some of us visited Nigeria, Ghana and India. We fully appreciate the danger of drawing general conclusions from these few visits. We asked the representatives of many recipient countries for their comments on the aid provided and it was encouraging to find that there was virtually no critical comment at all from those sources.
In order to limit the scope of the inquiry, the committee concentrated principally on bilateral aid. We noted the statement of aims of overseas aid given by Her Majesty's Government in reply to a report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 1987 which stated:
"the aim is to promote sustainable economic and social progress and alleviate poverty in developing countries. This is entirely compatible with also serving our political, industrial and commercial interests".
In conducting its investigations into the scientific and technological aspects of overseas aid, the committee worked on the basis that in technical co-operation, as defined in paragraph 2.1, the interests of developing countries should always have priority in those few cases where any conflict arises between the interests of the recipient country and those of the United Kingdom. That does not imply that a reasonable proportion of programme aid— that is, direct financial support for essential imports— should not be tied to the purchase of United Kingdom products. But that raises issues far outside the scope of our investigation.
The essential contribution of science and technology to overseas aid was widely recognised. The committee saw as its principal task investigating as to whether this knowledge was properly and efficiently applied in our overseas aid programme, costing some £ 1.25 billion per annum. As indicated in the report, the committee concluded that the money is on the whole well spent and that those responsible for implementing the policy of the ODA are most dedicated in their work and carry it out in a competent and responsible way.
The evidence which we received both during our overseas visits and from other sources fully confirms
426
that view. The committee welcomed the very constructive part played by the British Council, which acts in many cases as an agent for the ODA, though, as indicated in paragraph 8.23, we believe that it would be wise to define more clearly the relationship between these two organisations. We saw them working very effectively together. But we felt that satisfactory working relationships relied very much on close and satisfactory personal relationships. Some formalisation of the relationships would be advantageous.
Despite the overall favourable view which your committee formed, we believe that there are a number of ways in which the effectiveness of the overseas aid programme can be further improved. The true measure of its success must be the extent to which it contributes to the building of local capability leading to a sustainable and constructive partnership between the less developed and the industrialised countries. To this end the contribution which science and technology can make to building a soundly based, scientific and technological infrastructure and improving local know-how and expertise is crucial. That will not only enable urgent local problems such as crop disease to be identified and solved but will also progressively lessen the need for overseas aid and help the recipient countries to be self-supporting.
On the whole, big capital projects such as road building, telecommunications and power stations are not the subject of bilateral aid but are carried out on a multilateral basis with supporting funds from such organisations as the World Bank. But the proper application of science and technology can make an enormous contribution to improving educational and research facilities within the recipient countries, so adding to the effectiveness of all types of aid.
During our visits to Ghana and Nigeria we saw many examples of this kind of aid to educational and research institutions. But clearly much remains to be done. Many institutions had little or no modern equipment. We were concerned to note that in too many cases the balance between the resources devoted to the training of scientific and technical manpower and the provision of adequate facilities was not optimised. For instance, we saw several examples of high-quality laboratory equipment that could not be used because it had not been adequately maintained due to the lack either of spare parts or of trained people to carry out the maintenance work, or both.
The fact is that well-trained people will not be attracted, and, even if they are, they cannot do good work if they are not provided with facilities of a reasonable standard. Nor can modem equipment be efficiently utilised unless there are trained people to operate and maintain it. So we concluded that considerably more attention needs to be given by the ODA to achieving a better balance between those requirements.
We were also concerned to note the serious lack of up-to-date technical publications in many establishments which we visited. Many of the technical publications were several years old and

427
therefore of little value. We recommend that further urgent attention should be given to this problem, particularly by the British Council acting as the agent for the ODA.
The committee also saw examples of the use of inappropriate technology which was very often too sophisticated for local needs. For instance, in Ghana we saw a small water supply scheme which was the subject of overseas aid. The mechanism for opening the valves from the small reservoir was operated by a complex system of pneumatic equipment. There were back-up handwheels which were used when the equipment did not work. Indeed, that pneumatic equipment had never worked and it was quite unnecessary. That is an example of wasted resources from using inappropriate technology.
The solution to the problem is not as easy as it may appear, since if relatively simple equipment is provided the recipients may feel that they are being palmed off with something cheap and nasty whereas they should have the best that is available. Therefore, there is an educational problem to be undertaken so as to make the best use of available resources.
One of the reasons that makes overseas aid necessary for lesser developed countries is the lack of foreign currency to purchase their needs. Therefore, it is vital to do everything possible to enable the countries to meet more of their own needs. In this, the application of the appropriate technology in manufacture is of supreme importance. The committee was impressed by the work being done by the Intermediate Technology Development Group. We welcome most warmly the continuing support from the ODA for the work of this well-organised charity.
Even greater attention should be given by the ODA to expanding work of this kind which can do so much to help the sustainable development of the economy of the recipient countries. The committee noted that many of those working in the overseas aid field served in the former Colonial Service and therefore had wide experience of the problems and local customs in lesser developed countries. That source of recruitment is now drying up. It is essential to make sure that it is replaced by bringing on younger people and giving them the appropriate training.
Stronger links should also be forged with the younger generation in recipient countries and there is a need for more funds to be made available for scholarships of all kinds. If full value is to be obtained through such scholarships from those who are trained in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, it is essential to maintain contact with them on a long-term basis both in their own interests of continuing education and traning and also in the interests of the United Kingdom in providing better opportunities for British industry to meet the needs of developing countries.
In general the committee concluded that more can be done by the ODA in producing clearly formulated policies and priorities and better communications with other donor organisations. There also appears to be a somewhat inadequate use of other sources of
428
expertise. We therefore recommend, in paragraph 6.11, that a panel of advisers should be set up. During our investigation we received evidence from many non-governmental organisations, mostly charities, and in our overseas visits we met representatives of some of them. We are delighted by the flexibility with which they can work in direct and sympathetic contact with those needing help. We were able to see at first hand one or two examples of the excellent work being done and were most impressed by its effectiveness and the dedication of those involved. We welcome most warmly the ODA's recognition of the value of these NGOs and the constructive financial support which it provides to them and which is so greatly appreciated.
Overall this was a most interesting investigation, somewhat different from the normal type of work carried out by your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology. The conclusions and recommendations are clearly summarised in Part 9 of the report and so I shall not weary the House by repeating them. But I should like briefly to draw attention to a few significant ones which I did not cover earlier. In paragraph 9.7 we stress the value of collaborative effort, including joint research. In paragraph 9.18 we recommend that more explicit consideration should be given to the relative costs and benefits of training in-country or in the United Kingdom. In paragraph 9.27 we recommend that aid-related research and development should be continued if there is a clear need, even in the absence of a commercial market or sponsor, which may come later on when the work is further developed.
In paragraph 9.28 we draw attention to the importance of local institution building contributing to the supply of well-trained manpower in agriculture in Africa. In paragraph 9.44 we warn that excessive delegation of activities to external organisations, on a commercial basis, could create difficulties for the ODA in obtaining impartial advice unless an adequate core of expert advisers is maintained within the ODA.
Finally, it is a real pleasure to be able to give a warm welcome to the work of the ODA and to conclude that the money allocated to it is, overall, effectively used and controlled, accepting of course that our investigation was inevitably limited in scope. But it is a good principle to build on success and the committee was concerned to note that the United Kingdom's contribution to overseas aid is about 0·3 per cent. of the gross national product whereas the recommended OECD target is 0·7 per cent. That is achieved and indeed exceeded by several countries in the OECD, some of which are much smaller than ourselves. In paragraph 9.4 we recommend that the Government should make a firm commitment to move steadily towards this target as quickly as possible. This would be of real benefit not only to our own interests but to those of recipient countries whose needs are as great as ever. I conclude by noting that progress towards this higher contribution would be greatly facilitated by an increased output from our own manufacturing industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology

429
on Overseas Aid [1st Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 16] .— (Viscount Caldecote.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I must first ask the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Ewart-Biggs, to forgive me if I have to slip away before the end of the debate. I hope to be able to stay to the end but I have to get away to catch a train.
I welcome the report and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the committee for the thoroughness with which they have tackled a wide and diverse subject. The report refers to the all-pervasiveness of science and technology. How very true that is and how very true is the statement made in the report that it is sometimes very difficult to quantify the importance and the advantages of science and technology.
I shall start by making one or two brief references to aspects of the report. First, it refers to the work of the British Council, to which the noble Viscount has already referred. Having just returned from a visit to Latin America and having seen some of the work of the British Council on the ground, I should like to underline the importance which the report attaches to the work of this body. Its work in English language teaching is invaluable. But like all organisations the British Council is suffering from cuts in its budget. If it is to make its full contribution to the work of overseas development it is important that more funds are made available to it.
Secondly, the report refers to the importance of in-country training. It mentions primary health care as a case in point. This cannot be over-emphasised. The extent of the training need in the developing countries is so vast that it would be impossible to provide that outside the countries concerned. In any case it is important that the training should be made part of the country's infrastructure so that it can deal with the particular problems of that country.
Thirdly, the report refers to the danger of the ODA becoming too commercialised and expecting a return on projects. Again, I agree with the underlying principle behind this. The needs of the country must be paramount where aid is being given. On the other hand, from my limited observations in Latin America— I stress that they are limited observations— it seems to me that this is a largely neglected area and that there is tremendous scope for British investment and trade. Investment and trade could not be developed without the guiding hand of the Foreign Office and the expertise of the ODA.
I turn now to my main area of concern, which is population and development. I welcome in particular paragraphs 3.19 to 3.23 of the report which refer to population activities. I welcome especially paragraph 3.23, which says:
"Her Majesty's Government should seek increased action on the issue in international fora wherever possible. Support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives should be increased".
The paragraphs refer to the evidence from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. Here I must declare an interest. Not
430
only am I a member of that group, but I also had the privilege of being part of the parliamentary delegation referred to in the evidence which visited India and Nepal last year. I was also a member of a very recent delegation to Ecuador and Mexico. In Ecuador the first part of the delegation's responsibility was to attend the Second Western Hemisphere Conference of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. That was followed by visits to projects in the two countries.
The report of your Lordships' Committee refers to the interaction between population growth and the environment; and indeed to economic development as a whole. Having seen this in two different parts of the globe, to me the need for more help in the field of science and technology and technical aid could not be more clear. I venture to say that the time for increased help is now ripe.
Despite the overwhelming problems that one sees on such visits, two optimistic themes emerged. One was the changed attitudes pervading, and the second was the fact that NGOs in particular— and I am glad that the noble Viscount and the report referred to the work carried out by these organisations— are beginning to get down to the grass roots of the problem.
The barometer for reading the changing atmosphere goes back to 1969 when I first visited East Africa. At that time the whole subject of family planning was absolutely taboo. The International Planned Parenthood Federation found itself having to work under cover because people were not allowed to set up local organisations. Women's moves towards emancipation were expressed through informal groups practising local handcrafts, thereby gaining a little financial assistance and independence through very inadequate baby and mother clinics.
In 1980 I attended the UN Mid-term Conference on the Decade of Women in Copenhagen. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, led the delegation. The conference was almost ruined by the combined efforts of the Third World, including a very vocal element from Latin America, and the East European countries, supported by the teachings of the Catholic Church, to resist what were termed as the attempts of Western imperialism to prevent the natural growth of population in the Third World.
In India last year the attitude changed. Although parliamentarians whom we met confessed that they were reluctant to take population and family planning issues on to the public platform, they nevertheless expressed support for action in this field and praised the work of voluntary organisations. In Quito in Ecuador two weeks ago, parliamentarians from country after country openly talked about the policies being pursued in their countries. Eleven of the countries represented are working to a population policy. That is an important concept. It is concerned not only with fertility and family planning; it is also concerned with the wider issues such as mortality and migration, which by the natural process of events take it into the areas of health, environment and economic development.
Regrettably, the problem now is far greater than when I first became acquainted with it in 1969. As

431
the Duke of Edinburgh said in his 1989 Dimbleby Lecture, starting from a population of 1 billion in the year 1800, in i960 the world population was estimated to have grown to 3 billion. By 1980 it was estimated at 4 billion, by 1987 it had grown to 5 billion and by the year 2000 it is expected to reach 6 billion. Forty per cent. of that population is under 15 years of age. Therefore, the momentum for population growth cannot be immediately stopped. However, it can be slowed down and it could be brought to replacement level. Provided adequate policies are pursued, it can be contained under the figure of 10 billion; but if adequate policies are not pursued, it will rise much beyond that figure.
The pressure on resources of this growth in the world population are incalculable. The toll in human misery and degradation is appalling. If we take women's health as an indicator, the chances of a woman dying from complications arising in pregnancy are: in Africa one in 21; in South America one in 73; in the Caribbean one in 140; in North America one in 6,366; and, in Europe the figure is one in 9,850. The statistics for child mortality are equally appalling. Yet, as I said, there is hope. The International Planned Parenthood Federation projects which the British delegation saw in Ecuador, in Mexico and in India last year give rise to that optimism. In India the projects were concerned with family planning and spacing, with family health, with women's literacy, with pest and parasite control and with small economic developments.
In Mexico the problems were somewhat different. In the whole of Latin America and in the Caribbean early sexual activity is a cultural feature. That creates enormous problems of teenage pregnancy, very often outside marriage, which is also a cultural feature. Here the emphasis has to be on sex education and healthy sex, together with the development of a community health network.
Mexfam, the IPPF agent in Mexico, provides technical and financial assistance, training, materials, educational information and contraceptive supplies to doctors to set up clinics in both rural and urban areas where no services exist. After two years the doctors are expected to have established themselves and become largely self-sufficient. In effect, they hold a franchise from Mexfam. Through this work Mexfam supports 150 such community doctors catering for 2,500 families. That is a very small number when we think of the total population of a country like Mexico, and the demand is insatiable. The need and the demand for contraceptive supplies is also much greater than the present usage.
The Select Committee report calls for greater resources to ODA. It also calls for greater help to the NGOs. In its evidence the population and development group asked that 2 per cent. of the aid which ODA gives to overseas countries should be devoted to population and development problems. That is the very minimum and much more is needed.
To meet the unmet demands as more and more women become aware of their ability to control their fertility, greater assistance is needed. I emphasise that it is needed by the NGOs which can cut through
432
the bureaucracy that sometimes attaches to governmental aid. There is also a need to support programmes, such as the WHO special programme on research into human reproduction which is essential if those unmet demands are to be satisfied, and satisfied in a way that is convenient and safe for the women involved.
There is no field in which the all-pervasiveness of science and technology is more apparent than in the field of population and development. I hope that the Select Committee's report and recommendations will be noted by the Government.
5 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, it is my pleasure to open by paying a warm tribute to our chairman for the momentum which he enabled our sub-committee to maintain in its work despite the enormous scope of its studies. I should like to endorse his tribute to the quality and effectiveness of our clerk, Miss De Groose, and to the encyclopaedic knowledge of our specialist adviser, Mr. Barnett, who enabled us to keep abreast of knowledge.
I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, took as her main subject the crucial question of population in the context of overseas aid. Thirty years ago, when I first assumed some responsibility in the field of overseas aid, I puzzled over the apparent paradoxes of how one could justify the pouring of resources into attempts to assist developing countries when at that time it seemed that there was no possibility of population trends being arrested, with the effect that population would always outstrip increases in production. I used to be a doomster. I foresaw a scenario of inevitable decline in the world with aid as a minor mitigating factor only of relief. I am glad to say that I am no longer a doomster. I see an entirely different picture, a picture of a potential of sustainable development with the West priming the developing countries' pump.
We cannot take success for granted of course. It is a potential picture of hope. India, South East Asia and Africa can be countries with a modest improvement in their standard of living, and if that is to be realised, international aid will be an important, indeed perhaps a key, factor. The outcome will depend on population trends.
The Sub-Committee visited Nigeria. When I first served there some 25 years ago, the population was about 56 million. It is now over 100 million. It doubles every 15 years, and so in 30 years' time it is estimated that it will be 400 million. That growth is paralleled elsewhere in Africa with the prospect that the population of the continent, which was, in global terms, comparatively small, will rise to between 2 billion and 4 billion within 30 or 40 years.
The tradition of British development aid from its earliest years placed its main emphasis on technical co-operation, a term which embraced scientific skill and research. I am sure that that was right. It is tempting to put resources into striking projects of high publicity value and those can of course contribute massively to general economic progress. They can afford important markets for British exports. We rightly devote great efforts towards winning major development contracts, but as aid

433
resources are limited that must not be at the expense of our opportunities to help to build up skills. Whether the transfer of skill is by education here or by training in the recipient country, it is the single most valuable contribution that this country can make in the long term.
British aid should continue to be targeted mainly at the: transfer of skills at all levels. The Committee felt it necessary to issue a warning against short-termism. The committee had reservations about the current trend towards so-called projectisation; that is, identifying an objective and mounting a variety of attacks upon it with different kinds of skills. That is a useful means of ensuring an effective contribution in a specific field, but it would not be the best use of limited resources if that trend results in too little being available for the much more difficult but vital services directed at training and the transfer of skills. Those services are labour-intensive in administrative terms. They take a great deal of input of work in the ODA and the British Council, but that work is more than rewarded, and we should perhaps devote more administrative effort in the future than in the past towards creating a capability to meet specific training needs.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said, one area of special importance is the grant of scholarships. The arithmetic that there are more overseas students now than before we jacked up overseas students' fees has limited significance. Those students come because they can afford to do so, not necessarily because they are the students who can best take advantage of the opportunity. Their parents can afford to send them. What we need most is to help to educate here the men and women who will be the leaders in their respective fields in their own countries in later years. We should increase the number of men and women educated in this country. It is much to be welcomed that last year Her Majesty's Government increased the funds for scholarships from India. I hope that there will be further increases in respect of India but also in other parts of the world. That is very much in our own long-term interest because anyone who has had anything to do with trade or other forms of relations abroad knows how very much easier it is to develop contacts fruitfully with people who know this country.
I wish now to turn to Africa. As the World Bank stated in a very impressive report published in November, Africa is a crisis continent. When we have heard the term "external aid" in the past few weeks, it has been mentioned principally in the context of Eastern Europe where a vast new requirement has suddenly emerged. That represents a new challenge to the resources of Western countries. I am sure your Lordships agree that it would be nothing less than a tragedy if meeting the needs of Eastern Europe resulted in a diversion of resources from the developing world.
Africa is indeed in crisis. Its crisis may be attributed largely to some of its own weaknesses and we do not shut our eyes to that. Many of the governments in Africa are still dedicated to half-baked, doctrinaire, Marxist, collectivist
434
policies. Many of the governments are corrupt, but there are important signs of change. One of the countries that we visited, Ghana, has been the pilot in a structural adjustment programme which involves increased payment trouble for the population for a number of years. Nevertheless, Ghana set itself to that programme and it is carrying it through. At last it is starting to improve its performance with, I am glad to say, our help and the help of the rest of the international community. That is an important lead. There is some ground for hope that other countries in the dark continent will follow.
The scenario is not one of despair because in recent years there have been signs of the possibility of a green revolution in Africa. That is not, of course, the same kind of green revolution as has made such a remarkable impact in Asia, but nevertheless research has been carried out that holds out the possibility for African countries to pursue at last methods that can result in production outstripping population. When we visited the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan we were shown some very impressive research which has proved that it is possible by particular methods of cultivation in so-called alleys between shrubs, to increase production enormously and also to solve problems of humidity and drought. Terracing and forestry pioneering in other parts of Africa are also showing how to solve ancient problems. These methods can be spread quickly only by a massive increase in agricultural advisory extension services. That presents difficulties as regards how donor countries can contribute, as there is not necessarily much external input of the foreign exchange that is needed. However, skills and training are also needed. That is probably the key to the solution of the food problem in Africa, if it is to be solved.
I now turn to the question of resources to which the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and our report referred. The World Bank, in the review that I have mentioned, has concluded that there must be a substantial increase in net capital transfer in one form or another to the developing world if the serious slide towards catastrophe is to be avoided. Modest progress could be made. We are not talking just in terms of avoiding catastrophe. If the right policies are followed, there can be a modest improvement in living standards. That must be accompanied by strenuous and continued action on the part of the African governments themselves with their structural adjustments and a reversing of their policies which have discriminated against farmers. However, if donors generally can maintain the recent modest increases in the amount of resources moving towards Africa at a level of about 4 per cent. a year, the World Bank believes that the decline can be arrested, then levelled off and, finally, the bank believes there is a possibility of reducing aid to Africa. However, that may be a romantic dream.
My main point is that whereas for many years Asia and even Latin America have made significant progress, Africa has been a disaster area with apparently little hope. Now at last, for a combination of reasons, there are grounds for cautious hope. That should encourage us to maintain our contribution. The main effort must come from the countries

435
themselves and from their fanners but there is a need for increased effort as regards support and for an immense effort as regards education.
I conclude by stating that our own overseas aid is a comparatively small proportion of the total international picture. In the past we had rather inflated ideas of where we stood in terms of our contribution of resources. But it was impressed upon us when we visited India that our contribution is now a very modest proportion of international aid. Nevertheless, in terms of effectiveness it can still be enormously important. I would put it as high as to say that looking back over the past, British overseas aid can be regarded as 10 times as effective, pound for pound, in the field as the aid of other donors. Therefore, if we maintain this effectiveness and to some extent jack up our own resources, our contribution will remain of enormous importance in solving the problems of the third world.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I heard that the debate was to take place this afternoon only when I returned from Lesotho at the weekend. I have an inescapable engagement tonight and must therefore apologise if I am not able to stay until the end of the debate.
The core of our report consists of a series of recommendations aimed at raising the scientific and technical infrastructure of certain developing countries with which we have an aid relationship. Science and technical aid can only be successful if there are in the country concerned sufficient scientists and technologists who understand the nature of the science being introduced and know how to take advantage of it. Such an objective requires a long-term education and training relationship.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, pointed out, that is in the best traditions of British aid. It requires a gradual transfer of skills and culture to create a sufficient compost— if I may put it that way— of scientists and technicians, and patient training and education at all levels. That is not spectacular but it requires greater expenditure of human effort rather than dramatic expenditure of large sums of money. It involves a partnership with the developing country, enabling that country itself to raise the standards of its own society.
To that end your Lordships' Committee, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote pointed out, commends the process of institution building. That requires many forms of education and training; but especially it requires links. It requires links between departments of universities and other institutions in this country and departments in the institutions which are being aided. As the staff in the linked departments come to know each other better over a period of time the link becomes more effective. The British staff come to know where help and advice is most needed, where training is most effective and which young members of staff could best be brought to this country for specialised experience not available to them in their own departments overseas.
436
Some evidence was submitted to us of a new method of organising aid being developed by the ODA under the title of "projectisation". More and more aid is being delivered in projects. A package of different contributions is assembled to tackle a discrete problem. For example, with a particular capital input there might be packaged a training element, a set of seminars and book presentations. That is fine for a major project where at the planning stage what is needed is known or can be worked out. However, the blanket application of projectisation to smaller aid projects, especially those of a continuous nature, could be unfortunate.
For example, take the case of an expert seconded to a particular ministry in a small country. After some time in the ministry he may conclude that what is needed is further training or that two or three people ought to be sent to Britain for specialised experience. Under the old system he would turn to the local British Council officer who would try to arrange what was needed quickly and immediately. Under the new system those additional inputs would have to be renegotiated through the byzantine projectisation procedure, accompanied by the preparation of project data sheets and an amended project framework. That is clearly unsuitable for smaller projects or aid of a continuous kind, of which the type we are concerned with this afternoon— the improvement of scientific and technical infrastructure— is an excellent example.
Many old-style programmes in which British Council officers played a significant part are being phased out because of projectisation. Your Lordships' Committee recommends that the book presentation scheme of the British Council should be extended, for it is often an economical and effective way of increasing scientific and technological know-how. At present the British Council can make book presentations to any organisation. However, I understand that after 1991 book presentations are to be confined to projects so that a presentation to an organisation not directly involved in a project will not be possible.
I repeat that projectisation may be excellent for major projects but for smaller and continuous aid objectives, such as the improvement of the scientific infrastructure, the project is unlikely to be the appropriate vehicle. Such aid must be deployed in a continuous and unspectacular fashion, frequently, in small amounts and over a long period. It involves encouraging relationships between institutions, involving many people in a series of connected but different enterprises, training at all levels, research projects and generally a continuous effort which needs to go much wider than science and technology itself.
Perhaps I may give one example. Much science is available only in the English language. Improvement in the use of English is therefore vital. Again, and more fundamentally, science and technology can only be successfully carried out upon a wide cultural base in the society. That means open studies, postal studies, continuation courses, lifelong education, training for leisure and training for pleasure. Science and technology can only thrive in a society which rests upon the broadest cultural base.

437
Of all developed countries Britain is uniquely placed to deliver that kind of aid. We alone of all developed countries have created that ominpresent and powerful instrument, the British Council. No other developed country has anything like it, its officers working on a personal basis in so many developing countries, with their peoples and their educational systems— schools, universities, colleges and other institutions. No other developed country has created such an effective system. Through it we can forge partnerships with developing countries to improve and secure their scientific and technical bases without which the important benefits of modern science can never be successfully transferred.
Perhaps I may make one final point. Our report is rather orthodox because it assumes that aid generally is a good thing and then proceeds to inquire into the effectiveness and efficiency of our scientific and technical aid. There is of course another view about aid pioneered by my noble friend Lord Bauer. That view has recently been powerfully endorsed by a chilling indictment of aid, especialy of multi-lateral aid through such agencies as the World Bank and the United Nations and its satellite organsiations. That assessment of aid is written by Graham Hancock in a book with the arresting title Lords of Poverty, published by my noble friend Lord Stockton.
According to Mr. Hancock, world aid business, which is now estimated to be running at about $60 billion a year, has developed so many fundamental defects that the whole system has become flawed. That System inevitably encourages larger and larger projects in organisations where promotion goes to those who can dispose of funds in ever increasing amounts, more highly priced technologies, more grandiose schemes and no consultation of the poor who will be affected and might well be damaged by those projects. The ODA should take care not to go too far along the road of projectisation lest it falls within the terrifying strictures of Graham Hancock's condemnation.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, as other speakers have said, this report is a welcome one. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and his colleagues are to be congratulated upon it and thanked for it. I regard it as a most important contribution to meeting one of the basic problems of overseas development. That problem is now to give the developing countries the benefit of modern science, but at the same time to ensure that that is done without imposing on them technologies which are suitable for the developed world but not for the under-developed world.
The Committee has warned us of that danger by saying, as it does on page 20, that the wrong technology can have disastrous effects. In a letter which it sent to the Committee, Oxfam gave a pertinent illustration of that difficulty. It said that it and other relief agencies had spent great sums on the purchase of vehicles which were used for the transport of supplies, but, when those vehicles arrived at their destination, they were worked on very difficult terrain for which they were not suited;
438
it was difficult to maintain them; they broke down; it was difficult to obtain spare parts; and, in consequence, a great deal of money was less effectively used than it should have been. Oxfam went on to suggest:
"ODA could play a much more dynamic role by offering Land Rover technical collaboration on a joint project to design a vehicle appropriate to the needs of poor countries".
I suggest that that example and many others— the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, gave us an apt illustration of that problem when he spoke of the water supply system which he saw in Nigeria— provide a strong argument against undue tying of aid to British products and British services. I agree with Professor Hawkridge who is quoted in the report as saying that tying aid to the supply of domestically produced goods and services often leads to a choice of inappropriate technology.
The key words in that argument— I want to address myself to it— are "appropriate" and "inappropriate". In that connection, I was glad to see that the Committee had taken evidence, both oral and written, from the Intermediate Technology Development Group. I was glad to hear today from the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, that the Committee strongly commended the work of that organisation.
Perhaps I should here declare an interest, although most certainly not a financial interest, as I am one of the vice-presidents of that organisation. It did me that honour because, when I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Overseas Development, as it then was, I used to argue the case for intermediate technology and, after I left the Government, I worked with the ITDG as its development officer.
It was a great privilege to work with Dr. Fritz Schumacher, that brilliant economist who wrote a famous book called Small is Beautiful, to which he added the subtitle, "A study of economics as if people mattered". He applied that thesis and those words to his analysis of the needs of developing countries and of the means by which those needs could best be met. He taught us that the equipment which the peasant communities need— peasant communities represent the vast proportion of the economies of the third world— must be labour-intensive because there is an abundance of labour there and a great dearth of capital.
The equipment must use local skills and local materials and it must serve local markets. It must be simple to operate and to maintain, but— again, this point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote— that does not mean that it must be primitive or second best. Science needs to be applied to the devising of appropriate techniques for developing countries just as much as in the more complex technology of the modern developed world. That point needs emphasising because some recipients are prone to suspect that intermediate technology implies inferior or second best. That is by no means true. It is appropriate but not second best.
I therefore very much appreciate the attitude of the Committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, in considering intermediate technology. I hope that its

439
recommendations in those matters, which are at the top of page 49, will be followed by action on the part of the ODA. I recognise that the encouragement of local production of equipment to meet the needs of local markets might often conflict with the interests of British manufacturers and exporters. Reverting to the Oxfam illustration regarding vehicles, I am sure that the breakdown of vehicles in Africa leads to increased exports from our manufacturers. But surely if we take into account all the appropriate interests that is a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding. If there is a conflict between what is appropriate for development and what suits our exporters, again I commend the committee's view that the needs of the recipients must be paramount in the aid programme.
I should now like to say a few words about another aspect of the report and to call attention to the statement by Professor Bunting quoted on page 16. I believe that what he says is fundamentally crucial and correct. It tends to be overlooked in consideration of these problems. He says:
"Science and technology do not of themselves promote development. unless the development policy of government is sound and determined, and the actions it proposes are feasible and economically as well as socially sustainable, there will be no market for the products of science and technology".
It is worth quoting also from Professor Bunting's letter:
"As in most aid programmes, the technical professionals in ODA's natural resources department are less sensitive than I would wish to developmental, economic and social questions … I know I am right, because I have based my outlook on damn near half a century of experience of failures as well as successes".
I was delighted to read that because it shows that Professor Bunting is the same robust, self-confident and wise Professor Bunting whom I knew 25 years ago in my ODM days.
To sum up, the general thrust of this report I am glad to say is largely in line with what I have argued in respect of intermediate technology and with Professor Bunting's wish for proper social and economic development within which scientists and engineers can operate. I welcome the way in which the committee dealt with the problem of population growth, with which my noble friend Lady Lockwood dealt at some length. I welcome the committee's assertion that the needs of recipients should prevail over the United Kingdom's commercial interests in cases where conflict emerges. I welcome its emphasis on the need for institution-building as a major means by which the results of scientific and technological research can be disseminated throughout the third world. I also welcome the committee's understanding of the role of non-governmental organisations and of those NGOs' capacity for quick action and ready access to the grass roots of the economies that they have at heart. I welcome all those things and therefore, as I said at the beginning, I very much welcome this report.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I should like to preface my remarks with my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the chairman of the committee on which I had the privilege to serve and to congratulate him on the
440
exemplary way in which he introduced this report. My thanks go also to our specialist adviser and our clerk, both of whom in their different ways were towers of strength to us in our deliberations here and in our expeditions overseas.
Let me say at the outset that I am a not uncritical but wholehearted enthusiastic supporter both of the Overseas Development Administration and the British Council. They both do admirable jobs. Although in the course of my remarks I may make some criticism of them, that does not in any way detract from my overall admiration and endorsement of what they do. The noble Viscount spoke of the inadequacy— that may not have been the word he used— of the actual resources that are available for overseas aid. Of course resources are inadequate. They could never be adequate. Overseas aid, properly administered, could swallow up far more than even the most enthusiastic supporters of overseas aid could envisage. But we should look very carefully at our record because it is not one of which we can be proud.
The present government quite rightly exhorts private individuals and businesses to give more in aid because they are doing well out of the economic recovery that we are told we are enjoying at the present time. But surely the fact that we have enjoyed and are having an economic recovery should mean that, at the same time as encouraging people in this country to give more in charity of one kind or another, we should be doing exactly the same thing in our aid (I shall not say charity) to those overseas who are less fortunate than ourselves. There are many millions of them. I shall not give the figures; they are all in the report. However, I refer noble Lords to Fig. 1 on page 11 which shows that, year after year in real terms, there has been not a steady but a continuing decline of our expenditure on overseas aid from 1979 until 1987. There was a welcome recovery in 1988. But even with that recovery our aid is still substantially lower than it was in 1979 and even lower than it was in 1981. That surely requires not only serious thought but heart searching on the part of those responsible for that state of affairs.
I should like to turn for a moment to the British Council which, as I said, does and has done magnificent work and whose relationship with ODA is by and large a very good one. It is worth mentioning that in the report it is pointed out that that good relationship very largely depends upon individual personal relationships. In fact if those personal relationships were to turn a little sour, it could result in a variety of administrative muddles and inefficiencies. It would be worthwhile the ODA and the British Council taking a serious look at their relationships in different countries so as to prevent such things happening. But for all that, I repeat once more that they do a very fine job and with more resources could do an even better one.
One aspect that stands out in my mind is the job that they do with regard to the education of the young, would-be graduates and postgraduates coming to this country. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, reminded us, those numbers have been falling. Yet the figures show a slight increase.

441
That is because the numbers have been reinforced by young people whose parents can afford to pay for them. These are not people who necessarily benefit most themselves, their countries or indeed us.
One very low level example comes to mind. Less than a year ago I was in Harare. Outside the British Council early in the morning, at eight o'clock, was a long queue of young people. I asked who they were. All were young people studying for their O-levels or A-levels in the basement library that the British Council had set aside for these purposes. The number of people it could accommodate was about 50. Once the place was full the doors were shut and those who had been unsuccessful were turned away. But they came back the next day, the next week and the next month. Such is the desire to receive education and obtain qualifications, such is the attitude towards the importance of the work of the British Council that these people get up in the very early hours, walk great distances and are prepared to stand for many hours in order to study.
A very small amount of extra money would enable the British Council to fulfil such requirements to the great benefit of the country, to the great benefit and joy of the individuals concerned, and to the eventual benefit of this country. These people may not necessarily attain influential government positions but they may be in a position to place orders. If they have been educated in this country, whether at lower levels or at higher graduate and postgraduate level, they will automatically turn to us. As it is, I am afraid that they will now turn increasingly to those countries where they received their education— the United States, Germany and France— and decreasingly to the United Kingdom.
Let me refer to some criticisms, again emphasising the fact that overall the job that the ODA does is first class. There is a danger that we are to some extent led astray by projectisation, as the noble Lord reminded us, and more particularly by the importance of projects. Big projects are exciting. Big projects bring kudos. Big projects bring headlines, But it is smaller projects which very often have the most influence on improving the lot of the really poor people of whatever country we are dealing with.
We must not forget— it is well brought out in the report— that the primary objective of aid is to improve the lot of the poorest inhabitants of the poorest countries. That must be done by concentrating on the individual people who will be affected by these new techniques, discoveries and improvements whether it concerns health, communications, water supply, or (of the greatest importance to my mind) the provision of food or other agricultural products.
I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said about the intermediate technology. ODA gives some assistance to those who are promoting it. I do not know whether it would do much better work if it were given extra money. But the concept of intermediate technology is one of vital importance. In order to bring about such technology we have to know a great deal more than most of us, including the aid givers, know about the conditions of the people about whom we are talking— how they live
442
and their living conditions. Until we understand that, we cannot come to any right and just assessment of what the priorities should be and how we should set about meeting them.
I give two examples of what I have in mind. In India I saw two medical projects of great interest. One was research into leprosy; another research into a disease about which perhaps some noble Lords may not have heard. It is called thalassaemia. Both are serious, unpleasant and occasionally fatal diseases. However, leprosy has to a large extent been conquered and thalassaemia hardly exists in India. It is a disease primarily of the Mediterranean and Caribbean area. There are many diseases, many factors, causing deaths among children, mothers and adults throughout the sub-continent which are responsible for far more suffering.
It is asked— and I am not satisfied with the answers— whether we have the means of assessing that one project which asks for money will do more good for the poorest people in the area than another. It is the decision making on priorities that I believe is not as strong as it should be in the present administration.
I should like to suggest the importance of the system of land ownership. Anyone who has studied the history of agricultural advance in the United Kingdom knows full well that we could not have made the advances that we did in the 17th, 18th and in particular the 19th century if it had not been for enclosures, the landlord-tenant system which grew up, and the creation of a form of rural society. We want the same advances made in Africa, Asia and in Latin America. But we know precious little about the systems of land ownership. We know precious little about how the money can be obtained or what money lenders or banking institutions there are. I am not referring to the World Bank or businesses in the cities. I am referring to the small peasant farming family wanting a little money to buy a plough, some fertiliser or some seed. How does that family obtain the money it needs? The farmer requires capital that he does not have: the money lender and the landowner will charge inordinate rates of interest. Who will share in the new increased productivity? Will the money lender take most? Will the landowner take most from his sharecropper or will the man who does the work reap the greatest reward? Before we can say that we will improve the productivity of the majority of people living in the poorest countries we must ask and obtain answers to those questions. I urge the ODA to give more thought to the agrarian structure of countries and the habits and customs of their people.
There are people educated in the extension services who play a vital role. Schoolteachers are essential because literacy is part of any progress. How are we to persuade schoolteachers, doctors and nurses to live in remote country districts far from the bright lights, the supply of piped water, electricity and any intellectual companionship? The only answer is to place more emphasis on improving the general standard of living in country districts so that young doctors, nurses and agricultural graduates are prepared to live there rather than sit in the air-conditioned offices of the capital and drive about in government motor cars.

443
Answers to those problems are essential if there is to be proper use of the results of research and development leading to advancement in the poorest parts of the world. Without the means of taking the results to the dirty boot farmer a great deal will be wasted.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I doubt whether anyone in this House disagrees with any paragraph in the report. Yet, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, essentially it is an orthodox report. He mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, with whom I took part in a television programme a few years ago. It took the format of a split screen and was on the proposition that overseas aid is dangerous. There was not much doubt that the audience believed that overseas aid is a good thing. Nevertheless, "a good thing" can be superficial, mealy-mouthed and merely accepted without a great deal of study.
In reading the report, I found a great deal of it to be commonplace, complacent and lacking in urgency. There is a particular lack of urgency when measured against the World Bank report, Crisis to Sustainable Development. That report shows what has happened to Africans during the past 10 years. It shows that they are now eating less, living shorter lives and more of their children are dying. Surely, it is to those critical issues that the committee should have turned its attention. Too often it accepts the status quo with a certain amount of superficial adjustment.
But the situation is desperate for millions of people. Only radical, fundamental and immediate changes can attempt to face the major challenges now presented to us by the people of African and other third world countries. I shall compare the report with, for example, the Aldington Report, which stirred people passionately both for and against aid. The report was not followed and its predictions have come true. However, if it had been followed there would have been fundamental changes in the way in which this country conducts its overseas trade.
The report makes no comments about the respective merits of an ODA or a Ministry of Overseas Development. My noble friend Lord Oram was a distinguished member of the Ministry and can say a great deal about the advantages of having a Ministry of Overseas Development with its Minister in the Cabinet. The Ministry was able to affect the activities of other departments. The report does not comment on the lively debate about the respective functions of the ODA as it now exists and the Departments of Trade and Industry and Education and Science. Several reports have proposed that part of the work now carried out by the ODA should be carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry because it involves trade rather than aid. There is nothing wrong with trade; we wish to encourage it. The Aldington Report attempts to encourage trade with third world countries. However, it is a trade issue and not an aid issue.
Government funds to support British companies in their attempts to obtain markets in third world
444
countries should come from the Department of Trade and Industry. If I had time I should relate an anecdote from Zimbabwe, where I tried to persuade the DTI to compete with the Dutch for the replacement of the whole civil aircraft industry there. I could not do so. However, the Dutch did it because they put their aid alongside their trade as part of their national policy. The anecdote is relevant and points out the general acceptance in the report that the situation will remain as it is, but with suggestions for improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, rightly and forthrightly raised the subject of the amount of aid. The report gives the amount of aid as being 0.29 per cent. of GNP in 1987. Last year it was 0.32 per cent. That is a welcome but tiny rise and I pay tribute to Christopher Patten for what he did in that respect. But it is 0.32 per cent. compared with 0.53 per cent. in 1979. It is not enough to say that the GNP was different. Whenever we have challenged the Government during the past 10 years we have been consistently told that the percentage allocated to overseas aid has fallen because times are bad. When the economy becomes a miracle economy, how is it that overseas aid does not rise with the miracle? How is it that it has not risen at least to its 1979 level? If the miracle is genuine today it would be competing with those of the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, the Norwegians and the Canadians. It should be not merely attaining but surpassing the 0.7 per cent. target.
When we are talking about figures like 0.32 per cent. or 0.7 per cent. we are really talking about resources. What has happened to resources? In fact, on balance, resources have been coming from the third world to the developed world. That is so today. That is as a result partly of debt and partly of the necessary emphasis on exports from the third world in order to obtain foreign currency. There are more resources every year leaving the third world for the developed world than the whole amount of official and unofficial aid going to the third world. Are the Government happy with that? Unfortunately, that is not mentioned in this report, but I should like to know what is the Government's view on that. How do they equate the economic miracle with sucking resources from third world people at a time when 17.5 million children are dying of starvation every year in the third world?
On some of the detailed points made, those of us who have lived in third world countries find that many of the comments made are almost irrelevant. Let us take that case of agriculture. Anyone who has lived in any third world country knows that the great gap in development has been the neglect of agriculture. That is so all over the African continent.
Pages 28 and 29 of the report deal with agriculture. However, in its recommendations concerning agriculture paragraph 4.46 states:
"The Committee consider that the factor most likely to improve African agricultural productivity would be the creation of a supply of well-trained, well-supported manpower for the agricultural professions and related research".
That does not touch the issue; namely, that African countries and governments have not been putting resources into and expanding agriculture. Some of

445
us have spent the last 25 years trying to persuade them to do so. They have not done that and are not doing that today. There are some exceptions; for example, Zimbabwe and Botswana. However, most of the third world countries are not doing that. I am not saying that we can tell them to do it but we can influence them in our aid policy. Nothing at all is said on that.
As regards the agricultural issue, intermediate technology has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Oram and by the noble Lord, Lord Waist on. However, let us go back to the days of Rene Dumont. He did have some effect and did teach that hoes should precede tractors. Read his book False Start in Africa and see the reports which he gave to Tanzania, Zambia and Sierra Leone as well as to the francophone countries which he knew so much better.
At page 42, paragraph 7.34, the report states:
"Evidence from the DTI suggests that the United Kingdom contractors do extremely well in winning contracts under multilateral aid".
That is not what we found in the Aldington Report. We found that the support given by governments among our major competitors— the French, Germans, Italians and Japanese— was far greater than the support given by this Government. When it came to contracting, we were left way behind because the national policy of our major competitors, as I pointed out earlier, was to combine aid and trade.
Let us take the case of personnel. In this respect I have a very personal grouse with what is reported. Paragraph 5.20 states:
"The Committee greatly regret the declining availability in the United Kingdom of S&T personnel".
It is only about two years ago that the University of East Anglia had a lobby here in which some of us took part. It asked us to organise a petition, and there was a petition in this House and a petition in the other place in order to save its undergraduate programme at the School of Development Studies. We did save that, but today there is only the finance to admit half the number of undergraduates which were there at that time.
Therefore, there is a lack of personnel. There is bound to be because there have been cuts in the finance available for supporting that personnel, which is doing first class and practical research work. If you come with me to the University of East Anglia you will see a map with pieces of ribbon going all over the world which show the contacts with institutions that that school has. That was almost killed by the cuts imposed by this Government.
One issue with which I think my noble friend Lord Oram would particularly sympathise is that nothing is said in the report about development education. There was a scheme on which some of us had worked for two years and we produced a report in July 1978. The report went to every government department concerned; it was costed and the budget was approved. When I spoke about that scheme in Geneva to all the non-governmental organisations I was told that it was the most imaginative and radical scheme on development education that had been
446
developed anywhere in the world. What happened to it? As soon as this Government came into power, they scrapped it. A number of members of that committee have stayed together and kept in contact. Where is the Government's development education programme today? There is not one. However, you cannot have a healthy and growing overseas aid programme without having the understanding and support of the public of this country. That was what the development education project aimed to do because it was devised by a committee under a Ministry.
Finally— and very briefly, but by no means of least importance; in fact I would say that it is most important— I turn to an issue which has been touched on. What vision did the committee have of the tremendous task of enabling developing peoples to raise their standard of living just to the point at which they can sustain life, without at the same time following our bad example of helping to destroy the environment of our planet?
That is an essential matter for science and technology. There is reference to the conservation of the environment, but that is the job of scientists and technologists. Some are already looking at this question. To mention my own university, they are looking at it in the school of environmental sciences along with the school of development studies in Norwich. The Government should provide the resources, the guidance and the encouragement to face this major task for the human race over the next quarter of a century.
I should mention that some parts of our aid programme are helping to pollute the planet. If one reads the booklet on aid and pollution in India it will be seen to what I am referring. There are many other examples. It is a major challenge to the future of the human race to find the means of technology by which developing peoples can raise their standards of living just to maintain life, using technology that does not involve the destruction of the environment; that does not involve burning down rain forests; that does not increase the size of the hole in the ozone layer and does not promote the greenhouse effect. That is a major challenge which, I am disappointed to see, has not been met in this report.
6.22 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on the small but nevertheless important part of this excellent report, which deals with population activities. Perhaps I may begin by quoting in full the admirable summary of the committee's opinion at paragraph 3.23. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I too should like to commend the preceding paragraphs 3.19 to 3.22. Paragraph 3.23 states:
"The Committee strongly support ODA's commitment to population activities. All opportunities to undertake such activities, as part of the bilateral aid programme, should be seized. Her Majesty's Government should seek increased action on the issue in international fora wherever possible. Support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives should be increased".
I am grateful to the committee for responding to the evidence, which was only in written form and which is printed on pages 197 to 199 of the volume of

447
evidence given to the Select Committee and which was submitted by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. To declare my interest, I should say that I am the vice-chairman of that group. I should also make clear that I was not on the Select Committee which produced the report before us.
On reading the report it is clear that some members of the Select Committee who went to India were able to appreciate population pressures at first hand; the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned Nigeria. I should like to mention in this debate the very recent experiences that I had with a few other parliamentarians, including, as she said, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on a visit to family planning associations in Ecuador and Mexico while attending a conference as observers of the Inter-American Parliamentary Group on Population and Development in Quito. This consisted of delegations of parliamentarians from almost all countries in North and South America. Having gone all that way it is worth reporting two unexpected angles of the final outcome of the conference.
Throughout there had been mention in various contexts of the real effect of the overhanging burden of debt on so many countries. In brief, when cut-backs had to be made in order to service these debts, particularly in these times of high interest rates, one of the first programmes to be cut back was the family planning and related health services; this just at a time when such services are beginning to be widely accepted and valued.
On the final day of the conference, when a document called The Quito Declaration was presented for the approval of the conference, there was a lively and heated debate from the delegates, who succeeded in insisting that a strong mention should be added reflecting the concern of those trying to provide family planning services— which everyone wanted to provide— against the background of the huge unresolved debt which affected most countries there. These were feelings being expressed by fellow parliamentarians, although in some cases these were Front Benchers rather than Back Benchers.
The other unexpected angle arose from Latin American perceptions concerning what was happening in Eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with his experience in the DTI, will probably be familiar with this, but the fear was expressed in various contexts that we in Europe would now devote most of our energies to helping to sort out our neighbours in Eastern Europe and in consequence both trade and aid to Latin America would be neglected.
To return to the report before us, it confirms in detail that there are no simple answers in this field of population development. It is apparent in both the written and oral evidence of the department that their research and evaluation, undertaken both directly and in collaboration, is almost necessarily frustratingly slow in this area. However, progress is being made and the committee encourages that work.
448
Just as certain types of detailed research work are particularly suited to the scale of the ODA, other usually larger efforts in population activities are generally best left to the specialities and expertise of the multilateral and non-governmental agencies. The report says in paragraph 3.23 that support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives should be increased. I shall come to multilateral organisations later, but perhaps I may first mention one of the two British NGOs in this area— Population Concern— of which I should say that I am on the campaign committee.
Fund raising in this country is difficult and the 100 per cent. government funding of the projects accepted is much appreciated and, in my opinion, represents very worthwhile value for money. The fact that the main returns and benefits of money spent now are long-term is one of the reasons why fund raising in particular and support for family planning is so difficult to tap and why this area is particularly appropriate for governmental action and support.
With the experience of Population Concern, whose schemes are locally managed in the countries concerned, I know that further funding could be successfully utilised. One further main and unique activity of Population Concern is education on these issues in this country, particularly among the young and mainly in the wider context of environmental issues.
At a large conference organised by Population Concern for older school children at Harrogate last year, the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, made an excellent keynote speech on the subject of population growth. In her conclusion she said:
"There is no time to lose",
and
"I do not believe we can afford to turn our backs on the problems raised by high population growth rates. To ignore population growth is to hasten environmental degradation".
Perhaps I may say that we are extremely fortunate that Mrs. Chalker has more than lived up to the legacy left to her in this field by her predecessor, Mr. Chris Patten. Her evidence to the committee, not just on population, but in particular her crystal ball gazing, was very impressive.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the multilateral organisations. The recommendation of the committee for increased support was echoed in the longer term thinking of the head of the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Nafis Sadik, at a press conference in London to launch their report called The State of the World Population 1989. This focused mainly on the role of women, but among the many recommendations in the report was the proposal that substantial increases in funding could be beneficially used in this area and that, as a goal, by the year 2000 donor governments could aim to increase international assistance for family planning programmes from the present 0–5 billion dollars to 2–5 billion dollars annually. That is a fivefold increase and an indication of the scale of resources needed successfully to confront this aspect of development problems facing us.
Perhaps I may briefly quote a few words from the speech of the Prime Minister at the United Nations

449
last November. She was speaking in a debate on the global environment. She said:
"More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer lumbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world's population was some 2 billion people. My grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people. Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities".
That extract should be read in its full context, as it was very much longer. When the Prime Minister referred to activities I am sure she was referring as much to the northern hemisphere as to the southern hemisphere.
The other great multilateral population organisation— The International Planned Parenthood Federation; the IPPF— has suggested that at least 2 billion dollars annually will be required by the end of the 1990s to meet the challenges in this field. The Secretary General of the IPPF, Dr. Mahler, following a talk he gave in this building last year, contributed an article to the environment edition of our House magazine of 12th February 1990. In that article he explained the thoughts behind the figures that I have just mentioned. Dr. Mahler was addressing politicians, so he also told us that he believes political action is most important in this area but that nationally and internationally it is sorely lacking.
These large figures of billions of dollars are not demands but estimates and indications of the scale of the problems still to be faced. I believe that our Government have a good record in this field and I hope they will be strengthened by this report now before us to go even further in our contribution to and co-operation with the IPPF.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, last week I had experience of seeing at first hand the work of the Family Planning Association in Ecuador and Mexico, funded mainly by the IPPF. I was extremely impressed by the sensitive and multi-faceted approach that we found; by the continuous and strict evaluation of the programmes; and that in the midst of shortage of funds attempts were being made to create sustainable, self-supporting, long-term solutions which we hope will not need continuous funding.
Given the present coverage of these countries, restricted by resources, we could see for ourselves how further funds could beneficially be used. So much seemed to depend on local expertise and understanding that has been built up over the years; and for a change, instead of just talking about the need to help women, we saw for ourselves the beneficiaries of the health and clinic services that have been provided. I am optimistic about the progress being made in this field in Latin America and I believe that increased funding can be profitably utilised.
I conclude by quoting paragraph 9.14 in the summary of recommendations in this excellent report:
"Her Majesty's Government should take up all opportunities for population activities under the bilateral programme, and seek increased action in international fora. Support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives in the area of population and family planning should be increased".
6.34 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I too have an uneasy feeling about this report but not for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Hatch. It seems to me that he has misunderstood the role of the committee. If he refers to the beginning of the report he will see that the committee— of which I was not a very active member because I was unable to play the part I had hoped— looked into a limited area. It was not looking into the organisation of overseas aid generally. I draw attention to paragraph 1.9:
"The range of areas which the Committee have considered includes research and development, technology transfer, provision of expert advice and consultancy, materials and equipment, information, training, education".
My goodness, that is a large enough area anyway, and the ability to confine it into a useful and effective report depended much on the chairman and the excellent professional help he had, not to mention the members of the committee.
The report goes on to say:
"The last [training and education] has been of special interest to the Committee for, as Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, said in inaugurating a meeting of the Society for International Development … 'It is through good education that science and technology are pressed into the service of the betterment of the individual and the nation' ".
Some of the subjects that my noble friend Lord Hatch had hoped would be covered, such as the greenhouse effect and pollution, have been covered by other reports produced by the committee, again looking at the subject in terms of science and technology. This was a difficult report to produce and of course it has limitations, but it is a very good job considering the constraints that had to be met in order to produce a report at all.
One of the difficulties with our report— I speak as, at one time, chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and, along with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, I was one of your Lordships' sponsors in developing this— was to get it into an intelligible form. One really needs to read all the evidence. There is any amount of wisdom in the evidence, in the cross-examination of witnesses, and so on. Therefore, I believe that a difficult job has been done very successfully.
The fact that I have anxieties does not arise from the nature of the report but from the difficulty of the subject. In this area there is so much of what might be called the popular view which is not certain. There is the book Small is Beautiful by that great man Schumacher. However, that is misleading because people then say that the science and technology they have must necessarily always be simple. I am glad to say that we now call it appropriate technology.
I give one example: the use of satellites. This is an area which the Select Committee examined. It put forward some strong recommendations together with some critical comments as far as concerns the Government. People may ask what possible use satellites are in developing countries; yet they are fundamental in developing the infrastructure and appropriate technology. It is shortsighted not to use them because they contribute to the land information system which is fundamental to the development of R&D and overseas development

451
generally. It is in the area of land information and geographic information services, and so on, where the new technologies are required. That does not mean that, on the ground, one needs advanced technology. I could give many examples of the use of, say, remote sensing for development areas, but I shall not take up the time of the House.
Some very interesting pamphlets have been published by Farnborough on the use of remote sensing in the developing parts of the world. I should like to see rather more spent in that area and at least some effort made to do as much, or nearly as much, as the French and the Germans. Again, from the report there is considerable criticism about the shortage of funds provided by the Government. It is in the remote sensing area where, again, the French and the Germans are giving a lead to the rest of the world and we are sitting back not playing the part which our own science and technology are capable of playing.
I turn briefly to one other aspect of the use of science and technology. I noticed a criticism in the New Scientist from the chief executive of the Intermediate Technology Development Group. He said:
"I thought the report excellent with one omission. It fails to recognise the importance of indigenous science and technology capacity. We work by looking at local organisations first and trying to build on".
The noble Viscount who chaired the commitee answered that criticism very fully and made clear that it was a recommendation of the committee to build up local institutions.
I wish to give one or two examples of how that is best done. In the application of science and technology it is important not to think always of direct benefit. Science does not exist simply on the basis of its application: there is the pursuit of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge will create the opportunities for improved living conditions. One has only to consider the work done in pure science. I do not regard the Antarctic as a development area because I do not want to see that area developed at all. There was the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer which was achieved purely in the pursuit of science. That was of tremendous importance in revealing the problems that confront us.
I wish to give some examples of how that kind of scientific work can contribute to the development of science and technology in developing countries. In this connection I refer to the Royal Geographical Society. Next Monday a lecture is to be given by Sir Crispin Tickell, the former Permanent Secretary of the ODA. He has recently returned from the successful negotiations with the Argentine. His lecture will be on the subject of the environment.
The Royal Geographical Society has taken a very clear view as to what its duties are concerning its projects. They are basically scientific undertakings but they have relevant application to this subject. I refer to the Mulu expedition in which I have a particular interest. On many occasions in 55 years I climbed Mulu carrying a theodolite. I did not have a satellite in those days to tell me where I was.
452
In connection with the new expedition the Royal Geographical Society arranged that the scientific results should first be published in the Sarawak Museum Journal.
There was another expedition into the Karakoram which I was able to visit. I spent half an hour at Gilgit and I now regard myself as an expert! One can do a great deal in half an hour. One can just look at the incredible country. The first review conference was held in Islamabad. The monograph from the Kora research project in 1983 was published by the National Museum of Kenya. In addition there was the Wahiba sands project. A seminar was held in Muscat and the report was published in the Journal of Oman Studies. One of the most important projects in Brazil is having the results published in Portuguese in the Brazilian journal Acta Amazonica.
The fundamental need to work with local scientists has been stressed by others. In the Maracá project there were 30 British scientists and 50 Brazilian scientists. The same was true of the Kimberley project which I was also able to visit. There were twice as many Australian scientists as British scientists. The policy of the Royal Geographical Society is similar to that of the Royal Society which is doing the overseas work. The policy is that the reports should be published and that a popular form of those reports should also be published and made available to schools. Sensitivity in the use of information of this kind is essential. That is a point I should have wished to see more strongly pressed. However, it comes through in the text of the report. We need to be very careful and to realise that scientific knowledge is valuable in the long run. The pursuit of knowledge and of science does not always have to have an immediate application.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I intend to focus on the subject which has already been discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and that is population. That being so, I must declare an interest. As a director of Marie Stopes International, I went to India last year to do some work in connection with the clinics that we run there. I shall be spending the Easter Recess in Kenya and Zimbabwe studying the development of our clinics and the work that is being carried out there by the organisations.
I want to deal with the population issue from a different perspective. It has been touched on only slightly by previous speakers. Before speaking about the population question as such, I wish to stress that this issue is part of a whole to which the problem of poverty in the developing countries is central. However much we may encourage modern practices of family planning birth control and any of the many other devices available for controlling the population, nothing is going to happen in these developing countries so long as poverty is of such a degree that the only people to whom the families can look for help in times of difficulty, and in the inevitable times of extreme difficulty such as old age, unemployment and sickness, are their own children.

453
There is no National Health Service, old age pension or sick pay. There is no support during life's emergencies. One has to rely on one's children. We are whistling in the wind if we think that we shall get people voluntarily to control their families before they obtain security in some other way. That is why the economic aspect of development and the ability to increase wealth in those countries is intimately tied up with population control. One cannot be achieved without the other.
Parts of the report deal with ways in which economic development can be assisted. There is also the question of the population problem which is also part of dealing with wealth creation. They are two parts of the whole. I agree with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and that is the urgency of the issue. We have had the population figures quoted, and we have seen the statistics in the report.
The situation is not getting better. Indeed, regarding the world population and the problems arising from the excessive increases in that population, it is quickly getting worse. It is not a marginal matter. The central world problem is finding ways to control the population. I am not speaking about environmental issues, though they are intimately connected with the subject. The population issue is not one about which we can afford to do a little now, and then rather more later on when we can more easily afford it. The longer we leave the problem, the worse it will become.
Unless we give this subject a very high priority indeed and put other important and desirable issues lower down in the order of those that we must deal with, we shall find that later on we have considerable problems on our hands. They will be extremely difficult for us to deal with. I beg the Government to look again at what they feel able to do at the moment. In particular, I ask them to look again at the support they can give to the NGOs.
The report quite rightly stresses the ways in which NGOs are able to make a very considerable contribution. For a whole variety of reasons they are less bureaucratic and able to make and carry out decisions more quickly. That is not the situation in all cases. In most cases the NGOs can act more swiftly than can government. If the NGOs had more resources and support, they could work far more quickly on these very urgent problems. Can the Government not see that this is a matter in which our own self-interest as well at that of the developing countries is very much at stake?
I wish to refer in particular to one aspect of the way in which a fall in population can be brought about. It has already been referred to in the debate but only in passing. One factor that seems to correlate with voluntary restriction on family size is the education of women. The figures for illiteracy among women in developing countries are in every case higher than the figures for illiteracy among men. It is quite plain that there is an urgent need to improve opportunities for the education of women.
If women are illiterate they cannot read the instructions on labels to tell them what to do with birth control equipment. They have no means of supporting themselves because they have nothing
454
they can effectively sell in the world market and therefore they are entirely dependent for their livelihood, for their status and for their whole being on what they do inside the family. They are dependent in many cases on the determination of their menfolk to have more children.
In India— I do not know a great deal about other countries— there is considerable resistance among many men, partly for economic reasons but also for macho reasons, to restricting voluntarily the size of the family. Women who are illiterate and uneducated are unable to support themselves economically. They are very much at the mercy of the culture into which they are born and which their menfolk maintain. The education of women is vital. Educated women can make an economic contribution themselves. They are not so dependent on what their husbands are able to produce. They can earn money on their own which gives them an independent status which they would not otherwise have.
One way in which this can be done is by giving the opportunity for women to be educated and trained, first, in their own countries but also in this country. For those who will take leadership positions in the health services, in schools and in the technical field it is undoubtedly a great help that they should be able to study in this country. During the years I was working at the London School of Economics I saw large numbers of people from the developing countries. An important number of women were able to go back properly trained and equipped. This had a multiplier effect. It is a sad fact that the increase in fees for overseas students has made it more difficult for appropriate women to come here to be trained.
They must of course be the right women, women who have proved that they are capable of passing on this knowledge in their own countries. They should come not at the earlier stages of their education but when they have a good basis in their own country. They can then return and plough that knowledge and skill back into their own countries where it is badly needed.
Although these are urgent issues it is not good enough to say that the Government should do more. We all say that the Government should do more. I believe that the NGOs are there in many cases. They are established, they have their contacts and they have proved that they can be very effective. I wonder whether it would be possible to hold a small conference of key NGOs. I include schools, universities, women's organisations, churches, trade unions and employers' organisations. They might be able to put forward programmes for helping on the education front. Such work is going on already. Can not the Government do more to prime the pump for the NGOs. With extra resources a great many of them could make a considerable impact at the levels where they have contact— unions with unions, churches with churches, schools with schools, universities with universities. In this way one could speed up the development of education, which is absolutely vital if we are to get the population under control and if we are to bring about the increase in prosperity without which population will not be under control.

455
We are told that by the year 2025— that will be comfortably beyond my time although the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may have to face it— the world population will be between 8.5 and 10 billion. The figure is so horrifying that we do not allow our minds to rest on it. It should be remembered that 94 per cent. of this development will occur in developing countries. We should do all we can now to restrict this development. It is a matter of the highest urgency. If we bring the NGOs together and provide some pump-priming money, within 10 years they will have achieved a great deal.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I congratulate the chairman and members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on their report. As previous speakers have said, the committee took on a vast subject. The result has been a good and constructive report.
My noble friend Lord Hatch said that the report lacked urgency and that it did not measure up to the desperate needs of third world countries. He compared our record with those of our European neighbours. I have a certain sympathy with what he said. Nevertheless I believe that his criticisms were more about what the report did not contain than what it did contain.
The part of the report concerning population has been well covered by no fewer than three speakers. My only experience of this subject was gained when I was in Kenya with UNICEF a few months ago. UNICEF experienced a certain amount of success in persuading women to take on birth control. However, when I went on to Sudan I found the very reverse. This proves the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Progress in this area depends very much on how prosperous a country is becoming.
The report said certain things which have been said before but which cannot be repeated too often. It stressed that aid should be first and foremost for the benefit of the recipients. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and my noble friend Lord Oram also made this point. It is enormously important to repeat that the needs of the recipients must be paramount in the aid programme.
My second point, which has often been made before, and made, I believe, from these Benches in particular, concerns the level of United Kingdom aid expenditure. The report stressed that the 0–29 per cent. of GNP as it was in 1987 was inadequate. Although it has risen slightly since then it still falls short of the United Nations target of 0–7 per cent. of GNP. This percentage has been exceeded by Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. It is right to remember that between 1975 and 1979 the average was 0–45 per cent. of GNP. In 1988 official development assistance was only 79 per cent. of its value in 1979.
Therefore I agree with the report's recommendation that expenditure on aid should move towards the UN target as quickly as is practicable. The noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Butterworth, made the point that the lack of quantity
456
of British aid has been made up by quality. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch in that I should certainly like to see both factors.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Shackleton who talked about there being another important category of research and development; namely, the indigenous knowledge and capacity for research and development which exists among the poorer communities. I believe that that is a very important point and one which should not be forgotten. In fact it could be said that while the report rightly places a great deal of emphasis on the building up of capabilities of local institutions, it rather perpetuates the view that science and technology mainly flow from the North to the South. Therefore, if we ignore or override the indigenous knowlege, we risk missing out on the potential to stimulate science and technology development at the level where it matters most.
The Intermediate Technology Development Group has been praised by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. However, it is worth remembering that it was through a recommendation of the ODM 1977 working party on appropriate technology, which was set up by my noble friend Lady Hart, that funds were allocated to the ITDG in the first place. That was clearly a useful and very far-sighted move which has borne ample fruit so far as concerns this organisation, although it is a pity that the wider recommendations of the 1977 working party have never been pursued more vigorously. That fact was, perhaps, accepted by the Select Committee in that it went back to the ODA with a subsidiary question specifically asking about the progress made under that particular initiative in 1977.
The report comments on the relationship between the ODA and the British Council. The noble Viscount mentioned this as did the noble Lord, Lord Walston. The committee found that the two organisations co-operate effectively, despite complicated interaction whereby the council undertakes its own activities funded by "mixed money" from the Foreign Office and the ODA, as well as acting as managing agent on a contract basis. In view of this very complex relationship, I believe that the committee was very wise to recommend that the Foreign Office should define the areas of responsibility of the two organisations. I certainly share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the British Council; indeed, that goes without saying.
The Committee also felt that to ensure that science and technology are used to the best possible effect throughout the aid programme the Minister for Overseas Development should appoint an advisory panel of independent experts, including leading scientists and engineers from outside ODA. That seems an excellent recommendation as, indeed, was another recommendation requesting that additional assistance with British university fees and charges be introduced for students from the poorest developing countries, perhaps by way of an enhanced scholarship scheme. I must admit that I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He felt

457
that students coming from abroad might be the ones who can pay, rather than those who now deserve the opportunity to study.
I was also impressed by the committee's views about giving continued support to individuals after they had completed their course of study or training in this country in order to help them work as well as they can on their return to their home countries. It is easy to imagine that some former students might feel that it is really impossible to work in a difficult environment in a struggling country to which they returned without the contacts, information and support suggested by the committee.
The Select Committee took evidence from several NGOs and some noble Lords have mentioned this in their speeches. I was pleased to see that the committee agreed that such organisations were more successful at reaching the poor and identifying with them than were government agencies. It suggested that; he ODA should take note of that fact by increasing their funding. From my own experience in this field I believe that the great virtue of the ODA's finance for voluntary agencies is that such agencies can design the most appropriate technical interventions jointly with the communities they serve. Therefore, instead of costly top-down technologies which rarely translate successfully from the research stations to the poor farmer, a voluntary agency can respond to local conditions and constraints.
Indeed, in my work as President of SOS Sahel, which is an NGO that works in afforestation and environmental projects, I have seen how valuable such support can be. For example, in Sudan, SOS Sahel with ODA funds is implementing a successful community forestry programme where, for the first time, the sites for shelterbelts against desert encroachment are chosen, planted and managed by the threatened communities themselves. In Mali the ODA is financing an erosion control work which will enhance the agricultural production in an area of declining food security. In Ethiopia, as part of a bilateral aid programme, SOS Sahel will research ways of combating ubiquitous crop diseases directly with local peasant associations.
I believe that those are examples of work with some of the poorest communities in the poorest countries in the world. I think that the work of such NGOs, as the noble Baroness said, is something which the ODA must support. However, I should also say that it is most important to fund an agency which has identified projects which will truly help the local community. I say that because it can be very difficult to identify such projects.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that the report's recommendations and conclusions should really make an important contribution to our aid policies. I hope that the Government will take note of what it says. I should like to end my speech by quoting a section from the conclusions of a lecture which Princess Anne, in her capacity as President of the Save the Children Fund, made to the Royal Society. It is very much in the spirit of the Select Committee's report She concluded her lecture by saying:
"A much greater understanding of what is genuine aid is having its effect the importance of long-term projects with community
458
involvement, backed up always by education and training; the use of human and physical resources with practical concern for the environment; the use of applicable technology and tools for self-reliance; and finally, continuing assessment, evaluation and a lot more co-operation. As long as we learn our lessons well, international aid will become more and more effective … The Western world has so much to offer and so many people who are highly motivated to help, but we must not forget how long it has taken us to reach these levels of knowledge and how our own societies have not all been able to come to terms with the changes. How can we expect the developing world to be able to absorb and use all that knowledge in not much more than a generation? Our aid is on the right lines, but we can make it work better. Certainly we must if our world is to have a better future".
I believe that the contents of the report are very much in the spirit of those words. I very much hope that the Government will take note of its contents.
7.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have a great deal of material to get through and therefore I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with what I have to say at something of a gallop.
The Government have welcomed and encouraged the Select Committee's review of the UK's scientific and technical aid to developing countries. I should like to congratulate the committee on a comprehensive and balanced study of the issues involved. Your Lordships will understand that I am unable formally to anticipate the Government's official reply. This will be published early in April. Nevertheless, I have noted a number of recommendations in support of the work which we are doing. I take encouragement from that. The report calls on the Government to do more in some areas. We shall of course consider those recommendations in the context of our overall aid programme; but I point out that one cannot always have more of everything. The Government will have to look very carefully at the priorities that we have set on the various aspects of the aid programme and the costs (administrative and otherwise) which would be involved in devoting more effort to scientific and technical aid.
The development success stories of the past two decades can be attributed in large part to the capacity of certain countries to absorb modern technology by integrating it fully into their productive and service activities. They have profoundly changed the whole structure of their economy. In other cases, technological progress has made its most substantive impact in specific sectors. In agriculture and health, for example, major discoveries and their application in solving major problems have often been at the root of rapid advances. The green revolution, for example, and various health technologies have had deep developmental impacts in some countries.
Not all countries have been able effectively to apply such new technologies. Nor have technological solutions been found to all the problems. The impact of developments in science and technology has thus been uneven in different countries and parts of the world. Differences in scientific and technological capacity and the focus of international research efforts have profound consequences for a country's development path and performance. Moreover, some major recent advances are in highly

459
research-intensive areas where the impact is particularly diffuse; for example, new materials, telecommunications, space and remote sensing technologies. In those areas the advantages are available mainly to countries above a certain threshold in terms of human capital and institutional competence. On the other hand, some science and technology developments— for example, in biotechnology and information technology— are so fast and their propagation so easy that the issue, even for the least developed countries, is not whether to engage in those technologies but to what extent and for what purpose.
Faced with those challenges, what then should be the role of science and technology in the aid programme? The committee's report emphasises rightly that science and technology pervade most areas of aid. The report acknowledges that only some of what constitutes scientific and technical aid can be separately identified and quantified. In the Government's view it is important that science and technology are seen in the context of our basic development objective, which is to promote sustainable economic and social development and alleviate poverty in developing countries. The aid programme does not have a mission to spread a particular technology. Rather it must aim to deploy appropriate technology and science to help achieve carefully specified objectives furthering sustainable development.
We cannot use the aid programme to foster science for its own sake. Full account must be taken of environmental and local institutional considerations to ensure that the benefits are neither wasted nor give rise to undesirable side effects. A firm scientific and technological underpinning for aid projects and programmes is vital; but so is a clear awareness of the possible institutional, social and other constraints which are often the dominant ones. The Government believe that the appropriate and successful selection and design of aid projects requires collaboration between donors and recipients and frequently require an inter disciplinary approach. Only in that way can we be sure that the technologies adopted are appropriate to the economic circumstances and human resource base of the country concerned, and that local institutions responsible for project implementation have the managerial and technical skills to sustain their operation.
It is the needs and requirements of developing countries which drive the S&T input into the aid programme. But that does not mean that our work is essentially responsive. Britain is endowed with research expertise, in research institutes and other organisations, many of which have wide experience of developing countries. The Government draw to the full on the rich reservoir of talent in the planning and implementation of operational programmes and in the commissioning of R&D programmes geared to those requirements.
A feature of that work is its inter-disciplinary nature. The Government's R&D planning in the aid field increasingly recognises the requirement to involve a range of scientific disciplines. Those will
460
vary according to the type of research being conducted. The benefits of inter-disciplinary research are considerable. Research is no different from other components of the aid programme. What we do, must take into account the effect on the poorest peoples, relevant social factors and the environmental impact.
In areas of S&T infrastructure, the Government have done much to encourage links between specific British and overseas institutions. That includes training both in the UK and overseas. We are seeking to increase the extent to which local researchers and institutions can be associated with the scientific and technology research work supported by the Government. For example, link programmes in India based on research have resulted in the establishment of masters degree courses and short specialist courses, giving a greater degree of sustainability and wider dissemination of the research results. In future, more attention will be paid to involving local industry in applying research; to splitting research degrees, thus minimising training spent in UK; and to supporting specific programmes which strengthen links between bodies in the UK and institutions in selected tropical countries.
Many of the problems facing the developing countries are so complex and so widespread that research resources need to be deployed on an international scale. The Government make an important contribution to international research and development, in particular to the work of the international research centres of the CGIAR on food crops, animal production and disease, to the WHO'S tropical disease research programme, diarrhoeal disease control programme and the global programme on AIDS.
Among other projects supported is one managed by the Commonwealth Science Council entitled COMMANSAT which seeks to enhance North-South and South-North co-operation to strengthen local S&T capabilities. Britain also seeks actively to influence the European Community's science and technology for development programme managed and part-funded by the Commission's DGXII.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the points which have been raised during the course of the debate. I turn first to the admirable speech made by my noble friend Lord Caldecote. Her asked about the aid figure, especially in relation to our GNP. We accept in principle the United Nations targets set for official development assistance as a percentage of GNP— 0–7 per cent., of which 015 per cent. should be allocated to the least developed. But like previous administrations, and many other donors, we have not set a timetable for reaching that figure. Progress will depend upon economic circumstances and other claims on our resources. The important point is that the aid programme is growing in real terms.
My noble friend referred to the problem of high quality equipment supplied to some countries which cannot be used because of a lack of spare parts or trained personnel to maintain it. All aid projects take maintenance into account during their appraisal.

461
Maintenance and training are regularly, but not automatically, provided. It all depends upon a case-by-case examination. I recognise the problem to which my noble friend referred. I can recall seeing machinery and equipment supplied on an aid basis lying unused in some third world countries because of the problems to which he referred.
My noble friend also suggested that we should pay greater attention to the ITDG. At least one other noble Lord referred to that organisation. The ODA has just agreed a £ 7.06 million grant to the ITDG over the next three years. We have a high regard for that organisation. It is a leading practitioner of intermediate technology. My noble friend also referred to the relationship between the ODA and the British Council. A major area of that relationship was reviewed in 1989. Changes are already being introduced which should lead to a clearer definition of their respective roles and responsibilities. The ODA has a high regard for the local knowledge and experience of council staff in the field. ODA staff regularly visit council offices on their overseas visits to draw upon that knowledge. I too take the opportunity to visit British Council offices overseas whenever I can.
I turn now to the problem of population control which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Lockwood, were some of the speakers who referred to that The Government strongly support the need to reduce population growth and increase population awareness. Population will continue to be a priority for the British aid programme. Assistance in this area takes many forms: support for multilateral organisations' bilateral programmes and projects; and assistance to United Kingdom institutions and research projects. Support for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations population fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the World Health Organisation's human reproduction programme will continue to be at the heart of our population assistance.
Increasing bilateral assistance will also be made available with particular emphasis on Africa and South Asia where initiatives can be identified and implemented. In 1988 over £ 16.7 million was spent on population related activities compared to £ 6.5 million in 1981. The percentage of all United Kingdom aid spent on population activities has remained constant at just over 1 per cent.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Seear, and at least one other speaker referred to the importance of channelling help through non-governmental organisations. I very much agree with that sentiment. We are providing substantial and growing support through the joint funding scheme. We are currently supporting some 800 separate schemes, many with science and technology components. Further, we are helping to fund some 1,400 volunteers who come under the same category.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, expressed concern that aid to Eastern Europe might be used to squeeze
462
support for developing countries in Africa and possibly elsewhere. It is important that that should not happen. I agree with the sentiments expressed by both noble Lords. United Kingdom support for Eastern Europe is currently channelled essentially through the medium of the know-how fund. I shall not go into detail about that today as it is not particularly relevant. Nevertheless, it is important that we should maintain our regular aid programme in addition to whatever we may be able to provide, however important it may be, in Eastern Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and one or two other noble Lords raised the question of overseas students. The number of overseas students studying here under our Government support schemes has increased from 18,000 at a cost of some £ 80 million to 24,000 at a cost of some £ 127 million over the past four years. The majority are pursuing studies in the scientific and technological fields. The noble Lord mentioned the risk that too many of these students may be coming to this country to study because they can afford to do so rather than for the benefit they obtain from their studies. I should say that the Foreign Office has invested substantial funds in this area recently. I have already indicated the increase in funding which has taken place over recent years. That increased funding was established to cope with the problem that the noble Lord referred to. I do not believe that the increase in numbers of overseas students can be attributed simply to students coming over who can afford to do so. On the contrary, I think it has been the result of the increased Foreign Office funding to which I have referred. I agree that it is important that as many as possible of these students should be selected by virtue of their needs rather than by their ability to pay for their courses.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friend Lord Butterworth— my noble friend explained that he was unable to stay— pointed to the danger of what they called excessive projectisation. That is a way of more clearly identifying the aims and objectives and indeed the timetable of a particular area of aid support. I must emphasise that that does not preclude longer term commitments or a comprehensive approach. But our aid should be carefully targeted, considered and calculated. That does not always mean providing funds for some of the less specific projects that come to our notice.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked about natural resources advisers. He felt that they paid inadequate attention to social and economic criteria in the design and implementation of aid activities. The department certainly agrees on the need for adequate attention to be paid to social and economic criteria in the design and implementation of projects for promoting the sustainable development of renewable natural resources. That is achieved through an interdisciplinary approach of the kind to which I referred earlier, using advisory teams of natural resources experts with economists and sociologists. The point of the noble Lord is well made and it is well taken.
The noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Walston, and one or two others complained in general terms about the size of the aid budget. I am not sure that

463
that arises directly from the report we are considering. However, I should say that the aid programme, at £ 1,500 million in the current financial year, is substantial. It is planned to grow to £ 1,750 million by 1992 to 1993. That is an increase of 4 per cent. in real terms. Moreover, it is heavily targeted on the poorer countries. That, I think, is important. In 1988 nearly 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid went to countries with a per capita annual income of 700 dollars or less.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister knows that we have been over this ground before, but he still has not satisfied me. How can the Minister claim that the Government are aiming, even in principle, at a figure of 0.7 per cent. and at the same time claim that the aid budget is growing when it has fallen from 0.53 per cent. when this Government came into office to 0.32 per cent. now?
The Minister said that the aid budget depends on the economy. When the economy was in bad shape we were told that the Government could not afford increases in aid. However, over the past three years we have been told that we are experiencing an economic miracle. In that case why has the aid not been restored at least to the level it attained when this Government came into office?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the figure to which the noble Lord refers is a percentage of GNP. If the aid figure stays level or even grows, it does not necessarily grow as a percentage of GNP if GNP itself is substantially growing, as it is. The arithmetic is not as simple as the noble Lord may think. I do not claim to be be an arithmetical expert but I stand by the overall figures which I have given to the noble Lord. The aid programme stands at £ 1,500 million this year and is planned to grow to £ 1,750 million by 1992 to 1993. Those are substantial sums by any standard. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to recognise that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also complained about the lack of environmental consideration emerging from the report we are considering tonight. However, I am not sure the noble Lord does the report adequate justice. If he looks at paragraph 7.22 of the report and the paragraphs that immediately follow, he will see that the environment is referred to rather effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also referred to the Royal Geographical Society's activity. The ODA is happy to have recently extended its funding support for the excellent Maracá project to which the noble Lord referred on managing and conserving the rainforests of Amazonia. That is another extremely worthwhile programme. We very much welcome the involvement of the Royal Geographical Society and we are glad to be able to provide some ODA assistance in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the problem of women coming to the United Kingdon on training courses. She said that comparatively few women came to such courses. I share the concern of the noble Baroness that so few women attend such courses, particularly from certain countries.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord gave us figures about overseas students now coming to this country. Are they broken down by sex? As regards those figures, can the noble Lord tell the House roughly the percentage of men and women?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the breakdown for which the noble Baroness asks. However, I shall find out whether it is available. I certainly accept that from some countries in particular many fewer women attend our courses than we would wish. We are exploring ways of correcting that problem. However, in many cases the problem arises from the social, economic and traditional situation in the countries concerned. I am not sure that we should disrupt those traditions in a way that would altogether meet the concern of the noble Baroness. However, I share her concern. Where there are ways of overcoming it we shall seek to do so.
The Government share the view of the Select Committee on the importance of science and technology in the process of development. We note the detailed recommendations of the Select Committee and we shall comment on them individually in our formal reply. We are acutely aware of the need to work at the international level and in developing countries to develop strategies and programmes which will harness the best of science and technology for development.
Here I believe that our record is a good one. The fields in which the Government believe that science and technology have the greatest contribution to make to the aid programme are precisely those which are affected in the ODA's professional capacity. Those include its own in-house advisers, the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute (ODNRI) and other specialised British institutions regularly supported by the ODA.
I can now give an answer to the noble Baroness about women students. I understand that only between 18 per cent. and 24 per cent. of overseas students who come to this country are women. I agree that that is too small a proportion.
I hope that your Lordships agree with me that this has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. The House will be most grateful to my noble friend and his committee for bringing forward the report.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, which I agree with my noble friend has been a very interesting one. I am most grateful for the warm welcome which all speakers gave to the report. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was an exception but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, his strictures were almost entirely irrelevant to the subject of the report. I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for the welcome that he gave to the report and his constructive and encouraging comments.
The theme that ran through many of the speeches this evening was a warning to beware of major headline-catching projects. It was said that in general

465
we should get better value from concentrating our aid on a widespread effort to build a sound, cultural, educational and institutional base with the development of appropriate technology to the benefit of the whole of the community in the recipient countries, not least the poorest of them. I believe that the ODA, ably supported by the British Council, is making a very cost-effective contribution and could do much more. Therefore, I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will increase the allocation of resources to overseas aid as quickly as possible.
Once again I thank noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Baroness Robson of Kiddington.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Bill passes through this House I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for her work in preparing the Bill and seeing it through all its stages to this final point.
I hope very much that the Minister who is to reply on behalf of the Government will be able to assure the House, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that the fact that the Government have not divided the House on any of the amendments or on Second Reading, indicates that they do not intend to sabotage the Bill by any means when it goes to another place. I stress "by any means" because there are various means by which, as shown in the: passage of this Bill, the Government can frustrate the will of this House, when the Bill goes to another place. I very much hope that the Minister has come tonight armed with the authority to say that the Government are prepared to give time and support to the Bill when it passes from this House to another place. I believe that that is his duty as we have spent time passing the Bill through all its stages in this House.
I should like to answer one or two of the points that have been raised in opposition to the Bill from the other Benches, and in particular from the Government Front Bench. I am supported in that by correspondence that I have received and personal contacts that I have been privileged to make in the commercial world.
Since the Bill was given its Second Reading a number of clauses have been added which have strengthened the prohibition of the production and use of a variety of gases and compounds. There is a view, which has been expressed by the Minister, that it is better to use those gases and compounds in preference to CFCs because they are less damaging.
466
I accept that they are less damaging. I also accept that those who have lobbied me on the subject, particularly General Chemicals, are working on a variety of alternatives to CFCs which, while it is not claimed that they do not damage the environment, are less damaging to the ozone layer than are CFCs. However, the reason for including those additional gases and compounds in the Bill and setting time limits for them is in order to encourage the discovery of substitutes for CFCs which will not damage the environment, whether it be the ozone layer or through the greenhouse effect. I wish the work that is being done by organisations such as General Chemicals well, provided that that is the objective.
Another objection that has been raised from the Government Front Bench is that such matters should be left to the companies, or what is euphemistically termed market forces but which I prefer to call the world of profit and loss.
Here I come to the nub of what I wish to say on the Motion. As the House knows, the appliances which are mainly responsible for the emission of CFCs are refrigerators and the various referigeration processes. It is calculated that they account for 10 per cent. of the world's CFC problems. Work is being done to prevent the emission of CFCs when refrigerators and refrigeration processes are decommissioned. It is estimated that in the United Kingdom alone 1,500 tonnes of CFCs are released into the atmosphere from scrapped appliances each year. It is also estimated that 22,500 tonnes of CFC gas could be prevented from being released into the atmosphere over the next 15 years, which is the approximate life of a fridge.
What, then, is preventing that? There is a general public opinion about CFCs and their effect on the ozone layer and the tremendous danger that that presents to the human race. There is a desire on the part of many local authorities to dispose of refrigerators without releasing the dangerous CFC gases.
What, then, is missing? What is missing is legislation. That was specifically spelt out to those of us who met the company that I mentioned earlier— the Bird group of companies— which claims to be able to dispose of refrigerators (both the 20 per cent. of the CFCs which are contained in the refrigerant and the 80 per cent. contained in the insulation material) without releasing any CFCs into the atmosphere and with the advantage of recycling the metal from which they are made.
However, that process costs money. It is heavily capital-intensive. It involves purpose-built facilities such as airtight containment buildings, air locks and a temperature-controlled environment maintained at a negative pressure. That is in addition to the mechanical plant for separating the insulating foam from other constituent materials of a refrigerator. The revenues generated by selling the recycled metals and plastics contribute to that expense, but they by no means approach it.
We are therefore left with a situation in which that process is possible, but is commercially viable only if legislation is passed so that local authorities use that process and the Government take responsibility,

467
either by paying directly or by paying through local authorities, for the extra expense. I shall quote one sentence from the letter that the Bird group of companies sent to me in preparation for this debate. It states:
"It is my firm belief that without legislation which requires the environmentally sensitive disposal of refrigerators, they will be landfilled or fly tipped, leading to 1,500 tonnes of CFCs being released into the stratosphere each year from the United Kingdom alone".
I put it to noble Lords that the Bill, provided that the Government give it their support and encourage and allow it to go through another place, can be a practical aid to those all over the world who have seen the danger of CFCs to the ozone layer and who want to take action, not just using fine words, in order to prevent that menace to the future of the human race.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I join the commendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who has brought this worthy measure before the House. My noble friend Lord Hatch explained at some length what he believes will help to persuade the Government to support the Bill in another place. I should like to address the Government much more briefly and I hope that they will listen equally carefully.
As my noble friend said, whether the Government are minded to give the Bill an easy passage— and approval is wholly within their gift— I am certain that there will be an opportunity in another place for them to obtain a great deal of kudos because the Bill will be supported throughout the House. That is a political advantage, but, as my noble friend pointed out, there are enormous advantages to the environment and to a range of other interests. I say earnestly to the Minister with such power as he might have with his ministerial colleagues: this is a small Bill, but it is not unimportant. It might be the vehicle by which the Government, by amendment, do what I am sure the noble Baroness wanted to do in the first place; namely, to put a few teeth, a bit of muscle and a bit of spunk behind so many words, which might well be empty words, not just from the Minister but from the Government in general.
I hope that, at this point in their travails, the Government will recognise that the Bill might be used to their own advantage. The people of my local community and of the British Isles, Europe and indeed the world will benefit from the Bill, amended or otherwise. It is up to the Minister to give a manifest of the Government's commitment and faith. We on these Benches give the Bill a warm welcome and wish it a speedy passage, and we hope that the Minister will say something helpful to encourage us.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, we have been talking about the 1,500 tonnes of CFCs which could be recovered and which at the moment go to waste. A large proportion of that comes from government
468
establishments so, regardless of waiting for legislation, I think that the Government should do something to put their own house in order.
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps it would be useful if I were to set out the Government's position before the Bill leaves this House.
The debates surrounding the Bill's progress have provided much food for thought. The Government have found them encouraging. They show that your Lordships share our concern— depletion of the ozone layer is an alarming problem and we must move as quickly as possible to eliminate its causes.
As I have said, that process can have any real effect only if it is carried through at the international level. Great efforts and achievements have already been made by British industry and consumers. That has happened in the context of restrictions on the overall supply of CFCs and in the knowledge that we are committed to their early elimination. In 1986, this country used about 6 per cent. of the world's total of CFCs. That figure has probably now fallen below 4 per cent. because we have already cut our consumption faster than most.
Getting rid of that 4 per cent. as quickly as possible is of course an urgent priority, but getting the world as a whole committed to similar action, on a similar timescale, is more effective, more important and more urgent.
To that end, the Government are concentrating on strengthening and broadening the Montreal Protocol. Progress in the negotiations is encouraging. We are broadly content with the emerging consensus on revisions to the protocol, although, for the CFCs themselves, we are finding it difficult to persuade our negotiating partners to cut their consumption as quickly as we should like.
It is also essential that more countries join in. Negotiations over assistance to developing countries, to help them comply with the protocol, are going well and I am confident that in the light of those, countries such as Brazil, India and China will join soon. The various strands of negotiation will come to a head at the meeting of the protocol parties which we are hosting in London in three months' time.
In the debate on Second Reading, I set out two different kinds of difficulty which the Government have with this Bill. The first is that we are already tackling the problems which it seeks to address, but in different ways, and in ways which are more consistent with the international process which is so vital. The Montreal Protocol is based on the reduction of overall production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, rather than imposing timetables for ending specific uses. The second difficulty is that the schedule of dates contained in the Bill in our view is unrealistic. As we see it, it does not allow time for the necessary testing to ensure that substitutes are safe to work with.
The Bill has been made even less acceptable by the amendment which provides for the prohibition of many CFC substitutes by the year 2000. Such a provision would mean that the necessary investment in such substitutes would never be made, and this

469
in turn would delay the timetable for prohibiting the far more damaging CFCs until well into the next century. I must say therefore that it is unlikely that the Government will be able to support the Bill in another place.
None of this means that we shall merely sit back and do the minimum that the new protocol will require of us. We are encouraging the development of a Community-wide environmental labelling scheme. We are seeking to identify what more needs to be done to encourage recycling and the reduction of emissions. This should apply not only to CFCs but also to the new substitute chemicals, which do some environmental damage, albeit only a fraction of that done by the CFCs that they will replace.
Above all, we fully accept the need to cut CFC consumption more quickly than the protocol requires, if the protocol is not strengthened as much as we should want. The European Commission has already published a proposal for a regulation which is stronger than the revised protocol is likely to be. While the details still have to be sorted out, the Government are committed to early and substantial cuts, regardless of what is agreed for the world as a whole. They will not be as rapid as set out in this Bill, but I am confident that the Community will agree to measures which force the fastest reductions that c an realistically be achieved.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Can he explain why he says that the year 2000 is much too early? Does he agree with the findings of the United Nations environmental programme which give the end of 1999 as the timetable date? That is why the year 2000 was taken.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, in our view the danger would be that if they were to be prohibited by the year 2000, their manufacture would not be undertaken. As I said at Report stage, this was simply making the best the enemy of the good.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government believe that they know better than the United Nations environmental programme?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I do not say that. We believe that it is important to try to reduce the quantity of CFCs admitted to the atmosphere and the way in which I set forth that it should be done is in our view the best way to approach the matter.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the various stages of this Bill. I cannot hide the fact that I am desperately disappointed in the reply that the noble Lord has just given. He seems to take objection to one amendment in particular. When the Bill goes to another place, it can be amended again. It does not have to condemn the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again on this matter.
Many of the issues that have been discussed during the debates on this Bill have found some new answers, even in the past few days. I cut out of
470
today's Times a small notice which states that the Minister for the Environment, Mr. David Trippier, announced that the production and consumption of CFCs had been cut by more than half, 10 years ahead of time. I put to the noble Lord that that reduction has been achieved by consumer interest. It has not been achieved by government action.
The consumer interest which achieved that cut has gone as far as it can because consumers cannot influence general industrial production. They can decide whether or not to buy aerosols which contain CFCs. The general public in this country have done so. I should like the Government to put extra legal protection into the way in which we run our affairs with regard to CFCs in this country.
Much was said during the debate to the effect that we could not eliminate halon from fire extinguishers because it was the only safe way to extinguish a fire. This morning I received a letter from Chubb Fire Security Limited in which they say:
"You may be interested to know that Chubb Fire Ltd. is the UK's largest manufacturer of portable extinguishers and we have recently taken the decision to withdraw from the sale of portable halon extinguishers for general use … Furthermore portable halon extinguishers have in the past been sold in large numbers because of the effectiveness of halon as a fire extinguishant. It offered therefore an easy route to providing multi-risk fire protection … The consequence of this is that there are now considerable numbers of halon extinguishers, located in public, commercial and industrial premises as well as in Government and Local Government premises. I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases there are perfectly acceptable viable alternative extinguishers to these, ones which will provide at least as good fire protection cover as halon and in most cases at a reduced cost."
Can we appeal to the Government to remove the halon extinguishers at least from government premises?
The letter concludes:
"We support the content of your Bill".
I am delighted to hear that, because one of the arguments against the Bill was that halon was very difficult to remove from fire extinguishers. It is true that so far research has only been able to remove halon from portable fire extinguishers and certain fixed fire extinguishers still use it. But I do not believe that, having gone that far on the portable type of extinguisher, it is beyond the wit of man to remove halon from the fixed type. So things are moving. The country as a whole is in favour of legislation which will concentrate people's minds and make certain that we do not further damage the environment in which we live.
We have just listened to a debate on overseas aid. We know that the developing countries will develop some of the manufactured products that use CFCs and halon. I should like us as a nation to be able to go to the developing countries and not to say, "Do as I say but do not do as I do" but to say, "Do as I do".
We have the expertise and research facilities in this country. We have a duty to lead the world. The noble Lord said that this problem has to be solved at international level. There is no better way of solving it than to take the lead and prove to other countries that it can be done. I want this country to be in the forefront of environmental research and

471
improvement; not always lagging behind as we seem to do in many environmental matters. I therefore hope that the Government will give this Bill time in another place. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
8 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase, by 8 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after the 1st April 1990. The Government reviews these amounts each year and this year, as in previous years, we believe an increase is right to keep them in line with the value of money.
The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 was introduced by the last Labour Government, and the aim and purpose of the Act have the full support of this Government.
The Act to which these regulations apply is unique in Government legislation in that it provides compensation to employees who have suffered disease as a result of their employment. It is separate from social security benefits, because it is only available where there is no employer to sue. Sufferers do not have to prove fault in order to qualify for a payment. The Act set up a scheme to help those sufferers of certain prescribed dust-induced diseases who have no opportunity to sue relevant employers to obtain compensation because the employer has gone out of business. The main industries concerned are slate mining, potteries, textiles and asbestos-related industries.
The reason that compensation is provided in this way is because of the length of time taken for the disease to develop and the symptons to become apparent. It can be many years later when the sufferer discovers he has the disease, often long after he or she has left the employment which caused or contributed to the development of the disease.
The Act made provision for payment of such amounts as might be prescribed by regulation. It does not provide for automatic or regular uprating, but the Government have undertaken to Parliament to review the amounts each year. These regulations are the result of this year's review.
The original payment regulations set out a scale of payments related to age and degree of disability (as assessed by medical experts). They came into effect on 1st January 1980. A number of increases have been made since then with the aim of keeping the payments in line with the value of money.
Last year. Parliament approved an increase of 8 per cent. from April, the proposed increase this year is for 8 per cent. from 1st April 1990, and takes account of inflation.
We all recognise that no amount of money compensates individuals and families for their pain, suffering and loss. But the regulations allow us to give practical and material help. The Department of Employment considers each application individually and interprets the conditions of the Act so as to be as fair as the statute will allow in the best interests of those whom the Act was intended to help. However, it has never been the purpose of the Act to provide an alternative to taking action in the courts, and the Department of Employnment has to be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages could be made.
It was never the intention of the Act that the state should take over the responsibilities which are properly those of employers.
Since the Act came into force in 1980 almost 5,000 people have made successful claims. Eighty-two per cent. of all claims to date were made in the first year of the scheme, although it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by the employment department. The total cost to date has been £ 28–6 million. Most of these payments are made to those in industries or occupations whch involved contact with asbestos. They reflect the poor conditions which applied in some workplaces a generation or more ago, and the indications are that as we moved into the '60s, '70s and '80s there has been a steady improvement in working conditions. The dangers of asbestos are now well recognised and extensive legislation is now in place which prevents such exposure today.
Your Lordships will readily understand the importance of uprating the amounts of compensation the Government pays to those disabled by these diseases. I commend the regulations to the House and ask for your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which he has explained the regulations. Of course we welcome the uprating which is broadly in line with inflation.
The regulations deal with a number of industrial diseases which produce severely disabling symptoms which severely restrict the lives, and indeed reduce the life chances, of those who suffer from them. Although the maximum award for 100 per cent. disability at age 37 or less is £ 41,849, I believe that the average award is only about £ 7,000. That must leave the recipients of awards very dependent on social security benefits. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House the total expenditure and the total number of people who were helped under the scheme last year.
I am not entirely clear on this point. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that awards under the

473
scheme do not prevent claimants pursuing an action for damages against an employer if they can trace one? Conversely, if compensation for damages has been paid by an employer, does it mean that a claimant is unable to receive an award under the scheme?
I conclude by repeating my thanks to the Minister and expressing support from these Benches for the regulations.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a question about expenditure this year. Expenditure this year has been about £ 694,000 to 103 sufferers or their dependants.
In reply to the other point raised by the noble Lord, the scheme is designed to help those who have had no chance of bringing a court action. However, the Act does not prevent subsequent court action by the claimant if a relevant employer is later identified. But if claimants already have compensation awarded by a court a claimant cannot come withing the remit of the Act.
Having explained those points, I hope that I have given some assurance to the noble Lord. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1990
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 20th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Section 149 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) Modification Order which the House approved in July 1983. The 1983 order was previously amended in 1985 to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985 and was amended again in 1988 and 1989 bringing in several bodies that were omitted in 1983 and 1985, or had since come into existence.
I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is discharged as redundant after at least two years' service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated, among other things, according to his period of continuous service with his last employer. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own an employee would be entitled to a payment every time he became redundant even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.
This situation would not, however, correctly reflect the realities of local government service in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government and the 1983 order secures a similar effect in the stututory redundancy scheme by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".
Because there is no convenient and comprehensive definition of what constitutes local government employment, it is necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with whom service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. The first, in Schedule 1 to the 1983 order, lists those employers currently in being by whom anyone may be made redundant. The second, in the appendix to Schedule 2 in the same order, lists those bodies with which service may still be reckoned for redundancy purposes.
The amending order simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 in the 1983 order bodies which have come into existence since the last amendment was made or omitted in 1983, 1985, 1988 and 1989. It is essentially a tidying up measure. The number of employees likely to be affected is small. I trust that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th February by approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee] .— {The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he explained the order, and we welcome it. The order tidies up the rules and extends the number of bodies in which continuous local government service can be achieved.
We do not agree with the primary and privatisation legislation that has been the cause of the order. However, this is not the time to debate the merits or otherwise of privatisation. We assume that by introducing the orders the Government are, by implication, undertaking that the protection of redundancy payments in local government services will continue. That will be particularly important next year with the abolition of the ILEA, for example. I confirm that we on these Benches have no objection to the order.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Lord for explaining the order and accept it as it stands.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

South Africa
8.11 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for assisting in solving the fundamental social and economic problems facing South Africa, particularly in the urban areas.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity of initiating today's debate. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have put their names down to speak on this issue. It is fitting that this evening we follow the debate on overseas aid, although that report specifically excluded South Africa.
I have recently returned from a three-month visit to South Afica and I was there when the historic statements of intent were made by President de Klerk. I also witnessed the release of Nelson Mandela from the Victor Verster prison and the general euphoria which accompanied that. I consider myself fortunate to have been present during such momentous times.
In the past our discussions on South Africa have tended to be polarised, Before the state president's speech on 2nd February, issues in South Africa tended to be viewed from a rather simplistic viewpoint. They appeared to be either right or wrong. In my opinion, since the speech the doors have been thrown wide open. This is a time of great opportunity in South Africa but equally a time of considerable risk.
In previous speeches I have referred to the spectres of danger and disaster. By freeing the political arena and unbanning the various parties of opposition and the release of several political prisoners disaster has been averted in the short term. However, there is still a delicate, intricate and hard negotiation process to be pursued. As such there remains a considerable degree of risk for all those involved in the negotiations. Therefore, there remains an element of danger.
The negotiations process will highlight the fact that the issues are far from simple or static. In the light of the recent changes, it must be clear that the issues may no longer be discussed in an atmosphere of rhetoric. To that end I have addressed my Question this evening towards the fundamental social and economic problems facing South Africa particularly in the urban areas.
What is the South Africa about which it is hoped that negotiations will commence sooner rather than later? We are all familiar with the character of apartheid and the three legislative pillars which underpin it. They are the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. However, according to the statements of the South African Government's chief negotiator and Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, Dr. Gerrit Viljoen, these pillars are bound to collapse. In mid-February he stated that he did not believe that there would be another election from which blacks would be excluded. That is an extremely positive step for South Africa. He stated that the Population Registration Act would lapse
476
with the demise of the tricameral parliamentary system. That system is a total waste of money. The Separate Amenities Act will go before Parliament for repeal in the second half of the current session. Negotiations on the repeal of the Land Act will commence, although it is unlikely to be repealed in the current session. Obviously the Group Areas Act cannot remain on the statute book once the Land Act has been repealed.
At the beginning of this month Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, the ex-chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation, said:
"Old fears, old prejudices, old customs and old ideologies die hard. The immoral policy of apartheid was born of the fear that whites had that they would be overwhelmed by the black majority. The hard lessons of experience have now been learnt by the great majority of white South Africans. The apartheid system is in a state of terminal disillusion. Remnants still remain but are obviously soon to go".
Nelson Mandela has committed himself to creating harmony in South Africa and to exploiting any opening that offers hope of a non-racial and democratic country. His ultimate aims are political, economic and social equality. Just prior to his release from prison he said:
"We must work towards a common destiny and that can only be achieved through a non-racial society",
I am totally convinced of the integrity and determination of President de Klerk to reach a negotiated settlement. A first meeting between the South African Government, the African National Congress and the 10 homelands' leaders is scheduled for 11th April in Cape Town. As a precursor to the negotiation process, the meeting will be vitally important for establishing a platform of mutual trust from which the negotiations may proceed. All the commentators have identified the spirit of mutual trust to be the most important single factor and the most visible pre-condition for the successful commencement, conduct and conclusion of negotiations.
The negotiations are not only about universal suffrage and good government but they must address the peculiarities of the demographic and economic environment in South Africa. Its current population is about 38 million. Of that, 60 per cent. are under the age of 20, and 42 per cent. are under the age of 15. Estimates of the population in the year 2000 vary from between 50 million and 55 million. Those figures will be realised if the current 3 per cent. per annum growth rate among the black population is maintained. The moot point is that South Africa will experience increases in the population of more than 1 million people each year.
What does that mean for the fundamental social and economic issues, particularly for the urban areas? In the days when the infamous influx control regulations were in force people nevertheless moved in their droves from the rural areas to the cities because of the envisaged opportunities there. Since the abolition of the pass laws, it has been estimated that more than 1 million people have moved into the towns each year. That rate is expected to continue for the next 20 years. That burgeoning influx is placing an increasing strain on the social and physical infrastructure of the towns and cities. Because of the policies of apartheid in the past those

477
infrastructures are severely underdeveloped and are incapable of satisfying the basic needs of most of those people, let alone those who are moving into the towns. In one residential area just outside Cape Town called Khayalitsha there are currently over 11,000 black people moving in every single month. Other visible evidence can be seen in the Johannesburg area where there are estimated to be 2 million squatters. In the Durban area, there are estimated to be 1.7 million people living in shanty towns in the hills around the city.
It is acknowledged that rural migrants require some time to settle into a new urban way of life before they can contribute fully to the economy. During that time they will require some form of assistance for the satisfaction of their most basic human needs. Recent interviews with shanty town residents near Cape Town have identified three priorities: a decent place to live, a steady job and proper education for their children. In addition, there is the need for proper health care. These are the services which are already under stress.
I should like to expand briefly on those issues. In the sphere of housing, the estimated need is for roughly 250,000 housing units per annum for the next decade in order to remove the existing backlog and to accommodate the expected growth. That obviously requires significant investment. With respect to education, it should be remembered that 60 per cent. of the population are of school-going age. The average pupil to teacher ratio in black schools is 50: 1 and in some areas is even 90: 1. The average in white schools is 16: 1. Black school-leaving pass rates were between 12 per cent. and 42 per cent. in 1989. The figure for white pupils was 97 per cent.
Those figures indicate the grossly disproportionate levels of spending in the past. In fact, there are 18 departments of education in South Africa. As long as there is a non-unitary education policy, those discrepancies cannot in my opinion be adequately addressed. However, it should be noted that recent official recognition of the discrepancies has resulted in a significant increase in the budgetary allocation for education. In the last budget, 19 per cent. of the total allocation was devoted to educational needs. That is most encouraging.
On health care, we find a similar bureaucratic position where there are 14 departments of health. In order adequately to equip the health service there is a need for an additional 3,000 hospital beds, 2,000 doctors and 3,000 nurses annually.
I turn to the subject of employment. During the 1980s the South African labour force increased by approximately 360,000 people per year. Sufficient jobs were created annually in the formal sector for only one-fifth of that number. One result of the shortfall has been a dramatic growth in the informal sector; one example being the formation of the black taxi federation. Some estimates place the value of the informed sector at between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of all the economic activity in South Africa.
The South African economy will require to grow by at least 5 per cent. per annum if there is to be any chance of accommodating the additional 400,000 people who will annually be entering the
478
job market. That is not an impossible target under normal social and political conditions and when international credit is available. It is my firm belief that the shortfall in employment has in a small measure contributed to the general unrest and obvious escalation in crime in the urban areas. Investment in the economy is not the full answer to the question of employment creation. It also needs to be tied to adequate secondary and technical training.
Thus far I have attempted to highlight the fundamental issues as I see them. In summary, South Africa exhibits the classic demographic traits of a third world nation; namely, an exponential population growth making demands on the economy which will be required to generate substantial growth to respond to those demands. The positive picture of the situation in South Africa is that the dynamics of the economy are capable of adequate response. That is the background against which negotiations will be taking place. The core issue of those negotiations will of course concern the normalisation of social and economic relationships.
A major element of that will undoubtedly focus on the redistribution of economic wealth. For a climate of normalisation, there will need to be a lifting of the current state of emergency. A major factor in that must be the resolving of the factional fighting especially between the Inkatha Movement and the United Democratic Front which has and is still causing so much bloodshed. It is estimated that more than 3,000 people have died in the past three years from factional fighting particularly in Natal and the Eastern Cape.
Surely a common concern for all those participating in the negotiation process must be the preservation of a strong economy. As I have tried to illustrate this evening, the bottom line is that without a strong, expanding and resilient economy the demands for the future cannot possibly be met. To that end, fears have been expressed following earlier statements from Nelson Mandela relating to the issue of nationalisation of banks and gold mines. I believe that demand to be a purely negotiating ploy. I have no doubt that nationalisation of such important sectors would actively discourage international investment and thereby undermine the ability of the South African economy to sustain growth.
Of course there are other options available for effecting economic redistribution. In my opinion, the debate should surely concentrate on methods and not just ideologies for redressing wealth imbalances. The character which Namibia has chosen to adopt gives good pointers to a rational resolution of those difficult economic issues. In my view, our Prime Minister has taken brave and realistic steps in easing some sanctions in response to the recent reform measures. I believe it to be hypocritical that while most of the black African nations support sanctions in open debate, every state in the continent now trades with South Africa and last year the volume of that trade increased by 40 per cent.
I have addressed my Question to how Her Majesty's Government plans to assist in solving the fundamental social and economic problems facing South Africa, particularly in the urban areas. It has

479
not been my wish to paint a picture of gloom or of desperation. I believe that South Africa has the potential for a dynamic and prosperous future. The South African Government have just announced the allocation of 1 billion rand to start addressing the backlog in education and housing. They have also announced the formation of a 2 billion rand fund to be used for socio-economic development. I am most encouraged by the manner in which Her Majesty's Government are targeting much needed aid into some of the areas which I have discussed this evening. Their recent assistance to the urban foundation— a private sector lobbying and development agency— will help to bring home ownership within the means of 40,000 families.
We know that the process of urbanisation is most stressful for all concerned. I recommend to Her Majesty's Government that their considerations of aid in South Africa be aimed at reducing discrepancies within the sectors which I have discussed, thereby reducing the levels of stress all round. There is an African saying which laments that when two elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled. In my view the analogy in the case of South Africa is quite obvious. We trust that those around the negotiating table will be mindful of their responsibilities for the ultimate goal of one nation, one constitution, one citizenship, and the preservation of a strong economy for all to share in the future of South Africa.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay and Abingdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for asking this Question. It is very important that the social and economic problems which will face South Africa in the future are resolved to the best benefit of all races.
The noble Lord has a wealth of knowledge of the country to which he referred. However, it must be borne in mind— this is where I differ from the noble Lord— that South Africa is not an impoverished third world country in the true sense of the word. It is rich in natural resources and has an advanced commercial and industrial base. Therefore, while giving the South African Government all encouragement in their endeavours to overcome the social and economic problems that will arise following the ending of apartheid, they are the responsibility of that government. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to become too financially involved. After all, it was past South African governments since 1948 which created these unpleasant and now unacceptable urban areas.
We can best assist by investing in industry and increasing trade with South Africa, which, in the long run, will provide more jobs for the African population and thus benefit all South Africans and not just a small minority. The process of political and social reform has begun. The only thing which could have an adverse effect on this progress would be a Right-wing Afrikaans' backlash, which could well happen if the reforms of President de Klerk were met with calls for more stringent sanctions.
When I visited South Africa last year it was noticeable how full the shops were of goods produced
480
by our main trading competitors. I submit that, however well intentioned, sanctions do not work. That is not intended as an insult to those who do not share this view. Sanctions may hurt, but it is usually the very people that they are supposed to assist who suffer.
In conclusion, I should say that the best way we can help with the social and economic problems facing South Africa is by giving moral support to the reform process which, in the end, will bring majority rule, together with enhanced prosperity for all races in South Africa.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso— who always seems to address himself to me rather than the Government Front Bench— knows that I am very fond of him. He also knows that I like to tease him, but the teasing is quite serious. I begin by picking up some of the points he made. I may also say— I think he will appreciate this— that there used to be another South African noble Lord on the other side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who was well over 90 when I knew him and of whom I was just as fond. He was just as useful to the House as is the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso.
Lord Barnby was brought up to assume that the philosophy of apartheid was the only philosophy of life. It was very useful for him to put that philosophy to the House. It is just as useful now for the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, to put the typical white liberal point of view to this House so that we can hear it and recognise some of the factors which are of paramount importance in South Africa.
The noble Lord talks about everything depending on mutual trust. Nobody disagrees with that statement. But what is mutual trust asking for? It is asking for those who have been repressed for 150 to 200 years to say, "Now we will trust you. We will forget all that you have done to our ancestors; we will forget all that you have done to our children and ourselves and we will trust you". I believe that they will do that.
It is a remarkable fact that almost all African people have a degree of forgiveness which is quite incredible in the world of Europe. When we are debating in our Parliament whether we should be prosecuting Nazi criminals from 50 years ago, the Africans in South Africa— like the Africans in what was Rhodesia, Namibia, Zambia, Mozambique and Angola— show no signs of wanting to take revenge against the massacres that they themselves have endured. I am not saying that one should parallel the genocide of the Nazis, but massacres there have been, as we know, and one needs only to mention Sharpeville.
The noble Lord made a number of selective quotes. I too can quote if he wishes. It was his new-found friend President de Klerk who said, "Do not expect me to negotiate myself out of power". He said that quite simply and quite directly. He has not withdrawn that statement. That is what he believes, and that is what he believes to be the basis of the negotiations in which he intends to take part.

481
However, there is a more important issue, which I mentioned earlier to the noble Lord. I do not apologise for repeating it, because it is essential to any understanding of what is happening or what is going, to happen in South Africa.
It is almost universal to talk about apartheid. It is not apartheid that the Africans are fighting against. If it was, all that would need to be said is, "Go back to the situation in which you were living in 1948". It was in 1948 that the word "apartheid" was invented. The Africans will not go back to 1948; they will not return to the conditions in which they were living in 1948 1938, 1908 or 1890. The prejudice and the discriminatory life that they and their ancestors have had to lead is what they are determined to change.
While the noble Lord may have learned late of the injustices that he listed— I am glad he did— some of us have been publicising these for the past 50 years. We were told, "You do not understand. You are not South African. You do not live in South Africa", or, "They' are not true". I am glad that the noble Lord has now seen how deeply these social, economic and political injustices go in South Africa.
We cannot entirely confine ourselves to the Question asked by the noble Lord, though I intend to address a few words to it. What happens in the townships; what happens to the social and economic life of the Africans in the future depends on the political issue. That is fundamental. No Africans will accept any kind of social or economic arrangement that is not based on political equality. That is focal to the whole issue. The noble Lord refers to ideology, but equality is ideology. We on these Benches believe in equality. It is part of our ideology and part of the Africans' ideology.
The noble Lord spoke about beginning negotiations. Negotiations are not yet in sight. The first thing in sight at the moment is discussion on what terms negotiations can begin— not the negotiations themselves. We must not delude ourselves or anybody else that negotiations are to start on 11th April. They are not. The discussions on that date are on what conditions the negotiations can be conducted.
What are those conditions? They have been made quite plain. Before Nelson Mandela was released, and since he has been released, they have been made absolutely plain in the Harare Declaration and in the United Nations. First is the release of all political prisoners and detainees. The second is the end of the state of emergency. Here, again I must refer to what the noble Lord said about the state of emergency. Yes, I deplore the bitter factional fighting in the towns. I remember it in 1949 when it was between black and Indian. Eventually the two congresses came together and stopped it. Unfortunately, it is now black and black. However, in quoting the shocking figure of 3,000 deaths in this factional fighting over the past three years, we must not forget that a very large number of black and coloured people have died in the same period not from black action but from police and military action. They are still dying as a result of police and military action.
Therefore, the end of the state of emergency is the second condition and that must be linked with the
482
abolition— not often spoken about— of the Internal Security Act. That is such a wide-ranging Act that it can be used to bring in virtually anybody on any charge.
Thirdly, there must be the repeal of all repressive legislation. Fourthly, all political trials must be halted. Perhaps the noble Lord has received the letter from Geoffrey Bindman today which draws attention to the fact that the courts are continuing to impose the death penalty and that the programme to build extra cells on death row continues. Meanwhile the Upington 14 and the other 49 known political prisoners on death row are in limbo; they are not at immediate risk but still under the shadow of the gallows.
The fifth condition is the removal of troops from the townships. I do not need to say more on that. Everyone knows of the conduct of the troops in the townships, and some of the revelations now brought out by the Marms Commission are giving legitimacy to what some of us have been saying for a long time.
Those conditions would lay down an opportunity for negotiations to start. What will the negotiations be about? First, the noble Lord may be quite convinced that President de Klerk and his friends are going to agree to adult suffrage. I am not. The concept that President de Klerk has put over and the five-year plan of the National Party does not suggest adult suffrage; not in the way that we know it and certainly not adult suffrage in a unitary state. It refers to group rights and group protection, as the noble Lord says.
The Population Registration Act must go. The Group Areas Act must go. There must be redistribution of land. Does the noble Lord seriously think that that will be accomplished, or even agreed to, by the present de Klerk Government without a great deal of pressure being applied— the same kind of pressure as brought them eventually to agree to the independence of Nambia?
There are other Acts. There is the Publication Act which again is so wide that it can bring any kind of publication or statement into censorship and simply ban it.
The noble Lord referred to education. Yes, there may be an increase and one hopes that there will be an increase in black education, but it is not just quantity but quality. There is also the type of education, because the whole purpose of the system under which the apartheid governments have organised African education has been based on the Bantu Education Act. They must be taught in their tribal languages and education must be kept within the culture and the community of their forefathers. They must be kept away from modem life. That, clearly, must go.
Above all, the Africans will settle for nothing less than total adult suffrage. The noble Lord at least hopes and perhaps sincerely believes that that can be negotiated by the present regime. I do not. I hope it can but I do not believe that it can. I believe that there will be a test of strength. I particularly believe that from looking at the history of similar countries; for example, Chile under Allende or republican Spain. They tried to experiment with democratic

483
forms but neither of them had effective command of the military forces. Nor does President de Klerk, as we are seeing continually, particularly in relation to General Malan.
We are now seeing revealed, even in the South African press, the atrocities that have been organised by the South African state; the state terrorism that has been deliberately organised by sections of the military and the police. As the noble Lord knows, a very dear friend of mine, my first hostess in South Africa— Ruth First— was murdered by the security forces of South Africa. She received a letter bomb in Maputo. My own car has been sabotaged twice— according to the AA, not just me. I am not saying that the South Africans did it— I cannot prove that— but I do not know of anybody else.
When one adds that to the strength of the Conservative Party (The Conservative Party had 31 per cent. of the vote at the last election) and the extreme AWB— the Terreblanche people— there remains a strong anti-reform group among the white community. It could be argued that the Africans will demand a Nuremburg-type trial for these atrocities. They will not because the Africans are not like that. It is said that they are unbelievably forgiving people.
My final point is in answer to what the noble Lord said, and was said also by the noble Earl opposite, about the importance of the strength of the economy in order to increase the opportunities for African development. It does not happen that way. When South Africa was most powerful economically and financially, all the pillars of apartheid were sunk. I was there. It was when the economy was booming that apartheid was put into place in legislation. It is not the case that when there is a prosperous South Africa it becomes liberal.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate his criticism of what has happened in South Africa, but does he not agree that there has been a considerable change in attitude in South Africa? Furthermore, does he not also agree that in order for there to be an economic growth rate of 5 per cent. there needs to be an injection of capital into South Africa? So far, the noble Lord has not mentioned any one point in respect of which he has any theory to help alleviate what I was saying about the problem of the future poverty and homelessness in South Africa in the years to come.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I appreciate that latter point. I say, as the Africans do, that you will not get rid of homelessness, alleviate poverty or re-distribute wealth until there is political power among the Africans. Mention was made of 5 per cent. growth in the economy. We have only 1 per cent. growth in this country for the coming year. When there was strong growth in the South African economy the apartheid regime was imposed. That is the point I am making and I make it in connection with what the noble Lord had to say about sanctions.
As the noble Lord knows, it was the National Party itself which, in its manifesto at the last election, said how sanctions were hurting the economy and that
484
only by becoming acceptable to the international community could the effects of sanctions be removed. That is still the case. The noble Lord has a great deal of effrontery to speak about the trade of black Africa with South Africa. We left black Africa economically dependent on South Africa. Militarily, black Africa was very largely at the mercy of South Africa. We tied up all their transport systems to South Africa. It was we, the British, who did that; black Africa is trading with South Africa now or dying because it has never had any other opportunity.
I believe that black Africa will wish to trade with a democratic South Africa. The purpose of sanctions was to force the South African white regime out of Angola, then Namibia and then to force negotiations with the blacks. The noble Lord speaks about Nelson Mandela being anxious to negotiate and to have peace: he always has been. That has always been the policy of the ANC. It was the white state that refused negotiations, constitutional means of reform and representation. For about 50 years the ANC was an entirely non-violent organisation. It simply wanted negotiations. We hope that now the ANC is going into negotiations. It must not go naked into the negotiating chamber.
If sanctions are removed then a great deal of the argument has also been removed that has sustained President de Klerk and his friends as well as Nelson Mandela. It is the opponents of reform who will claim the victory if sanctions are moved. They must be continued until the reform process has become irreversible.
I should like to continue by speaking of the social problems that the noble Lord mentioned. I shall deal with just one. The most important, dangerous and tragic social problem which faces the majority of South Africans today is the militarisation of the youth from the age of nine years onwards. Militarisation has taken place particularly because of the revolt by urban Africans against white domination. That militarisation is a tremendous headache. I know personally from discussions with black parents that that issue is a great problem and a great shadow over the future of black South Africa.
These are the issues that we have to tackle. I hope that the Government will give help towards a tremendous task. I hope they ensure that that help goes to the people who need it and that it does not go, as it does today, to the white regime.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I rise with some reluctance to intervene in consideration of the Question before your Lordships' House this evening. I have no first-hand experience of life in South Africa. However, noble Lords might expect a contribution from the episcopal Bench, not least because of the involvement of the Churches in South Africa in social and economic affairs in the urban areas of that country.
Yesterday your Lordships' House was considering the far-reaching changes in Russia and Eastern Europe. Tonight, in the context of this Question, we are considering events in South Africa which are as

485
astonishing and as surprising. Many of us have been hoping and praying for a change in fundamental attitudes, relationships and expectations, which would bring about real change in the political, economic and social conditions of black and white South Africans. Such a change in attitude is now beginning and for the first time in decades there is a real basis for hope in South Africa.
The reasons for policy changes in South Africa are at least four-fold. They include the indomitable will of the four-fifths disenfranchised black community to create a democratic, non-racial and unitary state. They include also the unsustainable cost of equipping the national security state, the crippling cost of sanctions and the coming to power of a new leadership closer to Afrikaner business interests and open to considerations of enlightened self-interest.
President de Klerk's recent decisions have transformed the situation. The most far-reaching decision has been the release of Nelson Mandela and his resultant emergence as the most remarkable black South African in decades. Upon him and on the relationship that he builds with President de Klerk depends the future of South Africa. In the monumental role that he is called on to play, he and President de Klerk need our prayers as they near the moment of the initiation of negotiations.
The new realism of President de Klerk's administration is also evidenced in the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, made reference; namely, to set aside two billion rand in the 1990–91 budget for the creation of a special fund to correct the imbalances created by apartheid. That has been made possible by a cut in real terms of the defence budget. Housing, education, training, literacy and basic health needs have been noted by the South African Finance Minister as needing to be met by this fund. The new fund must be welcomed as the first use of nationalist funds to address social imbalance and to respond to the poverty of the majority in creative ways.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that a major, perhaps the major, factor in the poverty experienced by millions of black South Africans is apartheid. Land dispossession, poor wages, the migrant labour system and the forced removal of surplus labour to the homelands have exacerbated poverty. The removal of apartheid and the emergence of a democratic society is a pre-requisite for a proper attack on poverty.
It is in this context that the issue of sanctions has to be considered. I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, in his remarks about sanctions. I believe that it is almost universally agreed that sanctions have contributed to bringing about the present hopeful situation. Their part in strengthening black resolve, in putting pressure on the white community and in contributing to real change is readily acknowledged by all. This pressure must be maintained— in this respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby— until it is clear that leaders in South Africa, black and white, are engaged in an irreversible process of negotiation for a democratic South Africa. The Government should join the European, Commonwealth and
486
international communities in keeping sanctions in place at this moment.
The Southern Africa Coalition in this country, composed of Churches, trade unions, development agencies and anti-apartheid bodies, pleading for a fundamental change in British policy towards South Africa which respects the victims of apartheid, wrote to the Foreign Secretary:
"While the British Government continues to give support to the South African Government, it is seen to be supporting the continued exploitation of the black majority. Unless Britain is clearly seen to be identifying with and supporting the legitimate demands of the black majority population, its policies towards South Africa will continue to favour the apartheid regime".
The Foreign Secretary has announced a £ 10 million increase in British aid to black South Africans. This is to be welcomed. Funds already provided have helped black South Africans enormously. The British ambassador in South Africa and his staff have infinitely better contact with the black community than some of their predecessors. However, two points need to be made. The first is that while apartheid remains in place such aid can at best only ameliorate for a handful of people the appalling living conditions which result directly from apartheid. These were conditions to which the Foreign Secretary referred after his recent visit.
The second point is that, if the British Government are committed to bringing about change, then such aid should be used in consultation with such community and religious bodies as the South Africa Council of Churches, the South Africa Catholic Bishops' Conference and the non-religious Kagiso Trust. This is the practice of our European partners and helps to ensure that funds assist the victims of apartheid and strengthen those movements which are committed to change and democracy.
Finally, I refer to a point already made by the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord Hatch of Lusby. Surely the most precious commodity in bringing about the change for which we hope is trust. Without trust, negotiations will break down. There is evidence that such trust, astonishingly, is beginning to emerge in a situation which has for decades seemed to breed mistrust, hatred and violence. This growth of trust is the most remarkable of the far-reaching changes of recent. months; it is the foundation for realistic hope for the future.
President de Klerk has demonstrated trust in the release of Nelson Mandela. Mr. Mandela has said that he believes that President de Klerk is to be trusted. Nothing that this Government or any other external body do should jeopardise that trust. If it grows, and leads to the changes which will dismantle apartheid, then South Africa, with international support, will begin to overcome its social and economic problems.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord St. John for raising this important Question in a powerful, effective and wide-ranging speech. I cannot hope remotely to match his expertise or his in-depth knowledge, but it so happens that two days ago I returned from a 20-day

487
trip through southern Africa, embracing Namibia, where I spent six days, the Republic of South Africa, Ciskei, Transkei and Bophuthatswana. The trip covered several thousand kilometers, most of it overland. In the course of it I was able to talk to a very wide range of people of all races and to observe the very considerable changes that have occurred even in the three years since I was last there. I refer in particular to the enormous burgeoning in the numbers of comfortably-off black middle class people, particularly in Johannesburg itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, also made a wide-ranging speech covering both the history of South Africa, about which he knows a great deal, and also what he imagines to be current affairs and sentiments in South Africa, about which I venture to say he is somewhat less up to date. I would gladly correct him on two or three points if time permitted and if the debate covered South Africa as a whole, but time does not permit and the debate does not, alas, cover South Africa as a whole, and so I think I ought to return to the actual Question asked by my noble friend.
I have a very slight reservation about the framing of the Unstarred Question in that it suggests obliquely that problems are concentrated mainly in urban areas and that more effective urbanisation is the key to the problem. I realise that it is now somewhat unfashionable but I still believe that there is a good deal to be said, in social terms even if not in strict economic terms, for bringing work to people rather than encouraging people to flock hundreds of miles for work, thereby avoiding the creation of massive, unwieldy, polluted, crime-ridden, slum-infested conurbations on the Latin American model. I see no joy in turning Johannesburg into a replica of Mexico City or Lima.
Apart from the merits of the geographical diversification of industry— we call it regional policy in this country— surely there is still a great deal to be said for improving agricultural techniques. After all, there is nothing wrong with the soil of the Transkei that proper terracing and crop rotation would not cure. This would raise the rural standard of living generally as well as the urban standard of living.
It was good incidentally to see the improved quality of rural housing both in the Transkei and in KwaZulu. It was particularly interesting to hear of a new scheme recently devised by the electricity board in Natal to connect dwellings in rural areas to the electricity supply on an ingenious low-cost basis, thereby not only improving the quality of life for the occupants but also raising their standard of living. As I understand it, it costs almost three times as much to cook using paraffin as it does using electricity. Whether British assistance has been concentrated on urban or rural areas or both, it is obvious that calls on the Government's purse, or to be more accurate, the taxpayers' purse, must inevitably be strictly limited.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey, said, there are a great many other parts of the world— that is, not just other parts of Africa, but parts of Asia, Latin
488
America and the Caribbean— where poverty is very much greater than in South Africa. They must therefore have an equal or greater claim on our financial generosity. That is not to say that there should not be as much direct economic assistance as can be afforded, but it should be carefully and precisely targeted. For example, there could be assistance for vocational training, especially in trades connected with housing. I refer to vocational training of bricklayers, plasterers, joiners, electricians, plumbers and so on, in view of the urgent need, as has already been said, for very much more low-cost housing.
A number of middle-classs black parents told me that they are particularly anxious for their sons— and in some instances their daughters— to receive training in business administration. Therefore a few bursaries in this respect might not be totally amiss. It is gratifying to know that it is business administration and technical skills generally to which so many people aspire these days rather than the law.
But the main thrust of British government assistance ought really to come from the removal of artificially created obstacles to growth in the South African economy— by which, of course, I mean sanctions. There is a naive notion— not, I may say, shared by such far-sighted intelligent blacks as the editor of the Soweto newspaper— which is prevalent not only in ANC and PNC circles but also in certain circles overseas that South Africa is a "rich" country and that all one has to do is to dig billions of dollars' worth of gold out of the ground with a spade and then everyone will live in the lap of luxury for evermore. There are thinly populated countries such as Kuwait or Libya which can indeed live fairly well off their mineral wealth, provided that the price of that wealth holds up. In contrast. South Africa has a large and extremely rapidly growing population, to say nothing of such endemic disadvantages as a totally inadequate water supply for the population which is projected for the year 2000 and beyond.
The South African economy may not be completely a tender plant, but it still needs careful nurturing if it is to get anywhere near to performing the miracles which are expected of it in the future for the people of the region. In parenthesis I should say that the notion that South Africa can ever emulate Taiwan or South Korea is a total pipe dream. I contend that for reasons into which I shall not go on this occasion.
There is another hazard which must be mentioned, unpleasant though it is. There are 60,000 black people with AIDS in South Africa at present. A medical conference in Johannesburg at the end of last month forecast that that figure would double every eight-and-a-half months. I wonder whether your Lordships realise the full significance of that fact. It means that 500,000 cases of AIDS are expected by the middle of 1992, a million cases by the spring of 1993 and 2 million by Christmas 1993; that is, if the projections given by the conference prove to be correct. It is a most horrifying thought.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene at this point.

489
Can he say how many cases of AIDS there are among the white population?
Lord Monson: My Lords, there are a few cases. Without being too flippant, I think I can say that I read somewhere that it is fairly prevalent among the stewards of South African Airways and so on, and among the white homosexual community generally. However, AIDS is not in any way endemic in the heterosexual white population as it is among the black population generally.
To the extent that sanctions work— and I am bound to say that during my entire trip I never heard the word "sanctions" mentioned— they tend to drive many thousands of highly skilled and qualified people with internationally marketable skills to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on. That has a very adverse effect upon the country and therefore, naturally, upon the well-being of the inhabitants of all races.
Political consequences also flow from that emigration. The people who emigrate tend to be well disposed to the idea of rapid political change, not least because if the gamble fails they at least have skills which they can take elsewhere. In contrast, those who stay behind— that is, those without internationally marketable skills and, in some cases, without even internally marketable skills— tend to be highly resistant to change, as one might expect. In my opinion the real division among South African whites is not between Afrikaner and British; it is between those with higher education who may indeed be mainly of British descent and those without higher education. The differences go very deep. Next, as we know, sanctions cause unemployment among the whites, the coloureds, the Indians and the blacks. However, this occurs mainly among the blacks, with great attendant hardship because unemployment pay is very low.
This may come as a surprise to noble Lords, but it was heartening to observe how little racial hostility or even tension there is in South Africa at the moment. Judging by the press reports of court cases, such unprovoked racial attacks as there are seem predominantly the work of young unemployed people on both sides. Surely we have learnt from 21 years of bloody conflict in Northern Ireland that the more unemployment that exists among working-class Catholics and Protestants, the more likely they are to attack one another. Why should working-class whites and blacks, respectively, in South Africa react any differently? Multicultural, multiracial and multilingual societies are fragile and volatile at the best of times. We need look only at Transylvania, Kosovo, Nagorno Karabakh, the Punjab, the beautiful island of Sri Lanka, the Palestinian West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Cyprus and Northern Ireland, to name but a few.
The only way such societies have a hope of functioning smoothly— Belgium is one example; we must remember how great the tensions were between the Walloons and the Flemings at the end of World War Two— without strife and tension, is in conditions of increasing prosperity for all sections of the community and minimal unemployment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do
490
everything they can to help bring about those conditions.
9.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for giving us the opportunity to discuss not just the Question on the Order Paper but some of the implications of that Question. He put most eloquently and clearly the situation as he has seen it over the past three months in South Africa. How lucky we are to have someone who was in the country on 2nd February, who heard the speech of President de Klerk and witnessed the release of Mr. Mandela. Many of the figures he gave and much of the picture of South Africa that he painted is helpful and interesting to anyone who takes an interest in developments in South Africa.
I am not sure that I share the optimism of some of the noble Lord's remarks or some of his ideas as to how matters may progress. I share the realism, if I may put it that way, of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. I would not call his views pessimistic because I know him well. I know of his long involvement in and knowledge of that country. What appears to be a pessimistic view of the way things will develop is based upon many years of experience. Many of the things he said tonight must be borne well in mind. I wish that the two noble Lords could continue what seemed, at the beginning of the debate, to be a two-horse race on television or the radio; because what they both have to say would be of enormous interest and importance to many people in this country. I hope that that point will be listened to somewhere in the House.
The Question on the Order Paper is not easy to answer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, to which I shall listen carefully. There is no doubt about the British potential to help economically and socially in South Africa and in many other areas of the world. The question at this stage seems to be whether direct intervention is suitable, necessary or something that we want. I doubt whether there is much that we could do at this stage and whether it would be welcomed.
There is one thing that we must do— I agree here with the right reverend Prelate: we must trust what was said on that momentous day (2nd February) by President de Klerk and accept it with relief We welcome of course the long-awaited release of Mr. Mandela. What president de Klerk suggests is a new South Africa, cleansed of the obscenity of apartheid, creating a new unity among all races with justice, both social and economic, to bind together a new nation where humanity replaces systemised victimisation and persecution and structured racial privilege.
That is what is suggested and is what is required and what we would all want. However, nothing that I have read or heard has mentioned the future. We are talking about the present. President de Klerk has been talking about what will happen now and what steps he intends to take. I have not been able to determine any clear idea of how things will progress, or indeed what system of government President de

491
Klerk has in mind. What kind of government will be adopted and what will be the exact nature of the constitution of a new South Africa? What sequence of events will lead towards universal suffrage? That can be the only answer in South Africa and the only thing that the black population will accept. They will accept nothing less.
Let us be under no illusions as to how it came about that on 2nd February President de Klerk made his historic speech. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that that speech was made as a result of tremendous pressure from within his country and outside, and as a result of a situation of increasing economic stagnation. I agree that the country has enormous potential and riches, but financially it is not a country that many South Africans would describe as vibrant and productive at this stage.
We have heard the speeches of Mr. Mandela. No one who has heard his speeches or seen him on television can have remained unimpressed by the dignity and restraint of the content of his messages. However, it is clear that, as regards Mr. Mandela and the black people for whom he speaks, it is not enough just to clear away the exterior fabric of the apartheid system. That will not be accepted by the black population of South Africa. The imbalance between the races as regards social and economic affairs is a problem which President de Klerk faces. The resolution of that imbalance must be a formidable task for him. We must believe him to be sincere in his wish to create a new South Africa, because only by creating a new South Africa can that country survive and be in a position to develop its undoubted potential.
But before we or any other country can offer South Africa help of the kind suggested in this Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, changes in South Africa must be initiated and be seen to be progressing, and be seen to be taken by South Africans themselves. There will have to be a massive re-education of people of all races in South Africa. That again is a huge problem. That cannot be achieved overnight. It will take many years to change attitudes that have been hardened over many years of structured racism, from whichever quarter they emerge.
How does one carve out of that sad history a common sense of identity? Other noble Lords have referred to that matter. That common sense of identity is, I believe, absolutely essential for the future of South Africa. As regards the economy of that country, how will the Government of South Africa go about controlling and guiding an economy where the vast majority of people perceive themselves to be disadvantaged? That is another enormous problem. It is hard to see how a free market can work initially in South Africa under such conditions. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, but I believe that a degree of nationalisation in South Africa has to be faced. That is in general something that is not particularly attractive to me, and I daresay it is not particularly attractive to the Minister. Nevertheless, I venture to suggest that in the situation in South Africa that I have described state control will be necessary to
492
nurture the development of the economy in order for it to ripen and succeed.
Fears and passions obviously run high in South Africa. Among the blacks we know what resentment has built up and what they now expect. Unless they see the kind of development that has been signalled by President de Klerk, and should the edifice of apartheid remain and all that we have seen and heard be purely cosmetic, I am afraid that there will be enormous violence and mayhem in that country. All reasonable people of all races in South Africa know full well that black domination cannot replace white domination. That would produce catastrophe.
I was heartened to see a television programme on Channel 4— another of that channel's brilliant programmes— on a debate which took place at Stellenbosch University a short time ago. It included a representative number of leading figures in Afrikaner life. Unhappily, representatives of the Conservative Party declined the invitation to attend. It was explained that that was because of the presence of an Afrikaner poet who had been imprisoned for terrorism some years previously.
The commitment that was shown among the members of that group was impressive and fascinating. The difficulties that they faced were not ignored by any of the politicians and intellectuals who were gathered there. They take a particular interest in the future development of the country because the Afrikaner community has an enormous historical and cultural commitment. They are Africans— that is what Afrikaner means.
It was interesting to learn from that programme that it is calculated that between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. of all Afrikaners are unashamedly zenophobic or racist, and will have nothing whatever to do with anything short of partition in their country. One may think that 7 per cent. to 10 per cent. is a small number. Those views are not held only by Afrikaners; they are also held by many other white South Africans, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, will confirm. That represents a significant, hard view which has to be taken into account. It is no good writing it off. Those people have to be accommodated, changed, and shown that there is another way.
Many more South Africans are worried and uncertain but know that change has to take place. There is a will in society in South Africa to achieve a new, strong and humane state. However, the problems and the fear of the future will be difficult to overcome. We wish them well in their immense task.
The British have enormous influence in many of the countries to the north of South Africa. I spent some time in those countries during the 1970s. At that time it was impossible for me to go to South Africa even if I had wanted to. Most of those countries became independent in the 1960s. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said about their trading with South Africa. Those of us with any knowledge of Africa know that all those countries trade with South Africa, as the noble, Lord St. John, said; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, they have no alternative. They were put in that position by the British Government.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is not only former British colonies which trade with South Africa. It is also former French colonies for which we cannot be held responsible.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but I did not wish to bring the French into the argument at this stage. That would complicate matters enormously.
In those countries where British influence is still strong., there has been a sad miscalculation of the future of Africa in which those countries would play a part. Their agriculture has become inefficient, their views about industrialisation have not come to fruition and they have become increasingly impoverished, corrupt and inefficient.
Nevertheless, the British still have enormous influence in those countries. It is to be hoped that the new South Africa that we all wish to appear will be of enormous value to those countries because, after all, South Africa— a prosperous South Africa with the identity that I have described— will be a way of bringing black Africa out of the enormous pit of despair, poverty and disease into which it has sunk. When the potential of South Africa has been realised, they can help practically with technology and economic aid.
The changes in Eastern Europe are already felt in Africa where Soviet and Eastern bloc support for some African countries created alarming tension with the West which reacted accordingly. I recently met an Ethiopian businessman who had come from Addis Ababa on a purchasing mission. He said that in that country, where there is a repressive and violent Marxist regime, there have already been signs that changes are taking place there because they fear that the support which they had hitherto has now evaporated.
Africa is therefore in a state of change. South Africa is in a state of change. Surely now is the time for Britain to prepare for a new Africa and to help it as best it can to develop quickly, although such change will not be rapid. We must have faith. The possibility is there. The scenario has been well described by other noble Lords. To reiterate the words of the right reverend Prelate, we must, above all, have trust.
9.33 p m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for giving us this opportunity because, after all, the subject of South Africa is close to our thoughts and hopes. I found the account of his recent visit that the noble Lord gave of great fascination and very moving.
We began to hope for South Africa when the South African president took the first step towards setting up a new order in his country. Since then, we have allowed our hopes to grow as we marvel at Mr. Mandela's actions and words, his genuine wish for reconciliation and his lack of bitterness or feeling of revenge. Those are a great factor in the future of South Africa.
This evening, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, asks how Her Majesty's Government can best
494
assist the South African Government in solving their social and economic problems. I shall confine myself to that question. As noble Lords have said, there can be little doubt that the social and economic situation in South Africa is fundamentally affected by the political regime. While apartheid is in place, there can be no instant cure for the economic ills of the country and the deplorable social conditions of the black population.
Her Majesty's Government believe that the best way of giving support to President de Klerk in his attempts to move his country toward a democratic non-racist system and thereby re-establish economic strength, is by the removal of sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, and the noble Earl who spoke this evening— and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Monson— all agree with him.
Although we on these Benches share the same hope and aim as Her Majesty's Government— we also want a democratic, non-racist South Africa— we see differently the way to achieve it. We believe that we should remain in line with our European partners with regard to sanctions and wait for the political dialogue in South Africa to develop. We believe that the process of dismantling apartheid should at least be put in motion before the outside world gives South Africa the economic support afforded by the lifting of sanctions, and also the accolade that would go with it. To me at any rate it would also seem prudent to allow the anti-apartheid movement to retain in its hands the all-important trump card (if I may call it that) of sanctions, to assist in its long and complex negotiations with the South African Government regarding the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about the effects of sanctions in South Africa. Nevertheless no doubt he would agree that there is another side to that issue— the withdrawal of American banks and businesses and the, so to speak, unofficial sanctions undoubtedly were highly instrumental in bringing about the present change and improved situation in South Africa.
I should like to say just a few words about South Africa's social problems. I have only a superficial knowledge of those problems through visiting many ODA-assisted projects in townships when I was last in South Africa in 1988. That is rather later than the noble Lords who spoke previously. First, it must be recognised that most of the social problems of black South Africans are a direct result of apartheid. For example, while South Africa is the richest country in sub-Saharan Africa, measured by per capita income, according to data from the World Bank the average life expectancy of birth there is lower than that in the neighbouring country of Zimbabwe. Research shows that 52·2 per cent. of all blacks lived below the minimum living level poverty line in 1985 compared with only 1·6 per cent. of all whites. Unemployment among blacks is immensely high. In fact, as estimated by a Wits University professor in 1986, the figure was between 4· million and 5·5 million. The housing situation, which has been mentioned this evening, is again deplorable. With the acute shortage of land and lack of state provision of low income housing, as many as one in every six South Africans

495
are homeless. While the Group Area Act remains, as has already been said little can be done to remedy the situation.
The fact that the Urban Foundation in conjunction with the private sector has announced a new scheme to provide finance for low-cost housing is not a way of dealing with the problem. Surely it is the responsibility of government to provide housing which is needed on such an enormous scale. From those few figures it is quite clear that black South Africans have very little share in their country's prosperity. It is quite clear that the social problems affecting them can only be satisfactorily solved with the removal of apartheid.
So the question is: what can be done in this transitional period? What can be done to work towards setting up mechanisms to deal with social problems at the same time as negotiations are set in motion to resolve the political future of South Africa? Since 1979 Britain has provided assistance for black South Africans through a bilateral programme providing scholarships, the financing of educational and community development activities and for self-help projects in the very deprived urban and rural areas. Britain has also contributed to the special programme of assistance for black South Africans set up by the European Community.
I have visited many self-help projects in the black townships— Soweto, Crossroads, Alexandria. I have visited such projects in Sudan, Kenya and Northern Ireland. Those are projects of exactly the same kind but with a great difference. Most of the projects that I visited in the black townships were necessary only because of apartheid. I remember visiting a project where bricks were being made. I asked why it was necessary for that project to fabricate bricks. I was told that it was impossible for the blacks in the township to purchase bricks.
We must plan our assistance so that it is channelled in the best possible way to give support to the South African people. One channel for that has now been created by the development of a mass democratic movement and the setting up of the Kagiso Trust. It is by working through the people who have brought about change in South Africa— those who know the needs of the South African people, who are working on the ground— that the social problems can be finally dealt with. Britain must continue to provide assistance. But it must be assistance which is agreed with the ANC rather than solely with the South African Government.
I should like to make one other point, regarding the participation of international organisations in South Africa. At the present time there are no United Nations organisations operating in a country where apartheid is central to the political system. There is therefore no presence in South Africa. But I believe that the time has now come to develop an ongoing dialogue between the relevant UN agencies and bodies and those who will help to lead the post-apartheid South Africa. I am thinking of such bodies as the UN Development Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the International Labour
496
Organisation, UNESCO, UNICEF and the office of the UN High Commission for Refugees. I also believe that the role of the two great financial institutions— the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund— need to be thought through.
Although some of those bodies, such as the UNHCR, already have links outside South Africa with the ANC, I can foresee much possible co-operation in the future— as the development policies of the Government in post-apartheid South Africa are planned and implemented— with whoever forms that post-apartheid government. Such complex issues as land tenure and agricultural development, the provision of help in improving basic health care, educational opportunities, industrial relations, urban and rural housing and the return of refugees in their initial resettlement, will all come within the possible remit of the UN.
Given the costs and complexities of the dismantling of apartheid, the UN will surely have a key role to play, both in planning and in helping to finance and implement major programmes. The UN agencies should at least be considering how to set about this preliminary work for the future, and Her Majesty's Government should be encouraging that process.
Through my involvement with UNICEF with the British committee, I assure your Lordships that the role of UNICEF would be enormous in South Africa. In fact, its absence now is very noticeable. It leaves a great void. Very little is known about children's issues in South Africa— such issues as the level of child mortality rates, the level of immunisation, of malnutrition, and indeed the effect that conflict will have on the emotional development of children. As Nelson Mandela said, when adults suffer they can take it, but the suffering of children has lifelong effects. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch in saying that it is a terrible heritage for the future for South Africa to have had a generation of children who have suffered and who have seen such terrible events in their childhood.
For the time being, UNICEF can fill a role only from the sidelines in providing support to South Africa's NGOs, which are concerned with children. It can assist with the work of researching the needs of children in South Africa. It can focus international attention on the needs of those children. It is preparatory for the day when the political situation will make it possible for the agency to operate within the country.
I am sure that we all fervently hope that the intolerable system of apartheid will be lifted, and that the people of South Africa will be brought back into the international family. At that point the people in the rest of the world will go the same way as have black South Africans; they will try to forgive and forget and give their support to the rebuilding of that country.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject of South Africa this evening. It is a country in which there

497
have recently been political developments of great importance. He introduced the debate with a humane and realistic speech. His knowledge about the matters of which he speaks is second to none in your Lordships' House, and we must all listen with respect to what he says. I have also listened with interest to the contributions of other noble Lords who have spoken. I welcome this opportunity to set out in your Lordships' House the Government's approach and record on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Lindsey is right in saying that South Africa is potentially a very wealthy country. It is rich in mineral resources and agriculturally productive land. It has the most developed industrial base and sophisticated infastructure in Africa. It is all the more tragic therefore that many South Africans suffer extreme social and economic deprivation. A recent study estimates that some 15 million South Africans (out of a total population of more than 30 million) live in conditions of absolute poverty. For many South Africans housing conditions in the towns and in the countryside are primitive, and schooling, where it exists at all, is rudimentary. Unemployment is high; even conservative estimates put this at 11 per cent. South Africa's population is increasing at the rate of 2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, gave even more statistics to illustrate the burden that that poses on the economy.
These problems are not unique to South Africa. Similar conditions exist across Africa, Asia and Latin America. The difference is that South Africa has the resources to improve them. But real progress cannot be made while apartheid still exists and I agree with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. The injustice and disproportionate distribution of wealth inherent in apartheid has ensured that, for example, average white per capita income is four times higher than it is for blacks. The South African Government spend approximately six times as much educating a white pupil as a black pupil. Last year only 9 per cent. of the 196,000 black students who sat the South African matriculation exam passed well enough to be eligible to go to university (the corresponding figure for whites was 42 per cent.). Moreover, apartheid has bred an inflated bureaucracy and a multiplicity and racially inspired regulations. These are a heavy additional burden on the South African economy and prevent the growth that is essential if South Africa is to cater adequately for its growing population.
We have made no secret of our detestation of apartheid and our belief that it must be abolished. We condemn it utterly. The prime responsibility for addressing South African social and economic problems lies with the South Africans themselves. But we believe that governments with influence in South Africa, such as ourselves, have a role to play in encouraging change. We should like to see the transition to a democratic non-racial South Africa managed peacefully through negotiation, in ways which do not damage the country's economy or the basis for its future welfare. Our policy is designed to maximise the ways in which we can contribute to this objective. It is a policy of contact, not of isolation. It is a policy of applying pressure
498
on the South African Government to take concrete steps to end apartheid and encouragement when the South African Government react in a way we have urged them to do.
In the six months since he became President, Mr. de Klerk has transformed the political climate in South Africa. He has made quite clear his commitment to ending apartheid through negotiations and has taken many of the steps for which the international community has long been calling to open the way to dialogue. In doing so he has taken great risks and for him there is no going back. That is why we believe it is so important for the international community to acknowledge the steps President de Klerk has taken and to encourage him to go further. As he takes the further steps necessary to open negotiations and dismantle apartheid we shall continue to respond in a measured way with concrete gestures. We hope that the opposition groups too will respond constructively by seizing the unique opportunity President de Klerk has created to negotiate in conditions of peace a non-racial, democratic future for South Africa.
The talks due to take place on 11th April between the ANC and President de Klerk to discuss how the remaining obstacles to negotiations can be removed are welcome evidence of their readiness to do so. President de Klerk has said that he is prepared to discuss all issues with them on an open agenda including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred. It is only through those important contacts that negotiations proper for a new constitution for South Africa can begin. President de Klerk has said that he does not wish to prescribe the outcome of those negotiations and that it is for the representatives of the South African people to decide the form of constitution best suited to their own circumstances. We welcome those words.
We also welcome the moves the South African Government have now taken to address the country's pressing socio-economic needs. Indeed, it is their responsibility to do so, as the noble Baroness said. In the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance on 14th March he announced the setting up of a new 2 billion rand (£ 500 million) fund, specifically to help those most disadvantaged in housing, education and training, literacy and basic health care. On 16th March, President de Klerk announced an additional 1 billion rand for this fund to be raised from the proceeds of future privatisations. This is a small step in relation to the problem. But it is a signifcant one.
We believe there is also a role for outside governments. In our case, an active and carefully targeted aid programme is making a significant impact. Including our share of European community aid we shall be spending over £ 40 million in the period 1987–92. Only this week in South Africa the Foreign Secretary announced that our programme would be increased by a further £ 10 million, concentrated on education and training. We provide scholarships for undergraduate study at South African universities and for post-graduate courses and specialist training in Britain. In 1990 we will be supporting about 1,000 black South Africans in higher education both here and in South Africa. In

499
this way we are helping to prepare for the day when South Africa's black citizens will be playing a major role in government and in economic development.
All our aid is planned and implemented directly with community groups, with NGOs and some universities. Indeed, some is channelled through the very organisations mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. It is directed explicitly for the benefit of black South Africans, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was alleging in his closing words; and the South African Government are not involved in the programmes.
Others too are helping. The European Community's positive measures programme, which is likely to focus increasingly on education, housing, and other humanitarian support, will total around £ 15 million this year. Our contribution will be around £ 3 million. The United Nations and the Commonwealth secetariat both run scholarship schemes for black South Africans to each of which we are contributing £ 75,000 this year. Other bilateral donors with substantial aid programmes for black South Africans include the United States, West Germany and Canada.
We are also contributing to a major initiative to help ease the tremendous housing problems caused by a combination of population growth and rapid urbanisation in the 1980s. We are contributing ourselves, and successfully encouraged others to contribute, to a scheme set up by the Urban Foundation aimed at generating new low-cost owner-occupied homes for a quarter of a million black South Africans over the next five years using private sector finance. We have also helped finance schemes to help shack-dwellers rebuild their homes after flood damage and to protect their homes more effectively from wind and rain. We would like to do
500
more to help those who cannot afford formal housing and are looking at ways of expanding our assistance to the squatter settlements.
We are providing support to over 250 community projects throughout the country both in urban and rural areas. These include community centres, self-help manufacturing projects, support for community-based health clinics, old peoples homes, covered markets and support for schools.
Our aid programme is therefore focused on just those areas identified by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso; education, housing, employment creation and health. It also reaches many of the rural areas which receive no other outside support. That was a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, brought to our attention.
Together our political and aid programmes are an effective and practical demonstration of our determination to contribute to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Our approach is two-fold: pressure on all parties in South Africa to bring about the conditions in which negotiations to end apartheid can take place, and practical help to alleviate the social and economic problems its victims face. In this way we can play a role in ensuring a brighter political, social and economic future for all the people of South Africa.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.