Sitting of 23 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21st July] :
  That this House takes note of the White Paper entitled The United Kingdom and the European Communties (Command Paper No. 4715).—[The Prime Minister.]
  Question again proposed.
  11.5 a.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to concentrate chiefly on those matters which concern my Department. I shall be grateful, if, at the end of my speech, hon. Gentlemen will permit me some licence to range wider.
  The previous Government made clear that they were willing to accept the general form of the common agricultural policy, and this is right and inevitable. The agricultural arrangements are a fundamental part of the Community. It would be unrealistic to think of changing the basic approach which the Six have taken. We may not like all of the common agricultural policy, but we have to recognise that our own agricultural support arrangements were beginning to creak at the joints and were in need of a change.
  But the common agricultural policy involves problems for us, and I make no apology for mentioning some of these and for taking food prices first. Sometimes I think the country mixes up the problems of the common agricultural policy, which are much more to do with food than with farmers. This is a most important subject and it is a source of anxiety to many people, particularly
  1846
  those on low or fixed incomes, but we must see things in perspective. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding. One of the basic misunderstandings is that, once we are in, the prices of food in our shops will rise to the same levels as those in this or that capital of the Six. Let us be clear. There is no policy of harmonising retail food prices in the Community and these vary considerably from country to country.
  What joining the Community means is that gradually, over a period of years—not overnight—prices at the farm gate and at the port would gradually be raised towards the generally higher levels of the Community. What happened to prices at the retail stage would be a reflection of our system of marketing, processing and distribution and of our tastes and consumption patterns. In calculating what the likely effect of entry would be on our retail food prices we have taken all these factors fully into account and used the best available information. Having done so, we reached the conclusion set out in the White Paper ; namely, that the average annual increase in food prices will be no more than about 2½p in the £ spread over a period of some six years.
  As an average family of two adults and two children currently spends between £7 and £8.50 a week on food, these increases would amount to only about 20p on the weekly shopping bill. The rise is in fact equivalent to ½ per cent. per annum on the cost of living as a whole. To put this in perspective, we must remember that our real wages have been rising much faster and we have been able both to improve our eating standards and to spend a larger proportion of our incomes on other things. There is no reason to suppose that this trend will not continue if we join the Community. Indeed, real wages in the Six are rising faster than they are here. For those who depend on pensions and social benefits we have given the firm undertaking in the White Paper that full allowance will be made in regular reviews for the effect on prices of joining the Community.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I thought that I heard my right hon. Friend say that the average annual increase in food prices would be 2½p in the

  1847
  £. Does he mean the total over the five-year period?
  Mr. Prior: It is 2½ per cent. on food prices each year for six years. That is an increase of 15 per cent. over the period of the transition. That is roughly 20p a week for the average family.
  The suggestion was made in an article in yesterday's Evening Standard that we have under-estimated the extent of the real increase in food prices likely to result from entry. I notice the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) smiling at this reference. I am not sure whether he has convinced his former Permanent Secretary, or the other way round. By the time that he has listened to the next few sentences, I hope that he will realise how far up the pole he was.
  The article said that we should be deliberately cutting ourselves off from the long-term prospect of obtaining cheaper food imports at falling world prices. Everyone knows that that is a totally illusory picture. World food prices have been rising at a relatively faster rate than Community prices. Although the process has been aggravated recently for one or two commodities by a poor production year resulting from droughts in New Zealand and so on, the underlying trend has been upwards for much longer than that. There is no reason to suppose that it will be reversed. There are clear pointers that it will continue. If hon Members want an example of that, they have only to read this morning's Financial Times, which shows that beef prices at Smithfield this week have fallen considerably and that, as a result, meat from the Argentine which was coming here has been diverted elsewhere. There is a greater demand for these foods in the world than a few years ago.
  We have based our calculations on the cautious assumption that the gap between world prices and Community prices will not continue to go on narrowing as in recent years—and very much so in the last year—but will remain much the same.
  I have always tried to give an accurate and dispassionate view on food prices. The Government have not sought to under-estimate the problem or the price which has to be paid. Nor should opponents
  1848
  seek to magnify it. Some of the comments which have been made in the last few days have been utter nonsense. People do not realise that it is only when one has a weak case that it is necessary to exaggerate and use the kind of scare tactics which are being used.
  The value-added tax has also been used to frighten people about the likely course of prices. Let me put the position quite clearly. We have always said that food will be relieved of value-added tax, except for the few items already subject to purchase tax. That remains our position outside the Community. Within the Community, V.A.T. is applied to food by member States at reduced rates, but there is no requirement for uniformity at present and little immediate prospect of any move in that direction. The White Paper says that in due course harmonised rates and coverage may be introduced by unanimous agreement. So we should be a party to any such agreement and would be able to make our views felt.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked a question about New Zealand. He wanted to know what would happen if we failed by 1977 to reach agreement on the continuation of dairy products supply.
  We have agreed with the Community that a decision will be taken and that the measures must be suitable for ensuring the continuation of the derogation system after 31st December, 1977, and determining the details. Having agreed that much in the negotiations, it is inconceivable that we should fail as a full member of the Community to reach agreement on the exact nature of the measures in this important matter. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the first day of the debate,
  "The Community is under an obligation to continue a satisfactory arrangement after 1977 …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 1461.]
  The review arrangements have been described as "highly satisfactory" by Sir Keith Holyoake, and certainly this part of the agreement has met with the full approval of the New Zealand Government. If we have got so far in the negotiations when we are not a member of the Community, it seems to me to be impossible that we should not get a

  1849
  good deal further once we are a member and able to make our views felt about what should happen.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does not what my right hon. Friend has said about agreement at the review mean that we would not contemplate using our veto if that agreement were not in all respects satisfactory from our point of view or from the point of view of New Zealand?
  Mr. Prior: It has been made clear always that where the vital interests of any one country were considered to be at risk, the Community would not as a whole take action which would make that come about. The Community recognises that in the agreement which has been made already. The Community knows that, for Britain, a fair deal for New Zealand is as important as any other single factor in our relationship with the Community. The Community could not go on if it were not prepared to recognise that fact, and the fact that it has recognised it in the negotiations so far is an indication that it will continue to do so. We do not gain by continuing to impugn the integrity of the Community when it has shown over these negotiations that it intends to be fair to New Zealand.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I asked a question earlier this week on this very point. I asked whether the Government considered the question of a satisfactory review of the arrangements for New Zealand a matter on which we would feel it right to use our veto if disagreement arose. I was told that the
  "… attitude of Her Majesty's Government in relation to matters following a review would be determined by the situation prevailing at the time."
  The right hon. Gentleman now assures us that it is a matter which we should consider to be of first-rate importance to ourselves, but would it justify the use of the veto?
  Mr. Prior: I think that I have made the Government's position and the Community's position abundantly clear.
  I want now to turn briefly to another subject which is causing hon. Members a good deal of concern. I refer, of course, to fisheries. Among those matters for which I am responsible, there is no other
  1850
  aspect of the negotiations which has commanded greater attention or occupied more of the time of the House. I stress that the Government consider this a matter of the greatest concern and importance.
  The position in the negotiations is simple. We and the other applicants have expained why the provisions of the present common fisheries policy governing access to coastal waters will not do for the enlarged Community. The Community has accepted the need to reconsider them. There will be further discussions in the autumn, and also at that time there will be discussions on the market organisation.
  Our proposal on limits is for a six-mile exclusive limit for the enlarged Community for vessels genuinely fishing from home ports, while all members would have access to the waters in the outer six miles. But the whole of the limits up to 12 miles would be subject to our jurisdiction, so that we should be able to impose non-discriminatory conservation regulations and enforce them within the whole of our present limits.
  Let us get it quite plain. I consider that this proposal strikes a fair balance between the needs of our inshore fisheries and those of the deep sea fleet. I hope that the House will recognise the importance of what I have just said. This is not just a matter of the inshore fisheries ; it is a matter of the deep sea fisheries, too. There are just as many important fishermen in Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, Aberdeen and Lowestoft, my constituency, as there are in other places round the coast. [An HON. MEMBER : "There are more."] There are more, but I do not want to get it out of proportion. I am trying to say that we are seeking to achieve a fair balance between all sections of the fishing industry. I think that that is a reasonable view to take.
  We shall, of course, be ready to discuss any special difficulties, but we can do so only on the basis of a fair solution applied throughout the enlarged Community. The solution which we seek is based on the principles of the European Fisheries Convention which embodies the only internationally agreed régime for the waters with which we are concerned. We believe that that offers the prospect of an equitable agreement for all the parties

  1851
  to it. If a permanent agreement satisfactory to all cannot be reached, the only alternative—we have made this plain—is to maintain the status quo for the time being. I am second to none in my admiration for the fishing industry and fishermen. I hope, though, that fishermen will not allow themselves to be used by unscrupulous people who are jumping on to the fisheries bandwagon to grind other axes. I give that warning to the fishing industry.
  Mr. James Johnson: This is most important. Is the Minister speaking about the 1964 Convention signed by 18 nations with the sole exception of Norway? Is that the Convention about which he is talking?
  Mr. Prior: I am talking about the 1964 Convention which was not signed by Norway, but which we think forms the basis on which a future agreement for the Six plus the Four should be reached.
  It has long been recognised that entry to the E.E.C. could involve difficulties for some parts of British horticulture. But the problems of the industry do not arise solely for this reason. They are longer term and much more far reaching.
  Successive Governments have been anxious to reduce dependence on protection by tariffs and quotas and have given the industry substantial aid to modernise production and marketing. At present, rising costs, particularly for fuel and transport, are bound to add to the concern of growers. Our concern, therefore, has been to secure the maximum time for growers to adjust to membership of the Community. The terms negotiated set down that there will be no tariff cut in the first year after entry. There will be flexibility in adjusting the tariffs, and we have an undertaking that the enlarged Community will be ready to take prompt action to deal with disturbances in its markets. During the transitional period we shall also be able to take protective measures against dumping by another member State where these can be justified.
  One of the main concerns of growers has always been their vulnerability to competition from imports not only from Europe but often from further afield.
  1852
  It is not always realised that the protection of the common external tariff will in general for horticulture afford more protection than we have now. What is more, for apples, pears, tomatoes, plums and cherries, duties are automatically increased if import prices fall below a certain level.
  For apples and pears the Government accept that there is the problem of surpluses within the Community. We have the situation where prices for good-class produce are undermined by poor quality supplies grown at home. I have taken steps to deal with this by giving special encouragement to orchard grubbing. There are already similar measures within the Community, and we shall be taking a keen interest in the policies of the Six for the control of production. Meanwhile, we are determined that the levy system, which is to be introduced for the transition period in place of our present quotas, should provide meaningful protection and ensure that prices are brought into line only gradually.
  I have never sought to disguise that there are climatic disadvantages for some sections of our horticulture industry. But let us not exaggerate them. Our climate for growing field vegetebles, which is over 40 per cent. of horticultural production, is unrivalled. Our growers are competitive and they, in turn, will be well placed to supply our food manufacturers, who will have access to a larger and faster growing market. In other sectors I believe that there is room for adjustment to meet changing market conditions, and I am confident that efficient growers will take their opportunities. I assure the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), who raised questions on this matter on the first day of the debate, that we shall be ready to help efficient producers who face special problems of adjustment. I shall be discussing this matter with the industry, together with the problem of any who may have to go out of business.
  The main outstanding questions in the agricultural sector concern the animal health rules. The position here is widely misunderstood, so I should like to clarify it. There are various differences between our measures and those of the Community. They reflect the animal health situation that prevailed when their measures were drawn up. The most

  1853
  important difference is that the Community vaccinate against foot-and-mouth disease and consequently vaccinated cattle are free to pass between member States. They also pursue a slaughter policy to deal with disease outbreaks. They are making good progress towards stamping out the disease, but they cannot, as yet, rely exclusively on slaughter as we do.
  As a member of the Community we could still continue with our slaughter policy and refuse to import animals from areas which were not free of disease. The problem, as the position stands, is that we should be required to accept vaccinated animals. Clearly we do not want to do this if there is the slightest risk that a vaccinated animal might be a carrier of disease. It is clear that it would not be in the interests of the Community to allow any setback in animal health. On the contrary, the Six have made rapid progress in recent years, and the aim must be to maintain the rate of progress and to encourage the highest standards in an enlarged Community. I am sure that this is a sentiment which would be shared by all those who have responsibilities for animal health.
  We have, therefore, proposed the setting up of an expert group with the Six and the other applicants to assess the situation. I expect these discussions to start in the autumn. I should like to assure the House of the importance which I attach to satisfactory solutions to these questions, and I am confident that the Community will also recognise their importance.
  I have so far dealt with some of the difficulties and uncertainties which arise, or have arisen, in the negotiations. These are important, but I hope that they will not be allowed to get out of perspective. We must look at the opportunities as well as the problems.
  On the prospects for the agriculture industry as a whole, I do not propose to recapitulate what has been negotiated and placed on record in the White Paper. Even on hill fanning, I think that the situation now reached is extremely satisfactory for our hill farmers and offers a very favourable future. I am in no doubt that farmers can go into the Market with great confidence.
  We have had long and demanding talks with the National Farmers' Union and
  1854
  other bodies. These discussions will continue. As usual, the N.F.U. has proved itself extremely tough to deal with—at times, almost unreasonable—but it has been extremely well informed. I welcome the sound and strong leadership which the N.F.U. has been given by its leaders in the negotiations over the last few months.
  The House knows that we expect output to expand by 8 per cent. as a result of entry by the end of the transitional period. This is on top of the expansion which we would in any case expect if we were outside the Community, and means a rate of expansion more than twice that of recent years, and on an increasing volume of output.
  One cannot make detailed forecasts for individual commodities so far ahead, and individual producers will wish to consider their own production plans. But the main scope for expansion is clear. Production of cereals is likely to increase substantially in response to the higher Community prices. For wheat, E.E.C. prices are about £43 a ton compared with our present producer return of less than £33. For barley, the comparison is between £38 and £29 a ton. As a result of the very much higher price I expect a marked increase in production of oil seed rape which is a useful break crop in the cereals rotation. The Community price for sugar beet is £7·20 a ton, compared with £6·70 ex-farm in this country. Growers will benefit from higher returns, though the amount of expansion here will depend on the arrangements to be negotiated for the period after 1974.
  For milk, direct price comparisons are not possible, but the average producer's return is likely to be significantly higher than our present United Kingdom estimate of 19p a gallon. There will be better prices for manufacturing milk, and even allowing for higher feed costs I expect an increase in production and in overall profitability, especially in the summer months when grass is plentiful. I am certain that there will be a very considerable expansion, indeed, in areas such as the South-West and the West, where we can grow grass far better than in any other part of Europe.
  For beef, it is difficult to forecast what the precise levels of return will be in the enlarged Community, but I am sure that

  1855
  prices will rise more than enough to cover higher feed costs. Beef production from the larger dairy herd is also likely to increase—another benefit for the dairy producers. Producers' returns for mutton and lamb should improve in response to higher prices for other meats and the higher tariffs.
  For pig meat, poultry and eggs, there will be higher feed costs, but prices generally are also higher in the E.E.C. Our industry is fully competitive, and I expect sufficient profitability to maintain our present levels of self-sufficiency.
  A good deal has been said in the debate—and outside it—about the estimates in the White Paper of the impact of the common agricultural policy on the balance of payments. There has been a welter of expert comment on our figures for this, and most of it is highly conflicting. I should simply like to say that we have tried to be open and objective and to state our assumptions. One cannot prove the unknowable, but where it is possible to give a reasonable estimate we have done so.
  We believe that the overall effect of the higher E.E.C. prices will be to raise the food import bill by only about £5 million in the first year, rising to about £50 million at the end of the transition, but this must depend on our ability to beat, or not to meet, our expansion targets at home. If we can produce more at home the adverse effect on the balance of payments will be less. My own view is that we shall produce a good deal more than the 8 per cent. which we have calculated, and this could affect our imports from third countries. I think that that answers the point made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Any increase in price which there would be due to the operation of the levy has already been taken into account in the assessment of our food import bill. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is to add the increased prices of food from third countries because of the operation of the levy, and then added it again in our contribution towards the Community's budget. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has done a double take on it.
  The other major element which, as a result of the negotiations, it is possible
  1856
  to quantify is the cost of our budget contribution, most of which, as the House knows, currently goes on agricultural expenditure. One reason is that the Community's policy is more developed in agriculture than in other sectors. In the enlarged Community there is good reason to expect that the proportion of the budget spent' on agriculture will decline, and that that on other things will expand.
  Even in the short-term it is misleading to represent the arrangements simply as a subsidy to inefficient Community farmers. Much the biggest part of the agricultural expenditure is on market support. The amount spent by the Community on structural measures is only a little over 10 per cent. of the total. We shall ourselves expect to secure some payments here for our own improvement schemes. But by far the greater cost of structural improvement of the Continent is being borne by national Governments out of their own agricultural budgets.
  So far as expenditure on market support is concerned, there are two points which I should like to make. The first is that there has been quite a dramatic fall in Community surplus, and hence in the costs of the Agricultural Fund. The second is that whatever may be the future level of its expenditure—and we hope to see the continuance of a better balance of supply and demand within the enlarged Community—it is of general benefit to farmers throughout the Community. I want to make it clear that it is of general benefit, that it will help us as well as help the farmers in Europe.
  I am confident that there will be opportunities for increased and more profitable exports of food and agricultural products, both to the enlarged Community and to third markets. Higher prices on our exports to the enlarged Community alone could be worth £30 million to us, quite apart from any increase in volume. Our food manufacturers are highly efficient. I know that they foresee good export opportunities, and we are ready to seize them. So if one looks at it from the point of view of our agriculture and food industries, which together represent a very significant sector of the economy, the prospects for growth, for exports and for higher returns are most promising, and more so than the uncertain prospects which would face us outside.

  1857
  The benefits to agriculture are benefits to the nation as a whole. The growth which I have described will continue after the transitional period, making a permanent and welcome contribution towards import saving. Our food and agricultural exports will compete successfully in a larger market. It is a challenge certainly, but let those who wish to cling to the old ways make out their case. Will they bring us in the future the prosperity which they have signally failed to achieve in recent years? The policy of selling manufactured goods in exchange for cheap food from the rest of the world is no longer the easy road to prosperity that it once was. The primary food-producing countries are increasingly, and rightly—and I feel sure that the whole House will agree with this—demanding better prices and depending less on our market, as they also depend less on our manufactured goods. They are developing their own industries, and they are buying increasingly from our competitors. The world market which we once enjoyed is shrinking with the growth of great trading blocs.
  I cannot believe that we shall choose to stand alone. Our friends throughout the world—even those who have most at stake—have seen the need for us to play our part in Europe if we are to play our part in the world. If we fail now, we shall delight only our foes, and have only ourselves to blame.
  There can be few Members who have not studied and discussed every facet, every nuance, of the Community and our negotiations. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong on Wednesday when he divided hon. Members into three groups—those who were in favour of entry without conditions, those who have been anti at all times, and those who were in the middle waiting to see what the terms were.
  I know of no hon. Member on this side of the House, or, I think, any hon. Gentleman opposite, who would join unconditionally, but I know of many—and I am one of them—who are emotionally and practically drawn towards the inexorable logic of a greater European entity. Certainly I accept that the terms negotiated are fair to all concerned. Of course there are risks in joining. No great enterprise is ever without them. All the great pioneers and
  1858
  pioneering communities of the past took enormous risks to find a new life and build a great empire. I have no doubt that they were told by some of their friends that it would be safer to stay at home. They took risks far greater than those we are expecting today.
  What I find worrying about our present attitude is that so many seem to doubt our ability to succeed in competition with other European countries. This timidity is not characteristic of our country ; it is not the stuff of a great people. If we have not the courage and the will to join I doubt very much whether we should have sufficient will to succeed if we stayed out.
  I am certain that in October Parliament will decide to join. It will be giving a lead to the nation, and I feel that the nation will respond. The British respect determined leadership. The reputation of Parliament will be enhanced, and with it the strength and morale of the nation.
  11.41 a.m.
  Mr. Fred Peart: I do not dissent from what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fairly said in concluding about the impact on agriculture when we join the Community, and I believe that when the negotiations are going on he will try to achieve the best for our country.
  The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his views. He made a remark about my own views in relation to a former Permanent Secretary, who I thought wrote an extremely interesting and factual article which appeared in the Evening Standard yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman said that I would be up the pole. I was not sure what that crude language meant. I thought that the latter part of his speech was in a much better tone.
  This is a very important debate, even though we shall have to wait until the autumn for a decision to be reached in principle on whether we join the Community. This is a probing debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have expressed different views, and the debate goes right across party differences. Although I am speaking from the Front Bench, I speak for myself. Without being arrogant, I believe that

  1859
  my views represent those of an important section of my party and the general public outside. Nevertheless, I respect the views of those who, like the Minister, take a different viewpoint. I trust that they will recognise that we, too, are sincere in our views.
  As to the argument about consistency, many hon. Members have been waiting to see the terms, and there are many who will still be uncommitted until they hear the final debate in the House.
  No one speech can cover all the issues involved. There will inevitably be an emphasis on agriculture today, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who catch Mr. Speaker's eye will have no inhibitions. No doubt many of them will take up different aspects of policy. Naturally, I too, should like to concentrate on food and agricultural policy, especially those aspects which arise in the White Paper.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly described in detail some of the effects of the Community on specific aspects of British agriculture, and he repeated some of the details in the White Paper about the effect on certain commodities. The transitional arrangements have been spelt out in paragraphs 81–89. The transition to prices in the Community will be made by six steps over five years. Our deficiency payments system is to be phased out, and after that period farmers will get the return from the market. A levy system will come into operation. Britain will then fully accept the C.A.P., a levy system providing Community preference over imports from third countries. This is what the debate is about.
  The right hon. Gentleman has stressed higher returns, a point made in the White Paper. But there will also be higher costs, not only of feed but higher costs resulting from the impact of higher food prices on ordinary men and women who serve industry and the economy. This is a factor that cannot be ignored, though it is only sketched in by the White Paper.
  In the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman has not only discussed the transitional arrangements in fair detail but has put before us other important agricultural questions. The first is the annual price review. The review which is suggested, a discussion at Community
  1860
  and national level, is no substitute for our existing procedure. I pressed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about this once and he kindly wrote to me in detail about it. I believe that the review suggested will in no way be the same. Prices will not be discussed in the same way, although we shall have a review of the economic conditions of the industry before that review. I warn the farming community that their views will not have the authority in the Community that they have in the normal discussions which now take place between the Government and producers.
  That matter is dealt with in detail in paragraph 148. The Government suggest there that there will be
  "meaningful and effective consultation with producers' representatives."
  That is still very vague. I hope that the producers will continue to press the Government on the matter.
  Then there is the great argument about statutory marketing boards. Here there has been a generous assurance, but are we certain that some of the present boards will still be able to have their monopoly powers under the regulations which emerge from the Treaty of Rome? Will the Milk Marketing Board still be able to have its pooled transport arrangements, which help the regions, such as West Wales and some of our producing areas in the South-West? Will that system, which has brought benefits to the small farmers in particular, go? Hon. Members on both sides who take an interest in this realise that it is a very important matter for our farm producers.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that hill farming will be satisfactory. I hope so. There is a statement on this. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman had not destroyed the rural development boards in the north and elsewhere, which provided assistance for hill fanners and which when we enter the Community will be essential in order to protect certain of the hill and upland regions of this country. I am sorry that the Minister was rather doctrinal and spiteful about something which had been accepted by all sections of the community, and all sections of political thought in the areas concerned.
  I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about animal health. There are great problems here, particularly the question

  1861
  of foot and mouth epidemics. The Community has no slaughter policy like ours. It has a vaccination policy coupled with slaughter, but it has not been very successful. We have only to consider the number of outbreaks in West Germany and parts of Europe to see that that system has not worked like ours. I am glad that we have the assurance that we can keep our policy and restrictions. I trust that there will be no attempt to phase out our policy to accept this part of the C.A.P.
  The right hon. Gentleman spent some time on horticulture, and gave a glowing picture. But for many sections of the industry there will be disaster. This is why I know that many horticulturists have protested strongly not only to their union but to the Government, and even the right hon. Gentleman has had to accept that for many horticultural producers there will be difficulties.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will try to compensate producers who will go out because of climatic conditions and so on, especially in northern areas and in Scotland, but there could be other great difficulties for many producers. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not be complacent about this and assume that everything is all right. It is far from all right. This is an important section of the community, and what is happening and what could happen may have serious consequences.
  I agree that we must consider the interests of the long-distance fishery operators and balance their interests with those of the inshore men. We must never let down our inshore fishermen. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will do that, and he is on record as saying that he wants an agreement before we go in. In other words, we have been assured that he wants the matter settled and the necessary assurances obtained before we join the E.E.C.
  It is all very well to say that there will be consultations in the autumn, but many of us would like to have something on the dotted line before we join, particularly if that is the wish of the Government. The Minister must, therefore, bear in mind the interests of the inshore fishermen, remembering that they have given much to this country and have been the backbone of many of our voluntary organisations for our defence. They
  1862
  now need protection and specific assurances. In other words, we want a definite agreement before any final decision to join Europe is made.
  I am dubious, in view of some of the assumptions that are made in the White Paper, about certain fundamental arguments. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one in particular—world prices. He has assumed, and many of the figures in the White Paper reflect this assumption, that world prices of food commodities will go on increasing. But many people take a contrary view. The right hon. Gentleman should not be dogmatic about these matters. Perhaps this is a good reason why he should be less precise than are many of the statistics in the White Paper.
  The Minister should accept that change is likely. Changes have been taking place in supply, particularly because of world climatic conditions. Consider, for example, the export of New Zealand dairy products. Drought and other climatic conditions have had a bigger impact in this sphere. This is why the Minister should not be dogmatic in making assumptions. Many of those who are closely involved with these issues know that there could well be a downward trend in world food prices.
  The fundamental argument is that we can enter the Community only if we concede in the matter of agriculture. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of a Freudian slip when he said, in effect, "We may not all like the C.A.P."—I assumed that he was speaking for us all—but we are worried because of this fundamental argument of our entering only by conceding in argriculture and accepting the common external tariff policy.
  I appreciate that there are pressures on the right hon. Gentleman. He has no doubt been told, "Consider the advantages for British industry of this wider market. It is worth accepting the C.A.P. for that", but I am doubtful about the industrial advantages that will accrue, though I will not go into that question now.
  I regret that we must accept the C.A.P. in toto. After all, it is protectionist in concept and we have before us a managed market with a tariff wall. It is an economic autarchy. It is a preference system which discriminates against

  1863
  countries outside, many of which have been our traditional food suppliers. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will forgive my quoting something he said eloquently not long ago :
  "The Community has undoubtedly one ugly aspect to its face, the working of some aspects of the common agricultural policy. They certainly should not be proud of this. Indeed, a bit of plastic surgery would not go amiss."
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman is objecting to the C.A.P. as a whole. Is he aware that the principles of the C.A.P. are broadly acceptable and that his right hon. Friend was objecting to the working of a particular part of it? There is no permanency about it—[Interruption.]—and that is an aspect which we can alter later.
  Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that and I believe that what I have said is right—that we must accept the C.A.P. in toto. One could not possibly have a system which is accepted by the French but of which we will take a contrary view once we join the E.E.C. If the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
  I do not like this system and despite all the propaganda, I have not detected any enthusiasm for it on the part of European farmers. Neither do I detect enthusiastic support from the European consumers, who are today subjected to exceedingly high food prices. Its full acceptance is the price we shall have to pay for entering the Community.
  Apart from that, we will have to dismantle a support system that has worked well. It may have creaked a little here and there, but it has been admired by European farmers and political leaders.
  The 1947 and 1957 Acts were the basis of our policy and they laid down a system of assured markets and guaranteed prices. Those Measures represented a charter for the industry and did much to enhance the development of agriculture in the post-war period. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not dispute that. The system has had the broad support of the industry, the farming community and the main political parties.
  1864
  I have never suggested that the 1947 Act should be sacrosanct or that the 1957 Measure, which was passed by the then Conservative Government, should not be changed. Changes have been made in the policy and it is inevitable that changes must come about.
  It was revealed in the recent debate on agriculture that the Government are preparing the way for our entry into Europe. It is clear that this valuable system of ours will have to be demolished. It will mean the abolition of county committtees and the introduction of import levies on certain commodities. It is clear that even during the present negotiations our political leaders who are responsible for the negotiations have been preparing to phase our policy in with that of the C.A.P. This is a strange way to negotiate. Concede everything before you enter!
  It would be a strange irony of history if we were to destroy a system which has worked and replace it with one that does not work and then, at a later stage, change back to our original system, a system which many people in Europe strongly admire.
  There is no logic in the argument that we should accept the C.A.P. as it stands and then, when we are in, alter its ugly aspects. If there were any force in that argument, it would have been stronger before the countries of the E.E.C. finally agreed the financial provisions of the C.A.P. There is little, if any, force in the argument now.
  I remain sceptical about the supposed benefits which our entry will bring to British agriculture. Consider the high prices linked with high costs. They could present enormous difficulties for our farmers. Then remember the high food prices on particular commodities. They could lead to a lessening of demand on the part of the consumer.
  The old argument about margarine replacing butter is well known. It has come true on the Continent. Rising food prices change diets and patterns of food consumption. For this reason the Government have been warned to beware about milk supplies to important sections of the comunity. But it is not only a question of a change of diet.
  Mr. Adam Butler: The right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with the suggestion

  1865
  that the pattern of food consumption on the Continent has deteriorated. He should be aware that the consumption of meat and butter is more or less equal with, and in some parts greater than, that of this country.
  Mr. Peart: That is not my impression. I believe that we supply cheaper and better food in this country, and that our people in the post-war period have had a better diet than the people in many countries of Europe and many sections of the European Community. I believe my argument is right and fundamental.
  It is all very well saying that we must have higher cereal prices, but this can affect husbandry, and a greater emphasis on cereal production is dangerous to certain sections of farming. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Strutt Committee, the Advisory Council, which has published a fine report out-ling the dangers of over-cropping in East Anglia and other regions. There is a great danger that the C.A.P., with its emphasis on increased prices for cereals, will have a great effect on the European Community. It is also a real threat to this country, and we must not be too hasty in adopting dogmatic attitudes about the virtues of going into a high price system.
  The simple fact is that the C.A.P. means higher food prices, whatever may be the arguments about the 2½ per cent. a year increase in retail prices mentioned in the White Paper, which may be compared to the figure of 18 per cent. to 26 per cent., also in the previous White Paper of 1970. We also have to remember the value-added tax. Despite what has been said by the Minister, there has been no assurance that this will not affect food prices if we go into the Community.
  So large sections of the community in our country will be affected. Whether we like it or not, food is important ; it is the stuff of politics ; and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be arrogant about the effect of high food prices on consumers. Not so long ago the Polish leaders in the Communist régime recognised this. They had to resign because of high food prices.
  Mr. Prior: Is it not the fact that when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, the Cabinet accepted that
  1866
  it would have to come to terms with the common agricultural policy? Surely it is not very fair to accuse hon. Members on this side of the House of wanting to have dear food prices when that was exactly the acceptance that the right hon. Gentleman had to come to when the application was made?
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman did not resign.
  Mr. Peart: It is wrong to ask whether I should have resigned. I may have had to come to a decision, and I accept this. After the negotiations and after the terms are known one obviously would have to consider what one's position would be. I can say no more than that.
  I am now dealing with the policy of the present Administration and with the impact on the consumer if we accept the advice that has been tendered by the Government. That is really the issue today. They are the people who said at the last election that they would reduce prices "at a stroke"—but I do not want to inject the political argument into our debate. They knew that this would be impossible if we entered the Community, and they fudged this at the election.
  There is one certainty. I believe that France has undoubtedly dominated the negotiations, and this emerged from the Pompidou talks wth the Prime Minister. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy said in December in Brussels that the Community farmers would gain extensive new markets for their products while Britain would be paying far more by way of levies than it would be obtaining from the Community Farm Fund. This theme was developed by no less a person than Christopher Soames, our Ambassador in Paris, in his letter to the French newspaper Figaro, in which he said :
  "Don't forget, it is not just a question of the amount we pay to the common budget. From the first day, we shall also be buying more and more of our food from you at very much higher prices than we now pay, thus enabling your farmers to realise the promise of expansion by virtue of their preferential access to the biggest food importing market in the world."
  Mr. Russell Kerr: At the cost of New Zealand.
  Mr. Peart: At the cost of our traditional suppliers. That was confirmed by

  1867
  Mr. Pompidou in his recent speech to the French farmers. In other words—at whose expense? It will be at the expense not only of our traditional suppliers but possibly of some of our own home farmers. As my hon. Friend has said, it will be at the expense of New Zealand.
  I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained that he has got a good deal for New Zealand. This was argued the other day, and quotations have been bandied about. I think in the circumstances he did better than he thought he would, but, as paragraph 103 of the White Paper points out, the guaranteed quantity of butter from New Zealand for the first five years will be reduced by 4 per cent. per annum, so that New Zealand will sell 20 per cent. less in the fifth year. There is also another reduction for cheese. It may well be that there will be negotiations later on, and we may have an international dairy agreement, but there is no long-term security for our New Zealand suppliers.
  I come to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the possible impact of our entry into the Community on our Commonwealth sugar suppliers. We are members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which affects 14 developing countries plus Australia. I had the honour to visit the Caribbean just after the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had a successful visit to the West Indies and saw for himself what could happen if sugar was bady affected in relation to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
  This is where I differ from the Government on an important agricultural matter. I will give the sequence, because it is important. Taking first Britain's original proposals to the Six, the present arrangements were to end in 1974, then the present quotas of the developing countries were to be continued—that is a figure of 1·4 million tons—and Australia's quota of 335,000 tons was to be gradually phased out. The Six then offered a new type of association or trade agreement to be negotiated when the Yaoundé Convention comes up for renewal in 1974–75, with sugar to be considered then in this context. The Chancellor of the Duchy rejected this. He had a dialogue in which he coined
  1868
  that wonderful phrase "the dialogue of the deaf". He stressed the need to have bankable assurances, which was a phrase he took up from the distinguished Jamaican Minister, Robert Lightbourne, who is a good friend of this country.
  On 12th May the Six came back and stated :
  "It would be the firm purpose (aura à coeur) of the enlarged Community to safeguard the interests of the countries in question whose economies depend to a considerable degree on the export of primary products, in particular sugar."
  The Chancellor of the Duchy accepted this, but, unaccountably, there was still no guarantee of quantity. He said that he would consult the Commonwealth producers. The Commonwealth Sugar exporters and their Governments rejected this assurance, because it gave them no quantity. He then remembers the Lancaster House discussions. What is the essence? The Brussels Agreement was taken as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market for the quantities of Commonwealth sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement from the developing countries. Negotiations for association or trade agreements are due to be concluded by 1975 but, pending conclusion, their existing trade patterns with the E.E.C. would be maintained. The importance of the continuation of the International Sugar Agreement was recognised. On this basis, I believe that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement Governments accepted this. That was why Lord Campbell, after the conference, wrote his letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  Britain is bound, therefore, to protect Commonwealth sugar in the enlarged Community. If Britain cannot persuade the Six to accept this, Britain must carry on unilaterally. I want this assurance today. The Commonwealth sugar exporters have accepted the deal on this basis, but the relevant point for us is what the Six think about it. The Lancaster House document was deposited with the Six by the right hon. Gentleman. Did they accept it? They have never said so. There has been no agreement or negotiation on this matter. There has merely been a putting on the record by the Chancellor of our point of view.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House should remember that the French

  1869
  sugar producers claim expansion for themselves and suggest a reduction for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement down to 600,000 tons, less than half of their quota. This is public knowledge, yet neither the British Government nor the Six have reacted to it. Therefore, what we have is not a negotiation but vague words capable of many interpretations.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely the position here is that, that statement being written in, we clearly can and must take the Commonwealth sugar. But the cost to us of doing so is a completely open-ended commitment. It can be forced as high as the market chooses. The cost to us of this rescue of the Caribbean may be astronomic.
  Mr. Peart: It may or may not be. The great argument that the Caribbean countries have is about access to our market. There is no guarantee of quantities. That is my point. In 1974, inevitably we shall have another battle. In other words, the Government have negotiated nothing and the position is still one of uncertainty.
  Lastly, I come to the question of Australia and sugar. This is very important because the Australians feel very aggrieved about this. Australia and the International Sugar Agreement are important to us. The exclusion of Australia in relation to Commonwealth guarantees can threaten the future of the International Sugar Agreement. This threat can be diminished only if Australia's quota is very gradually phased out. Although this point was taken, I understand, in the original United Kingdom proposals, it does not seem to have been pursued in subsequent negotiations. The White Paper is vague on this matter. The International Sugar Agreement aims to regulate the market by quotas and price brackets. I believe that the Minister will accept that it is important to some 40 developing countries, including Australia, which sells over 1 million tons on the international market, and to many developing countries of the Commonwealth, for example, Mauritius, which puts on to the market 33 per cent. of its crop, and Fiji, whose figure is 40 per cent.
  Successive British Governments have supported the I.S.A. but the E.E.C. refused to join in 1968 and still refuses. The
  1870
  International Sugar Agreement works only because all exporting countries have agreed to restrain production and some developed exporting countries, including Australia, have accepted a large cut-back in their actual performance. The E.E.C. refuses to accept any cut-back or any quota restriction and that is why it refused to join. But it has benefited from the increased prices achieved by the sacrifice of others, and mostly the poorer countries. The higher the world price, the less it costs the E.E.C. to subsidise its dumped surpluses. So if Australian sugar is thrown on to this delicately balanced market and replaced by expanded beet production in Europe, and if room is made for C.S.A. sugar without restraining beet production in Europe and the resulting surplus continues to be dumped on the market, the whole of this agreement will be at risk and, with it, employment and foreign exchange earnings in a large part of the third world. All this could have been avoided if the Government, instead of negotiating on an empty formula, had negotiated precise and unequivocal terms.
  Australian farmers in Queensland will suffer considerably. They are not rich. They have given loyal support over the years to this country. I cannot understand the attitudes of some of our Euro-fanatics who deride Australia in particular. We exported to Australia last year £346,094,000 worth of products. Australia exported to us £260,084,000. There is a balance of over £86 million. That is the figure for Australia's trading deficit with us for the last full year for which figures are available. It means that they bought £86 million worth more of our goods than we bought of theirs. If we add invisible trade, the figure is even better for Britain.
  I dislike the attacking of Australia that I detect. I dislike this contempt for the men and women who, in a major crisis, helped us to defeat a brutal dis-tator who sought to unite Europe. I detest the anti-Commonwealth attitude adopted by certain people.
  I feel passionately about this matter and I hope that others will feel passionately, too. That is why I am worried about acceptance of a narrow economy and a community which is inward looking. I have given the example of sugar, which

  1871
  is so important to parts of the Commonwealth and the underdeveloped parts of the world. I believe also that there are other dangers. After all, the less developed countries could be seriously affected by the E.E.C., and especially the C.A.P., in the light of world trade generally. The development of the production of primary products and the free movement of these products to markets outside is vital to these areas. The more developed countries, including Britain and those of Europe, have moral obligations. That is why I dislike the protectionism enshrined in the C.A.P. Even the United States has begun to react to this growth of regional protectionism. After all, in the post-war world we have seen the development of a multilateral economy, helped by G.A.T.T. The Kennedy Round took us a stage further, and hon. Gentlemen opposite supported that.
  I am worried that the drive towards severe, selfish protections by the E.E.C. will inevitably create reactions in the United States and lend support to those who would bring in protectionist legislation. This will inevitably lead to a disruption of agricultural trade. This could mean an accelerated increase in production in areas such as the E.E.C. and an accumulation at a later stage of food surpluses, which could have serious effects on agricultural trade and on those countries who are seeking to develop their primary production.
  These are real dangers. I ask all my colleagues, before they wish to rush in, to remember that these are important issues which have not been settled. Although I am sceptical about the C.A.P. and our entry, I do not approach this debate as a Little Englander. I am not anti-European. We are in Europe ; we are in E.F.T.A. I believe that we should have good relations with the Community ; I have never doubted that. I played my part many years ago as a member of the Council of Europe on many important European committees which investigated regional development. For example, I was concerned with the Commission in Mezzogiorno in Southern Italy, a country I know well.
  I do not believe that my hon. Friends who support my point of view are not internationalists. Many of us believe in
  1872
  the Commonwealth because we see it as an example of a multi-racial community which plays an important part in the world. One has only to look at the trade figures for Commonwealth exports revealed in the Press today. That also is a noble concept. I reject the idea of a regional grouping, which may want a separate foreign policy, a separate defence organisation and a separate atomic bomb. This is not the way to create understanding as between West and East Europe. We must get on with the Soviet Union. We must get on with those countries which have different political systems. We must have good relations with the United States.
  I do not accept this concept of a third or, European power grouping. People who take my point of view are international in outlook. We welcome new initiatives on a larger scale. We welcome the recent initiative of the United States with China. We believe in one world and that the underdeveloped countries should have priority. This is why I have forcefully expressed my views.
  12.23 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I do not propose to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). By talking about foreign affairs he has ventured rather further than usual. However, we listened with interest to what he said, although we disagreed with much of it.
  I wish to confine my remarks to agriculture and food, which represent a major part of the question of our entry and it is therefore right that we should be discussing this subject and considering the implications and effect of our entry on agriculture and food. Rumour has it that there could be 900 clauses in the legislation with which we must deal next year and the following year if we make the great decision to enter. Of that number, 450 or more could be concerned with agriculture.
  The increased cost of food if we enter is a major worry for consumers. I welcome the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Minister on his estimates of the increase in the cost of food. If we are to be successful, agriculture has a very large part to play.
  I am very concerned that the shadow Minister of Agriculture is not present. I

  1873
  should have thought that he would be bound to be here this morning. I have heard that he would have liked to be here and would have liked to speak. I cannot understand why neither of the Opposition spokesmen on agriculture is present.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Worry about your party ; do not worry about the Labour Party.
  Mr. Mills: It is important that we should know the Socialist position on agriculture if we enter the Common Market.
  We in agriculture need to know more of the details concerning entry into Europe. We have had the bare bones. I am not asking for the details to be given now, but I believe that in the months ahead more details should be released to the farmers and to the various agricultural organisations. Many people are anxious about many details. That is not unnatural. I suggest that a booklet might be published dealing with many of the fears and questions about which our farmers are concerned.
  Our entry will not mean any dramatic change overnight. The transitional period provides a safeguard, so that many of the problems can be ironed out as we go along. This should assure the farmers. However, as a farmer, perhaps I can give them a warning. The E.E.C. is not a club which we join and then leave just as it pleases us. Entry into Europe carries responsibilities for agriculture. We cannot walk in and out as we please. We shall have to accept a certain amount of discipline, but I believe that in the long run it will be of benefit to agriculture.
  I welcome in principle paragraph 87 of the White Paper, which states that home agriculture can expand by 8 per cent. This is a very encouraging figure. It is vital that we should expand. Expansion should start now to prepare us for the time when we are a member of the E.E.C. Unless production increases, the balance of payments burden could become intolerable. The figure of 8 per cent. must give farmers confidence to invest, and they must try to attain this target.
  Entry into Europe will present a challenge to the agricultural industry. It will provide a great opportunity for British
  1874
  agriculture to do what it should have done under previous administrations, both Tory and Socialist, and that is to produce more of our own food instead of being at the mercy of growers abroad. [Interruption.] In spite of the mumblings among hon. Members opposite, I am sure that British agriculture will rise to the challenge and will produce the goods and will help our entry to the Common Market.
  There is confidence in agriculture. That has not always been so. If we had gone on as we were, I do not believe that agriculture would have been in a fit state to play its part in our getting into Europe. Without the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister, confidence would not have been restored and we should not have been in a fit state to play our part.
  The question of finance has been worrying me. I have been told by some banking officials that between £300 and £450 million extra could be required to finance our entry to the Common Market. From where will the money come? If we are to have the expansion required, we need finance. This is a problem. Perhaps we shall hear a little more about this matter from the Minister in the months ahead.
  There is much that I should have liked to say, but I should say a few words about boards. I believe that the Milk Marketing Board is one of the major foundations of British agriculture, and it would be very serious if there were any undermining of this foundation.
  The White Paper says that the Government would support the maintenance of these powers. I hope that is absolutely certain and that they would defend them, but how far would the Minister go? Would the Government allow the free import of milk into this country? That is the sort of fear which many British farmers have. Peaches are to be allowed in, but what about milk? Is it a fact that milk is not to be allowed in? There are problems about the winter differential, about the maximum liquid consumption which we have always encouraged and which ought to continue, and about the seasonal variation. These are all essential marketing functions.
  There is one weak point in paragraph 148 of the White Paper. I refer to the

  1875
  statement that the Milk Marketing Boards "are expected" to continue their essential functions. I should like a much stronger statement from the Government. It should not merely be "expected" ; it must be a certainty. The Milk Marketing Board performs one of the major functions in British agriculture and it must continue to do so, whether we are in or out of the Community.
  There is much else that one could discuss, such as hill farmers and production grants. Incidentally, I hope those grants will continue. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has emphasised the problem of disease and animal health control. I believe that we are way ahead in this respect and I do not want to see any weakening. We have a high standard in this country, and we must maintain that standard. There is also the code of conduct with respect to animal husbandry. Here again we are ahead of many other countries, and that situation must be maintained.
  The opportunities for British agriculture are very great in the Common Market. There are opportunities for increased production, for greater export and for a fairer price. British agriculture, I believe, will welcome entry into the Common Market and will rise to the occasion. It will not let the country down.
  12.32 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: I begin with a brief expression of a long and deeply held conviction that this country would benefit from entering the European Economic Community on the right terms.
  In the 1950s I saw something of the creation of a European political spirit. I saw Socialist comrades working in European municipalities contributing to the creation of that spirit. I thought that we should join in, too. I have always believed that a national political will is an important element in economic growth. I thought that this country, having lost an empire, might find and express that national political will for economic growth within the European Economic Community. Certainly we have not found it outside.
  It is true that the European Economic Community, like some other human organisations,
  1876
  is less than perfect. It is, for example, protectionist. But then, so are we. So are other developed countries. There is protection by tariff ; there is protection by non-tariff barriers ; and there is protection in certain cases by means of under-valued currencies. I hope that if we join, this country and the European Economic Community will be prepared to be as outward-looking to the rest of the developed world as they are to us and to go as far and as fast along that road as they are prepared to go.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Roper) made an excellent speech yesterday on the relations of this country and the European Economic Community with the under-developed world. I should like to see this country and the E.E.C. being a great deal more outward looking to them than they are to us. My hon. Friend compared our records and, indeed, one can make comparisons of our records in the way that he did. But both the E.E.C. and Britain have done too little in this field, and I hope that one of the consequences of our entry will be that both of us will do more.
  The other aspect of the E.E.C. that has been referred to on many occasions is its protectionism in agriculture. But then we are protectionist in agriculture, too, though perhaps to a lesser extent. Of course, cheap food is desirable, but it should not be forgotten, when speaking of 120 years of cheap food, how closely 120 years of cheap food were associated with 120 years of laissez-faire policies, damage to British agriculture and to British industry in general. If it is universally and invariably right to buy in the cheapest market, how do we defend what we do in agriculture? How do we defend what we on this side of the House claim we should be doing for shipbuilding? If It is always right to buy ships in the cheapest market, why do we not buy them all in Japan? We know where ships can be bought most cheaply. We might then have the same sort of continual, inevitable and irreversible trade deficit with Japan as we have with New Zealand and Canada.
  It seems to me that there are certain situations in which one should have regard to one's own national interest. Even Adam Smith supported the idea of State help for British shipping, which meant in the context of the time that he

  1877
  was in favour of laissez-faire where there was no competition with British goods and services but in favour of State aid where there was competition—a good pragmatic Scottish attitude of which I entirely approve.
  One thing that I would say about the European Economic Community, in view of a remark which was made in yesterday's debate, is that it is not inspired by laissez-faire. It is true that competition is the main economic instrument at the Community level, but I do not regard it as being inspired by laissez-faire. On the contrary, it is interventionist and activist in the sense that there is a belief—it is written into the Treaty of Rome and it is written into the actions of the Community—that if the effect of competition is to cause difficulty in certain areas, it is the responsibility of the national Governments, with some assistance from the Community, to do something about it.
  The object of the Community is to increase the standard of living in all parts of the Community, to reduce regional poverty and dereliction and not to increase it. If one wants to read a laissez-faire treaty one should read not the Treaty of Rome but the Treaty of Stockholm constituting E.F.T.A. One of the facts that one should not forget is that we are not yet a signatory to the Treaty of Rome. We are a signatory to the Treaty of Stockholm, and that is a laissez-faire treaty.
  Take, for example, investment grants which we on this side of the House introduced. Everyone knows that investment grants were anathema to our E.F.T.A. partners. They are acceptable in the E.E.C. If E.F.T.A. continued to exist and we on this side of the House tried to reintroduce investment grants, there would be the same sort of row in E.F.T.A. as there was when we introduced them in the first place.
  The question has been raised whether, if we entered E.E.C, we would be able to give the same sort of assistance which led to the construction of the aluminium smelters in this country. All I know is that at the same time as we in this country were having difficult negotiations with E.F.T.A., and in particular with Norway, over aluminium smelters, the Germans were doing virtually the same thing—building an aluminium smelter with a
  1878
  large degree of public ownership involved. People ask about restrictions on the expansion of British industry as a result of entry into international communities. The only example that I can recall in recent history of the expansion of a British industry being restricted by the British Government under international pressure is that of the aluminium smelting industry. We cut the initial quantity to be produced by 40,000 tons. We agreed to enter into a review of the future demand for aluminium with our E.F.T.A. partners before undertaking any expansion.
  Mr. John Robertson: Would my right hon. Friend give an example of the Community's regional policies in assisting industry in the less fortunate areas of Europe?
  Mr. Dell: There are so many examples. The best examples that have been quoted again and again come from Southern Italy. I intend to refer to regional policy so perhaps I had better go on.
  As another example of this sort of interference with policies in this country resulting from the Stockholm Treaty we wanted to rationalise the ball-bearing industry and were referred to Article 16 of the Treaty regarding the right of establishment. I do not know what advice the Government have been given about the current Norwegian intention to establish a steel plant in this country. This has caused anxiety to some of my hon. Friends. I should be surprised if the Government's attention has not been drawn again to Article 16 of the Stockholm Convention regarding the right of establishment.
  The points to be learned from these experiences are, first, if we enter into international associations of this sort we must expect that there will be attempts to influence our domestic policy. The second thing that must be learned is that there must be a national government which will stand up for the national interest. We went ahead with investment grants, with the aluminium smelters, and we rationalised the ball-bearing industry.
  Thirdly, it is agreed that we need a larger market. Even those who oppose entry into the Community appear to favour E.F.T.A. The Order Paper on Trade and Industry day has been full of anti-Marketeers' questions about

  1879
  E.F.T.A. Why do we not do more about E.F.T.A.?
  One difference between the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. is that in the Community, if the effect of competition is to do damage to industry in some areas, then the national government and the Community are encouraged to do something about it, while in E.F.T.A. if we try to react to the difficulties created by competition we are told that we are breaching Article 13 of the E.F.T.A. Convention regarding the rules of competition. This is why I would prefer to be in E.E.C. developing regional policies, rather than in E.F.T.A.
  I would like to make one brief quotation from something said by Jean Rey when he was President of the Commission, which deals very closely with this point. He said :
  "International competitiveness and technical progress make it imperative that, in spite of the diversity of the regions, solutions to regional problems must form part of the total Community regional policy."
  That is the spirit on which the E.E.C. is founded.
  Why do I believe that entry into the Community will increase our rate of economic growth? It is a matter not just of a larger market but of a very much larger market than our own, growing faster than we are. We are a population of 55 million drawn ahead by a population of 300 million in countries growing faster than us. E.F.T.A. was too small in relation to the United Kingdom to have a comparable effect and the existence of a reliable expanding demand in a guaranteed tariff-free market must have an influence on industrial investment in this country.
  The second reason why I believe it will have this favourable effect on our growth record is the argument put forward by Professor Kaldor. Professor Kaldor opposes our entry into the Community because he believes that our balance of payments burden would be too great. If I understand him aright, he is saying that if the balance of payments burden were not too great, as in his view it is, then our entry would benefit our rate of growth because within the Community, with the additional competition and specialisation, with the rate of intra-E.E.C. trade rising faster than trade in the world as a whole, it would improve
  1880
  the productivity and efficiency of our exporting industries which are the most efficient parts of the economy.
  I take the view that the balance of payments burden is not too great and I am therefore entitled to say that on this part of the argument I am in favour with Professor Kaldor. I expect that we shall achieve greater specialisation, and as a consequence greater efficiency, greater productivity and a higher standard of living. It is said, "Oh well, this might happen but the disadvantage to this country is that all this economic and industrial development will move towards the centre—to the Ruhr or the Rhine and if we are lucky, at best it will come to the South-East."
  I do not believe this argument. I do not see British industry, which has not moved so rapidly around this country, suddenly lifting up its skirts and rushing to the Continent. One of the most fundamental factors in industrial location is the proximity of the sea. When we were in Government we made a special study of the idea of maritime industrial development areas precisely because we saw the advantages of location by the sea. We have a lot of sea. The United States is so far the most successful common market in the world. The richest area of the United States is California on the west coast and the second richest is New York on the east coast. Merseyside might benefit by entry into the E.E.C. With the development of a better road system we could become the entrepôt not just of Britain but of Europe.
  Certainly we need a growth policy to make this effective ; we need effective investment incentives and an effective regional policy. My main fear is not that we would be prevented from introducing such policies by the Community but that this Government, with their laissez faire attitude, will not introduce such policies. I welcome the categorical statement made last night by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He said that the question of the definition of the central area of this country would be regarded as a matter of vital national interest. That means, if I may interpret that statement in terms of my own constituency interest, that if Mersey-side were de-scheduled as a development area, to an extent greater than it has

  1881
  already been descheduled by the actions of this Government, that would be a decision of the British Government and not of the Community.
  It has been said that entry into the Community on these terms would represent a national economic disaster. In other words it is not just a matter of asking : "Are these terms more or less good, have we adequate guarantees for New Zealand and the sugar islands?"—[Interruption.] It has been suggested that it could be a national economic disaster.
  Mr. Peart: Sugar islands and sugar countries.
  Mr. Dell: Very well. I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friend more than I have to. I enjoyed his speech and I am glad to know that he is listening to mine.
  It has been suggested that this would be a national economic disaster in view of the balance of payment cost. It is even suggested that the Government are concealing information which would make it clear to the public that it would be a national economic disaster. Given that we have democratic institutions that could only mean that the present Conservative Government have decided never again to win a General Election in this country. I have sufficient confidence in the Conservative Government to believe that they do want to win the next election—I do not think that they will, but they will try. It is very unwise to suggest that these terms represent a national economic disaster and it is not, I note with pleasure, what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said. What he said was
  "… Britain is likely to be at least as strong, as vigorous, as prosperous, as influential outside the Market as it would be if we were to enter the Market on the wrong terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 1495.]
  I regard that as a fairly moderate, neutral statement. If that is all there is in it, I for one am prepared to take the risk.
  It is very important for one other reason that we should not say this would be a national economic disaster. It is this. I believe that, if we enter the E.E.C., a Labour Government will find it possible to work within the Community on these terms for the benefit of this country and of Europe.
  12.52 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: In the 1950s the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and I shared the same sentiments about Europe when it was not quite so fashionable to have them. Since then the Common Market has embraced the worst forms of protectionism. The right hon. Gentleman has forgiven them for doing that. I have not. That is where our paths now go different ways.
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little too charitable about their protectionist philosophy. We know that they are being liberal in their industrial tariffs ; they have brought down those tariffs more generously than we have. We also know that next year they will be on average only 7½ per cent. against the world. But in the matter of food, which is of great importance to the developing countries, they still have levies or tariffs of 20 per cent. This is having an appalling effect on the terms of trade between Western Europe and the developing countries. They are deteriorating year by year, and I do not think enough attention is paid to the rate of deterioration because they are getting worse year by year.
  The Library has been good enough to work out some fresh figures for me. In the last 10 years the developing countries have been sending food and raw materials to Western Europe—to ourselves and Common Market countries—at prices which are now 11 per cent. less than what they were 10 years ago. Yet our inflation throughout Western Europe, which will not get any better, is causing our exports to them to go up by 16 per cent. Terms of trade disadvantageous to those countries must have the effect of not only inhibiting the growth of world trade but also exacerbating the problems now facing the developing countries.
  When the right hon. Member for Birkenhead saw prospects for Merseyside and our own industry in the Common Market he must have endorsed paragraph 43 of the White Paper, a paragraph which says that, if we go in, the costs of industry will not change because the cost of living will not go up enough to justify any increase in labour costs. I find that difficult to understand. I thought that the Common Market countries were working

  1883
  on a common social security system. I thought that we had to harmonise, and we know that in this country the social security system is largely financed out of taxation and not out of contributions. It is the opposite system in the Common Market. Once we harmonise, unless the present Government persuade the Community to lower pensions, we must have the same system. It is unthinkable that we shall persuade the Community to go over to a higher rate of taxation to support its present pension system. Therefore, once we harmonise contributions from employers and employees will just about double.
  Mr. John Roper: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "once we harmonise". Would he not agree that the Commission has no proposals to harmonise social security and that this is something to be decided in the future and is not relevant now?
  Mr. Body: A number of E.E.C. officials are working on harmonisation proposals now. Paragraph 43 concerns not only the matter of social security. It concerns also the price of food, which we should examine more closely.
  I must, with regret, challenge some of the estimates made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I do not quite know what the true estimate is. If we look at the shortened version of the White Paper which is being distributed by the thousand in every constituency——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: At taxpayers' expense.
  Mr. Body: Yes, at taxpayers' expense—we see that the price of food would go up by 2½ per cent. per year over five years. If we look at the White Paper proper, the period is over six years so that there is a slight discrepancy of 2½ per cent. It may be that those who have prepared the shortened version of the White Paper have been a little slapdash, or it may be that to propagandists there is nothing much in taking off 2½ per cent. But if the authorised version of the White Paper is correct, and the effect is cumulative, it comes to 15·96 per cent. which might be rounded off to 16 per cent.
  I have ascertained—and perhaps my right hon. Friend can put me right if
  1884
  I am mistaken—that this 2½ per cent. increase per year begins once we are members of the Community—in other words, from 1st January, 1973. It therefore makes no allowance for any increase in the price of food which will take place between now and that date, 18 months hence. Yet in that 18 months, are we not going to introduce import levies as a stepping stone towards being part of the common agricultural policy? Will not these import levies have some effect on the price of food? If they do, should not that impact be added to the 16 per cent.?
  I understand from my right hon. Friend that the annual increase of 2½ per cent. is based on the assumption that the gap between Common Market food prices and world food prices will remain the same as it is now. I do not believe that gap has ever been so narrow as it is now. Can anyone possibly argue that that gap will remain as narrow as it is now? In the first place, Common Market food prices will rise. We all remember how the farmers in the Common Market descended on the capital of Brussels murmuring a little discontent about the prices they were getting ; and for their troubles they were shot down by the police and one or two died as martrys in the cause of higher prices. Those higher prices have yet to reach the farm gates ; they have yet to reach the retail shops of the Common Market. But once they do, they are bound to have an effect of increasing the price of food in the Common Market. If those prices rise, so also must world food prices fall, and it is wrong for anyone to be so pessimistic as to think that they will be as bad as they are now.
  Experts can be wrong. But, when they are all agreed, he is a bold man who denies their truth. The author of paragraph 88 of the White Paper is such a bold man. He is free to cross words with the experts of the F.A.O. and elsewhere, but if he chooses to do so, should not he give his reasons?
  In making this calculation, I assume that the Ministry of Agriculture has relied upon the United Nations index of world food prices. Half that index is made up of prices of tea, coffee, cocoa and cereals. Tea prices have been constant, and are likely to remain so. But the price of coffee has risen considerably in the world market because of abnormal frosts in South America. It is outside the realm

  1885
  of probability that that kind of weather will continue in South America. Cocoa supplies also have been short for reasons of climate.
  As for cereals, everyone in this House knows that the maize crop of the United States was struck by leaf blight, and that has caused the price of all feed grains and, therefore, other cereals to go berserk. Even if leaf blight strikes again, it is not likely to strike the maize crop year after year throughout the transitional period of six years. Therefore, we must look to a steadying of the price of cereals.
  There are other reasons, apart from the inevitable return of a reasonable price for maize. We are all familiar with what has been described as "the green revolution". Many right hon. and hon. Members have travelled abroad and seen the fantastic rice crops now being raised. Rice yields are being doubled and, in some countries, nearly trebled. This will have its effect upon world cereal prices, as will the marvels being achieved in the production of wheat. According to the best estimates, by 1975 even China will have enough wheat to enable every one of its population to have 23 kilograms a year. The latest estimate of the United Nations is that, by 1975, there will be a world exportable surplus of more than 20 million metric tons. In the face of those figures, how can anyone say that there will be a need for the Common Market to go on building up its surpluses of wheat in the way that it has been? Alternatively, can it be argued that the world price of wheat will go on rising?
  Another dominant element in the food index is dairy produce. People are not eating more butter and cheese. In this country, they are eating slightly less. What has happened is that production has fallen seriously in both the northern and southern hemispheres because of adverse climatic conditions which have not occurred for many years. As a result, production has fallen seriously and, therefore, prices have risen. It is unthinkable that existing high world prices for cheese and butter will be sustained.
  As for sugar, which is the other principal commodity in the United Nations food index, we all know that all but 12 per cent. of the sugar grown in the world
  1886
  has its price governed by either the International Sugar Agreement or the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That means constant prices for 88 per cent. of the world's sugar. The remaining 12 per cent. is in a free world market, and the price goes up and down. It may be anything from £18 to more than £100 a ton. Again, it is outside the realms of possibility that there will be a high price for sugar in either a free world market or the managed market.
  For those reasons, I believe that it is wrong for the Government to say that, if we go in, the price of food will increase by no more than 2½ per cent. a year over six years. That figure cannot be believed, and I say that with very great regret. It cannot possibly be less than 20 per cent., and Sir John Winnifrith, who speaks of a 50 per cent. increase, may be proved right.
  We are told that a fortune will come to our farmers, and we have been assured of an overall expansion of some 8 per cent. If I got the message clear this morning, I thought that I heard my right hon. Friend say "at least" 8 per cent. On another occasion, he has singled out for mention certain commodities which are key sectors for expansion : cereals, beef, cheese, lamb and sugar beet. He has, therefore, excluded and not made key sectors milk, potatoes, pork, poultry, eggs, fruit and vegetables. Nor could they be.
  We are told that fruit and vegetables may be slightly cheaper if we enter the Common Market. But as to the other commodities in the second category, we are virtually self-sufficient. We produce nearly all our own milk, potatoes, pork, poultry and eggs. Yet, when one looks at their cash value, they come to more than half the food that we produce. If that be so, and there is to be an overall increase of 8 per cent., it means that the commodities which my right hon. Friend has listed will have to increase by perhaps double 8 per cent. in order to get that overall expansion of 8 per cent. This is a tall order.
  Perhaps the calculation has prompted the President of the National Farmers' Union to predict that
  "… entry to the E.E.C. may enable our sugar beet production to expand from 30 per cent. of our needs to 60 per cent. of our needs."

  1887
  This will mean increasing the capacity of our sugar beet factories, which are now working pretty well fully to capacity. One contrasts that with what is going on in France, where they are working considerably below capacity. While our sugar beet factories work season was 105 days last year, the French season worked 65 days. The French could increase their sugar beet production by a third without increasing the capacity of their factories, and French farmers are itching to provide those needs.
  It is unrealistic to expect any enormous increase in our sugar beet production without causing some dislocation to what is going on in France. I cannot see the French agreeing to that. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) explained, any increase in our sugar beet production must jeopardise the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and any large increase in European production must diminish the Commonwealth share of our market.
  As for an increase in cereal production, in view of recent reports and much of the evidence that we have heard about our soil, I, for one, doubt whether we could run the risk. I do not want to point the accusing finger at the right hon. Gentleman now, but, because of the deficiency payments system, we have flogged our land. I believe that in the last 20 years we have been trying to get more out of our soil than we should have been doing. This is something which the French, Germans and Italians have not yet done. If we think of the strength of the soil as a bank, then we have drawn on that bank far more heavily than they have. In their soil they have great reserve and potential. I believe that in less than a decade it will enable them to catch up with us.
  As to the prediction of an 8 per cent. expansion, we know in round figures what our agriculture is now producing. In cash terms it adds up to £2,500 million. An 8 per cent. increase must not only be 8 per cent. on top of that, but an additional sum, because, if we go in, we shall be losing some 10 per cent. of the farmers' incomes by virtue of various subsidies and grants which will not be permitted under C.A.P. Therefore, I suggest that the increase of 8 per cent. must
  1888
  be much more in cash terms than just 8 per cent. on existing incomes.
  I find it difficult to reconcile this optimistic forecast of an 8 per cent. increase in expansion with the claim that food for the housewife will go up by no more than 2½ per cent. a year. I cannot reconcile those two figures. If they were probed I believe that the conclusion would be that, apart from the fortunes of the so-called barley barons, agriculture as a whole would not gain by our entry.
  I have spoken about the White Paper. I find many holes in that document. However, I believe that most of us will make up our minds on the issue not on any objective search for arguments in the White Paper, but perhaps subjectively. I find the subjective arguments more persuasive, as, I suspect, do most hon. Members.
  I am opposed to the entry of this country into the Common Market because I have no wish to live, or for my children to live, in what must evolve into a superstate. I do not believe that super-states were made by God for the benefit of ordinary people. They are the device of politicians who want to walk the world stage and talk of power.
  We in this country have certain values and ideals. They embrace those rather overworked words, "freedom, justice and democracy", but they summarise a set of values which I believe will be of increasing importance in the world. We have a great rôle to play in giving nine-tenths of the human race something of those values which we cherish. My fear is that if we become part of what must inexorably be a super-state—once we share a unified economy—we shall have those values compromised, weakened and diluted. We shall then be less equipped to export them to a world which will one day thirst to share them with us.
  1.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Robertson: I want to concentrate my remarks on the probable effects of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. on the Scottish people. Perhaps more than any others, the Scots are entitled to speak on this subject, for, some years ago, we joined just such a common market. I must say that ever since we have had feelings that we would have been much better off had we stayed out. The arguments then were the same : that

  1889
  we could go in and join this erstwhile enemy, England, and influence what the English were doing by convincing them that the Scottish way was better.
  In the everyday world the tail will seldom wag the dog. The picture that the pro-Marketeers are painting is of Britain joining this Community of 200 million people, shaping its institutions, and giving its people our moral values. But the little British tail wagging the big European dog does not convince me.
  I admit that I am parochial in outlook. We heard about Australia this morning. I do not want to pull a "kith and kin" argument, but it is there when I think of Australia. If we go into the Common Market, I shall have to think of my brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces in Australia as aliens and myself as a countryman of some of the folk with whom I was falling out not so long ago. It will not be easy.
  I had hoped that this morning the Minister would say something about the problems of Scottish agriculture. He dealt with the general picture, but there are some special problems of agriculture related only to Scotland. I had hoped, too, that he would tell us whether the guarantees and assurances which he had given for horticulture applied with equal force to Scotland as to England. Horticulturists in Scotland are sure that they do not. They have already decided that they are on the way out. It would be a great pity if that were so. If the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends who are suggesting that we should go into the E.E.C want to persuade me, they will need to do more than paint a general picture.
  Recently the Secretary of State for Scotland, like a Scottish Moses leading the Scottish people full of blind faith and bright hopes towards the English Channel waiting for the waters to part so that we could enter the promised land, told us that this was the way for the Scots to seek progress. With an increase of 13,000 unemployed this week and the male unemployment rate in Scotland at 9 per cent., I think that the Scottish people will want a wee bit more assurance than they have had hitherto.
  My right hon. Friend talked about the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and how the Community will evolve a regional
  1890
  policy. It has had 12 years to do so and the best that the Commission has so far produced is a recommendation for the Council of Ministers this week. According to the criteria contained within that recommendation, Scotland would not get a brass farthing for industrial development from the Community, because, although compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is not all that good, compared with Southern Italy it is a kingdom of heaven upon earth. Let us hear something more definite about regional policies.
  We are told that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which would prevent the British Government operating a regional policy. That is so, but we are not in the E.E.C. now. Do we have a regional policy which works? We have had one year of Conservative Government and an increase of nearly 34,000 unemployed. Has that been a marvellous achievement under their regional policy? What will happen if next week we get a closure of U.C.S.? There would be another 7,000 directly unemployed and, multiplied by three, we would find the extra number of people who are fully unemployed. And that under a Government who say that they are operating a regional policy. They expect us to believe that if we go into Europe someone in Brussels will have more concern for the Scottish people than we are able to convince this Government to have. I find that difficult to believe.
  Some of my hon. Friends seem to lose their critical faculties, which they would normally apply to other aspects of Parliamentary business, when they are dealing with Europe. When talking about the Common Market they become starry-eyed. They are like pompous and portly suitors seeking the hand of the sprightly Marianne. They forget their ordinary commonsense, and behave like young lovers.
  I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) to grow up. He is not normally like this. Normally we listen with great attention to what he says. He applies his great analytical skill and unemotional approach to many matters. He is usually able to give us an objective picture. But not so on the question of Europe. My hon. Friend's eloquence

  1891
  was not unexpected, but his passion for Europe led him astray.
  I was astonished to find that my hon. Friend was unable to grasp the idea of the peasant problem in France. It seems incredible that a Scotsman should not be able to understand the special relationship between a peasant and his land, between a crofter and his land. For 100 years successive Governments have been trying to solve the crofting problem in Scotland. They have offered bribes to secure amalgamations. The Government have never understood why the Scottish crofter hangs on to his land and refuses to become part of a larger unit. Do the Government not understand that that piece of land is the crofter's grip on life, and that he will give it up only over his dead body? I often think that one of the greater stories of our time is that of the men of Knoydart. A few Scottish Highlanders went out in a boat to claim back their ancestral land, to reclaim their crofts.
  I invite anyone to go to France and ask a French peasant to give up his 15 acres of land. His land keeps not only him and his wife and children but probably his father and maybe his grandfather, and also some of his brothers and their children. It is not a question of a farming family. It is a matter of providing for a tribe from those 15 acres.
  I do not blame Pompidou or the French for getting their regional policy written into the Treaty right at the beginning. I cannot understand the Government's saying that they are willing to share the burden of keeping in operation this inefficient farming system, but yet do not find it possible to give an extra £1 to our decent Scottish crofter. He will have to pay the extra price for food, but he will not get the extra wages.
  Nor can I understand the argument that this country is terribly bad economically, that we are behind every other country in Europe when it comes to growth, that our industrial investment has not been keeping pace with theirs, that our people will not work, that they are lazy, that they go on strike, and so on. It is said that in Europe growth has been phenomenal, that they get more holidays, higher wages and more social benefits. Yet we are to go in and join
  1892
  those who are so efficient. They have made so much progress, we have made none, yet we are to go in and beat them.
  I do not know how we can possibly do that, particularly as the Germans are already able to beat us in exporting to Australia industrial goods on which we enjoy Commonwealth preference. How shall we compete? All these stories are phoney. Consider, for example, the question of growth. This is a good one. If someone grows from one to two, that is phenomenal, but if someone else grows from four to six, that is a bit less. Where does one start when considering this question of growth?
  I, too, have gone around Europe a bit. The best way to judge things is to use one's eyes, and the best thing to do is not to hang around the super hotels which are used by the delegates to the Council of Europe, but to go down the back streets, to visit the places at which people normally buy their food, and to make an assessment of the houses in which working people live.
  Britain is still one of the most prosperous nations in Europe. We come next after the Scandinavian countries. I am anxious not to get tied up in European politics, European attitudes and European outlooks. I want to be convinced that going into Europe will be a good thing. I have not yet heard an argument by a pro-Marketeer to make me change my mind. I believe that entry into Europe will be a disaster for Scotland.
  1.26 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I propose to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) to this extent only, that, like him, I take the view that regional policy is one of the things which must concern those who are in favour of entry into the Common Market. I go so far as to say that the Government must make it clear that until such time as the Community itself has evolved a more effective regional policy they will stretch the letter of the Treaty to that extent that is necessary to ensure that we are able to maintain at least as effective a differentiation in favour of the regions as we have now.
  Another matter which concerns me is the effect which our entry into Europe is likely to have on some people. We

  1893
  shall raise our standards of living, because our incomes will rise more than the cost of living. That will be fine for the population as a whole, and for those who depend on State benefits. The latter can be compensated for any increase in the cost of living because it will be possible to increase State benefits out of the larger national product. The people about whom I am bothered are those who have put aside money from the proceeds of hard work during their lives, those who have amassed a sum of capital so that they are able to enjoy a standard of living higher than that which the State provides, but who see the value of their capital reduced because of the additional money that they have to pay for comforts in their old age.
  I wonder whether it would be possible to evolve some specifically tailored savings scheme for them. I wonder whether it would be possible to bring in some specific kind of investment, guaranteed against capital loss, which would enable them to participate in the rising prosperity of the nation as a whole.
  Those are important details, but we come back every time to the central fact, which is that three successive Governments, drawn alternatively from one side of the House and the other, have come to the conclusion that membership of the E.E.C. offers this country by far the best hope for the future.
  Mr. Roland Moyle Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North) rose——
  Sir A. Meyer: I cannot give way, not in the short space of time that I have available.
  Three successive Governments have taken the view that joining Europe provides the best hope not merely for attaining, but for sustaining, steady expansion, and by far the best hope for making long-term provision for the security of this country.
  In that connection I should like to make two points which seem to me to be important, but which Government spokesmen would find it difficult to make. The first is that as an industrial nation Britain cannot continue to rely on the traditional industries which have been the bread and butter of her trade in the past. We must move into the new generation of science-based industries, and increasingly leave
  1894
  developing countries to rely on the traditional ones. But those science-based industries require a very large home market to enable production to be on a scale which will cover the huge research and development costs involved, and it must be a protected home market. We can see the reason at once when we look at what happens over aero-egines and similar products. The Americans simply cannot allow British science-based industry to compete on level terms in the American domestic market. That is why for those industries simply a large home market will not do, and a free trade area will not do. We need the element of protection that we can get only from an economic union, a community.
  My other point is purely political. Our country and our way of life are in serious danger from a discrepancy in time-scale. The Americans, because of their tragic experiences in Vietnam, are beginning to lose their will to expend their life and treasure in defending the rich continent of Western Europe. The Russians are also, I believe, gradually losing their will to impose their system by force or trickery on Western Europe. But the point is that the Americans are losing their will very much faster than the Russians are losing theirs. That discrepancy strikes me as being very dangerous.
  If the Russians, with that time discrepancy, see Western Europe torn by increasing divisions, and if Britain fails to join the Common Market at this stage, new and dangerous divisions will undoubtedly be created in Western Europe. Then the leaders in the Kremlin, however reasonable they may be, will not be able to stand up against hard-line Communists in Russia who will tell them, "Here you see the divided bourgeois world. It is the duty of a Communist regimé to exploit those divisions." In such a situation, our safety can lie only in promoting further unity in Western Europe. [Interruption.] I am sorry that that displeases those who would like to see the Russians achieve their aims in Western Europe.
  These and other more orthodox but equally telling arguments put forward by speakers on both sides, who constitute that coalition of moderates on both sides who support entry into the Common Market, add up to a formidable case which the opponents of entry must

  1895
  answer. It is not enough for them to point out the risks of entry to the E.E.C., because by far the most dangerous course we could embark upon is to do nothing. The risks of joining may be great ; the risks of not joining are infinitely greater. The opponents of entry must produce an alternative case on which they can agree. I can hardly wait to see what will be that alternative policy which will unite in common support the National Front, the Communist Party, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
  Mr. Body: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the one man who has consistently advocated the course about which he is now speaking is Sir Oswald Mosley, ever since 1944?
  Sir A. Meyer: I am not attempting a process of guilt by association. I am not saying that a policy is wrong because it is supported by certain people. I am merely saying that those who oppose entry have a duty to produce an alternative policy and to agree on it, and on the day when the hon. Member for Penistone is in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston on an alternative solution I shall listen with great attention to what they have to say.
  1.35 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: There is no doubt that the debate has reflected, and should reflect, the anxieties felt by our constituents about the choice that we must make. But it is also important that it should make clear to our constituents the choice which our country faces if we do not make the very difficult choice of entry. That certainly represents a historic change, but not to join does not mean that we face no change in our position in the world, our standard of living and our way of life. It does mean that whatever changes take place will occur outside our control.
  Sometimes the argument appears to be carried on as if there had been no change in our status in the world or our economic relationships with our trading partners in this century. That is not so. Moreover, the opponents speak as if the economic
  1896
  policies we have been pursuing for most of this century were more successful than those of comparable countries.
  In a realistic speech on Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) reminded us that the Ottawa Agreements were based on the idea of an exchange of industrial products with food and raw materials but that since they were signed, and the introduction of Imperial Preference, Commonwealth countries have built up their industries behind high tariffs. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food underlined this point today in his opening speech.
  It is sometimes thought that preference means that there are no tariffs, but in fact British industry still has to overcome very high tariffs in Commonwealth countries. It was my first visits to Australia and Canada that made me realise how serious the situation was and began to incline me towards my present position on the issue. I believe that those Agreements, introduced by a Conservative Government, did more harm than good to this country, because for a long period they provided soft markets for British goods, which prevented our industry from facing up to the competition, not just in price but in standards, efficiency, design and so on, which has been increasing during the whole period.
  The right hon. Lady claimed that she was an imperialist. I am not. But I am not a free trade liberal either. Here I agree absolutely with the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), even though he pinched some of my arguments. I was going to refer briefly to the common agricultural policy, not because I like it—nobody does—[Interruption]—nobody has ever suggested that we like it, but there are many things in the world that I do not like, but which I must accept. I have to make a choice, and here I make my choice. I believe that although the common agricultural policy may remain in its present form its content will change very radically. It is essential that those affected by the rise in prices caused by that policy are strongly protected. That is why I hope that we shall have a Labour Government by the time we enter the E.E.C.
  I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead when he referred to the remark of my right hon.

  1897
  Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) that we were witnessing the end of 120 years of cheap food. That was a nice bit of Cobdenite liberalism, but who is to say that our cheap food policy has been such a brilliant success?
  The rise of this country to industrial and economic dominance took place before the repeal of the corn laws, and within 25 years of the corn laws being repealed our economy started to decline relative to that of other industrial countries. Our farm workers gained nothing out of it and they still have not caught up with the rise in incomes of other sections of the community, despite the fact that agriculture has been supported by successive Governments since the war.
  Given the difficulties that we have faced, in particular over the balance of payments, are we sure, compared with the relative success since the war of the E.E.C. countries, that we are always right in our economic policies and that the balance between agricultural and industrial output has been right, on economic or as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) asked, on social grounds?
  I deplore the tendency for us to say that everything we do is best when it clearly is not. There are some things that we do best, and we should take pride in them. But there are other things that we clearly do not do best, and we should admit that. Indeed, we have not been successful with our economic policies for many years.
  I turn to the political arguments basic to this issue. Why was the Community formed in the first place and in particular why was it formed as an Economic Community? It was because the founders realised the dangers and damage done to Europe and the world in this century by the growth of economic nationalism.
  In the heyday of nineteenth century laissez-faire economic forces were thought to be self-regulating and were quite separate from politics. This was all right at a time when we dominated world industry and world economy and when these forces were largely controlled and managed by the City of London. But the growth of large industrial populations with political influence, particularly in democratic countries, resulted in the
  1898
  growth of the effective demand for higher living standards.
  This has increased the pressure on governments to take more and more responsibility for the performance of their national economies and this, in turn, has led to increased tendencies towards nationalism. We have seen it throughout this century, and that nationalism has, in my lifetime, had disastrous results, with, among other things, two world wars.
  If we now refuse the opportunity to enter the Common Market—I think it is generally admitted that this will be the last opportunity for many years—we will condemn ourselves to a competitive struggle in which our main competitors will be immensely stronger and more self-confident than we are likely to be. They will organise the European market in their own interests and certainly not in ours. A particularly good example is in regional policy, for their regional policies will be organised in the interests of their regions and against ours, and we will be powerless to do anything about it.
  I do not apologise for treating these matters historically. There is a tendency to judge everything only by what is happening today and what happened yesterday and not to realise that we are in the middle of a continuing historical process and that we must look back at what has been taking place for a long time if we are to judge effectively, what is happening at the present time.
  This process of the organisation of Europe against our interests can be compared with the formation in the early part of last century of the German Zollverein, and that caused more anxiety in this country and more anti-German feeling than anything else, and it was also one of the causes of the first war.
  I am not one of those who take an easy view of what will happen if we do not join the Common Market. Instead, I take a grim view about it because I believe that if we now refuse entry whatever Government are then in power will find themselves with no foreign policy at all and no friends in the world. [HON. MEMBERS : "Rubbish."]
  The countries of E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth would make the best arrangements they could with the strongest economic force in Europe, and that would certainly not be us. We

  1899
  should have struck a blow at the friends of Britain in Europe and particularly at the Socialists and trade unionists, who would have suffered a crushing defeat.
  I believe that in the next election in Germany, Willy Brandt and the Social Democrats would, in those circumstances, be swept away. Europe would turn to the right. The United States, as one can see from Mr. George Ball's article in The Times today, would turn away from a country so lacking in self-confidence and so uncertain of its future as to be unable or unwilling to face the risks and opportunities of entry into the European Community.
  What would be the effect on our politics here at home in that situation? As our economic strength and political influence declined, there would grow in Britain what we have seen not for the first time this century, a mood of frustration. We saw it at the time of Suez as well as in the early part of the century. We saw it to some extent during the 'thirties. That, in turn, could lead to a mood of xenophobia and so give to the populists and the demagogues their chance—and there are several who fancy themselves in that rôle waiting in the wings.
  1.47 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) will forgive me if I do not comment on all of the subjects he raised, though I shall be speaking about a number of them.
  When I came to this House a year ago I was opposed for political reasons to our joining the E.E.C. However, I knew that I owed it to my constituents to look at the matter afresh and to see if there were new perspectives. I knew that I had to study the problem as deeply and as closely as I could, because I owed to them the exercise of my judgment and not merely the expression of my prejudices.
  I have tried to do this, and today I think very differently from the way I thought a year ago. In the campaign which I shall begin in my constituency this evening and continue in the autumn on this great issue, I shall feel bound to advise my constituents that I consider membership of the E.E.C. to be in the
  1900
  country's and in their best interests. I shall so advise them, because as their representative in Parliament, I have a duty to give a lead. I shall, of course, listen to their fears and misgivings. There will then be ample time to discuss all those matters with them before the decision is taken here, where I believe it should be taken.
  To say all this is not to say that I have travelled this road easily or quickly or that all my apprehensions have been removed. The situation was particularly cogently put in a recent document issued by the N.F.U., in which it was stated :
  "The comparison is not between a future inside the Community and the status quo. It is between one form of change and another for good or for ill which will undoubtedly affect the fortunes of us all."
  This has become ever-clearer to me during the last year, and throughout I have had this question in my mind : what is the best course for this country, and what is best for the people I have the honour to represent?
  As I have asked that question, two things have preyed on my mind more than anything else, the thought of the town of Cannock and the future of my son. Cannock is one of those industrial towns which has given much to this country and which has been part of that great West Midlands conurbation that we might look upon as the cradle of Britain's industrial greatness but which has received so little—not a depressed area but, in many ways, a depressing one. What is the future for that town and those people? What can give them the facilities they have up to now been denied? What is the best thing for them?
  The other thing I think of constantly is my family, particularly my small child, who will grow into manhood as the next century approaches. How is he to have the same high hopes with which his grandfather entered this century, and how are we to make sure that his hopes are not so rudely shattered? I am persuaded that, for both, the hopes will be higher if, with courage and determination, we take the opportunity of partnership which we are now offered. I am also persuaded that our determination must not be sabotaged by delusions, by dreams and visions which have no basis in reality. Let us not talk of an artificially foisted federation. Let us grow together without

  1901
  the techniques of the political hothouse——
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman said that when he first came to the House a year ago he was disinclined to support entry into the Common Market. He quite honourably changed his mind. Did he tell his constituents before being elected that he was committed to being taken into the Common Market by his party without a General Election?
  Mr. Cormack: I answer to my constituents as the hon. Gentleman must answer to his. When I was elected I made it plain that I was opposed to entry and would need a lot of persuading. During the year I have kept my constituents constantly informed about where I stand. They know exactly how my mind is working. I have a meeting tonight and 10 other meetings are arranged in the future, and my constituents will be kept informed. The hon. Gentleman must look after his constituents and leave me to look after mine.
  Mr. John Mendelson: A fraudulent prospectus.
  Mr. Cormack: What caused me great misgiving were the political implications. I was particularly worried about the Treaty of Rome. But then one looks at the practice and, although documents, blueprints and treaties have their place, they are at best only a faltering expression of a spirit, and it is the spirit that matters.
  I am prepared to admit that I was wrong. Too many of us have been bound by rigid and false logic. We have applied the laws of mathematics without regard to the wisdom of experience and the practice of statecraft. That is why I was much reassured by the recent Paris meeting from which came a definite answer to those who feared that we should be rushed headlong into an artificial federation, which I believe would be unnecessary, impracticable and undesirable.
  In the immediate future we should concentrate on the practical difficulties and problems which membership will undoubtedly bring. Some of them were movingly outlined on Wednesday by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) when he spoke of people on fixed incomes and
  1902
  low wage earners, for whom no Government in recent years has been able to do enough. It is right that we should think of them and their problems, and it is right too, and today it is appropriate, that we should think of the problems of my local farmers, who accept that entry will bring great challenge and great opportunity but who want to be assured of a clear avenue of approach through the N.F.U. to the Council in Brussels ; who feel that in any political organisation British farmers have much to teach European farmers, just as many European farmers have much to teach us in cooperative marketing ; who are particularly concerned that they should not be financially impoverished, and that our established marketing boards should be allowed to continue to flourish. These are some of the immediate problems to which we should apply ourselves.
  All this is not to say that we should ignore our visions or forget our ideals. A strong Western Europe is what we all want, for this part of Europe has been the nursery of our civilisation and must be its guardian still. In our visions and ideals we should forget party differences. I hope that there will be a sufficient number of hon. Members who will be able to unite across the Floor in October when this historic decision is taken. The first day of January, 1973, will come and go. There will be another new year's day, but there will be a new spirit at work.
  I will quote from a letter I have received from a constituent, one of the many letters we are all receiving from people who are apprehensive about these changes :
  "I hope next time you go to Cannock you will stand before our war memorial and look at the names of the men inscribed there, who gave their lives that we would not be dictated to by a foreign power, and search your soul."
  I have done that, and I searched my soul last Sunday when I had the privilege of attending evensong at King's College Chapel, Cambridge. This glorious monument to the best in our civilisation was packed, mainly with young people from all over the world, particularly from Europe. I stood next to a German and I did search my soul. I thought that I could, perhaps, write a footnote to what might be the most glorious chapter of all in the history of our civilisation, the chapter that I would call "Pax Europa."
  1.58 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall not detain the House for long but merely make one or two points which will possibly put a new slant on the situation. I will deal first with what was said by the Minister of Agriculture. He referred to value-added tax and said that it would not apply to food. Yet we are fully aware that the first of the three taxes to be harmonised in the E.E.C. is the sales tax, namely, V.A.T. If V.A.T. were not applied to food in any of the countries in the E.E.C, I might perhaps believe the right hon. Gentleman, but it is.
  In the French system the standard rate of V.A.T. is 23 per cent., and the reduced rate for food is 7·5 per cent. In the German system the standard rate of V.A.T. is 11 per cent., and the reduced rate for food 5·5 per cent. In the modified French system, the standard rate is 9·5 per cent. and the reduced rate for food 3·17 per cent. Once we are in the European Economic Community and there is harmonisation of taxation, of which V.A.T. is an essential part, we shall be pressurised to apply V.A.T. to food, and it will be a fait accompli.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose——
  Mr. Heffer: I will not give way.
  Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way for just a second?
  Mr. Heffer: Please !
  Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose——
  Mr. Heffer: All right.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend often takes part in debates and I do not interrupt him very often. I want to take the matter a step further. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister has advised me that, assuming that the Minister agrees to it at the Commission, as would be the case, when that stage is reached we in the House cannot amend, alter or reject it in any way? Even if we debate it, we must debate it in such a way as to not frustrate what the Minister has agreed in the Commission.
  Mr. Heffer: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am trying to confine my remarks, as I have given an assurance to Mr. Deputy Speaker that I shall try to be brief. My hon. Friend's point has underlined what I was saying.
  1904
  The arguments about V.A.T. produced by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the fence do not hold water. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who unfortunately, is not present, has opposed V.A.T. in the House and the Labour Party are pledged to the opposition of V.A.T. How can anyone genuinely say that they will support V.A.T. as a price of entry into the Common Market and forget their pledges to the people on this pernicious and obnoxious tax? That matter ought to be underlined.
  Another point arising from the right hon. Gentleman's speech concerned the common agricultural policy. It is amazing that almost no one, whether pro or anti the Common Market, is in favour of the common agricultural policy. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), despite his defence of the French farmers, did not say that the C.A.P. was a good policy. He did not say that we should accept it. The right hon. Gentleman gave the reason today. It was interesting that he said that the problem was a food problem, not a farmers' problem. That is absolutely true, because what is at stake is the effect of food prices on the British people. It is not a question whether there are any starving farmers. One would have to go a long way in Britain to find a starving farmer, although some of our agricultural workers are not in such a good situation. The farmers do not seem to have been doing so badly under our present system.
  Writing in The Times Business Section on 16th September of last year, M. Paul Fabra, the economics editor of Le Monde, said :
  "The E.E.C. countries should look to Britain for their model on agricultural policy instead of making Britain repudiate her own system in favour of the European one which has clearly shown its noxiousness."
  That is the position.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will know that I have made speeches as passionate as any about entry into the Common Market. But the issue that decided my opposition to entry was the common agricultural policy. I have always said that it was wrong, and I have said that when we negotiated we should say that this matter should be totally negotiated from top to bottom, and that

  1905
  if it could not be negotiated we should withdraw from the negotiations.
  I said that because I am not prepared to sacrifice the British working people on the altar of some magnificent dream which may or may not come into existence. As a working-class lad, I am not prepared to see my people carrying increasing burdens for a dream. I am concerned with how this matter will affect the British working class. The ramshackle arrangements which have been organised by the Government Front Bench—I exclude hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite—will have a very serious effect on our people's living standards. That fact cannot be escaped by rhetoric.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford made an absolutely magnificent speech. It was a speech of which any Front Bencher on the Government side of the House should have been proud, because it was better than any made from the Government Front Bench. If it were not for my right hon. Friend, the Government would have no champions in the House. But he did not mention V.A.T. or the common agricultural policy. He skirted over these basic problems which would affect our working class. He dealt with one or two other issues.
  On the question of regional policy, I come from an area which yesterday had 40,000 unemployed. Today it has more unemployed. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that proposals were going forward concerning the central areas. When I wanted to intervene to ask for an assurance that it would not apply to areas such as Merseyside, the North-East Coast and Scotland, he would not give way. But we are entitled to know what will happen to those areas. Are the Government prepared to pledge that it will not apply to our people? It is all very well talking about the Common Market countries accepting investment grants as against investment incentives. But investment grants of no more than 20 per cent. in areas such as mine will not assist our problems or overcome our difficulties. We have to have an answer to that question.
  In conclusion, we have heard a lot in the debate about socialist internationalism and the alternative, certainly upstairs and sometimes in the Chamber, and across the road last week. I am
  1906
  an internationalist I believe passionately in international working-class solidarity. When sections of workers in France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Africa or Asia become involved in a struggle for better conditions I am with them because I recognise that their struggle is the same sort of struggle as that which my people have always had to have, not just from the day I was born but long before then. Working people never get anything unless they fight and struggle for it. Our movement was built on the basis of international solidarity in this struggle for better conditions.
  Let no one in the House, especially from this side, suggest that, because I do not want to accept the conditions of the Common Market, I am not an internationalist and that I do not believe in the international solidarity of the working class. I believe in it passionately. I had hopes that by getting into the Common Market we should be able to build a socialist Europe. But in December, 1969, the locks were put on, the bolts were shut tight and we were told from that point onwards, "If you come in, you accept not only the Treaty of Rome but everything that has been accepted up to now". I am not prepared to accept that as a condition of entry.
  There are alternatives which have not been tried in this country. Here, like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) last night, I shall lose Members on the other side of the House. We must be bold enough and courageous enough to put our Socialist policies into operation in this country. I hope that the next Labour Government will not pussy-foot around with the City of London. I hope that we shall not be afraid to extend and expand public ownership. If we do, we shall give a lead to the workers in Europe and elsewhere to follow us in the great struggle for building a new society.
  I still believe in the united socialist States of Europe. I still believe in a united Europe on terms of social democracy and basic Socialist internationalism. We shall not achieve them with the terms which have been put before us by the Government. I therefore hope that all my comrades in the Labour Party will take note of what I have said and will reject the Government's policy.
  2.12 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will forgive me if I do not comment on the remarks he made in his most sincere and moving speech.
  I am not faced with the problem of having to convince myself on this issue, for I convinced myself 10 years ago and I have not moved one jot either way since. [Laughter.] To those like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is a real friend of mine, who laugh at my statement that I made up my mind long ago, I say that it is as honourable to make up one's mind on the basic principle of what one has been brought up to believe in and has experienced throughout childhood and on a belief about what has made this country tick over the generations and become great and wealthy as it is to wait and see which way one's thoughts may develop as time goes on.
  So much has been said about figures that it is unnecessary for anyone, certainly for me, to talk about them. Before I say a few words about the campaign run by the Government, I wish to question something which was said yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. Whatever my right hon. Friend says is of great moment and of great interest. He is a man of great experience and competence. Therefore, when he says something I wish to make sure that I understand it correctly. He said :
  "… Parliament, within a certain area, is competent to deal with certain things ; but national Parliaments will control a great deal of the whole for a very long time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 1710.]
  It is not good enough to tell the British people, "Do not worry about national sovereignty, for your Parliament will control a great deal of what happens in Britain for a long time". What I want to know is, what will we not control? People have said, "You do not have to worry about the law. That will not be messed about with in any major sense". But wait until my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) says in what way the laws of this country will be changed as a result of entry into Europe.
  We heard a wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with
  1908
  Boston (Mr. Body). It was impressive and great. We heard a wonderful speech, in which the other point of view was put, from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on the first day of the debate. We heard a great speech, containing new ideas, yesterday afternoon from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) What concerns and frightens me is that none of those speeches will be read except in the restricted Press of the small area of those Members' constituencies. The debate has been almost exclusively between the Prime Minister and the wobbling, tightrope act of the Leader of the Opposition, plus what the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), said yesterday.
  I congratulate the Government on running the slickest, most efficient public relations campaign this country has ever seen. It is the modern pressgang in operation. If anybody thinks that that is an exaggeration, let me say what I mean. It is far worse than the old press-gang, because the most it could do was to fill Nelson's ships with men, but only limited numbers of men. The modern pressgang sets out to convert millions of people against their will by misusing taxpayers' money to convince them about something they do not want to be convinced about.
  The Prime Minister said :
  "Nor would it be in the interests of the European Economic Community that we should join without the full-hearted support of Parliament and the people".
  I want to know what that means. It does not mean mounting this enormous campaign, the latest star attraction of which was the advertisement in The Times yesterday. The only mistake about that advertisement was that it should have been in the Daily Mirror. I will not read it because most hon. Members will have read it and it is obvious what it was about. But it is significant that the Government are so petrified about the paucity of their case that they, or the pro-Marketeers, have to indulge in using the names of certain people. I mention one or two of them : Henry Cooper, to give a lead to the sports fans of boxing in this country ; Jack Hawkins for the cinema ; Sir Adrian Boult and Benjamin Britten for music ; Michael Balcon for

  1909
  films ; John Edrich, Ted Dexter, Denis Compton—and practically the whole of the British Test team—for cricket. There has grown up in Britain a system where patronage by Government and public bodies is so vast that there is scarcely a major figure in the nation who cannot be affected in one way or another. When both sides of the House, when each Government that we have had, the dispensers of patronage over the years, have determined that Britain shall go in, and have found not one possible argument to advance against it, one now begins to see the result of Government patronage. One begins to see the way in which the campaign to get Britain in is to be fought. This is a disgrace if the Prime Minister is not going to give the British people some way of expressing an opinion more effectively than they have had yet.
  Is it surprising that there has been a slight swing towards the Government view, with this enormous publicity going on, with the whole of the Press—with the exception of the Daily Express—the whole of the television and radio, putting the Government's case all the time, the Government spending enormous sums of taxpayers' money, sending literature all over the country? Is it to be wondered that there is this false swing towards the Government's point of view?
  Never forget that after the Prime Minister said what he said and promised what he promised, there are still at the end of the day no fewer than 10 million to 12 million adult British people who want no part of what the Government are forcing them to do. In those conditions surely there is something that the Government can do for the British people, and that is allow them to express an opinion, if in no other way, in this House by the Government side having a free vote. Surely this is the least that Members of Parliament can ask. If we cannot ask it here and get an answer here, there is nowhere that we can do so. The average back-bench Member in this debate has no hope whatsoever of being widely reported, for the debate is so overloaded and over-weighted on both Front Benches. This is no criticism of the means of communication.
  I have spoken too long and I promised to be short, but I must say this.
  1910
  When I decided that I could not support this proposal, I did so because when the former Prime Minister said, "We have decided to apply for membership of the Common Market and to negotiate", I knew that from that moment onwards the whole of the British Com-monwealth, but chiefly the white Commonwealth, would start running round looking for new markets to replace their markets with us. I knew that from that moment the British Commonwealth would gradually be stranded, and so it has proved.
  Even yesterday we had the Foreign Secretary saying, as an excuse, that the Commonwealth trade has gradually become less and less in proportion from 1960 to 1970. For heaven's sake, that was when we first started to go in. There was the threat to leave the Commonwealth, after having agreed to allow South Africa to leave. That is when we had the final threat to the disintegration of the Commonwealth—not from Australia or New Zealand but from here.
  I look at the history of this country for a moment and I say to myself, "Where has our history been?" We have been a great nation because we have lived by trade. We have been able to live by trade because the world has been our trade. As the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in the debate last night, the world has been our trade, and here we are looking for the geese that lay golden eggs in Europe, ready to hide behind a tariff wall in Europe.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: A small tariff wall.
  Mr. Fell: Very well, a tariff wall of between 7½ per cent. and 20 per cent. It is not so small. It is exactly the reverse of what our history has taught us to be. In other words, we are a little scared island off Europe. The men of faith and courage are the men who are against going into Europe to find the easy way.
  May I finish by quoting what a great Member of this House said about Europe and Britain's association with Europe :
  "Where do we stand? We are not members of the European defence community, nor do we intend to be merged in a European Federal system. We feel we have a special relation

  1911
  to both. This can be best expressed by prepositions, by the preposition ' with ' but not ' of '—we are with them, but not of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 891.]
  Those words were said in 1953, which is not all that long before we tried to get in for the first time, by the greatest statesman of this century, Sir Winston Churchill.
  2.27 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: Like the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), I am a Commonwealth man. I compliment him and sympathise with him in this dynamic situation of the changing Commonwealth. However, that can wait. I am here to make my own speech. This will be the first speech today on fishing from a backbench Member. Both the Minister and I know a little about this, and nothing has been said today so far on this subject except by the Minister.
  Before I come to that, however, I should like to comment on one or two other matters which have been dealt with in the debate today. There have been cascades of words and sheaves of statistics. I have been in my constituency and I should like to relate to the House the feelings of my constituents. I do not need a Gallup Poll. I do not need any referendum. I do not need to live in a sort of Swiss canton in order to find out how my people feel. I go on the fish dock to talk to workers there and listen. In all this cascade of words I wonder who convinces whom. A former speaker in this debate said that he has his views, and is not prepared to change them. I hear many views expressed. On whom can I depend? Should I be influenced by people with names like Kaldor in the New Statesman? I wonder. There are charges and counter-charges, with all the connotations of honourable men and others who are not so honourable.
  I have listened to a wonderful speech on the Commonwealth from an hon. Member speaking sincerely and from his heart. But I see Commonwealth skittles going down day by day. Take Commonwealth sugar, for example. This has been discussed for about six months. I know of a man whom I would support against anyone in this disputation, who
  1912
  sent a letter to the negotiator, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. Peart: Before my hon. Friend leaves sugar. The gentleman in question is a friend of mine and he did send a letter. Since then there have been no negotiations. I hope that my hon. Friend in his acceptance of this letter will not assume that we will accept what the Chancellor of the Duchy did not do. I want to put on the record that there have been no negotiations and no guarantees. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commonwealth sugar producers are very worried.
  Mr. Johnson: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend for that addition and accept it. I am in difficulties, however, when it comes to matters in which I do not specialise, and then I will gladly take the word of those who are most affected. Another matter which was discussed was New Zealand butter and here I will accept the views of those who know more than me. The negotiating Minister from New Zealand said that it was a fair deal. As a Commonwealth man for many years I have to accept what those from the Commonwealth say. Where is the logic in my behaviour if I do not accept the words of those who negotiate for their own sections of society?
  In my constituency there is keen anxiety over unemployment and a gnawing fear about the cost of food. Neither of these fears can be dispelled unless we burst out of this malaise in our economy. I cannot see us, with the aid of Commonwealth nations, ameliorating to the necessary extent our internal economic problems. If we were to associate with Eastern Europe I suppose that we would be termed a Comecon satellite. I cannot see us working on that basis nor can I see us working happily in a free trade area with North America. It is to Western Europe that I turn, and it is here that we have the chance of working on a basis of equality. If we accept the first point that we do need this larger association for necessary development, economic wealth and health, then it can be seen that in Western Europe there are sister nations with similar cultures to whom we can turn.
  If we were in association with them we would be able to play, I hope, a leading rôle which would be impossible in

  1913
  any other combination of nations. I am forced to reach this decision. I have been a member of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe for five years and the most eloquent speech I heard, which went a long way towards putting me in my present position, was by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who spoke in 1967 at Strasbourg of the benefit which we could confer and receive through association and technological development in a Western European community.
  The only genuine snag I can find in the package is to do with the heavy burden on the balance of payments. I have never been a chauvinist. I am a "working-class lad" like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We both had much the same beginnings. I agree with what he said. We are both internationalists. I feel a niggle inside me in some indefinable way when I am told that my people should pay taxes to keep the "inefficient French peasants" in business. For good measure I am sometimes told that these are "conservative Gaullist" peasants, which gives me another niggle.
  For years I have campaigned for overseas aid to African and other developing nations. I have listened also to Dr. Mansholt speaking at Strasbourg. He has told me that in the last 10 years he and his colleagues of the E.E.C. have "put off the land" something like 5 million peasants. He behaves, and I use that word quite fairly, in the same way as Alf Robens did in putting people out of the pits, including my father, when carrying out the National Coal Board organisation. I have accepted this in my domestic economy for the future good and health of the industry. In the next decade, when another 5 million go off the land in Western Europe, there will be a reduction in these heavy payments. There is no equity for us in them, and I kick against them as much as anyone else, but in about seven years' time they will have diminished appreciably.
  Mr. Paget: Has my hon. Friend heard of President Pompidou's observation that halting the drift from the land is no longer necessary, since Britain is now paying for it?
  Mr. Johnson: My hon. and learned Friend is well versed in the dialectic of
  1914
  our party and of the courts. I think that he has a point here. May I pass on? I turn now to a matter in which even he cannot interrupt—fisheries. I speak as a Member for Hull, which has a fish dock. What are the fears of the men there, whether sailing in the North Atlantic or in the middle waters?
  They have two fears. The first is that the North-East Atlantic is over-fishea. The second is expressed in the view that "All foreigners are poachers, they are cheats, but we—" [Interruption.] There is some conflict here between the deep-water fleet and the inshore men. I have sympathy with them both, but my main sympathies lie with my constituents, who fish in the deep-water fleet. It is my duty to defend my own people.
  The first thing that the Minister must fight for in September must be to ensure that there is no flag discrimination in the six to 12-mile belt. He talked about the 1964 Fisheries Convention signed by 18 nations, but of course, not by Norway. All the vessels in the deep-water ports could have got into that 12-mile limit a few months ago, but not now. What he must do is to say that we return to the 1964 position, which means that British fishermen have the six miles for ourselves, whether out of Eyemouth, Wick or anywhere else as the Norwegians have their six-mile belt. From six to 12 miles let conditions stay as they are.
  If the Minister does not get that agreement then we are being discriminated against. It cannot be said in equity that we are getting a fair deal vis-à-vis the Scandinavians. We fished traditionally in the past in this belt off the Faroes, Greenland and Norway, as the Minister of Agriculture, who represents a fishing port, well knows. If there is discrimination it is ludicrous to talk about any equity or about this being a "common market", which is a phrase I do not like. There will be no common market there. He must be firm about this. If I had the time I could quote letters from leaders of the fishing industry saying that he must get the best terms in this matter that he can.
  We heard talk earlier about Mersey-side. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Walton is not here now. We have much in common. He pleads for Merseyside. I plead for Humberside, as a much better place. I am not against

  1915
  association with the Community, because I believe that both banks of Humberside will gain immeasurably from our entry. We have a wonderful estuary, which is now taking oil tankers up to 250,000 tons at Immingham. In Hull we face Scandinavia, the Baltic, the Netherlands and Germany. We could easily become another Hamburg or Rotterdam. We could have a steel complex, given more capital investment. There is not sufficient money in Yorkshire or even in England to develop Humberside—with or without a Midas scheme. We need Anglo-Norwegian, Anglo-Belgian and Anglo-Dutch money to develop as we should. My intellectual convictions and political instincts do not allow me to oppose entry into the Community.
  2.41 p.m.
  Mr. David Knox: I find myself in a large measure of agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) if I say that I had little sympathy with most of the points that he made. I want to explain briefly why that is so.
  If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, he suggested that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the advertisement in The Times that contained a number of names of whom he made fun.
  Mr. Fell: I did correct myself. I referred to the "pro-Common Market" people.
  Mr. Knox: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I misunderstood him. At the same time, he said that the list contained the names of the current English test team, and he mentioned Denis Comp-ton. It is a few years since he played cricket for England. That was the temper of the whole of my hon. Friend's speech ; he was dealing with a world which existed 20 or 30 years ago, and not the world that exists today.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend complained about the publicity and information that the Government have made available about the E.E.C. As I understood it, over the last few months the anti-Common Markeeters have been complaining bitterly about the lack of information, and
  1916
  it comes rather strangely from them that they should now complain when the information is made available.
  Thirdly, my hon. Friend complained that the public is being brain-washed. In my view public opinion is now reverting to the position that it has held for most of the years since 1961, when our first application was made. The majority of public opinion was in favour of entry in 1961 and up until 1967–68. Only in the last three years have the anti-Marketeers had a field day because those in favour of entry were unable to put over their points because of the negotiations which were going on. Only in that period has the anti-Marketeer case gained support from the public. Those of us who support the Market are not surprised that now that we can put over the case without qualifications, public opinion is reverting to its more natural position.
  It will be fairly obvious that I am a very dedicated European and a strong supporter of the European Economic Community. I have been for 14 years—ever since the Community first came into being. I see no reason to apologise for that. As the years have gone by and I have studied the situation, I have become more and more deeply convinced that entry to the E.E.C. provides the only possible future for us. The decision on the Common Market will be the most important decision that this Parliament takes—and probably the most important decision that the House of Commons has taken since 1945. I regret that it was not possible to take a decision on this matter before I entered the House but it will be with considerable pride that I shall vote for entry in October.
  I want to make one point about the importance of this decision. It is much more important that Britain should get into the Common Market than that it should have either a Conservative or a Labour Government. Our entry will influence Britain for the good to a much greater extent than if the party on these benches were to stay in power indefinitely. If the Labour Party had been in power and if my vote had decided whether we went into the Common Market and whether the Labour Party stayed in power, I should have voted without hesitation to go into the Common Market and to keep the Labour

  1917
  Party in power, at least for a short time. I mention that because it is important that some people on this side should place on the record their belief that this is the most important decision that Britain faces at this time.
  There has been a tendency to trivialise this issue. Far too much has been made about the price of butter. The real issue is the sort of country that we shall be in the future. It is important to recognise that we cannot keep on as we are going. We cannot do so because we are not what we were 25 years ago. We are not even what we were five years ago. In five years from now we shall not be what we are now. In recent years—especially since the end of the war—this country has been declining quickly in terms of its influence in the world. It has also been falling behind other countries in terms of living standards. I am concerned that those who take the opposite view to mine still seem to believe that Britain matters in the world and that in this world of continental powers we can "go it alone". In my view the position of Britain has declined beyond all recognition in recent years, and it is still declining now.
  It is worth spending a few moments examining why that is so. In my view there are four principal reasons for our decline. The first is the effect of the two world wars. We spent a great deal of our overseas investment to fight those wars and win them. The fact that we no longer have sufficient overseas investment to pay for many of our imports has undoubtedly weakened this country and left us in a much more exposed and vulnerable position economically.
  The second reason for our decline has been the evolution of the empire into the Commonwealth. That is not something that I opposed, but whereas we spoke on behalf of 650 million people in 1945, today we speak on behalf of 60 million people, and it follows as surely as day follows night that our influence in the world has declined as a result.
  The third reason for our decline has been the emergence in the last 30 years of the United States and the Soviet Union as major world Powers, playing their part in the world at large as they have never done before and, in the last few years, the emergence of China and the E.E.C. In comparison with those Powers
  1918
  we have declined in statue and our influence has accordingly declined.
  The fourth reason for our decline is that we do not have access to a large domestic market. It is significant that those countries which have overtaken us in recent years are those which form part of a large domestic market. The right hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) made the point about the importance of a large demand market very powerfully in his wonderful speech yesterday afternoon.
  I should have thought that the change in the position of Britain was obvious to most people, because all around us there is evidence of our decline, economically, in terms of defence and in respect of our lack of influence in the world.
  Our economic performance since the war, under both Governments, has been pathetic, in terms of living standards, international trade and our balance of payments. This country is no longer able to defend itself ; it has to rely on the United States of America. In international affairs this country no longer counts. America and the Soviet Union sort out the major problems of the world. What Britain thinks is of no consequence. All these facts should by now have impressed on everyone the necessity for Britain joining a larger political and economic unit, and the only conceivable ' unit is Western Europe and the Common Market. Western Europe is geographically compact and one cannot have a cohesive political and economic unit unless it is geographically compact. Europe seems to me to be the only possible answer to our problem.
  Against this great sweep of history and the inevitably of the movement to larger and larger units which we have seen in recent years, it seems to me that the terms of entry, although not irrelevant, are of secondary importance. We are seeing a movement towards continental Powers all over the world and Britain has opted out of this in recent years. The Common Market offers us the opportunity to opt into international affairs once again through joining a continental Power.
  As I see it then, the real issue about the Common Market is the sort of country we are going to be in the future. Are we to be part of a big unit and to play a real part in the world, influencing

  1919
  Europe and playing a part in the development of Europe? Do we wish through Europe to influence the great decisions which will affect us in the future? I believe that this is the nature of the British people. I believe that we like to be outward looking or, if I may put it another way, that we like to meddle in the affairs of the world. But we can do this only if we are part of a big unit, because big units are what count in the world today.
  The reality is that if we continue on our own, we shall become Europe's offshore island. We shall not matter in world affairs. Our influence will continue to decline during the next 50 years and we shall be as internationally significant to the world as the Isle of Man is to the United Kingdom today. What is more, we shall be outside a Europe which is gaining in power, strength and influence. We shall not be part of a United Europe. We shall be dwarfed by Europe ; perhaps even threatened by her, and unable to do anything about it.
  I respect the views of those who oppose the Common Market and who accept the logic of their arguments. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) did. He accepted that Britain' would become, relatively poorer outside the Market but rather liked the sort of Britain we had and did not want to change it too much. If I am doing my hon. Friend an injustice, I hope that he will disagree with me.
  Mr. Body: May I just register my disagreement?
  Mr. Knox: Then I will leave my hon. Friend alone. I respect the view of the anti-Marketeers if they will face up to the logic that if we opt out of the E.E.C. then our relative living standards will decline and our influence in the world will decline. I disagree with this view because I believe that it is the nature of this country to wish to participate in international affairs. I believe that our people want a rising standard of living. And I believe that Adlai Stevenson's revolution of rising expectation is as true of the people of this country as it is of the under-developed nations of whom he was talking. For these reasons I strongly support the decision of the Government to enter the E.E.C. on 1st January, 1973.
  2.55 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: During the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) I felt like shouting
  "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
  I find it disturbing, when one hears both the pro-Marketeers and the antis, that they destroy their case by exaggerating it. I recall some months ago on a television programme in Scotland a Scottish Conservative saying that, if we went into the Common Market, in a few months we should be swinging from the trees. A pro-Marketeer then said that, if we did not go in, we should all be in the poor house ; and that, if we did go in, it would be the elixir of life. I do not believe either of these concepts.
  I am a very hesitant Common Marketeer and I have been influenced by what has taken place in these debates, which is an unusual thing in this place. When we come to these debates usually it is a dialogue of the deaf, to use an expression that is used in another context ; in other words we have already made up our minds and are seeking to influence people outside. But in this debate we have done what we have not done for all the years I have been here : we have sought to influence each other.
  My experience of the last week has been that the best debates have not been on the Floor of the House, although the quality has been high, but in the Parliamentary Labour Party. In those discussions we can use, and do use, four-letter words, and we understand one another better when we use these words. We cannot do that in the Chamber, though I am sometimes sorely tempted to try to use them here. Our debates might be of a better quality if we did.
  We are dealing with the imminent destruction of some of our values. Instinctively I am a pro-Marketeer in the negative sense, in that I believe that we have nowhere else to go. No alternative proposition has been put up. Any suggestion that we should have a free trade area with the United States or should extend E.F.T.A. or the Commonwealth is just not practical as an alternative. Therefore, if one accepts that purely negative standpoint, the only realistic alternative is to go into the E.E.C. But unfortunately the E.E.C. was not designed with that end in view. It was designed

  1921
  in a European context and there are institutions both economic and political which are entirely foreign to all our experience.
  The common agricultural policy was designed specifically for the purpose which the French envisaged If my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) were here, he would dub me a racialist. The E.E.C. common agricultural policy makes no sense in the context of Britain. My hon. Friend missed the point. The common agricultural policy finances those inefficient farmers—not because they are lazy—out of the housewife's pocket, whereas in this country this is an obligation on all of us, out of taxation. That seems to us the most socially just policy, and makes more sense to us and to the housewife.
  We can all dilate about the political and social effects and long-term economic effect. The immediate concern is the housewife and the old-age pensioner. They make up the majority of voters whom the Government and pro-Common Marketeers have to convince. In the short term they must be protected so that in the long term their children and grandchildren will have a better life. That is a very difficult operation.
  I have not time to develop the economic arguments. I believe that they are substantial, I believe that they have been overplayed, and I believe that we have not been told the truth about a lot of them. Why should we believe the right hon. Gentleman when he says that food prices will go up by only 2½p in the £ over each of the next six years? Why should we believe him now? The majority of the people believed right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite 12 months ago. Look how wrong they were. Look how they were taken in about prices, unemployment and regional policies. Why should they trust the Government now?
  The decision that we shall be taking in the course of the next few months is probably the most important decision that has been taken in this Parliament for the whole of its 600 years. We have the minimum of information. We have a little rag of a White Paper. We have the Post Office deluged with superficial pamphlets, as I would say to delude the public—certainly not to argue in any
  1922
  depth. We are as misinformed and perplexed in this House as the public outside and we are being asked to make decisions which will affect this country and the world for generations and maybe hundreds of years to come.
  The Government do not think that they have got a mandate, and we think that they should seek a mandate. If they are so sure of their position, they should not be afraid to say to the people, "This is what we believe. We did not say that entry was imminent at the last election. We now think that it is. Therefore, before we take the irrevocable decision, we ought to have your consent". That is the most democratic decision that the Government could now take.
  I have been in this House for a great many years. I have come to love the place. While one may argue about the mumbo-jumbo that goes on here, it is the most democratic and the most free-speaking assembly in the world. We have more public control over public expenditure and over what the Government do than any other elected assembly in the world. The Tory Party now in government is the party that believes in the sanctity of tradition. We have 600 years of parliamentary tradition which has evolved over the years and which is the envy of the world. We are putting it in jeopardy.
  I was never more impressed than I was by the two speeches that we heard yesterday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Both made very important points of principle. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the free movement of labour in the Common Market and compared it with what was likely to happen under our Immigration Bill. We intend to allow the free entry of Germans, Italians and French, and we intend to deny freedom of entry, unless they have a British parent, to Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians. Again, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian is not here, because he would have said that that was another example of my racialism. This is a fundamental principle which would raise echoes of sympathy from people all over the British Isles if it were thought that our Commonwealth partners were excluded and that there was free entry

  1923
  to our erstwhile enemies in two world wars.
  Important though that point is, it is less important than the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, who spoke about the European Parliament. I look at our Parliament, with its shortcomings and its mumbo-jumbo of procedures. It is still the envy of the world. When one considers the non-democratic, bureaucratic set-up in Europe and remembers that we have to try to marry ours to it, clearly it is a big price to pay. It may be that the price is worth paying. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames alluded to this yesterday. If what we are doing will succeed in avoiding a third world war, it may be worth that price. But we cannot be too sure.
  Meanwhile, I want to hang on to the sovereignty of this Parliament. Unless the Government are prepared to say, "We feel so convinced of our case that we shall have an election", I feel disposed, despite my predilections, to vote against them in October. Frankly, I shall be sorry to do that. But unless they are prepared to have an election, I am forced to the conclusion that their case is weak, that they are hiding a great deal, and that there must be something wrong with the proposition about which we have not yet heard. There are a lot of hon. Members in this position today. They feel that they have inadequate information. They have not been told enough.
  I refer to the statements in the White Paper on regional policy. They comprise three or four little paragraphs. They affect millions of people in the United Kingdom, and millions of people in the Common Market too. The Scottish unemployment figures were published yesterday. We must have an announcement next week about the Government's policy on U.C.S. They will have to fork out some money to save U.C.S. There is no alternative. Let us assume that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry eats his own words and says, "Despite what I said about lame ducks, I am going to fork out that money". If there were another U.C.S. situation when we got into the E.E.C., could we repeat that performance? I doubt whether we could. It would have to sink.
  1924
  I do not believe that we can look at these problems purely from an economic and commercial angle. They have social content, and this is what I find singularly lacking in so much of what is happening in the E.E.C. today. Therefore, I beg the Government to think carefully about what they are destroying and to ask themselves whether they are quite sure that the price that they are being asked to pay is not too high for what we are likely to get for it.
  3.06 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I think that many of us have asked ourselves the question posed by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) at the beginning of his frank and fair speech. I hope that he will not mind if I do not go into the details of what he said.
  We must get away from the opinion that French farming is not efficient, I think that it is extremely efficient. France merely wants to protect people similar to our farmers in the Welsh hills, the West Country and the Highlands. These are the people they are particularly anxious to protect, otherwise, French farming is efficient.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) is present. Both he and I served on the Local Government and Regional Planning Committee of the Council of Europe. The hon. Gentleman may remember that we paid a visit to Southern Italy to see the excellent job being done at Taranto, Brindisi and Bari and how the standard of living of the peasants has been greatly raised by the industry which has been placed in those areas. Perhaps I may say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), before he leaves, that the people to benefit in the Community have been the working class ; it is their standard of living which has improved. Their wages, on average, are £5 higher than ours and they have longer holidays. It is the rentier, the middle-class, who have not increased their standards. So if the hon. Gentleman is worried about the working class, I can assure him that their standards have improved immeasurably compared with ours.
  I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman when he talked about alternatives, because we have not been given any convincing alternatives as far as I can see.

  1925
  However, his alternatives made shudders run down my spine. Certainly the electorate have proved time and again that they cannot subscribe to his type of policy. One reason that he might like to consider for going in was that he might further influence other Governments in Europe, an influence which he has not got with his colleagues.
  We are to have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Malaysia, and all the countries of the Commonwealth, with the possible exception of Pakistan, will be attending. We have discussed the Common Market ever since the meeting in Nigeria in 1963. Therefore, the Commonwealth has had good opportunities to put forward its point of view.
  I consider that entry would mean a much closer understanding between the countries of the world and that this would help towards peace. I think that the women of this country, if I may speak for them, are much keener about the prospect of peace and no future wars for their children to fight than about the price of butter.
  Britain is in a unique position, we can be a very strong link between Europe, the Commonwealth and the New World. Britain is the only country which can take this lead, so this is one reason that we should go in. It would be an excellent job which we, and only we, could do because we have these major connections with these countries in helping to unite them.
  On 23rd January, 1967, we heard a speech from the first British Prime Minister to address the Council of Europe, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition. His speech was very much appreciated by the then 18 members of the Council. He repeated what had been said at the Labour Party conference in 1962, and I think that it is important to remember what the right hon. Gentleman said :
  "The Labour Party regards the European Community as a great and imaginative conception. It believes that the coming together of the Six nations which have in the past so often been torn by war and economic rivalry, is in the context of Western Europe a step of great significance."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote what he had said in the House,
  1926
  and I was impressed by his words, as were many others :
  "I want the House, the country, and our friends abroad to know that the Government are approaching the discussions …"—
  that was in 1967—
  "I have foreshadowed with a clear intention and determination to enter the E.E.C. if, as we hope, our essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. We mean business".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1540.]
  Five times during his speech the right hon. Gentleman said "We mean business".
  If one looks at the letter written by : Lord George-Brown today in the Press, one sees that after making some criticism of the papers marked "Secret", he goes on to say
  "the terms the present Government have ; presented to Parliament do not significantly differ from those which the Labour Government would have negotiated and commended",
  Because of that speech at Strasbourg many hon. Members were led to believe that action would be taken by the previous Government to join the Community, and I think that they will be disappointed at the attitude being presented today.
  Furthermore, we had the opportunity of hearing Sir Hugh Jack and Mr. Norman Birk put the case for New Zealand. They were well supported by many Members from many nations, and I think that their views had a considerable influence on the Council of Ministers.
  I was impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) as he gave us some positive reasons for joining the Community.
  Like many others, I come from a low-earning area, and I think that going into Europe will help the South-West Region. I say that because, on 25th June, before all the Government's propaganda, a headline in our local paper said :
  "All set for Europe Push".
  I will not give the names of the firms, but those engaged in fashions, machine tools, baby foods, gin, television and radio are all going to employ more people, and they say that they are optimistic about going into Europe.
  I have my reservations about the fishing industry, but I hope that what was said

  1927
  by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and by the Minister will help to resolve the difficulty.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: What will the hon. Lady do if it does not?
  Dame Joan Vickers: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will safeguard the position, and I am sure that he will.
  On the question of sovereignty, I read the account given by Dr. Luns, until recently the Dutch Foreign Minister. He said :
  "Not everybody living inside the E.E.C. is aware of it, let alone impressed by it. Other aspects of one's existence or national life are much more in the foreground of many people's thoughts."
  In a recent survey the Readers Digest showed that in Italy only 67 per cent. of people realised they were in the E.E.C, while 94 per cent. of those in Britain knew about it, so it cannot have done the Italians any harm with regard to their sovereignty.
  Dr. Luns also referred to the gross national product, and this is important to note. In Holland, from 1958 to 1970, the G.N.P. rose by 77 per cent., in the United Kingdom the figure rose by 39 per cent. Industrial production in the same period rose by 146 per cent., but in the United Kingdom by only 49 per cent. He pointed out that food prices have risen by 57 per cent. in Holland and only 50 per cent. in the United Kingdom—but look at what Holland has to offset that by rises in wages.
  The one thing I am a bit anxious about is the social policy under Articles 117 and 118 and the necessary harmonisation. I put down a Question about pensions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who replied :
  "The Government are already committed, as indicated in paragraph 90 of the White Paper … at least to maintaining the purchasing power of national insurance pensions and related benefits through regular reviews every two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 40.]
  The other countries, especially Holland, have better pension schemes than ours, and their pensions are tied to the cost of living. This is essential. We must also
  1928
  think of the one-third of employed people who have occupational or private pensions. How are we to help them? People in the category of nurses for example who started work in a hospital on £1 a month and could not begin to qualify for pension until the age of 30 will get a very raw deal.
  I should like our family allowances put on the same basis as those in the Common Market countries. If we are to have people moving from one country to another there will be difficulties if they are accustomed to a certain amount of money for their family budget.
  Article 119 has not been mentioned so far, but it is very important to women. It says :
  "Each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle of equal remuneration for the same work as between male and female workers."
  That, regrettably, conflicts with the Social Charter, which speaks of the
  "right of men and women workers to equal pay for work of equal value."
  This matter should be straightened out. I prefer to support what is in Article 119.
  I hope to support my hon. Friends by going into the Lobby to vote for our joining the Community, as I think that it will be for the benefit of the British people as a whole.
  3.18 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I am sorry that I cannot comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). I missed most of it because I could not hear it. I did not want her to convert me, if that had been possible, but I should have liked to hear her arguments.
  The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) have referred to the necessity for consulting the people. I do not think that the hon. Member for Fife, West will have his wish granted that the Government should go to a General Election, for the same reason that they will not grant a referendum, because they know that the answer will not be the one that they require. It has been said in the House many times that a referendum is not in accord with British constitutional practice. I do not know whether going into the E.E.C. is

  1929
  in accord with British constitutional practice for the very good reason that the mistakes and omissions of one Administration could be corrected by succeeding Administrations.
  I want to speak as a Scot. Many hon. Members have gone out of their way to say, "I am not a Little Englander". No one will accuse me of being a Little Englander, a Big Englander or any other kind of Englander. I am speaking as a Scot, and as a Scot I know more about the Common Market than anyone else in the House, for this reason : Scotland went into a common market with England in 1707. There were people telling us then of the marvellous future ahead for Scotland, and look where Scotland is today. Even the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), very much a pro-Marketeer, objected the other day to Scotland always being at the end of the queue. The United Kingdom as a whole will be in that position if we join the E.E.C.
  Hon. Members should never lose sight of the fact that we shall lose our sovereignty. It is no argument to say that no country can be completely isolationist these days. Whether or not a country can stand on its own feet is no reason to reduce what sovereignty a country has. Why should we surrender our sovereignty to Europe and thereby be at the whim of others?
  The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) said that as a result of our entry the British tail will wag the European dog. What a hope ! If we try that we shall find that the British tail will be bitten off, and there will be no question of our having a chance to be twice shy.
  The Labour Party is on record as saying that the country as a whole must be behind the Government in securing entry to the E.E.C, and that means having the support of the people of Scotland. Unless the Government can be clear that the people of Scotland are behind them, those who live north of the Border will be right to say that their interests have not been adequately represented in the negotiations.
  I have been opposed to our joining the Common Market from the very beginning. I know what the loss of sovereignty means. Hon. Members who are pro-Marketeers may find themselves wringing
  1930
  their hands in despair in a year or so and I give warning that we in Scotland will not be bound by any arrangements that are made in this regard when we have our own Parliament.
  It would have been wise of the negotiators to seek Scottish representation in this matter. After all, Scotland will have no votes in the E.E.C. Luxembourg, with a population smaller than that of Edinburgh, will have six votes. Scotland, which has been a nation for a thousand years, is to be denied any control over its own affairs.
  An interesting situation could arise. The majority of Scottish hon. Members could be opposed to Britain joining the E.E.C. Will the Government still contend that they are representative of the nation, including those who live north of the Border?
  In any case, with whom will Britain be joining? These people are not primary food producers. They have no forestry to speak of, no citrus fruits and very little basic resources. They are simply members of a trading combine making a living by taking in each other's washing machines.
  Vital Scottish interests have been ignored in this matter. It is significant that although arrangements, satisfactory or otherwise, have been made for New Zealand and the sugar-producing interests, the whole thing has been sewn up without satisfactory arrangements being made for our fishing industry.
  Any reduction of the 12-mile limit would not be acceptable to the inshore fishermen, and this industry is far more important to Scotland than it is to England. The pro-Marketeers frequently say that the gap between the six and 12-mile limit is of no consequence. Before 1964 I played a small part in bringing pressure to bear for the limit to be extended, since when there has been a tremendous increase in the catch and in the volume of earnings of Scottish inshore fishermen. I fear that the Government have not borne in mind the interests of these people.
  The argument has been advanced that what needs to be changed will be changed when we are in, and what does not need to be changed will not be changed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy when answering

  1931
  questions about the Common Market agrees that the hon. Member asking the question can eat his cake and still have it. The line taken about the Commonwealth and the Common Market is that there is no conflict between the two. Of course there is conflict. We cannot have one unless we abandon the other, and that is what is being done.
  The future of democracy depends upon small units. The greater the centralisation, the less good it is for democracy. The Prime Minister has said that this huge amalgamation of States will make for internal peace. The Treaty of Union between England and Scotland made for internal peace, but it did not leave the United Kingdom at peace. This European complex, of itself, not necessarily from any desire of the constituent members, will generate forces that might well be a menace to world peace. I notice that the Prime Minister did not say that the Community would secure external peace.
  The young people of the world today, confused as they are on many things, are right to turn against this materialistic, technological age. The set-up on the Continent is geared towards that kind of thinking, and the young people are sound in their instinct to be against it. Whatever face it will have, it is a face which will become less and less human. I say to the Government, abandon this policy now, lest the lame duck becomes a dead duck.
  3.27 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: First I declare my interest. I have agricultural interests in Australia as well as in the United Kingdom, fortunately not interests that are directly concerned with our entry into the Common Market, because I produce neither sugar nor dairy products.
  We have heard from the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and others what happened to our relations with Australia during the negotiations. It is most unfortunate that the Australians feel that at the meeting of 11th and 12th May the British delegation completely changed the grounds on which it was negotiating and threw away the opportunities and undertakings that had been given for the transitional period to be
  1932
  extended to Australian products coming into Europe.
  At the same time, the Australians felt extremely hurt when the British Government called together all the members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement with the exception of Australia for the recent conference at Marlborough House. Only after three requests were the Australians eventually allowed to be present, and then only as observers. It is extremely important that we should maintain the best possible relations with Australia, if only because of our own self-interest.
  The right hon. Member for Workington mentioned the trade figures in our favour between the United Kingdom and Australia in the year 1968–69. Subsequently, the balance of trade on current account, including invisibles, has moved even more in favour' of the United Kingdom, and it is now about $A680 million in favour of Great Britain.
  Australia also feels that her case has not been put very fairly in the White Paper, where it is stated that her dairy produce represents only 1·1 per cent. of her total world exports. In fact it represents 30 per cent. of the products of 45,000 farmers. When we look at it in this way, we can understand why the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia was extremely worried when he was here. This is the present picture. It is a cause of great worry and friction between our two countries and something which everyone in the House regrets.
  I ask whether my right hon. Friend would take some positive action now to try to put this right. There is no doubt that the Australian Government do not feel that they have any undertakings. They feel that they have been sacrificed in these negotiations. Would my right hon. Friend consider taking the initiative to open discussions with the Australian Government, product by product, to see what will be the effect of the negotiations which have already taken place and what safeguards there are to look after the trade that Australia has had with Britain and with Europe? If he would do this, he could open up a new era in relationships between our countries and could provide an opportunity for Australia to trade with the E.E.C., which would be beneficial to both Europe and Australia.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): May I reply briefly to that point? While I do not entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says about the history of the negotiations, because we tried very hard to deal with the problems which concerned Australia, it is regrettable that misunderstandings have arisen. It is important that they should be removed. I have tried to explain that the guarantee we got for commodities subject to levy is a blanket one and covers everything. I should be happy to have discussions commodity by commodity to ascertain where it is thought that there may be severe disruptions of trade and where we have an undertaking from the Community that they will take action where that is shown.
  3.32 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall be brief. My first point relates to my credentials. At the last General Election I stood for the Labour Party's policy. I have checked page 28 of our manifesto, which clearly said :
  "We have applied for membership of the European Economic Community and negotiations are due to start in a few weeks' time. These will be pressed with determination with the purpose of joining an enlarged community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded."
  Of course, there are at least two caveats on the same page in relation to the common agricultural policy and value-added tax. I shall come to those shortly. But I wanted my credentials to be clear because of remarks made last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He said that he did not question the sincerity of pro-Marketeers but questioned their credentials. My credentials are on the basis of the policy stated by the Labour Party at the last General Election and I stand by that.
  But even if a Labour Government had negotiated these terms, I should not be doing my duty by my constituents if I accepted them supinely. In this House I have a right to question. The first thing I want made clear by the right hon. Gentleman, who has responsibilities for agriculture, is his thinking on the future of the common agricultural policy. He has made it clear that he does not like it, and that is a view that many right hon. and hon. Members share. But what are
  1934
  the futuristic possibilities on this matter? Will we move towards an agricultural policy in Europe that is more in keeping with the one we passed in the 1947 Act? I am not questioning the need to support agriculture but the economic necessity of supporting it in the way that the Community does. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is fully in support of the Mansholt Plan in relation to the development of agriculture post-1980? How much of the cost of that plan would fall on the British community?
  Secondly, on value-added tax, the Government have been extremely evasive. There is some indication in paragraph 90 of the White Paper that they will protect pensioners and others on social benefits, but we have no assurance that a zero rate of tax will be placed on esential foodstuffs. There is statistical evidence to show that 40 to 50 per cent., perhaps more, of the old age pensioners' budget goes on foodstuffs. We can protect them at a stroke by having a zero rate of value-added tax on foodstuffs. Let us have no shilly-shallying about this matter.
  The third point about which I have misgivings concerns the E.E.C.'s bureaucratic set-up. I have been a Member of the House for only a short time, but I have no hesitation in saying that I have come to love this place. There are many things that I do not understand about it, but on investigation one usually finds that there is good reason for them. Other countries are used to operating a written constitution. To marry our system in with their legalistic outlook would be very difficult.
  I should not be a Scot if I did not refer to the question of regional policy. I say to those who are opposed to the Common Market that if they want the best spokesman I have heard against the Common Market they should get the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He is a world beater in convincing people that they should not join. What he said last night about regional policy was appalling. There are three paltry paragraphs in the White Paper on this subject. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said last night and the lack of assurance from him, we can have no feeling of security that regional policy will be developed properly in his hands.

  1935
  May we have an assurance from the Government that they will produce the report on investment grants and submit the very detailed information which must be available to the Commission when the question of regional policy is discussed? May we have an assurance that there will be no further slackening of the industrial development certificate policy? If locational features are involved, may we have an assurance that we shall not get tied up with something which is more suited to the pricing system of the European Coal and Steel Community and that we shall not find that the social costs of siting an airport at Foulness will be connected with the question of a port and a steel works?
  I realise that the E.E.C.'s regional policy is in its embryonic stages. I have a bit more faith about this topic than my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) has. He suggested that I might grow up on this issue. I suggest to him—and I am sorry that he is not here—and others, particularly the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), that we have to grow up and consider what is happening in terms of multi-national companies. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is disturbed on this issue. Multi-national companies have the capability of holding nation States to ransom. This is why I want us to be in the Common Market and not to be held to ransom by large companies which can pick the best places for themselves and offer the juiciest bribes in relation to industrial locations.
  Joining the Common Market is a futuristic step, and we must be careful about it. The Government have not done their job properly in presenting all the information that we should have on the magnitude of the decision. In October the decision about whether we join the E.E.C. has to be taken. On balance, I support entry for some of the reasons I have given. But I have very little faith in the ability of the Government's economic policy to give us the necessary boost to take us into Europe on a firm and sustained footing.
  3.40 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I suppose it is rather strange to find, even after these days of debate, somebody still comfortably
  1936
  sitting on a fence. I sit there for two reasons. First, I have had about 10 years experience of dealing with Europe and I know what it is like when one is thrown in amongst the Common Market countries ; my second reason is based on what I hope is a natural concern for the problems of my own constituency, in a town very much involved with inshore fishing.
  If I may turn firstly to the problem of inshore fishing, there are still several questions which need to be answered. The first goes back several months to the point when we first put forward our proposals and heard what the Common Market would offer. I have never understood why we could not put forward the proposals of the 1964 agreement which had taken so long to achieve for this country anyway. It is particularly important that we should not be launching fishermen and their families into such concern about their future—the future for people who have no alternative suitable employment, not only in Hastings but in other typical inshore fishing towns around the British Isles.
  I hope that as reassured as I was this morning by my right hon. Friend's statement that there will be the autumn negotiations, there will not only be negotiations to develop what he has already referred to but that we shall be looking at the technical details, the problems of net sizes and trawl sizes, the problem of how the Community——
  Mr. Prior: I must stress that the details of net sizes, the sizes of boats and of trawls used—all those matters—are always and will remain within our own jurisdiction. There is no worry about that at all.
  Mr. Warren: That is all right. It is within our jurisdiction, but we must be absolutely sure that the foreign fishermen do not come in and poach as they do so easily. It will need only about two weeks of the French and Belgian sizes of trawl to wipe out the industry of Hastings. It is necessary to have an ability to police that agreement and to deter these poachers. We have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) say that poaching is not always on one side. On the other side of the Channel from my own constituency, the French and the Belgians

  1937
  have entirely fished out their own fishing grounds and that is why they are looking so eagerly at ours. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that this is of real concern to many people whose lives depend so much on fishing, and that they look to him for an assurance that they will be looked after in the negotiations in the autumn.
  It is in connection with the style of these negotiations that I have another question on which I should like assurance. It is not solely in the area of fishing. It is about our total political ability to gain emotionally out of Europe that which so many people believe can be gained. I have been impressed by the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his team brought forward probably the best terms that anybody could have got from the negotiating table. I am very concerned that we should not be led on from that point by certain political and economic delusions that just because we are going into Europe it will all be all right. There is no evidence that this is so. Indeed, I have been extremely worried by paragraph 44 of the White Paper which says :
  "The effects of membership on British industry will stem principally from the creation of an enlarged European market by the removal of tariffs."
  The dropping of tariffs will not be a solution in itself. A lot of theoretical economists have been talking about the expanding market and the bigger firms. There is no evidence that just because the market and the firm is big, an individual firm will therefore do better in a bigger market. Firms tend to become equal to the size of the market for their products.
  There is no question but that the product price is important. We know that any reduction of tariff is a good thing. The argument that Britain is not big enough, but that the Common Market, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are sufficiently big economically to be prosperous is completely denied by the size of Japan. What is the difference between Japan and E.F.T.A., making one more prosperous than the other? It is certainly not to be found in any indication so far given in the Government's case in the White Paper. I do not believe that the political veneer of the Treaty of Rome will salve British industry. On
  1938
  1st July the Financial Times said that it was quite invalid to assume that we would absorb faster growth as a kind of infection.
  Let me give one example. My experience in the aviation industry, collaborating with Europe, has been that the British contribution during the 1960s was to build up the French aircraft industry. In the 1970s we are all set to fulfil the next stage, which is to build up the German aircraft industry. It is interesting to look back at a document written in Europe and published in 1957. It says that apart from the French the only European competition that the British had to fear was from the Germans. Here we are all set, through the style of agreement which my right hon. and learned Friend knows very well, with the multi-rôle combat aircraft, to build up another country into a position of a competitor where there was once no competition.
  It is not through political agreement that I can see the hope for which British industry is looking. I do not want that hope to be spoiled because political deals in Europe throughout the 1960s, and indeed in the early 1970s, have become albatrosses for the British aviation industry. It was such an albatross which gave France the most successful aviation industry outside the United States. Indeed, France is as limited as the United Kingdom currently in market opportunities.
  The aviation industry is a typical example of what happens to an industry when all the barriers are dropped. If military aircraft are imported by other countries then they do not pay a tariff and if they are civil aircraft from, say, the United States they do not usually pay tariffs. This is supposed to be one of the leading industries which will benefit so much from going into Europe. However, 10 years' experience has warned us about the effect of putting too glossy a political argument forward as a solution. I look at the private enterprise firm of Marcel Dassault in France to see what can be done by a company supported by a Government dedicated to technology and the best use of educated people.
  Let me point out what is going on today with regard to the multi-rôle combat aircraft. There is this collaboration arrangement between this country,

  1939
  West Germany and Italy. Both Front Benches agreed to the proposition that the British industry had the capability and the capacity and everyone knew that West Germany and Italy did not and that the only way they could get it was by going to the United States, at the expense of British workers who would be put out of work. No one was more surprised than the West Germans when the British agreed to this. I am concerned at the willingness of so many supporters of Britain in Europe to exude so much faith when we bear in mind British competitive experience in the past inside Europe.
  I want to come off the fence and I hope that I shall be able to jump in favour of Europe. But the assurances I am after must come from politicians and not from industrialists who desire to enter. They must be politicians willing to be more wily, more thrusting and more capable than we have so far been shown. Life in Europe will be very tough for Britain. Our politicians can meet this challenge but their duty is not only to meet it but to master it and to show that they can do so before the autumn.
  I conclude on an emotional note which I had thought to discard as being something which should not enter into a considered judgment. My position has been involved, as it has been for so many who have spoken, not just because of the experience of the past but because of the experience of those who have gone before us. Already more than one million British men are in Europe. They had their lives ripped from them by two world wars. They left behind them much less able men, like myself, to decide whether their gallantry and the gift of peace which they bought should now be used in the Europe in which they lie. They gave us the time to decide. I think we are using that time well but we must not waste their endeavours, or their lives, for our decision will be one for them, as well as for the children of tomorrow.
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who has nicely said that he is still on the fence, would agree with me that as a rule it is not the arguments to which we have listened—and we have listened to many, very often good arguments
  1940
  —which will force most of us into one or other of the Lobbies when the decision has to be made. Most of us have a deep-down feeling—a prejudice, or an emotion—either towards going together with other peoples, in this case our neighbours in Europe, or staying outside. Many extremely interesting arguments have been put forward, but basically, inside each person, emotional reasons are more likely to be predominant in the long run.
  The hon. Member for Hastings expressed certain reservations, about which he has put questions. Perhaps he will be helped to decide those questions. On a more cynical note, the fact that public opinion seems to be coming round in the direction of entry may have an effect on him, as no doubt it will on all of us, whatever decisions we may have come to beforehand. For forty years—not like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) for 25 years—I have preached world federation in order to eliminate the possibility of world war, and I am therefore unlikely to boggle at a coming together of the peoples of Europe ; on the contrary, I welcome it immensely.
  There are three points to be made on this matter. The Community into which we are asked to go represents an attempt to create institutions to preserve and develop all that is best in Western civilisation—and there is a great deal that is good in that civilisation, which should be preserved. The existence of the Community will help to rid the world of the scourges of war and want.
  How can we be indifferent to the fact that now. for the first time in history, France and Germany have come together willingly inside a framework that will make it much more difficult for them to go to war with each other? But do not let us be self-righteous about this ; they have not been the only two countries in Europe whose nationalistic quarrels have given rise to wars, and world wars. We should be in that framework, helping to make it strong and effective, and seeking to prevent Europe once more becoming a source of world conflict, which it still could easily become.
  Entry into the Community will give a future British Government a chance to raise the standards of living of our people

  1941
  to a height that would be absolutely impossible if we stayed outside, just as would be the case if any comparable country were to remain outside a like grouping.
  I have been a little amused by the succession of economic arguments that have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Learned professors outside this House, and learned political professors inside it, have knocked each other down with a rapidity which has amused me a lot since I am not involved in their speciality of economics.
  I do not know how many hon. Members in this House are like me in this respect. If I see arguments put forward by experts on one side being knocked down by experts on another side, then I begin to look at the people themselves apart from their speciality, in which I would not consider myself competent to be a proper judge. Looking at the experts who have come forward on the side of the pro-Marketeers, I feel that there is no doubt for which side I should plump. They are the people who have had the best of the argument.
  Mr. Heffer: That is because you are pro-Market.
  Mr. Mallalieu: It is because they are saying things which I want to hear said. We all do this—not one of us is guiltless on this score. There has been a vast succession of arguments about the regions, steel, the cost of living, and so on. I know whose opinion I would want to accept and, with all due respect to the fellow representative of my county, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) to whose opinions I always listen with tremendous respect, he said that the suggestion that the rise in prices would be 2½p in the £ is nonsense. He thought it far more likely to be 500 per cent. of a rise—or at least somebody did—
  Mr. Body: At least 20 per cent.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I thought the hon. Gentleman quoted somebody else who thought it was a lot more.
  Mr. Body: Sir John Winnifrith said it was 50 per cent.
  Mr. Mallalieu: These sorts of things make ordinary persons sit back and judge the issues on prejudice and emotion.
  1942
  It is upsetting to hear people talking about the Community as inward-looking. I do not think that anyone who has knowledge of the Continent and who goes about there would think that that was the case, unless he had a strong prejudice one way or the other. I think I would exempt my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) from this, because he made a sincere speech which was untainted by prejudice, although I did not agree with his speech. I find that there is in this anti-Common Market entry approach too much of a hotchpotch of nationalistic conceits and primitive prejudices against foreigners.
  This is so absolutely divorced from what my party has ever professed to stand for that I would not hear of it and would not allow myself to base my own actions on such a foundation. There is a grave danger that this great decision, which I believe will be made, may yet be made with a certain show of reluctance by enough people to detract from the value of entry. I should like my party to come right down on the side of entry, because the Labour Party stands for those very things which are enshrined in the Community and which I believe will do so much for the good of the country.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION, BEXLEY
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  4.0 p.m.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: May I say how grateful I am that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to reply to this debate herself? I am sure that her presence will hearten my constituents and demonstrate the importance that she attaches to the problem which I wish to discuss.
  I am concerned solely with the impact of the new all-in scheme proposed by the London Borough of Bexley on the education of children in my constituency. I see on the benches opposite the other hon. Member concerned with the Borough of Bexley, the hon. Member for Erith and

  1943
  Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I am sure that I can leave him to deal with Erith's education. I am concerned with that in the half which comprises Sidcup, Lamorbey and the Blackfen area.
  This issue has brought me more protests than any other subject, including the Common Market, on which I have been pressed since becoming the Member for Chislehurst back in 1950. I have never had such strong and such well-documented evidence from a mass of teachers who have felt so strongly about it that after deep thought, in their various areas they have put in two alternative sets of proposals to the local authority. I believe that pupils themselves sent representations to my right hon. Friend, though I have not seen them.
  I realise that this must be a probing debate and that my right hon. Friend can do no more than take into consideration the protests that I shall voice on behalf of those concerned.
  I begin by going back a little in history. Prior to the reorganisation of the London boroughs, my constituency comprised the very large urban district of Chislehurst and Sidcup, and our education authority was that of the County of Kent. We were served with a wide variety of schools to meet the capacities of the pupil population. Many of those schools were built post war.
  As a result of the creation of the London boroughs, my constituency was cut in half, that part on the west side of the A.20 coming under the London borough of Bromley and that on the east side under the London borough of Bexley. At the time of the reorganisation, we faced the problem that our girls' grammar school was in the Bromley borough and that our boys' grammar school was in the Bexley borough.
  At that time, I received assurances both from my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Services, then Minister of Housing, and from the then Minister of Education, now my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Boyle, that boundaries which cut across normal educational areas would not react to the detriment of the children requiring such education.
  I have already submitted to my right hon. Friend strong protests, supported by
  1944
  hundreds of parents, about certain aspects of education in the Bromley borough. Today, I deal solely with the effects on the London borough of Bexley, which have produced even stronger protests.
  Let me say at once that I am not opposed to properly constituted comprehensive education as such, when it provides the basic principle that all the needs of all pupils of all ages and abilities can be catered for fully in any one of the proposed units under the system. My case is that the hotch-potch scheme being imposed upon my constituents does not provide proper comprehensive education, that it reduces the facilities and opportunities which the children of my constituents have enjoyed hitherto, that it is an aborted thalidomide of a scheme, and that it is not comprehensive education.
  I affirm my belief that in this tiny island, having, as we do, to import half our food and with the exception of coal, all our raw materials, we have throughout the ages won fame and reward for Britain by means of our inventive genius. We can look to steam power, radar, penicillin, vertical take-off, nuclear power, and even the cables of communication round the world. These are the products of fine British brains. In my view, our greatest raw material is our brains, and we limit the development of the best brains in the country to their fullest capacity at our peril.
  In this debate I am taking the boy's schools as an example. I should not like anyone to think that I am ignoring the equally dramatic problem of the girls, but, limited by time, I am taking this particular example.
  We are justifiably proud of the academic record, the facilities and the contributions of staff and pupils to education in the community at the Hurst Road Boys' Grammar School from where, in eight years, 563 boys have gone to university, 145 of them to Oxford and Cambridge. They had been selected by that school on merit from all age and income groups. They had been selected from the widest possible spheres solely on their merit to benefit from the education which the school can offer. Of an original intake for the A-level courses of 1,020 in that period, it means that 55

  1945
  per cent. got university places and others have joined colleges of education and technical colleges, some of which offer courses leading to a degree.
  Hurstmere, our modern school, again with an outstanding staff dedicated to a different type of teaching, aided by more visual aids, by more practical work, and by adequate and fine workshops, has an outstanding record of bringing on the slower boys, of developing the best capacity of the boy who is good with his hands, a great record of encouraging them to leave after 15, and a willingness to transfer the bright late developer to the technical or the grammar school if his aptitude points that way.
  Similarly, our technical school has been equipped with appropriate courses and it enjoys a high standard. These three schools, with other schools placed in Welling or Sidcup, are to be thrown into a new scheme of selection of entry from 11 to 14 and then from 14 to 18. I have failed to discover why this new scheme of 11 to 14 and then 14 to 18 is to be imposed on my constituency as one small part of the Division although it is apparently not the panacea for either Bexley or Erith.
  I should like to seek advice from my right hon. Friend on an administrative point. In 1966 the then Labour council introduced a comprehensive plan for education over the whole borough. I understand that this was approved by the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). On the attainment of a Conservative majority in 1968, this was withdrawn. Following the return of a Labour majority on the council three months ago, the present scheme was abandoned and notices were posted on the schools relating to the original 1966 scheme, but with substantial amendments affecting my division. That scheme was for all 11 to 18 entry. The new scheme is for 11 to 14 entry at five schools and 14 to 18 entry at two thereafter.
  A new generation of parents has emerged since 1966 and a new intake of children has come on the scene. I am asking that today's parents on behalf of today's children should have the right to present their views to my right hon. Friend. Or can a council decision five years old, and subsequently withdrawn,
  1946
  be imposed on an entirely different interested party?
  Henceforward all entry goes to one of five schools from 11 to 14 whether they are equipped to deal with a grammar stream or not. This is wasteful of assets and forces upon teachers trained for specific streams a mixture of pupils where, even if they devise a new mean, it will be too fast for the slow and too slow for the fast. At 14, Hurst Road School will take in all entry. It will take at least a term, probably six months, to sort out and stream the intake. Half of that intake will be boys determined to leave at 15 or, with the increased age limit, 16, frustrated at being pitchforked into a new school. They will have a comparatively short period there. Some will be unwilling and some will be educationally unable, to use the advanced facilities which the school provides, and they will therefore be wasted.
  Those in the 11 to 14 group, the potential grammar school stream and perhaps wanting a professional degree, will be in a school where there will be fine workshops and no fine labs. They will not see the fine labs until they move on at 14 to the higher school. At 14 budding craftsmen will lose the workshops which are provided.
  It is all very fine sayings that this will be ironed out in five or 10 years' time, but the education authority has said that it has no money for these improvements, and I am talking about today's generation, about next year's intake. We cannot give back to a child five years later what it has lost in being unable to achieve the degree or craftsmanship which it could now achieve in the schools in my division.
  Then, because of an outrageous line of demarcation, which runs roughly along the railway line from Sidcup Station, boys who could use the facilities at Hurst Road to the utmost are to be sent to Bexley and Erith Technical School, which is miles away, where they will not find the nine fine advanced labs, where no second language is taught, where there is no teaching of pure maths, where there is no teaching of applied maths, and where they can take only the course for combined maths.
  Bang goes any chance of entry to Oxford or Cambridge to add to the

  1947
  145 who have gone there from Hurst Road in 8 years. Bang goes any chance of being a scientist in the eight to 10 branches of higher science. There will be no Latin for the boy wishing to be a doctor or lawyer, and for those wishing to take English or history there will be only the choice of secondary places, in competition with those boys and girls who have had the opportunity of learning two languages. Because of the requirements of the universities, they will have less chance of getting places because the other boys and girls will be able to take with them every qualification towards a degree in history or English. They can take with them their two languages, which will not be available to a large proportion of students from my constituency in these 14 to 18 schools.
  I defy any educationist to prove that this mean partisan scheme provides better education and opportunities than are at the moment provided for the children in my constituency, whatever their capacity. It can only reduce the purpose defined education which is successfully pursued at present in first-class schools with devoted staff in whatever group those teachers teach.
  I am not impressed by promises that in five or 10 years this will all be sorted out. On any count it lowers the standard of education. It denies the next five to 10 years' school generation the opportunity to maintain the magnificent standard that we have had in Sidcup and Chislehurst. We cannot say to the would-be scientist that he can come back to school five years afterwards. We cannot redress the balance for a history or any other teacher five years after he has taken a secondary degree.
  These proposals are opposed by all the schools involved. They are opposed by hundreds of parents whose children are now involved, and by the parents of children who will be involved in the future and want the best for them. I can say without fear of contradiction that the schools in my constituency are well above the average. I ask the Minister to ensure that in any new scheme this provision is not reduced, and that opportunities for children in my constituency are not and shall not be destroyed.
  4.14 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith), on the thoroughness with which she has dealt with the effect on her constituents of the Bexley Local Education Authority's policies in the field of secondary education. I must also mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), is particularly interested in this matter, and has found time this week to receive a deputation raising the major issue which we are discussing in this debate, and also to speak to me about it.
  I fully recognise that the historical changes in the organisation of local government, to which my right hon. Friend has referred—from the Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council within the Kent Local Education Authority's area to a splitting of the division between the London Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley, each a local education authority—add to the complexity of an already complex story. I think, from what my right hon. Friend said, that she realises how complex the whole story is.
  The sequence of events with which we are mainly concerned, however, is that which relates to the fluctuations of policy of the Bexley Local Education Authority as a result of successive changes of political control. As the House knows, I have now discontinued the practice of the last Government of giving administrative approval in principle to nonstatutory plans for the reorganisation of secondary education. It had become quite clear that the practice of approving these non-statutory plans, which set out authorities' broad schemes for reorganising an area, had tended to create confusion about the statutory procedure under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as amended, which alone provides the legal basis for any change in the organisational pattern of schools in an area.
  This procedure requires that formal proposals be submitted to the Secretary of State in each case in which it is intended to establish a new school or to close, or significantly change the character of, an existing school. At the same time, public notice must be given of the proposal and a period of two months

  1949
  is prescribed during which local government electors and governors of voluntary schools affected may submit objections to the Department. This statutory procedure provides the means whereby local views on proposals for individual schools may be fully taken into account before final decisions are made.
  Moreover, I can give my right hon. Friend an unqualified assurance that, in considering statutory proposals, I can and do take into account educational and practical matters of the kind which she has mentioned. I know, however, that she will readily recognise that it would be wrong for me today to offer any comments on the merits of any proposals which the Bexley Local Education Authority may be formulating.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I have quite a lot to say, nevertheless. What we have already heard in this debate provides, I think, further confirmation that I was right to decide earlier this year to confine my approval or rejection to statutory proposals from local education authorities. Clearly much of the present complexity of the situation in Bexley stems from the administrative approval and rejection of non-statutory plans under the last Government and, in trying to deal with the questions which my right hon. Friend has put, I shall distinguish clearly between the statutory steps, as distinct from the non-statutory steps, which have been taken at one time or another. My right hon. Friend referred to a number of those steps. I have worked them out carefully and should like to go through them precisely.
  The non-statutory plan which was submitted in 1966 and approved in principle under Circular 10/65 in 1967 envisaged a mixed system of all-through 11–18 comprehensive schools, 11–16 comprehensive schools, and four 11–14 schools linked with three 14–18 upper schools. The authority submitted statutory proposals under Section 13 in respect of the majority of secondary schools affected by the plan, including the schools in my right hon. Friend's constituency, and these received approval under Section 13(4) in 1967 and January, 1968.
  In July, 1968, the newly constituted Authority passed a resolution withdrawing
  1950
  the plan with three exceptions which related to the Erith school, the two Crayford schools and the two Bexley-heath schools, but the Authority also resolved to take no further action with the intention to proceed with the reorganisation of these schools on comprehensive lines from September, 1969.
  In December, 1969, the authority submitted a revised, non-statutory plan of secondary reorganisation which was rejected under Circular 10/65 in March, 1970. Now that there has been another political change, the parents of Bexley are faced with the implications of yet further changes of policy.
  What is beyond dispute is that, since the approval in principle in 1967 of the non-statutory plan for comprehensive development and the statutory approval of a number of individual proposals intended to implement that plan, there was a complete abandonment of that intention. Now, the intention has been reborn. I rather expected to hear the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) say "Hear, hear" at that.
  Section 13 was not designed to deal with a situation of this kind and it is not for me or any Secretary of State to decide questions of law as they apply to individual proposals affecting particular schools, but I can say what has been thought appropriate in any comparable situation elsewhere, and the view which has been taken of the spirit of the law as reflected in Section 13 in the context of the Act itself.
  I think it is clear that the spirit of the law requires that any local opinion which may be critical of a local education authority's proposal should have the straightforward statutory opportunity of making itself known to the Secretary of State in the form of objections. This has always been true since the Section 13 procedure originated, but the Education Act, 1968, emphasised the importance attaching to the procedure of public notice, the main purpose of which is to give all those affected an understanding of what is afoot and a chance to object.
  I think this is what my right hon. Friend meant when she said that there was a new generation of parents and children.
  Mr. Wellbeloved Mr. Wellbeloved rose——
  Mrs. Thatcher: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have worked out every step, and I trust that he will allow me to continue.
  A Departmental circular dealing with the provisions of that Act emphasised the desirability of authorities supplementing the text of public notices with explanatory statements in untechnical language where the full implications of a proposal might not otherwise be readily apparent to members of the public.
  The passage of several years after the approval of a set of statutory proposals, without their implementation, has one or two obvious implications, particularly when the authority has, during that time, made policy decisions in a sense contrary to the approved proposals.
  As my right hon. Friend said, many of the parents and children affected will be different and even informed members of the public may find difficulty in understanding the full import of the proposals against the background of the shifts of policy.
  A situation broadly comparable to that in Bexley arose last year in the area of another local education authority in regard to proposals for the establishment of a comprehensive school. There, the authority decided to submit and publish fresh statutory proposals so that all those affected might have a full opportunity of understanding and examining, in an up-to-date setting, all that was entailed. Clearly the authority in question recognised the wisdom, in a complex situation, of placing the matter beyond doubt and giving precedence to the need to respect the feelings and opinions of local government electors in the locality.
  This seems to me to be the attitude likely to be adopted by a responsible authority. I may mention that the other authority to which I referred, which issued fresh statutory proposals, was a Labour-controlled authority. I would certainly hope that the principles on which the attitude is based are those which all authorities would respect.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but a document has been published by the London
  1952
  Borough of Bexley setting out the scheme in full detail and making it clear that every citizen of the borough will have full opportunities of making representations to the local education authority. On the last page the document says that when the public notices are issued in the early autumn of 1971 there will be an opportunity for formal objections to be made to the Secretary of State. The council is not concealing anything but is asking the residents of the borough, wherever they live, to take advantage of the arrangements that exist and are being made for proper representation and proper consideration of these proposals.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I am in the position that I might have to make a decision under legal procedures. I can, therefore, make no specific reference to what might happen. Any local government elector has the opportunity to make objections which I must consider on a legal basis, as I must consider the educational and other matters to which my right hon. Friend referred. I am glad that that attitude appears to have been adopted by the Bexley Local Education Authority. I believe that it is the attitude that would be adopted by all responsible authorities.
  I very much welcome the opportunity which this debate has provided to speak, in necessarily general terms, about a procedural situation which, although fairly rare, can arise occasionally from the fluctuations of political control in local government. It is very important to establish and to emphasise the principles which underlie the procedures provided by the Education Acts. It is these which will determine how a responsible authority, whatever its political complexion, operates those procedures.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I hope that she, the local education authority, her constituents and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford will find the general picture which I have painted helpful. I hope that other local authorities possibly in a similar position will also find it helpful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

PUBLIC BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  PUBLIC BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
  PUBLIC BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS)
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Training Board
  Training Board
DEFENCE
  Bedford and Kempston (Land)
  Bedford and Kempston (Land)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Schools (Islington)
  Schools (Islington)
  Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
  Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
  New Schools (Northumberland)
  New Schools (Northumberland)
  Schools (Blyth)
  Schools (Blyth)
  School Leavers (North-West Region)
  School Leavers (North-West Region)
ENVIRONMENT
  Alcohol Safety Interlock System
  Alcohol Safety Interlock System
  Three-wheel Tractor Units
  Three-wheel Tractor Units
  Disabled Persons (Sports Centres and Swimming Pools)
  Disabled Persons (Sports Centres and Swimming Pools)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Refugees)
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Ghana
  Ghana
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Authorities (Grants)
  Local Authorities (Grants)
  Church of England
  Church of England
  Police (European Contacts)
  Police (European Contacts)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Retirement Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Retirement Pensioners (Television Licences)
SCOTLAND
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Consultancy Vacancies)
  Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Consultancy Vacancies)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Bedford (New Power Station)
  Bedford (New Power Station)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Hawkinge Brick Co., Ltd
  Hawkinge Brick Co., Ltd
  Industrial Development Certificates (Bacup)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Bacup)
  Companies Acts
  Companies Acts
  Shipping Casualties (Hazardous Cargoes)
  Shipping Casualties (Hazardous Cargoes)
  Council of Industrial Design
  Council of Industrial Design
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Royal Mint
  Royal Mint
WALES
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ENVIRONMENT
  Trunk Roads (Facilities for Travellers)
  Trunk Roads (Facilities for Travellers)
  Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
  Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
  Felling Urban District Council (Appeal)
  Felling Urban District Council (Appeal)
  District Auditors (Appeals)
  District Auditors (Appeals)
  Toll Roads
  Toll Roads
  A4, Chiswick (Hogarth Roundabout)
  A4, Chiswick (Hogarth Roundabout)
  Archway A1 Road (Widening)
  Archway A1 Road (Widening)
  Motorways (Safety Barriers)
  Motorways (Safety Barriers)
  Tottenham (Army Drill Hall)
  Tottenham (Army Drill Hall)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

LIBYAN THREAT TO B.O.A.C. AIRLINER
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement on the further situation arising from international incidents which led to the forced landing of the B.O.A.C. aeroplane at Benghazi.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): As your Lordships will be aware, a B.O.A.C. 'plane on a scheduled flight was forced to land at Benghazi by the Libyan authorities early yesterday morning. The Libyans had threatened to blow the 'plane out of the sky if the pilot did not obey their instructions. When the 'plane landed the Libyan authorities instructed two Sudanese citizens who were aboard to disembark. When it was made clear to them that, if they refused, the safety of the other passengers would be at risk, they left the 'plane, which then returned to London with the remaining passengers.
Her Majesty's Government take a very serious view of this incident, and the Minister of State summoned the Libyan Ambassador as soon as he had received a report of what took place and told him that the action taken by the Libyan authorities had been outrageous. He demanded that the two Sudanese who had been removed from the 'plane should be released at once and made it clear that we expected an apology from the Libyan Government for their inexcusable behaviour, which was bound to have a serious effect of our relations with Libya.
1280
The present situation in the Sudan is confused. My latest information is that General Nimeri has resumed control but that there has been further firing around the Presidential Palace this morning. However, I should like to make it clear that the success or failure of the recent coup in the Sudan is totally irrelevant to the substance of our complaint against the Libyan Government. We regard it as intolerable that a British 'plane should be forced to land in the circumstances I have described, and that passengers, of whatever standing and of whatever nationality, should be removed from the 'plane under threats. Her Majesty's Government will take energetic action to secure the early rease of the two Sudanese concerned.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that there will be agreement on all sides of the House regarding the seriousness of this incident? May I ask him these further questions for information, and not in a partisan way? First, has there been any investigation of the Libyan statement that the 'plane was brought to Benghazi because the Khartoum airport was closed? Can the noble Marquess give us any information regarding the negotiations with Malta, which first agreed to take the 'plane but subsequently declined to do so? Can he, on the last point that he made, continue the utmost pressure for the release of Colonel al-Nur and his projected Prime Minister, in view of the fact that they were arrested on a British 'plane and surrendered in order to save the lives of other passengers?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we will make the most strenuous efforts to secure the release of these two gentleman, as indeed we should have done whoever they are.
Regarding the situation of the Malta air traffic control, it is not quite clear at the moment exactly what happened, and I do not think it would be right for the House to jump to any conclusions about this. It appears possible that there was a genuine mistake and that the 'plane was still in Libyan air space at the time, but I should not like to go any further than that at the moment because the situation is not quite clear and we are

1281
trying to find out exactly what did happen.
Regarding the Libyan statement about the airport at Khartoum, the House must realise that so far the Libyans have not even admitted that the two Sudanese were taken off the 'plane at Benghazi. So we cannot place very much reliance on what they tell us about the situation in the Sudan.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Parliament has on many occasions expressed its deep concern and abhorrence at hijacking, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that this is perhaps one of the most scandalous acts in that, clearly, it has been conducted by a Government of a sovereign Power. While recognising that the noble Marquess is unable to make a statement in regard to the position in Malta, it would appear from Press reports that there may have been connivance between the air authorities in Malta and the Libyan authorities. If that is not the case, would the noble Marquess undertake, in one way or another, to make a statement or to give the House information on the matter? Quite clearly, the confidence of airline operators and passengers is involved.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lord. I should like to say in reply that at this stage, there is no indication that there was any connivance; but I certainly undertake to keep the House informed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was very careful in the phrasing of my supplementary question. I was referring to the reports, from which it is clearly indicated that there was connivance. If there was no connivance, in fairness to the Maltese authorities, a statement should be made in Parliament on the actual position.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, quite apart from what may result from further investigation, would Her Majesty's Government express to B.O.A.C. their admiration and thanks for the conduct and calm judgment of the captain and crew of this aircraft?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Of course I will undertake to do that.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government any intention to by-pass Libyan airspace until the security of passengers travelling by British aeroplanes can be assured?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can assure the House that we shall be very careful in this regard until we find out exactly what the facts of the case were. It is a very serious case.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
11.12 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, as Chairman of the Select Committee concerned with this Bill I feel that, prior to the Bill's being read a third time, I should say a few words on behalf of the Committee. The proceedings were short, but gave rise to a difficult decision by the Committee at the end of the day. We were asked to examine Clause 24 of the Bill, against which a Petition had been lodged.
Under the Public Health Act 1936, local authorities have power to collect trade refuse from premises within their district. This refuse is distinct from the usual household refuse collection paid for by way of the rates. If they do exercise this power, they are required to make reasonable charges for this service. Clause 24 of the Bill sought to alter the general law in its application to district councils in Hertfordshire by substituting for the obligation to make charges a discretion to do this. The Secretary of State for the Environment in his report recommended that the clause should not be allowed.
The Committee heard evidence and were fully satisfied that a good case had been made out by the promoters of the Bill for this clause, in that in many cases it was not economical, for various reasons, to charge for this service. Hence the clause was reasonable and necessary for the protection of the ratepayer. The Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed

1283
that the clause would be of detriment to their business of collecting refuse under contract. The main issue of the decision of the Committee was the question as to whether it was wise for a local authority, in private legislation, to alter the law unilaterally in the circumstances of this Bill.
The proposal in Clause 24 had been advocated by a Working Party set up by what is now the Department of the Environment in a report published in 1967. We were told that the Working Party's recommendation would be considered by the Secretary of State when consulting local authority associations and others about the recently published Reports on Refuse Disposal and on the Disposal of Toxic Wastes. These two Reports were also laid in evidence before the Committee. It was never suggested that either of these was in conflict with the proposals in the Bill. From the evidence, it was clear that some local authorities had already taken the law into their hands and were exercising a discretion whether or not to charge for collecting trade refuse. The Minister's report emphasised that the collection of trade refuse should be properly dealt with, if at all, by general legislation. It was felt in the Committee that a unilateral decision of one council might lead to a flood of legislation, which would be undesirable.
In striking out the clause, the Committee felt strongly that it is vitally important that a decision should be come to forthwith and I am bound to say that the Government proposal to await yet another review looks like a never-ending process, which is highly undesirable. The Government have admitted that the proposal put forward by Hertfordshire County Council is the very one proposed by the Working Party set up in 1967. The Committee feel it is not reasonable that local authorities should have to wait for four years, only to be told that general legislation will follow"in due course ". It was therefore with reluctance that the Committee, by a majority vote, came to the conclusion that in deference to the views of the Minister, Clause 24 should be struck out of the Bill. I speak for all the Committee in urging most strongly that there should be no further delay
1284
in the consideration of this matter, and that legislation should be brought forward urgently and should not be held up until after the completion of the review of local government. There can be no doubt that the law as at present constituted is not being adhered to and I urge immediate action.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I am glad to respond to my noble friend's remarks and grateful for the urgency which he has introduced to this subject, which is certainly needed. My noble friend raised two questions. First, he asked why the Government have so far failed to implement the recommendation the Working Party on Refuse Collection made in their Report in 1967. Many of the recommendations made by the Working Party were addressed, not to the Government, but directly to local authorities, who have been in a position to implement them without recourse to legislation. They range from matters such as the economics of salvage to the use of paper sacks in place of dustbins, and many local authorities have found the Report very useful. One or two recommendations concerning dumped cars and other bulky rubbish were dealt with in the Civic Amenities Act 1967, and the recommendation concerning research has been implemented by the Department in setting up its Standing Committee on that subject.
The remaining recommendations requiring legislation were few in number. Refuse collection is but one aspect of the whole complex business of waste disposal. At the time the Report of the Working Party on Refuse Collection was published there were two other investigations taking place, by the Technical Committee on Solid Toxic Wastes and by the Working Party on Refuse Disposal, both of which have now been received. Moreover, it is now clear that whatever is done in respect of this important local service has to fit in with the impending reorganisation of local government. Our present proposals for local government reform include the allocation of the refuse disposal function to the new county councils and refuse collection to the new district councils. We believe that in the future

1285
refuse disposal must be co-ordinated and controlled over reasonably large areas. This will call for a new relationship between the functions of collection and disposal and for a new appreciation of practice and purpose which has regard to regional as well as local circumstances.
The Secretary of State said, in a circular published at the end of April with the Report of the Department's Working Party on Refuse Disposal, that in his consultations on that Report and on the Toxic Wastes Report he will also want to discuss with the various bodies concerned this question of the obligation or the discretion of local authorities in relation to trade and industrial refuse. With these consultations in view, and having regard to local government reorganisation, it would seem undesirable for the matter to be settled in a particular area by virtue of a clause in the Hertfordshire Bill.
My noble friend raised a second point on the merits of this particular issue. The Report of the Working Party on Refuse Collection set out the arguments for and against a discretion to charge for removing trade refuse. On the one hand, it would be in keeping with modern attitudes to local government for local authorities to have discretion; but against this is the important argument that the cost of removing trade refuse is a proper business expense, and there should be no risk at all of any part of it falling on the general body of ratepayers. Again, some local authorities find that charges made to small shopkeepers for single bins are just not worth the trouble of collection, and the enforcement of such charges can lead—and sometimes does lead—to undesirable practices, such as the illicit dumping of refuse on vacant sites or burning it in back yards.
Issues like these can most conveniently be considered in the forthcoming consultations to which I have referred. Local circumstances can, of course, influence events. In Inner London, for example, by virtue of the London Government Act 1963, there is an obligation on the Inner London Boroughs to collect trade refuse on request and an obligation to charge. But this was achieved by general legislation, and I suggest that in the light of all these considerations the matter which we are discussing today—which is by
1286
no means peculiar to Hertfordshire—is, on balance, not one which should be dealt with in local legislation applying to just one area.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said demonstrates that we are not satisfied with the status quo. We are anxious to get on, but we wish to take advantage of the availability of the three Reports that I have mentioned—the last of which was published only three months ago—and of the impending new organisation of local government in order to achieve a waste disposal service in this country which will be really effective. We believe that this will best come about by legislating comprehensively on a national basis which is, so far as practicable, acceptable to all concerned—local authorities, trade, commerce and industry. Meanwhile, there is much that local authorities and others concerned can do to ensure that the present practices are carried out to the highest possible standards.
11.23 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is satisfied with that reply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would agree that there is considerable concern throughout the country on the danger to our environment of refuse and garbage, whether it be of a private character or industrial. There is no disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this should be done not by private legislation but by national legislation introduced by the Government. It seemed to me that the noble Lord was unable to give any indication as to what sort of time scale the Government have in mind for the introduction of such legislation. Can the noble Lord give us any indication whether we may expect legislation in the next Session, or whether we shall have to wait until the comprehensive legislation for local government is introduced?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, too, should like to add a word of dissatisfaction at the Minister's reply. Here was an instance of a highly progressive local authority being opposed by organised commercial interests: they found themselves faced by one opposition, and by

1287
no one else. It was most unfortunate that in this instance the organised commercial interests were able to triumph—in my view against the public interest—and I would urge upon the Government that it is not enough merely to say that they are considering the Reports of the Working Parties involved there has already been a delay of four years in an attempt to eliminate what is a recognisable public nuisance on a large scale. I strongly urge the Minister to give a definite date by which the anxieties of these progressive local authorities can be to some extent relieved.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, as one who has spent some time in local government, I should like to add my comment to the Report and the statement by the Chairman of the Committee which investigated and arrived at a decision against the Government's proposal. I think the Committee did a very good job in deleting this clause. The Minister, in the course of his reply, overlooked one thing. Local authorities in various parts of the country, even where one may not have all grades of local authority, have what are termed direct labour schemes operating within their authority for the collection of refuse and other services, and shopkeepers and business people and business premises are covered by the rate poundage which comes into their particular funds of operation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd in asking the question so pointedly as to how long we shall have to wait before we get a lead from the Government, with regard to the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, that will bring this operation within its ambit.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I would suggest to the Government that they should consider bringing in a short measure to deal with this particular matter. It could be passed through fairly quickly and later incorporated in the major legislation. This has been done on a number of occasions in the past. I am thinking particularly of company law, in which short Bills have first been introduced, to bring into law the proposals of important Committees on company law, and very shortly afterwards—indeed, within a few months—
1288
a major Companies Bill has been introduced. This happened in 1947 and 1948, in Bills with which I, as a junior Minister at that time, was concerned. The 1947 Act was incorporated within a very few months in the great Companies Act of 1948. I should have thought there was a possibility of dealing with this situation in that way.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, your Lordships may think it strange that I should rise to take part in this brief debate. You may think it even stranger when I tell you the reason why. Fifty-two years ago, I was head of the costing department of the refuse disposal department of the Birmingham Corporation, and this question of trade refuse was constantly a thorn in our side. We compulsorily collected trade refuse and we compulsorily imposed a charge. But the question of trade refuse, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will understand, is hedged around with all kinds of complicated legal decisions. I remember that on one occasion there was a High Court case concerning the collection of trade refuse from hotels. The local authority had collected the refuse from the hotel, and regarding this as one of the legitimate business expenses of the hotel, had imposed a charge. The case went to the High Court. I believe the decision was that whereas when collecting refuse from an ordinary domestic residence there was no charge, a hotel could be interpreted as being a conglomeration of domestic residences and, consequently, was entitled to have its trade refuse collected free of charge. That is all by way of reminiscence.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has suggested to us that when the local government reorganisation comes about, the collection of refuse will be entrusted to the lesser authority and the disposal of refuse to the major authority. I would just mention to him that in the refuse disposal world, if I may so call it, there is a very severe difference of opinion. The preponderance seems to be that the local authority which collects the refuse should also be responsible for disposing of it. There are many economic arguments which I could lay before your Lordships to show that there is a lot of sense in that view. In the meantime, I hope that something will be done,

1289
because the uncertainty is disturbing to local authorities. The sooner this question is seriously tackled, the better it will be.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, just before my noble friend answers, I should like, with the leave of the House, to say just a word. It never entered my head, as the noble Lord, Lord Segal has said, that anyone triumphed in this matter. There was no real question that the matter before the Committee was whether unilateral legislation should be used. I hope that my noble friend will be able to think of a date. The discussion that we have had has certainly cleared the air on what the Government's thoughts are on this situation, and I do not think there is anything to prevent this Bill from going forward.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to raise one point which I think is of general interest in this matter, and is an example of why it is desirable to have national legislation. Generally, I am opposed to national legislation being required in order to get something through a local Act, because local Acts usually lead to national legislation. In this particular case, there is possibly a legal problem in that if a local authority have once collected trade waste free, it is very difficult for them to impose a charge subsequently. I think there are certain cases where this has not proved to be possible. Therefore, if the question is going to be a wide one it is highly desirable that there should be national legislation and that it should come very soon. May I take the opportunity to say that I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Leatherland that the major authority should be the refuse disposal authority.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if the House would give me permission to speak again, I should be happy to reply. A universal sense of urgency about the matter emerges clearly from the debate, which is extremely welcome to Her Majesty's Government. The eight speeches we have listened to also demonstrate that the matter is not quite so simple as it may appear. We already have two or three sets of disagreements before us, but Her Majesty's Government nevertheless are anxious to address themselves to this matter with as much
1290
expedition as is possible. Without notice, I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, directly, except to say that the first instalment of legislation that will be helpful in this field is local government reform.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would it help if we were to arrange for a Question, and then perhaps he might be able to provoke his Department to action and satisfy some of my noble friends?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
11.34 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved, as an Amendment:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

(1) The Authority may pay to any person displaced from any land acquired by the Authority under the Act of 1963 for any purpose in connection with the performance of any of their new functions such reasonable allowances as they think fit towards any loss or in respect of any personal hardship which in their opinion he will sustain or be put to by reason of his having to quit the land.

(2) In estimating any such loss or personal hardship the Authority shall have regard to the period for which the land occupied by that person might reasonably have been expected to be available for occupation by him and the availability of other land suitable for occupation by him.

(3) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any enactment or any rule of law relating to compensation for disturbance.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment before you, which I am moving, is a new clause. It is the same

1291
clause which was passed in the House of Commons but which was struck out in your Lordships' House by the Committee on unopposed Bills. This clause gives discretionary powers to the Trent River Authority to make better provisions for compensation than would otherwise be available for those who are displaced from their land by reason of the making of a reservoir. I do not propose to say very much about compensation, because I think it is agreed on all sides that there is something seriously wrong with our laws on compensation and that something should be done about them. Too many people are inadequately compensated for the loss of house, buildings, land and, indeed, even their living
Probably no one is more inadequately compensated than the small tenant farmer of land which is taken for a reservoir, whose compensation does not enable him to set himself up again in business. This has very serious repercussions of a personal nature. This sort of man is probably more seriously under-compensated than anybody else; and, as I say, there is no shade of opinion in your Lordships' House which does not accept the fact that we are seriously under-compensating a great many people. I shall not labour that point.
I think that the noble Lord who answers for the Government will tell your Lordships that a great deal of thinking has been going on about what can be done in order to improve our provisions of compensation in this, and other, fields and he will probably tell you that the Government will, sooner or later, have propositions to put before us. The provisions of this particular clause go some way towards mitigating the bad effects of the inadequacies of our law of compensation and its deficiencies, by allowing the acquiring authority, in certain circumstances, to make better provision for compensation. I do not see that a great many of your Lordships have before you this rather large sheet which almost looks as if it were a manuscript Amendment but in fact is not.
May I read out the first subsection of this clause, which is self-explanatory. It says:
" The Authority may pay to any person displaced from any land acquired by the Authority…such reasonable allowances as they
1292
think fit towards any loss or in respect of any personal hardship which in their opinion he will sustain or be put to by reason of his having to quit the land."
This provision, which was the old Clause 6 in the Bill and which passed through the Commons, has the full support of the Association of River Authorities. I believe that the President of that Association, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may join in this debate, and I understand it may well be that he is not in complete agreement with the Association of River Authorities. Nevertheless, the Association of River Authorities fully support this clause. They do not take the view that because the Trent River Authority may have these powers, it is unfair that other authorities should not have them. The Association of River Authorities take the view that, quite apart from natural justice, it would be a very good thing if this particular kind of power were made much more widespread. They have always felt that it expedites the course of their operations in making reservoirs and, hence, make it cheaper, and that instead of leaving broken and disgruntled men in its wake, it leaves satisfied people who feel that they have been reasonably compensated, not ruined in the public interest.
Also, I need hardly say, this provision has the full support of the agricultural community, who feel that some of their number are very ill done by. If adequate compensation cannot be paid for public works, then, surely, those public works should not be undertaken. It is no good crying in aid the public interest if you render that public interest nugatory by seriously damaging individuals when you need not do so. These provisions are not unprecedented. They exist in some measure in the Liverpool Corporation Act 1957; they exist in the Great Ouse Act 1961, and they exist in the Clywedog Joint Authority Act 1963. So far as I know, in all these cases they have worked very satisfactorily and the authority operating under these Acts has found them most useful. These were Acts for specific reservoirs and the only difference with regard to the Trent River Authority is that it is a general powers Bill asking for these powers for any reservoir that might be built.
This clause, with these more flexible powers to give compensation for people

1293
who are dispossessed of their land, has been thrown out and it seems to me that the reasons for having thrown it out are bad. It will be argued, my Lords, that it is unsuitable for the Trent River Authority to be able to pay better compensation than other river authorities. I have already said that this is not the view taken by the Association of River Authorities. Secondly, this argument is tantamount to saying that because justice has not been done in one part of the country, it should not be done in another part of the country. That argument is pretty poor, and speaks for itself.
Thirdly, it will be argued that it is unprecedented. I have shown that it is not unprecedented. Fourthly, it will be argued that it prevents, or disturbs, the uniformity of provisions of compensation. There is no uniformity, except with regard to local authorities and cognate bodies. In all other fields there is no uniformity. The old water companies were not at all restricted in the powers that they had for paying compensation. They could make what bargain they, as acquiring authority, chose to make with the people whom they were proposing to buy out. This also applies over the whole field of wayleaves for gas and oil.
My Lords, it will be argued that it is prejudicing the review, mentioned earlier, that the Government may be bringing out with regard to the whole field of compensation. Let me say first that the clause does not seek to alter the code. It merely seeks to be able, in certain circumstances, to offer additional payments. Moreover, the review which the Government have in mind, and about which I hope a White Paper dealing with the question of compensation is to be produced, has, to my knowledge, already occupied at least four years. I have sat on committees drawing up suggestions for Government Departments as to how this kind of thing should be accomplished. Even supposing that the work being done on the question of revising the law of compensation is ready to present to your Lordships in a White Paper tomorrow, I can see no possibility of legislation on this issue being passed for the next three or four years. Even if there were, it could not be retrospective, and what happens in the meantime will merely add to the injustices that are now occurring. Lastly, it may be
1294
argued that this clause would be inconsistent with any new proposals that the Government might bring in. If that is so, what is put forward in this clause with regard to methods of compensation can be repealed by any legislation introduced by the Government, implementing their own ideas.
The Commons presumably decided that the urgent need for enabling adequate compensation to be paid far outweighs the theoretical objections which I have adumbrated to your Lordships. Why, therefore, are we in this House proposing to throw out this clause which the Commons passed? They did not look at it lightly. They looked at it closely; they amended it, and they sent it forward in the amended form that is before your Lordships. Why are we throwing it out? All the arguments I can think of, and have mentioned so far, and that the Government may well argue, are inadequate.
There is a further argument that the Government will put before your Lordships—probably the most interesting of them all. If Her Majesty's Government can satisfy me that their arguments in respect of this further point are correct, I should be willing not to press my Amendment. The argument is this: that there is already on the Statute Book adequate provision for dealing with this proposition. There are three Acts that deal with the point, but only one with which I need bother your Lordships: the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, Section 22. No doubt the noble Lord has looked at it closely. This Act enables—again in certain circumstances—acquiring authorities to pay additional compensation where they think fit. This section of the 1963 Act is wider in some respects than the clause which I am asking your Lordships to put back into the Bill, allowing greater flexibility to an acquiring authority to be able to do what I am asking your Lordships that it be allowed to do.
In farming and agricultural circles, it is held (and I am hoping that the Government will put me right on this point) that the Act of 1963 does not operate very effectively. It is held that district valuers regard it as having been superseded by the 1968 Act, and that because the 1968 Act allowed district valuers to give up to six years' rent to a displaced

1295
tenant in compensation, as opposed to the one or two years allowed under the 1948 Act, that of itself rendered the 1963 Act superseded. There is nothing in any Act since 1963 which specifically, expressedly or impliedly—and I repeat, impliedly—repeals the 1963 Act. I shall want an assurance from the noble Lord that the 1963 Act, which, in certain circumstances, allows compensation to be paid by acquiring authorities in the way in which I am asking for it to be done, contains nothing which has in any way been superseded or mitigated.
On the other hand, the Government may say that Section 22 of the 1963 Act is no longer operative. If they say that, then they must admit that my Amendment asking for Clause 6 to be put back into the Bill is perfectly logical and reasonable. I agree that the argument may well be put that it was foolish on my part to move an Amendment to put into a private Bill something which already exists in a public Act.
This, as I have said, is the most interesting and significant part of the argument, and the one on which I am expecting a definitive answer from the Government. I want to know whether Section 22 of the 1963 Act is superseded—and I hope that the noble Lord has that Act before him. Alternatively, whether that section still is on the Statute Book, and operational? If he can satisfy me that it is still on the Statute Book, and operational, I may well feel that the provisions of the Amendment are no longer necessary. If, on the other hand, he intends to tell me that the 1963 Act is no longer operative, I should feel inclined to press my Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I say that I greatly admire the knowledgeable and clear speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I was in this House some ten years ago when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, piloted the Rivers Board Act through the House. Indeed, I took part in many debates from this side of the House. I was under the strongest impression that that Act satisfied the House, the agricultural and River Board people generally, and industry, that there was a compensation clause in it which covers the whole country. We were, in effect, nationalising water, and we made provision, where water was extracted
1296
or alterations were made to the detriment of farmers, industry or others, that compensation should be paid. If that was so, is this matter not covered by national legislation?
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I put the noble Lord right in this respect? Water may indeed have been nationalised, but the land which is used for putting the water on was not.
LORD MACANDREW: My Lords, with regard to this new clause, this matter has been considered. I was not on the Unopposed Bills Committee, but they heard evidence from both sides, from the Petitioners and from the Promoters, and they came to the conclusion that it should not be included in the Bill, and I cannot see why it should.
11.52 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with very great interest to the important points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Subject to what I shall say a little later about discretionary payments allowed by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, to which the noble Lord has referred, there are, I think, two great objections to the new clause which the noble Lord wishes to insert in the Bill, and which is exactly the same as a clause that was disallowed by the Unopposed Bills Committee of your Lordships' House, as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out—and as a Chairman of Ways and Means he is a great authority on procedure on Private Bills—after they had heard the evidence submitted both by the Promoters and by Government Departments.
This clause, as I have said, is identical with a clause in the Bill which was disallowed. The Secretary of State for the Environment had objected to it in a written report submitted by him to the Committee on the Bill. His objection was on two grounds. In the first place, he considered that it would be wrong for the Trent River Authority to be empowered to pay more compensation than other authorities, of which some—for example, the local planning authorities—would be operating in the same area. This could lead to anomalies and injustices.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to injustices, but I do not think they

1297
would have operated in one way only. There could easily be injustice if this were to happen because sums paid in compensation to tenant farmers incurring the same loss could vary according to the authority acquiring the land, whether it was a local authority or a river authority. In the second place, the Departmental representative told the Committee that the Government were engaged in a review of the compensation code, the result of which would be published shortly in a White Paper. It would clearly be undesirable to amend the existing code locally before the results of the review were known.
The requirement of compensation for disturbance is nation-wide. It affects tenant farmers all over the country, and is not peculiar to tenant farmers in the Trent Valley. It has therefore been dealt with by the provisions of a code of compensation for disturbance contained in the general law. If the code is defective and requires alteration, this should be done by amending the general law.
There is another important consideration rendering this Amendment undesirable. My attention has been drawn to Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963. That section is confined to land used for agriculture by way of trade or business, whereas Lord Henley's Amendment is not so confined; it is rather wider. In other respects, Section 22 of this Act is similar to the clause proposed by the noble Lord. I am advised that the powers sought by the Trent River Authority under the proposed new clause are already available to the Authority, so far as they concern agricultural land, under Section 22 of the Agriculture Act 1963, and, so far as they concern land other than agricultural land, under Section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which relates to persons displaced from a house or other building.
I would therefore advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment on the following three grounds. First, it is unnecessary because discretionary compensation payments for disturbance can be made by acquiring authorities under the general law. Secondly, a local amendment of the law relating to compensation for disturbance is undesirable because if amendment is required it
1298
should be made in the general law. Thirdly, the clause proposed anticipates the result of the Government's review of the code of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, and of the policy in this matter that will be set out in the proposed White Paper.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have for some years been concerned with the Trent River Authority and with the possibility of flooding some of the loveliest hill farming districts in Britain. I have been concerned, too, with this big question of compensation. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has a point. I apologise for being a little late this morning and I hope the House will bear with me for a minute or two, but no longer, for that is all I need. There are cases where tenant farmers, for example, have been on land for some 400-odd years. There may be a justifiable difference in the compensation that is paid because of discomfort caused to a whole family, or for other difficulties some of these hill farmers in the Upper Trent Valley have.
Before this question is brushed aside, I hope the House will give it some care. I know that later on we shall have an opportunity to deal in depth with the problem of the reservoirs, and so on, that are talked about in the valleys. I sincerely believe that this Amendment deserves some attention and consideration before it is brushed aside, despite some of the previous Acts. I myself sat on the Water Resources Board and on some of the Bills in another place that dealt with this problem. That is all I wish to say this morning. I owe the House an apology in so far as I was not here at the beginning. Consequently, I think it would be unjustifiable of me to take any more time of the House, except to draw attention to the fact that some of us do support the noble Lord's Amendment.
11.58 a.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think it would be right if I intervened at this point to explain rather more fully why my right honourable friend reported against Clause 6. First, as the House knows, the Government on coming into power instituted a thorough-going review of the law relating to land compensation. A review was already under way, but in my right honourable friend's view it was not nearly far-reaching enough. The

1299
Department of the Environment has been pressing ahead with the utmost speed with the review into what is a most complex subject. I confirm that as soon as it is finished the next step will be the publication of a White Paper as a prelude to legislation.
Compensation payments to farmers have been very much in my right honourable friend's mind and, although he respected the motives of the Trent River Authority in bringing forward their clause in their Bill, deposited last November, he felt that it would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just explained, to prejudge the outcome of the review in this important respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already explained that the Authority attach importance to the provision, because they have in mind a number of reservoir schemes which will take farming land. But the Trent River Authority cannot seriously suggest that in this respect they are in a different position from other river authorities. Even if they were, the matter would still, in my right honourable friend's submission, be one which should be dealt with generally by means of general legislation. This clause would have had implications not only for other river authorities, but, perhaps more importantly, for the many local authorities exercising powers to acquire land for various purposes within the area of the Trent River Authority. The Secretary of State, therefore, thought it right to ask Parliament to say that the Promoters should wait for the Government to come up with their own proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned precedents, three in number, in three separate Private Acts for the clause we are discussing this morning; but as he said, they are not really precedents because they relate to specific proposals for individual reservoirs and not to all the proposals of the authorities in question, as would Clause 6. Nor was it the case that when they were passed the Government were right in the middle of a review of the whole law relating to land compensation.
I have one further point. I cannot to-day indicate to the House what conclusions
1300
the Government will come to about this question of compensation to tenant farmers. It is, however, true, and noteworthy on this occasion, that when Parliament legislated as recently as 1968 in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to improve the position of tenant farmers, it did not then make provision on the lines of the proposed clause. Many representations have been made to us about the position of tenant farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has just drawn our attention to them. I confirm that we are giving most serious consideration to them. I also confirm, though I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has already done so, that Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, empowers authorities to make discretionary payments to persons displaced from agricultural land and is available for use by the Trent River Authority. This was the point that the noble Lord. Lord Henley, asked me to make, and I would not dispute it.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of discretionary powers is that they should be used only to provide compensation equivalent to the statutory compensation where no statutory entitlement exists. Section 22 provides for making payments to persons who have no statutory entitlement to compensation or to the additional payments under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. In view of all that, I, too, would say that it would be quite wrong to allow a change of this importance to come about as a result of a Private Bill promoted by one authority in respect of one part of the country. I urge the House to support the decision of its own Committee not to allow the proposed new clause.
12.3 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the House reaches a conclusion, may I thank my noble friend for the partial satisfaction which he has given me in his words about the reviews that are taking place. First, I should declare an interest in this matter, as President of the Association of River Authorities, and, contrary to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I have great sympathy with the Trent River Authority. It is in the same position as every other river authority to-day, facing

1301
enormous difficulties in promoting any water conservation scheme, opposed by almost everybody, although it is known that the authority is setting out to get the extra water which the nation badly needs. As soon as we have a dry summer and a dry year, we shall find ourselves seriously short of water in many parts of the country.
My noble friend will find himself in closer contact with this situation in future. Since he has, so wisely, amended the 1963 Act, river authorities will proceed by Statutory Order instead of by Private Bill. Several river authority schemes have been frustrated by the process of the Private Bill being defeated, and it has appeared to be through a failure by the river authority. I suggest that this will come very much nearer home when river authorities proceed by an application to the Minister for a Statutory Order and they fail because of the weight of public opinion given at the public inquiry which the Minister then has to decide upon.
As noble Lords are aware, here we have an extremely difficult situation where conservationists will oppose almost every scheme to develop fresh sources of water. I suggest to my noble friend that it is highly desirable to try to remove at least one source of opposition—that is, the landowners and the tenants, who could be conciliated if they were given rather more generous terms of compensation. This is a matter of great national importance, and I hope that the few words that I have added will give greater urgency to my noble friend and his right honourable colleague to get on with this review and to publish the White Paper. It is most urgent that there should be national legislation on this matter.
12.6 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, first of all, may I thank those two noble Lords who supported me in my contention, which is one generally agreed, that compensation is most inadequate, particularly for tenant farmers. No one knows better than the noble Lord. Lord Davies of Leek, how very badly done by some of the poor (I use the word advisedly) Welsh tenants can be. I am also grateful for the kind words on the same subject from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who also recognises how the building
1302
of new reservoirs is held up because of the difficulty in persuading people that they will not be ruined, when they can see before their very eyes that they are being ruined.
I need not go into any of the arguments, except one. As this is not a Committee stage, it is extremely difficult to argue individual points, and in my opening speech I said what I thought was wrong with the argument which I knew the Government would put forward. That leaves me with the third point, which I said was the most interesting of all. First of all, I have the statement from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the Chairman of Committees, that my Amendment is unnecessary, because the provisions are available under Section 22 of the 1963 Act. He said categorically that the powers were available. That is a very important statement, coming from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, with all the legal advice available to him.
When I put this same point to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who answers for the Government. I received a rather equivocal answer. He admitted, as did the noble Earl, that the Act was still in force and had not been superseded; he admitted that it was available for use, and that it was available for use for all the points that I wanted it for. However, he qualified it by saying that it was only for making compensation, equivalent to statutory compensation, where compensation was otherwise not available. My Lords, I do not agree. The whole point of Section 22 of the 1963 Act was that it enabled discretionary payments to be made where they were not otherwise statutorily possible. That is what my Amendment is about—to do exactly the same thing. All noble Lords agree that compensation is inadequate and that something must be done about it. My Amendment is a small attempt to do something about it in the meanwhile, before the Government's suggestions bear fruit in five years' time. I am told that I need not move my Amendment, because these powers are already available, and this has been made absolutely clear, beyond possible doubt, by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
I want to know—and possibly this is not the moment to argue it out—on what authority the noble Lord, Lord Sandford,

1303
says that it is only for giving compensation equivalent to what the statutory compensation would be where it was not otherwise available? On whose"say so "? On whose interpretation of the Act? Is it the interpretation of the district valuers? If so, this seems to me to be a most astonishing statement. Is it on the"say so"of the Department of the Environment? That would be an even more astonishing statement. Is it a direction from the Treasury? What is it?
I remember at an earlier stage in your Lordships' proceedings, on a question rather divorced from this, on the Compton Bassett issue, it annoyed me and my friends that Treasury directions were being passed to Departments to interpret the law in a certain way, without Parliament ever hearing about it. Here is an Act which states in terms exactly what discretionary powers are available and the noble Lord tells me that that is not what the Act says. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will need more advice on this point. It may well be that it had not occurred to him before. The court is now open, as it were, and no doubt we shall be able to raise this point again. But I am left in a difficult position. I think it would be foolish to press my Amendment, if the powers already exist as I am told by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, that they do. That being so, it would obviously be nugatory for me to press my Amendment, asking in a Private Bill for exactly the same powers.
So let us leave it that the Government will look very closely indeed into the meaning of Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963. On the understanding that that will be looked into very closely, and that these powers are available to river authorities, and indeed to anybody else, I am prepared not to press the Amendment. This is not a Committee stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to give me that assurance, but I think that perhaps I do not need it, since I have had a categorical assurance from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees. If that is so—and I see that the noble Lord nods his head—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
12.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 122 as first printed for the Commons.]
[No. 1]
Clause 3, page 3, line 1, after"owner"insert"nor any person performing salvage operations with the agreement of the owner ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The Amendment adds to the paragraph exempting a servant or agent of the owner from liability for oil pollution a salver, acting with the agreement of the owner. If proceedings were possible against the owner's servants or agents, behind whom an owner would normally have to stand, a way would be open indirectly to further proceedings against an owner. A salver who carries out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner is in much the same position as a servant or agent of the owner, but as an independent contractor he might not come within the meaning of the phrase. As the Bill stands—that is, as it left your Lordships' House—salvers run the risk of unlimited liability

1305
for oil pollution. As noble Lords will recall, the maximum figures for ship-owners' liability for oil pollution contained in the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and reflected in the Bill, represent the maximum available insurance cover.
We have been told that salvers are consequently finding it impossible to obtain cover in the insurance market for their potential oil pollution liability when assisting tankers. If an oil spill results, liability could attach both to the tanker and to the salver. The insurance market is not prepared to put itself at double risk and therefore excludes oil pollution liability from the salver's cover. This leads salvers to seek to cover themselves by means of a full indemnity from the tanker owner which, in effect, means from the tanker's insurers. But this is likely to be refused, since the insurers are not prepared to increase their cover for oil pollution damage in this way.
The general objective of the Bill, as noble Lords are well aware, is to ensure that adequate compensation is available to those who suffer from oil pollution. Important as this objective is, however, it is even more important, where possible, to prevent the damage from being caused in the first place. One major way in which this can be achieved is by prompt action to salvage a damaged tanker and so to reduce the escape of oil to a minimum. Marine salvage is a service provided voluntarily by those who are equipped to do so, on the basis that they can expect high rewards if they are successful, but will get nothing if they fail. The situation I have outlined could mean that at best valuable time could be lost in 'starting salvage operations because of arguments about liability and, at worst, that salvage of a damaged tanker would not be undertaken at all. Consequently, the oil pollution damage might be much greater than it would have been, if salvage operations had been undertaken.
This Amendment to Clause 3 gives a salver protection if, but only if, he is carrying out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner, since it is only in such circumstances that he can be regarded as in an analogous position to the owner's servant or agent. We think that this Amendment is not unreasonable
1306
in itself and will help to remove a serious impediment in the way of salvers taking on a job. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out from"cost"to end of line 4.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall, with permission, discuss this Amendment with Amendment No. 9, to insert a new clause after Clause 15, These Amendments make it clear that where owners or their insurers have paid out for oil pollution damages as a result of the new liability imposed by the Bill, their right to recover against those persons who actually caused the damage by their negligence will not be prejudiced. Examples might be the right of an owner to recover in tort from a negligent charterer, or the right of an insurer to recover in contract from the owner, if the relevant contract of insurance so provided. This and the next two Amendments give effect to an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he put down what he described as a probing Amendment to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 5. I hope that this brief explanation will help to clarify the situation for him to some extent. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out"a person"and insert"the owner of a ship ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This Amendment and Amendment No. 4 go together and, with permission, I will deal with both. Perhaps I should first explain the effect which it is intended that the Bill should produce. Although a claimant will be free to sue

1307
the owner under Clause 1, or any other person, such as a negligent charterer, under normal rules of law, the total liability should not exceed the owner's limitation figure set out in Clause 4.
The reason for this is that these figures represent the limits of insurance available to the ship as a whole. To give effect to this intention, where the owner's limitation fund is set up under Clause 5 and consequently claimants have an actual fund available to them, two provisions are included in the Bill. In the first place, proceedings other than those against the owner for a share in the fund are to be stayed, by virtue of Clause 7. Secondly, if a person other than the owner or his insurer has actually made a payment in respect of oil pollution damage, then he will have a right to prove against the owner's fund. This right is given by Clause 5(4). However, as it was drafted at the time when the Bill left this House, this subsection was too wide in its scope, since it would have allowed any person who had made a payment for oil pollution damage to prove against the owner's fund, including, for example, the owner of a ship which has been in collision with the tanker and had been guilty of negligence. It is not intended that the owner of another ship should get any benefit from this subsection in these circumstances and the Amendments are designed to make this clear. Nor will a negligent charterer of the tanker itself, who is guilty of actual tort or privity, and so not entitled to limit his liability, get any benefit from this subsection. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible limitation of the right conferred by subsection (4). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12.21 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
Clause 5, page 4, line 40, leave out from"extends"to first"the"in line 41 and insert—
" (a) by the owner or the person referred to in section 12 of this Act as ' the insurer '; or
(b) by a person who has or is alleged to have incurred a liability, otherwise than under section
1308
1 of this Act, for the damage or cost and who is entitled to limit his liability in connection with the ship by virtue of the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1958,"
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5–8]
Clause 10, page 7, line 21, after"of"insert"subsection (2) of ".
Clause 10, page 7, line 23, leave out"£15,000"and insert"£35,000 ".
Clause 10, page 7, line 23, leave out from"£15,000"to end of line 25.
Clause 10, page 7, line 26, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
" (7) If a ship fails to carry, or the master of a ship fails to produce, a certificate as required by subsection (5) of this section the master shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
(8) If a ship attempts to leave a port in the United Kingdom in contravention of this section the ship may be detained."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, which I will, with permission, deal with together. The first is simply a drafting Amendment. As to the others, noble Lords will recall that as a result of the strong expression of opinions by both Government Members and Opposition, the Government decided to raise the maximum penalty for illegal discharge of oil and other related offences in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, now an Act, from £5,000 to £50,000. It was also argued in another place that the penalties under this Bill of £15,000 for failure to have the requisite certificate of insurance, and of £200 for failure to produce the certificate, were inadequate. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, argued it in this place, too. As a result of the views expressed, the Government undertook to look at the level of fines. The Government had, of course, to consider the penalties in the Bill in the light of penalties relating to other offences over a wide field. While stressing that the offence of failing to have insurance cover

1309
must be distinct from the offence of deliberately discharging oil in the sea, the Government were able to accept an Amendment raising the fines in the Bill to £35,000 from £15,000, and to £400 from £200. These are the maximum limits and would be imposed only in the most extreme cases.
We have also attempted to make the punishment fit the crime more closely in another way: the serious offence of not having a certificate in force, and thus not being adequately insured, will now carry the high penalty of £35,000 on summary conviction, or an unlimited penalty for conviction on indictment. That is Amendment No. 6. The more technical offences of not carrying a valid certificate, or of not producing it on demand, will now carry the penalty of £400 on summary conviction. Only the master will be liable in either case, since there would not be the danger, as there would be with the first offence, that claimants for large amounts might find the shipowner uninsured. However, the ship may be detained if it attempts to leave port in contravention of any requirement under this subsection—that is, if it does not have a certificate or is not carrying it. My Lords, these are the effects of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
Saving for recourse actions
". Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any claim or the enforcement of any claim, a person incurring any liability under this Act may have against another person in respect of that liability."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
Clause 17, page 10, line 36, leave out"internal"and insert"external ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is an Amendment to correct a slip which passed through this House unnoticed.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL
12.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill be now read a second time. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill, which was passed last week in another place, is a Bill of relatively minor importance. Its four clauses are concerned with the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions, international organisations and Commonwealth representatives. Most of its provisions were in fact contained in a similar Bill which had its Second Reading in another place over a year ago, under the previous Administration. Your Lordships will no doubt have observed, on studying the Bill, that it will not make any significant changes in practice or policy in this field. It is a useful tidying-up measure.
Clause 1 is intended to put on a statutory basis certain refunds which are already made administratively. It provides for the refund of the customs duty element in the price of hydrocarbon oil—that is, petrol and oil for heating—bought by diplomatic missions and certain members of missions and by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If these persons and bodies imported hydrocarbon oil directly for their own use, they would be entitled to exemption from customs duty under the provisions of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. But this is impracticable, and so refunds of the duty are made instead. At present these refunds are made under the authority of the Appropriation Acts

1311
alone, but it is an accepted principle that statutory authority should be obtained for regular payments of this kind. Such authority has already been obtained in relation to similar refunds made to entitled persons connected with consulates and international organisations by the Consular Relations Act 1968 and the International Organisations Act 1968.
This clause will amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 so as to bring them into line in this respect. On this clause becoming law, we intend to transfer the administration of all these refunds from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Department of Customs and Excise. They will then be made out of revenue, instead of out of voted money. I should emphasise that our missions in other countries are of course accorded the privilege of duty free petrol, with consequent overall financial savings to the United Kingdom. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 will allow us to withdraw the privilege from any country which is no longer according us reciprocity in this matter.
Clause 2 of the Bill will enable us to accord privileges and immunities to the Caribbean Development Bank, which was established early last year. All the present members of the Bank are States and territories within the Commonwealth. The Bank provides capital for development projects in the countries in the Caribbean area, and it is a project which Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly support. The United Kingdom ratified the Agreement establishing the Caribbean Development Bank on January 23, 1970, subject to a reservation concerning privileges and immunities. This Agreement requires members to accord limited privileges and immunities to the Bank. Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968, however, applies only to organisations which have at least one"foreign"member, so a Bill is required. Clause 2 will extend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act to the Caribbean Development Bank. An Order in Council to give effect to the privileges and immunities provisions of the Agreement will then be laid before Parliament and will require the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. Clause 2 will, of course, have
1312
no effect on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other international organisations, whether or not their members are all Commonwealth countries.
Clause 3 will amend Section 2 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to provide statutory authority for granting exemption from vehicle excise duty to the senior staff of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. As your Lordships may know, IMCO is the only United Nations specialised agency with its headquarters in London. Its activities include the securing of international agreement on measures to promote maritime safety and reduce pollution of the sea by oil. Section 2 of the 1968 Act was intended to accord financial privileges on a diplomatic scale to members of the staff of IMCO whose status is comparable to that of a diplomatic agent. There are 36 such officers in IMCO, of whom four are United Kingdom citizens or permanently resident here and so do not benefit from these privileges. However, Section 2 failed to make provision for exemption from vehicle excise duty. There was an understanding between Her Majesty's Government and IMCO that such an exemption would be accorded and as a matter of good faith this has until now been done administratively. The duty involved amounts in total to about £800 a year. If this clause becomes law, the Headquarters Agreement between the United Kingdom and IMCO will be amended to include a reference to vehicle excise duty. A draft Order to give effect to the Amendment will then be laid before Parliament.
Clause 4 substitutes for Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act 1968 a revised Section 12 set out in the Schedule to the Bill. This will enable an Order in Council to be made which will confer on Commonwealth representatives performing functions of a consular nature, and on their staffs and families, privileges and immunities on the same scale as is enjoyed by foreign consuls under the Consular Relations Act. The intention of the original Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act was to enable this to be done, but in some minor matters the powers are inadequate, or there is some doubt as to whether they are wide enough. For example, the existing provisions do not clearly cover goods imported or hydrocarbon oil purchased for the official

1313
use of a Commonwealth post. Nor do they cover members of the families or certain private servants of members of a post. The section has therefore been clarified and this has made it possible to repeal the remaining part of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act 1952. No change of policy is contained in Clause 4.
Foreign consuls and their staffs have been enjoying their privileges and immunities since the Consular Relations Act came into force on January 1 of that year and for reasons of reciprocity and good faith we are anxious that there should not he too long a delay before Commonwealth officers are brought into line. Our own posts in Commonwealth countries are already enjoying privileges and immunities on a scale comparable with that which will be accorded to Commonwealth representatives in the United Kingdom if this clause becomes law.
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will accept that this Bill is an uncontroversial measure which makes necessary amendments to our existing legislation in this field. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
12.34 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for explaining the provisions of the Bill, and for introducing the Second Reading. I note that there are no changes of practice of policy involved in the Bill. It is, as he has said, a non-controversial measure, although of course not an unimportant one, because any matters affecting diplomatic privileges in this country must be of importance to all of us.
We accept on this side that it is wise to have statutory provision to cover what are accepted and necessary administrative procedures. This, it seems to me, is the effect of Clauses 1 and 2. Clearly the extension of the appropriate privileges and immunities to the Caribbean Development Bank is something to which we on this side could not possibly take exception. On the question of Commonwealth consular servants, it is right and equitable that this area should be tidied up so that the consular servants of Commonwealth
1314
countries should enjoy the same privileges as others. It is, as the noble Marquess said, a non-controversial Bill. It does not bring about any changes of practice or policy and we on this side welcome it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANGUILLA BILL
12.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for inflicting yet another speech upon the House this morning. I think it would be helpful, before going into the provisions of the Bill, if I were to indulge in a little pre-history, so that the Bill may be set in perspective. The association between Britain and the three islands of St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla goes back to the early days of the 17th century. Indeed, St. Kitts makes the proud claim to have been the mother colony both of the British and of the French Caribbean. Anguilla was colonised as early as 1625. In 1871, the Leeward Islands Federation was created, with St. Kitts and Anguilla as one of its units, and in 1882 St. Kitts, Anguilla and Nevis were united into a single presidency. In 1956 the Leeward Islands Federation was dissolved and each of the presidencies became a single colony. In 1958 St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla became a unit of the West Indies Federation, but reverted to being a Crown Colony on the collapse of that Federation.
At the Constitutional Conference for St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla, which was held in London in May, 1966, it was agreed that the colony should become an associated State under which the State Government would have internal independence while Britain would retain responsibility for external affairs and defence. The Conference Report was signed by representatives of all three islands and the signatories retained their seats in the Legislature at general elections held in July, 1966. St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla duly became a State in association with Britain in February, 1967, at the same time as four other former colonies in the eastern Caribbean.

1315
I now come to an account of the more recent history of Anguilla and of British involvement in the problem. Only three months after statehood the St. Kitts police contingent on Anguilla was ejected by the islanders, who claimed that they would not be ruled by St. Kitts and wished to be able to decide their own future. They complained of past neglect. My Lords, I would add at this point that it is not only in relation to Anguilla that accusations of past neglect can be and have been made. Before the last war, the economic conditions of much of the Caribbean left a great deal to be desired, and it was only with the enactment of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts from 1940 onwards that systematic efforts began to be made to effect a radical improvement of these conditions. Much has already been done, but there is a great deal yet to be tackled.
It was with this end in view that a British Development Division was established at Barbados in 1966, and there has been a striking improvement since that date. But it takes time to achieve significant progress. One of the ironies of the situation is that the Anguilla action of May, 1967, took place at a time when the bulk of the St. Kitts public works department equipment was engaged in Anguilla on projects there. I mention this in order to make the point that it would not be fair to assign the responsibility for economic neglect of Anguilla solely to the authorities in St. Kitts. The need in that island was recognised, but there were equally pressing needs elsewhere in the State, and shortage of funds, equipment and manpower made it impossible to satisfy all the needs at the same time.
In July, 1967, the independent countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean held a conference in Barbados with delegations from the United Kingdom, as well as from St. Kitts and Anguilla. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as the then Minister of State, attended that conference on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Its Report was published as Command 3433. Unfortunately the conference did not lead to any solution of the problem.
In December, 1967, two Members of another place, Mr. Nigel Fisher and Mr. Donald Chapman, visited both St. Kitts
1316
and Anguilla in an attempt to find a way forward. As a result of their visit, the two parties in the dispute agreed to proposals placed before them for an interim arrangement, and a British official, Mr. Tony Lee, took up residence in Anguilla in January, 1968. In October, 1968, the then British Government invited the State Government and the Anguillans to send delegations to talks in London. Those talks were not successful in their attempt to find a more lasting solution. In January, 1969, the Anguillans made a further declaration of independence and Mr. Lee, who had discharged his difficult assignment with patience and tact, was withdrawn from Anguilla, although he continued to visit the island.
In early March, 1969, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. William Whitlock, after discussions with the State Government, visited Anguilla in an attempt to persuade the islanders to accept the installation of a British Commissioner to administer Anguilla. That visit unfortunately did not meet with success, and Mr. Whitlock was forced to leave the island. Later that month, on March 19, British troops and police were landed on Anguilla and a British Commissioner was installed under the authority of an Order in Council made under Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act 1967.
I would recall that the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his Statement in another place on March 19, 1969 said:
" We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs ".
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, repeated that Statement in your Lordships' House on the same date (cols. 902–905 of Hansard). The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, also said (col. 879):
" Anguilla is certainly constitutionally a part of the associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla: but the authority of the State Government has not been effective in Anguilla since May, 1967. There are no lawfully established courts functioning on the Island. It was therefore, in the view of the Government, not possible for them under the circumstances to discharge their constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs."
I would also recall that in the Statement of the then Secretary of State for Foreign

1317
and Commonwealth Affairs to which I have already referred, and in an earlier statement the previous day the Secretary of State said:
" It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want."
In May, 1969, Her Majesty's Government held discussions with the State Government in London, and it was then agreed that a Commission should be jointly appointed by the two Governments to examine the Anguilla problem. This Commission was headed by a former Chief Justice of Trinidad, the Right Honourable Sir Hugh Wooding, and its Report was presented to Parliament in November 1970 (Cmnd. 4510). That Report, which contained a valuable analysis and history of the problem, made certain recommendations which included the election of a Council in Anguilla with wide-ranging legislative, executive and fiscal authority, functions and powers the establishment of a coordinating Council on which each of the three islands of the State would have equal representation and greater participation for Anguilla in the government of the State through increased Anguillan membership in the House of Assembly and Anguillan representation on the public and police service commissions.
These recommendations might have produced a settlement of the problem in an atmosphere less charged with emotion and distrust than that which existed between St. Kitts and Anguilla. However, such a state of affairs did not exist, and the Anguilla Council, who had continually repeated their demand for a complete break with St. Kitts, rejected the recommendations in the Report. The St. Kitts Government, for their part, said they accepted the Report and its recommendations as a basis for discussions. In view of the Anguillan rejection of the Wooding Commission recommendations, and also in the light of the assurance given by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which we had reaffirmed on taking office, that it was not our intention that the Anguillans should be forced to live under an administration which they did not want, it was not possible for us to use these recommendations as the basis for a settlement. We were obliged to find some other way in which to proceed.
1318
In December, 1970, at discussions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right honourable friend Mr. Godber, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, put to the St. Kitts Government proposals designed to bring about an interim settlement of the problem. The basis of these proposals was that the State Government should delegate to Her Majesty's Government powers which would enable Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla to conduct an effective administration on that island for a period of years. The proposals were designed to restore a full administration of the island by authority emanating from the British Government, but at the same time to maintain the basic integrity of the associated State. It was our hope that after a period of time it might be possible to achieve a permanent solution by bringing the two sides voluntarily together again.
Although a measure of agreement on a number of points was achieved in our discussions with the Government in St. Kitt, they were not prepared in certain important respects to accept the minimum delegation of powers which we considered essential to enable Her Majesty's Commissioner to conduct an effective administration in Anguilla. After six months of discussions it became evident that there was an unbridgeable gap between what the State Government were prepared to offer and what the Anguillans were prepared to accept. Mr. Godber was therefore reluctantly obliged, during his discussions in St. Kitts on June 11, to inform the St. Kitts Government that, since we could not allow this problem to continue indefinitely, Her Majesty's Government would reluctantly have to obtain Parliamentary approval for proceeding unilaterally with our proposals for an interim settlement.
I should mention at this point that the State Government had been advised as early as February of this year that should it, unfortunately, not prove possible to reach an agreement in our negotiations, we should be forced to take unilateral action. The Anguillan Council for their part, after seeking certain assurances accepted our proposals on June 22.
My Lords, that is a very brief history of the problem and of British involvement in it. We have made it clear to Commonwealth Caribbean Governments

1319
that should similar circumstances arise in the future we would not be prepared to intervene in this way and would expect them to deal with the problems themselves. But on our assumption of office we were involved in the matter and we felt it essential to find a solution of it. As the course of the negotiations has made clear, we should have much preferred to proceed with the full agreement both of the State Government and of the Anguillans; but for the reasons which I have given this unfortunately was not possible.
In our view, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue. Although a British Commissioner has been resident in Anguilla for over two years, it has not been possible for him to establish a fully effective administration because he has lacked certain essential powers. Moreover, although one of the original purposes behind the installation of a British Commissioner was to restore the rule of law in Anguilla, it is a fact that no regular court of law has been able to function there for over four years. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is intolerable that such a situation should obtain in an island on which a British commissioner and British troops and police have been established. It is for these reasons that we have introduced the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day.
The Bill has the merit of being short and clear. It is an enabling Bill which, if enacted, will permit Her Majesty in Council to make detailed provision for the administration of Anguilla. The first subsection of Clause 1 provides for this. The second subsection makes provision for the appointment of a Commissioner in Anguilla. The third subsection of Clause 1 provides for Her Majesty by Order in Council to direct that Anguilla would not any longer form part of the territory of the Associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, in the event of the introduction into the Legislature of that State of a Bill for a law terminating the status of association of the State with the United Kingdom. Were such a law to be introduced into the State Legislature and the necessary constitutional procedures to be gone through, the associated State would of course become fully independent. This subsection makes
1320
it clear that the British administration of Anguilla would not be affected by such an event and that, should it in fact happen, Her Majesty by Order in Council would have powers to provide a constitution for Anguilla.
The fourth subsection of Clause 1 makes consequential provision in the event of the use of subsection (3), to enable any constitution provided for Anguilla under that subsection to be altered or replaced as may be expedient from time to time. The fifth subsection of Clause 1 makes provision for this legislation to have effect notwithstanding anything in the West Indies Act 1967 or any Order in Council made under that Act I would, however, emphasise that in our opinion this Act is not inconsistent with the West Indies Act 1967. The sixth subsection of Clause 1 contains the declaration which is necessary under Section 3(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 that this legislation is required to extend to St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla in the interests of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom relating to defence and external affairs. We consider that such a declaration is justified by the facts of the case.
It would clearly not be possible for the British Government to discharge its responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla if there were no settled administration in the island of Anguilla. Were a vacuum to be created by the withdrawal of the British presence on Anguilla there would be a risk, which some would put as high as a probability, of conflict between St. Kitts and Anguilla. There would be instability and incertainty and an absence of government and law and order which must make it impossible for any British Government to discharge in a meaningful way its constitutional responsibilities in the area. The Bill before the House to-day will, if it is approved by your Lordships, ensure that this does not happen. It will enable an effective administration to be established in Anguilla in consultation and co-operation with the people of that island. I hope your Lordships will recognise the need to bring an end to the events of the last four years and to provide an opportunity for a fresh start. The Premier in St. Kitts has accused us

1321
of attempting to break up the existing State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. Our reply is that that was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government when we embarked upon these long and difficult negotiations: nor indeed need it be the final outcome.
The Order in Council which we propose to introduce under this Bill, once it has the authority of law, will be designed solely to provide the British Commissioner on the island of Anguilla with all the powers he has so long needed and so long lacked. Those powers will derive directly from Her Majesty's Government in United Kingdom. This means that not only will new courts of law be able to sit, but new laws where necessary can be enacted on the island. The Commissioner, for instance, will then be able to recruit and train local policemen to take the place of the London Metropolitan Police who have been tilling the gap so admirably since March, 1969. But no step will be taken at this stage to remove Anguilla from the State, unless St. Kitts decides to move to independence, in which case Clause 1(3) can come into operation in the manner I have already described.
Our intention is to provide effective administration for a period of years to enable tempers to cool. My right honourable friend Mr. Godber has told the Anguillans that we should be willing to reconsider the position after the new arrangements have been working for three years. When the time comes to move forward it is our intention that the wishes of the Anguillans shall be ascertained. If they should wish to revert to their links with St. Kitts, that can be done. If, on the other hand, they wish to continue with a greater degree of devolution of authority to their own elected representatives, that also should be possible. On the other hand, ideas are still developing among the various independent and associated Commonwealth States in the Caribbean. It is possible that new groupings of States will emerge and that Anguilla may wish to participate in one of these. The final test must be the wishes of the Anguillan people themselves.
I know that certain noble Lords and others outside have advocated new federal groupings in the West Indies. On this I would only say that in the present
1322
post-Colonial era in the Caribbean, any new initiatives in this field must spring from the Caribbean itself and gain the willing acceptance of the Governments and peoples of the area if they are to be crowned with success. Our earlier efforts and their outcome are a matter of historical record. Faced with the present situation on Anguilla I believe that we have found the only tolerable solution, at any rate for the time being. We have had to look to the future, and not only to the past, and the Bill before your Lordships to-day does, I believe, point the way to a settlement of this problem.
The Caribbean, as many of your Lordships are well aware, is a complex area full of strong personalities who have many conflicting ideas and views. From the time when the West Indies Federation began to break up the problem of fragmentation has been there. This latest stage of it has led some at least in other Caribbean countries to think again about the future of the whole area. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said at the conclusion of his speech on July 16 in another place when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill there:
" If the Anguilla problem turned out to be the catalyst which helped to bring about a reversal of present attitudes, it could prove a blessing in disguise for the whole area "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/21, cols.900–1.]
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
12.55 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, once again I am thankful to the noble Marquess for introducing the Bill on Second Reading. I am grateful to him also for his review of the events leading up to the introduction of the Bill. I must confess that my heart sank a little when he talked of going back into pre-history, but in the event he went back no further than the 17th century, which by the standards of your Lordships' House might reasonably be called"yesterday's events ". I should like to commend also the extraordinary speed with which he moved from 1625 to 1966, although the four years that followed occupied a little more time. It might be as well at this

1323
stage to point out that in his admirable resume of the events leading up to his introduction of the Bill, he did not mention, although I am sure that he would agree, that disputes among the islands forming the Colony have been taking place for many years. In the days of the first white settlers in the area disputes between the islands began, and they have been going on ever since. It might be worth recalling that the constant conflict in this area cannot be laid exclusively at the doors of contemporary political leaders in the area.
Before saying anything about the actual clauses of the Bill may I take this opportunity to echo something said by the noble Marquess on the conduct of the Armed Forces and the police in the area during the last difficult years. We on this side wish to express our appreciation and admiration of the way in which the Armed Forces and the Metropolitan Police have conducted themselves during this difficult operation. We should not forget, either, the succession of public servants who have discharged their duties with dignity and efficiency, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances. I should like also to mention—although he has had to leave his place at the moment—the efforts made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd when we were in office. It is probably not sufficiently recognised that his efforts to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion were most energetic and vigorous.
My Lords, we on this side would agree with Her Majesty's Government that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We accept, too, that there is nothing in the Bill, at least on the face of it, which is inconsistent with the West Indies Act. In this context, I was grateful for the assurance of the noble Marquess—at least, I took it as an assurance—that the Bill does not imply any permanent fragmentation in the area. It is not, as he said, an attempt to break up the Colony; it is an attempt to buy time, to allow tempers to cool. If he rises to speak again, I should be grateful for his assurance that no possibility regarding future constitutional structure in the area is foreclosed. I was grateful for his assurance that after the three years of what might be called a"cooling-off period"the views of the Anguillans will be sought. As he has said,
1324
we must bear in mind not only the interests of the Anguillans but their express wishes. On the basis of those assurances, we on this side accept the necessity for this Bill and its provisions.
1.0 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the Bill certainly gives reality to the wishes of some 6,000 inhabitants of the island of Anguilla. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the result of the common effort of all Parties—the noble Lord's Party when in office and the present Government. Because the wishes of the islanders must always be the main factor, I wish to raise one point which I feel the right honourable Member in another place, Mr. Stewart, who was then Foreign Secretary, would himself wish to raise. We have received to-day from the Minister assurances that the wishes of the people of Anguilla will be paramount. The right honourable gentleman, speaking for the Opposition in the House of Commons, said:
" The right honourable gentleman "—
he was referring to the Minister—
" gave us to understand that after an interim period consideration may be given to what comes next."
He then used these words:
" The wishes of the people of Anguilla will be an extremely relevant factor "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/71; c. 906.].
The point that I want to raise concerns the words"relevant factor ". I suggest that the wishes of the people of Anguilla must rather be the determining factor. I think the Minister has given us that assurance, but I feel it is necessary to bring to your Lordships' attention the particular words spoken, not, I hope, on behalf of the Opposition in another place. If they were so spoken, I am quite sure the ex-Minister who said them would wish not to be misunderstood by using the word"relevant"instead of"determining ".
My Lords, it is modern fashion for past colonial territories to launch off into self-government at the earliest possible moment. I am reminded of Arthur Balfour's statement when he said that people prefer self-government to good government. That has been the tendency, I think, in the disintegration of our Colonial Empire. But, here is an

1325
island clinging to Britain for justice, peace and progress, and we must respond. In the past, those of us who know the Caribbean have felt that we have some measure of responsibility for things that ought to have been done and were not done, but, in this new Associate State relationship we have a great chance to forget the past in the progress of the present and future welfare of the people. My plea would be for Parliament and the Government not just to pass this Bill and then forget Anguilla but to see that Parliament obtains progress reports on the results of the Associated State development. I should like there to be an annual White Paper, giving a report of progress. I suggest that there should be a biennial Parliamentary visit by members of the main Parties so that we could watch the progress arising from the passing of this Bill, with the feeling that Britain had well justified the trust Anguillans put in us and our responsibilities to them.
1.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships, and particularly to the Minister, because I did not hear the whole of his speech. I had taken great care to be within the hearing of the loudspeaking apparatus so that I might come in immediately, but, unfortunately, for some reason I did not hear that this Bill was now before the House. It is possible that some of the points I shall raise were already dealt with in the opening speech; if so, I apologise to the Minister and to the House.
My Lords, I find it almost incredible that I should be supporting this Bill, because, on the surface, it is a colonialist measure, giving all power to the Government here and to the Commissioner in Anguilla. I was similarly surprised, earlier in the course of events, to find myself supporting the presence of British troops in Anguilla, which, again, is contrary to my general record. However, I want to join with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in tribute to their behaviour in Anguilla. It has been a constructive contribution. The way in which, during their period there, they have developed the island is something for which all of us should pay tribute.
It is possible that the Minister in his opening speech dealt with this matter,
1326
but I should like to know how far the Representative Council in Anguilla has endorsed the proposals in this Bill. I should like to see included in the actual terms of the Bill definite suggestions that the Representative Council in Anguilla should be associated with all the functions which are here described. For example, in Clause 1(2) the Commissioner is given great powers. I hope that he will be exercising those powers in association with the Council. Then, in subsection (3)(a) there is the decision that Anguilla shall not any longer form part of the Territory. Again, in certain circumstances which are mentioned, I would ask very strongly that this should be done in association with the Representative Council. Finally, there is the proposal of a new Constitution and, once more, I want to emphasise strongly that that should be applied only in consultation with the Representative Council.
Lastly, I wish to urge upon the Minister that the problem in this grouped Associated States is not likely to be the last among Associated States in the Caribbean. I mentioned this earlier in a speech; Hansard made me refer to Bermuda when, in fact, I was referring to Barbuda, but the noble Lord will know that these problems are arising in other grouped Associated States. I would repeat the plea I made earlier that there should be a conference of Caribbean countries, particularly those which are Associated States, to seek to prevent the kind of situation which has arisen in this Associated State from arising in other States as well. The solution would probably have to be on the basis of confederation rather than the unity which is now prescribed. May I, in conclusion, welcome the suggestion that we should have regular reports regarding development and also that there might be Parliamentary visits so that the Houses of Parliament might be kept in touch with developments there.
1.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the welcome they have given to this Bill. I would echo what they have said in their tributes to the British forces, the police and the public servants who have held

1327
the field for so long in Anguilla. I think the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Balfour are very valuable. I will certainly take note of them and pass them on to my right honourable friend. I do not wish to detain the House any longer—we have another Bill in front of us—but I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because I think he may have missed a part of my speech, that the people of Anguilla accepted these proposals—I think it was on June 22. I should also like to assure him that I am certain the Commissioner will exercise his powers in collaboration with the Council.
The noble Lord raised the rather wider question of what may happen in similar circumstances in the Caribbean. It is true that the countries out there are worried about this. It may well be that we shall see conferences and further developments. I would only repeat what I said in my opening speech: we feel that this is something which the islands must sort out for themselves. With that, again I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
1.12 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to
move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House at a time when the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the measures which were announced last Monday to stimulate the economy has been made possible by the major changes in public expenditure which were announced last October.
it was part of the White Paper New Policies for Public Spending published nine months ago that the Government announced a saving of £9 million in a full year by the provisions of the Bill before the House to-day. That is a significant sum, but what is of far greater importance is that this saving forms part of an overall design to discontinue, or
1328
reduce, public expenditure which benefits many people who may not need the subsidy that it contains and to concentrate Government help where it is most needed, and to reallocate the savings in scarce public resources to priorities which are crying out for attention. As part of this overall policy my right honourable friend has particularly announced record allocations to replace or improve old primary schools, while at the same time, as I hope to show the House, measures have been taken to protect those who might suffer from reallocation of resources.
The present situation for the supply of milk to schools is that local education authorities have a duty to provide milk to pupils in nursery and primary schools, to junior pupils—that is, those up to the age of 12—in middle schools, and to all pupils at special schools. Under this Bill the duty towards special schools remains quite unchanged; and pupils elsewhere will receive milk free up to the end of the summer term after their seventh birthday; that will mean up to an average age of seven years, six months; this is a lowering of the age for milk as of right, but the Bill expressly requires the supply to continue as before if the school medical officer recommends this. I have said"as before ", for essentially the same age groups of pupils will continue to have free entitlement on medical recommendation as were entitled when, in 1968, the previous Government restricted free milk to primary schools. Thus primary pupils will continue to be covered on medical recommendation, and so will those at middle schools up to their 12th birthday. In other words, the Bill follows the principle that those sectors of the school population now receiving free milk should, where their entitlement does not continue automatically, be eligible to receive it free if their health requires it.
While arrangements obviously differ from area to area, children are medically examined on their entry to school, or soon after, and this will provide the first check on a child's needs which can be re-examined at later stages; in this process all those who normally come into contact with pupils—that is to say, teachers, educational and other welfare officers, family doctors, school nurses—will be able to make representations to school medical officers about particular pupils who might be at risk. I do not want to minimise any of the devoted work which is done

1329
by the school medical service, nor do I want to minimise the initial work in this particular field; but I suggest that pupils are under pretty constant surveillance, for the reasons that I have just referred to, while they are at school. We on this side of the House do not see that this process under the Bill should become anything other than a normal part of the processes by which school medical officers identify children for special treatment for literally any one of a number of reasons.
Because the Bill makes provision for milk on health grounds, and thereby safeguards children who might be at risk if free milk were withdrawn, my right honourable friend did not engage in formal prior consultations, but the Chief Medical Officer was consulted informally and subsequently his Committee, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (known as COMA), endorsed his advice that it was not possible to predict whether or not the withdrawal of free milk from older primary school children would have any adverse effect on their health.
Three years ago, when the previous Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools, COMA had also been asked for its advice, and the Secretary of State at that time made it clear in the other place that evidence did not allow COMA to say whether the abolition of free school milk would affect health, and that that advice referred to all schools. However it is obviously vital that future standards of nutrition should be monitored; to effect this, COMA'S subcommittee on nutritional surveillance has suggested steps to be taken to check nutritional standards in widespread areas of the country. This is in addition to surveys already being undertaken in Kent, Newcastle and Birmingham. The Department of Health and Social Security, with the approval of COMA, is initiating dietary surveys of school children in a number of areas; and the data obtained from the National Food Survey will in future be analysed to find out how far milk no longer taken at school will be replaced by extra milk consumed at home, or in other ways.
In addition, we have the Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report on the State of the Public Health which reports on the general nutritional condition of schoolchildren, as well as other sectors of the
1330
population. This, together with the annual reports of local authorities' principal medical officers (which were referred to both in Committee and on Report in another place), shows that, generally speaking, the health of our children is of a high order, and lends weight to the view that our national worries on malnutrition are, mercifully, a declining factor.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore restricts free milk but continues to safeguard children with a medical requirement. But this clause also gives local authorities a new power to sell milk in all their schools, secondary as well as primary. At present local education authorities have no such power, although they can sell other drinks. This anomaly stems from the 1968 Act which abolished the provision of milk in secondary schools. I think it is absurd that milk may not be sold at schools, although the range of suitable other drink and food can, legally, be obtained in this way. Therefore a power to sell milk is being given to the local authorities in this Bill; exactly how they use it will be for their discretion, but certainly neither this Bill nor the regulations to be made under it will place any new duties or responsibilities on teachers.
My Lords, I have described the content of Clause 1(1) and (2) of the Bill. Subsection (3) continues the power of L.E.A.'s to provide milk in the new age range in non-maintained schools; subsection (4) repeals Section 3 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act, which governs the present arrangements for milk in schools, and the 1970 Act, which removed the anomaly in the 1968 Act which excluded junior pupils in certain middle schools. This point is taken care of in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 2 imposes similar restrictions, and provides similar powers for Scotland. If your Lordships have questions on this clause I will endeavour to reply to them at this stage, and, if your Lordships agree to the Motion for Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton will undertake this clause in Committee. Perhaps I may now clarify two points which affect the drafting of the clause. First, the Scottish Education Acts lay powers and duties in regard to the provision of milk and meals directly on education authorities, not requiring, as the English Acts do, those powers and duties to be imposed by the Secretary of State

1331
by regulation. Second, it happens that the Scottish Education Acts do not use the expression"school term ". It was therefore necessary to use a fixed date for the start of the new milk arrangements in Scotland.
Since the pattern of school holidays is rather more constant in Scotland than in England and Wales, it was thought possible to settle on August 1, which I am advised will fall within the summer holidays of all Scottish schools. I might add that since most English and Welsh schools break up for the summer holidays towards the end of July, the practical effect of the two clauses will be virtually the same in the respective countries. Clause 3 is in common form and enables the Secretary of State to make the necessary adjustments to rate support grant which will be necessitated by savings from the Bill.
I know that the House will wish to study carefully the effect of the Bill on those with different incomes. For several years now there has been a recognition—I think on both sides in politics—that some benefits have gone to people who do not need them, and that this process has deprived education of opportunities to tackle urgent priorities. We believe that the right way to tackle nutritional and health needs for individual primary pupils over seven is through the medical provision in the Bill. For other children, local education authorities will be able to provide daily milk on payment of about 10p per week. In this connection, it will be recalled that for parents who are taxpayers the new increased child tax allowances, worth about £15 in cash per year for each child, announced in the Budget, came into effect this month. For those families on low incomes, the family income supplement of £4 per week starts operating next month. At about the time that the new milk arrangements start to have effect in September, further increases in social security will take effect, not only for married couples on social security but for unemployment, for sickness and for widows' benefit. These increases, together with the family income supplement, will automatically bring more children into entitlement for free school meals. All these measures, the Government are convinced, will make it possible for families to buy milk without hardship
1332
for their children, who no longer get it free, that is to say for children who will not get it anyway on a medical recommendation.
This Bill will continue to make milk available free to the very young, to those who need it for health reasons, and, on payment, not only to primary pupils but also to the secondary schools who have been deprived of their supplies since 1968. The Bill implements the relevant part of the Government's White Paper New Policies for Public Spending. The savings arising from it will be £5·9 million this year and £9 million in a full year. These sums, however small some may think them, play their part in the general reappraisal of public spending with which the White Paper was concerned. They are part of the Government's plans for ensuring that users of social services who can afford to contribute rather more towards their cost should, in the public interest, do so, while those who need more help should be given it as of right. I would ask your Lordships to see this Bill against the background of the many substantial improvements announced by the Government in all forms of social benefit, some of which I have referred to in this speech, and in the context of my right honourable friend's priority for old schools, which is being so faithfully carried into effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
1.26 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the exposition he has given of the contents of this Bill. Had the Government wanted to put a gloss on it they could not have chosen a better speaker. We respect him greatly for his unfailing courtesy and for the very great care he takes in presenting whatever case he is asked to take on behalf of his Department. But, my Lords, I say right away that, despite anything he has said, and despite the fact that this is only a small Bill, we regard it as a highly controversial Bill, a destructive Bill, unwanted and unloved. If he could have produced any evidence of support in the country for it, he would have done so; and he has not been able to do so. It is a Bill that is pretty universally condemned.

1333
In listening to the noble Lord I was confirmed in the view I have been forming since this Government have been in office that if they are determined to do one thing, almost more than anything else, it is to dismantle the Welfare State. This Bill is fitting into a pattern. At the end of the day, when it has been fully realised, we shall have a situation which will make a mockery of the splendid services that were built up in the years following the war. What this Bill does—and it ought to be called Education (No Milk) Bill—is to take milk from the mouths of the 7 to 11-year-olds. If one is to interpret the claims made by the noble Lord towards the end of his speech with regard to replacing old primary schools, it is taking milk from the mouths of the 7 to 11-year-olds to make bricks, and the Government will try to claim some credit for the building. I should have thought it was generally recognised that good health was almost a prerequisite for obtaining maximum educational advantage in young children. As one would expect, the food value of milk has been established and recognised for a very long time, covering calory intake, protein intake calcium, iron, Vitamin A, thiamine, niacine, riboflavin and Vitamin C. It is quite the best kind of food that can be supplied, particularly to younger children.
The noble Lord told us that £5·9 million would be saved this year and £9 million in a full year. It became quite clear during his early remarks, when he spoke about expenditure, that that saving was intended not to provide new buildings for old but to help pay for the tax relief to people with incomes in excess of £4,000 per year. If the Government save what they hope to save on the two items, reduction of milk and increase in the price of school meals, they calculate that they will save altogether £38 million; and they need exactly £38 million in order to give tax relief on these higher incomes. That is the price that is being paid by little children for the relief that people in excess of £4,000 a year will enjoy as a result of income tax reduction. They will lose their free daily milk, unless the school medical officer says they need it.
The noble Lord has said that there is here no financial means test. He may not have used those exact words, but
1334
that was the general implication of what he was saying. Let us face it, despite all he said, however poor the family, there will be no free milk for the 7 to 11-year olds unless the school medical officer certifies need. It matters not if the breadwinner of the family is unemployed; if the child is to have milk at school it will have not merely to pay 10p per week, but it will have to pay 10p per week on the very small income. If there are two children in the family, that means an addition of 20p—which perhaps does not sound as much as 4s. used to sound in the old currency. Four shillings a week is an awful lot of money for the wife of an unemployed worker to find. I really should not like to be defending this Bill.
My Lords, I appreciate, and I think that the House will appreciate, what the Minister said with regard to the introduction of monitoring with regard to the effects of these proposals. But if the Government were sure that there would be no ill-effects, there would be no monitoring. The very fact that they feel it necessary to have a monitoring service indicates beyond question that they are not so positive on the point as they would have us believe. I want to ask the Minister a question, and I should like him to reply to it. If the report which they receive as a result of the monitoring system is adverse, will they reintroduce free milk for the whole of the age group? It is important for us to know this.
Why do we have to take risks? Why do it at all? I want to refer to the inquiry by members of the Social Nutrition Unit at Queen Elizabeth College. London, by Dr. George Lynch and Dr. Sylvia de la Paz. They have thought it desirable recently to publish an article in the New Scientist; they issue relevant findings of the primary data of their survey in regard to the food patterns of 4,382 schoolchildren. Dealing with primary schoolchildren, they say:
" Of primary children, 18 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively were estimated to be at risk in terms of insufficient intakes of calcium and riboflavin. We calculated that in the event of the withdrawal of school milk, and on the assumption that no compensatory changes in dietary habits occurred, the percentages of inadequate intakes referred to would increase to 34 per cent. and 39 per cent. Subsequent investigations of the 2,471 primary children included in the sample have shown that of those consuming milk drinks, 39 per cent. depended entirely on school milk for this source of nourishment."

1335
My Lords, on monitoring, they have this to say:
" The monitoring of children who are no longer able to obtain free school milk must be based on the acknowledgment that it cannot be known how they would have developed if the milk had been available."
It would be interesting to have the comments of the Secretary of State on that particular point.
I realise that some effort was made in the other place to cast doubts on the qualifications of Dr. Lynch and Dr. Sylvia de la Paz. It did the Government very little credit. If the Government were sure that there was no risk, they would not have introduced the monitoring service, and that these two doctors have voluntarily drawn attention to the risks involved makes us very greatly indebted to them.
I would have spoken on the advice that was the subject of a good deal of discussion in the other place at Committee stage—on what the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy had to say in 1968. May I, without going into too much detail, say that I am very impressed indeed by what is set out in column 104 of the proceedings of Standing Committee A for June 24, 1971, where my right honourable friend, the former Secretary of State, made clear the steps which the previous Administration took to get advice when they decided to deprive secondary schoolchildren of milk. I say quite plainly that I will not defend, as I never have defended, the decision to deprive secondary schoolchildren of milk. I believe that it was a tremendous mistake, and if we want to learn that lesson, the way in which we have been addressed to-day ought to be an encouragement to us to learn it and to learn it fast.
The noble Lord has said that the Government are doing nothing that their predecessors did not do; that they deprived children over the age of 11 of secondary school milk, and all the Government are doing is to continue the process by depriving the 7 to 11-year-olds. He could equally well stand at that Box and defend in that same kind of way depriving all schoolchildren of school milk. I hope that my Party, and those for whom I speak, will take full note of the way in which, if they make a slip
1336
or a mistake, the Party opposite, when it comes to office, will exploit it and take full advantage of the situation that has been created. General opinion in the country, professional and lay—and lay opinion in this field is important—is of the view that milk for this age group is valuable; that it ensures the avoidance of unnecessary risk. Having in mind the full sum of national expenditure, we are taking that risk for an amount of money that cannot be regarded as large or significant. I appreciate that the noble Lord has said that all these things add up and that all play their part. My Lords, we have not taken milk from the mouths of the 7 to 11-year-olds before in order to balance the budget. In any event, surely in an area where there is so much doubt, research should have preceded decision.
May I now turn to the issue of local authorities who believe that the proposal to cut milk for this age group is so wrong that they wish to pay for the milk themselves. The least the Government can do is to make it quite clear that they may do so if that is their desire. If some local authorities were doing that, it would at least provide a most useful basis for comparison for the monitoring exercise that is to be undertaken. Some wish, and some have indicated that they intend, to continue to supply milk to this age group. May I interpose a point here? If we cut off this supply of free milk for this age group, let the Government be quite sure that they will be able to obtain supplies of milk for the children in the lower age group, because it becomes less attractive to supply when there is such a substantial reduction as will be involved under this Bill.
If the Government refuse to permit local authorities to supply milk free to this age group. I can only say that it comes ill indeed for a Government which has talked about greater freedom for local authorities. It is no answer at all for the Government to say that they are giving local authorities greater freedom by allowing them to sell milk; that they have never been able to sell milk before and so this is an extension of freedom. May I ask the Minister to tell us who in the education service he thinks is going to sell this milk? I am sure that he knows that in our primary schools we do not have too many hands for all the things which need doing. We have heard of the

1337
difficulties of supplying free milk. What of the difficulties of calling on little children to pay?
Her Majesty's Government would do well to take note of what the Association of Municipal Corporations feel. I quote from a letter, dated July 16, written to my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale; I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised at what is says:
" It is the Association's view that, where a local education authority wishes to continue the supply of free milk for all pupils in primary schools up to the age of twelve, and is itself prepared to bear the expense without Government aid, then the authority should have power to do so."
That is a clear enough statement from the Municipal Corporations. What does the Association of Education Committees have to say? I quote from its Journal for July 2, 1971 which records the following resolution:
" Milk in schools: That this Annual General Meeting of the Association of Education Committees instructs the Executive Committee to pursue vigorously with Her Majesty's Government the terms of the Education (Milk) Bill with a view to such amendment as will enable local education authorities to make appropriate provision of free milk after considering the needs of their schoolchildren of junior school age."
With the greatest respect, I am bound to say that, in so far as the Government have said anything on this matter of allowing authorities to pay for milk if they think fit, the Government have not given any clear indication as to whether the local authorities are entitled to do so, and, if they do, whether they will get into any kind of trouble.
I should like, if I may (and I am sure that the Minister will again be aware of what I am referring to), to refer to a letter written by Mr. Norman Buchan, the Member of Parliament for West Renfrew to his right honourable friend on July 20. He wrote as a result of a deputation which attended on Mr. Edward Taylor, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office. It was in the light of Press reports of that meeting, and what that delegation had to say, that he wrote to the Secretary of State. He says this:
" I have now received corroboration from members of the deputation that the reports of what they were told by the Under-Secretary are substantially correct. I have been further informed by Baillie Peter McCann, the Chairman of the Law and Procedure Committee,
1338
they were assured that medical officers of health could delegate the undertaking of medical examinations."
Earlier in the letter he writes:
" You will remember that they were assured that ' preventive' considerations would he taken into account in deciding which children should receive free milk. The leader of the deputation, Dr. Docherty, said on leaving the meeting that it would mean that in complete districts in Glasgow most children would be able to receive milk."
Can we have some indication from the Minister today whether authorities will be entitled to distribute free milk on the basis that it has preventive value? If the answer is that they are not free to do so, I hope that that will be made quite clear to the members of the deputation, because if they misunderstood I think that their misunderstanding ought to be corrected. If the answer is, Yes, that local authorities have power to pay for free milk for this age group if they see fit, will it be in order for them to pay for milk for children within the catchment area of the school but outside the boundaries of the district concerned? I ask that because the question was put to me by members of a local authority who wish to do this very thing.
My Lords, I hope that in what I have said I have made it quite clear that we on this side believe that this Bill is ill-conceived. I hope that I do not express myself too strongly when I say that I think and hope it will be aborted. If the Government refuse, and continue with it, I must make it clear that at Committee stage we shall consider whether it is possible to make improvements. If we think that improvements can be made, we shall undoubtedly submit Amendments for your Lordships' consideration. I repeat, I regret that this Bill is before your Lordships. I believe that it is ill-conceived and, among the majority of the people of this country, unwanted and quite unloved.
1.48 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like first of all to pay tribute to Lord Garnsworthy's honest admissions about the Labour Party's and the Labour Government's initiative in this respect. It is all honour to him that he makes it quite clear that this unfortunate Bill before us now has a precedent in his Administration, and that he, as I know is absolutely true,

1339
opposed it, and will oppose such a Bill all the way down the line. I hope that I shall not be thought ungenerous, in taking up his honesty and his courage in making that remark, if I say that one of the things for which a great many of us find it difficult to forgive his Party and its recent Administration is that on so many things—milk, school meals, prescription charges, immigration and many others—they have in fact sold the pass to the Tories and made their job easier.
I am grateful for the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, produced in his usual careful and courteous way. It is indeed fortunate for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that in this House Scottish educational affairs are looked after by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, since I think that if he had had the task of defending both the squalid little Bills which have been unworthily dignified with the title of Education Bills since the Tory Government came in, it would have been enough to turn anyone away from politics. The Education (Scotland) Bill, which some of your Lordships will remember, at least had something to do with education, even though it was possibly something to do with dis-education. This Bill has very little to do with it at all. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said that it should be called the"Education (Non-Milk) Bill ". In my view it should be called the"Non-Education (Non-Milk) Bill ". That is the burden of my complaint to-day.
I think it is perfectly true to say that the dietary and nutritional effects of the Bill are in doubt. Cases have been made out on both sides. One of the difficulties is that we do not have sufficient evidence. Although this is not my main argument, there are a couple of points which should be made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is right in saying that malnutrition is a declining factor in our national life. It is still far too big. Secondly, we are entitled to more knowledge and more guidance, and I hope that I am not being rude to a very worthy body if I say that the quotations in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the actual activities of COMA would seem to reinforce the view that it may well be well-named. There
1340
is a case for saying that the nutritional effects may be marginal, but it must also be remembered that to those living on the margin, the marginal itself is of central importance. If noble Lords on the Labour Benches intend to put forward any Amendments to try to broaden the area in which free milk can be given, they will have our support.
Something that is totally wrong with the Bill has not been touched upon so far—the arithmetic that says that less school milk equals more primary schools. I accept that resources are limited, and my Party's educational panel, on which I serve, is rather proud of the fact that we try to work out the Party's educational policies strictly in terms of priorities within available resources. But it is weird arithmetic that balances a welfare matter against an educational matter. Educational priorities should be balanced against each other, and social welfare priorities should be balanced against each other. Free school milk, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave away in his speech, should be balanced against family allowances. It is part of the whole question of family provision. In an educational budget one should balance primary schools against nursery schools, and against higher education.
Nutrition is necessary for education, and I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on that. But nutrition is necessary for everything. Nutrition is necessary for life. Nutrition is necessary for the growing child and for the adult. These matters should belong to welfare, and not to educational budgets. If this had been a welfare matter, we would have seen the truth of what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, much more easily, that what is happening is that money is being taken away from social welfare for tax relief for the richer part of the community; instead we have the pretence that it is in order to produce more primary schools.
I do not know how school milk ever got into the educational budget. I suspect slipshod thinking. The sooner it is out again, the better. I hope that the Government, who presumably cannot be persuaded to withdraw the Bill, even in a week when they have cut taxes by £400 million a year, will at least register the basic mistake in structure. They should

1341
do so, if only for the sake of the Secretary of State. She is unpopular enough with educationists, parents and teachers, without"carrying the can "—if I may use a slightly unfelicitous expression—for cuts in family welfare, which is what the Bill is about. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has my utmost sympathy.
1.56 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in the course of the debates on means-tested benefits, I chose to focus attention on the cruel decision to deprive schoolchildren over 7 of free milk, and now the Bill—the miserable little Bill—which is to implement that decision is before the House. I deliberately described the Bill as a cruel measure, for in the long run the injury inflicted on the child by depriving it of essential nutrients, as described by my noble friend on the Front Bench, will not only be calculated to stunt the child, but will also reduce his or her capacity to assimilate knowledge. To that extent, it is an Education Bill.
Every teacher knows that the brighter pupils are always found among the better fed. Underfeeding inevitably results in inattention in the class. Medical inspection in schools was introduced at the beginning of the century because it was found that certain children were inattentive and certain children were backward, although it appeared that they had a high I.Q. Medical inspection was introduced, and it was found that when milk, food and meals in schools were introduced, these children responded in a remarkable manner, particularly in the degree of attention which they paid to the teacher.
Last week when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, answered questions on the reduction in the numbers of school meals, he appeared confused. I must admit that he had my sympathy. In these debates he has all our sympathies. It is extraordinary that the Government should pick particular Ministers, such as the noble Baroness who has just been described and who has been castigated throughout the country, and nice personalities like the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to do these very unpleasant jobs. He receives very little support from his own Benches.
1342
I was very struck last week when Lord Alport, a school governor, recognised the position as indefensible. He said, with regard to school meals, which is an allied subject, that he and the other governors know that the number of pupils taking school meals has dropped substantially since the increased cost was introduced, and that it was a great mistake for the Government to try to gloss over this and prove a situation which does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has tried to gloss over it. Last week he stated that people's eating habits have changed since the war. Would he tell us, when he winds up, how children's eating habits have changed? Milk is still the food which nature supplies free, in order that the species will survive. An adequate amount of proteins, carbohydrates and fats still constitutes a balanced diet, and they are all to be found in milk. We are not talking to-day of one item of a mixed diet. We are talking about a food which is a complete balanced diet containing all the constituents which a child needs. These are being withdrawn, with the excuse that money must be found for the reallocation of resources—an excuse which scarcely bears examination. Surely essential food for children is the very last place to make savings.
My Lords, if the Government are not motivated by principle, or fail to be persuaded by the moral issue involved, I am prepared to argue the case for expediency if that will help to kill this miserable, tawdry Bill. Most politicians know that there are certain basic needs, the most important being food, which rouse people to protest if they are denied. It is called, I believe,"The Politics of Food ", and has been demonstrated, time after time, in our social history. In my own Parliamentary experience, in the Ministry of Food, the reduction in the import of dried eggs nearly brought a Minister down. Further back still, the same principle was involved; the repeal of the Corn Laws concerned the price of bread, and the controversy over tariff reform boiled down to the price of food. I have no doubt that in every by-election in the next few years the Government's cruelty, the cut in free milk for children and for nursing and expectant mothers, will

1343
be used to symbolise their attitude to the most helpless in the community.
It is difficult to associate the name of Winston Churchill with milk, but one of the most important things that Winston Churchill ever said—and he was a very shrewd politician who had a knowledge of food politics and the importance of a healthy, well-fed community—was:
" There is no finer investment for any community than pushing milk into babies ".
I can imagine Winston Churchill's lurid language if a Minister had tried to reverse Britain's nutritional policy in his time.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, Lord Hailsham, has made some profound remarks in his time, but nothing can equal the wisdom he displayed when he said in 1960:
" One of the main reasons perhaps for the remarkable improvement in children's health in recent years has been the access of children to reasonable supplies of fresh milk."
How can the noble Lord who is answering repudiate these statements? They were made by men with knowledge of the world, with knowledge of the community, and with knowledge of the fundamental needs of the people. In this matter, the evil that men do will certainly live after them.
I want to come to the medical examination of these children, and how malnutrition is to be detected. The noble Lord has not given sufficient thought to this matter. He talks about monitoring as if he can take somebody, give him a dose of a glass of milk and everything will be all right. Does he realise that before they are chosen these children must show signs of malnutrition? Has he appreciated that fact? Has he appreciated that malnutrition takes some time to establish its symptoms? Has he also appreciated that the harm has already been done when it is detected? I listened to him very carefully this morning on that aspect, and I understand that the already over-stretched school medical service will be responsible for certifying children as suffering from malnutrition. We all know how short of doctors we are, how precious their time is. One has only to look at The Times of to-day, and at the British Medical Journal. There are protests about the limited staff in our
1344
hospitals, and now this Bill will direct the doctors of the country to weight-watching. When malnutrition is confirmed and the harm already done, then milk will be ordered to try to remedy matters.
The noble Lord has also said something about delegating medical authority. By"delegating medical authority"does he mean that he will tell the teachers, who have already objected to supervising school meals, that one of their new jobs is weight-watching and being a delegate to the medical service? This procedure is the very converse of preventive medicine. Preventive medicine is the essence of twentieth century medicine. I ask the noble Lord to answer this question specifically. When malnutrition is detected, the diagnosis made, and a desperate effort made to remedy the situation, how long will the child be given milk? Until it has re-gained weight? What will be the symptoms which will indicate that the child need no longer have milk? When it is cancelled—if, as I presume, it is then to be cancelled—will the child be allowed then to resume the way of life and dietary habits responsible for its condition in the first place?
These are the details which the noble Lord's Department has not thought out. It is so easy to sit in Whitehall and give these directions, but if the noble Lord thinks of the actual details of this measure, he will find all kinds of difficulties which he is asking the school and the doctor to face. If they are going to give milk until the child has re-gained a little weight and then take it away, I would regard it as a"cat and mouse"exercise which the doctors are ordered to undertake. I would say that this"cat and mouse"exercise will not be cheap, either in medical time, or teachers' time, or child health. It would be found much cheaper in the long run to supply free milk, and to re-establish a form of preventive medicine which has proved effective during the 49 years since it was first introduced.
It is a fallacy to assume that because high wages are received in some industries, then all children are adequately fed. Low wages are the rule in many fields, and the latest decision to give a free hand to some hire-purchase and credit sale"sharks"will worsen conditions for many families. The irresponsible parent, the

1345
parent of low inteligence, will succumb to the tally man at the door, and it is precisely in these families that the child will be underfed. If we are going to decide what the children should be given, and the guide should be the parents' income, then those who know the lives of these people know that it is a nonsensical approach. One has also to discover the expenses of these people, and one of those expenses I regard as hire-purchase commitment, which keeps the family poor.
One cannot disregard the fact that there are large numbers of these irresponsible and inadequate parents. They have little knowledge of dietetics, and what constitutes a balanced meal. Any increase in wages does not guarantee that the man gives his wife a commensurate increase in housekeeping money. A most curious argument is pursued in another place and here, that if a man's wages are increased, therefore the amount spent on food by the wife must necessarily increase. Of course, those two things do not follow. If the man is irresponsible and inadequate he sees to it that his wife does not know of the increase and she does not get an increase in the housekeeping allowance for food.
So we see that the child at home is completely dependent upon the parent. That is why a helping hand at school, even in the shape of milk, will improve his physique, will increase his self-confidence and enable him to rise above his environment. That is one thing that we should do to help this child to rise above his environment. I noticed that in the debate on this Bill in another place there were those who charged selfish men with drinking too much at the expense of their children. These charges have been made for generations and they fail to solve the problem. This has happened since alcohol was first sold, and this is precisely another reason why the introduction of free dinners and free milk fifty years ago represented a social service of the very first importance. Therefore it has been proved, time after time, that the care of children cannot be left solely to parents, and furthermore that education and welfare are interdependent and must be the responsibility of the State.
My final point is this. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that there had been no formal discussion of this question by the Department or by the Minister with any
1346
advisory committee. This is an astonishing state of affairs. As we all know, it was decided many years ago that certain departments, particularly our welfare departments, should have attached to them advisory committees of men and women who have special knowledge of the subject with which the department is generally concerned.
The Department of Health and Social Security is no exception. The Department of Health and Social Security has a powerful committee of knowledgeable, dedicated people, which includes Professor John Yudkin, a distinguished nutritionist, a man with an international reputation. I was not surprised that he expressed himself in the strongest terms on learning of a decision to abolish free milk for children over seven, without any consultation with this committee.
What an extraordinary attitude of the Ministry! So confident were they that they—all lay people—knew precisely what should be done in this important field, that they ignored those who had been asked to give them advice in matters of this kind. I can only say that Professor Yudkin's attitude reflects the views of local councillors of both Parties throughout the country. No doubt, when they come to write of the 1970s, social historians will not fail to condemn the reactionary attitude of this Government.
2.14 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to make a very few brief comments on this Bill, because I think it is obviously open to a few Amendments. I do not wish to indulge in any wholesale condemnation of the Bill, but I think that some Amendments are highly desirable. I am dealing with the matter rather in relation to the amount of authority which should be vested in such matters at a local level.
It seems to me that where a local education authority wishes to continue the supply of free milk to all pupils in primary schools up to the age of 12, and is itself prepared to bear the expense without Government aid, then the authority should have the power to do so.
If the Bill is allowed to go through in its present form, it would seem that only local authorities which are not themselves local education authorities may be able

1347
to resort to the use of the so-called"free penny"under the provisions of Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963. It seems to me that whether or not this power can be used for the continued supply of milk without cost to parents or pupils, is a matter of legal opinion which, if challenged, can presumably only be settled in court. Nevertheless, it may well be that the power can be used for that purpose, and it seems highly unsatisfactory if local government is to be left in the position where some authorities will be able to pay for milk supplies to all children in primary schools, and others not.
During the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, stated:
" I assure the House—I hope that this will explain the matter—that the powers of local authorities under Section 6 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963, and Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, will remain. Those are the penny rate provisions. Obviously, it is not for me to interpret those Acts to local authorities, which have available to them highly competent advice…. I hope that that clarifies the matter to some extent. I cannot put myself forward as a lawyer, and, as I say, the local authorities have highly competent advice available to them. But nothing in the Bill has changed the situation as regards the penny rate provisions."
With the greatest respect, I am bound to say that the statement on behalf of the Government does not really explain the matter. It is, of course, agreed that the powers of local authorities relating to the penny rate will remain. The question surely is can they be used? Expenditure can only be incurred under the provisions of the 1963 Act if the authority has no other statutory power available. If there is such a power, then they must comply with the terms of that power. Therefore, we have the position that, under the Education (Milk) Bill, local education authorities will have the power to supply milk and, in accordance with Clause 1(2) of the Bill, must recover the cost from the pupils or their parents. On the other hand, it would seem that local authorities which are not local education authorities could still use the penny rate, because they are not the authorities which have the power to provide milk, subject to the limitation of having to recover the cost.
1348
In all the circumstances, and despite the reply given on behalf of the Government, it would still seem reasonable to resolve the doubts about the powers of local authorities by amending the Bill to ensure that all local education authorities have the discretion to continue the supply of free milk, even though the cost of so doing is not reflected in the calculation of the rate support grant from the Government. This seems to me a proper matter for local decision, and it is also in full accord with the statement in paragraph 8 of the Government's recent White Paper on Local Government in England, namely:
" a vigorous local democracy means that authorities must be given real functions—with powers of decision and the ability to take action without being subjected to excessive regulation by central government through financial or other controls."
I hope that the Government will be willing to consider some sort of Amendments on the Committee stage, so as to give local authorities the powers to which I have referred.
2.20 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, like so many other noble Lords, I, too, commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on having to defend an indefensible Bill. I sympathise with him more than I do with his right honourable colleague, because I think that his right honourable colleague will go down in history as the right honourable Mrs. Bumble. I say that because this is not just turning the clock back; this is turning the calendar back a long, long way. This Bill has the smell of Charles Dickens. It is so mean and contemptible, so utterly indefensible, that it is a shame we should even be discussing it in this day and generation. The day on which we are discussing it is the day when we have an announcement of 829,000 unemployed. That takes us back to 1940. We are discussing it in the week in which, in St. Stephen's Crypt, we paid tribute to a noble and revered colleague, Lord Boyd-Orr. This is an insult and an affront to the memory of John Boyd-Orr, the man who pioneered this whole business of social nutrition.
I personally find this matter impossible to discuss without emotion because it is so deep and meaningful to me. I should remind your Lordships of the history of

1349
this, which exposes the extent of this betrayal. When I first knew John Boyd-Orr, back in 1932, he was carrying out a survey of the feeding of the children of the unemployed in seven cities. At that moment he was Director of the Rowett Research Institute, concerned with animal nutrition, and, as he pointed out to me at the time, it was very easy for him, as Director, to convince farmers of the benefit of nutrition in terms of their animals because they could always measure the dividend in visible returns. But he could not convince anyone, including the farmers themselves, of the meaning of this to children. It was his awareness, during the depression of 1931–32, which developed into the survey of Food, Health and Income.
I want to quote from John Boyd-Orr's own account of this in his autobiography, As I Recall. His Research Institute was given £5,000 to carry out a survey to discover ways in which the farmers could get rid of their product. He stated:
" A test was made on schoolchildren in the seven largest cities in Scotland and in Belfast in Northern Ireland "—
not inappropriate at this moment, again, because this was a depression period and the 829,000 unemployed this morning includes a very large fraction in Belfast. He continued:
" One group of children was given from a half to a pint of milk every day at school, some receiving whole milk and others separated milk which contained the proteins, vitamins and minerals of whole milk. As a contrast another group was given biscuits of calorie value equal to whole milk. The test ran for seven months and showed a marked improvement in the health of the children and in their rate of growth, the improvement being most marked in the children of the poorest families. The Department of Health in Scotland was asked to supervise another test on the same lines and this showed the same results—the great improvement in health due to the increased consumption of milk. Then in 1931 Mr. Torn Johnston…obtained a grant to carry out a test on mothers and children in Lanarkshire. It showed the same beneficial results due to increased milk consumption that the earlier tests had done."
When Walter Elliot saw the results of these tests, he put a Private Member's Bill through the House of Commons enabling the local authorities in Scotland to provide free milk to schoolchildren in Scotland. This extended to England. The message also went to a gentleman called Mr. Harold MacMillan, M.P., in Stockton-on-Tees, and his work in the
1350
hungry 'thirties and in the The Middle Way was based on these experiments, these tests and these exposures. He had to listen not only to the voice of John Boyd-Orr and the evidence of the figures; he had to listen to people like Dr. McGonagal, the Medical Officer of Health who was there to demonstrate in his own constituency just what this meant. I am not surprised to find, for example, that Newcastle is fighting to be allowed to pay for school milk, because there again we have this wonderful example of continuous surveys and dedicated work by a local authority in carrying this through—work by people like Sir James Spence, famous in nutrition.
This is so profoundly important that it cannot be allowed to go by default. We are a small group here in this House to-day. The significance of this whole event is one which not only shakes the foundations of our Welfare State and means the erosion of our Welfare State; it betrays everything we have been trying to tell the rest of the world to do. For instance, what inspired or compelled John Boyd-Orr before and after the First World War was the fact that he was living with the people in Glasgow who were manifestly suffering from malnutrition. It was here in those days, when you had to invent The Bantam Regiment so that we could send the runts, the"peelie wallies ", the"keelies"into the front line to fight in a world war.
Then we had the evidence in the 1930's of this appalling malnutrition. My Lords, many of you must remember what the face of hunger really looks like, because you saw it in our own country in the 1930's. We are not talking about some abstract, remote thing or something you see on"the box "; we saw the face of hunger in the 1930's. Some of us saw it in our own mirror. Therefore, the Government are going back and betraying a whole history which has its root in one of the greater crimes of ignorance in the earlier part of this century. However, we no longer have the excuse of ignorance, because it was all exposed 40 years ago, when John Boyd-Orr computed compassion, made meaningful what people felt and saw that it was made meaningful in terms from which no Government from then onwards was ever going to escape This is something we have to hold

1351
on to, because this contemptible Bill is the beginning of the destruction.
Make no doubt about it, my Lords: we are told that the evidence in this country of the physique of our people apparently justifies the start of a process of erosion. This very day you have 820,000 unemployed, and you are going to get the same process developing again as developed in the 'thirties. We demonstrated in the 1930's, through the committees against malnutrition and, eventually, in that most wonderful demonstration to which all Parties and all peoples were party during the war, that we could establish an overall nutritional base for the country, regardless of class. We were not then dealing merely with baling out our consciences by helping the poor; it applied to everyone. The whole base of reckoning of school meals, school milk, and so on, established beyond a peradventure that a nation which has a sound basis of this kind can not only fight a war, but emerge from a war far healthier than it went in. If we are to"sell out"that achievement of 30 years by sitting back and saying that we will wait until there are clinical manifestations of malnutrition, that will be too late. Once there is clinical evidence of malnutrition, the rot has already set in.
My Lords, I have been concerned with malnutrition throughout the world, with famine and other conditions. I hope that we shall never see a famine situation, but in many countries, even those not suffering from acute famine, one can see the manifestations of malnutrition which is a progressive thing through neglect of the necessities. The Food for Peace Agency in the United States, with which I was involved at one time, was able to show that if only we could have enough milk, even dried milk, one could prevent what was manifestly happening to millions of young people in the world, the children who were not receiving the adequate protein and vitamins which were necessary to them at this stage of growing—not just in the post-weaning period but in the stage of growing into a puppy state of exercise and enthusiasm. That is the age of 7 and beyond.
One goes on from there and finds that one has now crippled a generation by merely providing, as Food for Peace had done up till then, carbohydrate foods to
1352
the neglect of protein. All the time we were trying to find substitutes for milk, like incaparina or any other kind of protein source; food supplements which would provide for the liquid milk which was not available to the hungry world. If the world could have had enough milk, UNICEF dried milk or any other kind of milk, most of the problems would have been solved. In this country we are now being told that, in order to buy refrigerators or"hi-fi"sets on hire-purchase, we are to cut out free milk. The Minister said so. He said that the result of the cutting of the milk in order to provide the cutting of the taxes had made possible the hire-purchase of the mini-Budget.
This is quite intolerable, because, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill has pointed out, one is putting the hire-purchase commitment on the doorstep at the expense of the children. Do not let us get into the position where we argue as to whether parents should be taking care of this nutrition. Responsible parents do; irresponsible parents do not. One does not always realise that if there is a situation of poverty, which we are having again, with unemployment, and the mother has to go out to work in order to back up the family income, then the children will be neglected, not by irresponsibility, but by the nature of the case. Therefore one is saying at another critical time in our social history that one is acting on the trivial pretext—that old story about getting father back from the pub. We have had it all our lives, these stories about the improvident poor drinking their children into the grave. This is something that we cannot now accept, even if we feel novelettish about it. The fact is, my Lords, that we have a direct and demonstrable national and social responsibility to look after our next generation—even if the parents are neglecting them—and that irresponsibility is not true of 99 per cent. of parents. One must ensure this raft in nutrition which is school milk, and which is the cheapest way of buying a measure of protection against the deficiencies that arise from other causes.
I have never quite understood, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, why this ever came into education at all. We know of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has reminded us, that it was realised 40 or 50 years ago that

1353
if children were not fit, they could not learn. Again, if I may cite my friend, John Boyd Orr: he demonstrated in Aberdeen with Professor Rex Knight, the psychologist, that by proper feeding of children one released their IQ. The one thing that could be demonstrated in reverse was that if they were not getting food, they were numb and stupid and quite unrepresentative of their IQ. That was demonstrated again beyond peradventure. Therefore we are dealing to-day with something which I insist is not just a question of whether we are saving £9 million—God help us if we deny the children of this country the basic privilege of a future physique, as John Boyd Orr demonstrated in 1932, when he predicted that there would be a generation 2½ inches taller. He was right. The Bantams of the Highland Light Infantry disappeared; even in Glasgow they have disappeared. We now have a generation which is 2½ inches taller than it was a generation ago.
We shall betray not only the present children, but a posterity. We cannot foresee what will happen in the next generation and beyond through a departure from this high established norm which we have been able to achieve. My Lords, I plead that, whatever happens in the House in terms of the niggling and wiggling of this Bill in Committee, you never forget that what we are talking about is something which is fundamental not only to education, but to the Welfare State and to the world.
2.39 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments. First, as other noble Lords have done, I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his very clear and acceptable presentation of the Bill. I suppose that every Government who seek to recast an important social service must necessarily expect that they will be met by strenuous opposition from those to whom that particular social service is of special importance. That, of course, has happened this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who introduced this measure, has had to encounter considerable and strongly expressed opposition. Nobody complains of that. That is what noble Lords on the other side are for. But it is significant that a social service of this nature, which makes a particular
1354
appeal to persons who value the social services, should be met with such strenuous and determined opposition.
I have listened to every speech this afternoon. Looking back on the debate, it is difficult to see where is the evidence upon which the expectations of the misfortune which would follow the withdrawal of this part of the school meals service is based. Nothing has been disclosed in the debate that could be accepted as real evidence that the results which have been forecast as a result of the withdrawal of this section of the school meals service are likely to be realised. Before one condemns the proposals of the Government, one must be certain that there is some practical alternative. There is no evidence this afternoon that any injury has been done by withdrawal of meals on previous occasions. After all, the Labour Government withdrew the schools meals service from the secondary schools. Nobody has claimed that that action was followed by any of the misfortunes which had been forecast. Indeed, I do not think that any noble Lord has suggested that harmful results have followed from the action which the Labour Government then took. Taking the broader field, has anybody been able to suggest any real grounds—when I say"real grounds"I mean any grounds worthy of acceptance as evidence—that the withdrawal of this section of the school milk service, for it is only a section, is likely to be followed by the kind of disasters which have been forecast this afternoon? In the absence of anything which could be called evidence that harm will be done by this withdrawal, surely the Government are quite right in pressing it a little further. No change in the social services has taken place with such adequate safeguards as are planned for this service. There is to be the monitoring system. It is all very well to sneer at it, but it may produce most interesting results. I see the noble Baroness shakes her head, but even she failed to find any evidence among the mass of medical evidence which she collects. She failed to find any real evidence that the action being taken by the Government was likely to be followed by the results which have been forecast.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. Does he not realise that

1355
milk was introduced in the first place because the evidence for its need was there? Monitoring does not mean going round and finding people very well fed and therefore congratulating ourselves; we are going to monitor chiefly to find out those who are suffering from malnutrition. We gave children milk because of the situation that was found to exist in the past. To say, for instance, that everybody is well fed now is an indication that that policy was the right one. The reason we get so incensed is that this measure is putting that policy into reverse. Unless we take action now, the harm will be done.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, if that were so, why did these consequences not follow from the withdrawal of the secondary school milk?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Because, my Lords, the children were not seven years old. The noble Lord, who I know has had so much experience as the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, must realise that we are talking about two different things. He is talking about the 11-year-old. We are talking about the seven-year-old. This Bill proposes to take milk from the over-sevens. I can assure him that a child of seven is an entirely different proposition from one of 11.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, what I am pointing out to the noble Baroness is that the earlier proposal proposed to take milk from children between 12 and 14 in the secondary schools. That was not followed by any of the disasters which had been forecast. One must really base one's judgment in these matters on some real estimate of what is likely to happen. In this case, there will be the most complete medical examination before a final decision is taken. No social service has ever been safeguarded in the way in which this proposal is to be safeguarded.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the monitoring service will not cover the whole of the country, but only selected areas? When he talks about things not being done on this scale before, does he realise that the monitoring exercise will be quite a limited one and could easily miss out in some area of the country where nobody
1356
has thought it worth while to conduct it?
LORD ILFORD: Yes, my Lords; I am well acquainted with that fact. As I understand it, the monitoring system, as the noble Lord says, will be carried out in certain districts first. Of course, if it is a testing system, that is the proper way to use it.
I do not desire to add anything further to what I have said. However sympathetic one may feel in this matter, and however convinced that some misfortune is likely to follow from it, let us at any rate not allow ourselves to be moved this afternoon by anything short of the real circumstances of the case.
2.47 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for long. I am not an authority on education and I am not a medical officer, but I do know something about milk. Way back in 1932 I contracted to sell milk of certified standard at the ordinary milk price to Northamptonshire County Council, so that children should have it in school. I never had a complaint; I never had a bottle go wrong; and the children improved in their mental and physical condition. I am all for seeing that every child has milk. It was iniquitous that the Labour Government reduced school milk to the 11-year-olds, but it is far worse for the Tory Government to take the reactionary measure of reducing the age for free milk to under seven. That is what I want to say on school milk.
This Bill seems to me iniquitous. I do not see how one can make it any better by Amendments. Personally I should like to see it thrown out at this Second Reading, and sent back to the Commons so that a better Bill is produced. It is a reactionary measure. In our day and age, it is terrible that we should starve our children in order to prove that the Government are wrong. I hope that the Second Reading goes to a Division. I shall certainly vote against it.
2.49 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I apologise for holding up the House on a Friday afternoon for another few minutes. I would have put my name down as a

1357
speaker, but I thought it most unlikely that I should be able to get here at all in time for this debate. As it happened I came in during the speech of the noble Lord, Beaumont of Whitley. I am very sorry that I did not hear the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, because I really would like to know what he said in favour of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who does not seem to be any longer in his place, made a number of points. I shall not go into them in any detail. After having listened to the evidence of the experiments of Boyd-Orr and other facts, to say that there was no evidence seemed to me rather remarkable. Another remarkable thing the noble Lord said was that of course he was not surprised that there was opposition on the other side of the House. Why should there be two sides in the House when one is discussing the nutrition of children from 7 to 12 years of age? Is there a side of the House which hopes that they will not flourish and another which hopes that they will? That struck me as a most remarkable statement. Then, of course, he compared them with secondary schools which, as others have said, is a different matter.
I do not want to go over all the evidence again, but I should like to say something about monitoring. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, again mentioned this question of monitoring. This is absolute nonsense in my view. You cannot tell whether a person is getting enough food unless he is absolutely starving, in which case it will show in a very short time. These are marginal effects, and you cannot tell whether a child is getting proper nutrition until, as certain speakers have said, it is really too late to put matters right.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, also said that there was no evidence that if we stopped this milk the children would suffer. Nobody could absolutely guarantee what is going to happen in the future, but, as other noble Lords have said, this was an experiment done in the past which had certain effects. If you reverse the experiment, most people who follow logical lines of reasoning would say that you would then reverse the effects.
1358
The only thing that could be said is that if a child has a really nourishing diet, with plenty of milk in it, provided by the parents, then the State need not come in. If we had ideal conditions and a flourishing State and we did not have any feckless or ignorant parents, this would be a reasonable statement. In other words, if somebody else provides the milk, then that is all right. When we have high unemployment, higher, as I read in the newspapers, than at any time since 1940, is this the time to try a mean, despicable experiment of this kind?
2.53 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, 3 o'clock on a Friday afternoon is not a time to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I intervene in this debate primarily on a point of clarification. Even in the face of so many experts on this subject—very sincere experts who know a good deal more about the medical aspects than I do—I should remind the House that we are now talking about the 1970s, when the nutritional value of food has, surely, made a good deal of progress since the 1940s when, in the days of the late Lord Boyd-Orr, there was a much greater need for calories in children because of the very restricted diet. I merely put that forward as a point.
I should like to ask my noble friend one point of clarification of which I have not given him notice, but perhaps he can look at it between now and the next stage. In Clause 1(b) it requires a certificate given by the medical officer of health of the local authority to state whether the child should or should not have school milk. May I ask my noble friend whether the family doctor should not be consulted first and thus work in liaison with the medical officer of health? Would this not bring about a more elaborate decision and a more satisfactory decision than consultation with the medical officer of health, which might lead to some delay? It seems that this is a point which might be looked into, particularly for the benefit of the child himself or herself.
2.55 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to make one short intervention in this discussion. At the beginning of this controversy, the Secretary of State said that she wanted to get this money which

1359
is being spent on milk and meals in order to improve the conditions of the schools, many of which were in a very bad state. That reminded me of the fact that during the time of the 1930s, which have been referred to by more than one speaker this afternoon, researches were carried on on the North-East coast into the effects on the health of people, particularly the children, of living under poor housing conditions and deprived of the proper diet. It was proved in quite a number of cases—I have it very clearly in mind—that the effects of malnutrition are very much worse than living in poor housing conditions.
It seemed to me that at this time this was a very important point to which the Secretary of State should have given much more close attention than she did: that these children could survive poor conditions in the schools—though, for goodness' sake! let us get rid of them as soon as possible—but that they could stand up to poor conditions in the schools with a much better chance of success than they would if deprived of their milk and their food.
2.57 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, particularly at this hour, but I am afraid I cannot sit silent and listen to this Bill being piloted through. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has hinted, one of the reasons why school milk was originally introduced was because many children were so undernourished that they were not able to take full advantage of the instruction that was offered in their schools. The consequences of the introduction of free school milk have been enormous.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, though I often do, particularly on matters which concern local government, when he said that the abolition of free school milk in the secondary schools had not been attended with any disasters. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill pointed out, in the secondary schools we were dealing with children of 12 and above, whereas in the Bill that is now before the House we are dealing with children from the age of 7 years upwards. From the age of 7 years upwards is when the very foundations of their future physique are being laid.
1360
Like so many of your Lordships, I speak as a grandfather. I have four little grandchildren, ail of whom, I am pleased to say, are very bonny and bright, but there are other grandfathers and grandmothers in the country who may not be so fortunate. For the upbringing of their children they may be reliant, to some extent, upon the free school milk they receive. They may come from under-nourished families; they may come from normally nourished families, but whatever be the case the addition of this free school milk is certainly something which fortifies them for their later years.
I feel that this is a very mean, miserable and class-conscious Bill—and it is probably almost indecent to mention the phrase"class-consciousness"in your Lordships' House, but it is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that he was giving £38 million in tax relief to the people with incomes of over £4,000 and £38 million is precisely the sum that is going to be taken away from another section of the community in charges for school meals and school milk.
We have to ask ourselves whether milk is really a nourishing food. It is hammered into us by every propaganda organisation in the country, even by the Ministry of Agriculture, that milk certainly is a nourishing food. It provides us with proteins and calcium and all the other things that may not be essential to me and to you but are absolutely essential to a child between the ages of 7 and 15. Do we want to see once again a rickety generation of children? It is no use waiting until all the monitoring has been done or until all the medical officers of health have carried out their inspections. That will be too late. We shall be closing the stable door after the horse has vanished. Every piece of evidence shows that the school milk for children has worked wonders for the physique of the rising generation who, as my noble friend, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, are to be the fathers and mothers of the coming generation. If we now turn back and prejudice these children in their growing years, we may be doing untold harm to future generations.
It has been suggested, I know, that some parents are negligent. It was always so. Are we to visit the sins of the parents upon the children? If a

1361
child is so unfortunate as to have a negligent parent, surely that is where our ideas of social welfare come in—to protect the weak. It is not always the case that parents are negligent. We know for a fact that at present over 9 million women go out to work. Many of them are mothers. Some of them probably go out to work in order to find something to do; they do not like sitting idly at home. However, many of them go out to work because the main breadwinner in the family does not earn sufficient to keep the family in comfort. Naturally it follows that when these wives are out at work all day, full attention cannot be given to the children. That is where the community steps in and says,"These little children do not get all that they should from their parents, either because of negligence or because of economic necessity, so we, as the responsible directors of the community, must step in to see that they do not suffer.
My Lords, I said that this was a class-conscious Bill. I said that it was a class-conscious Bill because the £38 million to be saved on school meals and school milk will be handed over as a bonus to the richer sections of the community—those with £4,000 or more a year. This has been done at a time when unemployment is increasing at an almost unprecedented rate, when the price of food and the cost of living have gone up by 12 per cent. in a single year—the most rapid advance ever known in our peace-time history—a time when rents are going up; a time when rates are going up; a time when fares are going up; a time when ever and ever increasing pressure is being imposed upon the family budget. If ever there was a time for a Government to indulge in an experiment of this type, it is not now, in a year of so much suffering.
The introduction of free school milk was one of the greatest reforms within our recollection, resulting in the lifting up of the physical standards of our young people to something never before known. Only last night I looked at an old photograph taken of the children in my class at school. We were a pretty good class—I was in it. My friend Stanley Evans, of"featherbed farming"fame, was in it. We were a pretty good
1362
lot. But there were, among those children, some very skinny, rickety kids, and I do not want to see that kind of thing happening again.
The least I can ask is that if the Government will persist in punishing the children of the present generation as they propose, they will give the local authorities power to provide free school milk in the future from the rates. It would be a scandal if that burden had to fall upon the ratepayers, but it is better that it should fall upon ratepayers than that the children should be penalised so that sums of money can be handed over to surtax payers. What is £9 million—the sum to be saved by the cessation of school milk? What is that to be set against the welfare of our children? We are told by the Marketing Board to drink an extra pint of milk a day. Presumably the Board, which has some measure of Government support, is telling us the truth when it tells us that milk is good for us. Why take it away from the most deserving section of the community?
We have been assured that the Government will not act blindly in this matter; that they will stop the school milk, but that they will then subject the children to periodic medical examinations to see whether there is any deleterious effect. However, the medical monitoring will take place only in three towns: Croydon, which is a fairly prosperous area, Bristol, which is a fairly prosperous area, and Sheffield, which is not an unprosperous area. Why do we not have some monitoring in some of the more depressed areas: Tyneside, Tees-side and Merseyside? A different picture might then emerge.
This is one of the biggest scandals we have had to deal with since the Government took office. I know that one can ask why we should subsidise people. I could appreciate that if the rule were applied all round. We subsidise farmers. We subsidise landowners. We shall be subsidising the big industrial concerns. They are important, naturally. But what is more important to the nation than the children now growing up, the children between the ages of 7 and 11, when the very foundations of their future physiques are threatened? Monitoring is all right in its way. This monitoring is not satisfactory because it is to be

1363
applied only in three selected areas, instead of some of the most depressed parts of the country. Why should we have to wait until the damage is done and until medical officers have reported that this child, that child and the other child are suffering because of the action which the Government propose to push through this House to-day?
3.7 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to his schooldays and the condition of some of the boys who were at school with him. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, called upon the House to see that children can rise above their environment. It is true to say that the noble Lord has risen above his environment, probably at every stage of his life. We always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, and he has, if I may say so, ended a debate in which the majority of your Lordships in the House at this moment have spoken. A great deal of advice has been given to the Government, and I can assure your Lordships that it will be looked at very hard indeed.
I ask your Lordships on the other side to accept a point from this side of the House, even if we do not see eye to eye on methods. When we put it to your Lordships that the submission of this Bill is part of a re-look at social security, and social security as it comes into the educational field, we are being sincere. We do not say that one figure exactly balances another figure, but we say that by re-allocating resources—an expression which, as I reminded your Lordships in replying to a question a week ago, is not a new expression and has been used by previous Ministers of Education in the quite recent past—we are genuinely trying, whether noble Lords agree that we are doing the right thing or not, which for the moment is another matter, to divert resources to what we believe are crying priorities. If any of your Lordships have looked at the newspapers this morning and seen some of the views of the teaching profession on schools as they have been left to the 1970's, your Lordships will agree that, although we may disagree about the means, at least we are being sincere in our objectives.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has forgotten to tell us what the said Associations have said about the decision to deprive children of 7 to 11 years old of milk?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, is brushing aside completely what I have tried to put forward to your Lordships—I hoped in a reasonable manner. I was saying that I appreciate that we can disagree about the means. What I was asking the House to accept, before I get on to the other points, is the fact that we are being sincere in our objectives. I say this in the light of remarks which have been made in the debate to-day about the objectives of my right honourable friend. They really are objectives which, at the end of this decade rather than at the beginning, will be seen in their true light. My right honourable friend is being as good as her word in trying to tackle the really desperate legacy of some of the old schools in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me specifically about general health and also about monitoring. I will not travel over the ground again about the standard of nutrition. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred to the high standard of nutrition in the country and so I will not go through this again. Indeed, your Lordships who have read the Committee and Report proceedings in another place will see that references were made to certain statistics in part of Wales and also generally in Scotland, to show the increase and improvement in nutrition standards, and not the decrease.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt. I do not like interrupting in principle, but even if nutritional standards are increasing in those parts of the country, unemployment is also increasing in them at the moment.
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, I will come to Lord Leatherland's point in a moment or two. I believe that the system laid down in the Bill of milk on medical recommendation will continue the ability to reverse the dangers of malnutrition. I know the differences of

1365
opinion on this subject, but that is the belief of the Government. Noble Lords opposite have countered this by warnings, dire warnings in some cases, of potential malnutrition, and the views of Dr. Lynch at Queen Elisabeth College, and of Dr. Yudkin too, have been called in aid. May I simply say, on the survey which is being carried out by the distinguished sociologist, Dr. Lynch, and his colleague, Dr. S. de la Paz, that there is no final report yet available. An undertaking has already been given in another place that when the final report is available—and it is awaited just as eagerly by the Government as by noble Lords opposite—it will be referred immediately to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. But until then, I am sure your Lordships would acquit me of trying to get round this point by saying that final judgment on Dr. Lynch's words must be suspended.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not want to be a nuisance about this matter, but there has been much controversy about it and the status of the two doctors has been questioned in another place. The noble Lord is now saying that we should wait for the final report. Will he acknowledge that they are so concerned that they themselves have made an interim report? So I think we may take it that they are genuinely disturbed. It is because of the Government's proposals that they have made this interim report. That is the point that really needs to be taken. The Government having declared themselves on this matter of policy, they feel that it is their duty to issue a warning of the consequences as they think they may well be.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is quite right to bring these matters to the House. But I also have to point out to noble Lords who may not be familiar with this subject that the interim report of Dr. Lynch was presented as a document described as first and fundamental impressions of an interim analysis. It was based on questions to 4,300 school children who were asked to recall everything which they had eaten in the previous 24 hours, and really this is not the sort of survey which can be put to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy which has been
1366
described by noble Lords opposite as a body with extremely distinguished people in it, who will be looking, with the greatest of hope, to the work which Dr. Lynch may produce of a survey which is based on something rather more of a clinical nature than questions asked of a sample of school children.
Dr. Yudkin, who is a highly distinguished man, is of course a member of COMA and I can only remind the House of the evidence which I referred to earlier in the debate and which has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. Neither in 1968 nor in 1970 could COMA advise that withdrawal of free milk in the secondary or primary schools would be harmful to nutritional standards. Your Lordships may wish to debate this further, but that is a statement of fact.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: It is also a double negative.
LORD BELSTEAD: A double negative can also be a statement of fact. I would have thought that this would at least give noble Lords cause to think, when the Committee have given the same advice to two successive Governments within the space of three years. On the point about children going to school without breakfast and without adequate food for the remainder of the day, may I say that it seems to me that the risk of ill-effects is probably greater in the secondary field, bearing in mind young people's attitude to food and the pace of modern life. Lord Ilford, put to the House the point that if the withdrawal of milk from secondary school pupils was liable to lead to malnutrition, why did we now not know that this was so. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, with her professional expertise, quite rightly said—and I accept it at once from her—that older children are different from younger children. At the same time, if the Government are being castigated because, it is said, the removal of free milk, quite apart from the new powers of the sale of milk, or the provision of milk on medical recommendation, is per se something that is bound to lead to malnutrition, I think it it is fair to ask where is the evidence of that malnutrition since 1968.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, then may I say that it is equally fair to

1367
ask the Government why they have undertaken no exercise to discover whether, in point of fact, there has been any ill-effect. Why have the Government undertaken no exercise to measure whether, as a result, there has been any damage, because at the moment I think the position is that no one has undertaken such an exercise. We really do not know the consequences; whatever the previous Government thought may have happened, I think nobody has measured the consequences.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I did give your Lordships details of (I know the noble Baroness does not like the term; and nor do I) the monitoring processes which are going on at the moment. One to which I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, did not give quite enough credence is the exercise that is being carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security. If your Lordships would like to look back at my initial words when I opened this debate, you will find that I devoted a considerable passage to the exercises which are going on at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, then brought up the most important point, of local authority autonomy. But before I refer to that may I just put a general point? I would suggest that money which is spent entirely from the rates is none the less public expenditure. The plan of this Government of last October, contained in New Policies for Public Spending, was to reduce public spending, and to ease the burden of taxation. For this, the Government have a central responsibility.
Noble Lords opposite claim that this Bill represents a curtailment of local authority freedom. But I think it is right to remind the House that when, on November 12 last year, the Government issued Circular No. 270 from the Department of the Environment this passed a freedom to local authorities in expenditure, very considerably in excess of what they had had before. But that circular said some significant words. It said that one of its aims was:
" to improve the Government's ability to monitor the total level and main trends of expenditure, while reducing its detailed control of individual projects."
1368
Truthfully, no Government can relinquish overall responsibility for the level of public spending. If this were so—if I were misleading your Lordships—why, in 1968, did the Labour Government not give local authorities freedom to provide milk for secondary schools? The noble Baroness talked about school meals, and it is perfectly reasonable that this subject should at least intrude upon our debate. Why, after the school meals increases were made, was this freedom also not given to local authorities?
My Lords, I think the answer is perfectly simple: because the Party opposite, just like the Party this side, just like any Party which is in power at any time, has an inescapable overall responsibility for public expenditure.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking a question, and I think it is fair to make the point. Can he recall, in 1968, an outcry resembling the present outcry? Does he not take the point that there is all the difference in the world between depriving children over the age of 11 of milk, and depriving those between the ages of 7 and 11? Is it not stretching it rather too far to suggest that the circular to which he has referred does not promise greater responsibility to local authorities, whereas we have had it demonstrated here to-day that they are asking for power and are being denied it, in a very small field.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the circular does of course, give more power to local authorities to spend, in the way in which they would wish, block allocations, instead of allocations of money for special objectives.
The noble Lord asks directly: is there not a difference between 1968 and 1971? Yes; I would accept immediately, and particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, as it were, through the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that there is a difference between the age groups. But I think the noble Lord is being a little less than fair when he does not include in his critical remarks the terms of the Bill for the medical recommendation and for the sale of milk, not to mention the subject matter of three-quarters of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ilford, which was on the social security and welfare benefits that

1369
the Government have managed to bring in not only in the last few months but, as I sought to show your Lordships in my speech, at precisely the time this Bill will become operative.
May I pass on? The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked whether school medical officers can prescribe or certify free school milk on preventive grounds. This will be a matter for the school medical officer, who has great experience in identifying children who may be vulnerable for any one of a number of reasons. If, in the school medical officer's opinion, a child needs free milk at school, he will be able to certify to this effect. So there is no question of interfering with a doctor's medical judgment.
May I bracket with that another of the noble Lord's questions? It was whether the local education authority can continue to provide free school milk for the over-sevens; in other words, whether the local education authority could, whatever the result of the deliberations of local authority autonomy, simply breach the Act. The answer which I have to give from this side of the House is that an L.E.A.'s duty and power in respect of the provision of milk in schools are defined in the Bill. Milk provided under its duty will be provided free. The milk provided under its power, for the sale of milk, must be paid for. A local education authority which went beyond either its duty or its power would be acting ultra vires and the consequences of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton said, quoting my honourable friend the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Office in another place, would be something which neither side of the House could foresee.
May I answer three detailed points which were put to me? First of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, asked about the length of time that a child would have milk: whether, when the school medical officer has prescribed milk, with the result that the child becomes healthier, the milk is then removed; and she asked: is this not a cat-and-mouse game? Whether milk is continued will surely be a matter entirely for the discretion of the school medical officer. As I have just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, prevention obviously plays
1370
its part here, and the noble Baroness will have heard me say that there can be no question of interfering with a doctor's medical judgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, put to me the narrow point about milk supplies. This is a point which I do not think has been put before in either House. May I answer him and the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, on the rather wider grounds, first by just reminding the House that, from a national point of view, it has been estimated by the Government that the supply of milk will drop by about 24 million gallons, or about 1 per cent. of the total annual sales of milk; and the effect of milk sales of the reduced quantity required by schools has been taken into account by the Government in determining the guaranteed prices and standard quantity for milk for 1971 to 1972. I know that that was not the point of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. He was on the narrower point, that if you start removing supplies from schools, does there not come a moment when it may not he worth while for the supplier—as the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, used to be most successfully to schools in Northamptonshire—and when the market is not big enough in a particular school.
The noble Lord is specifically disregarding the hope which the Government have, which is that the sale of milk will be like the sale of many other things in many schools to-day, particularly secondary schools, where choice is being given. This is becoming more and more popular and anyone who goes round on the schools meals service will find out that the amount of waste is being lessened.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Will the noble Lord give way?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, I will not. We are hoping very much that the sale of milk will make the noble Lord's point invalid and, for the moment, that is the answer which I have to give him.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Will the noble Lord tell us a little more about the milk in primary schools?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I want to make only one point, which I think is quite valid, about the supplies. The dental profession are very perturbed

1371
that the condition of the teeth of children in secondary schools is deteriorating. One of the reasons is the freedom of choice through the advertisements and the impact of mass advertising upon them. It is the children of 7 about whom we are worried. Never mind what the doctors find out. Those of us who lived through hard times know that you can never make it up to a child of 5 or 7 by taking milk away and stuffing him with cream ten years later.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, what we are hoping is that the money which is at present being spent on sweets, to which the noble Lord was by inference referring, will in future be spent on milk. This is not a flippant reply. The noble Lord has said that there is a deterioration in dental standards. The noble Lord and I know perfectly well what the deterioration in many cases stems from. I hope that the noble Lord will not refer to 5 to 7 year olds. The Bill, with respect, does not affect the 5 to 7 year olds.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords—
LORD BELSTEAD: No; I am sorry, my Lords. I think I have been more than generous; I think we must get on. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland—this is the third of the detailed points—asked me a specific question about Clause 1(1)(b) on the medical certificate. I think the noble Lord in essence asked whether the family doctor ought not to be consulted first; ought not the family doctor to have a hand in any recommendation for milk on certificated grounds? I cordially agree and, if your Lordships agree to a Second Reading of this Bill, this might be something which the House would like to look at more closely. I know that this was resisted in another place and I will not go into the reasons why or the reasons why I still agree with those reasons. Where I most closely agree with my noble friend is that the family doctor, the child's doctor one would hope, would have a hand in recommending and bringing to the notice of the school medical officer any need in the child.
1372
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made the point—and the point has been made several times in this debate—that the difficulty is that malnutrition takes some time to discover. The noble Baroness put it bluntly. She said it was all very well for the layman to talk about malnutrition but this might be shutting the door after the horse has bolted. I really think that the apprehensions of noble Lords opposite arise from some disregard of the substantial social security benefits which become operative this year. I described them to your Lordships. I felt that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, either had not taken or did not wish to take them into account. The noble Lord spoke about dismantling the welfare services. I enumerated family incomes supplement; I enumerated supplementary benefits, and I enumerated the higher entitlement these would give to free meals. These things are of importance and are certainly relevant to this Bill.
We on this side of the House say that it is right that these increases should support the view that, with the careful monitoring which I have tried to describe in this debate, parents really should be relied upon, not entirely but more rather than less, and that this Bill should be seen as part of the objective for more urgent priorities, which will, I hope, persuade the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION BILL [H.L.] TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before four o'clock.