Sitting of 9 April 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    EFTA Countries (Foreign Ministers)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Foreign Ministers of EFTA countries.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet the Foreign Ministers of the EFTA countries.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Foreign Ministers of the European Free Trade Area.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I met the then Foreign Minister for Portugal on 6th and 7th February and I hope to meet his successor and the Foreign Minister for Norway at a meeting of the NATO countries on 29th-30th May. I have at present no plans to meet the others.
    Mr. Moate: From the soundings which the Foreign Secretary doubtless has already undertaken among Free Trade Area Ministers, has he any reason to suppose that if Britain were to leave the Common Market the EFTA countries would not continue to support the concept of industrial free trade between EFTA countries and Britain and the EEC?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have not taken soundings on this matter because I have
    1202
    been trying to make a success of renegotiations. Therefore, my opinion can be only hypothetical. I assume that the EFTA countries would welcome the continuation of the partnership which we have had for many years. We can always solve some difficulties at the expense of creating greater ones.
    Mr. Marten: Since the case for the United Kingdom's staying in the Common Market must rest almost exclusively on the inability to obtain an agreeable free trade area and since The Times and the Economist now take the view that a free trade area would be reasonably possible if we were to leave the Community, does the Foreign Secretary not agree with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who made the same sort of remark on television some weeks ago?
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I remember nothing about that.
    Mr. Callaghan: Unfortunately, since my right hon. Friend the Minister of State says that he cannot remember the remark he made, I am in no position to say whether I agree with him. Basically, I do not see that it would be of any great advantage to the United Kingdom to exchange a partnership of 200 million people for a partnership of 40 million people.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not unlikely that if we were to leave the EEC the EFTA countries would be anxious to extend to us treaty facilities, remembering that we would have just broken other treaty facilities? Is it not wise to remember that the preponderance of our trade is with Europe and that a greater partnership with EFTA is in no way a substitute for the EEC? Are not my hon. Friends chasing a will-o'-the-wisp?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not wish to intervene in any quarrels in the Conservative Party—I have plenty of my own—but certainly I do not regard EFTA as an alternative to the EEC, and never have done.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that instead of his speaking about partnerships of 200 million or 40

    1203
    million people, Europe would be better served if this country's policy were aimed at uniting everybody, and if we were to act as a catalyst in that respect?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think it would be a good idea, but if we were to come out of the Community it would not help us to achieve that aim.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that when EFTA countries trade with the Community they have to observe its directives and regulations?
    Mr. Callaghan: In a great many cases that is so. I am sorry that there were not more hon. Members present in the House last night to hear my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General talk about the trade agreement made between Sweden and the EEC. Under that agreement Sweden has had to accept, as part of the conditions, Articles 90 to 92 of the Treaty of Rome—provisions which cause so much difficulty to a number of hon. Members, but not to me personally. In those circumstances, in the argument which we shall be conducting in the country we should beware of believing that we can escape from the policies of the EEC by contracting out. Its influence is broader than that.

    Rhodesia
    2. Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken to end the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Following the arrest of the Rev. Sithole, talks between the ANC and Mr. Smith were broken off. Now that Mr. Sithole has been released to attend the OAU meeting in Dar es Salaam we hope that an early and constructive resumption of talks may be possible. We remain in close touch with the governments of neighbouring African countries and will continue to support their efforts to promote a just and peaceful solution.
    Mr. Lane: What significance does the Secretary of State attach to the more
    1204
    moderate statement by Mr. Smith at the weekend? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in spite of his preoccupation with Europe he will seize any opportunity that may arise for a British initiative over Rhodesia to reinforce the helpful influences now being exerted by Zambia and South Africa?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that it would be helpful for me to comment on or attempt to interpret Mr. Smith's speeches. I think that they must stand for themselves. His actions will count for more.
    As for our own position in this matter, I have strengthened our representation in the Southern African countries and have strengthened communications between us. Although I am not wholly up to date about what took place at the OAU meeting yesterday, although I have received one message about it, nevertheless I think that relations between the African countries and ourselves are sufficiently close for our politicians to converge as much as is possible. I hope to carry that process further at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in Jamaica at the end of the month.
    Mr. Evans: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement made at the OAU by the Zambian Foreign Minister to the effect that he understands that South Africa intends to withdraw its forces from Rhodesia? It would seem that Rhodesia cannot continue for very much longer as an illegal régime now that Mozambique and Angola have also cut their connections with that country.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I have seen what Mr. Mwaanga said. The Prime Minister of South Africa told me that when hostilities ceased in Rhodesia he would withdraw his troops. At the moment I have no confirmation of the statement made by Mr. Mwaanga. No doubt other statements will be made in due course. As to the survival of the Rhodesian régime, I am concerned—as I know my hon. Friend is—to ensure that that country, which is bound sooner or later, and I hope sooner, to have a majority of Africans in its Government, shall achieve that peaceably so that Europeans and Africans may continue to live there together.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this country must

    1205
    still have a tremendous responsibility for the Europeans and British communities in Rhodesia? They will look to us in the last resort to safeguard their lives and their future.
    Mr. Callaghan: I think that safeguarding the lives of the Europeans in Rhodesia will depend as much on the wisdom and magnaminity which they show during the current negotiations as upon any armed force that we could put at their disposal.
    Mr. Stokes
    Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not mean that. It is my belief —as I think it is of hon. Members on both sides—that the minority population in Rhodesia should be enabled to live there. I think that a lot will depend upon the way in which they handle their own affairs during the next few months.
    Mr. Luard: Are not there now welcome signs that the Government of South Africa are bringing effective pressure to bear on the Smith régime to take a more reasonable attitude? Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to encourage the South African Government to understand that the achievement of a just settlement in Rhodesia is very much in the interests of South Africa, not only in terms of its relations with other Black African countries but in terms of securing the support of countries in Europe and elsewhere?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is true that Mr. Vorster is anxious to see a settlement of the Rhodesian problem. He would not accept that he was intervening in the affairs of Rhodesia. He has consistently denied that. However, the weight of opinion of that neighbour of Rhodesia must have a considerable impact on Rhodesian policies.

    Moscow
    4. Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will pay an official visit to Moscow.
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend recently paid an official visit to the Soviet Union with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. At present he has no plans to return.
    Mr. Janner: If my right hon. Friend or any other Minister has the opportunity to visit Moscow, will he please inform Mr. Shelepin that his allegation to the effect that those who demonstrated against his visit were professional agitators, paid £5 a day, was a disgusting lie? Will he also inform his host that many hon. Members on both sides of the House care deeply about the KGB's current persecution of dissident minorities of all kinds, not least the two trade unionists sentenced to five years' exile, Professor Mark Azbel, who is not allowed back to Moscow, and the Slepak family, which went on hunger strike on Sunday after waiting five years for an exit visa?
    Mr. Hattersley: My hon. and learned Friend has made his point. It will be reflected in Moscow before any of my right hon. Friends visits the USSR.
    Mr. Dykes: Even though the right hon. Gentleman has no plans to visit Moscow, will he none the less send a message to the Soviet authorities calling their attention to the increasingly alarming and growing reports of atrocities perpetrated by the North Vietnamese forces in their invasion of additional territory in the southern Republic, with a view to persuading the Soviet authorities and other countries, including our allies, to work in a concerted fashion, to check the reports, and, if they are true, to try to put an end to the situation forthwith?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is another question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask it, he must put it down.
    Mr. Skinner: If my right hon. Friend visits Moscow, or if he is able to convey a message, will he make it clear that although some Government supporters are concerned about the problem of political prisoners in the Soviet Union they are also genuinely concerned about political prisoners on our own doorstep —namely, the Shrewsbury Two—and many other people charged and brought to trial in this country because they do not agree with the present political philosophy and suffer as a result of it?
    Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend knows that he and I disagree about the Shrewsbury Two, as he calls them. However, I welcome his initial comments, in which he referred to the unacceptability, to him

    1207
    and to other Social Democrats, of the existence of political prisoners in the Soviet Union. It is important that all sections of the Labour Party should make that point as often as possible.
    Mr. Cormack: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to summon the Soviet Ambassador and make it plain that we deplore the Communist-sponsored aggression in South Vietnam, and that the United Kingdom stands four-square by the moral obligations of the Paris agreement and expects other nations to do the same?
    Mr. Hattersley: We attach a great deal of importance to the Paris agreement. However, I think that is a different matter from summoning the Soviet Ambassador. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about Government initiatives, he must put down a Question.

    Middle East
    5. Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent discussions with Dr. Kissinger on the Middle East.
    Mr. James Callaghan: I would refer my hon. Friend to my full statement in the debate on foreign affairs on 25th March.
    Mr. Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Dr. Kissinger has not ruled out a possible resumption of the step-by-step approach which he has already used? Will he also state whether Dr. Kissinger confirmed to him that Israel, at any rate, was standing by either for a resumption of step-by-step negotiations, or to go to Geneva?
    Mr. Callaghan: My conversations with Dr. Kissinger are confidential, but I understand that United States policy does not rule out either a resumption of what are called step-by-step negotiations, or a return to Geneva, depending on what seems to be the most likely way forward. At the time I met Dr. Kissinger he was naturally dispirited as a result of his most recent efforts. Nevertheless, I think that if there were an opportunity of bringing
    1208
    the parties together without returning to Geneva, and if that seemed to be the best course, it should be taken. If not, a return to Geneva should be the next step.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from the countries in the Middle East, no one would be more affected by a further outbreak of war than ourselves, and no country's economy is more vulnerable to tension in the area than is ours? Therefore, in the light of Dr. Kissinger's unfortunate failure, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to go to the Middle East to see whether this country, alone or in unison with our Community partners, can bring the parties together and take some form of initiative which might bring about a further step towards a settlement?
    Mr. Callaghan: Of course, we are not uniquely affected by any development of tension in the Middle East, but our interests are affected substantially, as are those of others. However, I would rule out any prospect of the United Kingdom acting alone in this matter. That would seem to be to repeat the follies of 20 or 30 years ago, from which I hope we have learned lessons. There is a prospect of other nations apart from the United States and the USSR taking an interest in these matters, because we are all concerned, but this must be the subject of general agreement, and I do not know of any general agreement to that effect yet.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Did the right hon. Gentleman's discussions include a mention of Dr. Kissinger's statement, as endorsed by President Ford, that he would not rule out the possible use of force by his Government in the Middle East? If that matter were discussed, did the Foreign Secretary associate himself with it or dissociate himself from it, as a Minister in Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Callaghan: That statement, which was made many weeks ago, has been overtaken by explanations and events on a number of occasions. I see no useful contribution to the cause of peace in the Middle East in resurrecting it now.
    Mr. Hooley: We do not underrate the efforts of Dr. Kissinger recently, even though they produced no concrete results, but does my right hon. Friend

    1209
    agree that time is slipping away and that if we wish to take advantage of the climate for peaceful negotiation it is urgent that the Geneva Conference be reconvened in the very near future?
    Mr. Callaghan: I agree that time is slipping away. We should not lose sight of the fact that President Sadat said that the United Nations mandate would be renewed for a period of only three months instead of the normal six months. I believe that we should draw lessons from that, because in my view President Sadat is a man of his word in these matters and there is considerable significance in what he has said. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall lose no opportunity of taking any initiative in this matter. I hope that this may be one issue that I shall discuss with the other Community Foreign Ministers when I meet them in Dublin at the weekend, although the agenda is clearly a matter for common agreement between us.
    Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) referred not only to a British initiative but to a European one. If at any time the Foreign Secretary thought that a visit to the Middle East by himself might contribute to the possibility of a useful European initiative, would he keep his mind open on this possibility?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have considered this matter and discussed it with some of our allies. At the moment, however, I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully do. If I thought that there was, I would undoubtedly go.

    European Security and Co-operation
    6. Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Substantial progress has been made at the conference. A number of important points remain to be settled, but there have recently been signs that some of these, especially in the Declaration of Principles and on military confidence-building measures, may be on the way to a solution.
    Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm, none the less, that Her Majesty's Government are not yet satisfied, first, with the guarantees offered by the Soviet Union with regard to confidence-building measures and, secondly, with those concerning the freer flow of people and information across frontiers? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that there is no further erosion of the Western position on these matters, and make clear to Mr. Brezhnev that he will not get his summer summit meeting unless the Soviet Union makes some concessions on these matters?
    Mr. Callaghan: I know of the hon Gentleman's interest in these matters. However, I do not believe that that kind of approach will get us very far. There is a process of negotiation going on at present. Each side is putting forward its own proposals. We are working closer to agreement. I hope that we shall get it, because my belief and that of most people who study these matters is that the signing of an agreement by 33 European nations, even though not having as much political content as we might like, would be an historic moment in the history of Europe. For that reason, I believe that we should work for that. Therefore, I do not rule out a summit conference; indeed, in the reverse way, I am trying to achieve one.
    Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the approach which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) seems to indicate that he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends are not really concerned about achieving genuine disarmament in Europe? In those circumstances, is not it time that the Opposition made it clear that they are serious about taking the steps which they say are necessary on a multilateral basis if they believe that disarmament should take place?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is not for me to judge the motives of the Opposition, but there is clearly a problem here between achieving a genuine move to détente and a mere propaganda move. I want to see sufficient meat in the agreement—without getting everything that we want—to ensure that it represents something which people in Europe, including people in

    1211
    Eastern Europe, will consider to be an advance over anything that they have seen before, signed by their own Governments and politicians.
    Mr. Blaker: Although I go a long way with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the interests of people in Eastern Europe outside the Soviet Union, is it not evident that the main reason why the Soviet Union wants a meeting of this conference at summit level is to secure a propaganda victory by putting the seal on achievements since the war in gaining control over peoples and territories? Therefore, in consultation with our Western allies, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Soviet Union that a meeting at summit level is not essential and that our needs must be met?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am being asked to comment on the motives of a great many people today. Again, I must disclaim knowledge of the Soviet Union's motives. I do not mind conceding propaganda victories to anyone, if they are peaceful and if they carry the confidence of the people of Europe further forward. That is the task to which we have to bend ourselves As regards not ending this conference with a summit meeting, that must depend on the nature of the final agreement. But I should be deeply disappointed if it did not end with a meeting of Heads of Governments, as it began.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I associate the Opposition with the view of the Foreign Secretary that these are important negotiations? We wish them well. However, will he now tell the House that he will make it his business to keep us better informed about the progress of negotiations than has been the case to date?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As regards keeping the House informed, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has prompted me consistently to answer Questions, and I am always glad to do so, but the Opposition have been extremely lax in the way that they have failed to ask for foreign affairs debates. I have had literally to force myself upon the House in order to explain my views. I
    1212
    am always willing to keep the House informed on these matters.

    Cyprus
    7. Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in negotiating with the Turkish Government for compensation for the British owners of land in Cyprus now under Turkish control.
    Mr. Hattersley: We continue to press for a positive response from the Government of Turkey to the repeated representations made by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Ankara about the establishment of compensation procedures.
    Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he pay special attention to the plight of those British citizens whose land in Cyprus has been seized by the Turks and who, because they happen to have been born in Cyprus, may have unwittingly acquired dual British-Cypriot nationality? Will he assure that representations are made by Her Majesty's Government on their behalf to the Turkish Government?
    Mr. Hattersley: We are conscious of these problems, particularly the one referred to by my hon. Friend. We continue to make representations from time to time, varying in strength and in our attitude according to the depth of suffering. My hon. Friend referred to a group of people who are suffering particularly. I promise that we shall continue to do what we can, but my hon. Friend must understand that in the Cyprus situation our powers are limited. However, we shall continue to press as far and as fast as we can.
    Mr. Evelyn King: On the question of representations to the Turkish Government, is it not a fact that they are now suggesting that such representations should be made to the Federal Turkish authorities in Cyprus? Does the Minister accept that this is a foolish and unworthy distinction? Will he tell the House whether he is in fact negotiating these matters with the Turkish Government at home or with the Turkish authorities in Cyprus? Indeed, was not most or much of the damage caused by Turkish troops under Turkish command?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman's definition of foolish and unworthy distinctions. I should like to make it clear that we expressed our position in this House on the day that the so-called federated State of Cyprus was declared. Our position is that the legitimate government of Cyprus has not altered because of the unilateral declaration. Notwithstanding that, we have special obligations, in practice as well as in principle, to British citizens who are suffering in Cyprus at the moment. Because of that, we thought it right to make representations both to the Turkish Government in Ankara and to the local authorities in Cyprus. I am sure that we are right to continue to do that.

    Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on whether Her Majesty's Government consider Great Britain bound by the ceilings on strategic arms negotiated by the United States Government at the recent Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.
    Mr. James Callaghan: These are bilateral agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union. We welcome them, but since they concern only United States and Soviet strategic arms they are not applicable to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the known Russian view that the ceilings agreed for the American side include the strategic weapons possessed by Britain? If we are not a party to and are in no way bound by the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, may I ask what my right hon. Friend proposes to say when he goes to Geneva next month for the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty, when he will be asked what Britain has done to carry out its obligations under Article 6 to proceed towards nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is true that the Soviet Union claims that there should be a general ceiling and that the United States has repudiated that view. Certainly, if my opinion were sought I should support the United States on this matter. There cannot be an asymmetrical arrangements of that kind, especially when we are not consulted.
    1214
    Regarding the discussions in Geneva to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be going, I do not accept that we are in breach of our obligations under Article 6 of the nonproliferation treaty. We participate in a number of international bodies of that kind. I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted that in a special declaration during the Moscow visit we reached agreement with the Soviet Union to hold consultations on the problems of arms limitation and disarmament. We intend to carry that out.
    Mr. Maudling: If we were to be bound by these talks, would not that be an infringement of parliamentary sovereignty?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is astonishing how the Common Market crops up in the most innocent of conversations. Yes, I suppose it would be an infringement of parliamentary sovereignty, but if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will kindly listen they will probably hear me define what I think sovereignty is at about half-past nine tonight.

    Namibia
    9. Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to make in the Security Council to bring further pressure to bear on South Africa to withdraw from her unlawful ocupation of Namibia.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): We supported the resolution passed by the Security Council on 17th December 1974 and look to the South African Government to respond positively.
    Mr. Hooley: As the South African Government are unlikely to respond positively, and as the Security Council's warning to the South African Government runs out on 31st May, will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues who normally answer on African matters bend their minds a little more thoroughly to this question, since it is abundantly clear that the OAU intends to go on campaigning for the destruction of raciliasm in Namibia and South Africa itself?
    Mr. Ennals: It is too early to say whether there will be a reaction from South Africa before the Security Council is convened again. Our hope is that

    1215
    pressures upon South Africa from ourselves and other countries, as well as from the Security Council, to the effect that South Africa's position in Namibia is unlawful and that she should withdraw, will be accepted by South Africa.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite some of his hon. Friends to dust down their consciences? If there were such a thing as an hierarchy of unlawful occupations, would not South Africa's occupation of South-West Africa, or Namibia, be right at the bottom of the list and the illegal occupation of South Vietnam right at the top?
    Mr. Ennals: I am glad that I am not responsible for the consciences of hon. Gentlemen opposite. As for my hon. Friends, I am glad that they have shown a continuing concern for a situation in Southern Africa which has remained illegal, has been declared by the International Court of Justice to be illegal, and in our view is unlawful. It would be wrong to forget the situation there. The people of Namibia have a right to determine their own future. We, as part of the international community, have a right to stand up for them.

    Portugal
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if British relations with Portugal have been affected by the recent abortive coup and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Britain's good relations with Portugal have not been affected by the attempted coup of 11th March. It is our hope that the changes taking place in Portugal and the results of the forthcoming elections for a constituent assembly will promote the cause of democracy, so that our relations can be strengthened.
    The Portuguese authorities have reaffirmed their adherence to their international commitments, of which NATO is one.
    Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abortive Portuguese coup demonstrated the existence of a threat to democracy from the Right which has not been a feature of the carefully orchestrated campaign backed particularly by hon. Gentlemen opposite regard-
    1216
    ing the present situation in Portugal? Will he make it clear that the British Government would be utterly and completely opposed to any steps taken from any quarter which would overturn the present Portuguese régime from the Right and lead to the situation which came about in Chile following the coup against the Allende Government there?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is my hope that the changes taking place in Portugal will strengthen the cause of democracy and neither the Right nor the Left in its extreme form. Indeed, I understand that one Right-wing and two Left-wing parties have been banned from taking part in the elections. I hope that there remains a broad spectrum of parties which will offer the Portuguese people the opportunity to express a wide range of opinions through the ballot box. As I have said on other occasions, I hope that the armed forces movement will hold the ring so that these elections can take place in a peaceful and orderly way.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, despite all that has been said, the main threat to democracy in Portugal comes from the extreme Left? If we can equate the armed forces movement in Portugal with democracy, it is a surprising state of affairs indeed.
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that we can equate the armed forces movement with democracy, but I do not believe that anybody has ever tried to do so. Portugal has emerged from 48 years of dictatorship. In a country where I have seen and had personal knowledge of and contact with the leaders of those who do not have that democratic tradition and background, the struggle towards democracy is difficult. That is why we should be slow to condemn. It is for the Portuguese people to choose their own régime. All I ask is that they choose it in free and orderly elections.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the safety of British subjects, interests and property in Portugal and its overseas territories.
    Mr. Hattersley: We have no reports of any threat to the safety of British subjects in Portugal, Mozambique or

    1217
    Angola. We shall watch the situation with care.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: When a British journalist was seriously molested in Lisbon, was appropriate action taken by Her Majesty's embassy? Have the Government obtained assurances from the new rulers of the Cape Verde Islands that specific British facilities there will be safeguarded?
    Mr. Hattersley: The second question is clearly unrelated to the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman. If he wants information about facilities, he must table a Question.
    Concerning the journalist molestation, as the hon. Gentleman described it, certainly inquiries were made and a point was made. But I suspect that both the hon. Gentleman and I have different interpretations of what then took place.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be told the name of the journalist concerned in this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Lane: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I should point out that my hon. Friend's question referred to
    "the safety of British subjects, interests and property".
    Surely that covers the Cape Verde Islands. Will he now answer my hon. Friend's Question?
    Mr. Hattersley: Not unless the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question about it.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being a little unnecessarily casual in his reply. My hon. Friend's original Question quite plainly asked for a statement about the safety of British subjects and "interests" in Portugal and its "overseas territories". We have interests in the Cape Verde Islands, and although it may have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention, the Cape Verde Islands happen to be among the possessions of Portugal. So will he kindly answer the question or tell the House that either he or his civil servants have come here unprepared?
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall answer the Question if I am given notice of it, and only then.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Brussels
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to Brussels.
    Mr. James Callaghan: I hope to visit Brussels for an EEC Council of Ministers meeting in May.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the referendum is to be meaningful the British people must be presented with some form of positive alternative by the Government? As we have already negotiated ourselves into and out of EFTA and into the EEC and would have to negotiate ourselves out of the EEC again if that were the decision of the referendum, is it not becoming clear that the only European group to which the Government will not have applied to join will soon be Comecon?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not know—I had not thought of it, but it is a new idea. I am grateful to the hon. Member, after his experiences of China, for putting the idea into my head. As to the present position, it will I think be in our best interests if at the moment we take the basic decision whether we shall remain in the Community, as in my judgment it is in the best interests of Britain that we should.
    Mr. MacCormick: If the referendum of the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland says that we should remain in the Common Market, what arrangements will the right hon. Gentleman make for the future Scottish legislative assembly to be represented directly in Brussels?
    Mr. Callaghan: I should like notice of that question. The original Question was a simple one, asking whether I would pay an official visit. I should not like to give an answer which might be offensive to the hon. Gentleman without at least having thought about it first.

    Foreign Ministers
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Foreign Ministers of the EEC.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Foreign Ministers of the EEC countries.
    Mr. James Callaghan: On Saturday next.
    Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend has a chance to meet the Common Market Foreign Ministers, will he, in his cool, professional and competent manner, explain to them that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be no cheap North Sea oil for any of those who are currently joined with us in the Common Market? If it seems that the Common Market Ministers are not too aware of what he is trying to indicate to them, perhaps he could then display the other side of his character, which was shown to our loyal, hardworking Deputy Chief Whip. He could even tell them, in the brusque way in which he dealt with that little incident, that if there is any hesitation we are finished.
    Mr. Callaghan: On the first part of that question, I agree about there being no cheap North Sea oil, but so far as I am aware that is not in question. Under the energy policy as far as it has been devised, we have the right to fix our own prices and we shall continue to do so. Indeed, we are engaged in international discussion on a wider basis in order to ensure that we achieve the maximum benefit for the British people from our fortunate discoveries. As regards my relations with the Deputy Chief Whip, I take note of my hon. Friend's strictures. Unfortunately, unlike him, I did not have the advantage of learning my manners in a good grammar school or at Ruskin College, Oxford.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman, on Saturday, fortified by the result of the vote which we are to take tonight, express to his colleagues, the other Foreign Ministers, the appreciation of the great majority of hon. Members at the substantial concessions which they
    1220
    have made to meet the negotiating requests of the British Government, often at considerable inconvenience and cost to their own countries?
    Mr. Callaghan: There is no doubt that it was because all our Common Market colleagues felt that our membership was of such value to the Community as a whole that they made concessions. The fact that it is of value to the Community as a whole is no reason why it should not also be valuable to us.
    Mr. Hoyle: Would we be allowed, under the Treaty of Rome, to differentiate, in terms of the price of oil, between this country and the other members of the EEC?
    Mr. Callaghan: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question about the price of oil. What is clear, and what I repeat as a general principle, is that there is no question but that we have complete control over these resources and can charge what prices we like. In so far as we enter into an arrangement with the EEC countries to limit that freedom, that is a sovereign decision which we shall take and which no one can force upon us.
    Mr. Marten: If the right hon. Gentleman does meet the other Ministers, will he be able to get an assurance from his partners in the Common Market that if and when a Conservative Government are returned to power in this country they will retain the sovereignty to abolish value added tax?
    Mr. Callaghan: With the help of the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it will be a long time before that fate overtakes the British people. As for value added tax, it is clear that no harmonisation of this tax is likely, and that we should not be required to tax essential and basic foodstuffs. This is an important issue for us.
    Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend said that he is meeting the Foreign Ministers next weekend. Will he confirm that there is a meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers in Ireland in the not-too-distant future? If so, will he tell us something about this series of meetings?
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. The meeting in

    1221
    Ireland is next Saturday; that is when we are meeting.
    Mr. Evelyn King: When, in October 1972, the Queen's signature was affixed to the European Communities Bill and the Great Seal was also affixed, had not these other Foreign Secretaries the right, at that time, to think that the nation's word was then pledged and the matter settled?
    Mr. Callaghan: It was made clear right at the start that for the Labour Party—the then Opposition—the issue was not closed, and that we would leave it to the British people to take the final decision. That was all argued out in the House, and I see no value in going back over that ground again. That was made quite clear, and the British people will take their own decision very shortly.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what form he plans to announce the provisional agendas of meetings of the Council of Ministers between Easter and early June 1975.
    Mr. Hattersley: We shall continue to deposit in the House a monthly forecast of Community business. As a general rule it will be followed the next day by an oral statement.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he been sitting in the Chamber over the last few days and heard hon. Members say time and again that we can ask Ministers to take a line in Brussels concerning the view of this House? If that is so, how does that coincide with the Statement of Agenda which refers to the "estimate" of subject headings likely to come up for discussion? If it is only an estimate of matters that he has, now is it possible for the House to discuss matters coming on the agenda and so instruct Ministers what line they should take?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have spent a good deal of time in the House over the last two days and have heard many criticisms of the scrutiny procedure—almost all of them from my hon. Friend. The answer to his question is the answer given many times before, which I believe is abso-
    1222
    lutely right: if the House can control its Ministers, it controls the business in Brussels, because the Ministers have the right to participate in, and sometimes to veto, what happens there. That remains the position.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, at any of these meetings, the Lomé Convention will be further discussed? Will he say what the future of that convention, with the benefits that it offers for the Commonwealth, would be if Great Britain were to withdraw from the Community?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the Lomé Convention will be discussed at any meetings next month, because it is now signed and agreed between 46 Commonwealth and developing countries and the Community. It is difficult to decide what would happen in terms of the convention if Britain were to withdraw, but it would certainly put the entire matter at risk, and I think it would pose some very great problems for many Commonwealth countries if they wanted to continue the same sort of relationship, as I am sure they would, because it is so beneficial to them.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: At the whole series of Ministers' meetings which are to take place, will the United Kingdom be represented by Ministers who personally support the policies of the Government, or will there be occasions when German, French and other Community Ministers have to deal with British Ministers who, privately, are opposing the policy which at those meetings they will be supporting? Is this not a case in which the Foreign Office ought to take responsibility for these negotiations? Reverting to what the Foreign Secretary said, the problem is not whether Parliament can control its Ministers but whether the Government can control their Ministers.
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is reverting to a question that he asked, with little credit, on the day before the House rose for the Easter Recess. I repeat what I said then. The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that Ministers speaking from the Dispatch Box—he meant that phrase metaphorically as well as literally —would express the view of the Government. I repeat what I said then. I have no doubt that my colleagues acting in

    1223
    Europe or anywhere else will act with clarity and honour. That ought to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Roper: Will my hon. Friend consider putting in the Vote Office supplementary statements on business in the Council of Ministers when that business is changed after the business has been laid down in the initial estimate?
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall certainly consider doing that. We try to keep the House informed as much as is possible by what is stated in the oral statements that I give monthly and in giving each month corrections or alterations from the written statement deposited the previous day or 48 hours before. Certainly it is our wish to keep the House informed as much as is practicably possible, and I shall consider ways of making that more realistic.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the Minister know what are the provisional agenda headings for this proposed meeting? If he does, will he say whether the subject of fishing limits will be on the agenda? If not, why not?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the nature of the question when she refers to this proposed meeting. Had she been here on the day that the business statement for the forthcoming month was made—on the day before the House rose for Easter—she would have discovered from me that although fishing limits and the problems associated with them are not part of the official agenda for Council business during April, we expect that they will be raised and that we shall be taking some part in the discussion.
    Mr. Lane: As this may also be relevant to our credibility at these meetings, will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question which the Prime Minister failed to answer yesterday and which was asked by one of my hon. Friends? If important Questions are down for answer in the House—Questions which would normally be answered by dissenting Ministers in the next few months, in relation to these guidelines—if the question arises of their being transferred to another Minister, who takes the decision? Is it the Minister to whom the Question is tabled, the Foreign Secretary, or the Prime Minister himself?
    Mr. Hattersley: Quite clearly, questions about the machinery of government are questions for the Prime Minister, but, equally, attitudes to the EEC, our position in terms of renegotiation and our intentions between now and the referendum, are matters which are under the general control of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and that will continue.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister of State confirm, for the sake of the hon. Lady the Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party that on fishing limits the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is discussing this very matter next week, I understand, with his eight colleagues in the agriculture and fisheries field?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is absolutely right. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be discussing this matter on Budget Day, 15th April. Had she been present on the day that the statement was made, a fortnight ago, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) would have known that.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the Minister confirm to his hon. Friends as well as to the country at large that whatever happens to fall on the agenda, it is through these meetings that we have parliamentary control of our sovereignty, and that there is no relinquishment of the sovereignty of this Parliament to the European Commission?
    Mr. Hattersley: I made my views on sovereignty and the role of Parliament clear on Monday evening. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will touch on this subject later this evening. There is nothing that I want to add now to what he has said or may say later today.

    Sovereignty
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during the EEC negotiations, the representatives of any other member States raised with him problems connected with their loss of sovereignty.
    Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Johnston: Does this not prove that the practical experience of those members of the Community who have been within it for 17 years is that their sovereignty has been in no way reduced but, indeed, has been added to?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is certainly my view. If one examines the position of the Government of France or Germany, one finds that it seems inconceivable that they may judge or suspect that they have lost any of their proper national rights through membership of the EEC.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend try to explain to which category of pro-Marketeers he belongs—those who say that they genuinely want an integrated united Europe, or those who say "We want to go into the formalities but we really believe that we shall retain all of our national interests and do as we like"?
    Mr. Hattersley: The reality of the matter is rather more important than the reality of my position. But if my hon. Friend wants to know, my position is this: I believe that the hopes I have for the future of Great Britain—hopes which are very much related to my views on social democracy and the party which my hon. Friend and I serve—are more likely to be realised within the EEC than outside it. That is my position.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Minister of State now answer the question which the Foreign Secretary could not answer? If we stay in the Community and a future Conservative Government—hypothetical as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary might think that to be—wished to abolish VAT, would they have the sovereignty to do so and, if they did so, what would happen within the Common Market?
    Mr. Hattersley: It is utterly inconceivable that I could answer any question which the Foreign Secretary failed to answer. All that I can do is to repeat the answer that he gave—that in or out of the Community the right of a Labour Government or a Conservative Government to operate VAT according to their choice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Abolish it."] —including zero rating, which some of us regard practically as the equivalent of abolition, is absolutely clear.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: When my right hon. Friend is being pressed for the abolition of VAT, will he bear in mind that many of us in the House and many people in this country would deeply resent the reimposition of purchase tax and a higher rate of income tax, which would flow from any abolition of VAT?

VIETNAM (RELIEF AID)
The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on relief aid to Vietnam.
The House will be aware that I announced last Thursday that the Government would be making available an immediate sum of £750,000, subject, of course, to parliamentary approval, for humanitarian needs in Vietnam and Cambodia, particularly among the children. I now propose to increase this to £1 million.
Of this sum, an initial £100,000 has gone to the International Red Cross, which is able to operate both in areas controlled from Saigon and in those controlled by the Provisional Revolutionary Government. It has already begun to fly in condensed milk and other supplies from Singapore. It is now working out its detailed programme, and I propose to allocate a further £150,000 to the IRC for this work, bringing its total grant to £250,000.
The British Disasters Emergency Committee, representing the major British voluntary societies, met yesterday to hear the latest reports from the field and to make detailed plans for making help available to those in need—particularly the children. I discussed the situation last night with their representatives, and I am clear that through their various contacts they will be able to find ways of operating throughout South Vietnam. I therefore intend to make available to the committee a contribution of £250,000 towards the immediate operations of the British voluntary societies for bringing relief to Indo-China. The committee and the societies are already working out the logistics with help from my disaster unit.
UNICEF and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have now issued a joint appeal for money for

1227
combined relief programmes. They will be provided throughout South Vietnam and Cambodia, on both sides of the war lines. I propose to make immediately available to them £250,000 in response to this appeal. This is additional to a contribution of £500,000 which was made available last week to the UNICEF Indo-China programme following my announcement last July of a total British contribution of £1 million. This programme is, of course, also assisting relief work in Cambodia.
This leaves a further £250,000 available at present for allocation as the plans of the international and British aid agencies become clearer. As they do, if this proves to be not enough, I may wish to come back for approval for further funds.
The main need at present is for medical supplies, food and shelter for the thousands of children who have permanently or temporarily lost their parents. It is my view, shared very widely, that it will be best for them eventually to be reunited with their families in the villages and towns wherever this is humanly possible. While my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was glad to make special arrangements for the orphan children being flown to Britain from Saigon, and while we all understand the compassion and individual concern so vividly expressed in the last few days, it is, I think, of the greatest importance that compassion is expressed above all in providing help to the several thousands of children who are at risk of disease and malnutrition, and whose lives are, therefore, at risk, in Vietnam itself. This will be our Government's priority. What we seek to do is to translate the deep feeling in Britain for the people of Vietnam into the most practical and constructive assistance we can offer.
Mr. Maudling: We welcome the right hon. Lady's statement, and we are particularly glad that she has put such a practical slant on the need to give aid. If there is any question of her coming back for approval for further funds, I am sure that she will meet a generous response from the House as a whole.
I think that there is some concern about the orphans who have been brought here through a most generous effort by many people, the fear being that these small
1228
children might have a terrible problem in settling down in the wholly different environment of this country. Will the right hon. Lady take it that anything which the Government can do to help in this problem will he much appreciated?
Second—perhaps this is not entirely a matter for the right hon. Lady, but, as the Foreign Secretary was not able to deal with it, we should like her observations—some of us are concerned about the position of British subjects in South Vietnam. Has the right hon. Lady any information to give about their situation?
Mrs. Hart: On the first matter, whatever individual views may be about the flight of the orphans to Britain, I am sure that one recognises that this represented an effort arising out of a genuine feeling of compassion immediately expressed in the way that some people felt suitable, and I am sure that all the agencies of our social services will be used to ensure that the best possible future is arranged for these children.
There is information now about the British civilians who remain in Vietnam. Arrangements are ready to take the remaining British civilians out, but a number of them are staying quite deliberately because they feel that they have a rôle to play.
Miss Richardson: The House welcomes what the Minister has said and her announcement about the increased aid which, rightly in my opinion, she is giving in the right place. Money supplied for aid especially to children all over Vietnam is better spent than are resources devoted to the sort of gimmicky publicity stunts which we have seen in the past few days and are still seeing.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that. in spite of propaganda to the contrary, the PRG have a stated policy of looking after children from wherever in Vietnam they come and of placing them as far as possible with relatives and with families, and especially in relation to the children of American Service men, who have been subject to a lot of propaganda to the effect that they would be left out if they were left in Vietnam? Is not that kind of propaganda misleading, since the Minister of Health of the PRG has said that these children will be given special care—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is going too far.
Mrs. Hart: It is quite clear that the PRG recognise the need for external assistance. In fact, one of our practical problems is to provide money immediately to those agencies which can get into the areas controlled by the PRG. That is why I am giving an increased amount at present to the International Red Cross in particular, since it and UNICEF also have ways of getting into the areas controlled by the PRG, to help with their own programme of looking after the children. This is one of the practical problems one faces at the moment.
Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that some of the reports which have come out suggest that there is good reason to fear for children of mixed parentage who are orphans? Will she look most carefully at those reports, and, if it seems that the best way to help them is to assist in moving them, will she consider doing that?
Mrs. Hart: Indeed I shall. Representatives of a number of agencies and organisations have seen me or are to see me in the next day or two to give their up-to-date reports from the area. One of the problems is that the Saigon administration has now introduced its restrictions on children coming out. The problem of children coming out is extremely difficult. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that it is best to rest on the advice of the agencies with experience here, their general advice at the moment being that the need is to get help into Vietnam rather than bring children out.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her prompt reaction in the giving of aid. Is she able to say whether further assistance is needed to help the Saigon Children's Hospital, whose work I have seen at first hand? Is she in a position to strengthen the number of doctors and nurses working at that hospital?
Mrs. Hart: May I answer my hon. Friend in this way? My general impression from the members of the British agencies whom I saw yesterday—one of whom had only just returned from Saigon—is that the number of relief workers in Saigon is at present entirely
1230
adequate. There are plenty of relief workers in Saigon. There is also adequate availability of medical supplies and food in the Saigon area, although distribution can be a problem. Therefore, my inclination is to say that there is not an immediate need in the Saigon area itself, and that the major need arises outside Saigon, further north, north of the war lines, in the whole area.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I associate myself with the welcome which has been accorded to the Minister's statement. Will the right hon. Lady reject the description "gimmicky publicity stunts" applied by her hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) to the flights bringing children out? Is it not wrong so to describe efforts to assist humanity? Second, what will the right hon. Lady's reaction be if the Saigon administration changes its attitude regarding the flying out of orphans? In the event of the situation deteriorating further, as is likely, and the Saigon administration wishing orphans or other children to be evacuated, what will the Minister's attitude be?
Mrs. Hart: On the first matter which the hon. Gentleman raises, I think that each person must make his own judgment. I should not wish to condemn any effort which arises from genuine compassion and concern. I should not, therefore, wish to condemn in any way the flight of orphans out of Saigon. At the same time, I think it correct to make a distinction between what private people do and what the Government feel it right to do, and I can only repeat that the Government's attitude is that money can best be used to take help in for the thousands of children who, one hopes, can be reunited with their parents.
Mr. Kershaw: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with our communications with the Hanoi Government? If she is, has she been able to make representations about the British subjects remaining at their posts, as she expressed it, in circumstances which, in certain events, might put them in great difficulty in the immediate future?
Mrs. Hart: I think that matter is for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. One is anxious to see what contacts one can make with the Hanoi Government and, through them, with the

1231
PRG in terms of helping the British agencies to operate in the PRG-controlled areas. But that is a different matter. The first point raised by the hon. Gentleman is for my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Cryer: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which she has brought to bear on the desecrated country of Vietnam the important relief work that she has announced. Does she agree that the best relief that can be given to South Vietnam is the ending of the Thieu régime, which has been propped up for too long by America, and that the refugee problem has been part of American strategy over the years? Is she in a position to assist with any peace initiatives?
Mrs. Hart: The House will appreciate that I am making a statement today on the immediate Government aid that we can give to help deal with the human problem that is arising from the situation there. Hon. Members will have their views on what would be the best and most helpful way of ending the present human distress there, but that is rather a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary than for me.

FISHING INDUSTRY (BLOCKADING OF PORTS)
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the blockade of ports last week by inshore fishermen. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, for the slight delay in making this statement.
A blockade of ports throughout the United Kingdom organised by an action committee based in Scotland started on Monday 31st March. The fishermen involved claimed to be still worried about the arrangements relating to imports of frozen fish. In addition, they were concerned about the common fisheries policy of the EEC and to press their view that the United Kingdom should extend her fishing limits urgently irrespective of the outcome of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference should other countries in the North Atlantic area do so. Other points concerning them were the proposed extension of the National Dock
1232
Labour Scheme and what they felt to be the inadequate coverage of the Government's temporary aid for the fishing industry.
I had previously arranged to meet the Scottish Trawler Federation and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, each of which had already raised these issues, and neither of which was associated with the blockade. I took the view that it was inappropriate to meet the action committee, but I had no objection to the attendance of members of the committee who were on the executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and two others who were invited as guests of the federation. This meeting was held on 2nd April. All those who spoke, whether or not they condoned the blockade, took a virtually unanimous view on the issues which had led to it. I emphasised the value to our industry of the measures with regard to Norwegian exports of frozen fish announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 26th March and described the Government's policy with regard to the other issues. I do not think the fishermen had properly appreciated the assurances given by my right hon. Friend in the House on these issues in answer to questions following his statement. These were incorporated in a statement released after the meeting. With permission, I will circulate a copy in the Official Report. On the basis of this statement the action committee decided to terminate the blockade early on 3rd April.
The Government cannot condone the blockade, which caused loss and inconvenience to many who were not otherwise concerned, but I must express approval of the action of the fishermen in ending it so quickly after hearing the assurances I was able to give them. These included an undertaking to reconvene a similar meeting as soon as possible after the discussions of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of the EEC to which my right hon. Friend referred in reply to supplementary questions on 26th March, and the relevant discussions on fisheries limits at the Law of the Sea Conference.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the Minister for making that statement, albeit belatedly. We appreciate the part that the hon. Gentleman played personally in reaching agreement with the fishermen.

1233
However, with respect to him, was it not a dispute which should never have happened? All the issues raised in it, about which all sections of the fishing industry were unanimous, as the hon. Gentleman said in his statement, were forcefully stated in the House in a debate on 17th March. Why did the Government not act more positively then?
I have three specific questions. First, can the Minister say anything about the help for boats under 40 feet, a matter that is causing considerable concern in certain sections of the industry?
Secondly, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep the House fully informed of the progress of negotiations on the common fisheries policy, which is particularly important? In the light of what is proposed at the Law of the Sea Conference, there is an urgency about this. We on this side of the House shall certainly support the hon. Gentleman in what he is seeking to do.
Thirdly, the Minister was reported in the Press last Friday, after his meeting with the fishermen's associations, as saying that as a result of all that had happened the Government would be giving higher priority to the industry. Will the hon. Gentleman now repeat that assurance to the House?
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal tribute, but I think that he is a little unfair to the Government. My outstanding impression was that there was inadequate communication between the Government and the fishing industry. It was not helped by some comments made by hon. Members following the statement made by my right hon. Friend. I am not referring to the lion. Gentleman in particular. I felt that the Government needed better communications with the industry.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's three questions. The Scottish inshore men— — that is, roughly all those with boats between 40 feet and 80 feet—made a generous offer that they would be willing to give up to their colleagues with boats under 40 feet some of the money being made available to them in the temporary aid already announced. I made a commitment that I would consider that. There are difficulties, but the House should be
1234
informed of this generous gesture made by the Scottish inshore men.
We shall certainly keep the House informed about the common fisheries policy.
I think that fishing will of necessity attract a higher priority in discussions because of past events, because of the Law of the Sea Conference, and because of the implications of the review of the common fisheries policy. It was in that context that I was able to give assurance easily.
Mr. James Johnson: The sort of behaviour described by my hon. Friend in his statement is unusual among fishermen, particularly inshoremen, but they have a deep-down fear that the stocks of the fish they catch are slowly being exhausted. Does my hon. Friend accept that this fear is exacerbated by industrial fishing? What steps is my hon. Friend taking in consultation with nations such as Denmark which are fishing here almost on a "Hoover" scale and exhausting the stocks when the North Sea quota is almost exhausted?
Mr. Brown: I think that my hon. Friend accurately expresses the fears and concerns of the fishing industry. I accept that the fishermen have never had to deal with a situation of quotas in the past. There is a great deal of opposition to industrialised fishing. My right hon. Friend has already given an indication that this is not just a fishing matter. Trade considerations arise as well. We have assured the fishermen that we shall have to examine these in the allocation of any future quotas or, indeed, in the discussion of limits.
Mr. Grimond: I thank the Minister for coming to Shetland to see the Shetland fishermen. I ask him to repeat to the House the undertaking given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he will take up with the Danes the question of the quota and to confirm what was reported after his meeting with the fishermen in Aberdeen, that he had said that, while he very much hoped that we could have an international agreement on extending the limits, if that proved impossible the Government would at least reconsider a unilateral extension of the limits.
Mr. Brown: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about my visit to Shetland. It is a very nice place, and I quite enjoyed the visit, although I would not suggest that I was there to help the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will agree that there is a problem here. I think he knows that there are two problems which are related—quotas which deal with conservation of stocks, and limits. Partly they arise from the common fisheries policy and partly they are the concern of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which is a slightly wider body.
All I can do is repeat the assurance I gave in Aberdeen, that we regard these problems as of some urgency. They can be solved and arrangements approved only with a willingness on the part of all concerned to get together and tackle them. That is why unilateral action is so undesirable. I said that if following the Law of the Sea Conference any other nation should take unilateral action we should need to consider what action we should need to take as a result.
Mr. Watt: Does the Minister not agree that his statement today is considerably less definitive than the statement he gave to the fishermen in Aberdeen last Wednesday? Does he accept that the blockade last week was only a token blockade and that the fishermen are genuinely worried about the future of their industry? Unless something is done to prevent foreign boats carrying on with industrial fishing, they fear that there will be no fish left for them to catch.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is one of those I was referring to earlier. I wish he would give credit where credit is due. My right hon. Friend's statement was a good statement which referred to almost all the things which I discussed with the fishermen, but the hon. Member's reaction to it was that it would not satisfy anyone. If hon. Members, in the interests of getting votes, intend not to convey the facts of what takes place in this House they must be warned. The fishermen like a straight deal and will not stand for being manipulated by any political party. I warn the hon. Member that he should be a bit more encouraging when worthwhile action is being taken by the Government.
Mr. Buchan: I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend. At least half the men in that fleet, as far as I can gather, are relatives of mine, as my hon. Friend probably knows by this time. There is great resentment at attitudes adopted by some hon. Members. We are pleased to hear—but it is only to be expected—that fishermen with boats of over 40 ft. are willing to help out their colleagues with smaller vessels. I hope there will be no legal obstacles to that kind of solution. Even so, that is no final solution for a proper subsidy to the fleet.
What has happened to the spate of legal actions with which the fishermen were threatened a week or two back?
Mr. Brown: I have already said that I gave a commitment on the question of the subsidy and my hon. Friend will appreciate that the offer was made in the context of an offer by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I want to make that clear—the Scottish inshore men are slightly better organised. I have said that we will look at this matter again.
The legal actions were taken by the various port authorities. They were injunctions. I do not know whether I have the correct legal phraseology, but as far as I am aware the injunctions were to restrain fishermen from holding a blockade. When the blockade was lifted the legal actions were withdrawn in the sense that they did not need to be continued. Therefore, I do not think that there is any difficulty over the question of anyone pursuing the fishermen.
Mr. Sproat: Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the considerable personal part he played in getting the blockade ended so quickly? Will he undertake to ensure that when his right hon. Friend goes to Brussels he makes quite clear during the renegotiations of the common fisheries policy that there can be no question of full access to our beaches after 1982?
As for further financial support, will the Minister undertake to give at least full and objective consideration to the further submission for help that the industry intends to make after 30th June?
Mr. Brown: On the last point, we have already said quite clearly that we

1237
are providing only temporary aid. That does not prevent any recipient coming back to us when it ends. It is not for me to encourage the fishermen in that direction, even if they needed any encouragement.
On the second point, I agree that there has been a lot of distortion by certain people, for some reason or another, to the effect that all foreigners—and that is an emotive phrase—will be fishing up to the Scottish beaches tomorrow. I do not accuse the hon. Member of that distortion, but the distortion has created uncertainty among the fishermen. This situation just does not apply before 1982. Every fair-minded person recognises that there will be a lot of renegotiation and changes long before 1982. I shall myself be accompanying my right hon. Friend to Luxembourg next week and to Brussels thereafter.
Following is the information:
Statement issued following Meeting held on Wednesday 2nd April between Mr. Hugh Brown, MP, Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office and Scottish Fisheries Organisations
After the meeting with the Scottish Trawlers Federation and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which included members of the Action Group, Mr. Hugh Brown issued the following statement:
"I was greatly impressed with the sincerity and unanimity of the fishing industry today. As regards the chief points they raised, the Government intend to seek changes in the Common Fisheries Policy of the EEC in the light of the UN Law of the Sea Conference and the subject will be raised at the meeting of EEC Agricultural Ministers later in April.
As regards limits, in the event of unilateral action by other countries we should consider the situation urgently with a view to protecting the interests of our fishermen.
The question of imports from non-EEC countries is being studied by EEC and early progress is expected. A ban on imports would be against our worldwide trade relations, but we will keep the situation under review for evidence of dumping and we will also keep under review the economic state of the industry.
As regards subsidy for boats under 40 feet and shellfish boats I cannot make a commitment but we will review the position fairly.
As regards the dock labour scheme the Government does not envisage any extension to operations by crews of inshore fishing boats and will welcome detailed comments on this.
I undertook to discuss all the points raised by the meeting with my Ministerial colleagues
1238
and to re-convene a similar meeting, if possible on a UK basis, within about 10 days of the relevant meetings at Brussels and at the Law of the Sea Conference. On this understanding I appealed for an end to the blockade."

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I now want to rule on the matter of privilege. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) yesterday submitted to me that a Written Answer by the Prime Minister published in col. 351 of Hansard of Monday, 7th April, constituted a contempt of the House and a breach of its privileges.
I have considered the matter carefully.
In general, I think that arrangements made within political parties in this House would be unlikely to raise questions of contempt or privilege. Also, the Chair must be careful not to appear to be trying to interfere in such arrangements.
In this particular case, as I understand the Prime Minister's answer, the new element is freedom to dissent in the country, not any change in the normal practices in this House.
Therefore, I am not prepared to give to a motion concerning it precedence over the Orders of the Day.
Mr. English: May I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker? I accept it, though I regret it. Other possibilities exist. For example, the third paragraph of the Written Answer, with which I agree, precludes both pro-and anti-Market Ministers appearing on the same platform. No doubt, therefore, the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party will have to consider whether the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment can appear together on 26th April.
Mr. Speaker: I do not see what that has to do with me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT)
3.57 p.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
This is by no means the first attempt that there has been under this procedure and others to amend the 1876 Act, and it may well be that it is not the last. Others have tried before me, and I should like to pay tribute to those others, such as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and Lord Houghton, for all they have done in this respect.
I make no apology for delaying the House in its deliberations on matters of great moment today to take a few minutes to intrude the voice of animal welfare. Since the Cruelty to Animals Act was passed almost 100 years ago there has been an immense increase in the number of experiments. The intentions of the Act were admirable and the debates upon it are still enlightening to read. It stipulated that experiments should be carried out under licence and must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering. I ask the House to remember those words.
The standard licence stipulated that animals likely to suffer pain must be given an anaesthetic or, if serious pain would continue, they should not be allowed to come out of the anaesthetic That was in 1876, and there were at that stage about 300 experiments a year. Now there are nearly 5½ million experiments annually on animals in this country. The overwhelming majority of those are carried out under one of the three certificates of exemption from the basic provisions of the 1876 Act. There are a total of 4½million alone under Certificate A, which allows experiments without anaesthetic.
Mr. Richard Ryder, in his recent book "Victims of Science", has calculated that only about one in three of these experi-
1240
ments has any medical purpose whatsoever. Many, as we have seen from recent Press publicity, are carried out for the purely commercial aims of those who are pandering to the vanities and vices of our consumer society.
I am prepared to concede that there is a great deal of sentimental thinking about animal experiments, particularly from those who say that no such experiments are justified. I would never go that far. Those of us who have seen a loved one struck down by some fatal disease would be the first to concede that in such cases experiments on animals which might lead to a cure being discovered for the disease would be necessary however many such experiments were needed. But how many of the experiments carried out meet the spirit of the 1876 Act?
Are we really advancing the frontiers of physiological knowledge if we blind a monkey to establish that when blind it will bump into obstacles? Are we really advancing the frontiers of physiological knowledge if we force-feed animals to death, pumping either anti-freeze or shredded polythene into their stomachs?
Mr. Richard Ryder in a recent newspaper article has discussed some of the experiments he saw carried out when he was a medical researcher. He talks of watching a cat being blinded and having its tail cut off. It was then put into a rotating cage to deprive it of sleep. Every few hours it was taken out to have fluid drawn from the brain. He said:
"It was a crazed, pathetic creature. And the experiment was for such a stupid cause."
That kind of thing, and the force-feeding to which I have referred, are all too common among the categories of these experiments. Very frequently they are to establish toxicity and no more than that. Toxicity in many cases can be assumed. All hon. Members know that if we were force-fed an exclusive diet of shredded copies of the Official Report for several days, however wholesome we find a diet of our own words, we would sooner or later expire. So it is with the wretched animals. If we force-feed an animal to the point of death all that we establish is that it dies.
The Home Office inspectorate which has been set up to oversee these experiments is just 14 strong—fewer than the

1241
Littlewood Committee recommended 12 years ago. In 100 years there has been no prosecution under the 1876 Act, nor do the annual returns from the Home Office give a detailed breakdown of the purposes for which the animals have been used. One laboratory assistant told Mr. Ryder:
"We usually know when the inspectors arc coming and have plenty of time to clean up the blood and put the instruments away."
In these matters Parliament has moved too little and too late. The recommendations of the Littlewood Committee for amending the 1876 Act have never been carried out. The Bill introduced by Douglas Houghton as he then was and he is still widely remembered and respected in this House—designed to amend that Act received an unopposed Second Reading two years ago but was "talked out" on Report. Now, because the public conscience has been inflamed by the notorious ICI smoking beagles, more palliative action seems to be in prospect. Now at least we have my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), a sponsor of Mr. Houghton's Bill, installed in the Home Office, where she can do good, not necessarily by stealth.
Let me speak plainly to my hon. Friend, for whom I have a high regard. We do not at this stage want the offer of a few more inspectors or the strengthening of the advisory committee alone. We want amending legislation, achieved by the time of the centenary of the 1876 Act. We want it to distinguish between the medical and non-medical purposes of vivisection and to discourage the latter. We want it to stipulate that experiments shall not be licensed if their purpose can be achieved by means not involving the use of a living animal. We acknowledge that the Government and the Medical Research Council must give a lead here along the lines advocated by the RSPCA, FRAME, the National Anti-Vivisection Society and others.
That is what my Bill seeks to do. Lord Houghton asked in 1973, at the time of the Second Reading of his Bill:
1242
"upon what pinnacle do we base human life and well-being that denies all rights to every species but our own?"—[Official Report, 11th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 894.]
That is my position today.
It is not enough to say that those who advocate such a measure are a hysterical group of hypocritical softies, more concerned with the welfare of mice than that of men. Concern for human suffering and exploitation goes hand in hand with that for animals, and so it has done since the days of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury, who were also concerned with animal welfare.
Many of the arguments advanced for the continuation of the slave trade are precisely those we see today for the continuation of these experiments. It is said, first, that it is commercially necessary; second, that the creatures concerned do not feel suffering as we feel suffering; and, third, that if we do not do it, others will. They were nonsense arguments then and they are nonsense arguments now.
Animals cannot speak for themselves in this House. They can only suffer for themselves. It is our responsibility to see that where that suffering is needless it should be alleviated. It is for that purpose that I seek to introduce this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. F. A. Burden, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. Robin Corbett, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Clement Freud, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar and Mr. David Madel.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Phillip Whitehead accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time upon Friday 9th May and to be printed. [Bill 128]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEMBERSHIP)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7th April]:
  That this House approves the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government to continue Britain's Membership of the Community as set out in the White Paper on the Membership of the European Community (Command No. 5999)—[The Prime Minister.]
  Question again proposed.
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the third day running the Government have tabled a motion concerning some Commission documents about regional aid which, if they wished, could be moved with the main motion. I therefore wish formally to give notice that if they did 1 would register an objection.
  Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I said about this yesterday and the day before.
  4.9 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I am sure everyone today, whatever their personal opinions, will agree that a major part of this debate should be devoted to agriculture. It accounts for some three-quarters of Community budget expenditure. The common agricultural policy demonstrates the closest approach ever made towards a common market. And it is the development of agricultural policy, in relation to our own important production potential and to imports, which will determine both the security and cost of our food supplies for the future.
  Like most agricultural support systems, the details of the CAP are often technical and complicated. But we have to form a judgment in this crucial sector on the implications for this country of the situation now obtaining within the Community and that likely to apply outside it. First, therefore, I shall seek to set out the fundamental factors, including what we have secured in the process of renegotiation. Later, I propose to say something about my own present views and position.
  1244
  In the Labour Party manifesto of February 1974 we said that we sought
  "Major changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, so that it ceases to be a threat to world trade in food products, and so that low-cost food producers outside Europe can continue to have access to the British food market".
  This reflects the real concern felt by many people—myself included—that we should not be forced into a rigid system, designed and operated to suit the requirements of the Six original members but paying scant regard to United Kingdom interests as a major food importer.
  However, it is salutary to remind ourselves today that under the system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments we did not maintain an open market in the United Kingdom. We could not do so—and no country with an important agricultural industry of its own has even done so. We were, for instance, operating quota systems for butter, for certain fruits and for bacon, minimum import prices enforced by levies for cereals and a whole range of tariffs on other foodstuffs. It is true that at that time Community prices were in general far higher than world prices, that its import barriers were more widespread and protective than ours and that we traditionally had been able to obtain the bulk of our imported supplies at relatively low prices from Commonwealth and other third countries.
  When we took office, therefore, the key question for me, as the Minister charged with responsibility for agriculture and for safeguarding the nation's food supplies, was how best to translate the manifesto commitment into concrete negotiating points. It was clear enough that the terms of entry negotiated by our predecessors were largely transitional and inadequate to ensure that the CAP could be operated for the future with proper regard for our legitimate interests if this country remained a member of the Community. It was equally clear that developments were taking place in world trade which had a substantial bearing on these issues.
  It is not, I think, in dispute that our entry into the Community coincided with the start of a marked increase in the general level of world prices and a serious shortage of some commodities. World grain prices rose fourfold between 1972

  1245
  and 1974. At the peak last year the world sugar price was as much as 10 times the average of prices paid the previous year under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and for many foodstuffs the prices of our traditional suppliers outside the Community have risen far more than those inside it.
  There are those who assert that this is a temporary phenomenon, that prices are already falling in some cases, and that if we were free from the constraints of continued membership, we should soon find sources of relatively cheap food again. I wish I could share their confidence. But there has been something of a revolution in world food supplies and prices comparable to the oil crisis, which itself was responsible for major increases in the costs of food production, processing and distribution, through its effects on fertilisers, fuel, transport and shipping costs.
  Moreover, the rising world population with increased expectations, and the growing ability of developing countries to make their demands effective, must increase the pressure on available supplies. Also, world stockpiles have been seriously depleted. In these circumstances it is foolish to suppose, much as they value continued access to our markets, that any of our traditional suppliers would be willing to gear themselves primarily to meeting our needs, especially at the expense of other outlets where they could obtain a higher return.
  Of course, world commodity prices will fluctuate, and, of course, certain foodstuffs can be produced more cheaply outside the EEC. But in my judgment the increases in domestic food prices which we have already experienced have in the main been due to world causes rather than to our EEC membership. It would be irresponsible, whatever our views of the Community, to plan for the future other than on the assumption that the general level of world food prices is likely to be higher than in the past—with the strong possibility of sharp fluctuations in both availability and price. [Interruption.] In reply to a seated interjection, I accept that I have to face the reality and I must state what I believe to be the truth.
  These considerations lead to two fundamental conclusions. The first is that it
  1246
  makes increasingly good sense to produce as much of our own food as we can efficiently and economically. Very soon I shall be producing a White Paper on this specific matter. Secondly, EEC prices are likely to be much more in line with world prices than in the past, and the CAP system could provide our best assurance of supplies.
  For all these reasons, we decided from the start of renegotiation that the sensible course was to seek changes—major changes where necessary—in the operation of the CAP and some of its commodity régimes, but not to try to overthrow the system itself. It was on this basis that our detailed negotiating objectives were formulated and agreed. As the House is well aware, they were set out in some detail in the statement I made to the Council of Ministers on 18th June 1974. It is in the light of the progress which we have since made towards these objectives that the motion before us has my strong support. I must therefore deal with these objectives and that progress at some length.
  The White Paper describes these objectives under two main headings—first, trade with third countries and, secondly, the operation of the CAP. Our aim on the first of these was to secure improved access to the Community market for food imports from third countries, and this we have achieved in a number of ways. Two in particular stand out—New Zealand dairy produce and Commonwealth sugar. We made it clear at the time that the arrangements made by the previous Government on both these questions were inadequate.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stressed this repeatedly. For example, Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession provided for access on a degressive basis. It left entirely open the quantities of butter which might be permitted from New Zealand after 1977, it made no provision for continuing imports of cheese after that date, and the price arrangements were unsatisfactory in that they were related to the average price obtained by New Zealand on the United Kingdom market between 1969 and 1972. As a result of renegotiation, the President of the Commission has agreed to submit proposals by this summer under which annual imports of New

  1247
  Zealand butter for the three years after 1977 can be maintained at around the level of 1974–75 deliveries.
  This marks the ending of degressivity and access for New Zealand butter should continue indefinitely. It has also been agreed that the problem of cheese imports should be looked at urgently, and the need has been accepted for periodic review and adjustment to the price, this last feature of course being in addition to the 18 per cent. increase which we secured last year. May I say to some of my hon. Friends who may be critical of this aspect that the New Zealand Government have welcomed these developments.
  It was also the case that no firm arrangements had been made to ensure continuing imports of Commonwealth sugar to the British market after the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement expired at the end of last year. We asked for adequate and continuing access linked to assurances of supply at prices fairly and realistically related to Community prices. That is exactly what we have secured.
  The developing Commonwealth countries were given the opportunity of sending up to the limit of 1·4 million tons, which was the amount then traditionally supplied under the former Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and they have a guarantee for an indefinite period for the quantities that they have undertaken to supply.
  This achievement formed part of the Lomé trade and aid convention recently concluded between the Community and 46 developing countries, including 22 Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. In addition to the provisions on sugar, this guarantees almost completely free entry for their agricultural products. More generally, we have secured reductions in Community tariffs and levies. For example, concessions have been achieved on a range of products such as matured Cheddar cheese, canned fruit and fresh and canned salmon.
  We have not yet secured all the arrangements we want to see, but there are good prospects both in relation to the multilateral trade negotiations and in the negotiations now in train with various Mediterranean countries. We shall also be seeking more stable arrangements for beef imports from third countries, con-
  1248
  sistent with safeguarding the position of our own producers. We have made it clear that in our view some tariffs are still higher than they ought to be. In the case of New Zealand lamb, we have given notice to the other member States that we shall be seeking to eliminate or reduce the Community tariff, at least for imports into the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the improvements we have obtained so far are evidence that the Community is not now an economic autarky. It is taking an increasingly outward looking view, and I am confident that our continuing presence in Brussels can help to maintain that trend.
  I now turn to the internal operation of the CAP, and begin by referring to the beef regime. This formed a vital part of our renegotiation objectives. We made no secret of our dislike of the extent to which the Community system relied on a high level of intervention. During last year the drawbacks of full-scale intervention became more and more apparent. The Community had to buy up large quantities of surplus beef in order to maintain market prices for producers. As a result, consumers were being denied the benefit of cheaper supplies.
  As an interim measure, I persuaded the Community to introduce a special system of premiums last August. And in the course of the negotiations on the CAP prices package earlier this year, it was agreed that there should he a new system of variable premiums within the beef rén to deficiency payments, and that these should be partly financed by the Community. It is these payments, rather than support buying which now provide the major element for the support system for beef now operated in this country. They give producers the assurance of adequate returns without unacceptably high prices for consumers, and they avoid excessive stockpiling of frozen beef.
  There are those who have criticised this arrangement, largely on the grounds that it is only for one year. I believe that they underestimate our achievement and its potential significance as regards thinking and practice within the Community. What we have achieved is not just a temporary derogation for the United Kingdom. It is a very real innovation which is open to all member States. I

  1249
  further believe that, as its operation becomes more familiar to them, their doubts—on such questions as cost, and possible distortion of the market—will recede. Of course, we have to undertake new price settlements for every commodity arrangement each year and we set such considerable store on the need for continuing satisfactory arrangements on beef that I will not agree to any future settlements which do not meet this need.
  Meantime, the changes we have secured in the beef régime are evidence of a welcome flexibility in the operation of the CAP. We attach great importance to this last point so as to enable special circumstances to be dealt with in different parts of the Community.
  In particular, our manifesto stressed the need for a clear emphasis on national aids. This we have achieved in two ways. First, we have retained the national aids which we had before accession, and under the Less Favoured Areas Directive, our hill cow and hill sheep subsidies will attract FEOGA assistance. Secondly, we have demonstrated that the CAP can be flexible in enabling member States to deal with specific problems that arise from time to time. That is stated in the last manifesto on which we fought the election. We listed in it the direct aids that we have achieved. Examples of those aids are the special subsidy on pigs which we introduced last year, the near doubling of the calf subsidy pending the new beef régime and the restoration of the lime subsidy, which the previous Government had abolished.
  Of course, there have been other criticisms of the CAP. One of these has been that, with its emphasis on high prices and support buying, it is too oriented towards the needs of producers—and inefficient producers at that. I myself have made this point. That is why I made it clear in my statement to the Council last June that the Community's pricing policy should take account of the needs of efficient producers and the supply-demand situation. Recent pricing decisions have reinforced the tendency for Community prices to be reduced in real terms. Paragraph 21 of Command 6003 gives specific examples of this for various commodities, and points out that, with the
  1250
  exception of beef, world market prices rose substantially in real terms over the last few years. This fact alone bears out the doubts I expressed earlier about the claims of those who see our pursuing a cheap food policy outside the Community.
  This trend in world prices also has a bearing on the interests of consumers, this, too, being something on which we set considerable store in the renegotiation. Our consumer subsidies on a range of basic foods are likely to amount to some £550 million over the next year. These have not been questioned, and indeed the Community has itself contributed to the consumer subsidy on butter. Apart from this, and the downward pressure on real prices, the consumer interest has been met in a number of ways. The changes in the beef régime are one example. So, too, are the Community subsidies for sales of beef to pensioners. This is something which our meat trade has welcomed.
  Perhaps the best example of all is the obligation which the Community has accepted to maintain supplies of sugar by buying supplies on the world market and selling them to consumers at the lower Community price. This alone has provided a subsidy of nearly £40 million to United Kingdom consumers. The significance of these measures can be seen from the payments made from FEOGA to our own Intervention Board during 1973 and 1974. Of the £175 million we received, over £80 million, or nearly 50 per cent. was for import subsidies, and a further 13 per cent., £22 million, was for direct consumer subsidies. By contrast, only about 5 per cent. of the total was for intervention and storage. This should at least give food for thought to those who maintain that the sole objective of the CAP is to take produce off the market so as to keep up prices.
  If the CAP is to work properly it must avoid the creation of surpluses in the first place. This is one of the points which the Commission has recognised in its stocktaking report, which holds out prospects of further improvements of the kind we want to see. We shall be discussing the report in the Council. The discussions are bound to take time, and I do not want to say more at this stage other than that we shall continue to press

  1251
  hard for the changes which we believe to be necessary.
  If we succeed in securing them there is nothing that our own highly efficient industry need fear. I stress that last point because, inevitably perhaps in view of the criticisms which have been made, I have given more prominence to the needs of the consumer. However, we must never forget the overriding need to secure economic and efficient production. We must remember that our farmers, who are probably the most efficient in the world, must be given fair prices and reasonable prices to produce the food that we need. This is not just good for the farmer but it is good for the consumer. That must be stressed.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will be allowed to have an expansionist policy for agricultural products in this country while there are surpluses in the EEC countries?
  Mr. Peart: Certainly I can give that assurance. I shall issue a White Paper very soon which will aim to achieve that. I hope that the hon.. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) will realise that what I am saying is good common sense. As a practical farmer he must appreciate that. It is also significant—I respect the judgment of the farming industry on these matters—that all the National Farmers' Unions in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and I include the unions that I met recently in Belfast—have recently concluded that it will be in the long-term interests of British agriculture for the United Kingdom to remain a member of the Community. That is a view which, following my experience as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I now endorse.
  I should like to say a little more about my personal position and why I hold my present views. I can best illustrate what has always been my approach by quoting two short extracts from a speech I made nearly eight years ago on 9th May 1967, to be exact. We were then debating the implications of joining the Community against a very different background of world food prices and trading conditions. I said:
  "… I do not in any way retract my view that our present system of agricultural support is a better system and better adapted to our
  1252
  needs. What I recognise, however, in common with my colleagues, is that the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community is an integral part of the Community and that, if we are to join the Community, we must come to terms with it."
  Later I said:
  "… we should enter these negotiations determined to succeed if essential British and Commonwealth interests are safeguarded."— [Official Report, 9th May 1967, Vol. 746, c. 1404–05.]
  I have throughout approached the task of renegotiation given me by the Government in exactly the same spirit and with the same objectives.
  I believe that in Dublin my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister fulfilled two major objectives for which I have part responsibility. I believe that we have been successful and that these essential interests have been, and can continue to be, safeguarded within the framework of the Community. Therefore, I concluded that I should support our continued membership so that we can play our full part in its future development along the right lines.
  In this way, I believe we can do three things which would be much harder on our own. First, we can achieve far greater security of supply, at costs no longer unreasonable in the face of growing world pressure on available resources. Next, we can help to ensure that the Community of Nine, which is by far and away the largest trading bloc in food and agriculture, continues to develop in ways which positively encourage the expansion of world trade. This is crucial not only for the United Kingdom but for the developing countries and for the establishment of an effective contribution from Europe to the war on poverty, want and hunger throughout the world.
  It should not be forgotten that practically all the members of the Commonwealth, deciding on the basis of their own interests, want us to stay in the Community. How can I be more New Zealand than are New Zealanders? How can I be more Caribbean than those in the Caribbean? It is amazing how some hon. Members will not face the fact that people in those countries which are in the Lomé Convention—and many of whom belong to the old traditional Commonwealth—believe that we should stay in the Community.
  Mr. William Molloy: What my right hon. Friend says about Commonwealth leaders wishing the United Kingdom to remain in the EEC has some substance. It is a fact that quite a number of them do so wish. However, would he not agree that they have been compelled to search for alternative markets elsewhere in the world? They have had to turn away from Great Britain and find those markets—and indeed in so doing they were complimented on their efficiency by the Prime Minister. Now they want to add to those markets by having some association with the EEC. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the valuable relationship which this country has had with nations all over the world within the British Commonwealth might in the end be damaged?
  Mr. Peart: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. It is true that many of those countries have sought markets elsewhere. Australia is a classic example. Australia recently concluded a sugar agreement with Japan, and I am not critical of that agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and I fought an election in which we promised to obtain access for Commonwealth produce to the Community and to our markets. I suggest that the agreement which we achieved in Brussels on sugar was a good agreement for the Caribbean countries and others who send sugar to us. It involved a guarantee of 1·4 million tons. Those countries welcome that agreement. In addition, a protocol to the Treaty of Accession deals specifically with New Zealand dairy products, and that has been welcomed by the New Zealand Prime Minister and his Government. In other words, we have fulfilled our objectives and obligations. For those reasons, among others, we deserve much more support, and I believe that we shall get it.
  Finally, may I speak from my own experience—and I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with agricultural matters in this House for a very long time. My experience in the last year—and I say this genuinely and sincerely to my hon. Friends—has convinced me that within the Community we do indeed have the ability to influence events at the European level in all these areas. Of course problems and difficulties remain. Nevertheless, I believe that these have
  1254
  been immensely reduced by what we have achieved in our negotiations and that it would be a folly for us now to turn our backs on those achievements and on what can be achieved in the future.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: It is just 17 years since the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) called me in this House a political queer because I had put forward the notion that Britain might join the European Economic Community. I was very young and innocent in those days and I was not absolutely certain what was meant—indeed, I have been trying to find out ever since. But now that the right hon. Gentleman has become one himself, perhaps he may be able to tell me. If it is not misinterpreted, perhaps I might say that he and I should get together on the subject.
  I congratulate the Minister not only on his conversion, since we all know that there is more joy in Heaven over the one who repents than over 99 just men—and as one of the 99 I welcome him into the club. I also congratulate him on his wide-ranging survey of the agricultural problems of the Community. I thought that today he made one of his best speeches, and certainly it was most comprehensive.
  There is little I can add to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, except to take up one or two points. He was right to claim major achievements on both sugar and beef. He should not claim that an achievement has been secured only in respect of Commonwealth sugar. He has also secured his objective in respect of domestic production quotas—a matter which is of great importance to farmers, particularly in my area. The only query I have is whether the British Sugar Corporation has the refining capacity to cope with the increased quotas. However, planting is so late this year that it may turn out that the corporation can cope with the situation.
  The other major achievement relates to stock-taking. Based on the document which has been produced we can take a long hard look at CAP and discover the best way in which the situation should develop in future. That is an excellent achievement. There were certain things that had to be done in the short term. Sugar was only one item. It is not just

  1255
  the domestic side which is important, but there are of course Commonwealth considerations. It is interesting that on sugar the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the same figure as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon)—namely a figure of 1·4 million tons. In other words, the bankable assurances have proved bankable all the way to the bank—and that is a good thing, too.
  In approaching the CAP in future, after the referendum and when we remain in the Community, it is important that we start from the point that the CAP was not designed for this country at all. That was our fault. If we had joined the Community when we were asked we could have agreed it in a way which would have helped us. The Labour and Conservative Governments are equally to blame. Only the Liberal Party can be exempted from blame. Governments of both parties refused to join the Community at a time when they could have made arrangements which would have benefited this country. The approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) of joining the Community and then changing it from the inside was the only rational way in which this problem could be tackled. The Minister has tackled it on that basis. The results which he announced today are clearly of benefit to us.
  Although the common agricultural policy was not designed for the United Kingdom, there is a curious similarity between the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome for an agricultural policy and Section 1 of the Agriculture Act of 1947. They overlap almost exactly. The objectives are the same, although the method is different. Provided that we are agreed on the objectives, I believe that in the next few years it will be possible to change the CAP without changing the fundamentals so as to ensure that it becomes even more tailored for this country than in the past.
  Too often the argument is put in terms of efficient British agriculture against inefficient Continental agriculture. I do not accept that Continental agriculture is made up entirely of bovine peasants following oxen across the landscape. I know that parts of it are different.
  1256
  I ask the House to pause and to remember at what price the efficiency of British agriculture was bought—t he devastation of the countryside during the industrial revolution, the damage done to British social structure during that period. Do we want to force that on our friends within the other eight countries? Is it not better for us to try to help them achieve the objectives of the Treaty of Rome in an orderly, proper fashion without the distress suffered by previous generations in this country? I believe that we must bear that in mind and not be too smug about the fact that we have efficient agriculture. We have that, but, by golly, we paid the price for it.
  It is important to remember the point made by the Minister. We are not only concerned with the consumers. We arc also concerned, as is the Minister, primarily with agriculture as a whole. The opportunities contained in the settlement negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup, and the modifications brought about by the Minister, will facilitate the expansion of the domestic industry and make it an unparalleled success throughout the United Kingdom. All of us, especially hon. Members who, like myself, represent agricultural areas, welcome that.
  The agricultural settlement has brought about a change in the CAP. That change had already begun before the change of Government last year. The Minister has accelerated that change. I believe that the consequence will be beneficial to producers and consumers in securing a supply of food at stable prices understood by producer and consumer.
  The question of agriculture, although perhaps it was the most important, was only one of the seven points put forward by the Foreign Secretary at Luxembourg on 1st April 1974, on which the so-called renegotiation was based. There has been a tendency in this debate to dismiss the renegotiation as if it was hardly relevant to the debate. However, it is mentioned in the motion and I should like to examine what has happened. It is not unreasonable to do that.
  The second point raised by the Foreign Secretary concerned the budgetary contribution, which had always been a matter of dispute. We have always borne in

  1257
  mind the statement made at the Paris Summit about the need, if an unacceptable situation arose, for some kind of correcting mechanism. We have fully debated the correcting mechanism, which the Minister laid before us two months ago. The important modifications introduced at the Dublin Summit do not alter the fundamental principle on which the correcting mechanism is based. We can accept it as something which is good not only for this country but for any other country which may find itself in the unfortunate situation which the Government expect us to experience in three years' time when the mechanism becomes effective.
  Other budgetary measures have arisen in the course of the past 2½years since we joined the Community. The Government, and the British Liberal, Conservative and independent Members from this House and the House of Lords have made a considerable contribution to the question of the financial control of the Community. We now have a draft treaty. There is the prospect of the setting-up of an audit court. A public accounts committee is in the process of being set up and we are now in a much better position to deal with the budget, small though it is, and the appropriations than we were when we joined the EEC 21 years ago. That is an on-going process which has been effected by the introduction of the correcting mechanism, although it does not depend entirely upon the intentions of the Government when they came to office a year ago.
  The third point related to economic and monetary union. In the past the Foreign Secretary said that this matter has been put off until the Greek Kalends. That may be so in terms of an economic and monetary union of the kind which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup had in mind at the Paris Summit of 1972. However, he might agree that that does not alter the necessity to do something about the monetary problem within a Community context, not only because it is a real problem faced by this country but because the effective working of the CAP in the long term demands a solution to the monetary problem—otherwise we shall be left with the green pound, with monetary compensation amounts and the
  1258
  mess which we now tend to find when trying to deal with cross-frontier trade.
  While I accept the judgment of the Foreign Secretary that economic and monetary union in the form in which it was foreseen two years ago will probably not come about, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have something to tell us later today about what he has in mind for the monetary problem within the Community when we get round to it. There are serious problems here which must be dealt with.
  The fourth point concerned regional industrial and fiscal policies. The Government have had very few problems. The regional fund exists since the money for it was voted yesterday by the European Parliament. There is one minor point which must be worked out between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. I understand that we shall be meeting in Luxembourg next Tuesday to thrash that out. We can then go ahead. Small though it is, the fund represents a beginning. Nevertheless, it can make a considerable contribution to correcting the imbalances within the British economy and the Community which, up until now, owing to the fact that countries with regional problems tend to be the poorest, we have not been able to tackle.
  One point must be brought out in case, by any mischance, the referendum goes the wrong way and we leave the Community. I refer to the question of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland stands to gain more from the regional fund than probably any other area of the United Kingdom. If we leave the EEC there is not the slightest doubt that the Republic of Eire will stay in. Therefore, investment which might go to Northern Ireland, and which could help solve the grave economic problems of that Province, will almost inevitably go to the Republic south of the border. Therefore the difficult and dangerous situation in Northern Ireland can only be exacerbated in economic terms, and possibly in political terms, if we are forced to raise trade barriers along the border between the North and the Republic.
  In respect of capital movements, the Government have been happy to rely, as I expected, on Articles 104, 108 and 109 of the treaty. This is straightforward. I do not think that anyone anticipates any

  1259
  enormous problem on it. As this is a Community, it is not in the interests of any of the other eight members to bring in regulations likely to be fundamentally damaging to the economy of this country. Listening to some of the speeches in the debate, I got the impression that we were at war with the other eight and that we were spending all our time fighting them. Yet the basis of the Community was, and the basis of these Articles is, that the Community will go to the assistance of member States in trouble in this way, as it has done in the case of Italy and in the case of this country. The whole capital movements problem and the general economic problem associated with it is one which never was basically a problem at all.
  The sixth and perhaps next most important after agriculture is the question of the Commonwealth and aid to developing countries. Like many other hon. Members, the Minister of Agriculture mentioned the Lomé Convention, as a result of which 46 countries are now associated with the Community and associated on terms more generous than any association agreement ever concluded. It is an association agreement which permits all manufactured goods from those countries to enter the Community without hindrance, together with 90 per cent. of their agricultural goods. Anyone who takes objection to that and still maintains that the Community is an inward-looking rich man's club is deceiving himself to the very depths of deception. This agreement can serve as a model throughout the world. The Community is giving more aid per capita than the United States, the Soviet Union and any of the other major countries and economic blocs concerned.
  On top of that there is the development fund, 80 per cent. of whose disbursements will be in grants—not loans —which are of major importance to the developing countries.
  It is not only the associated countries, because the non-associated countries also arc benefiting as a result of British entry from measures taken both by the previous administration and by this Government to the extent that whereas in 1970 only 13 per cent. of Community aid went to non-associated countries, now 40 per cent. does, and the total is rising. In addition, we have general specialised
  1260
  preference schemes with India in which, again, I am glad to say that the British Members of the European Parliament had some say in bringing about. We have one being negotiated with Sri Lanka, and we hope that that can be extended.
  In the light of that, the strictures which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) passed on the Minister for Overseas Development on Monday seem restrained almost to the point of modesty, especially knowing the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to know how the Minister, having negotiated this agreement, can now come out in favour of Britain leaving the Community and placing all this in jeopardy—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) speaks knowledgeably on these matters, but he must remember that there arc only two possibilities. Either they continue in association with the Community without us, which means that the right hon. Lady can leave office because there will be nothing for her to do, and the connection between us and the developing countries will be severed, which may be all right for them but not for us since they are an important source of primary materials, or, in the course of denegotiation, the former British territories will be denegotiated out of the Lomé Agreement. We cannot hope to match the agreement which has been concluded by this Government at Lomé under these conditions. The right hon. Lady both in her heart and in the execution of her office seems to be at best illogical but at worst putting partisan prejudice well ahead of even her own announced convictions.
  The seventh and final point raised was the question of VAT. Here again the concern of the Government was that VAT should not be employed in such a way as to place a tax on essentials. We had already ensured that by writing into Community documents the principle of zero rating. The first time that it was produced was again in the European Parliament, again on a motion by one of my hon. Friends, and again I hope, the principle having been accepted, there will be no problem there.
  At the end, we have this renegotiation, so-called, and we have to ask ourselves whether it was worth it. Was it necessary for the Foreign Secretary to put on his

  1261
  "bovver" boots and go stamping into the Council Chamber in Luxembourg to throw around his considerable weight and considerable eloquence—
  Mr. Molloy: Better than knee pads.
  Mr. Kirk: The right hon. Gentleman is taller than the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and therefore does not need knee pads.
  Nearly all this could have been accomplished and probably was accomplished in the normal process of Community business. One matter which many Government supporters seem incapable of understanding is that the Community is not a static instrument. It is essentially dynamic. It changes. It has changed very considerably in the 2½ years during which we have been a member. It will change much more after the referendum when we continue to be a member, when we have the full-hearted consent not only of the British people but of the Labour Party, and when, with any luck, we shall also have Labour Members taking their full part in the Community institutions.
  All this could have been done, but, if it was necessary to stage this charade to achieve these results, the charade was worth staging—I put it no higher than that—and in consequence of the results, we have done precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup said we would do before we joined, which was, once inside, to move to change the Community in directions which we thought were of benefit not just to this country but to the Community as a whole.
  We may argue about the problems and about whether we have gained or lost in cash or trade terms. I believe that we have gained in both. The evidence is clear that we have. But I always cling to what the Prime Minister said in Strasbourg in January 1967 when he warned us, in the words of Wordsworth, not to get too hypnotised by the nicely calculated less or more. I hope that we have secured a basis which will enable the Labour Party to join us in building the Community in the future.
  It has become apparent in this debate, however, that the precise nature of the renegotiated terms is not what we are
  1262
  talking about in this House today or what we shall argue about in the country over the next two months. This is the fourth such debate since 1961, and they have all trodden the same well-worn ground. We shall argue about sovereignty, about faceless bureaucrats and about the fundamentals. On these matters, I realise that it would be as stupid of me to try to convince some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House as it would be for them to try to convince me. Nevertheless, it is useful to place on record one or two facts about the Community which may still not be fully appreciated in this House.
  I had never thought of the Prime Minister as being naive, but I was alarmed when he said that he and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were surprised to find how flexible the Community was. If I might adopt a condescending phrase used by the Prime Minister about my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on one occasion, those of us who have been around for some time knew that already.
  The flexibility of the Community has been one of its most striking features. One of the other striking features about it is brought home to us when we hear hon. Members talking as if there w as some kind of witches' coven meeting and performing mystic rituals in private in Brussels. One of the most striking things is its openness. There is far more open government within the Community in Brussels than there is in this House or in Whitehall.
  The Commissioners discuss their plans with Members of Parliament before putting them to the Council of Ministers. They give more information than Ministers, as I know, having been one. They give more information in their answers to the extent that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), after visiting the European Parliament, was moved to say that she got more information there than she ever got here. Indeed, not only do the Commissioners do all that, but the structure of the Community makes it inevitable that the legislation and the considerations behind that legislation are known fully from the start. That is clearly something on which we must build. Yes, the Community could be more democratic. I cannot claim that

  1263
  it is the most democratic institution in the world.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If the Community is as flexible as he imagines, why did the Conservative Government rush into it in the first place on the terms that they accepted?
  Mr. Kirk: The Government of which I was a member entered the Community on the basis, as I have repeated more than once in my speech, that we were going in on terms which were satisfactory as entrant's terms—terms which were recognised by certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite as being satisfactory as entrant's terms—and to try to improve the situation from within. That was made plain at the time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup. That is precisely what happened. Once inside a club it is much easier to get the rules changed than when standing outside saying that one wants to join. That is what we have managed to do. The flexibility of the Community has been amply demonstrated in the last 12 months as it was in the year before when the Conservative Party was in Government and changes were made.
  We must ask the question which has been asked again and again in the debate: what is the alternative if we come out? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), have referred to a free trade area as if it were automatic and would come about just like that. Why should it? Why should the Community grant privileges of that kind to us?
  Mr. Neil Marten: Because it is in the Community's interests.
  Mr. Kirk: My hon. Friend said that it is in the Community's interests. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has constantly said that because we have a large deficit the Community will want to give us a free trade area. But, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) pointed out yesterday, that will not get rid of the large deficit, It will still be there. If we do not get a free trade area, the deficit will be shifted somewhere else. On top of that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury looks
  1264
  at the figures with care, he will discover that whereas 35 per cent. of our exports go to the other eight countries of the Community, less than 10 per cent. of their exports come to this country. Therefore, it is entirely in our interests, not in theirs, to negotiate for a free trade area. We would have to put forward some fairly compulsive arguments, having treated them in the way in which we would treat them, to get that advantage.
  Mr. Evan Luard: Is it not a fact that the French Government, in particular, always made it clear that they would not allow this country to enjoy the benefits of industrial free trade with the Community unless we accepted the obligations of the common agricultural policy? Therefore, it is most unlikely that France would allow us to enjoy the benefit of a free trade area.
  Mr. Kirk: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) is right. This was the problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) ran up against 15 years ago when he was negotiating for a free trade area. It is interesting to note the number of converts on that point. I do not recall any loud cries of enthusiasm coming from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North in 1957 and 1958 when my right hon. Friend was negotiating. Rather the reverse. There was considerable dislike of the situation.
  I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to keep the House any longer, except to make two points.
  First, I believe that the maintenance of British membership of the Community is now more than ever essential for this country and for the Community. I have never held any other view. I came into politics because that was what I wanted to do. I do not claim any virtue for consistency. It merely happens that in my opinion it was necessary for this country to be a member of the Community. I only regret that our membership was so late and that it was not done when we could have shaped the Community perhaps nearer to our heart's desire.
  Earlier I said that there had been four such debates as this. Each one—this one will be no exception—has ended

  1265
  with an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members voting in favour of entry. However, this debate will be an exception in the sense that, whereas in the past that has been the end of the matter, now the Government, having abdicated their responsibilities, are proposing that the House of Commons should abdicate its responsibilities as well and that a referendum must follow in which we shall have to urge the British people also to say "Yes like the House of Commons.
  Those who vote for this motion tonight, as I believe an overwhelming number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides will, are not only voting for a motion, but are, in effect, taking a pledge to campaign to see that the vote that takes place in this House is repeated by the vote that takes place in the country. History will judge very harshly anyone, from the Prime Minister downwards, who, for party or any other reasons, fails to carry out the pledge.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Not for the first time during the last three days I have felt that we should have altered the procedures in this House. For three days we have been listening to a succession of speeches from the Front Benches which have repeated one another like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Front Bench speakers have been going over the seven elements of the renegotiation and saying what was valuable. It seems to me that that was unnecessary. The two Front Benches could have come to an agreement and one on either side could have spoken. It is intolerable that time should have been taken from back benchers in this way when hon. Members like myself with something rather different to say have already pledged to keep their speeches short.
  Mr. Tom Litterick:My hon. Friend is mistaken in referring to them as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They are, of course, Tweedledum and Tweedledum.
  Mr. Buchan:That must come out of my 15 minutes.
  The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) made a valuable point in relation to the terms. It is the first time that
  1266
  point has been made from the Front Benches these three days. The terms have been examined and referred to, but the point has not been made that they will be substantial matters for people to consider.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened in the way that he did, because there has been a tendency to go over the seven points, not to relate them to the pledges which were given, and then to leave them in order to pursue a series of myths. I want to deal with some of those myths.
  My right hon. Friend made four basic points in defence of his present position: first, that world conditions had changed; secondly, that we had not entered renegotiation with intent to "overthrow the system itself" and that what we eventually emerged with as our negotiating position was justified; thirdly, that our achievements should be judged in the light of the objectives of 18th June, not our initial pledges to the British people; and, fourthly, that we fulfilled those objectives.
  I want to examine those four basic points in the light of some of the myths that have been put about regarding important matters of principle.
  I start with the question of sovereignty. Here I want to pick up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Lady wood (Mr. Walden). My hon. Friend said that the sovereignty issue would not be brought up
  "because it was not in the manifesto."
  Having been interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) that "It was", my hon. Friend said:
  "If my hon. Friend looks at the seven points for renegotiation he will sec that sovereignty, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in the most marginal sense."—[Official Report, 8th April 1975;Vol. 889, c. 1036–7.]
  That is important, because the emphasis which has been given by both Front Bench speakers to the seven main points of renegotiation has obscured the fact that our pledges and manifestos contained more than these. I will quote from the February manifesto. I happen to believe that party manifestos matter. I for one have been offended by the cavalier attitude to them expressed in the House on both sides—
  Mr. Peart: Not by me.
  Mr. Buchan:I am talking about other speakers. I will let my right hon. Friend know when I am referring to him and he can take the matter up. He need not get so fussy about it.
  I am offended by the cavalier manner in which people have treated the concept of party manifestos and pledges. Our February manifesto, after referring to the profound political mistake "of the previous Government in taking us in without the consent of the British people, said:
  "This has involved the imposition of food taxes on top of world prices, crippling fresh burdens on our balance of payments, and a draconian curtailment of the power of the British Parliament to settle questions affecting vital British interests. This is why a Labour Government will immediately seek a fundamental renegotiation of the terms of entry."
  These words are all in the same paragraph. The concluding sentence refers to the previous sentence, that relating to food taxes, which are still with us, but brings up the "draconian curtailment" of the power of the British Parliament. That is by no means a marginal reference but puts sovereignty into the heart of our manifesto. By no means can we avoid this question.
  Therefore, if the seven elements of renegotiation have ignored this factor, they have ignored the one aspect about which the manifesto used the term "draconian". It is to the shame of the Government that that aspect was not also renegotiated. I hoped that it would be. I was encouraged to think that it might be by the speech made in Brussels by the Foreign Secretary and then by the Prime Minister's reference to the need, if necessary, to look at the treaties themselves. That did not happen.
  Therefore, we want to consider the question of sovereignty. The fundamental error which has been made on the question of sovereignty is that everyone here has discussed it either in the narrow concept of national sovereignty and the shades of imperialism—that was the joke made in the brilliant and witty but highly superficial speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood in reference to some hon. Members opposite —or on the question of parliamentary sovereignty. I am reminded of James VI sticking his finger in a table cloth in
  1268
  the old Scottish Parliament and saying "This Parliament has ane hole in it". The concept of parliamentary sovereignty held by those who take this view has ane hole in it. They refer without cease to our representative rights, not delegated rights, as if they somehow gave us power to ignore what we said to the people who put us here.
  That is what is missing. We are not here without a mandate, without commitments. What is missing is the voice of the British people as soon as we say that we can neglect that which we put in our manifesto. This is what people vote for. They do not vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood or me or anyone on the Front Bench to make up our minds when we come here. They say "This is the policy on which we elect you. It is to fulfil this that you must if you can, be bound." It is not enough to neglect those commitments and to substitute another set.
  With respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, that is what happened in the case of agriculture. We were pledged to look at the imposition of food taxes and said that one objective was:
  "Major changes in the common agricultural policy so that it ceases to be a threat to world trade in food products."
  We were pledged to bring about
  "New and fairer methods of financing the Community Budget."
  This was not just the amount. I will come to that in a moment. We said:
  "Neither the taxes which form the so-called 'own resources' of the Communities, nor the purposes, mainly agricultural support, on which the funds are mainly to be spent, are acceptable to us."
  These have not been altered.
  The one aspect which has been altered is the question of financing the Community Budget. With great pleasure, they have brought this one home as if that was the important part of our earlier debates. It never was. To say that we are now saving £125 million for Britain.
  Mr. Spearing: In several years.
  Mr. Buchan:Indeed, in several years' time, when we will be paying a much greater contribution towards it—does two things. First it presupposes a very large amount to be paid into the budget, but

  1269
  second it means either that we have achieved something in saving that £125 million or we have not. If we have not, clearly there is no gain. If we have achieved something, it means that the Government's assumption is that we shall be earning 85 per cent. of the average earnings of the rest of the EEC. Not till we are 15 per cent. below the average GNP of the Community will this gain come into effect. We have to be poor to benefit from that gain. Some gain.
  The other aspect, that of not accepting the purposes for which the funds will be used, has not been taken into question. We talked about "securing continued access"—not "better access", I would remind the Minister of Agriculture and the Foreign Secretary, as one said on 4th June and the other on 18th June, but "continued access"—to the British market. We went further and said that
  "… we shall stop further processes of integration, particularly as they affect food taxes."
  What happened is that we continued with the process of integration. We did not stop it. We did not have a conference and decide what should be done: we continued discussing the so-called "no empty chair" policy and accepting decisions by the Market involving and enmeshing us more.
  It was not easy for me in that situation. I wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend on 23rd April last year—he still has not replied—in which I said that I did not believe that that was acceptable to me or to my party. I then had to resign in October to fight a particular fight over sugar, when we did manage to get access —[Interruption.] If the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture both disagree with me and if instead of making comments to each other they would tell me where I am going wrong, I would listen—
  Mr. Peart: I have not said a word.
  Mr. Buchan:I believe that on 18th June we jettisoned what we had pledged to the British people on food and agriculture and came up with a fresh set of proposals. It is these—I know where they came from—which we were later asked to accept as our negotiating position. They were the proposals of 18th June, albeit
  1270
  none of them was precise. Indeed, the precision disappeared. This is disappointing, because the Foreign Secretary had said that
  "…we shall have to reserve the right to propose changes in the treaties, if it should turn out that essential interests cannot be met without them."
  So it is wrong for the White Paper, which we are discussing, to say, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, that the Minister of Agriculture "gave precision" to those objectives. On the contrary, he came up with a set of extremely vague objectives, some of which are now repeated in the extremely vague paper on the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy.
  The other myth that I want to deal with is the myth that the EEC has protected us against high world prices. This was first said by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, but over the last three or four weeks the strength with which it has been said has been dwindling. Now, the White Paper has emerged, saying that it is "even Steven", that we have been no worse off with food prices inside the Market than we would be outside.
  That is quite untrue. It ignores several things completely. One is the effect of our entry on world prices. The prime example is sugar. The West Indians were screwing us because they could see that by the end of the year we were likely to move into a beet regime in Europe and they had to get what they could out of the situation. Our entry of Europe affected that. Secondly—[Interruption.] I am seeing a lot of smiles on the Front Bench, but none of its occupants has yet challenged any of the points that I am making. It is not just that there was a technical effect from our entry: our entry itself added to prices.
  For example, let us consider what happened to Denmark and Ireland, two countries which entered with us, which were basically food exporters and not, like us, a massive food importer. But exactly the same thing happened to their prices as to ours. What they were doing —the Tory Government started it before we went in—was hike up our consumer prices to fit in with the Common Market. This is what the Danes did with pigmeat, pork and bacon. They were bringing

  1271
  prices into line with German prices because that is what they could do within the Market.
  In any case this argument is wrong for another reason—that the situation has changed. Despite the most abnormal year or two years, starting with the Soviet spring and summer failure in the harvest, followed by the soya bean problem and the protein problem with the anchovies in South America and the famous "Russian-capitalist coup" on the Chicago grain market, one of the most abnormal years in agricultural and pricing history—certainly this century and some economists believe including even the last century—the best they can say for it is that it produced an even situation. But even that has gone. All of the main commodities—beef, lamb, and grains such as wheat and maize—are now dearer inside the Market than outside it. The short-lived gloat has gone. If we are to get only an even position once every 75 years in any century, I will take my chance on that.
  What has happened to prices? We can see what has happened. I have here The Times "Shopping Basket", which most people quote. It deals with about eight of the main commodities in 14 European capitals. In running down the list of these commodities I find that prices in Britain at present are cheaper than in over half the capitals. That is to say, on the first item, beef, there are nine peoples worse off. On pork chops, 11 are worse off, on butter 13 are worse off, and so on. We are one of the cheapest countries in all commodities in the whole of Europe.
  However, even more significant is the fact that if one takes all these basic commodities and averages them out over the six capitals of the original six EEC countries, one finds that our prices are 40 per cent. cheaper than theirs are. What does this mean? It means, first, that our prices have risen nearly 50 per cent. over three years. They have been saved by the consumer subsidies, thank goodness, but they have still risen by nearly 50 per cent. in three years. Despite that, however, we still have not reached the Olympian heights of European pricing. That is why we are not hearing so much about the cushioning of prices. We are only half way up the escalator. We have still got two years to go in the transitional
  1272
  period, being protected by accession compensatory amounts and monetary compensatory amounts. But we are on that treadmill and moving up very fast. Let us hear no more rubbish about the EEC not pushing up food prices. It has done so dramatically, and will continue to do for the next year or two.
  The agricultural policy itself has now moved into its surrealist phase, with mountains of butter, mountains of beef and lakes of wine. Only one man—other, I suppose, than M. Lardinois!—could have painted that landscape, and that is Dali—yes, Salvador himself. It is really surrealist. It is ironic that my right hon. Friend, who has fought such a noble fight in the past against the worst lunacies of this policy, should be defending it here today.
  Why are the National Farmers' Unions supporting it? I do not know. I did not think that they had time to support it, being too busy blockading ports to prevent Common Market stuff from coming in. In between blockading ports they have made the decision to support the CAP.
  What is proposed for us agriculturally? The CAP will provide a gross imbalance between livestock and cereals. The cereal boys are doing well, but it is that kind of policy which when—[Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, with his farm and his knowledge of Herefords, which I have often discussed with him, wants to interrupt me, I am willing to give way. That which helps the cereal farmer hurts the livestock farmer. This is no policy for Britain. Should we alter it? We could have done so if we had fought for that alteration and were willing to risk challenge in saying that we had to do what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said initially, before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture or he, or both of them, changed their minds—that if necessary we should challenge the structures.
  I do not accept the great word "flexible". The word is "flexible", yet we are told as soon as that word is used—and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, in telling us about how flexible the policy was, warned us that if we did not accept the CAP we would not get the industrial policy: some flexibility!
  Mr. Kirk Mr. Kirk rose—
  Mr. Buchan:I was picking up the point that you made and which you took up during your speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas):Order. I have not made any point.
  Mr. Buchan:I knew that there was a good voice missing from the Front Bench, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is some flexibility when that threat occurs. It is some flexibility when the Italians are faced with a situation in which they cannot participate in the meat trade because they have insufficient frozen meats to do so under the Lardinois deal. They call this a "double body blow". They say:
  "The mechanism put into action by Lardinois cannot be blocked by the veto of our Minister of Agriculture. The measure does not actually fall within the province of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the Community but of the Agriculture Commission which takes simple majority decisions."
  They feel not only the great loss of industrial output but that their livestock industry is in danger as a result. So let us have no more nonsense about flexibility.
  Finally, I must say that it has given me no great pleasure—[Interruption.] No, I cannot go on. I have made pledges and I stick to my pledges. I think that manifestos are important. I delivered a pledge to Mr. Deputy Speaker and I hope to keep it. I hope that that is a lesson to the Government Front Bench.
  Of course, over the next two months these things will be discussed. I have been disappointed that the Prime Minister, who performed a major stroke in opening up this democratic discussion to all of us and the members of our party, did not see fit to widen it just that little more to allow Ministers also to participate in the debate. I think that this would have helped. We would have had plenty of jeering from hon. Members of the Opposition but, with respect, some of us here would have been rather happy with some of the jeering from them instead of some of the cheering.
  All parties are split on this subject— the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, the Labour Party— the Scottish National Party—[Interruption.]. Yes the SNP too, and when the hon. Member for Clack-
  1274
  mannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) comes into my constituency and says that we should be in Europe, I see that the SNP is split. All parties are split, and new and strange bedfellows will be encountered. I hope that during the next two months we shall not get the kind of speech I heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Fairgrieve) yesterday. None of us can choose his bedfellow. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture did not particularly choose theirs. Nor can we choose our allies —to alter the course of engagement in the Government Front Bench. But I hope that they will at least not try to convince the British people that we have fulfilled the major objectives. My regret is that I believe that in this field the major objectives were not even attempted
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Heath: I do not think that the House will be surprised if I seek to intervene in this debate, although I hope that, on account of the number of occasions on which I have previously been able to speak on the question of European policy in the House, my contribution may be comparatively short. For the theme of Europe, peaceful, strong and free, with Britain giving it leadership and using its influence, has been a major theme of my parliamentary and political life.
  When I came into the House and made my maiden speech on 26th June 1950, it was a speech on Europe, on the Schuman Plan proposals, when I urged the then Labour Government to accept the invitation extended to them and to take part in the talks, even if not to commit themselves to accepting the results of the discussions which were then about to take place. To my infinite regret, and I think that of perhaps many other hon. Members, that invitation was not accepted by the then Labour Government. It was rejected, I think, looking back, for two reasons. It was rejected, first, because there were many on the Government side of the House who did not like the idea of going into what they thought was a CDU, or a Christian Democratic Europe. It was not apparently going to be an SPD Europe. Now that is to change, Secondly, they believed that it would provide a strong limitation on the policy

  1275
  of nationalisation to which they were committed and which they were still carrying through, and indeed, of course, it has been proved that that was not the case. I greatly regretted the fact that they did not accept that invitation.
  Today we are again discussing the subject of our membership of the European Communities and European policies, within two months to the day 25 years afterwards. Should we not ask ourselves whether it is not at least some reflection on British institutions—on parliamentary institutions, on British policy-making, on the general will and determination of this country—that in the 25 years in which others have been developing their resources and making rapid progress and, indeed, extending their political influence, we, 25 years later, are still arguing this out. It is still not the last stage, because we know that the Government are committed to a referendum.
  I talked, argued cajoled, campaigned and negotiated on this subject, and it led finally to the House giving me, as Prime Minister, the authority to sign the Treaty of Accession to the European Community. That Treaty is not affected in any way by what the present Government have done, are doing or are proposing to do. As far as I am concerned —unsatisfactory though it may be, I realise, to some Government supporters —that is the hallmark of what is required. The Government are now adhering to the Treaty of Accession for Britain to go into the Community. Therefore I express my satisfaction with that, but the fact that I as Prime Minister was authorised to sign that Treaty of Accession was in my view a proper use of parliamentary authority, a proper use of the parliamentary sovereignty of which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has been speaking.
  But this has never been accepted by those who oppose our membership of the EEC. It has never been accepted by a small number in my own party, and by a considerable number of Labour Members. The fact that they do not accept this has driven them into every conceivable political contortion, and verbal distortion as well, in order to deny the parliamentary process which was carried through, leading them finally to accept the referendum which we now face.
  1276
  I do not want in the Prime Minister's absence to say very much about him personally. I do not regard his late conversion to a referendum as being particularly honourable, any more honourable than his twists and changes in European policy from the time he was in opposition, then in Government, back into opposition and now again into Government.
  We were told that the renegotiation referendum was necessary to hold the party together, and therefore was justifiable, but that has proved to be exactly the reverse of the case, and we see not only the Labour Party but the Cabinet divided, and the fact that the Prime Minister has lifted collective responsibility from members of the Cabinet has led to the position which we now see. In passing, perhaps one might comment that it seems strange that Ministers should be allowed to say what they like outside the House but have apparently been instructed to deliver words in which they do not believe when they stand at the Dispatch Box. These are troubles which surround the Prime Minister and they are his troubles. They are none of our concern though he may, in looking at them, reflect on the old Chinese saying, "Never lift a stone to drop on your own toe".
  Where I differ from the Prime Minister is on his approach in his speech, which was to put the entire emphasis on the question whether what has now been agreed and commended by the Government compares satisfactorily with his party's manifesto, and to put this forward as a criterion on which the country will judge when the referendum comes.
  I do not believe that to be justifiable, nor could I be happy with the country taking that approach. Indeed, I should be gravely worried if it did because, while I welcome the changes which have been made, I believe that they have come about in the normal development of the Community and I do not believe that the country will vote on a minute comparison of the extent to which these new arrangements which have been developed in the course of ordinary business meet what was set out in the detailed party manifesto.
  I appreciate the Prime Minister's point of view from his own party's discussions —that I fully recognise—but from the

  1277
  point of view of the country that is not the great issue, and I believe that what the country has to face is a very great issue indeed.
  For that we have to go back to the primary purpose of the European Community when it was founded. It was founded for a political purpose, not a party purpose, not even a federal purpose, as some would argue. I recall Herr von Brentano, when he was German Foreign Minister, saying, "There are some who say we are bound on a federation. At the beginning at any rate" he said "I believed we could work out a blueprint for a future political Europe"—this was back in 1960 —" but already I recognise, as we all recognise, that you cannot impose a blueprint on ancient nation States which come together in the form in which we have done." It was not a federal but a political purpose, the political purpose was to absorb the new Germany into the structure of the European family, and economic means were adopted for that very political purpose.
  I went so far as to point that out in my maiden speech in 1950, and I said then that the German dynamic had already returned. Its economic potential was tremendous, its drive was immense, and somehow Germany had to be contained inside a framework, otherwise all that we had seen in 1914 and 1939, which affected my generation, would happen again.
  I debated with myself before I made that speech whether it would give offence to those in Germany whom I knew, and I decided that it would not. Indeed, it was welcomed, but what is important is that that situation still holds good today. The power of Germany is now immense. Its economic and financial power is immense, and so is its military strength, and yet the great majority of German people want desperately to have a framework in which they themselves can work and—I put this without causing offence —be contained. This is the general view of the German people, and the greater their strength becomes the more they want to be in a Community in which to work. But they want it to be a balanced Community.
  They have long argued that Britain should be part of that balance. That is why they have been prepared to make
  1278
  their sacrifices to get Britain into the Community. They did so in the original negotiations in 1961 and 1963, and again in 1970–71, and they have done it yet again in the arrangements which they have made in adjustments within the Community.
  It was a political purpose, first, to bring about a rapprochement between France and Germany which was finally sanctified in 1963 in Paris by Dr. Adenauer and President de Gaulle. Secondly, it was to see that Germany would have a framework in which her strength could be used for the good of Europe; and thirdly, so that Europe itself could create its own strength. This was for two reasons: first, because it wished to work with its allies, who were much stronger and powerful, in the form of the United States, and, secondly, because it knew that allies also have limitations to what they can do and that Europe would have to do much more for itself. We therefore are today part of this vital political purpose in Western Europe as a member of the Community.
  When one looks around Europe today and sees Portugal with its political system changed from one extreme position to another extreme position, one asks oneself what the impact of this will be on Spain, where many of us have been hoping, and many in Europe have been expecting, that when the present regime came to an end, when General Franco ceased to hold power after 40 years, there would be a change, as a result of which the substantial middle class which has developed would have far greater influence on the policies of Spain, on its institutions and on its attitudes, and after a period we should see Spain wanting to get back to the mainstream of European life again and moving towards a position in which she would become acceptable. What will be the impact on Spain of the change in Portugal? Will it undermine the Spanish position, as some fear, or will it drive the Spanish position further to the right, as others fear? Whichever it foes, the danger is there for us in Europe.
  To move further along the Mediterranean to Cyprus, we see there the potential dangers not only for Cyprus but for Greece and Turkey. We know full well the dangers in the Middle East. Negotiations have broken down, and

  1279
  either side at any time is in a position to make a strike.
  There is another aspect of the Mediterranean situation which has not been discussed in the debate so far. Marshal Tito, the creator of modern Yugoslavia, will one day, to intense personal regret in this country and elsewhere, cease to be the dominant influence in Yugoslavia. Does anyone doubt that that will be the moment when Soviet policy and Soviet power will exert itself in order to regain a position which it lost more than 20 years ago?
  With those dangers facing Europe and facing us as a country, is this the moment for Britain to withdraw from the European Community, which is a centre of stability, of activity and of prosperity in Europe?
  Looking further afield, what about our relationship with the United States? Over the past 20 years, administrations in the United States have supported British entry into the European Community, and increasingly the United States has been interested in seeing Britain as a member of the Community. But what is in some ways an even more important factor has now developed. We have seen the anguish of the American people in going into Vietnam and becoming involved there to such an extent, and we now see their anguish in seeing the consequences of American withdrawal.
  We must not overlook the impact of that on American politics. The American administration is pledged to European support. But the question is, how does an American President muster support for a European policy today? This is now, and will more and more become, a serious question in the United States.
  I look back to the period just before 1939, to the time when Americans in America were saying, "Europe has been unable to sort out its own problems. Why should we become involved in Europe's affairs, part of which we do not understand and over part of which we seem to have comparatively little influence?" Had it not been for Roosevelt, with strength, purpose and vision—and, one may add, with cunning—being prepared to take the United States eventually into the conflict, being given, indeed, the opportunity by Japan's attack, where should we in this country have been, and where would Western Europe have been?
  1280
  Of course, they were proud days when we stood alone—and that thought may be echoed by those who want to stand alone now—but how long can we as a country stand alone, or how long then could we have stood alone?
  There is, therefore, this problem in relationships between the United States and Western Europe, that if we pull out of the Community there will be many in the United States who will once again say, "The Europeans cannot sort out their own problems, and they are even quarrelling among themselves".
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: What about NATO?
  Mr. Heath:I do not believe that NATO can carry out its proper purpose effectively if Europe shows signs of disintegrating and fragmenting within the Community and the United States is unable to maintain its support to the extent which a President desires.
  That is the supreme issue facing the House and the country in the debate over our membership of the European Community. Nobody disputes the importance of the agricultural arrangements, the tariff arrangements and the other arrangements. I had to negotiate them for three years, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did in 1970–71, and all too often I was then accused of dealing in technicalities and arrangements about kangeroo soup.
  The truth is quite otherwise. From the time of my speech to the House on 17th May 1961, I said that the first purpose of the negotiations was political, for the reasons which I have explained. Today, the issue is still a great political issue. That is the reason for my regret that the Prime Minister placed the whole of his emphasis on a difference in arrangements and completely avoided any mention of what I believe to be the supreme issue here.
  Of course, benefits have been gained in the arrangements, and some of them I welcome. But I remind the House that arrangements had been made for the new budgetary provision to be considered. When I had the discussions with President Pompidou which led to the settlement of the negotiations, he recognised that full well. Although he

  1281
  believed in the monetary arrangements of the snake, he recognised what we were doing when we had to float. In January 1974, I personally discussed with Helmut Schmidt, the present German Chancellor, the rearrangement of the budgetary provisions of the Treaty of Accession because I believed at that time that what was allowed for in the Treaty of Accession would have to take place—not immediately, but certainly that preparation should be made for it.
  In any case, what has been arranged now does not come into effect until 1977 or 1978. At this moment, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to make up his mind what to do next Tuesday— and foreseeing the future and seeing precisely what the position will be in 1978 or 1980 is plainly impossible. However, the new arrangement which will cover the budgetary contribution is to be welcomed.
  I welcome in particular the Lomé agreement. Everyone knew that it was bound to come. Those of us who had worked for this to replace the previous association agreement had done it for one reason. The division of Africa was carried out in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by the European Powers. We set up the barriers in Africa. We did a great deal to improve conditions there, and it is for the historians to say whether the French cultural approach, the Belgian social approach or the British parliamentary approach was the most successful. That is a matter for history.
  What we wanted to do was to break down the barriers which existed between those countries with a British connection, a French connection or a Belgian connection—or even, some time previously, a German connection. Language was a barrier. Instruments of Government were a barrier. Trade was a barrier.
  Now, under the new arrangement, those barriers are being removed, and we can see that the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific have opportunities now which they have never had previously. That is why I welcome what the right hon. Lady the Minister of Overseas Development has been able to achieve in her part in influencing the Lomé negotiations. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about India and Pakistan?"] We
  1282
  negotiated for India, Pakistan and Ceylon in 1961 and 1963, and when we were vetoed, India herself went off, and so did Pakistan, to make their own agreements with the Community. What is more, there was agreement in the Community for a zero tariff on tea, which particularly affected Ceylon, as it was then—Sri Lanka as it is today. But all that happened 10 years or more ago, and the situation was very different in 1971 and for the present Government's negotiations.
  I come now to the question of sovereignty. Of course, this is a matter which must be treated with the deepest respect, but, whether one is discussing national sovereignty or parliamentary sovereignty, what matters is the purpose of sovereignty. To me, sovereignty is not something to be hoarded, sterile and barren, carefully protected by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in a greatcoat with its collar turned up. Nor is sovereignty something which has to be kept in the crypt to be inspected by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury on the eve of the opening of Parliament.
  Sovereignty is something for us as custodians to use in the interests of our own country. The question we have to decide, therefore, in carrying through this great political purpose, as I believe it to be, for the peace and freedom of Europe and of our own country, is how we are entitled to use that measure of sovereignty which is required. That, I believe, puts it perfectly fairly. It is a judgment which we have to make, and I answer without hesitation that the sacrific of sovereignty, if it be put in that extreme form, or the sharing of sovereignty, the transfer of sovereignty or the offering of sovereignty is fully justified. Indeed were we not to do so in the modern world, I believe that as a Parliament, as a party and as a Government we should be culpable in the eyes of history. I believe, therefore, that sovereignty is for this House to use in the way it thinks best.
  In this debate, those who argue that we should come out of the Community have to show—the onus is upon them—what the alternative is. There are only two alternatives. Indeed, I do not believe that one of them is a true alternative, but two alternatives have been put forward, and the first was put by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay),

  1283
  with his usual clarity and eloquence. The right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience in Government and at the Board of Trade, has never recognised that the Community—all of whose members have made certain sacrifices in order to gain benefits—is not prepared, and never has been prepared, to have a free trade area alongside it containing us as a major industrial power, seeking all the advantages of industrial trade but not being prepared to give the Community any of the advantages of agricultural trade. He was never prepared to accept that in the original negotiations, but it was constantly proved that no such arrangement was possible.
  I come to the present situation. Why do the other former EFTA countries have an arrangement with the Community? It was not negotiated on their own. They have an arrangement only because we went into the Community and because we did a great deal to negotiate it for them. Why do they want us to stay in the Community? Because they know that we understand their interests and that we are prepared to help look after their interests.
  If we come out of the Community, all that disappears. Indeed, we shall not have a free trade arrangement remaining, because the tariffs will automatically go up around the Community. As was pointed out from the Government Front Bench, for particular items of trade the tariffs could be very great.
  What is more, even were we to have membership of a free trade area we would have no say in what was done by the Community. That would be a real and pointless sacrifice of sovereignty. Such a course would have no political purpose of any kind in Europe or for us. Therefore, I do not believe that is an alternative, because I do not believe that it would be granted. Even if it were to be granted, it would be thoroughly unsatisfactory for any British Government.
  The other alternative is to go into a siege economy. There are some who would like to do that. There arc some who believe that the internal arrangements for industry in this country are more important than our general trading position, our political influence in the world or our capacity to play any major part
  1284
  in securing peace and prosperity in Europe as a whole. Very well. I accept that they are perfectly entitled to say that. However, let them stand up honestly and say it and not argue about the sort of points which we so often hear put. whether on arrangements for agriculture, tariffs, sovereignty, or anything else. Let them say quite clearly that what they want is for Britain to go it alone and to take all the consequences of going it alone.
  Going it alone undoubtedly means the loss of our political influence. It means the loss of our trade, the loss of jobs and certainly a massive loss of investment. There can be no doubt about the loss of foreign investment in this country were we to leave the Community.
  I come to the conclusion which I have argued so often before, and which I hope will not be described by the Prime Minister as doctrinal—that the supreme issue is political. The only way for us to exercise our influence, for us to influence Europe and for Europe in turn to be able to influence the world—because I believe that Europe should have a much more balanced position with the United Steles in the Western world—and the only way to maintain the proper and effective unity and defence of the West, is by our remaining a member of the European Community.
  In doing this we are not looking only at ourselves in our generation. Of course, if we go out the disadvantages are immediately apparent to the whole country and to our generation. As we are a member we may find difficulties with which we have to deal in the Community. It has already been shown that there are many ways in which this can be done.
  I say this with regret to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, recognising their political difficulties and their party difficulties. The fact that they have had to carry out the renegotiation in the way that they have done has used up a large amount of the good will with which we went into the Community. The Community was genuinely looking for us to give leadership in its position in the world, and we have so far not given it. There is disappointment and a loss of good will because of the renegotiations and the way in which they have been carried on.

  1285
  I come to the future, with which the Foreign Secretary may be able to deal when he winds up the debate. I believe that the most important sentence is at the end of the White Paper, where the Government say that if the referendum keeps Britain in the Community they are prepared to play a full part in it. All too often I have felt from the Prime Minister's speeches that he was saying "Yes, we must belong to this Community, but we must not act as though it is a Community. We must not help it to be one." I hope that I am not misrepresenting him. That last sentence of the White Paper means that, with a referendum which confirms our membership of the Community, whichever Government are in power will play a full part in the development of the Community as a community. I believe that we shall find it infinitely more satisfying than trying to deal with irritating matters here and saying all the time that we must draw back.
  I believe that the development of the Community must take place first and foremost in the Foreign Secretary's field, because so many other aspects of the Community's activities flow from foreign policy. The problems about the energy crisis, Herr Brandt's position and the Dutch position at the Copenhagen Summit —the problem there was that the Community had never settled foreign policy in relation to the Middle East. The result was that it could not possibly settle an energy policy. If we face a further crisis in the Middle East in a few months' time, does the Community know what its attitude will be? Does it know how to deal with a further energy crisis? That is the real test of Community activities. It is of vital importance.
  Secondly, we have one great advantage in foreign policy in the Community. We can agree on policy, and after we have thrashed through the problems we have nine different people to operate that policy right across the world. That is an advantage which no other country or organisation has, and we should make the utmost use of it.
  The institutions of the Community need to be improved. I welcome the quarterly meetings. We started half-yearly meetings. As Prime Minister, I felt on many occasions that so much more could be done not only on the telephone but by
  1286
  actual meetings of Heads of Government as well as Foreign Ministers and the Council of Ministers. This will have to come about. The whole organisation in Brussels must be improved. The Community would welcome it. It expected us to give a lead, but we have not done so.
  The parliamentary institutions of the Community can certainly be greatly improved. I do not believe that it is possible for much longer for right hon. and hon. Members to carry out the two tasks of proper representation here and proper representation in Strasbourg and Luxembourg. These are practical ways in which we can help the Community and in which we can develop its other policies.
  Therefore, the decision which the country will have to make must be presented to it as one of major political importance for the future peace, prosperity and freedom of this country and Western Europe. That is the issue. We are acting as trustees. This is not a temporary policy affected by fluctuations one way or the other. I have always emphasised that this is a long-term policy in the history of Britain and Europe. It will affect future generations much more than it affects us. We are not only responsible for the present but are the trustees of all those in Britain in the future.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) naturally compels attention when he speaks on this subject. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber please do so quietly.
  Mr. Stewart:The right hon. Gentleman put forward one proposition that I do not think could be disputed. This was that the question which we must decide, and which the nation will have to decide at the referendum, is not the difference between the old terms and the new terms or, despite the ingenious speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), a comparison of the new terms and the Labour Party manifesto. What we are concerned with is a broad general assessment of the results for this country and Europe of our staying in or our going out, a broad assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the general position as it is now

  1287
  and, still more, as it will develop as the years go by.
  It should be understood that we are making, at any rate one way, an irrevocable decision. If this country decides to come out now, if we slam the door in our own faces, the door will not open again. That is why I say that we must consider the situation not only as it is but as it will be.
  As to the possible advantages of membership, my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) suggested yesterday that those of us who had advocated membership of the Community should perform the penance of reading the speeches we made at the time. I have performed part of that penance by reading part of the speech I made on 10th May 1967. It was not a bit as my right hon. Friend said it would be. It was much more careful and qualified.
  Mr. Fernyhough: My right hon. Friend was one of a number of right hon. Members who, supporting the policy of going into Europe, said that trade would grow, that entry would be a revitalisation, a blood transfusion, and that our future economic prospects would be better. If he now says that he did not say that, no one will listen to him.
  Mr. Stewart: If my right hon. Friend wants to know what I said then, perhaps he will perform the same penance and read the speech instead of guessing about it. [An HON. MEMBER:" Tell us."] That is what I am about to do, if I am allowed to.
  I pointed out in that speech that there were a number of potential advantages of access to a larger market—the probability of attraction of investment, the opportunity to give greater help to the poorest parts of the world, and a growth in political influence. But I was careful to add —and this is the heart of the matter:
  "The door to these advantages is opened if we go into the Community. They are not achieved without very considerable effort"—[Official Report, 10th May 1967;Vol. 746, c. 1641.]
  That was the point made by every responsible speaker urging our entry. It was not that certain advantages would drop into our lap by the mere fact of entry, but that an opportunity would be opened to us which would not be opened other-
  1288
  wise. We had to make use of that opportunity by our own efforts.
  If my right hon. Friend wants a really glowing and less cautious account of the advantages of membership of the Community, I direct him to the speech made in the same debate by our hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on 8th May.
  Any advantages will be secured by our own efforts. The real question is, within what framework must those efforts be made? Can it be maintained that they are more likely to be successful if by our own deliberate decision we make them in a framework which partly excludes us from a large market, which makes it less probable that this country will attract investment, which reduces our opportunity to help the poorer parts of the world, which limits our political influence, and which takes a step which will be unwelcome to our partners in the Commonwealth and to nearly every other country with which we have had cordial relations?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), in an earlier intervention, argued that the Commonwealth countries had developed their trade as a result of our planned entry and subsequent entry in a way that now makes them accept our continued membership.
  Mr. Molloy: What I was trying to convey was that, after the good relations and the good trade that the Commonwealth countries had had with this country, the fact that they were savagely let down when we first went in compelled them to break the old links. I am glad that they have managed to obtain alternative markets. I should have preferred them to remain in the British market and to maintain their links.
  Mr. Stewart: I think that that was the sentiment that I was attributing to my hon. Friend. I beg him to look, as we all must look, not at what might have happened but what is happening now and will happen in the future. The plain fact is that, whatever the Commonwealth countries might have felt in the past, they want us to stay in, and they will be very much put out if we leave. That adds to the difficulties of the framework within which we shall have to exert ourselves to solve our economic problems.
  Mr. Fernyhough Mr. Fernyhough rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. The last two speeches lasted for half an hour each. I do not want to take as long as that, and my right hon. Friend has already intervened once.
  Against the points that I have put, we are told that there will be a loss of sovereignty. I make no apology for returning to this theme, because everyone seems to regard it as of such importance, and there is such confusion of words about it. If it means absolute national sovereignty, the statement that we lose our soveregnty by entering the Community is a plain untruth. There is no doubt that we are in the Community. There is not doubt that we can come out if we want to. That is what the debate is about; that is what the referendum is about. If one is in and one can come out, one has not parted with sovereignty.
  Communities which joined the Swiss confederation or the United States lost their sovereignty, because they entered something which they could not get out of. They deliberately took that decision. That is not the situation in the European Community. We could get out. I should regard it as a deplorable step, but that it can be taken is undoubted.
  Is what is meant by sovereignty, then, a sort of administrative sovereignty of Parliament? The real complaint when the word "sovereignty" has been used is that a number of directives are made in the Community machine over which it is felt that Parliament does not have sufficient power of scrutiny and control. If that is called loss of sovereignty, it is not exactly an untruth, but it is based on a complete misunderstanding of how Parliament exercises its sovereignty. It does not, and cannot, exercise a detailed criticism over all the administrative acts of Ministers or even all the secondary legislation that pours out. It cannot do that here. It could not do it with secondary legislation from abroad. It exercises its sovereignty by a control of the broad general lines of policy and by the ultimate fact that Governments cannot be Governments, or Ministers be Ministers, against the wish of the majority of this House.
  The Community makes its major decisions through the Council of Ministers. It cannot take decisions against the vital interests of any one of its members with-
  1290
  out the consent of that member expressed in the Council of Ministers. No Minister from this country could agree to anything of major importance that was against the clear will of this Parliament.
  On this administrative concept of sovereignty, again, it cannot seriously be said that there is a loss of sovereignty. Of course, we shall not get all our own way. When many matters are being discussed, in order to obtain an advantage here we shall have to give up something there. But that is true of every conceivable treaty arrangement between States. It is true of every conceivable agreement reached being human beings. To say that this is loss of sovereignty is to produce an argument against making any kind of treaty arrangement altogether.
  Let us look, therefore, at another meaning of the word sovereignty", what real sovereignty could mean. Real sovereignty is the state of being in a position where one can make effective decisions about one's affairs. That was why I said at the beginning that we must look at things not only as they are now but as they will be. On the question of real sovereignty, of the power to make effective decisions on our own affairs, how will the situation stand in years to come if we now take a decision to leave the EEC?
  The EEC will not cease to exist because we leave it. I am sorry to stress so obvious a point, but a good deal of the argument seems to have been based on that extraordinary assumption. We have to face the future realising that the Community will still be there functioning as a Community, and if its past is any guide to its future it will become, as the years go by, richer, the gap between its standard of life and ours will grow and it will also become more cohesive.
  The number of matters on which the Community frames common policy will increase and we shall see it dealing with commercial law, insurance, the law of the sea and professional qualifications, to say nothing of the major political matters to which the right hon. Member for Sid-cup referred. All these decisions will go on being taken. For us, a great trading nation, they will be of profound importance and we shall not have a word to say in the making of them. What kind of sovereignty is that?

  1291
  Not only will the Community continue to exist. It will continue to be a magnet, economic and political, for the rest of the world. We have already seen how countries which were in EFTA and in the Commonwealth have approached the Community to make their own trading arrangements in their own interests with it. We shall also find that in the future whenever any great political matter affecting Europe is toward, the rest of the world, when it refers to Western Europe, will be thinking primarily of the EEC.
  We may imagine that if we go out of the EEC a Foreign Minister of one of the other great groupings, perhaps in Eastern Europe, the United States or the Asian countries, will in a decade's time plan a trip to Western Europe. He will be greatly concerned to be in touch with the leaders of the Community. As he is planning his visit, the time will come when some medium-rank civil servant will say to him "Minister, if you are to visit Western Europe you might as well look in at the United Kingdom if you are there." That is what we shall be—an afterthought in the politics of the world—if we leave the EEC.
  This means that those who require us to leave are now saying, to repeat an old catch-phrase, "Stop the world, I want to get off. Modern life is getting too complicated for us to manage, so let us pretend that the real world is not there." But if we get off, what do we get off to? We will have to make some sort of trading arrangement.
  I have heard the argument that we are so important as a market that the Community countries cannot ignore us. Two important factors appear to me to have been overlooked when it is considered what position we shall command in trying to make a trading agreement. This country suffers one permanent difficulty in trying to make trading arrangements in any group. We must import the things we import. The food and raw materials we import are essential to our life. There is no nation which must buy the things that we produce. It may often be convenient for them to do so, and if we can do well in price and reliability they will do so, but there is no "must" about it so compelling as the "must" which applies to our need to import.
  1292
  In the past, when we were well ahead of the industrialisation of our competitors and when cheap food was to be obtained throughout the world, these facts shielded us from this major difficulty. The shield has gone, the difficulty remains. It is one we can surmount only partly by our own industrial skill, partly by coming to terms with our neighbours and not, when they have been at great pains to come to terms with us, throwing the bargain back in their faces.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Like de Gaulle.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not want us to show the same degree of short-sightedness as General de Gaulle showed when he excluded us from the Community.
  If I may take up one part of the argument of the right hon. Member for Sidcup when he spoke about Germany, I believe that one reason at least why General de Gaulle disliked British entry to the Community was that he nursed the illusion that if there were only six countries France could exercise a hegemony over Europe. That was a disastrously short-sighted assumption, because if the Community were to develop in that way by hegemony of one nation anyone could have seen which nation it would have been in time through sheer size of population and industrial resources. One reason why I rejoice to see Britain in the Community is that with the three most powerful nations of Western Europe in, no one of them could hope any longer to realise this stupid illusion of hegemony over Europe.
  The idea that one nation could exercise hegemony over Europe has cursed this continent for centuries. We have the chance now of an arrangement in which no one can hope for hegemony, and even if common sense and humanity have not driven the nations of Europe to do it already they now have to work for partnership.
  The second objection about a trading agreement in the event that Britain should leave the Community is that we shall have to negotiate with people who are under no obligation to wish us well and quite probably will have no special inclination to wish us well after the way in which we shall have treated them. I am amazed that some of my hon. Friends should not be more seized of this point. Who are

  1293
  the people in nearly all the countries of the Market who have been working with my right hon. Friends, myself and my colleagues in an earlier Labour Government to try to smooth our path to help us to come in on the best possible terms? They are our friends and comrades in the other Socialist Parties of Western Europe, and many of them are personal friends. It is from them that we shall be estranged.
  Look at the countries of the Six today. In those six countries, whatever their ups and downs, there is no democratic political party, no democratic trade union that makes as part of its platform the policy of taking its country out of the EEC. That is a measure of the isolation we shall have put ourselves into. We shall have sacrificed friendship, economic power, political influence and the power to help the poorer sections of mankind in exchange for an illusion falsely called sovereignty but which is in fact only the power to choose in exactly what way we shall endure the poverty and the isolation that we shall have brought upon ourselves. We shall have imitated that wretched creature in Aesop's fable which threw away the substance for the shadow.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I listened to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he recalled his maiden speech in 1950 and how, in it, he had advocated acceptance, or steps towards the acceptance, of an invitation to join the Coal and Steel Community, which in a sense was the embryo of the EEC. As he recalled that, a recollection came to me too. It was that on that night, for the first time but by no means for the last time, I had thought it right to dissent from the general sense of my party because the Coal and Steel Community already foreshadowed the supranational character of the EEC and, albeit in embryo, required the same profound constitutional change on the part of this country.
  It is always well, if at all possible, to start from a point of agreement. In the past five years there has been one assertion and belief—it is not merely a phrase —in which nearly all have concurred. It is crystallised in the well-worn and well-known phrase "full-hearted consent"; but there is no doubt about the
  1294
  point. It is the assertion that British membership of the European Economic Community is of such a character that it could only be justified, sustained or accepted if it enjoyed the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people. Indeed, the series of debates upon which we are embarked, in the words of the Leader of the House on 11th March, have the object of securing that
  "the British people will have their chance to say whether or not they give their full-hearted consent to our membership of the EEC."—[Official Report, 11th March 1975;Vol. 888, c. 304.]
  Why should this act of policy be so uniquely distinguished that we all say of it something which we would not say of any other act of policy, of government or of legislation—that it manifestly requires the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people?
  It is not because of the importance to this country of the alignment of its policies as far as possible with those of our neighbours in Western Europe. That is an important object for this country; for great disasters have flowed in the past from avoidable misunderstandings and failure of alignment between the United Kingdom and our neighbours in the west of the continent of Europe. But of no such step would we think of making such a requirement.
  It is not because the defence of the United Kingdom is bound up almost wholly—fortunately not quite wholly—with that of the adjacent continent of Western Europe. That is a proposition which I have put forward at times when it was rather unpopular to do so. The complaint which was sometimes made of me when I had the honour to speak for the Conservative Party on the subject of defence was that I placed too much emphasis upon NATO and our commitment to the defence of Western Europe. Yet NATO and all that we do under NATO has never been held to be subject to this unique requirement.
  Still less can the reason be the large consequences, economically and commercially, which must flow one way or the other from British membership of the Community. Obviously, whatever else can be said of it, it must produce a fundamental difference in what would otherwise be the pattern of the trade and,

  1295
  therefore, of the economy of this country. But when this Government, or any Government, propose policies and put legislation before this House which will make a profound impact upon our future economy—for example, measures for nationalisation and for State control—it does not occur to the most rabid controversialist to say that they should not be doing this without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people.
  Mr. Heath:I have never taken the right hon. Gentleman up on this point before, but lest he should say that it has gone by default I want to make it absolutely plain that I have never suggested that whole-hearted consent or full-hearted consent in this country would be done other than through Parliament.
  Mr. Fernyhough: "Parliament and people".
  Mr. Heath:By people, through Parliament. I still adhere to that.
  Mr. Powell: I was not concerned with the question whether the consent of Parliament and people was to be one and indivisible. I was concerned with the unique nature of the necessity for full-hearted consent which has been attached to this step. However, since the right hon. Gentleman raises the point, I will place on record that the full-hearted consent of Parliament has never been given to this measure. [Interruption.]
  I am aware that there was a majority of seven to five in favour of the White Paper of October 1971;but I am of the opinion of the Leader of the Conservative Party when she sharply, on 11th March, took up the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) who was claiming that a decision on a White Paper was a decision of the House. I should like to remind the House of what the right hon. Lady said. She said:
  "Parliamentary sovereignty is not changed by declaration of the House, but only after the passage of a Bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and after the giving of the Royal Assent".
  In case the "is" were not dotted or the "t's" not crossed, she concluded:
  "exactly the same passage as the European Communities Bill followed".—[Official Report, 11th March 1975;Vol. 888, c. 313.]
  The Second Reading, the principle of the Bill, was carried by a majority of
  1296
  eight. The Bill itself was passed at all only by reason of a guillotine motion, carried by a majority of 11. So not even Parliament in its legislative capacity, doing its work in its proper way, has yet given its full-hearted consent.
  Mr. Heath: Every hon. Member in this House knew that the vote which was taken on 28th October 1971 was the vote in principle for Britain to go into the European Community and it was carried by a majority of 112, which this House knows to be a substantial majority. Nor does this House have any other means of deciding the majority. As the late Sir Winston Churchill said to me on one occasion, "In our system one is enough." That is perfectly true. Nor can the right hon. Gentleman object to the procedure of a closure motion being used when it is part of our normal procedure.
  Mr. Powell: I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity on this point. It is significant that in the context of a full-hearted consent, which he claimed to be necessary, he refers to the dictum that a majority of one is sufficient.
  I had no intention of tangling with the right hon. Gentleman about the circumstances in which that Bill was passed, but he brings me straight to the answer to my own rhetorical question: why this unique condition attached to this measure only? There is no doubt about the answer. It is because membership of the European Community requires from this House and this country a renunciation of Parliament's sole right to authorise the laws and taxes of this country and requires from this country a renunciation of the right to be judged in the courts of this land—a change which by general confession was completely unprecedented. That is why this is and remains a unique act, and it was when in due course Parliament was presented with these consequences of its decision in principle that a different voting picture appeared in 1972.
  The Government in 1972 did not frame the European Communities Bill lightheartedly. The comprehensive renunciation of the exclusive right to legislate and tax, the explicit and unrestricted acceptance of the overriding power of legislation and taxation of the Community, were not written into Section 2

  1297
  of the Act as a kind of ex abundanti. The Government would not have put such a document before the House if it had not been indispensable as a condition of being part of the Community that that renunciation should be made.
  We have now had the opportunity of testing the validity of that proposition. The Labour Party promised in two successive manifestos that it would attempt a fundamental renegotiation—
  Mr. Frank Tomney: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how and why he voted in 1967?
  Mr. Powell: In 1967 I voted in favour of the Government of the day ascertaining upon what conditions membership of the Community was available. Since my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, the right hon. Gentleman—the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) —
  Mr. Tomney: You voted for entry.
  Mr. Powell: I did not vote for entry in 1967. I have never voted for entry. The proposition of entry was never, until 1971, placed before this House, and the legislative consequences were never until 1972 placed before the judgment of hon. Members so that they were required to vote "Yea" or "Nay".
  I will resume what I was saying when the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) interrupted for a second time. I recall very well—I am sure the right hon. Member for Sidcup will not begrudge my recalling it—that in 1967 I said to him, in council, that it would be absurd and impossible for the Conservative Party, which had taken part in the negotiation of 1962, to seek to deny to the Government of the opposite party permission to embark upon the same course of action. I have no regrets and no apologies for the vote which I cast in 1967. I regard it as entirely rational. But it has nothing to do with what is before the House now and will not help me or anyone else in considering the matter today.
  Mr. Tomney Mr. Tomney rose—
  Mr. Powell: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall enjoy your protection if I appear to be churlish in not giving way, although
  1298
  I desire as much as possible to be at the service of the House.
  Last year the Labour Party promised the electorate on two occasions to attempt a fundamental renegotiation of the terms of our membership of the EEC. No one who perused with care what the items of that renegotiation were could deny that most of them were indeed fundamental. I shall not waste time with most of them but will take only a couple. No one who read that what we wished was to secure the
  "access to the British food market"
  of
  "low cost producers outside Europe
  could doubt that, if that was achieved, it would be inconsistent with the very principle of the common agricultural policy. Nor could anyone doubt, again, that if we succeeded in retaining for Parliament the
  "powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies"
  it would be a very different Community indeed from that which we had entered in 1972.
  This renegotiation was indeed a test case. It was the means of ascertaining what it was that we had to agree to, what were the ultimate requirements of membership. That policy was a compromise; but compromise is not in itself an insincerity. I believe that it was put forward honourably and that it was carried out to the best of the ability of the Government in their own judgment. But what was the outcome? The outcome was not a single alteration whatsoever in the terms of British membership of the Community.
  When we joined in 1972, the outcome of the negotiations of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was embodied in a long series of articles and protocols in the Treaty of Brussels. But of every one of the changes and alterations which the Government, rightly or not, claim that they have achieved, not one is to be embodied in the same permanent form as all the elements in the Treaty of Accession. In every case the Government have said either "Well, we think circumstances have changed" or "We do not think this as important as it appeared to be

  1299
  two years ago", or else they say that "this is part of a continuing negotiation". The Community has in effect reaffirmed that the treaties mean what they say, and that the renunciation which was made by the European Communties Act of 1972 was an indispensable condition of membership of the Community.
  I believe that this is a great gain. What has happened is that the minimalist spectre which has haunted these debates so long has been laid once and for all. Happily we have now heard the end of the argument which ran "Oh, this is just a matter of details. Do not worry about the small print of the Treaty. All this really does not concern very important matters—only certain trading arrangements—and therefore it need not be taken seriously." After this debate—this was certainly the burden of the speech of the right hon. Member for Sidcup—we are face to face with a straight decision, knowing that it is a political decision, knowing that membership of the Community for this country is an indivisible whole, something which we take or something which we leave.
  As the debate has proceeded, one of the things which has become clear is that it is not the economic argumentation, not the estimates of what will be the trends on one hypothesis or another, that have counted. Even those who have set out to argue upon economic grounds have finished by debating politics. Almost every speech in the debate has ended up with the political issue; for a political issue it is.
  The question is this: is it right, is it worth while, is it necessary that this House, that Parliament, should renounce what has hitherto been a fundamental principle of our constitution, something by which our very nature has been fashioned—the right of this House exclusively to legislate and to tax and to call to account the Government for all acts or policies which lie within the sphere of Government? It is that question, no less.
  That is not a question to which the answer can he derived by a logical argument from a priori assumptions. That is a question the answer to which can only come from the heart and a question to which
  "the poorest he that is in England"
  1300
  has as good a right, as great a justification, to give his answer as anyone else. In answering it, there are two considerations which the House should put from itself.
  They have both played a part in this debate.
  As I listened to the speeches I found that a paradox which had puzzled and worried me all through these years began to find its explanation. I had never understood why it should be the Conservative Party, the party devoted to the protection of British institutions, the party devoted to nationhood and to national independence, which in these last 20 years—and the Leader of the Opposition clearly demonstrated this—has been the pacesetter in this matter, has been foremost in advocating that we should indeed make the great renunciation. But as these three days of debate have gone by, there has been a note struck more and more insistently. That note has been the word "power". Sometimes it was disguised by the softer appellation "influence";but always the point was the same.
  The debate has revealed how for many people membership of the European Community is seen as a compensation for the real or believed loss of Empire. For many people, particularly on the Opposition benches amongst those around me—there is nothing dishonourable in this—the European Economic Community is a surrogate for Empire. It supplies the same sensation as is believed to have been enjoyed in the past, of belonging to a great and powerful show. There is in this both a fallacy and a hallucination.
  The fallacy is that the subject of the proposition is changed while the proposition itself is being made. We say that we shall regain our power and influence in the world by being part of the EEC; but the "we" that is part of EEC is not the nation whose power and influence in the world we imagine—in my view wrongly—has been lost in the last 30 or 40 years.
  Sir Anthony Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: I am sorry. I am in great difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are under great pressure to keep our speeches short, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not give way.

  1301
  It is a different "we" who will enjoy the power which flows, if it does, from being part of the EEC. We shall participate in that not as a nation but as members of something different; for the nation, our independence, our "we-hood", must be traded in as the price of gaining membership of that yew power structure. It is, therefore, a fallacy to suppose that Britain—the Britain we imagine we are talking about—in any real sense regains or renews its power or influence by being in the EEC.
  There is not only the fallacy; there is the hallucination. I am, of course, prepared to admit that the EEC, governed by a single government, ruled by a single will, with power to dispose of all the resources which it contains, would indeed be a powerful military empire and a powerful economic empire. As a purchaser it would to some extent be able to impose its will on suppliers in other parts of the world. On that hypothesis, too, it could be put in the same military rank as the United States or the Soviet Union. But it is a mere fantasy, totally removed from either the present or any conceivable reality, to see the EEC as a power structure of that kind, utilising and commanding the resources of all that vast area and subordinating them to the acts of a single policy.
  Sir Anthony Royle: I have listened with great interest to the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward, but why did he not put forward those arguments in the pamphlet on Europe which he wrote so skilfully many years ago?
  Mr. Powell: It so happens that I did not write that pamphlet, that my name at no place appears in it and that all I did was to read it and offer suggestions to those who wrote it and those who published it. I am obliged to die hon. Gentleman for allowing me to refute a statement which has too often been repeated.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: To go back to the fallacy argument, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the French nation lost its nationhood when it joined the EEC? Has it no nationhood now?
  Mr. Powell: The political nationhood of all the States members of the EEC, by the very definition of that structure if it is to be a structure which exercises power and influence, must to that extent be forfeited. That is what we were talking about in legislation when we go back to the Act of 1972. So I believe that we should endeavour to banish from our minds as we face this issue the largely illusory notion that Britain was once great because she had an Empire and is now small and weak because she has one no longer and must seek salvation in being submerged or merged in what is large and, by hypothesis, therefore powerful.
  There is a more dangerous line of argument by which this issue has been confused, and it has been heard in this debate. There have been those who have said "Let us make this renunciation, for at least we shall render Europe, including the United Kingdom, safe for Socialism." There have been an equal number of voices which have said "Let us make this renunciation, for at least as the price of this renunciation Europe, including the United Kingdom, will be safe for capitalism". That is the crudest form of what is often urged by those who debate the matter—the belief, if not the fear, that others will take decisions for this country more wisely than we can take them for ourselves. Herein lies the greatest peril of that surrender which is implicit in our membership of the EEC—it is the confession to ourselves and the world that we do not trust ourselves to decide for ourselves upon what principles and by what laws we shall be governed.
  In the debate we have heard, and we shall hear again, the voices of those who challenge one side or the other to be ashamed of those who stand with them in the debate. All who use that argument are, in effect, saying that they do not trust the British people and the British Parliament to represent this country or to be the means of governing it. That is a renunciation of self-respect and of pride which is particularly dangerous at this juncture in our affairs.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)rose—
  Mr. Powell: I am sorry I cannot give way.
  The Prime Minister at the outset of the debate reminded the House that our

  1303
  greatest troubles are those we have brought upon ourselves, and that we have to find somehow the will and the wisdom ourselves to deal with the evils by which we are plagued largely as a result of our own fault. At this moment of all moments, it is the most fatal thing to say "We resign, we voluntarily resign, the decision of the key issues over our economy to someone else. We have placed them outside the reach of the electorate and of Parliament."
  Mr. Cormack: Many of us have changed our minds on this issue. Why does not the right hon. Member admit that he has changed his mind? In 1963 he was a member of a Government which sought entry into the Community. Surely he knows that the Treaty of Rome has not altered since then.
  Mr. Powell: Even if it were true to the fullest extent that I had totally changed my mind on this subject, as totally as the late Conservative administration changed its mind on half a dozen subjects, it would not excuse any hon. Member from judging the merits of what I offer to the House and whether or not it is sound. That is no justification for thrusting away the issue which is before the country.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), whose speech made such an impression upon the House yesterday afternoon, accused me of revelling in
  —" reminiscences of vice-regal splendour".—[Official Report, 8th April 1975;Vol. 889, c. 1037].
  I have already indicated that vice-regal splendour is what haunts the minds of those who are looking for a substitute for those imagined glories in an equally imaginary structure in Europe. But the hon. Member for Ladywood also accused me of being a nationalist. If by nationalist is meant that I believe that the habits, the genius, the character and the institutions of one country can be compared upon a sort of scale with those of other countries and that they can be assigned an order of merit on some such scale, in that sense I am not a nationalist and never have been. However, I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that a nation has a certain genius or character of its own and that its institutions conform themselves to that character or genius.
  1304
  I believe that they cannot be denied or renounced without danger and destruction to that nation itself, and that they cannot, for the same reason, merely be transferred to others whose genius is different.
  I believe that the Government of this country under a Parliament which has the sole right to legislate and to tax, with an unwritten constitution which leaves the whole defence of the subject as well as the welfare of the country in the hands of this House, corresponds uniquely to the genius of its people. I do not believe that that is something that they will give up. However long this debate continues, in the end they will insist upon recalling it.
  The benefit of this hour is that the nation now has the opportunity to do sooner rather than later what it must, if it is true to itself, do sooner or later. That is the ultimate appeal which I would make to the people of this country —namely, that their full-hearted consent should be reserved for the maintenance of the free Parliament, the democratic Parliament, the sovereign institutions which have been their own special creation in the face of the whole world.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: The fundamental point was made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), when he tore away the veil from those who believe that this nation should remain within the Common Market. He made them face the fact that they have been arguing that there is someone, somewhere other than on these islands, who has better ideas on how to organise society than anyone in the British Isles. I believe that because of that attitude many people have had to look at all forms of arguments and that they have resorted to all forms of distortions. Consequently, they have become enamoured of an argument—I refer to men and women, Members of this House and others outside—which their better judgment, in cool reappraisal, would ask them to reject totally.
  It has been said—I think that it is perfectly true—that this is probably the greatest debate that has ever taken place in this House. The right hon. Member for Down, South has said that the ultimate decision when the referendum is

  1305
  held will be about the destiny or the delusion of the nation. I am of the opinion that if the British people vote to remain within the Common Market they will have been the victims of the delusionists. I accept that they sincerely believe their own delusions.
  The quintessential of the debate is whether at this time the House should accept the recommendation of the White Paper that we should remain in the Common Market. One of the things that I regret very much is that a Member of this House, sent here not by the Prime Minister, not by the Foreign Secretary, and not by anyone on the Government or Opposition Front Bench, should be gagged from expressing a point of view. That has probably never happened before in this House. We never had anything like that in the House until we started talking about the Common Market. No doubt the Commissioners in Brussels will nod their heads with approval when they know that the British Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary have seen fit to relegate the status of British Members of Parliament and to spit in the faces of those who elected them to the House of Commons. That must be said because I find that that is one of the more frightening portents of what might well come if we remain within this thing.
  If the British people do not see the dangers it may well be—let us consider for one awful moment that they should vote "Aye"—that there will be other occasions when Front Bench Members will be told "Stay away, you have no right to speak today". How long will it be before that practice spreads and back benchers will be told what they are able to say? That is one of the very real and dangerous issues.
  Let us examine the practical points which have been submitted to us by those who want Britain to remain in the Common Market. As I understand the situation, the entire Treasury Bench would not favour our remaining in the Common Market if it had to be under the terms negotiated by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). That being so, one is now compelled to look at the improvements gained by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary which are said to be superior to those negotiated
  1306
  —if they ever were negotiated—by the right hon. Member for Sidcup.
  I have looked very closely at the situation and I acknowledge that there have been marginal improvements. Indeed, on Monday the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) acknowledged those improvements, as did the right hon. Member for Sidcup in his speech today, but the attitude of the official Opposition, particularly in the past six months, appears to be based on the philosophy If you want to get out of a mess, you must first get into it." That is the absurdity behind many of the arguments advanced by the Opposition.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) demonstrated almost unchallengeably that the ordinary people of this country have benefited in no way at all since we joined the Common Market, particularly in the matter of food prices. My right hon. Friend gave figures to show that in Norway and Sweden, countries which have not joined the Common Market, between 1971 and 1974 prices rose by only 20 per cent. In the United Kingdom in the same period prices increased by 40 per cent. On that issue alone one can judge whether or not it is a good thing for us to remain in the Common Market.
  We have been told that the Commonwealth countries now believe that Great Britain should remain in the Common Market. Let us examine that argument. Some four or five years ago Common wealth countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia, and some of the African countries, were extremely apprehensive about our proposed entry into the Common Market. They did not believe that a British administration, particularly a Conservative administration, would stab them in the back and let them down.
  A former Prime Minister of New Zealand said that the New Zealand people were very angry when these changes were suggested. The people of New Zealand were pleased to be able to trade with us; they had stood fast by us in time of war. When in time of war they had the opportunity in their own country of consuming, if they wished to do so, a couple of hundredweight of butter and cheese and a hundred eggs a

  1307
  week, they imposed on themselves the same rationing system which we operated in Great Britain during those strenuous times. New Zealanders could hardly believe that a British Government would push their country on one side as a thing of the past.
  New Zealand's and other Commonwealth countries' very economies were at stake. They had to look elsewhere, and, indeed, they did look elsewhere, and I am glad that they were able to do so. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture said this afternoon that the Prime Minister had congratulated countries such as New Zealand on extracting themselves from a difficult situation. For the Prime Minister, who, I am sure, has a deep affection for the Commonwealth, that is a remarkable attitude to adopt.
  I turn to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He chided Labour Members for not being good internationalists and said that we were not concerned to join with other peoples all over the world. If there is one party in these islands that has played a significant rôle in gaining freedom for former colonies and in giving ordinary people overseas the right of self-determination and self-government it is the British Labour Party—and certainly the Left wing of that party. Those were the ideals of ordinary working men, although later some professors and university types latched on to the idea. But this was our instinctive feeling. We did not have to read books to understand what was going on.
  An important point to bear in mind in determining the difference between the British Commonwealth of Nations and the Common Market is that no country was forced into the Commonwealth. The record of some earlier British Governments was abysmal, but eventually, as we got together with other Commonwealth countries, it is true to say, nobody was forced to join in the Commonwealth. Countries were in the Commonwealth on a voluntary basis—a Commonwealth that forms a multiracial community.
  Mr. Jim Spicer Mr. Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: There are still a great many hon. Members who wish to take
  1308
  part in the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will not give way.
  Mr. Molloy: I am sure that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) will understand that I want to finish my remarks as quickly as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said that if we came out of the Community Germany would look to the Soviet Union for some form of alliance. He added that there was no one who was more pro-German in the House than he was. I hope that there is no truth in my hon. Friend's argument about an alliance.
  I come to my concluding remarks. There are many matters to which I wanted to refer, but I shall adhere to Mr. Speaker's plea about cutting remarks to essentials.
  I wish to make clear that those of us who are opposed to Britain remaining in the Common Market are not by any means anti-European. We want to see a closer liaison with the countries of Europe because we understand the problems of earlier years which caused both World Wars. We want to see those disasters put in the dustbin and forgotten, with no threat of their ever returning.
  In this ever-shrinking world we cannot remain isolated from one continent. We must contribute to and co-operate with other nations. The United Kingdom has a massive contribution to make not merely in terms of economics, large armies or H-bombs. This country can make a lasting contribution, for which mankind will always be grateful, if we continue to evolve the system of Parliament and freedom. Therefore, the mother of parliaments should be allowed to develop that rôle.
  This country will make its contribution to Europe. We shall work with Europeans and with our Commonwealth partners. We shall work with all peoples who support the principle of decency and civilised behaviour. However, we can only do that if we are neither shackled nor prevented from voicing the opinion of the people of these islands, who have done so much to uplift and dignify mankind.
  7.11 p.m.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith:This long debate has covered a wide range of subjects. However, I wish to confine my contribution to one issue, which is to me the main one—that is, how far Britain can lawfully and with propriety resile from commitments entered into and withdraw from the Community. That is the question which, with the indulgence of the House, I propose to examine for a few minutes.
  I say "with the indulgence of the House" because this obviously involves matters of law. I do not think I need apologise for that. It is true that the detail of law may sometimes seem arid, but there is nothing arid about what it stands for—respect for law, regard for obligations entered into and the principle of the sanctity of contract. Those are the necessary bases and the indispensable ingredients of civilised living in individuals and States alike. To me those considerations are fundamental.
  I do not underrate the importance of economic considerations, but even in the twentieth century there are some considerations which transcend those of the counting-house. I have been reminded of Wordsworth's
  "nicely-calculated less or more'".
  But of course Wordsworth told us that high Heaven rejected that concept.
  Mr. Clement Freud:It was Milton.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: No, it was Wordsworth. We must give an extra hour's tuition to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
  Mr. Cormack: That was a Freudian slip.
  Sir D. Walker-SmithI find it surprising that many people tend to treat this debate as a repetition of the long arguments of 1961, 1967 and 1972. It is not that. There has been a fundamental change of circumstances, including the fact of accession. There is a world of difference between then and now—the difference between offer and acceptance, between negotiation and concluded contract, between a proposal of marriage and a decree of divorce. We are concerned now with things as they are in 1975, with
  1310
  treaties signed and ratified, and with obligations and benefits accepted.
  In 12 years, through four Parliaments, I have spelt out both inside and outside the House two basic propositions. First, entry to the EEC would entail a material surrender or transfer of sovereignty of Parliament by reason of the supremacy of Community law in defined sectors of the economy and the life of the member States. The second was that membership of the Community once entered into would in principle and in practice be irrevocable. I have never deviated from those two propositions, and I adhere to them today. Within the context of this debate I am primarily concerned with the second of those propositions, but I hope to say a short word on the future implications of the first.
  I come to an analysis of the considerations arising from the treaties and international law which lead me to that conclusion. I formulate them in six brief propositions. First, from the date of accession both the Treaty of Accession and the Treaty of Rome bind this country and all other member States. We see that clearly in Article 2 of the Treaty of Accession. Second, Article 6 of the Treaty of Accession says that the provisions of that treaty may not be suspended, amended or repealed other than by means of the procedures for revision laid down in the Treaty of Rome. Third, the Treaty of Rome has no machinery for determination of the treaty and does not contemplate it. On the contrary, Article 240 specifically states that it is for an unlimited period.
  Fourth, according to the Treaty of Accession, only by amendment of the Treaty of Rome can procedures for lawful determination be introduced. Fifth, amendment of the Treaty of Rome in accordance with Article 236 requires ratification by all nine member States. Sixth, it follows that without those procedures, consents, amendments and ratifications, there is no right of unilateral determination, and any purported unilateral determination is a unilateral repudiation. That is precisely what nations cannot lawfully or properly do.
  The position is summarised in the leading authority, McNair, on the law of treaties in these words:
  "There is a general presumption against the existence of any right of unilateral determination of a Treaty."

  1311
  My propositions are supported not only by the content of these treaties but by the basic considerations of international law and by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was ratified by the United Kingdom as recently as April 1970, while the Labour Government were in power.
  Article 54 of that convention makes the position clear. It states:
  "The termination of a Treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place—
  (a) in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty"—
  we have already looked at that—
  "(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with other contracting States".
  By reason of the provisions of the treaties, consent in this case can be effected only by amendment of the Treaty of Rome so as to give machinery for determination. That amendment would require ratification by the national Parliaments of the nine member States. Nobody suggests that that would ever happen, because the whole philosophy of the Community, and the inescapable consequence of its interlocking mechanisms, is the concept of membership in perpetuity.
  There is nothing contrary to international law in a treaty being permanent. McNair confirms that in these words:
  "There is nothing juridically impossible in the existence of a Treaty creating obligations which are incapable of termination except by the agreement of all parties."
  He goes on to say:
  "Certain political Treaties are clearly intended by the parties to be permanent and this intention is frequently apparent from the plain object of the Treaty to set up some permanent régime or status."
  The EEC is obviously a prime example of this. The permanent régime instituted by the Treaty of Rome is without doubt a most intricate and elaborate mechanism designed on the assumption of a continuing and permanent interdependence of the various elements.
  I come next to the question of whether the position is affected by the change of Government or by the fact that at some stages the parliamentary majority was narrow, that the Whips were on, or that the then Government failed to seek or to secure an expression of full-hearted consent by the mechanism of a referendum. The answer in international law
  1312
  clearly is "No". These considerations do not affect one whit the sanctity of treaty obligation.
  For myself, I favoured a pre-accession referendum. It would have been exceptional but, provided always that it was consultative only and not purporting to bind Parliament, it would not have been unconstitutional.
  The referendum is no part of the required processes of treaty-making in this country, and its absence could not be said to be, in the language of Article 46 of the Vienna Convention, a violation of a provision of our internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties. This being so, the matter is governed by Article 27 of that convention:
  "A party may not revoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
  McNair has put the point succinctly:
  "It cannot be insisted too strongly that the parties to treaties are States not Governments, whatever the actual form of the treaty may be."
  Later he says:
  "treaties remain in force in spite of changes in the form of Governments".
  This doctrine which McNair describes applies not only to changes of party government within the same constitutional system. Treaties are binding in succession upon States irrespective even of changes of Government which wholly transform the constitutional basis of the State—from monarchy to republic, from Czardom to Soviet and so on. Thus, treaties concluded by Cromwell were binding on Charles II. Treaties concluded by Napoleon III were binding on the Third Republic. As the British Government informed Mr. Krassin, the agent in London of the infant Soviet Union in 1921,
  "although the form of Government may change, the people remain bound."
  I come next to how our position in international law, which seems to me clear, relates to our domestic constitutional doctrine that Parliament cannot bind its successors. It is, of course, open to Parliament by that domestic doctrine to repeal if it will the European Communities Act 1972 and thereby destroy the mechanism which enables Britain to perform her treaty obligations.
  There is here something of a constitutional dilemma which I identified to

  1313
  the House in the long discussions which preceded entry. We have to ask ourselves how that dilemma is to be resolved and that position reconciled. I gave my view to the House on 13th June 1972. I said then that it might be that the dilemma could be resolved only by successive Parliaments voluntarily accepting a restraint which could not lawfully be imposed upon them, refraining in the interests of international obligation and good faith from exercising any right of repeal. I thought that that was the right approach in the hypothetical situation before entry. I adhere to it in the actualities of accession and membership.
  Surely the essence of the matter is simple and clear. We cannot break our treaty obligation without a breach of international law and good faith. Therefore, if we are to be true to ourselves and our tradition, we have no option in that matter.
  Conversely, there is no requirement on Parliament to repeal the Act of 1972—only the power to do so if it thinks right in all the circumstances. In deciding whether it is right, Parliament will take into account all material considerations, and no consideration can be more material than the good faith and pledged word of the nation and its respect for the law.
  There is, therefore, no derogation from Parliament's high position and no breach of its duty if, while affirming the general constitutional doctrine, it concludes of its own wisdom and by its own decision that repeal in these circumstances is inappropriate and would be detrimental to Britain's good name and standing in the world.
  Mr. Fernyhough:A good lawyer's case.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Fernyhough) says that it is a good lawyer's case. I have been talking in terms of law, propriety and good faith. If it is said in the last analysis that adherence to treaty obligations and continuity of membership cannot be enforced on a reluctant country, of course that is true. The ultimate enforcement of international law rests on sanctions and force. No one suggests that the other eight member States would force Britain to adherence
  1314
  But to suggest that one may get away with an unlawful act is not to justify it. The Kaiser referred contemptuously to his treaty obligations in regard to Belgium as a scrap of paper because he thought that he could break them, and history condemned him for so doing.
  We in this country are surely concerned with keeping our obligations and not with assessing our chances of avoiding them. After all, Britain's good name traditionally rested on the fact that an Englishman's word was his bond. Today, though much diminished in military might and in material resources, in matters of good repute Britain is still far forward in the vanguard of the nations. We know that the loss of that repute and that good name transcends material loss. We have it on the high authority of Shakespeare in his imperishable words:
  "Who steals my purse steals trash… But he that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him, And make me poor indeed."
  Before concluding my remarks, I want briefly to mention two respects in which, in practice, matters look different now from what they did in the long days of pre-accession debate—one negative, and the other positive. The negative consideration is that the options open to Britain are narrower now than in the late 1950s and early 1960s when these matters first came under consideration. Neither the Commonwealth nor a free trade area holds out the practical premise that they then seemed to have. The Commonwealth countries, both new and old, have come to terms with the Community or seek to do so, and they welcome Britain's membership as a means to wider economic opportunity. Their minds are not now directed to an exclusive or predominantly Commonwealth trading pattern.
  The position of a free trade area is similar. There is much to be said for the maximum of freedom of trade with the minimum of institutionalisation. But we cannot convert the Community into a free trade area, because eight of the member States do not want it that way. Of course, we could seek a sort of most-favoured-nation relationship. But can we assume a favourable view from those who inevitably would see us in the rôle of lapsed partners and treaty breakers? It would be at best an uncertain basis for a future relationship.

  1315
  The positive consideration is that we have now more than two years' experience of the Community from within. We can relate aspirations and apprehensions to actualities. Of course, membership has not had the impact which, in their more apocalyptic moments, enthusiasts hoped for or sceptics apprehended. We have not been brought into some nonagonal Utopia, but nor arc we shackled in every detail of our daily life or ground down by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Certainly the Commission and the staff are not the power-hungry bureaucrats and the devotees of red tape of some imaginings. Basically they are conscientious and reasonable men seeking practical solutions and not dedicated to the principle, if the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will forgive the adaptation, that the gentleman in Brussels knows best.
  Two years have seen considerable improvements in the democratic workings of the Community. We have seen a growing acceptance of the undesirability of seeking to regulate and to prescribe in detail, of seeking harmonisation for harmonisation's sake and, on the other hand, of the desirability of maintaining the rich diversity of national characteristics and individual preferences.
  Of course, not everyone sees the future of the Community alike. There are those who sigh for a more centralised form of administration, a so-called federal approach, an enthusiasm I neither share nor am likely to share. But we argue over our differences just as we do in this House, each putting forward his own point of view and respecting the views of those who differ. I have come to be wary of dogmatism and cautious of confidence, but I have a quiet confidence that the future pattern of the Community, at any rate for the predictable future, is more likely to reflect a democratic and decentralised approach.
  I have stressed in many speeches in the European Parliament and in its Legal Committee how I envisage the evolution of the workings of the Community. The elements are clear. I envisage a strengthened and democratic accountability, the safeguarding of the rights of the citizen and close co-operation between national Parliaments and the Community institutions, each respecting and seeking to profit from the work of the other.
  1316
  These are things for which we should strive, and I do not believe that we need strive alone. These are certainly the things for which I would wish to strive. I have taken them as my goal in 30 years of membership of this House. Now that events have, in my view, committed us in law, in faith and in fact to membership of the Community, I take them as my goal there also.
  When I was elected chairman of the European Parliament's Legal Committee, it was not something which I sought. I certainly had no personal reason to do so and no desire to add at this stage to the heavy workload which I have borne so long. I accepted election in the hope that, in however modest a way. I might, by such guidance as I can give, such exhortation as I can make and such influence as I can wield, do something to promote and strengthen in the Community, of which we are now part, the rule of law and the practice of parliamentary democracy—those principles which I have known so long, loved so well and sought to serve a little.
  I shall cast my vote for the motion tonight not because I think that in the circumstances of 1972 Britain could not have survived outside the Community, not because I think that by the Act of Accession Britain did not part with sovereignty to a material extent—something for which many of us felt a profound and proclaimed reluctance—not because of any purported renegotiation, which I believe at most to be a fringe and collateral consideration, but for the clear and basic reason which I have here sought to expound. I believe that Britain is now committed to the Community in law, in good 'faith and in fact. Alea est jacta.
  It is not for us now to sigh or to snarl, to evade or to equivocate. It is for us to bear ourselves like men in the Community of which we are members, to seek its growth without our diminution, to infuse into it British thinking, British experience and British tradition, and so to seek for Britain in the Community and in the world outside a future not unworthy of our past.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Evan Luard: We are approaching the end of a three-day debate which comes after many months and, indeed, years of discussion about this

  1317
  issue both in this House and in the country as a whole. Therefore, it may seem to many that nearly every argument that could be used on either side has already been deployed. I do not intend to try to tread again on ground which has already been rather heavily trampled over in recent days, weeks, months and years. I should like to confine myself to one argument, which I will not claim is new but which has sadly been neglected in recent discussions in this country and in the debate in this House.
  In much of the discussion recently one point has almost totally disappeared. I address this remark as much—or more—to pro-Marketeers, of which I am one, as to anti-Marketeers. Any spark of idealism seems to have left the argument.
  On every side we hear that the main arguments to be considered in the debate are the effect on our immediate balance of payments situation, the effect on one particular industry or another, and the effect on the conditions of farmers in one part of the country or another.
  What is worse than this devotion to questions of stark and materialistic realism is that on many sides there is a tendency to decry what, in the eyes of many people, have been the main achievements of the Community, particularly the claim that most of the ideals which originally led to its creation are not merely no longer valid, but that there will no longer be any attempt to achieve them. For example, it is claimed that on agriculture, economic policy, energy policy, foreign policy and other matters, the attempt to secure joint policies has already failed and will not be revived in future.
  I understand the reasons for this disconcerting shift in argument. I understand the desire to reassure some people against the more alarmist picture being painted in certain quarters of the dramatic loss of independence for this country. I also understand and recognise the reality which has given rise to this shift in argument. It is an undoubted fact that the trend in recent years in the Community has been away from some of the earlier ambitions and ideals towards a greater recognition of national independence and individuality in certain respects.
  The Community has shown itself skilful in recent years in allowing for a greater
  1318
  degree of national diversity, and in the process it has to some extent lost sight of its original aims. However, I will not accept what seems to be widely accepted among pro-Marketeers as much as among anti-Marketeers, that we should welcome this trend with open arms and that we should throw our hats in the air and cheer because the Community has taken a different and more modest path from the one on which it originally embarked.
  To my mind it is a fact that entry into the Community involves this country in some loss of sovereignty. This is one of the prime reasons why we should wish to join in that endeavour. It seems strange that many who are advocating our continued membership of the Community should continually harp on the theme that this will not involve any significant loss of independence or sovereignty for this country.
  I believe that the Labour Party is, above all, an international party. I accept that in the eyes of many people and, indeed, in my own eyes this involves, above everything else, support for the aim of building up institutions at world level —for example, trying to make the United Nations and similar organisations more effective authorities within our international system. I agree that that should be the main aim, the heart, of the foreign policy of any British Government, but there is also an important role within such an international framework for regional organisations. It would be as absurd to suggest that at international level all power and authority should be centralised in the hands of one international authority as to demand that at national level all power should be centred on a national government leaving no scope for local authorities.
  It would be ridiculous to imagine that it would be possible for world authorities to institute something like a free trade area at world level. It would also be ridiculous to suggest that any world authority could make any significant progress towards joint policies in agriculture, economic co-ordination, energy policy, and other areas in which the EEC is active. It would be impossible to expect world authorities at present to have any effective influence in inducing joint foreign policies in the way that the EEC is attempting to do.

  1319
  Therefore, I suppose that for those of us who regard ourselves as internationalists, for those of us who want above everything else the monopoly of power at present centred in the nation State to be merged in wider associations of States, for those of us who believe that the prime task for national governments in the modern age is to join their neighbours in joint arrangements, there is still a reason for supporting regional organisations as well as international institutions. For all these reasons, there is still an important place for idealism in the discussion which is about to open in the country during the coming two months.
  Many of us in the Labour Party speak often of the aim of Socialist internationalism. This is an ideal which this country should be proclaiming more widely in the world and one of the main reasons that we should seek to remain in the EEC. The loss of momentum and impetus in the Community is something that we should regret rather than welcome. We have a role to play in trying to reawaken some of the original idealism and spark which lay behind the creation of the EEC. I therefore hope that, during the debate in the country, we shall not allow the argument to be confined to some of the more narrow discussion which we have seen in recent months—related for example entirely to the state of our balance of payments, to whether we shall improve our exports of ball bearings or candy floss to the EEC if we remain in or leave, to whether some section of our community is likely to gain or lose.
  Surely the argument is about something far bigger than this—Britain's whole future role in the world today. I hope that we as MPs can do something to induce in the public some sense of the dimension of the choice before them. I believe that it is a choice not simply about British national interests but about European interests. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he did not feel that it would be wise for the people of this country, even if they felt some general objective in wider associations, to believe that the people of other countries could enjoy some greater wisdom than we about how our own affairs should be run. That may be, but it may also be that those of vision in this country should consider against that
  1320
  the desirability that we should have some voice in shaping the destiny and the future economic, social and political policies pursued in Europe as a whole.
  I therefore believe that we in this country, and we in the Labour Party in particular, have the historic mission in the debate now beginning in the country to show that this is where the real destiny of our country lies and to help to bring about a change not merely here but in Europe as a whole, so as to help to create a Europe which is more democratic, more equal, more concerned with human rights, and above all more Socialist, than the European Economic Community is today.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Arnold: When the electors of Hazel Grove sent me to Westminster, they did so in the aftermath of two closely-fought General Elections in the same year. While it is difficult to maintain true perspective in large affairs, in the unwinding of the complex destiny of our nation, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House for the first time since I was sworn in as their Member of Parliament last October.
  Formed out of the urban districts of Bredbury and Romiley, Marple and Hazel Grove and Bramhall, all of which have now been amalgamated within the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, itself a District of the new Greater Manchester Council, the Hazel Grove constituency came into being as the result of sweeping demographic change, which brought about not only a rapid increase in population but also other fundamental economic upheavals which, escaping by their gradual character the notice of some contemporary observers, played the greater part in bursting the bonds of local convention. This applied not least to the area's representation in this House, where I must pay tribute to the work which my predecessor, Dr. Michael Winstanley performed on behalf of his constituents. Local patriotism, like patriotism itself, can, however, gain in depth and sweetness for being in harmony with newly-discovered, wider loyalties.
  If I may expand upon this theme, I would add that the formative years of my upbringing were spent on the European mainland, and an accident of fate similar to that of other hon. Members

  1321
  born in the aftermath of the Second World War, meant that the historical vision of a democratic Western Europe, within the context of the new inescapable great power rivalry of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, determined a large part of my own political thinking and development.
  The essential facts of the situation are expressed simply. Europe consists of one of the densest aggregations of population in the history of the world. This population now expects a high standard of living, education and social welfare in which, even in the aftermath of the oil crisis, most sections anticipate improvement rather deterioration. Yet Europe is not self-sufficient. In particular, it does not feed itself. Internally, the population is not evenly distributed, but much of it is crowded into a relatively small number of dense industrial centres, of which Manchester and its surrounding districts and towns can be taken as a prime example. This population secures for itself a livelihood by means of a delicate and immensely complicated organisation, the foundations of which are supported by an unbroken supply of imported food, oil, raw materials and technology from other continents, as well as international credit, research into future developments, transport, coal, iron and steel.
  The more serious problems for Europe have been brought to a head by the oil crisis but are in their origins more fundamental. The economic motives and ideals—the very ideas and assumptions —which until recently made post-war Europe's institutions legitimate, authoritative, and confident are fast eroding. They are slipping away in the face of a changing reality and are being replaced by different ideas and assumptions which are as yet contradictory, ill-formed and sometimes shocking.
  The transition is neither good nor bad, although there is possibility for plenty of both. The point is that it is taking place. Rights of membership are already overshadowing property rights. A need to satisfy consumer desires is already supplementing competition as a means of controlling the uses of property. The rôle of Government has in consequence inevitably expanded. Reality requires the perception of whole systems and not only the parts, while the dilemma of
  1322
  protest and how to accommodate it within the framework of democracy is once again real and constant.
  In the case of our own country the internal inconsistency between what people demand of government and what it can deliver remains unchanged. The appetites of consumption continually demand more than the economy can produce and, as hon. Members opposite will shortly rediscover, the cake has now become so small in proportion that no one, if it were shared all around, would be that much the better off by the cutting of it.
  It is a sobering exercise to review the record of the very recent past and to find how badly off the mark almost all predictions of the nature and magnitude of Britain's problems have been. Even those who seemed at the time Cassandras, in retrospect appear as unguarded optimists in the light of the decay which confronts us today. In dizzying succession one crisis had led almost directly to another. As a result, little confidence is left in the stability of the situation, which has already produced internally an impasse which presently affords no politically discernible way out.
  A plausible case for rejecting continued British membership of the European Community cannot be made to rest upon the argument that no one would care to deny, that the success of such membership depends upon answers to many questions which we simply cannot have with assurance, not least on the future rôle of the Commission. The evident implication of the argument is that in the absence of these answers we are far better advised to pursue a different but presumably known course. That also has its uncertainties, which perhaps even the most passionate anti-Marketeer would be prepared to admit. At this stage of the development in our nation's affairs we would be extremely unwise not to appreciate how numerous and potentially serious those uncertainties may be.
  In these circumstances it is excessive, to say the least, to insist that the many uncertainties attending membership be answered with assurance before that membership can be continued. Equally, it is excessive to insist that before contemplating membership we must exhaust all other remedies, when the exhaustion

  1323
  of all other remedies is little more than the functional equivalent of accepting chaos.
  What may be reasonably demanded is a critical weighing, however rough and approximate it must necessarily be, of the dangers, uncertainties and opportunities attending membership, as opposed to the hazards and choices of following a different course. Everyone should make up his own mind in this respect, but those who simply dismiss membership refuse even to make the effort, and the dilemmas of action are thereby overcome by denying their reality.
  Such detached wisdom of passivity may express the truth about our present plight as a nation, though if it does, the more practical consequences to be drawn from it arc scarcely those commonly assembled. It is plausible to surmise, however, that the obsession with Britain's vanished greatness and the sudden attraction to events beyond our control, often summed up in the phrase "We shall go it alone", are little more than rationalisations of political incompetence and the failure of will. At the same time, an apparent resignation before the inevitable may, and often does, conceal an optimism that takes for granted that somehow we shall have our way in the end. If membership is ruled out it is in part because we assume, whether consciously or unconsciously, that the French are, after all, still only French and that in the game we are playing with the Germans and the Italians, generations of what we allege to be political supremacy and economic superiority must count for something.
  To this assumption is added the belief that we do still hold the trumps when all is said and done. No longer comforted by yesterday's thought that the Commonwealth countries cannot do without us, we have found a serviceable substitute in today's thought that the Common Market countries cannot do without our North Sea oil. We can only hope that this latest argument, designed to reassure us that all will end well, enjoys a better fate than its predecessor.
  Of course, I accept that the search for European solutions for their own sake in any examination of our hopes and problems is a discernible attitude and a dangerous one. A European Europe is really a multiform Europe. It is a
  1324
  Europe in which there is joint action and regulation of those matters which can be better dealt with through joint action and regulation, or for which joint action is perhaps the only sensible solution. The aim must be not to bend to the will of others but to combine our interests with theirs. Those who wish to prevent the revival of virulent nationalism would be well advised to pay special attention to the defence of national interests. The crucial issue so far as the Europe of the future is concerned is neither supranational fictions, nor a mere increase in the number of its member States. It is neither the establishment of an entirely new third structure over and above that of its member States, nor the separate existence of the latter. It is neither the renunciation, nor the unchanged exercise of sovereignty. It is the attempt by the nations of Europe to exercise sovereignty in common.
  Let me put it more pointedly. If the negotiations for British entry had been concerned with the issues of national sovereignty, joint foreign policy and other political objectives and institutions, the Council of Ministers and the Heads of Government of the European Community could never have brought them to a successful conclusion. They were able to do so because they were concerned with butter and sugar, lamb and fish, parabolically climbing financial percentages and the possibility of transitional periods for agriculture. Supranational illusions can only act as a hindrance rather than a spur to real political co-operation. The most urgent task facing the Community is that of forging policies involving co-operation without dependence. Certainly I believe that this is something which can be done and which we are at present in the process of doing.
  It is often said that in top-level politics ideas do not count—only actions taken in response to circumstances. But if there is one connecting thread which links all the stages of my plea for continued British membership of the European Community, it would be this: mercantile and trading practices are harder to change than we think, but the identification of mutual interests can weld together in one day, and perhaps for ever, nations which for years have been mutually

  1325
  antagonistic. That golden rule ought to govern future European politics—in fact, all politics.
  I would suggest to the House and, through the House, to my fellow residents in Hazel Grove, and ultimately to other citizens of Greater Manchester, that uncontrolled passions have a disastrous effect on politics, leading to civil or foreign wars, or both. They can paralyse the life of a nation and destroy everything it has built. The real victories are to be won in agriculture, commerce and in industry—victories for civilisation. mankind's benefactor.
  Britain is a permanent fact, and Britain must be served by serving Britain's interests. The circumstances of our postwar world, if we are to avoid a future holocaust, dictate that those interests require a compromise with the nations of Europe, expressed through the European Community. Our nation must once again win that most difficult struggle of all—self-mastery. We must learn to dominate our reverses and our humiliations. We must temper our pride with courtesy, what remains of our power with humanity, and our wealth with prudence and foresight. For the sake of survival and the preservation of past achievements, we must meet the demands of the future.
  The great question is no longer whether Britain is to become a member. It is whether Britain is to remain or quit. On the first leg of the journey towards that decision, which if hon. Members on the Government benches have their way is likely to be long and hard, I shall cast my vote, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accordingly.
  7.58 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): The maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) was very sincere, honest and fluent. I am sure that the House will welcome further contributions from him. I understand that he comes from a theatrical family. He will find that the House of Commons can sometimes be pure theatre. Today, in a sense, it has a certain theatrical flavour. I think the hon. Member will find over the years that the House of Commons is a
  1326
  very good place to be in because it is here that we decide, by our votes and our speeches, in the interests of the people who elect us, future policies and determine the future of all the countries that make up the United Kingdom.
  I want to ask the House, as I have done in the past, for its indulgence this evening. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for giving me the opportunity as the Member for Liverpool, Walton to say a few words on this vital issue of whether we should be in the Common Market.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I waited until the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) had said what he wanted to say about my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) before intervening at a moment when I thought that it would be least disruptive of his speech.
  I think that it would be wrong for this occasion to pass without asking whether it is in order for a Minister not to comply with what Mr. Speaker, in answering a matter of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), called the normal practices of the House. Where do we get to if that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I will tell the hon. Gentleman where we have got to. I called the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to address the House. Like the rest of us, he is an hon. Member of this House.
  Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. I am a Member of Parliament, and I am restricted to speaking from the back benches by the normal practices of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order With every respect to the hon. Member, who has been here for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS:" Too long."]. Order. That thought ought to strike no one. I believe that the House is anxious for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton to continue with his speech, and there is no advantage to be gained in our pursuing the point of order any further. I am much obliged to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food felt that he ought to make a personal statement about his conversion to support for entry into the Common Market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) referred to a speech that I made in 1967 and said that at that time I had supported entry into the Common Market. I think we should all refer back to the fact that on the road to Damascus the person who founded what in my view is one of the greatest Churches in the world was converted. He saw the light. We can all see the light in our different ways. I saw the light in 1969 when, on the basis of a study of the Common Market, I concluded that the time had come when I ought to oppose entry into the Common Market.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman will be stoned.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: You are.
  Mr. Heffer: If I have brought some hilarity into the debate, I have achieved something.
  I agree with something that was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that even if he had wholeheartedly supported entry into the Common Market at the time when he voted as I did in 1967, that does not detract from the basic arguments that are arising in today's debate.
  Although we are debating this matter with great solemnity, at any rate up to now, and with tremendous enthusiasm on the part of some hon. Members, but not so much on the part of others, the facts are that we now have a situation in which the British people themselves will decide whether we stay in the Common Market, on the basis of their vote in the referendum. I believe that is right. I further believe that on this issue above all others the British people must decide by their vote whether we are in or out.
  Although the British people will decide the matter by their vote, it is important that we in this House should have the freest possible debate on the issue. It is important that the people of this country —and I think that this is our greatest asset—look to this House for a lead. Despite the fact that we are to have a
  1328
  referendum, it is what is said here by hon. Members on both sides of the House, Ministers and non-Ministers, that determines to a large extent people's attitudes to this issue.
  I personally know that everyone in this debate, irrespective of the side of the House on which he sits, is sincere and holds deep feelings about this matter. I shall not indulge in any personal attacks or abuse of anyone on either side of the House. How can I? Many of my friends in this House are pro-Marketeers. I am not ashamed of that fact, and I hope that they are not ashamed of the fact, that they are still my close friends and I am an anti-Marketeer, because if we in the Labour movement in particular cannot discuss these matters without personal abuse, we have not grown up, and I believe that we in the Labour movement have grown up.
  One or two hon. Members have said that some of us are deeply concerned about the military junta and its activities in Chile but are apparently not so concerned about our fellow Socialists in in Europe. That is not true. We feel deeply about the military dictatorship in Chile, but it does not follow that we do not have similar feelings of relationship with our colleagues in the European Economic Community and outside it. I have a watch which was given to me by an Italian partisan, a personal friend, a Socialist, whom I knew long before the question of the Common Market was even on the agenda. My contacts with the European and, in particular, the Italian Socialist movement are well known in the House and, I imagine in the country.
  We are internationalists in the Labour Party. No one should claim that he is more pure in relation to the Socialist ideal because he is for entry or against. Whether we are for or against, we all believe in the principles of international Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS:" No."] I am speaking now not to hon. Members opposite but to my right hon. and hon. Friends, because this argument is to a large extent an argument within our own party, and that I understand. But our fundamental difference of opinion on this issue does not mean that we must get at cross-purposes over our basic Socialist objectives.

  1329
  I turn now to the issues involved, because it is on these issues that the people of this country must decide. I take, first, the question of regional policy. It would be wrong to claim that no advances have been made in what have been rightly, I think, referred to by many hon. Members as on-going negotiations rather than fundamental renegotiations. If I may say so, I think that the original mistake made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government was that in April last year, instead of deciding at that stage that we should not participate in the committees and in the work of the Community, we decided in fact to do so, which meant that we became enmeshed in the Common Market and what appeared to be renegotiations were purely normal discussions and negotiations within the context of the Common Market.
  I do not believe that there has been any fundamental renegotiation. My right hon. Friends, within the context of ongoing negotiations, have done a remarkable job—an excellent job—and advances have been made, but in my view there has none the less been no fundamental renegotiation.
  I do not accept that the terms of the manifesto have really been achieved. We said in that manifesto that one of the objectives of renegotiation was
  "the retention by Parliament of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies"
  Obviously, to do that effectively, it would be necessary to amend the treaties, and in his statement on 1st April 1974 my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
  "I must also reserve the right to propose changes in the Treaties, if we find that in practice the existing rules, as they are interpreted, interfere with the powers over the British economy which we need"—
  and so on.
  What has happened? The truth is that the treaties have not been amended. and the recent communiqué of the EEC Commission—it is referred to in the White Paper and, incidentally, is available in the Vote Office if hon. Members wish to read it—makes absolutely clear that it is the Commission in the last analysis which is responsible for aids to industry.
  1330
  I turn now to Article 94 of the Treaty of Rome, which said when first drafted and still says, despite the so-called fundamental renegotiation:
  "The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, make any appropriate regulations for the application of Articles 92 and 93 and may, in particular. determine the conditions in which Article 93(3) shall apply in the categories of aids exempted from the procedure".
  We turn then to Article 93(3):
  "The Commission shall be informed"
  —and so on, and
  "If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the Common Market…it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision."
  This may be regarded by some hon. Members as a theological argument. It may be said that the practice is flexible. I think that the term often used in this connection is "pragmatic". take the view that we as a country must be totally free, without the encumbrance of the EEC Commission, to determine our own aids to industry.
  The argument from my right hon. Friends is that the Commission is at present agreeing to our present aids, and I accept that, within the context of the argument as it stands at the moment, that is, with one or two exceptions, a reasonable statement of the position. But the Commission's communiqué as the White Paper admits, runs for only three years, and thereafter new rules will be drawn up.
  I put this question to the House: if Britain stayed in the Common Market and there was no referendum on the immediate horizon and no need to placate British parliamentarians as there is now a need to placate us, could we in all honesty say that the rules and policies now apparently so pliable would be as pliable in the future? No one could in all honesty give that guarantee.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture spoke today about the common agricultural policy. One aspect of it is to apply for one year only. In a year's time, the referendum will be out of the way. We all know how remarkably accommodating people can be in an attitude of pliability in order to get over

  1331
  a difficult period. Once we are over that period, the situation can change.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is true that the regional fund is for a period of three years, but during that period it will be of great benefit to this country, and especially to the county which the hon. Gentleman and I both seek to serve. When the time comes, if we remain in the Market we shall have the power to influence to a large degree the new rules which come forward. I believe that it is vital for our county and for the country as a whole that we stay in.
  Mr. Heffer: I am delighted that the hon. Lady makes that intervention, because it takes me precisely to the point that I was about to make. She argues that if we stay in the Market we can influence the Market. I find that argument remarkable, and it is being used in the House the whole time. We have entered the Common Market and we now find that we have to renegotiate in order to get back to something like the position we were in before we entered. What a remarkable situation! That is what is happening on the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had more or less got back to some of the ideas we used to have. If we had never gone in we would not have been in that position.
  I turn to the question of aids for industry. Some say that the present aids for industry are acceptable. Yes, but what will happen in future? We shall have constantly to look over our shoulder to see what the Common Market Commision says. If it does not agree with us, we shall have to modify our ideas on regional aids or conform to the regional aids to which the Commission insists we must conform. It is the most nonsensical situation that this country could find itself in.
  We are in the process of introducing the National Enterprise Board, the planning agreements system, the Scottish Development Agency, and the Welsh Development Agency. I know that the Opposition, apart from hon. Members from Scotland and Wales, will be opposed to much of what we are doing. That is fine. That is their right. If they get us out in the next election they can change what we are doing. They can do
  1332
  it on the basis of their support from the British people. They do not have to look over their shoulder to see what the European Commission is doing. They do not have to look over their shoulder to see whether we can have an extension of the steel industry. We can decide the Firth Brown situation in Sheffield ourselves. But if we are in the Common Market the situation changes.
  Our present aids to industry, which are useful, may well have to change. We may have to have more selective aids. Shall we have to look over our shoulder the whole time to the European Commission? We are told that we shall not, but Articles 92, 93 and 94 say "Yes". I want the decision to be made in the House on behalf of the British people. I do not want us to have to look all the time to the Commission to decide whether we are within our rights.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that whether we are in or out of the Common Market there is a challenge to us to put our country on its feet by investment and by the right sort of economic policy. We can best meet that challenge, get the investment that we require, and bring down unemployment in the areas where it is too high, such as Merseyside, Scotland, the North-East, Cornwall and South Wales, by making decisions in the House based upon the conviction of the British people as a whole.
  I believe that the guidelines of the Common Market are as unacceptable as the guidelines on the question of ministerial discussion in the House. The guidelines that we need are the guidelines of the British people. I am convinced that they will vote "No" in the coming referendum, and they will be right to do so.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I must associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I offer congratulations to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on his maiden speech. As the hon. Member for Walton said, he spoke with great fluency, and in English which in my view was reminiscent of Jane Austen. I am sure we shall hear from him many times in the future. I was also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for

  1333
  what he said about my former colleague, Dr. Michael Winstanley.
  I was very glad that the hon. Member for Walton spoke. I wished that he had spoken on the first day because, regardless of the genuine constitutional problem faced by him and his dissenting Cabinet colleagues, there is no doubt that their absence from the debate has left it rather unbalanced. The debate would have been better if they had been here. It would have been better if we could have got to grips with their arguments. If what we are mainly talking about today is the sovereignty of Parliament, their absence has reduced that sovereignty. Constitutionally it is difficult to see how the hon. Gentleman can make such a speech and remain a Minister. Who knows? Perhaps that was his resignation speech in disguise, or we may wait for that on another occasion.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Read Articles 92, 93 and 94.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Read paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
  Mr. Johnston: I look forward to reading those articles later. I always find it difficult to sleep. I am sure that they would help me.
  The Leader of the Conservative Party spent quite a bit of time yesterday trying to establish her party's credentials as a consistent supporter of Europe. The one party point that I intend to make is that one thing we can say with justice from this Liberal bench in reply to those who have said during the debate—and there have been a number of them—that it would have been better if we had been in the Community from the beginning is that from the beginning that was what we wanted. The one Division that the right hon. Lady omitted to mention in the list that she gave was that on 25th July 1960, when the Liberal Members, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party, divided the House on the question of entry into the Community. That followed the 1959 election, when we had been the only party so committed.
  A fair amount of nonsense is talked about Europe's having somehow or other raised itself out of the muck of party politics into the rarefied stratosphere of
  1334
  apoliticism. The Liberal Party committed itself after the war to work for a united Europe, for two reasons. First, we believed politically that in a radically altered world the most effective way in which this country could exercise positive influence was in conjunction with our neighbouring countries of a similar size and shared traditions. Secondly, we believed that union in Europe offered the best opportunity for economic advancement and the best opportunity for us to raise the living standards of our own people and of the peoples of the world. They remain the basic reasons which motivate us. Time has underlined their validity.
  I should like to look briefly again at those two fundamental arguments and relate them to some of the counter-arguments advanced during the past three days. On the economic argument, let it be clear that our present relative failure as a country has come about outside the Community. It is a fairly obvious thing to say but, judging from what many hon. Members have said, it needs to be repeated. There have been many calls during the debate for fair argument and the avoidance of exaggeration. To attribute our low growth rate and our comparatively falling standard of living to entry into the Community in 1973, as many hon. Members have done, is grossly unfair.
  Much play has been made by the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and others with the contrast between the promises, hopes or assertions of 1971 and the realities of 1975. After the two years that we have been in the Community—1973 and 1974 —what else, in all conscience, could one expect? No one in his senses could imagine that two years could change everything. 1973 was a year, as we bitterly remember, of industrial upheaval and confrontation. 1974 was a year of renegotiation, and everything stopped. Coincidentally with entry—it is one of the great tragedies that it has worked out this way—there was the oil crisis and the dramatic rise in world food prices. Even if the first two years had been untrammelled years, I do not think it would have been possible to see anything but a minimal improvement in our performance. The EEC is a course of swimming lessons, not a lifebelt, and

  1335
  there is a world of difference between the two.
  There is the linked argument that if we had not entered we would have done better, and that if we now leave we shall do better still. I describe that as an argument, but perhaps a better word would be "assertion". The point has been made that those, like the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who argue for EFTA-type arrangements in the event of our withdrawal nevertheless obviously accept that it is necessary to participate in a large tariff-free market.
  However, the basic fact that the Liberals have long recognised about free trade is that it cannot operate acceptably or effectively unless there are equivalent competitive advantages, the absence of hidden subsidies and protection from unforeseen import and quota controls. That is where I think the hon. Member for Walton was in error in what he was saying about the regional fund and the agreement on a regional fund throughout the Community. A regional fund operated by this country alone will be less effective if regional policies throughout Europe are not conducted on roughly equivalent criteria. That is extremely important.
  The EEC has a long-term commitment to a regional fund. I would not dissent from the many critics who have said that the start is small and slow, but the basic decision is highly important. Through the acceptance of the regional fund and the concept of economic convergence, about which the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs spoke the night before last, and through the acceptance of the need for corrective mechanisms, free trade can operate in a fair and reasonable way. This point has been made by a number of hon. Members including the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, who introduced import regulations and controls in 1964 when we were members of EFTA. If one looks at the options to the Community one realises that the real alternatives to the EEC is not the open seas but closed harbours.
  But the debate has been dominated by the political argument, arguments about sovereignty and the equally deep, almost atavistic suspicion with which many regard association with the Continent. There are two fundamental illusions
  1336
  which have distorted the argument. The first is the illusion which the hon. Member for Walton fell into a moment ago, the illusion of uniqueness. Many people put it differently. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has consistently opposed entry into the Community. He spoke on Monday, as reported, at column 919, of our unique method of government, our unique relationship with Europe and our unique opportunity to be a bridge between the developed and the underdeveloped world.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) spoke of how the European countries were different. He said:
  "although certain European countries follow the British pattern they do not have the long-term commitment to democratic control". —[Official Report, 7th April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 903.]
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) used the expression "the we-ness of the nation". It was rather difficult to tell to which nation he was referring. It was not Scotland, so presumably it was either England or Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman, who, though he starts from many false premises, is a man of logic, will recognise that if his argument about the nation holds good as a reason for coming out of the European Community, it equally holds good for the break-up of the United Kingdom, which is an end I do not want to see.
  Mr. Spriggs: Rubbish.
  Mr. Johnston: It is not rubbish. It is precisely the same argument.
  Mr. Spriggs: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned trade and the question of open or closed ports. Does he realise that only one-third of Britain's trade is with Community countries and that the remaining two-thirds is with the rest of the world? That does not involve closing our ports.
  Mr. Johnston: I shall not pursue the hon. Gentleman's argument on this because I had moved on to the political considerations and do not wish to delay the House.
  If I may revert to the attitude of the right hon. Member for Down, South, the danger of the argument about uniqueness is that under pressure it often

  1337
  retreats into this psueudo-spiritual mysticism as people try to find what exactly they mean. It also has strange echoes of the old "kith and kin" argument, about which we heard a great deal in another context some time ago. It is the argument that continentals are so unlike us that we can never share common democratic institutions. It is the argument that we have nothing to learn.
  It is about time that many of us looked in the mirror. We have a great deal to learn from our continental colleagues and friends. We taught the Germans industrial relations, and the pupil can now inform the master. We are the Mother of Parliaments, yet we cling to a grossly unjust electoral system long discarded in Europe. Throughout the debate Ministers have referred again and again to the Labour manifesto and its supposed endorsement at two elections. What was the endorsement in October 1974? It was 39 per cent. of the votes cast or 28 per cent. of the electorate. Is 28 per cent. the Labour definition of "full-hearted consent"?
  The other illusion is that entry into the Community does sudden and particular damage to parliamentary sovereignty. If the EEC develops, as I hope and believe it probably will, into some kind of union, whether federal or not, with a directly-elected Parliament, certainly sovereignty will depart from this House. However, I would contend that it will not depart from the country. It would be exercised elsewhere in a different level of organisation. But now, as opposed to the future, the real as opposed to the sham issue is the control that Parliament does or does not exert over the executive here.
  It is a false argument to make out that European questions are of a somewhat different nature. The basic problem is that parliamentary control has steadily been eroded over the years and that in this Parliament the executive is massively powerful. We have only to remember the Select Committee on Agriculture and its short life. As soon as that Committee asked to be involved and to inquire into the price review, which was what it was established to do, bingo, that was the end of it. If we wanted to have a say in the CAP and the institutions concerned, it
  1338
  could only be through such a Select Committee which could concentrate at length on the issues and which would have to have available the very information that was refused at domestic level to the previous Select Committee in 1968.
  Reality and illusion may have marched together throughout the debate. There is, however, one reality which is inescapable, and that is that the decision we are about to make is of the most profound importance. Those who are for and against the Community are agreed on that. Do we see a shared or an individual rôle for this country, and, if an individual rôle, what kind of rôle?
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) with whom I have argued about Europe in this Chamber many times—I the moment—was complaining last night about the fact that the pro-Marketeers like my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn were playing foul by mentioning that there were some strange bedfellows in the other camp. The hon. Member said it was a rather unfair argument even to mention the Communist Party in the same breath as himself. Certainly we could hardly accuse him of being a "Red under the bed".
  The important and perfectly valid political point which we make is that those of us, in all parties, who support continued Community membership have a common strategy for the country, whereas those who oppose our continued membership are agreed in opposing. They have no common alternative strategy. They have different strategies, each with its own validity and supporters. Those of us who support continued membership do so, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, within a common framework and they accept such a common framework.
  Mr. Richard Body Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not interrupt the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who has already been speaking for 19 minutes.
  Mr. Johnston: I am very near to finishing. I was brought up in a little

  1339
  village called Carbost, on the Isle of Skye. If anywhere is on the periphery of Europe, it is. Despite that, the one thing I wish to make clear is that I have no fear of the size of the Community or that such size might lead to suppression of any of the rich cultural diversity with which Europe abounds.
  I want to see arrangements made and policies pursued which give my country a say in its future and in world affairs as well as a share in prosperity. Only an evolving Community, developing towards a union, working to correct disparities and shaping more sensitive forms of Government, can achieve this and at the same time enable us to contribute to making the world a more safe and stable place.
  It is a negative point but nevertheless one of weight that at a time of great world instability to present the European Community and ourselves with a whole new range of problems, which is what would happen if we withdrew, would be folly. If the traditions which produced our people are of value—and I believe that they are—I have no doubt that, like the man in the parable, we must use our talents in a way which brings the greatest return. That means not turning our back on a share of power if that responsibility is thrust upon us, but playing the fullest-hearted part in forging a Europe of great coherence, working progressively for world democracy.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Towards the end of a three-day debate there is not much new that can be said, but I want to make one or two remarks which, if not novel, might be suitably abrasive.
  There is no issue of such monumental importance for the future well-being of the United Kingdom that can have been handled in such a disastrous way as this one. Grave and perhaps lasting damage has been done to the British constitution and many of its principles which have long been the envy of the democratic world. I have little sympathy for those who put trumpery party considerations before those of the welfare of the nation as a whole. To have witnessed so much wealth being undermined, if not destroyed, by the manœuvrings of the last year or two with no long-term advan-
  1340
  tage to anyone has caused me, and I guess many other people, more pain and distress than I have had to endure in the past 25 years in this House.
  The time has come to speak plainly and bluntly on these matters. Little time is left in the debate to convert anyone to this cause or that. All our minds are made up one way or the other. I have long been a pro-European by instinct and conviction, though big enough and, I hope, wise and humble enough to say that I might be wrong. But I was sent here by my electors to make judgments on these very things.
  The sovereignty of the people, as has often been said, is loaned to us. It is loaned to me and to every other hon. Member for the duration of a Parliament. So where does the squalid referendum fit into that set of principles? We talk about the sovereignty of Parliament and then say that we want nothing to do with it. We pass it back to the people who gave it to us for the duration of a Parliament, be it three, four or five years.
  The referendum idea started as a cheap, squalid gimmick initiated by Secretary of State for Industry, designed to gain some apparent party political temporary advantage. It was derided at the time by the present Prime Minister but has since been lauded by both of them as a matter of high principle, as the supreme way of letting the people decide, which means in effect the denigration of the basic principle of the sovereignty of the House. To attempt to rationalise this posture by asserting that this is a unique situation involving—admittedly it does—the handing over of something vaguely called our sovereignty or independence to some foreign body or institution defies credibility.
  At the beginning of the last war in 1939, in one day in the House every civil right of every individual in the country was taken away by the Government. There was no question then of a referendum. No question of more crucial importance to every individual in the country can be imagined, yet the House passed that Act of Parliament in one day.
  Let no one talk about the referendum being the high-minded principle of consulting the people. When we talk about the Labour Party manifesto it is significant that there is no mention in it of the

  1341
  word "referendum". Reference was made to consultation through the ballot box but the word "referendum" was carefully avoided. We are saddled with this monstrous device. It is a constitutional monstrosity which can be used, and which may well be used, at any time, at the whim of any Prime Minister or Government, for whatever noble or nefarious purpose he or they might have in mind.
  Then we have the further constitutional nonsense of the ditching of Cabinet collective responsibility. The Government, according to the Prime Minister, seek to make a virtue out of this outrage. If Ministers, senior and junior, feel passionately about this issue they have one clear course open to them—namely, to resign. If they feel strongly about it they should not sit on their backsides, they should do what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry has done. They should get up and do the honourable thing—I believe my hon. Friend will do so—and hand in their resignations. They have no right to stay in the Government and continue to say that they will oppose the Government. That is the most dishonourable course to take. That is the very kind of action that creates public cynicism about this place.
  Neither individually nor collectively are Ministers indispensable. Overnight Harold Macmillan got rid of half his Cabinet, and he survived the next election. If my Prime Minister had the guts he would do the same. I gather that I am being asked about other Ministers. I should like a say in the choice. In any event. I believe that it is more noble to fall from power in honour than to survive amid massive contempt and delusion.
  It seems that some Ministers want the best of all possible worlds. They want to speak against the most important policy decision of the century yet cling to the trappings of power. If they hold their convictions with such blazing sincerity—and I accept that they do—their course is clear. They should pay the price or shut up. I say that to one of them in particular—namely, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. She produced that historic document, the Lomé Convention. She came to the House
  1342
  and said that the convention offered marvellous protection for the Commonwealth and the independent territories. Now she says that she will have nothing to do with it, but she does not resign. It seems that she does not feel strongly enough about the issue to resign, but she feels strongly enough about it to say that she does not support the Government's position.
  I have dwelt on these issues because the pros and cons of our continued membership of the EEC have been argued ad nauseam not only in this debate but in previous debates. Whatever doubts anyone may have about the advantages and disadvantages of staying in, there can be few doubts about the catastrophic results if we get out. I do not think that the White Paper exaggerates the position in any way. The Chancellor is not exaggerating when he says that if we get out and the Arabs, as a consequence, withdraw all their money from the banks of this country we could be bankrupt in 48 hours. That might be part of the price we shall have to pay if we get out.
  I have listened fully to all the most important speeches in this debate and have heard not one single credible argument put forward by anybody—not even by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—as to why we should not stay in. There may be disadvantages. We have heard about the bureaucracy, although on a population basis there is a bigger bureaucracy in the Scottish Office than in Brussels. I believe that we should play our part in democratising the institutions of the EEC. We should be in there fighting, and the majority of the Government recognise that only in that way can we change the face of Europe as it now exists. We shall bring about changes only by being inside the existing institutions. We certainly cannot change anything by being outside. Even outside the Community, we shall be influenced by what happens within it. Our policies are bound to be affected by what Europeans do. We should be inside the Community influencing those institutions, before decisions are taken rather than afterwards.
  I may be proved wrong in my arguments, but we are in this place to take decisions and to justify our judgment to the electors. I have made clear to my

  1343
  electors where I stand, and they will judge me at the next election. I believe that this is the only sensible way to behave in a democratic society, and I consider that ours is the best in the world.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on constitutional matters, but I have always recognised his sincerity. Tonight I very much agreed with his remarks about the referendum. It surprises me to see that the same people who lay such stress on the damage to Parliament's sovereignty from membership of the Community are happy to pass over the sovereignty of Parliament to a referendum on this issue. I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the long-term damage which the referendum may do to the whole status of Parliament. If at an election a Government are rejected, there can be a new Government, but if the will and decision of Parliament is rejected, what can one do about that? I do not think the implications for our democratic institutions have been fully thought out, and I share the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions.
  This marathon debate has measured up to the quality of the issue. I wish particularly to refer to the maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), whose speech was fully worthy of this debate in its thoughtfulness and perspicacity of content. We appreciated the way in which he delivered it.
  As for the general deployment of arguments, there has been one slight disadvantage. The "anti" argument has been forcefully put forward by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) with his great attachment to his cause and his patent sincerity, and also by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), with his passionate, if somewhat perverse, oratory on this and indeed on other matters. But in a way the cause of the "antis" has suffered somewhat through the absence from our counsels of some eloquent speakers on the anti-Market side.
  "But O for the touch of a vanish'd Foot, And the sound of a Shore that is still!"
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was interested to hear the right hon. Member's
  1344
  rather sarcastic remarks about the fact that some of my right hon. Friends have not spoken in the debate. I thought it might be worth while commenting on the fact that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) went missing for a much longer period—namely, for a year or two.
  Mr. Maudling: That is true. It is nice to be back and to find that things have not improved at all.
  We must be clear about certain points. It is important that the country should also be clear about them. The question is not whether we should go into the Community but whether we should come out. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) pointed out earlier, that is an important distinction. The fact that by leaving the Community we should be breaching a treaty is of considerable significance and should not be overlooked.
  The practical difficulties of coming out, and the renegotiation or denegotiation involved, will be considerable. That leads to the point that the burden of proof in this great issue must lie on those who want to change our present position and policy. The burden of proof must lie on those who want to change course and to take the initiative in bringing us out of the Community in breach of the agreements made solemnly on behalf of this country.
  I come to the argument about terms. The question is not whether the terms obtained in the recent negotiations coincide with the Labour Party manifesto. The question is whether they coincide with the national interest. This may be a different matter. However, it is the sole question now before Parliament. Is it in the national interest, on these terms, to accept the Government recommendation to remain within the Community? I accept that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary tried in their negotiation to obtain all that was set out in their first statement of case. However, no sensible person entering a negotiation expects to obtain everything for which he asks in the first place. That is not negotiation. It is dictation. It would therefore be wrong to vote for the United Kingdom to leave the Community, if that was against the national interest,

  1345
  solely because the negotiations had not fully carried out the terms of the Labour Party manifesto.
  There are different strands to the argument of those who arc opposed to membership and who wish to withdraw from the Community. Some oppose the proposition on the ground that the terms obtained are not good enough. Others are root and branch against the whole idea. Then there are the different arguments on the short-term and long-term issues. There are the differing arguments on the economic and political factors. Until this debate I think that the political factors received less stress than they should have received. There is also the feeling that the complaint is not against the Community as it now works but against what the Community must inevitably become as it proceeds. Finally, there are the differing strands in the alternatives offered by those who say that we must leave the Community and must therefore find an alternative.
  No member of the Government is entitled to oppose Community membership root and branch. The Government negotiated in good faith on the basis that if the negotiations were successful they would recommend that the United Kingdom remain a member of the Community. Therefore it is not possible for any member of the Government to raise a point about Community membership which was not included in those negotiations, because it was clearly understood by the other members of the Community that what the Government asked for was set out in full in their negotiating position. I do not think that it is right, therefore, ex post facto, for any member of the Government, whatever his feelings, to depart from that position of honour.
  Much argument has been devoted to the short-term issues, to the results and to some small details. But this is a fundamental decision—whether to stay in or to leave the Community. I do not think that questions regarding the price of butter or sheep should obtrude into what is a major parliamentary decision.
  Secondly, it is not sensible to draw firm deductions from two years' operation of the Community. Certainly it is reasonable to say that what we have
  1346
  found in two years is what we predicted —that the Community is a flexible organisation which is responsive to demands for change and responsive to the views and interests of individual member countries. But it is not very convincing to judge the economic development on the basis of two years alone, especially on two years of exceptional economic upheaval, with the astonishing explosion of commodity prices and the oil crisis.
  The case can be argued either way. The opponents of the EEC say that experience has shown that the promise of a great improvement in our trade balance in respect of our exports has not been realised. The supporters can say that the arguments about dearer food within the Community have not been realised. Neither claim carries total conviction. In either case the results have been obscured by wider international and national trade considerations.
  The grave trade deficit with the Community which is so much talked about by certain Government supporters does not mirror the effect of membership of the Community. It mirrors our own failure as a nation to export, and it mirrors world conditions. The general decline in our trade balance has been spread not only over the EEC but over the whole world. The sucking in of imports because of our inability to produce or because of our labour disputes, the problems of steel and chemicals affected by industrial disputes in this country and the oil problem are all representative of our own economic position and not of membership of the Community.
  The switch to lower-cost Community foodstuffs, which has been valuable to this country, has added to the imbalance between this country bilaterally with the Community. The simple fact is that our exports would not have been any larger outside the Community and our imports would not have been any smaller outside the Community.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North and others say that outside the Community we would have imported fewer manufactures. That surely rests on the old illusion that we in this country can continue to export manfactures and to import only food and raw materials. That world has passed. People will not be content solely with selling us food and

  1347
  raw materials. They are not content any longer to remain in what they regard as a position of relative economic subjugation simply because it suits us. We must recognise that world imports involve imports of manufactures as well as imports of raw materials and foodstuffs.
  On the price of food, again I do not find the arguments about the immediate experience of the past few months very convincing either way. They are based on figures derived from fluctuating markets. We cannot go in and out of the Community like a yo-yo depending on the price of grain in the Chicago market. We must choose, on the one hand, between the benefits of a consistent policy giving priority to domestic producers and, on the other hand, gambling on the spot market hoping to get cheap food in different parts of the world.
  Mistakes can be made in either policy, but I believe that the assurance of stability of supply and, where possible, stability of price is best for this country. Sometimes it means paying more for our food than otherwise we would. Sometimes it means paying less. But that is inherent in many international agreements. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which lasted so long and served us so well, meant some years ago that we were paying about three times the world price for our sugar. We were paying a very high price for imports of sugar compared with the world price because we thought that this long-term agreement was in our interests and those of our Commonwealth partners. That is the kind of policy which fundamentally is suited to this country. The argument for this is becoming stronger with all the economic developments of the modern world. Free markets, as we used to call them, which we used well with our skill in purchasing, are getting fewer all the time. There are now genuine doubts about the availability of major foodstuffs with the growth of world population.
  We also see the growing power and organisation of the producers of food and raw materials following the example of the oil producers. Surely we must see the need to assure producers of stability of price both in their interests and in the interests of the British consumer. It is a short-sighted policy so to depress the price of food that its production is
  1348
  sharply cut back. The net effect will be a higher price a little later.
  For all these reasons, it seems to me that a policy of the type which is being pursued is of interest not only to the British farmer—the most efficient farmer in the word—but to the British consumer. We cannot have it both ways. We can either go into the spot market and take our chance or aim for long-term policies of the kind that we are now pursuing. Surely we are more likely to get policies and agreements that suit our national interests within the Community than outside. Frankly, our bargaining power as an independent country and importer is very small compared with that of the Community, now the largest single trading bloc in the whole world.
  The long-term economic arguments are very strong. First, there is access to a large market. After all, tariffs are not the only obstacles to trade. There are rules of establishment, company law, patent rights, standards, and so on. Access to a large market in Europe can be assured only by membership of the Community.
  The disadvantages of coming out now seem even more clear and serious than the advantages. First, there is the loss of employment which would certainly follow, with the increased difficulties of our business firms in exporting to our now main export market.
  Secondly, world-wide competition must not be forgotten. There are no sheltered markets for us. We face the constant pressure of America, the onward march of Japan, and strong competition from the French, the Germans and the Italians in the markets of the Middle and Far East and the Commonwealth. All the time we face this competition. If we try to meet it on the basis of a narrow, restricted home market, we shall be putting ourselves at a grave disadvantage compared with the French, the Italians or the Germans with the benefit that they enjoy from their enormous domestic market.
  Thirdly, there is the loss of investment from both our own domestic sources and external sources. Let no one make any mistake about that. Investment, which is lagging in this country, will lag even further and be further discouraged if we decide to come out of the Common Market. Certainly inflowing investment from outside will be very much discouraged.

  1349
  There is also the question of confidence in sterling. It is not right or proper to exaggerate this matter or to make scarifying prophecies, but it is right to be realistic and to recognise that throughout the world those who hold sterling in large quantities as a medium of reserve and exchange are bound to find our currency less attractive if we come out of the Common Market. The effect on sterling of the failure of the negotiations in 1963 convinces me that this is an important factor which should not be overlooked.
  Finally, there is the loss of bargaining power in trade and payments. The world is moving all the time from free to managed markets. Our interests are vitally affected by the form of the world monetary and payments system, by the rules of trade accepted throughout the world, and by the general international framework treaties which dominate these matters.
  Surely it is of the greatest importance that we should be in a position to influence the development of world trade and payments systems. Surely also we should be in a far better position to exercise that influence as a leading member of the biggest commercial grouping in the world than we should as a single independent economic island unit. What one has seen of recent economic negotiations by the Chancellor and others about the flow of petro-dollars, about the payments system in the world and about energy policy contains plenty of examples of how Britain's influence, exercised through membership of the Community, can be of great advantage not only to this country but to the world at large.
  There are also the political and defence implications of leaving the Community which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) put so forcefully to the House today. There are defence implications. It was part of the basic concept of the Treaty of Rome that it should bring together France and Germany, bring Germany back into the family of European nations and prevent future wars of the kind from which Europe has so often suffered. As so often happens when something succeeds, people fail to realise that it is necessary. There is still this danger. Consider the example of NATO. People say, "Why do we need NATO when we have
  1350
  détente?' But without NATO, we should not have détente.
  People say that there is nothing about defence in the Treaty of Rome. That is true, but that comment is surely too naive. The simple fact is that the strength and cohesion and determination of NATO is fundamentally affected by the degree of economic and political co-operation among the European members of NATO. I cannot see how the strength of NATO could fail to be affected by any major diversion among us on matters of trade and economics.
  There are other matters relating to defence. After all, defence these days is not just a matter of traditional aggression and invasion. We must never forget subversion, and there is also the removal of causes of international discontent and aid to the developing countries as a means of reducing strain between nations. All these are surely matters—the Lomé Convention, for example—in which we have seen how Europe, working together, can make a contribution which the European nations working separately could never hope to make. The European voice in the councils of the world is bound to be stronger than the individual national voice. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That is bound to be.
  The European voice, for example, in the Middle East could be of enormous importance at present. As the Foreign Secretary is well aware, the situation there is one of great danger, affecting the interests of the United States and the Soviet Union, the super-Powers. That has not seemed to work out somehow. I still have a feeling that, somehow, Europe could contribute to the solution of this Middle Eastern problem. I believe that that contribution could best be made through a united European effort, led in this case, I think, by the British Government, because we have a greater tradition in and more knowledge of that area than any other European Power.
  The arguments against our membership also rest on sovereignty. People say, "Is the loss of sovereignty involved so great as more than to counterweigh the benefits, political and economic, of continued membership?" It has always seemed to me that sovereignty means nothing more or less than freedom to run our own affairs. We want to have

  1351
  freedom to run our own affairs, but we cannot have total freedom and international agreements, because all international agreements limit our freedom of individual action and, incidentally, the freedom of individual action of our partners as well.
  Sometimes, to hear some of the speeches from below the Gangway on the Government side about sovereignty, one would think that all the European countries were involved in some vast conspiracy to stop us doing things while they did what they wanted. I cannot understand why a limitation on freedom of action which is perfectly acceptable to France, Germany or Italy, should be wholly repulsive to this country. That makes no sense to me.
  All international agreements involve some limitation on our freedom to manage our own economy or finances. I do not see in the Treaty of Rome, in the Economic Community, any greater limitation on our freedom of economic management than we have already in the GATT and the International Monetary Fund.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South, with his eloquent combination of passion and hyperbole, said—if I heard him rightly—that by being in the Community this Parliament was ceding its control over our industrial and economic policies to someone else. If he did say that—and I thought that he did—it is absolute rubbish. Does he think that next week's Budget is being drafted in Brussels? Some people might say that it would be a good idea if it were. In fact, the White Paper makes absolutely clear that the freedom to manage our economy and the freedom of industrial and economic policy which has been retained is virtually total, and any limitations upon our freedom of action are just the sort of limitations which are compatible with membership of an international organisation.
  I believe that we gain in freedom of action, because we must live and trade in a world framework and our power to influence the nature of that framework will be greater inside the Community than it will be outside. Therefore, in effect, our freedom of action to control our own affairs would be greater inside than it would be outside.
  Of course it is true that the treaty involves the acceptance and enforcement by
  1352
  the British courts of Community law. But there are many examples of treaties which oblige us to enact legislation which is effective in the British courts. I cannot see very great differences in practice between being obliged ourselves to enact the legislation or telling the courts to follow legislation which has been enacted by a body of which we are a member.
  We hear a good deal from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North about the vast volume of regulations passed by the bureaucracy in Brussels. I think. frankly, that the bureaucracy in Brussels has not been very clever. Some of the eager beavers there have overdone it a bit. All that stuff about "Euro-beer". "Euro-bread" and the contents of a jar of pickled onions is manifest nonsense. It was nonsense from the start. That sort of thing will not be accepted in this country or any other major country in the Community. However, it sometimes gives an unfortunate impression.
  The truth is that the great bulk of these regulations and directives are of tiny significance. Though much has been said of the effect of the bureaucracy of Brussels, I have not heard during the debate any example of a regulation passed by the Commission which is offensive to the people of this country or really damaging to our own standard of living.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maudling: No, I am sorry, but I promised to sit down in a couple of minutes' time.
  Mr. Hooley: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Maudling: All right.
  Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is right, of course, to make merry about "Euro-beer" and "Euro-honey" and that nonsense, out when we are surrendering control over a vital national industry such as the steel industry, which is what we have done. I suggest that that is a very different matter.
  Mr. Maudling: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's grasp of the facts is a little lacking if what the Government say is correct.

  1353
  I undertook to sit down in two minutes' time from now to give the Foreign Secretary plenty of time to reply.
  There are many other things that I should like to say. I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that I see his argument that the future development of the Community could be towards a federal situation. If, for example, a European monetary union meant a common currency, that would be true. I do not think that it means anything of the sort. Certainly it is clear that any development of a federal character and any development of the powers of the European Parliament are subject to the rule that they can take place only with the agreement of all members of the Community. Therefore, any process towards federalism—which personally I would not welcome—could take place only if the Parliament of this country and Ministers responsible to it were prepared to accept that such a process was in the interests of this country.
  I should have liked to talk about alternatives, but I cannot because I do not have enough time. However, when people talk of a free trade area I have a great nostalgia for the period of 18 years ago when we tried to accomplish a free trade area without any agricultural policy, and they would not have it. There was no conceivable reason why they would. People complain that our deficit with Europe is a serious matter, but how on earth can a free trade area improve on that? I do not think that in the free trade area idea there is anything but nostalgia for the past which I partly share but which has no relevance to the present.
  The recent development of the Community has taken us a long way from the original concept of Jean Monnet and the others who supported it. It has not become the supranational body which many at that time thought it would. It has become a partnership, a concept which is very much part of the law and practice of this country, a concept of the meeting and working together of people who think that there is strength in their working together, a concept of a partnership of individuals, where the individual respects the rules and wishes of the partnership, and the partnership
  1354
  respects the wishes and interests of the individual.
  If the partnership tries to override the basic interests of the individual member it will collapse, and it is the recognition of that within the Community which I think disposes of all the fears which we have heard paraded so often of things being imposed upon this country which we should not wish to accept. There are genuine fears, doubts and apprehensions, and they have been expressed fully during this debate, but I conclude still convinced that in current circumstances, on grounds both economic and political, it would be a grave error for this country to break its treaties and to leave the Community.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I begin, as did the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), by congratulating the only maiden speaker in this debate, namely, the hon. Member for Wilmslow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hazel Grove."] I mean the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold). That was a bad start, and I apologise. If I cannot get any more than that right tonight, I shall get nobody in the Lobby. The hon. Member made his speech without notes and with an enviable competence, and I am certain that the logic that he brought to his speech on this occasion, although I did not wholly agree with all of it, will be heard much more in this House.
  I should like to discuss these matters tonight partly from a national point of view and partly from a party point of view, because it is no secret that our party is not wholly united on this issue. I want to discuss the matter from our own point of view and our own internal arrangements as a Labour Government as well as from the viewpoint of our responsibility to the people of this country.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: May we stay?
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman may stay.
  During the last 12 months we have been carrying through the manifesto on which we fought and won two elections. In this respect, as in others, our attitude

  1355
  to the manifesto was determined before it was written. It was determined as long ago as 1972 when we put together the document which I have quoted so Often and have lived with continually for the last 12 months. Clearly, therefore, although, as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) said this afternoon, it seems to have been set aside in this debate in favour of more exotic discussions on issues that went wider in my judgment than we had in mind when we drafted the manifesto, one of the tests to which hon. Members who fought and won the election for the Labour Party must subject our work is: have we fulfilled the terms of the manifesto?
  I recognise that there is more than one view about that. The Prime Minister gave the Government's view when he said that, broadly speaking, he thought we had fulfilled the terms of the manifesto and that we had carried them out as far as we could. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), in what I thought was one of the best analyses of the terms, reached a different conclusion.
  I believe that on another occasion I gave myself five marks out of seven. We can all have our views, but what I have always found in all the trade union negotiations that I have conducted over many years is that one can never expect to get seven marks out of seven. If I get five out of seven, I am doing pretty well. [Interruption.] If I were not a modest chap I should have given myself full marks, but I made a substantial discount.
  I join the Prime Minister in saying that, broadly speaking, on a test of what is contained in the manifesto, we can say "Yes, we have broadly succeeded, and where we have not done so the White Paper sets that out".
  But that is not the only test that I think the House and the country, and my own party in particular, should apply. The second test, which I now put to see whether I can get agreement on it, is this. To the extent that there have been changed attitudes since 1972 either in world conditions or in the ways in which the Community has modified its own attitudes, ought these issues to have changed our minds?
  1356
  It is my view and my judgment of the matter that, with all the percipience we had when we wrote the document in 1972, we could not have foreseen what has taken place since. We could not have seen the explosion in world food prices. We could not have seen what has happened in regard to energy. We could not—perhaps we should have done—wholly have seen the political change which has overtaken the developing nations.
  What I put, therefore, to my hon. Friends, who are considering these matters, I know, very fairly, as we all are trying to do, is that they should take these factors into account in considering whether we have met the requirements which were laid upon us by the Labour Party conference and by our own decisions on which we fought the General Elections.
  Let me give some illustrations of what I mean. First, there is the changed view of the experts about the future pattern of world food consumption and their expectation that world food prices will remain higher in the 1970s than they were in the 1960s. It is an expectation which the Wold Food Conference at Rome certainly thought likely to be achieved. That must have an impact in our assessment of the common agricultural policy, and may indeed even alter our attitude towards some of its more protective provisions. It has certainly altered mine, and I shall explain why later.
  There is the changed attitude of the Commonwealth since 1972, among both the developed and the developing countries, towards our membership. They now want us in. They did not in 1972.
  Then there is the development in the Community's policy towards the developing world, especially the developing Commonwealth countries, as has been exemplified time after time during the last three days by the references to the Lomé Convention. No one can deny that that convention, whatever its deficiences and faults, has opened up the Community and diverted it from being an inward-looking trading association to being a bloc which recognises, however imperfectly, its world responsibilities. Nobody saw that in 1972.
  I turn now to another matter which we did not foresee in 1972, when we

  1357
  were opposed, indeed, to what we did see. I refer to the abandonment of economic and monetary union as a practical issue until—the word "until" is important—the day, whenever it may come, when the economies and wealth of the peoples of the member countries more truly coincide, when the livelihood of the peasant of the Mezzogiorno comes to terms with the remuneration of the skilled Dutch worker in a Philips factory. I do not know when my hon. Friends think that is likely to be achieved. It is part of the objective, they say, of the Community. But what I am pointing out in regard to economic and monetary union is that it cannot possibly happen until those things coincide. That is what the abandonment for the time being means.
  Following from that, and consequential upon it, there is the abandonment of the notion of rigid fixed parities in currencies. I always attacked that as a nonsense from the very first day I heard of it. With all respect to the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath), I do not know how anyone ever managed to cobble it up. It was a folly from the beginning, and, of course, it broke down within six weeks of being introduced. As I say, it has now been abandoned consequential upon abandonment of economic and monetary union as a practical issue.
  Another matter influenced me greatly in some of the speeches I made in 1971. There is the abandonment now of the insistence that Britain must turn away from the open seas. That concept, advanced by M. Pompidou and accepted, we understood, by the right hon. Member for Sidcup, was repudiated by us then. I shall illustrate some of these changes in more detail later.
  Nobody can deny that when we wrote the manifesto and those terms, we could not have foreseen, and did not foresee, changes in world conditions, changes in the attitude of the Community and changes in some respects in our own relationships with the rest of the world and with the Commonwealth. Those changes have to some extent made it necessary to update the manifesto on which we fought the two elections.
  The right hon. Member for Sidcup did us a disservice in his discussions with M.
  1358
  Pompidou in the manner in which he deserted the open seas concept. We have now returned to it. It was a mistake to desert it. I believe that it made unnecessary difficulties.
  However, I envied the way in which the right hon. Gentleman made a full speech, without a note, from obviously a very full mind. It was a good speech. The only objection that I took to it was his unnecessary attack upon my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I thought was unworthy, especially in my right hon. Friend's absence. When the right hon. Gentleman began by telling us about the old Chinese saying, "Never lift a stone to drop it on your own toe", I believed that he was rather ruefully reflecting on his sterile confrontation with the miners, but apparently he was not. He was talking about the Prime Minister. There is this major difference. As a result of his dropping the stone on his own toe, he is sitting on the Opposition back benches, but my right hon. Friend is Prime Minister. I wonder who it was who really dropped the brick. But after hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech I must confess that I wonder why his colleagues were so quick to get rid of him.
  The changes I have outlined influenced me greatly during the past 12 months. In this country we have a mixed economy, an economy which the overwhelming number of Labour voters believe in and support. That is their definition of democratic Socialism. It is my best and honest judgment that the economics of a mixed economy cannot be effectively challenged by the Commission or anyone else. I firmly believe that we can follow the industrial and economic policies that we believe best. Although I appreciate that that view can be disputed, if I did not believe it I should not recommend these terms
  As an illustration, we can promote national measures to overcome structural unemployment in the English regions, in Scotland and in Wales. When I add together my belief that we can follow our own policies in regional and industrial matters, the changes in the world since 1972, the changes in the Community, our practical experience of the working of the Community and the relative success of our renegotiation, I make clear what is already known to the House: that I believe I am right

  1359
  to change my mind to vote "Yes" tonight and to vote "Yes" in the referendum. In doing so, it is a matter of great regret to me and many others that we shall be parting company with a number of our hon. Friends. We have marched a long way down the road with them. Many of the arguments that they have used, I have used. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has used the same arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Consistency."] Indeed, but the man who never changes his mind in the light of the facts is no more than an unlicked cub.
  I do not believe that it is sensible or fair to say that those of my hon. Friends who differ from me are any less internationally minded than I am or that they care less about these problems than I do. I do not say that. I do not use the argument that if one does not believe in belonging to the Common Market one must be a Little Englander. That is absolute rubbish. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Banbury have both shown how untrue it is. I do not attack them on either of those grounds.
  I say to my hon. Friend whom I have so far been unable to convince, however, that if the people of Britain choose to remain members of the Community, as believe they will, we shall be alongside many like-minded Europeans and like-minded Governments. Let us not neglect that. The Danes have a Labour Government. The Dutch people have elected a Labour Government. The German people have elected the SPD, and their Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, gave an outstanding address at our last party conference. In Luxembourg and the Irish Republic, Labour parties form part of the coalition Governments. Including Britain, that is six out of nine, which is not a bad start.
  Mr. Marten: Come on boys, let us cheer.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman is not helping me.
  What I ask my hon. Friends to consider seriously is that, despite what the treaty says, we can make of the Community what we and the other members will that it should be. It can be as strong as we like. It can be as weak as the member Governments decide. What is
  1360
  more, they must decide unanimously. No major changes can be made in the Community without unanimous agreement. That cuts both ways. They may not make changes which interfere with the social philosophy expressed by the Labour Party here. But, likewise, if we can carry them with us, we can unanimously set Europe on a different road. That is for the future, but nobody can deny that that is how the Community will work.
  Nor is the Community a monolith of eight nations, all massively and unitedly lined up to do down the British. There are like-minded Governments with our own. I find that that is so whenever we consider problems. There are countries with interests similar to our own. It is for us to shape the future of the Community. With the other countries, we can decide whether it shall be federalist or not. The right hon. Gentleman does not want that any more than I do. We can help shape it as we want it to be.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed the question of the supply and cost of food this afternoon. First, let me deal with the argument about cheap food. It is a primary duty of a Government to ensure an adequate supply of food at all times to their people. We hardly pause to think about it. But when we raise our eyes to the rest of the world—and in our movement we do—every one of us, on both sides of the House, is shocked by the human tragedies where a Government fail to achieve that. We are shocked by the sights that we see on television of starving children and men and women in Bangladesh and drought-stricken parts of Africa where food is insufficient.
  We have a right to base our judgment or our attitude to the Common Market on these policies, and we do so. Hon. Members will notice that I do not refer to the fact that we are living from one harvest to another, nor do I refer to the fact that for some months prices have been lower inside the Community than outside. These are two short-term considerations. I do not doubt, as my right 'hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said this afternoon, that our long-term policy in this country, as throughout other countries of the world, should be the expansion of our domestic agriculture and the creation of greater efficiency in European agriculture. That

  1361
  is the reason for the stocktaking which is happening now.
  It cannot happen to us because we happen to have sufficient muscle, because we are sufficiently wealthy and because we run the ships. We do not suffer hunger and starvation because we are wealthy enough to prevent it, but it is incumbent upon us to ensure that a system is created in which we not only develop our resources to the full and in which the Community should be growing as much food as it can—and that should include this country as well but it should develop further what it has begun to develop, namely, a food aid programme to dispose of its surpluses in that way.
  I put this point to the House and especially to my hon. Friends because they recognise this fact. What is significant is the changed tone of the poorer nations. Now, unlike a few years ago, there is an insistent demand by them for a better deal, a similar demand that we have heard from the raw material producers and which was started by the oil producers. It is these factors which have led experts at the World Food Conference in Rome to conclude that the demand and supply situation of food is going to change. It is leading to a change in the relationship between the cost of the goods we make in the industrialised world and the cost of the food which is supplied to us.
  The change will occur over a number of years, but my view is that cheap food from abroad is no longer a slogan for us, whatever it may be for anyone else. It is the basis on which nineteenth century capitalist Britain built its manufacturing supremacy. It is the basis upon which employers in the nineteenth century were able to pay low wages to their workers, and the basis which resulted in the formation of the trade unions. What the Indian peasant is now doing in the twentieth century is what the British worker did in the nineteenth century. That is the situation we face, a situation we can help to remedy.
  On the question of price, discussions with New Zealand Ministers show that they are now as much preoccupied with the price we shall pay as with the markets we can offer. They have already made an agreement with Japan. There is no
  1362
  real difficulty in selling food today. The question is how much one can get for it, and that was the question which New Zealand Ministers raised with us repeatedly when they came to see us. This is something which I believe we must reckon with. The improvements which were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture which we have secured so far, even though we do not yet have a fundamental change. demonstrate that we can move the Commission and our partners in the Community in a different direction. I am persuaded it is possible to do this in a way which will be most suitable for Britain and most suitable for the developing world.
  Another factor has influenced me very much, namely, the changed attitude of the Commonwealth countries. No one has seriously challenged throughout this three-day debate the statement that has been made time and again that the Governments of the Commonwealth countries prefer Britain to be part of the Community. It is not only true of the old Commonwealth of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It is also true of the new Commonwealth.
  At Christmas I travelled through Africa and visited seven different countries. In every one of them the question of future membership was raised with me with apprehension. I did my best to reassure them. I said that if the British people voted against entry, we would do our best to protect their interests, because the Commonwealth still exists. However, the apprehension is there. If my hon. Friends want to know the truth, it is that the Commonwealth would prefer Britain to be inside rather than outside the Community.
  The Lomé Convention has opened up new opportunities for African and the Caribbean and Pacific countries in both trade and aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley) correctly spelt out the effect of inflation on aid. This is a matter we must follow up. However, we shall not be able to do so if we are not in the Community. How then could we help the ACP countries? I regard the question of aid and trade for Asian countries as important. The position of the Asian countries has not been covered by the

  1363
  Lomé Convention for the reasons given earlier in the debate. If we stay in, we can help them to get a different settlement. In addition, we can help them to get a share of the new aid that is being made available by the Community. This will be additional to the bilateral aid which we now give to India and which is the largest sum any individual country gives.
  There is also a worthwhile area of Commonwealth co-operation to explore. Commonwealth countries were disappointed when we joined the EEC. It was one of the weaknesses of the negotiation at that time that Commonwealth co-operation sagged. There is now renewed interest, and people know this.
  I look forward to a fruitful Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in Jamaica. I explained in a debate before Easter the discussions that we hope to initiate at this conference on the future treatment of raw materials and commodities. Both sides, as producers and consumers, have a joint interest in ensuring security of supplies for us and adequate earnings for them. The Commonwealth has an important role to play in evolving world thinking if it chooses to do so.
  When I go to Dublin this weekend to discuss common problems with Foreign Ministers, I shall raise the problem of how the Prime Minister and I in Jamaica will try to evolve an initiative and how we can marry the interests of the Community with the interests of the Commonwealth in this matter. Is that not worth doing? Is that not real co-operation. where we can use the EEC both for beneficent purposes of our own and to the advantage of the Commonwealth as such?
  I have spoken as Commonwealth Secretary. Let me now say a few words as Foreign Secretary, which I was asked to do by the right hon. Member for Sidcup. No one in this debate has claimed that membership of the EEC has made it impossible to improve our bilateral relations with other countries, including the USSR. No one has claimed that it has prevented a return to our familiar intimacy with the United States of America. If these relationships have been jeopardised in the past, it is not because of our membership of the EEC
  1364
  but is because other men willed that it should be so.
  Over the past 12 months—I must ask my hon. Friends to accept this—we have added an extra dimension to our influence in all these issues. We have discussed with these countries, although I regret to say that some discussions were not very fruitful, our policies and difficulties over Rhodesia, Cyprus, South Africa, the future of Portugal and the Middle East situation. On some of these matters there is no common policy. I ask my hon. Friends to accept that as a result of regular discussions we have created a greater understanding of what each other is doing. That is another reason why I have changed my mind over the past 12 months. [Interruption.] I say to those who jeer that an ounce of practice, which I have had, is worth a ton of their theory.
  Turning to our domestic policies, let me say in the five minutes remaining that we can look after our own regions. We can look after and change our national aids. We can change boundaries if we wish to do so. I ask my hon. Friends to note this. They may not agree with it but let me put the point. Anyone can argue about the fine print of the treaties. They can product Article 92, 93, 94 or Article 99—anything they like. But when we have argued about the fine print, the political reality of life in the Community is that no single member, be it Britain or anyone else, can be compelled to follow a course which will throw large numbers of its people out of work or impoverish its citizens.
  If that unacceptable situation should arise, either the Community bends or it breaks. Because everyone knows that. no one there will test it to destruction. That is my experience. This is the reality of sovereignty. This is what it is all about. It is not solely about parliamentary procedures, although I would be untrue to my past if I were to blow upon that. But true sovereignty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said, is the power to make effective decisions in our own affairs. It resides in a combination of things—economic strength, military power and social cohesion. I see no signs that France is any the less French after 20 years in the Community. Does anyone else?

  1365
  Why should it be thought that the British people are less sturdy than the French?
  Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East) rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. The Scottish National Party has had some speakers in the debate.
  I ask my hon. Friends to answer this question—and I am addressing myself to the issues as I see them. Will staying in the Community mean that we shall build fewer houses for our people?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Callaghan: No. Will it mean lower old-age pensions?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Callaghan: Will there be fewer schools?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson rose —
  Mr. Callaghan: If membership is confirmed in the referendum, the Government's intention will be to pursue British interests energetically and effectively, not
  to adopt a supine attitude waiting to see what the Community will do to us. It is clear from what I have said that we do not intend to play a negative and a disruptive role in the Community. There are many areas—[Interruption.] I hope that this debate will not dribble out in disorder, because I do not believe that that is what the House wants.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Callaghan: There are many areas, such as the common agricultural policy, New Zealand, fisheries policy and the future of steel, where we have objectives to pursue within the Community on a longer time-scale.
  The Government have given their verdict. In our view they are faithfully carrying out the manifesto. Some do not like what was in it—neither the committed pro-Marketers nor the committed anti-Marketeers. But the rest of us, those who are strong neither on one side nor the other, have supported the manifesto. We have attempted to discharge our responsibilities both in our renegotiations and now, as the Government are giving the British people the opportunity to declare themselves. That is why the Government ask for support from every hon. Member in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 396, Noes 170.

  Division No. 164.]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Adley, Robert

  Bradley, Tom

  Clegg, Walter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cockcroft, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brittan, Leon

  Cohen, Stanley

  Anderson, Donald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Arnold, Tom

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cope, John

  Ashley, Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cordle, John H.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cormack, Datrick

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Corrie, John

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Costaln, A. P.

  Baker, Kenneth

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Banks, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Buck, Antony

  Critchley, Julian

  Beith, A. J.

  Budgen, Nick

  Cronin, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Burden, F. A.

  Crouch, David

  Benyon, W.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Blaker, Peter

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter, Ray

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Boardman, H.

  Cartwright, John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Boscawen. Hon Robert

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Channon, Paul

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Doig, Peter

  Boyden, James (Bish Auek)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Irving. Charles (Cheltenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Dunn, James A.

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Dunnett, Jack

  James, David

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Durant, Tony

  Janner, Greville

  Neave. Airey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanat'd & W'dfd)

  Nelson. Anthonv

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Neubert, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Newton Tony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Normanton, Tom

  Elliott, Sir William

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Nott, John

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Emery, Peter

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Ogden, Eric

  Ennals, David

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Onslow, Craniey

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Jopling, Michael

  Osborn John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Owen Dr David

  Fell, Anthony

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Padley, Walter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Palmer Arthur

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Pardon John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Parker, John

  Ford, Ben

  Kirk, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Fox, Marcus

  Knox, David

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Penhaligon, David

  Freud, Clement

  Lamont, Norman

  Perclval, Ian

  Fry, Peter

  Lane, David

  Perry, Ernest

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Phipps, Dr Colin.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Golding, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Radice, Giles

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Raison, Timothy

  Goodhew, Victor

  Loveridge, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Luard, Evan

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gorst, John

  Luce, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Graham, Ted

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Gray, Hamish

  MacGregor, John

  Rifkind, Malcoim

  Grieve, Percy

  McGuire, Michael (lnce)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Grieve, Eidon

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Micael(Cardiff NW)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Grist, Ian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Grylls. Michael

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Rodgers, Sir john (Sevenoaks)

  Hall, Sir John

  McNair-Willson, M. (Newbury)

  Rodgers, Sir john (Sevenoaks)

  Hall-Davis, A.G.F.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Roper, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Madel, Devld.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Magee, Bryan

  Rose, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mahon, Simon

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Hannam, John

  Mallalieu J. P. W

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hastings, Stephen

  Marquand, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Hattersiey, Rt Hon Roy

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Sandelson, Neville

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mather, Carol

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Maudling Rt Hon Reginold

  Shaw Giles (Pudsey)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mawby, Ray.

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-lyne)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Shepherd, Colin

  Holland, Philip

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Millan, Bruce

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Horam, john

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Horderm, Peter

  Mills Peter

  Silvester, Fred

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  owell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  itchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  keet, T. H. H.

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Monro, Hector

  Small, William

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  mith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Moonman, Eric

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Speed, Keith

  Irvine, Bryant Ciodman (Rye)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  1368

  1369

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Wells, John

  Sproat, lain

  Tinn, James

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Stainton, Keith

  Tomlinson, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tomney, Frank

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Stanley, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitlock, William

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Viggers, Peter

  Willey. Rt Hon Frederick

  Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Stokes, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Stradling Thomas, J

  Wakeham, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Strang, Gavin

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Walder, David (Clltheroe)

  Wlnterton, Nicholas

  Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Wood. Rt Hon Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  aylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wall, Patrick

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Younger, Hon George

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ward, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Watklns, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Miss Betty Boothroyd and

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  NOES

  Ashton, Joe

  Gilbert, Dr John

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Orbach, Maurice

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ovenden, John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Peter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bates, Alf

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Bell, Ronald

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Halton, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hefler, Eric S.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Henderson, Douglas

  Reid, George

  Biffen, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Body, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Booth, Albert

  Huckfield, Les

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Campbell, Ian

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Carson, John

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ryman, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  ay, Rt Hon Douglas

  elby, Harry

  lark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  enkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Judd, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Silverman, Julius

  Corbett, Robin

  Kelley, Richard

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kerr, Russell

  Snape, Peter

  Crawford, Douglas

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sprlggs, Leslie

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamble, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Lamond, James

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)

  Stoddart, Davtd

  Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stott, Roger

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Swaln, Thomas

  ean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  ewis Arthur (Newham N)

  aylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  empsey, James

  ewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  homas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  ouglas-Mann, Bruce

  ipton, Marcus

  homas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  unlop, John

  itterick, Tom

  hompson, George

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Eadie, Alex

  MacCormlck, lain

  Tierney, Sydney

  Edge, Geoff

  MnCusker, H.

  Torney, Tom

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McEihone, Frank

  Urwin, T. W.

  English, Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Varley, Rt Hn Eric G.

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Madden, Max

  Watkinson, John

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Watt, Hamish

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marten, Neil

  Weetch, Ken

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weitzman, David

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Flannery, Martin

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SF)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Molloy, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey Woof, Robert

  Forrester, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Freeson, Reginald

  Newens, Stanley

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Noble, Mike

  Mr. Roger Moate and

  George, Bruce

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Nigel Spearing

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government to continue Britain's Membership of the Community as set out in the White Paper on the Membership of the European Community (Command No. 5999).

  PETITION

    European Community (Referendum)
    Mr. Robert Adley: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition supported by more than 10,000 British citizens in Continental Europe. This petition relates to the wholly exceptional circumstances of the proposed referendum on this country's continued membership of the European Economic Community.
    Many British subjects now work in the EEC area consequent upon United King-
    1372
    dom accession, but not all the signatories are from the EEC area.
    The petition is also supported by Voluntary Service Overseas.
    The Government have announced special arrangements for Service voters in the referendum. The petitioners ask the House to make arrangements for them, as residents abroad, similar to those which are made, for example, by the Governments of New Zealand, Sweden and France amongst others. The Opposition have tabled an amendment to the Referendum Bill which will give effect to these proposals.
    The petitioners pray that
    the House of Commons do amend the Referendum Bill at present before the House so as to enable United Kingdom citizens resident abroad to cast their votes in the forthcoming referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community.
    I beg leave to present the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

  HOSPITAL SERVICE (DUDLEY)
  10.20 p.m.
  Dr. Colin Phipps (Dudley, West): For one brief moment, I thought that this might be the best attended Adjournment debate for some days. However, I see that the House is resuming its normal state for this time of the evening.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of the Dudley District General Hospital. It is now almost 20 years since serious deficiencies in the hospital services in the Dudley area were identified and a positive decision taken to build a new district general hospital. This decision was taken after very careful consideration of the alternative, which was to develop the existing small hospitals, had been rejected on the grounds that the service was too fragmented and required rationalising, and that the two largest hospitals were in such a serious state of dilapidation that they should be abandoned.
  In 1958, Professor Sheldon, who conducted a survey of hospitals throughout the Midlands, described one of the units as being like Sing-Sing because of its peculiar construction, with cell-like blocks. He stated that it should be demolished and should not house patients. Plans for major upgrading of the wards were abandoned as the result of this report. Although some upgrading has since taken place, these wards are still in use 15 years later because there has been the promise of a new district general hospital.
  The Dudley area has been repeatedly disappointed with the planning of this hospital. It has now been planned for three different sites and, as originally conceived, would, by now, have been completed. Unfortunately, as each scheme was developed, so it was abandoned and the planning aborted. In all this time, capital investment within the Dudley area has been strictly limited on the basis that the majority of the hospitals had only a
  1374
  limited life, and the investment of substantial sums could not, therefore, be justified.
  In consequence, patients and staff have endured conditions which would have been unacceptable in other areas. It is to their everlasting credit that the staff of the hospitals have, by their devotion to their work, endeavoured to compensate for the deficiencies that exist in the service. In addition, the public of Dudley have constrained their criticism of the service in the knowledge that a new hospital was imminent and the staff were doing all that was humanly possible for them within the limitations of the existing buildings.
  The morale of the staff has been sustained by the relationship they have established with the community and the management authority. After 20 years, however, this is wearing thin, and the latest proposal to defer the commencement of the main portion of the new hospital at Dudley has been the last straw. Physical limitations imposed by the existing buildings not only provide an inadequate environment for the practice of health care but also constrain the authority in the number and grades of staff that can be employed. The strains and tensions created by present conditions have now reached such a point that they place an intolerable burden on the staff, who are being frustrated in their attempts to provide a reasonable service to the Dudley community.
  There are more than 300,000 people within this metropolitan conurbation. They reside in six different parliamentary constituencies, of which my own is one. These 300,000 people are inadequately served in virtually every specialty. The investment, in revenue terms, on health within the area is grossly below both the regional and national average. These facts are well known to the Department of Health. The deficiencies have been well documented over the past 10 years, and Dudley is recognised as an area of severe deprivation and fragmentation.
  It is no consolation to the people of Dudley that work actually commenced in 1972 for, by mid-1976, all that there will be to show will be a boiler house, stores, laundry and engineering workshops, but not a single bed for patients. In 1968, when the planning on this hospital first

  1375
  commenced, it was anticipated that over 300 beds would be available by now. Even if the existing programme had been adhered to with a commencement of phase III in the current year, there would have been no accommodation for patients until 1978–79. The delay in starting the next phase can only mean a further delay in the completion of the hospital, and this will place the area health authority in an impossible position, because all the planning since 1968 has been on the basis that there would be additional hospital accommodation available from 1976 onwards.
  The increasing workload that the hospitals in this area are being called upon to meet year by year as the area develops has inevitably meant that the resources have been more intensely worked as each year has gone by. Now, however, the position has been reached where there is no longer any room for further expansion. Fragmentation and inadequacy of accommodation has meant that it is increasingly difficult to recruit staff. Consultant appointments remain unfilled, and junior medical staff appointments are no longer attractive, and such posts cannot be filled. Medical, nursing, paramedical and technical staff are reluctant to come into the area, and when staff do become available, working facilities are often non-existent. The shortage of speech therapists, physiotherapists and chiropodists delays or prevents the full rehabilitation of patients, for example, for stroke and injury cases. Residential accommodation for both nursing staff and single doctors is now at a premium and, the recent Whitley agreements having increased their off-duty time, makes additional recruitment imperative to maintain even the present level of service. The dilemma now facing the authority is that. even if it could recruit the staff, it would have nowhere to accommodate them.
  The fragmentation of the service with the dispersal of the specialities through so many units means that staff are wasting their time in travelling from one hospital to another, expensive equipment is having to be duplicated, and it is impossible to provide a fully co-ordinated service. Even the casualty services are having to be split between two small hospitals of fewer than 200 beds each, now endeavouring to handle over 52,000 new cases a year. This means that the major portion of their work is confined
  1376
  to emergencies, so that routine work is suffering. Unfortunately, as there is only one other hospital with operating facilities, the casualty work load is seriously interfering with the waiting list work, and it is impossible to make optimum use of the resources that are available.
  The irony of the situation is that, in 1970, the Department of Health decided to adopt the Dudley District General Hospital as its pilot scheme to test the new Harness concept of hospital design. It is this concept which is the white hope of the future health service, and which is referred to by the Secretary of State in her recent letter on planning. It would seem wrong, therefore, when the Dudley project has been used as the proving ground for the planning of this type of hospital, to abandon it because the Department has now moved on to a more advanced stage of the Harness hospital.
  Similarly, in 1970 it had been the view of the authority that phase III should provide approximately 300 beds, and it was at the insistence of the Department of Health that this phase was increased to provide a scheme for over 600 beds at an estimated cost now of £15 million to £18 million. It is ironic that it is this cost which is now the major obstacle to the continuation of the project. It would be the contention of the authority that. whilst it recognises the present pressing economic situation, it should have a prior claim on moneys made available for hospital development in the coming years.
  It is clear from the programme, recently released by the Department of Health, that there are substantial sums of money being spent on capital works in the National Health Service. The authority recognises that the present situation calls for a reduction in capital activity, and it would have seemed eminently reasonable to it if the present phase had been cut in half. According to the architects, this is a practical alternative. It is indeed unfortunate that, although the area health authority is a member of a joint project team comprising representatives from the AHA, DHSS and RHA, there has been no meeting of this project team for 12 months, and there were no discussions with the area health authority before the decision to defer the scheme was taken. This I believe, if correct, to be inexcusable.

  1377
  If this phase does not go ahead in its original or reduced form, the only claim the Department can make is to have fragmented even further the service within the Dudley area, because the area health authority will, within twelve months, have another site for which it will be responsible. This will be detached completely from existing units and, as a result, will increase the fragmentation of the already fragmented service. Hospitals which were scheduled for closure, and which have been deprived of both capital and maintenance moneys in anticipation of their closure, will now have to have considerable sums of money spent upon them, and the authority estimates that, in order to prop up the existing services, between £1½ million and £2 million will have to be spent almost immediately if these are not to break down by mid-1978. Relief cannot be provided from adjoining areas which are already themselves hard pressed. We are therefore faced with the prospect of an investment of £2½, million on the site of the new hospital without any hospital services being provided by that unit. This is clearly unacceptable
  Unless a decision is taken quickly to provide some sort of support for the services in Dudley the consequences will be disastrous. In recent years the hospital service in the area has been planned on the assumption that the district general hospital would be available some time between 1976 and 1978. Additional consultant appointments have been made in numerous specialities, even though it was known that the facilities in all these specialities were currently inadequate, as it was the intention that the incoming consultants would commence a nucleus of a service in preparation for the opening of the new hospital.
  Many of the consultants have accepted appointments in the area in the expectation that modern facilities would be available in the near future. In many cases the consultants are working single handed, and are having to provide a 24-hour cover seven days a week, because it is impossible to introduce additional consultants without the additional facilities for them to work in. Additional consultants are now needed in many specialities—for instance, gynaecology, ophthalmology, psychiatry, ENT, general surgery
  1378
  and orthopaedics. Such appointments cannot be made because of the absence of adequate operating facilities, outpatient clinic time and general support services. It is currently estimated that there is a deficiency of over 500 beds in this area.
  Even this does not paint the full picture. The beds need to be supported by all the other services, and they would be useless without operating theatres, dianostic and remedial services and accommodation for the nursing and medical staff who would have to work in support of the beds. Piecemeal development is out of the question. It was recognised 20 years ago, it was recognised again 10 years ago, and it has been reiterated within recent years, that the only remedy to the hospital problems of the Dudley area is a radical rebuilding. I ask the Minister to accept the revised plans of the authority, and to give the go ahead for a desperately needed facility in an area of extreme hospital deprivation.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) on having secured an Adjournment debate. Like him, I at first thought that the Opposition benches were full because hon. Members had come to hear my speech, but I was doomed to the same disappointment.
  If I were in any doubt about the difficulties of the Health Service in the Dudley area, those doubts would have been swept away by my hon. Friend's speech and by the presence in the Chamber of his colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who has to be silent on these occasions but who has drawn my attention several times to the problems of Dudley.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the staff working in these bad conditions in Dudley. I would say to them, through him, that we are mindful of the difficulties they have today and have had for a long time.
  I wish that the shortages and deficiencies in Dudley which my hon. Friend has described were limited to one or two

  1379
  parts of the country, but the tragic fact is that they can be found only too often in many parts of the Health Service. This is the basis of our problem—that it is not just help for one or two areas but a massive injection of capital that the service needs.
  Let me say straight away that neither we at the Department nor, I believe, the West Midlands Health Authority, would disagree with much of what my hon. Friend has said about the need for the new hospital. The main problem at Dudley is that existing provision is divided among too many hospitals for the most economical and efficient management, and some of these are in less than satisfactory buildings. That is probably understating the case at present. It is not a case, therefore, of shortages of beds but rather one of fragmentation in uneconomic units. It was to rationalise this situation and to improve facilities that a new district general hospital was planned.
  Planning for the new hospital began in 1969. At that time the Department was in the early stages of developing a standard design hospital, known as Harness, and with the agreement of the former Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, Dudley was chosen as the pilot project. Site preparation and the so-called industrial zone for services such as laundry, workshops, engineering and so on, are already well advanced. The major phase, including the bulk of acute provision, is virtually ready to start, but unfortunately at an estimated cost of £15 million spread over several years.
  At the time the decision was made to build Dudley as a pilot Harness hospital, and later when the two main phases were combined to produce the present very large phase, the capital building programme was expanding and there was every reason to expect that the scheme could be accommodated in the forward programme. As the House and my hon. Friend and, I trust, the country know only too well, however, economic difficulties led the then Conservative Government to cut public expenditure, including the hospital building programme, in December 1973.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her statement in the House on 2nd December last about the 1975–76 capital building programme, announced
  1380
  that because of the continuing economic difficulties, we could restore only some of the cuts made by our predecessors, and that very few new schemes, of the very highest priority, would be able to start. We have not yet announced the 1975–76 programme, but I must, unfortunately, tell my hon. Friend quite frankly—for anything other than frankness would be a disservice to him and to his constituents—that there is no possibility of including the £15 million Dudley scheme at present.
  As the White Paper on Public Expenditure published in January made clear, there is a continuing need for restraint, in the national economic interest, on the level of expenditure that can be devoted to the health capital development programme. If 1975–76 is ruled out, we must look to somewhat later dates and various possibilities. The fact that the capital programme from 1976–77 onwards is unlikely to be as large as we would wish has general implications, as well as specific implications for individual schemes. Regional health authorities have been asked to review their strategies, knowing that it is likely they will not be able to start as many major schemes as they would wish. They will be deciding how best to use the available resources. A very few major schemes of the highest priority will be able to start, but the replacement of some unsatisfactory buildings will inevitably be deferred. A major element in the review of strategies will be the examination of how these hospitals can best be improved in the medium term, for example, through imaginative upgrading schemes.
  The West Midlands Regional Health Authority will thus have to look at regional priorities very critically. I do not wish in any way to anticipate its conclusions, but, as I have already said, the Dudley scheme is essentially to replace existing facilities, seeking to rationalise and certainly to improve them, rather than to provide additional facilities. This is not true of schemes for other districts in the region—for example, the new towns —where there are substantial shortfalls of hospital facilities and where, if there is no new building, the population would have to depend on services in other districts already under pressure and often several miles away. On strict priority grounds it seems unlikely that the Dudley scheme

  1381
  would figure among the very highest priorities in the region.
  While there has been a considerable investment in planning and a substantial amount of preliminary construction at Dudley, the resources simply will not be sufficient to allow the scheme to proceed as originally planned, when due regard has to be paid to the competing priorities in other parts of the region. In these circumstances the health authorities need to turn their attention to ways and means of making the best possible use of the work already completed and planning the future development of the hospital in the light of realistic assumptions as to the resources available. I am pleased to be able to say that the Dudley Area Health Authority has been quick to recognise this and is already considering whether it would be possible to trim existing plans to a much smaller scheme. I welcome this initiative, and if it proves possible to produce a much smaller phase it will clearly increase the chances of the scheme finding a place in the future programme.
  My hon. Friend has made the point that the involvement of the Department, by adopting the scheme as a pilot project for Harness, has been a major factor in the present difficulty. The Department's aim. in its research and development programme, has been to develop a standard design for hospitals which could be used nationally in a wide variety of situations. Inevitably problems would arise when a pilot project is being developed. But I must point out that the choice of Dudley as the "guinea pig", as it were, was welcomed by the hospital authorities
  1382
  concerned and the implications were fully accepted. Nevertheless, I am conscious that its choice as a pilot project has contributed to the present situation. If, therefore, the regional health authority were to consider Dudley as of sufficient priority to justify a place in its forward programme using the present Harness design, but splitting it into smaller phases, the Department would regard it as a development project possibly attracting special support. In other words, we should look on it with some favour.
  To conclude, the present situation for the Dudley scheme is uncertain and will, I regret, be so for some months. Much will depend on the level of capital likely to be available to the West Midlands over the next few years, and the regional health authority's assessment of its priorities. I am anxious for the scheme to proceed if possible, because there is clearly a need for the new hospital, but it must be recognised that the hospital capital situation has changed dramatically while the scheme has been in planning. The initiative of the area health authority in investigating the feasibility of a much smaller scheme is very welcome, and if a smaller scheme is practicable the prospect of including it in the forward programme will certainly be much improved. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I have made a long and detailed examination of the problem in Dudley and that we shall continue to take the closest personal interest in it in the hope that we can bring some help to his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Belize
  Belize
  Anglo-German Society (Meeting)
  Anglo-German Society (Meeting)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  EEC Regional Fund
  EEC Regional Fund
  EEC Commission
  EEC Commission
  Denmark
  Denmark
  EEC Regional Fund
  EEC Regional Fund
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Vietnam and Cambodia
  Vietnam and Cambodia
  Advertising Standards (EEC Report)
  Advertising Standards (EEC Report)
  Beef Imports (EEC Ban)
  Beef Imports (EEC Ban)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Imports
  Milk Imports
  "BABIES FOR BURNING"
  "BABIES FOR BURNING"
ENVIRONMENT
  Railways (Employees' Travel Perquisites)
  Railways (Employees' Travel Perquisites)
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Roads (Construction Grants)
  Roads (Construction Grants)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Exclusion Orders
  Exclusion Orders
  Police (Hampshire)
  Police (Hampshire)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Terrorism Prevention
  Terrorism Prevention
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Coins and Notes
  Coins and Notes
  OECD Financial Support Fund
  OECD Financial Support Fund
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorist Prevention
  Terrorist Prevention
  Excluded Persons
  Excluded Persons
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
DEFENCE
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education Students
  Further Education Students
  Savernake Tenure Horn
  Savernake Tenure Horn
ENERGY
  Oil Industry Research
  Oil Industry Research
INDUSTRY
  Scottish Aviation Ltd.
  Scottish Aviation Ltd.
  Housing (European Community Workers)
  Housing (European Community Workers)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Nationalised Industries (Consumer Representation)
  Nationalised Industries (Consumer Representation)
TRADE
  Fishing Ship "CS Forrester"
  Fishing Ship "CS Forrester"
WALES
  Sports Centres
  Sports Centres
  Housing Modernisation
  Housing Modernisation
SCOTLAND
  Landowners
  Landowners
  European Community Council of Ministers
  European Community Council of Ministers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Addiction Units
  Addiction Units
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Hospital Linen Service
  Hospital Linen Service
  Wives' Pensions (Half-test Rule)
  Wives' Pensions (Half-test Rule)
  Hospital Building Programme
  Hospital Building Programme
  Preston Royal Infirmary
  Preston Royal Infirmary
  Private Beds
  Private Beds

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

ARGYLL: POSTAL ADDRESS
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not appropriate to continue to use Argyll as the postal address of the people living there.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I understand that the Post Office is consulting its customers in Scotland about the possible use of new postal addresses for Scotland based on the new local government Regions and Island Areas which are to be established on 16th May next under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. At present the Post Office uses the existing county structure as a basis for dealing with mail. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on the form of postal addresses as this is a matter for the Post Office to determine taking into account the needs of operational efficiency, but I have no doubt that the Post Office will bear in mind the views of the noble Lord.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Yes, my Lords, but is it not possible for the Government to use their undoubted influence in this matter on the Director of Posts for four rather obvious and specific reasons? The first is that it is hard enough to have to pay the increased charges without having to add another ten or so letters to each envelope that one posts. The second reason is that the costs of changing the addresses of every business and every home in Scotland as a block are very considerable. The third reason is that, as we understand it, we are now all to be given
78
numbers as well as addresses to facilitate the delivery of the post. Lastly, not one single person in the whole of Argyll wants it. Can the Government please demonstrate these facts clearly to the Director of Posts and get him to make up his mind?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the ten or so additional letters on the regional descriptions are concerned, I think this was a concoction of the previous Administration and not of the present one. So far as the cost is concerned, I agree with the noble Lord that there will be considerable expenditure in changing letter-headings, addressographs, computer files and so on, and I am certain that the Post Office will take this into account. So far as the numbers are concerned, if the noble Lord is saying that he would rather be acquainted with or would rather be attached to and associated with Argyll rather than a number, I understand and agree with him absolutely. But so far as the efficient sorting out of mail is concerned, this is something for the Post Office and we must leave it to them.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, as the post code for the area is based on Paisley—which is in Renfrewshire— would he not agree that it would do great harm if further complications arose with regard to the use of the word "Argyll" by substituting West Clyde?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, the Post Office is consulting its customers, trade associations and the Post Office Users' Council for Scotland. I am quite certain that they are better able than I to comment on what the noble Lord has said.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord also convey to the authorities in this matter the fact that by reading history one cannot find that there have always been the most friendly relations between the people of Argyll and the people of Strathclyde? In these circumstances—and to help maintain the happy relations which now exist—would he please allow them to continue to use the word "Argyll" in their correspondence?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is absolutely no doubt that we shall not foist upon the people concerned the

79
designations which the previous Government saw fit to apply to regional districts.
Lord WYNNE-JONESs: My Lords, would it not be better if Her Majesty's Government persuaded the chairman of the Post Office not to make up his mind, so that the whole matter was left in abeyance?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, that is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Is it a fact, my Lords, that Strathclyde has been treated differently from any other region? In the region in which I live we have four districts and each is allowed to keep its own county in name.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. This is a point of view that I am certain will be expressed to the Post Office, which is considering the matter.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
2.42 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any progress has been made at the resumed United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Geneva and what policy initiatives have been taken by Her Majesty's Government at this Conference.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, so far most discussion has been in informal groups but most delegations are entering into genuine negotiations. We believe that there is good prospect of agreement at least in principle on the main issues by the end of the session. The British delegation has co-sponsored a set of draft articles on marine pollution.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I would ask him whether the Government realise the great urgency and importance of reaching international agreement on the exploitation and conservation of the re-
80
sources of the oceans and the seabed before international anarchy breaks out and there is a "free-for-all". How do the Government intend to police our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and enforce the vastly increased responsibilities and obligations that we shall get therein?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much welcome the first point made by the noble Earl in his supplementary question; that is to say that it is very urgent indeed that this Conference should succeed, since otherwise anarchy may prevail in the seas of the world, and indeed damage not only national economies but also international relations. On the second point, about policing the good order in a 200-mile economic zone, we believe we already have resources in manpower and techniques to do this. We shall consider carefully how far we need to increase either or both.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Her Majesty's Government have now modified their previous position which would have allowed the international seabed authority to license activities? Have they not now agreed to the proposal that there should be a joint venture with the multiple companies and States which are carrying this out, with the revenue being distributed so that the landlocked countries can benefit from it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, both the Government and the Conference have not come to final conclusions about the structure and administration of the international seabed authority which we seek, but the ideas which the noble Lord has presented are very much in our minds. Subject to certain negotiations, I believe that this will be the general picture which will emerge at the end of these negotiations.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make quite certain that the fishermen of the South-West are represented, or at least that their views are represented, at this Conference, as it is most important that the Russian and Eastern bloc fishing fleets do not scrape dry of fish the conservation areas of the Channel?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, conservation and the protection of legitimate interests are very much part of the Conference which is now proceeding. Our own interests, both managerial and through the trade unions, are fully canvassed before our delegation expresses an opinion or urges a point of view in the Conference.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, as long ago as 1971 the United Nations reached general agreement that the exploitation of the resources of the seabed should be in the hands of an international authority for the benefit of all mankind. Bearing in mind the long delays which have occurred in putting this principle into practice, would it not be a good idea if Her Majesty's Government were to propose that under the law of all nations belonging to the United Nations a moratorium should be imposed, so as to prevent individual enterprises from beginning to exploit the resources of the ocean bed at the expense of the human race by using up those resources before any agreement has been reached?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should very much like to look at the proposal which the noble Lord has made about preventing a preemption of the work of a future international authority which would exploit the seabed under the high seas for the general benefit of mankind. It is an idea which many people have canvassed in the past and its utility is no less today. No doubt this Conference will be looking at the idea. I myself shall follow it up, and perhaps I may let the noble Lord know how this particular point is proceeding.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, in view of the fact that, as my noble friend has said, the Government intend to take the initiative in this matter, will he draw the attention of the Department to the report on 15 commodities which has been drawn up by the Commodities Research Unit at Gower Street which deals with the vital problem of raw materials? Will he also try to obtain information from the Geological Survey Department about the recent oceanographical survey of the Pacific Ocean, which has been surveyed from the Bering Straits down to the Falkland Isles and across to New Zealand and Australia, in
82
which the reserves of gold, titanium, tin and other materials is allegedly much greater than in the whole of South-East Asia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, after consulting the British Encyclopaedia I will do my best to help my noble friend!
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the Government have apparently recommended at the Conference that coastal States should have the right to prosecute shipowners rather than flag States for pollution offences, have the Government any workable proposals for applying this recommendation, bearing in mind the difficulties of obtaining evidence and of inspecting genuine ships' records?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, our present posture is to place the right of prosecution with the coastal States. Nevertheless, we are examining the position of the flag States and the port States in relation to incidents of this kind. It is a little early finally to decide where the initiative for prosecution will eventually rest.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is not our very experienced representative at the Conference on the Law of the Sea, Sir Roger Jackling, seized and aware of every problem which has been raised this afternoon in the House?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am quite certain that this is so.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, where inshore fishing is concerned, will Her Majesty's Government take a strong line about the use of heavy beam trawlers since it has quite clearly been proved that they do immense damage to breeding stocks of flat fish and that there are very strong feelings about them by British inshore fishermen? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether the European Economic Community countries have done their best to co-ordinate their attitude to the main questions which arise in this Conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that we are fully aware of the importance of the technical point raised by the noble Lord. As to cohesion among

83
European States, this is proceeding properly and substantially. Additionally, we have been able to co-sponsor, not only with Western friends and allies but also with some Eastern European States. very useful draft articles on pollution. In so far as both sides join in the decisions in this Conference so much the better.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, since the noble Lord's right honourable friend said in Geneva on the 3rd of this month that the Government are willing to share the wealth from the minerals extracted from the area between the outer limit of the EEZ and the outer limit of the Continental margin, by what international convention or international law do the Government lay claim to the right to extract minerals from the Continental margin?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my right honourable friend said that he would consider any idea that suggested, after asserting the economic zone up to 200 miles, that between that and the outer edge of the Continental margin there might be a scheme for apportioning part of the revenue of exploitation in that second area for international purposes. The text of the speech made it quite clear that we stand ready to consider proposals of this sort. As to what will enable us to do this, I think that will emerge during any negotiations which might lead to the implementation of such an idea.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the proposal is that the present conference should be followed by another next year, at which the necessary convention will be adopted?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, generally that is the hope. We hope to have agreements at least in principle on the main issues during the present session in Geneva, and to have completed a convention covering all points some time next year.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that on 19th March we were discussing the neutrality of the Indian Ocean. In view of the concern and interest of the Malagasy and African coastal States on the Indian Ocean, can the noble Lord give any information as
84
to the proposals which they have put forward and can he say whether we have, in effect, agreed to any of these proposals, because I think it is an interesting subject to them and they are very worried and concerned about it.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not give an answer to that question without notice, but I will look into it.

FISHING VESSELS PORTS' BLOCKADE
2.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 what have been the main effects of the blockade of ports by fishing vessels and what action Her Majesty's Government have taken.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, tabled this Question, it has been arranged that a Statement will be made in another place by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. With the leave of the House, I hope to repeat that Statement at a suitable moment after half-past three. I think it would suit the noble Lord if I were to defer an Answer to his Question until then.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement on relief aid to Vietnam at a convenient moment after 3.30. As my noble friend Lord Hughes has said, this will be followed by a Statement that he will repeat on the blockading of ports by inshore fishermen.
MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
OCEAN TRANSPORT AND TRADING (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

FISH FARMING
2.55 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY rose to call attention to the need to encourage fish farming in this country as a contribution to the necessity for more protein for the growing world population; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity of drawing attention to what I believe to be an extremely important subject, that of fish farming. I had hoped to bring in a Private Member's Bill, but the lateness of the Parliamentary Session and the expense which would have been wasted brought all my Scottish blood to the fore. Therefore, I thought that it would be better to have a useful debate and, judging from the list of speakers, it will be a most useful debate and might perhaps induce the Government themselves to produce a Bill.
Now that our deep-sea and offshore fishermen are having such difficulties I want to make it quite clear that in this debate we are not advocating fish farming in any spirit of competition with the deep-sea fishermen. Indeed, it is really in a complementary sense that we are speaking, because we want to help to conserve species that are perhaps disappearing and also to help solve the very great environmental and international difficulties which surround fishing at the present moment. Present circumstances demonstrate very clearly that there is a real need for a general all round look at this valuable form of food production in a very hungry world.
At this stage I must confess that I find myself in very unexpected company—on the one hand our Norman King, King John, and on the other, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Taking the latter first, Lord Brockway has so often wrung our withers with his accounts of the starving population of the world—and when I say "wrung our withers" I thought this
86
was rather a nice expression. It is a Shakespearian expression, and then I wondered what "withers" were. It took me quite a long time to find out, but I now find that I have suffered from wrung withers owing to a bad back for a considerable time, and I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has only added to that.
I thought I had to do something and I have found that talking and appealing to the UN does not do much good. I know that because I have been there. Obviously, however, more protein must be produced This drew my attention to fish farming, about which I knew nothing some four months ago. I do not farm myself and I have no personal interest, but I discovered the most interesting things and people in the process of getting ready for this debate. I have two files of notes here, my Lords, but I shall not try your patience; I shall not be very long in introducing this interesting debate.
I discovered that the United Kingdom is among the foremost countries in Europe—perhaps, indeed, in the world— in respect of our scientific research into how to grow fish in domesticated conditions. Here I should like to acknowledge the wonderful work that is being done by the White Fish Authority and other pioneers like Unilever and British Oxygen, and so on; but we are very far behind other European countries in the production of commercial fish for consumption. For instance, Eastern Europe produces 250,000 tons of edible farmed fish, Western Europe produces 75,000 tons of edible farmed fish, while the United Kingdom produces only 2,500 tons. On the other hand our import of farmed fish cost us between £1 million and £2 million a year from Germany, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Japan, and so on. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that the excellent soles which we eat in our dining room come from Denmark, and a great deal of the trouble in the recent deep-sea fishing waters is due to the fact that the Norwegians heavily subsidise their fishing trawlers.
Nevertheless, in this country fish farming is most definitely a growth industry, but some very important things need to be done to help it along. The industry must be brought under the umbrella of farming for food production, as it is on

87
the Continent of Europe, and not looked upon—as it has been hitherto in this country—as a means of restocking our lakes and rivers for sporting purposes, important though that is.
A recent Directive from the EEC—and if anybody wants to look at it, it is No. 72/118—in which fish farming is recognised as part of the agricultural set-up should help us in this country on the matter of grants and derating, of which ordinary farmers have the benefit. Last night I was telephoned by a fish farmer who told me that he farms poultry, for which he was derated and for which he received grants, but, on the other side of his land he was fish farming, for which he was not derated and received no grants. That seems to be an absurd situation. Therefore, it must be brought under the general umbrella of farming for food production. I think that the EEC Directive has probably helped recently in two appeals for derating. Other appeals have failed, but these two won through.
Then there is a pamphlet called Britain in Europe, which shows that the European Agricultural Fund has contributed almost £2½ million to our fishing industry last year. I think the influence of the EEC is shown also in a leaflet issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dealing with fisheries and food, the farm and the horticultural development scheme. Here for the first time fresh water fish farming for food is included, yet still more redress is needed.
My Lords, we need a reorganisation whereby one Ministry has overall care of fish farming. At present, there are too many cooks, not spoiling the soup but the fish. This must be looked at very carefully. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment both have a big say in this matter. The White Fish Authority is a kind of step-child engaged in scientific experiments but with no commercial outlook. The Highlands and Islands Development Board have a certain autonomy which they have used to good purpose. The Crown Estate Commissioners keep a tight rein on the offshore rights and, in the long run, the EEC is bound to have something to say. All this needs to be sorted out and these bodies need to
88
be brought together for the sake of fish farming.
My Lords, at this stage, I should like to return to King John who, as a result of being too lavish with his grants of the offshore fishing rights—although I think he had the right idea—brought on the revolution leading to the Magna Carta and then, bless his heart, he died of a surfeit of lampreys—most unfair! Since then, the Crown Estate Commissioners have kept a tight hold on their responsibilities and, although they may grant rights for fishing on the seabed, these rights do not protect fish farmers using rafts and cages for free-swimming fish. It is a curious legal anomaly that, if one has rights to the seabed, one can protect anything that grows on the seabed, but once there are free-swimming fish, one has no legal protection. This restricts policulture and leads to friction, especially in Scotland, between yachting enthusiasts and fish farmers. This kind of difficulty could be solved with good will on both sides.
Another matter requiring attention is the use of warm waste water from industrial concerns and from nuclear power stations. This is very important. Waste warm water is extensively used in Europe, but in this country we have only just started to make use of it. The control of waste water temperature and access to warm water is of great importance and assistance in the rate of growth of fish, and in bring them to maturity, especially in the case of salmonides. The varieties of fish which can be grown now are salmon, rainbow trout, halibut, turbot, lemon soles, hake, plaice, carp, and quite a number of other small coarse fish. With a little extra effort, we could be entirely self-supporting in trout. It is anticipated that trout and chips may replace cod and chips when cod becomes scarce, as, indeed, they are.
My Lords, another matter which needs really close attention is the pollution of water. There is also the question of disease. There should be better exchange of information on these two subjects, and international control where necessary. Last year, we imported £37 million of fishmeal pellets. This should not be necessary. We should be able ourselves to produce the 300,000 tons of fishmeal required by co-operation

89
with deep-sea fishermen, who throw overboard a great deal of fish offal that could be used for turning into fishmeal.
We must study the home marketing of fish. Our housewives must get used to new specimens of fish. I am glad to say that in this country we are very conservative, but the housewives must be rather more experimental in this matter. Considering the shortage of protein in the world, and considering that we are surrounded by sea, that we have lakes, rivers, reservoirs, gravel pits, all of which could be used, I cannot think why we cannot get on with the job. Where have all the eels gone? We used to have smoked eels. Where are all the cockles and mussels, and where are King John's lampreys? I have not been able to track them down. Alas! no noble Lord here can die from a surfeit of lampreys; they are almost unobtainable.
My Lords, we have a growing number of fish farmers, and we are doing well with our lobster trade, which is a valuable export. We need co-ordination, encouragement and sympathy on the part of Ministers and their officials—and here I am looking at the Front Bench. We need some help from local authorities and river boards to solve the present not very great difficulties. River authorities are difficult, because they seem to delight especially in having different regulations for different rivers, which is puzzling for the fish farmers.
When the record produced on one fish farm amounts to 1,000 tons of protein an acre—which you cannot do with any other form of livestock farming—and when that becomes the norm, we shall be well on the way not only to being self-supporting but to being able to succour Lord Brockway's starving millions. We need training schemes and expert advice to be available to the new-comers to fish farming. If we do all these things, we can beat other countries hollow. I should like to give belated thanks to poor King John who died in such a very good cause.
My Lords, I shall conclude now because I never speak for very long, as your Lordships will know. I shall be followed by other noble Lords, and I am very grateful to them. I should like to thank the Front Bench opposite who have helped me in answering some of
90
the details that I required. At the end of the debate, I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers, whom I am delighted to see are to make their debut on this important subject. I hope I can rely on the friendly Ministers opposite—because this is not a Party matter—to prevail on the powers in another place to further what is, after all, a patriotic cause, and for which they can get nothing but glory in having a Bill put forward from the Government side. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure all in this Chamber this afternoon are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for introducing this debate. I should like to say from these Benches that we entirely agree with her that in no way is fish farming meant to be detrimental to the sea fishermen of England, Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, it is interesting to know that 25 per cent. of the protein produced in the United Kingdom comes from fish. The remaining percentages are, beef 26 per cent., pork 20 per cent., poultry 19 per cent., mutton and lamb 7 per cent., bacon and ham 7 per cent. So, along with beef, the fish comes top of the poll. Last year we imported £50 million worth of fish. This need not be necessary. We must remember that in the future our sea catches are going to decline, due to over-fishing and also probably to restrictions which are going to be placed on distant waters, some of which have already occurred in regard to places like Iceland. Unfortunately, on our small island we have little room to increase our arable acreage and to increase our farming live-stock. Already we are among the most efficient agriculturists in the world, and unfortunately we lose agricultural land every year through development and to motorways.
So how are we to find more land? The "land" will be liquid. We must find this "land" in our rivers and in the sea. We have ample resources in this country to make fish meal from fish which are unacceptable for human consumption, but we suffer from a dire lack of processing facilities. There are also many fishing boats which are not used, or are

91
out of work, and these could be used for industrial fishing. I know that the man in the street may well say that it does not make sense to feed fish with fish, but if for a moment we go into the matter of intensive chicken fanning and trout farming we will find, for instance, that the trout is much more productive. The conversion ratio for chicken is 2·2 to 1 and for trout it is 1·5 to 1. This means that chicken have a decided advantage until they are ready for the table, but you then find that 60 per cent. of the trout is edible and only 33 per cent. of the chicken.
Most of the fin fish in Europe are found in fresh water. I entirely agree with the figures of the noble Baroness on Eastern Europe and Western Europe. I have been informed that the trade estimate for 1975 for the whole of Europe is that over 1 million tons of fanned fish will be produced out of fresh water. In spite of all this the Regional Development Board dismisses fresh water culture in one line; namely,
"It had not yet considered the research requirement for these special areas of fish cultivation."
Basically our lack of development of fish farming in this country results from lack of incentive, which unfortunately is created by Government uncertainty in the classification of fish farming. Fish farming is an integral part of livestock farming.
May I ask this question: Are fish livestock? Livestock are defined in Part I, Section 1(3) of the Rating Act 1971 as:
"any mammal or bird kept for the production of food or wool or for the purpose of its use in the fanning of land".
I agree that a fish is not a mammal or a bird, but surely it is high time that it was added as a third category. Fish farmers are concerned, in the same way as are ordinary livestock farmers, with foodstuff prices, food conversion, growth rate, disease precautions, development of breeding stocks, husbandry skills, utilisation of rearing facilities. But the Government do not know whether fish farming is fishing, farming or industry. The Department of the Environment says it is rateable as industry. The Department of Trade and Industry says it is agriculture, and, therefore, no grant aid can be
92
given in development areas. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that it is not agriculture, so it is not eligible for building grants. It is small wonder that there is lack of incentive for investment in aquaculture.
On 1st May last year, in reply to a Question by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, stated that the Department of the Environment would not derate fish farms. The Department said there was insufficient volume of fish to consider fish farming as agriculture, that it was not in the main stream of food production. It is high time the Department was told that it was wrong. There is no reason for it to continue with this dog-in-the-manger attitude. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on the same day asked what were the criteria of the Department for distinguishing one kind of protein from another, and how it decided whether to give aid to domestic production. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said he would look into the matter and produce an answer. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give us that answer today.
My Lords, it is high time we extended our resources towards understanding the husbandry problems of fish species that we wish to farm. At present there are only minor academic facilities in our agricultural colleges. We need a staff of experts, who should be trained by people with practical experience. I see no reason why they should not go to Denmark, or Israel, or the United States, who are experts in this field. We also need much closer co-operation and co-ordination in research programmes between the Ministry's laboratories, the Central Electricity Generating Board and industry in general.
A lot of fish farming investment is concentrated in other European countries. I am told there are at the moment 20 major investors queuing up to the Irish Government to start it over there. I should like to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they can give any assurance that fish farming will be treated as agriculture and thus fall into line with EEC practices. We need a national policy to exploit our water resources, to encourage investment. It is irrelevant whether it is private or public;

93
that is of secondary importance. However, if it is nationalised, no doubt we shall have no shortage of red herrings.
We have at the moment rivers free of disease, which is endemic in other countries which export fish. Canada and the United States minimise the risk of infection of imported fish by forbidding importation unless the fish come from certified disease-free farms. In the United Kingdom we do not limit our imports and may well import diseased fish. As the noble Baroness said, here farmed fish sales are limited due to lack of distribution channels, and farmed trout are not yet widely available to the housewife. We need a marketing programme for trout for the consumer, to try to promote availability, the reliable quality of the fish, ease of preparation for the table, and its cleanliness. It is high time that the trout lost its slightly snobbish aspect. It is a very good fish and is not that expensive.
The trout farmers have been endeavouring to carry out this programme, but due to lack of finance the programme has been slow. Perhaps the public loan funds could help support it, or direct contributions would encourage development. Incidentally, a one-year-old trout will live in sea water, and grow even more quickly in its second year. Trout farms also have their problems over their water rates. One farm I know pays water rates on water that it takes from the river. It then returns the water to the river, so it is charged for water that it does not take or waste. There does not seem to be much sense in it. In another instance it is also charged for water it does not use. It took out a licence to take some water from a second river in case of an emergency. The farm has never used this water because the emergency has never arisen, but the water authority assumes that because it has a licence to take this water it must be using it.
May I speak about sea fish for a moment. White fish farming, as the noble Baroness said, is viable, and particularly with Dover sole, turbot, and halibut. Halibuts are slightly difficult due to their large size, and they also take a longer time to mature. Plaice are easy to farm and, as your Lordships know, are frequently on our luncheon menu. But due to the lower price, it is difficult for
94
the plaice farmers to recover their expenses of production. However, young turbots, which are a little difficult in their infancy because they have very small mouths, grow very quickly once one has overcome that initial problem whereas the Dover sole, which has a large mouth and can feed on the brine shrimp when it is minute does not grow quite as well as the turbot, but does remarkably well. A test done in some fish restaurants last year proved that white farmed fish were just as acceptable as poissons sauvages.
The power stations on the estuaries and inland waterways are very important to us, and those on the estuaries are also very beneficial to shellfish due to the warmer water from their cooling towers. At Hinckley Point, shellfish double their size in 14 months instead of the usual two years. Among these was the common prawn. This thrives remarkably well. The common prawn, in flavour and texture, is far superior to the imported prawn, but little prawn farming is done, and very little commercial prawn fishing. In 1971 we imported £8 million worth of prawns. In Southampton Water imported United States clams have been extremely successful due to the warmer water. If in 1962–63 that warmer water had not been there, we should have lost practically every oyster and slipper limpet due to the fact that the sea was below freezing point. However, there is one snag that exists in warmer water round power stations; that is, that the wood boring invertebrates do much more damage to the piles and piers and particularly jetty supports.
Not very long ago, Jersey took—I would not say a leaf out of our book, but maybe out of the French book by planting 60,000 oak stakes with seeded mussels on one of their beaches. Mussels will produce a crop of 13 tons per acre or, in European Common Market language, 32 tonnes per hectare. This is a much higher yield than one could get from cattle on any land, and the French have been growing mussels for many years and growing them very cheaply.
In our polluted rivers such as the Trent, pollution has been vastly improved by power stations pumping out something like two to three tons of extra oxygen per day into the rivers. As an experiment, cooling tower ponds have had fish kept

95
in them, and even with chlorination there has been a very low mortality. Carp and eels, fed on the same diet in three types of water—river water, condenser outlet water, and cooled recirculation water—all did reasonably well, but in the condenser outlet water they grew six times heavier in one year. I agree that the carp suffered from a fungus infection, but this was rapidly cured by putting them back into the recirculating water, which had a higher chlorine content.
We have little evidence in the United Kingdom of any species being eliminated by thermal change, but there are many gaps in our knowledge of the natural ecological systems of water temperature. We must do more research and find out more information about migratory fishes, and also how to prevent mortality at the power station intakes. A good deal of work on this aspect has already been done. It is already in progress in rivers, and it should be expanded to estuarine and marine fishes. The legislation mentioned by the noble Baroness is out-dated and inadequate. Fish fanners need legal rights for their stock, because they are not defined as livestock and are therefore technically not capable of ownership until they have been harvested. Let us hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will show a much greater interest in fish and shellfish farming and help end some of these anomalies.
We must try to put the aquaculturist in the same league and on the same financial footing as the agriculturalist. Fish farming is not a miraculous protein producer to feed the world, but in conjunction with agriculture it will go a long way to helping it. We want a major advance in the establishment of marine cultivation which will eventually provide much employment, reduce our imports, and give us a valuable trade in the future. Finally, I would say that the long-planned world conference on agriculture is going to be convened in Kyoto, Japan, in May and June 1976, and I can only say that I hope that Britain will be represented there.
3.28 p.m.
Earl CAIRNS: My Lords, I would crave your indulgence towards a maiden speaker. I shall take very careful note of the noble Baroness's advice; she welcomes speakers shortly. Although I have
96
been a Member of your Lordships' House for some 25 years, I should explain that until recently I have been in the employment of the Crown in capacities where activity in politics was very much discouraged, and it is only recently that I have been able to make any attendance in your Lordships' House. I think I should next declare a personal interest in the subject of this debate. I am a humble fishmonger; that is to say, I have recently been Prime Warden of the Worshipful Company of Fish-mongers in the City of London, who have been steeped in fish for the last 700 years and are still so steeped. In recent years they have taken a leading part in promoting the cry that fish farming is coming. On their behalf, I have in fact been director of one of the earliest of our oyster hatcheries, which is now successful and has been turned over to commercial production. I am at this moment, also on their behalf, director of what I think is the only lobster farm in the United Kingdom, where we are endeavouring, without any success what-ever so far, to rear lobsters from the berry to the table. I have no personal financial interest in any of these activities.
Previous speakers have certainly convinced me, if I was not convinced before—and I hope that they have convinced your Lordships—that whereas in the last 50 years we have had a complete revolution in agriculture and in the growing of cereals and other crops, in live-stock and, more recently, in poultry, we are now on the verge of a parallel revolutionary advance in fish farming. I only hope we shall seize this opportunity, at a time when the stocks from the natural regeneration in the sea are falling and are in great danger, when international law on the preservation of what stocks there are is in doubt, and when, I presume, we are still to be members of the EEC, which has its own rather complicated regulations. It would be fatal if we did not take advantage of this opportunity.
I suppose that the country most developed in fish farming techniques is Japan. Two years ago, the Fishmongers' Company sponsored a visit of some 16 scientists for a tour of the fish fanning activities of Japan. I will not bother your Lordships with the details of the results which have been published in the United Kingdom, but here we are just toying with

97
the idea at the moment. Admittedly, Japan has the advantage of a tremendous variety of water temperatures. Also, they are now suffering terribly from pollution. Indeed, even two years ago when this mission was in Japan, their Prime Minister instructed his Cabinet to eat fish so that the public would not think there was a danger from pollution. So, even if we do develop, let us be careful about this pollution problem.
I will not repeat many of the figures which previous speakers have given, but I fully support their recommendations. First, there is rather a nonsense in the Ministries of this country in that fish farmers are getting not a raw deal but no deal at all, because they are being shoved around from one Ministry to another. I believe that this problem is reasonably simple to rectify. Secondly, the existing law is undoubtedly out of date, as was pointed out in Lord Cameron's Report of 1970, when one of his main recommendations was that the law of the seabed should be revised and broadened. As the noble Baroness said, it is true that once you have found fish floating above the seabed there is no right of ownership. In fact, the same argument applies to those salmon in Lochailort which are contained in floating steel tanks, and by law these salmon do not belong to anyone. Another point of law which is extremely important is that anyone who possesses a half-grown turbot, or an undersized lobster, is breaking the existing law of the land even if he owns it, let alone eats or sells it. So there is clearly an urgent need for a revision of the law which, I believe, could be done by a fairly simple Bill.
Thirdly, I agree that the waste heat from nuclear power stations is one of the assets which must be harnessed, particularly for the farming of flat fish. Fourthly, there is a need to review the problem of protein production, thus reducing our imports. Before finishing, I should like to give credit where it is certainly due. The noble Baroness mentioned the scientists of the White Fish Authority and various commercial concerns. With respect to the noble Baroness, I would add the scientists of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are absolutely splendid. I thank your Lordships for listening so patiently.

VIETNAM: RELIEF AID
3.37 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am about to make a Statement, but I could not start without congratulating very warmly the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, who has just spoken. With the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware that I announced last Thursday that the Government would be making available an immediate sum of £¾ million, subject, of course, to Parliamentary approval, for humanitarian needs in Vietnam and Cambodia, particularly among the children. I now propose to increase this to £1 million.
"Of this sum, an initial £100,000 has gone to the International Red Cross, which is able to operate both in areas controlled from Saigon and those controlled by the Provisional Revolutionary Government. It has already begun to fly in condensed milk and other supplies from Singapore. It is now working out its detailed programme, and I propose to allocate a further £150,000 to the IRC for this work, bringing their total grant to £250,000.
"The British Disasters Emergency Committee, representing the major British voluntary societies, met yesterday to hear the latest reports from the field and to make detailed plans for making help available to those in need —particularly the children. I discussed the situation last night with their representatives and I am clear that through their various contacts they will be able to find ways of operating throughout South Vietnam. I therefore intend to make available to the Committee a contribution of £250,000 towards the immediate operations of the British voluntary societies for bringing relief to Indo China. The Committee and the societies are already working out the logistics with help from my Disaster Unit.
"UNICEF and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have

99
now issued a joint appeal for money for combined emergency relief programmes. These will be provided throughout South Vietnam and in Cambodia on both sides of the warlines. I propose to make immediately available to them £250,000 in response to this appeal. This is additional to a contribution of £500,000 which was made available last week to the UNICEF Indo China programme following my announcement last July of a total British contribution of £1 million. This programme is of course also assisting relief work in Cambodia.
" This leaves a further £250,000 available at present for allocation as the plans of the international and British aid agencies become clearer. As they do, if this proves to be not enough, I may wish to come back for approval for further funds.
"The main need at present is for medical supplies, food and shelter for the thousands of children who have permanently or temporarily lost their parents. It is my view, shared very widely, that it will be best for them eventually to be reunited with their families in the villages and towns wherever this is humanly possible. While my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, was glad to make special arrangements for the orphan children being flown to Britain from Saigon, and while we all understand the compassion and individual concern so vividly expressed in the last few days, it is, I think, of the greatest importance that compassion is expressed above all in providing help to the several thousands of children who are at risk of disease and malnutrition, and whose lives are therefore at risk, in Vietnam itself. This will be our Government priority. What we seek to do is to translate the deep feeling in Britain for the people of Vietnam into the most practical and constructive assistance we can offer."
Lord BALNIEL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we on these Benches will certainly wish to be associated with her expression of concern about the great human distress and suffering which is occurring in that part of the world? Would she agree that when
100
one looks at the terrible pictures of refugees flowing down to the South, the words in the 1973 Peace Agreement, which was signed by North Vietnam, giving the people of South Vietnam the right to self-determination, must sound very bitter indeed at this present time? May I assure the noble Baroness that we on these Benches will certainly assist readily and rapidly in granting Parliamentary approval for the monies to which she has referred in the Statement. Also, may I personally say that I agree with the priority which the Government have expressed that, on the whole, it is preferable—if it is possible—to assist children to continue to develop and live their lives in their own country, rather than seek alternative and less easily achieved methods.
Irrespective of the ultimate political and military outcome in this part of the world, will Her Majesty's Government perhaps consider whether a tremendous aid and reconstruction programme is now needed for the whole of the Mekong Delta, and whether we can perhaps play an active part in deciding how this can best be handled. Although the noble Baroness said in her Statement that UNICEF is appealing for monies to assist on both sides of the war line, is it not a fact that traditionally the North Vietnamese have repeatedly made it clear that they do not wish to see a United Nations involvement in the handling of these matters? Perhaps the Government will look into this aspect.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord very much for his welcome, not only for the aid we have given but also—and this is very important—for the priorities which the Government have decided upon. It is important that we should be united in this matter. To answer his question about the Mekong Delta and the substantial aid which will be needed—indeed, for the whole of Vietnam—I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government will indeed play a practical part, though of course at the moment it is impossible to give any sort of estimate or even to know when that could be started. However, Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Lord knows are very active and will continue to be so. As to the United Nations and North

101
Vietnam, this is a difficult political point on which he will not expect me to expand, but of course UNICEF has been working in North Vietnam for more than a year.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, my noble friends and I are also grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, the contents of which we entirely support and approve. This would not appear to be an appropriate moment to examine the political or military implications of what has happened. I would only express the hope that the Government will not hesitate, once it has been demonstrated that the aid which has been given is reaching those in need, to come back and ask for further provision if that can usefully be given, so that, if we err at all, we err on the side of generosity towards the victims of a human tragedy.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will welcome what the noble Lord has said.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, while expressing the utmost approval of the humanitarian gesture which Her Majesty's Government have made, may I ask my noble friend to say, if there is any likelihood—and I hope I may be wrong—of the area being completely over-run by the Viet Cong, thus creating even more devastation and suffering, whether there is any possibility of a diplomatic move which we could undertake? For example, was there not some provision in the Paris Agreement to the effect that in the event of a violation of that Agreement—and, apparently, there has been some violation of it—the Paris Conference would be recalled, thus offering an opportunity of preventing further suffering? Have Her Majesty's Government been in consultation with the Government of the United States in order to further the possibility of preventing further suffering?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate better than most, the military and political situation is not only extremely fluid but is quite extraordinarily delicate. I do not think it would be right for me to expand on the possibility of the Paris Conference being recalled, but I can reassure the
102
House that everything that can be done, both practically and diplomatically, is being done; and as to accusations of violations of the Agreement, these of course come from both sides.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, while I fully agree with the noble Baroness's sentiments as expressed in the Statement, may I ask her to say what would be the Government's attitude to the aircraft that are flying in medical and other relief aid to South Vietnam bringing out refugees who need medical treatment which they cannot get in that country, or whose future position might be in doubt because of their mixed parentage or past or present employment?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it is a very important question that the noble Earl has asked, but it is a difficult one to answer. On the question of mixed blood children, I think that they may need priority in coming out of Saigon; otherwise, as the House knows, we prefer the children to be helped medically and given clothing and the rest, but to stay in their own country if that is possible. As to adult refugees, again it is a little premature— I agree that one should be considering it—for me to answer the noble Earl's question.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's Statement, may I ask her to say whether the Government exercise any control over the various competing charitable organisations, some of which have been responsible for evacuating these children and all of which are inviting public subscription?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. Our Disaster Unit has proved extremely efficient. As the noble Baroness will know, it has not been going for very long. However, it has proved extremely efficient and I think it provides a control. I very much agree with the implication in her question, that when money is sent in large quantities it is important to see what happens to it when it arrives, and to ensure that it goes to the right people. We have the UN agencies, UNICEF and the UNHCR, which are of proven ability and efficiency, and the voluntary organisations which are on the Disaster Emergency

103
Committee are, I believe, of the same calibre.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I heard on the radio the other day that the British Red Cross, as distinct from the International Red Cross, was likely to make an appeal by which members of the public would be able to subscribe to a reputable organisation to help in this matter. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether or not that is so and, if so, where such contributions should be sent?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I cannot confirm that positively, but I should think it most likely. I am unable, therefore, to give the address for which the noble and learned Lord asks, but I shall certainly find out.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Red Cross has made an appeal for £2 million and also whether the Disaster Emergency Committee is also going to make one? Perhaps she has more up-to-date information than I have on this subject. Is she also aware that the Red Cross generally—the International Red Cross and the British Red Cross— are extremely grateful for this help which Her Majesty's Government are giving, because the help from the Red Cross will be concentrated on those on the spot, the International Red Cross having been asked to help by both sides? Is she further aware that the Red Cross has been helping both sides for some time?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, far from having more up to date information than the noble Baroness, I very nearly asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to address his question to her. However, it is of course early days. This tragedy has so over-whelmed the feelings of the whole country that everybody is trying to do something. It is being co-ordinated and I think that a great deal of good has already been done.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I seek clarification from the noble Baroness? While welcoming very much her Statement that Her Majesty's Gov-
104
ernment are assisting the children, orphans and refugees in Southern Vietnam, may I ask her whether Her Majesty's Government are not doing a little of what the French are doing under the impulse of the President of France, which is assisting Vietnam as a whole? In other words, there are orphans in the Southern area and that area is being over-run by the Viet Cong, so are we not trying to assist both sides?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. As I said in the original Statement, the assistance goes to both sides of the war lines and to Cambodia.
Lord FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness has considered the needs of other people in the Far East? According to what we have heard from reliable sources in Bangladesh, conditions there are as bad as those in South Vietnam and I am wondering whether we can bring help to those people in India.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I know that the House will share my noble friend's concern about Bangladesh, but the only facts I have today are those connected with Indo-China.

FISHING VESSELS' PORTS BLOCKADE
3.52 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about the blockade of ports last week by inshore fishermen. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the blockade of ports last week by inshore fishermen.
"A blockade of ports throughout the United Kingdom organised by an action committee based in Scotland started on Monday, 31st March. The men claimed to be still worried about the arrangements relating to imports of frozen fish. In addition they were concerned about the Common Fisheries Policy of the EEC and to press their

105
view that the United Kingdom should extend her fishing limits urgently, irrespective of the outcome of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, if other countries in the North Atlantic Area do so. Other points concerning them were the proposed extension of the National Dock Labour Scheme and what they felt to be the inadequate coverage of the Government's temporary aid for the fishing industry.
"I had previously arranged to meet the Scottish Trawler Federation and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, each of which had already raised these issues, and neither of which was associated with the blockade. I took the view that it was inappropriate to meet the action committee, but I had no objection to the attendance of members of the committee who were on the executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and two others who were invited as guests of the Federation. This meeting was held on 2nd April. All those who spoke, whether or not they condoned the blockade, took a virtually unanimous view on the issues which had led to it. I emphasised the value to our industry of the measures with regard to Norwegian exports of frozen fish announced by my right honourable friend on 26th March and described the Government's policy with regard to the other issues. I do not think the fishermen had properly appreciated the assurances given by my right honourable friend in the House on these issues in answer to questions following his Statement. These were incorporated in a Statement released after the meeting. With permission, I will circulate a copy in the Official Report. On the basis of this Statement, the action committee decided to terminate the blockade early on 3rd April.
"The Government cannot condone the blockade, which caused loss and inconvenience to many who were not otherwise concerned, but I must express approval of the action of the fishermen in ending it so quickly after hearing the assurances I was able to give them. These included an undertaking to reconvene a similar meeting as soon as possible after the discussions of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of
106
the EEC to which my right honourable friend referred in reply to supplementary questions on 26th March, and the relevant discussions on fisheries limits at the Law of the Sea Conference."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following is the Statement referred to :
"I was greatly impressed with the sincerity and unanimity of the fishing industry today. As regards the chief points they raised, the Government intend to seek changes in the Common Fisheries Policy of the EEC in the light of the UN Law of the Sea Conference and the subject will be raised at the meeting of EEC Agricultural Ministers later in April.
"As regards limits, in the event of unilateral action by other countries we should consider the situation urgently with a view to protecting the interests of our fishermen.
"The question of imports from non-EEC countries is being studied by EEC and early progress is expected. A ban on imports would be against our worldwide trade relations, but we will keep the situation under review for evidence of dumping and we will also keep under review the economic state of the industry.
"As regards subsidy for boats under 40 feet and shellfish boats I cannot make a commitment but we will review the position fairly.
"As regards the dock labour scheme the Government do not envisage any extension to operations by crews of inshore fishing boats and will welcome detailed comments on this.
"I undertook to discuss all the points raised by the meeting with my Ministerial colleagues and to reconvene a similar meeting, if possible on a United Kingdom basis, within about 10 days of the relevant meetings at Brussels and at the Law of the Sea Conference. On this understanding I appealed for an end to the blockade."
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, do the Government recognise that our fishermen's worries about the future of their industry are understandable? While it is important to revise the EEC Common Fisheries Policy by 1983, some years ahead, as was always anticipated would be necessary following the major changes expected at the Law of the Sea Conference now in session, and in particular the 200-mile economic zone, is the noble Lord aware that both the dumping of fish on our markets and the over-fishing of the seas around us are caused mainly by countries outside the EEC, such as Norway and the Soviet Union?
On the question of the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme, will the Government ensure that our inshore fishermen

107
are not forced to depend upon dockers to unload their catches and to pay them as well, as traditionally this has always been an operation which they have carried out themselves?
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making this Statement and assure him that we on these Benches do not condone the action which was taken by the fishermen in blockading the ports. On the other hand, we do not condone the lack of communication which must have existed between Her Majesty's Government and the fishermen of these Islands, and we hope that now that it has been seen to what an extent the frustration felt by these fishermen reflects the lack of action on the part of the Government, Her Majesty's Government will be expeditious in carrying out the assurances which have been given here. Those assurances will hold only for a certain length of time. Action will be needed and, in particular, we are concerned about the limit on fishing boat lengths which is part of the regulations complained about by the fishermen. We are also concerned to make sure that conservation, particularly of what we regard as our own waters around these Islands, should be vigorously pursued.
3.58 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Viscount Lord Thurso, for the way in which they have received the Statement. As regards the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the fishermen's worries being understandable, I can assure the noble Lord that we do understand that they were worried, though, as the Statement indicated, my honourable friend was able to point out that some of their worries were, if not unfounded, at least premature. This may be due to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that in these matters communications have not perhaps been as good as they should have been. Some of the things about which my honourable friend was able to satisfy the fishermen had already been said by my right honourable friend, but the fishermen had not been fully apprised of what has been said. I can understand the possibility of lack of
108
communication in view of the third point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. It would seem that our means of getting such information over are not as good as they might be because, in the consultative document which was issued on 21st March by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, he proposed to exempt from the new extended definition of port transfer work any operations normally carried out by the crews of inshore fishing vessels. Such an explanation, together with a satisfactory definition of an inshore fishing vessel, should go very far indeed to meeting the fishermen's points.
On the matter of aid for vessels under 40 feet in length, this is being looked into at the present time. The fishermen themselves are being helpful in this matter because they have offered to accept a reduction in the subsidy for vessels between 40 and 80 feet in length in order to make money available for smaller boats. But this does not dispose of all the difficulties. For example, a daily rate might be rather difficult and could be quite inappropriate, and on top of that, many of these boats are catching shellfish, for which there has never previously been a subsidy. Nevertheless, having regard to the way in which the men themselves have made this offer, we are looking into the matter urgently.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, would my noble friend give some indication to the House as to whether the organised blockade of British ports is lawful; and if it is not lawful, would he also give some information as to what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to this aspect of the matter?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I am not certain about the extent to which it is lawful—or whether the blockade was lawful or unlawful. At least, the courts granted interdict against the operations, so it may be that they are unlawful. But on the assumption that there was a breaking of the law, the question as to what should be done is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities. If I may refer to the discussions we had yesterday in relation to other undoubted law-breakers, there are occasions when it is perhaps not advisable to invoke the full rigour of the law, and I think that this

109
occasion with the fishermen is perhaps one of them.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and I do so as one who has great admiration for the heroism of these fishermen—whether the Government would cause inquiries to be made into the not extravagant price which the fishermen obtain for their catches, and the very extravagant price which housewives have to pay to retailers?
Lord HUGHES: Yes, my Lords. It was announced at Question Time on 17th March that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection proposed to ask the Price Commission to undertake a study of prices and margins in the distribution of fish. An announcement is to be made shortly about the detailed scope of the study.

FISH FARMING
4.2 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord HALE: My Lords, it is now my very great privilege to congratulate the last speaker in the main debate on his maiden speech—long deferred, but for admirable reasons—and to congratulate him on the very able and gifted contribution he has made. We do not expect to have a Rear Admiral sailing into these brackish waters, and one with the knowledge which he has displayed is all the more welcome. I hope that it is permissible for me to refer also to the fact that his grandfather twice occupied the Woolsack with great distinction and was a very great lawyer, a man of impeccable character—almost to the point of austerity—but known also for the lucidity of his speeches, for the logic which guided his judgments, and for the clarity of expression which clearly survives here today, 90 years after his death.
The noble Earl referred to Japan, and one of the warnings given is that we must not talk about fish farming in other countries because they have special advantages. But the landings of sea fish in this country in 1973, the last recorded year, were of the order of just about one million tons, to a value of about £150 million. This is almost approximately the
110
same as France. But the figure for Japan is almost exactly ten times as much, and this is a matter for some cogitation. Japan has long been famous for its fish farming, but they have there the advantage of the presence of mulberry trees and of using the surplus pupae of the silkworm—which seems to be a particularly succulent and nourishing delicacy which can be used without undue expense. It is China which predominates in that field. The Chinese fish farms run to between 200,000 and 300,000 hectares. The Pearl River delta, where the tidal waters are used for the replacement and replenishment by a natural process, has figures that are almost astronomical in relation to production. Russia is not far behind. Borgstrom has said—and it is a helpful point to mention—that in Russia the fish farms extend extensively over large hectares, up to 60 degrees of North latitude.
Both noble Earls referred to the difficulties under which the fish farms operate at this moment. I hope that I will be permitted to recall to your Lordships' memory the important case of Tinrib and Rumble v. The King and Queen which appears in Sir Alan Herbert's reports, and which was the sad story of the dying whale which was swept up on the shores of Pudding Bay near Pudding Magna. Their Majesties graciously disclaimed their right of fish Royal. A long correspondence continued which terminated—after the Natural History Museum had said they already had three specimens of the Baleana Bascayensis and wished for no more—when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food declared that the whale was not a fish but a mammal, and therefore it was not a matter for action by them.
Sir Alan Herbert was something of a prophet, because, as I understand it, the position at the moment, so far as British fish farms are concerned, is that one Ministry declares that pisciculture is not agriculture; while another Ministry is declaring that pisciculture is not industry; and a third—in relation to at least one section of an Act—has asserted that the fish is not an animal, which would involve the rewriting of the whole of the first volume of the present Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and the destruction of the Linnean classification altogether. All this

111
was at a time long before Ministers were permitted to speak in either a Pickwickian or a Wilsonian sense.
My Lords, it would be unfair if one did not say that the White Fish Authority has achieved some real miracles. When I thumbed over many of the volumes on fish which have been published in the past few years, I was rather filled with inhibitions about the difficulties, the dangers, the problems—the old story of the ecosystem which I first learned from Stanley Featherstonehaugh Ukridge on his poultry farm, and which is now more and more emphasised as one of the matters which has to be considered. Noble Lords will of course remember the Tilapia, the pond and farm fish of the African countries, growing in the nilotic variety up to about 14 lb.—most substantial—and now being spread and taken into the countries of South-East Asia, too. There we had a particular example in the destruction of the hippopotamus—a very amiable and, as far as I know, uncontroversial animal, but whose habit of eating rather more than a hundredweight of grass each night is regarded as a burden. But it contemplatively sits in a pool throughout the day, and, incidentally fertilising the algae which feed the Tilapia. The destruction of the hippopotamus, destroyed the whole source of protein for large districts of East Africa.
I was surprised to find that lobsters moult and that during that period they are particularly vulnerable. This makes their production a rather special problem. But so far as the fish farmers are concerned, the work at Ard Toe and Port Erin, and the work of the White Fish Authority generally and the research stations in the universities is contributing infinitely to our marine knowledge—and it is extremely important that we should not forget this, which is perhaps the most fruitful aspect of it—to the newly-realised need of knowing something about the ocean and its contents and its ecology. In doing so, often by the expensive processes necessary in research, they have now produced fish of a kind that I do not think have been cultivated with success in any other countries which I have known.
My Lords, my tastes run to more humble fish. Fish and chips was one of the main foods of Oldham; but we are
112
a little conservative about the kinds of fish and the prices which impose upon our pockets and the rationalisation of our eating habits, piscatorially speaking. When I told my fishmonger that we wanted whiting I was told that they usually fed that to cats. It is an admirable fish and, with first-class cooking, it makes an excellent dish. It is extraordinary that so little attention is paid to mackerel, one of the fish that can be served cold if it is fresh; while, in the shop I passed today, halibut and Dover soles were priced at £1·60 per lb. and Scotch salmon was priced at £2·50. Incidentally, we are importing £50 million worth a year of small tins of salmon "and other exotica", to use a phrase of the white fish lecture, which now retail at about 60p a piece.
My Lords, I said that I wanted to say a word about some simple things. Our oyster production is down by 95 per cent. since its maximum many years ago; but mussels—which formerly got a bad reputation in this country because of cases of infection; and these recollections die hard —are now easy to cultivate. In Galicia in Spain, the figures of production per hectare are quite astronomical. I hardly dare quote them. I found them difficult to believe. The use of the vertical system which is now almost universally used, means that this very delicious mollusc could be produced in immense quantities. The reason given for not producing, is that it does not command enough money to make it worth while or a profitable investment. I should have thought that it was one of the most promising of productions.
I hestitate to mention eels at all. They are still consumed in the Commercial Road East, where there are two large cafes where you can buy eel pies. I thought I should be told that eels are plentiful in every inlet, despite the exodus of 10 million elvers from Scandinavia who are seeking the lost Atlantis in the Sargasso Sea, and who perish on the way through constipation caused by the salinity of the waters. But there are lots of eels about and many of them are extremely edible. I turned up the figures of the commercial production of eels in this country and in the last relevant year it was 30 tons. We are importing about five times as much. I think that figure is approximately right; but certainly we are

113
importing substantially more than we produce and I think there are opportunities, even in a country with a high population, of providing additional resources. My Lords, the great knowledge we have been able to contribute to the world, the necessity, now recognised, of pursuing the whole problem of the vegetation of the sea, the utilisation of seaweed—which is immense and still hopelessly unexplored —are matters that demand attention.
The noble Baroness who opened this debate so informatively and eloquently has done us all a service in calling our attention this afternoon to a subject of immense fascination. Now that we are travelling in Europe a little more, we can go to France with value and we can walk, at an appropriately decorous hour of the day, through the Boulevard de la Poissonière and see a whole variety of echinoderms on sale as luxuries; the succulent sea urchins—no one eats them in this country—palourds and other molluscs in great variety. We can go to Brittany and see molluscs and Crustacea being cultivated and providing rich additions to an area which can still gratify the most exacting gastronome; and along the coast, a little south of La Vendee and see in the brackish water the netting catching all sorts of fish over vast distances of the coast.
My Lords, I know that some speaker later will be saying that this is a very complex subject—and it is. He will say that there are many different methods and many difficulties. But, in conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the subject so ably and giving us the chance to turn our attention to something which needs still more exploration, more thought, more consideration and knowledge—a subject where the whole of the world is becoming increasingly concerned about the ecosystem of the seas and of the rich resources which it can provide in so many fields.
4.19 p.m.
Lady SEMPILL: My Lords, in speaking in support of my noble friend's Motion, it is an attractive and exciting concept to think that one day our children's children will be able to rely on food produced by farming our great lochs and rivers and oceans—more so when we know that three-quarters of the earth
114
is covered by water. But in such a concept there is a deceptive half truth; for more than 90 per cent. of the ocean beds are as barren as the deserts and to render them fertile would be a greater task, and infinitely more costly, than irrigating the Sahara. Again, most of the fish we eat are largely carnivorous; un-like our main farm produce, cattle, sheep and venison, which are all vegetarian. Most fishes must be fed with other fish meat such as prawns, mussels, anchovy and sprats. These latter species are more valuable to us as food than they are to feed other fish.
Your Lordships will no doubt recall that yet another King, King Henry I, died from a surfeit of lampreys—which are still regarded as a delicacy in Europe —but nevertheless are a carnivorous type of fish and, incidentally, very indigestible I am told. An eminent marine biologist tells me that to farm a carnivorous species by known methods—that is feeding them with other fish products—would waste four-fifths of the food so used for farming purposes in converting it to other fish for us to eat. Nevertheless, fish farming has proved economic with certain species because the fish concerned have a high market value, such as salmon and trout, and by the nature of their habits constitute one of the most exciting and romantic stories of fish farming today. There are of course other marine creatures which are vegetarian, including oysters, mussels, certain species in Japan, and carp species in Europe, all farmed successfully and increasingly so.
There is no doubt that in the future fish farming will become a vital addition to man's farming activities. Fish being more remote biologically from man than conventional livestock makes farming methods difficult to control and expensive to operate. While the fanner can fence his field with relative ease, fences in the sea cost more than ten times as much. The marine farmer has virtually no protection of his stocks, and there exists at present no law to prevent other people interfering with his equipment or even helping themselves to his products. There are no grants of any kind which support him, nor any rate reduction on his premises—a situation that would be regarded as intolerable to a conventional farmer.

115
In supporting my noble friend I would add that, despite all this, there remain many dedicated people who are beginning to succeed in making modest profits from their marine farming enterprises, and this encourages me to feel they have a very worthwhile contribution to make to the world's economy. It is only to be hoped that in the near future the marine farmer becomes recognised as a farmer, with the same rights of ownership of his farm and his stock in the true sense, and not as a man rejected both as an industrialist and as a farmer.
4.23 p.m.
Viscount STUART of FINDHORN: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in support of this idea. It seems reasonable to assume that the population of the world will continue to increase fairly rapidly. The medical profession moves forward all the time in its fight against disease and malnutrition. Although it may be a slow process, educational and living standards, as well as general levels of prosperity, gradually improve everywhere. As the mortality statistics change for the better in the underdeveloped areas, so it follows that there will be more mouths to feed. There is therefore a need to ensure that they are properly fed so that the children will grow up into well-nourished, healthy and, let us hope, contented people.
Because we are restricted in size, there is only a limited contribution which we as a country can make towards a world problem such as this. The bulk of the agricultural land that we have available is farmed efficiently and intensively, which means that there is not a great deal of room left for further improvement. However, as a nation we could do more; certainly our rivers, lakes and reservoirs could be made more productive. Fresh-water farming on a reasonably large scale could be achieved in Great Britain and could provide a worthwhile additional contribution of food and protein, both directly in the form of edible fish for human consumption, and indirectly as animal feed and growing crop fertilizer.
Although this could go some way towards achieving the ultimate aim, we should look towards the sea if we wish to come to grips with the problem on a really large scale. Certainly intensive and
116
systematic development of the inland freshwater areas presents many complicated problems which will be far from easy to resolve. Probably the major obstacle is the pure economics of the operation. Buildings, equipment, plant and machinery, Government grants, subsidies, derating—all these reflect on the ultimate success or failure, quite apart from labour, food, heat and breeding stock costs.
If these basic problems can be over-come, and the finished product can be retailed at a competitive price, there are still an endless number of secondary problems to be tackled. On the one hand, there are the scientific matters— genetics, inter-breeding, diseases— and on the other hand the legal matters. In conventional farming in this country we have a mass of agricultural legislation which has evolved over the centuries. The laws relating to landlord and tenant, poaching, trespass and planning. There is no reason why, with certain variations, a fish fanner should not be brought in on a par with, say, a large scale pig or poultry producer. We have seen that freshwater fish can be farmed. Probably trout are one of the most ideal edible species to produce economically under semi-artificial, intensive conditions.
Looking once again to the sea—and this must be ultimately where the true, vast scale answer lies, probably on an international rather than on a parochial basis—all the freshwater problems still apply to the salt water, but there are even more. First and foremost, we have the terribly complicated laws as they relate to foreshore rights and international boundaries. In some way or another these would have to be amended in order to give the necessary protection to the farmers, It must be more economic to farm in the sea where there is so much wasted, undeveloped space, rather than in factories or artificial salt water tanks on dry land. This leads on to a new crop of problems: water temperature and heating; stock control; cannibalism; deformities; disease; and in inshore sea pollution dangers.
Having overcome these problems and many others—and they are far from insolubles—there could possibly be some conflict of interests between the intensive

117
producers of fish in captivity and the conventional fishermen. It might therefore be inadvisable or unnecessary to create a situation of direct commercial competition. If there are sufficient wild fish in the sea, and if these are harvested systematically so that the stock level is maintained and no shortage due to over-fishing ever occurs, then of course there may never be a demand for the artificial farming of the same species. There could alternatively, be a case for a compromise, the scientific breeding of fish in captivity to be released in order to boost and improve the wild stock.
However, the fact remains that if for example, the mass production within enclosed areas of the sea of fish, such as herring, were ever to be carried out successfully, this could prove to be a cheap means of providing protein on a very large and worthwhile scale. It may be too ambitious to attempt domesticating some varieties, but certainly flat fish, such as turbot, can be controlled. The small and somewhat specialised shellfish industry should not be overlooked and should be encouraged to expand. On the whole, shellfish are easier to deal with because they are reasonably or totally static. They are not free-swimming itinerants. Some of them at least lend themselves to domesticated conditions, just as, say, a pheasant does as compared to a grouse.
During the course of this century most shellfish have become luxury foodstuffs and so it becomes difficult to imagine, say, lobster production really making much of an impact on the world food shortage situation. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily out of the question. There are some puzzling facts connected with shellfish. Quite rightly, the Ministry are extremely cautious and strict on marketing regulations and hygiene. Mussels today are mainly imported from Holland because of the fear of pollution in our waters. Frozen prawns come from Norway. The bulk of the lobsters consumed in this country are imported live from Canada, yet our home-grown lobsters are exported to the Continent. Therefore it should not be impossible for us to increase home production and reduce our imports of these indigenous species.
I would suggest that fish farming appears to be a fairly harmless and straightforward subject at first glance,
118
but the deeper one delves the more complicated and involved it becomes. It ceases to be an internal affair and becomes internationally entwined, legally, commercially and basically; that is, if we assume an expansion of world population which outstrips world food production by present-day conventional, though fairly intensive, methods. Thus, as there is more water than dry land in the world and as the land becomes more overcrowded, it would seem logical for us to look at the water with the aim of putting it to better use. I should like to finish, as I started, by suggesting that, however this proposal may work out in the years to come and in detail, one fact seems indisputable: this must be a good and thoroughly worthwhile idea in principle.
4.32 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I rise with particular pleasure to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find-horn, on his speech, especially because he reminds me of his father, who did so much good work in Parliament and who was a valued friend to so many of us. It is good to have a Stuart of Findhorn—a James Stuart—back in Parliament again. I should like to congratulate him on his illuminating analysis of the situation. 1 had no idea that he had made such a careful study of the matter. Judging from what he said, I think that I should be right in deducing that he is involved in some way in fish farming. I hope that we shall hear him again in this House before long. If my memory serves me right, the first Lord Stuart of Findhorn played a large part in the work of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, if indeed he was not Master. Therefore it is an interesting coincidence that the two maiden speeches we have had today have been connected with the same Worshipful Company.
I must declare an interest in this debate, in that I am the President of the Scottish Fish Fanning Association; an Association which has been in existence for some years. "Protein" is the dominant word so far in this debate; the world shortage of protein and how this may be overcome. I do not want to go into details because the subject has already been very well discussed; but I should like to emphasise two points. The

119
first point was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, about the use of fish for feeding other fish. There can be no question that the by-products of fish—whether they be the surplus catches of hunted fish or whether they be non-edible fish for humans—have a very large part to play in our economy in future, both for the feeding of farm livestock and also for fish feeding. I should like to tell those who think this a cruel and horrid procedure about the discoveries being made, with some success, in single cell proteins which are derived from the petroleum sub-states at the University of Strathclyde and one of the large oil firms. They have already been successfully incorporated into experimental diets for marine shrimps and rainbow trout. This may be a very far-reaching discovery.
The potentials of fish farming have been discussed, and I wish to give your Lordships only one example from Scotland. It is from the Unilever subsidiary, Marine Harvest, who are at present producing at Lochailort over 100 tons of farmed salmon a year. It is not too much to say that in Scotland we have within our grasp the possibility of an annual output of 10,000 tons a year representing some £15 million and 700 jobs. Of course, there are more problems ahead to be solved and more research is needed into nutrition, disease and engineering, which is a very important part of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, said in opening this discussion, there are infinitely more fish being fanned in our neighbouring countries of Europe. Denmark, France, Italy and Spain each produce from 10,000 tons to 20,000 tons of trout per annum, let alone other fish; and as the noble Baroness told us, the United Kingdom is spending millions of pounds per year on farmed fish imports from Denmark and Japan.
Why are we so far behind? We have, especially in Scotland, natural facilities as good as anywhere in the world. Our research and development—very largely sponsored by the Government—is quite outstanding and is the envy of many other countries. We have men and women to run the industry. There are literally hundreds of applicants for every available fish farming job. We have these three basic requirements for fish farming's successful development. What, then, is
120
lacking? What is keeping us back? We lack the bureaucratic will to make fish fanning happen. The past frustrations of the would-be fish farmer have been immense. I can speak only for Scotland, but there it is exceedingly difficult to acquire the necessary ground and portion of the sea-bed, with reasonable security of tenure. The Crown Commissioners own or have the rights in most of the sea-bed, but the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the water above the sea-bed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has told us, the cages float, as it were, between heaven and hell.
The district valuer now comes into it because he has to fix a fair rent, if the fish farmer gets this distance. As there are virtually no precedents, each valuer takes his own line. Some valuers actually want to include in their calculations the value of the fish being raised. If that were to happen in farming and every time he was carrying out a valuation the valuer were to add to his valuation the numbers of the cattle, sheep, pigs and so on being raised the position would be ridiculous. Then there are the planning authorities, the Countryside Commission and the Highlands and Islands Board. These bodies also are working without any guidelines, especially at the lower levels of administration. Anything to do with fish farming is new to people in these offices and the last thing they want is to have anything to do with it—on to Mr. Jorkins!
Your Lordships will all be aware of the difficulties that have been experienced in Scotland over procuring suitable sites for the construction of platforms for North Sea oil. Great as these have been, I assure your Lordships that it is easier for a consortium to get through the laws and regulations, than it is for a fish farmer to enter an enterprise to benefit humanity. In the long run, fish farming will be as important to Scotland as is the oil industry. As to the frustration of the farmer, let me give an example from England. Mr. Peter Morphew could not find opportunity to start a fish farm in England so he went to Ireland. In a little over two years he got a fish farm going —there does not seem to be the same red tape in County Wicklow. After two years he was producing half a ton of rainbow trout a week. In 1975, this year, he hopes

121
to make it one ton a week. My Lords, that could never happen here.
There is also the great big bogey of rates. Farming is derated as regards both building and land, but the law of Scotland does not allow fish farming to be derated. The law is quite explicit on this—it has been tested—and the law must therefore be changed if this industry is to get going. Parliament must pass an Act for the regulation and encouragement of fish farming—or a much better term to use is aquaculture. Aquaculture includes the cultivation of seaweed and is a wider term. Aquaculture is now known throughout the world as an industry parallel with agriculture, and we must have an aquaculture Act. Fish farms should be licensed. The acquisition of sites must be controlled with Ministerial decision when interests clash. For salt water farming there ought also to be some form of regulating the activities of the seal, which at present can do an immense amount of damage on a certain type of salt water cage.
The Government—and I direct this remark especially to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—should consider setting up an aquaculture authority. This would take a big load off Government Departments. It would help to get over this difficulty of determining which Ministry this subject should belong to, because such an authority would be able to liaise with all the Ministries, with the White Fish Authority, with the Crown Commissioners, and with the Department of Trade and Industry. The reason why I mention the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is that he was responsible for piloting through this House the Bill which set up the Meat and Livestock Commission. It is a body of that nature that I think is required to give the necessary encouragement.
I put forward this suggestion of a commission or authority entirely on my own initiative, having had no consultation with the Scottish Fish Farming Association on this point. I say that with my tongue in my cheek, because I know from experience that almost all fish farmers are pretty rugged individuals, much more so than ordinary farmers. This is a natural phenomenon, but it is aggravated by the tremendous element of risks in the fish farming business of today—risks of diseases as well as of bureaucracy, and
122
also economic risks of price of feed and price of the end product. Every fish farmer is a potential bankrupt.
The chicken or broiler industry has in the present generation produced for us the cheapest form of animal protein that we can obtain in any quantity. Consider, my Lords, if the people who set up the broiler industry had had to face the difficulties which are facing fish farmers at the present day, the broiler industry might never have got off the ground at all. Here we are considering an industry, with a potential equal to that of the broiler industry, being hindered from getting off the ground because Parliament is sitting on it. I would conclude, my Lords, by expressing to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, the gratitude of the very much frustrated and very rugged fish farmers of Scotland.
4.48 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I add my congratulations and thanks to the two maiden speakers whom we have heard this afternoon. Their speeches have been of an extremely interesting character and the presentation of their case has been of such a nature as to make us feel that we want to hear them as often as they can possibly come to us and speak. It is, of course, usual in this House to thank and congratulate maiden speakers, but I am sure that everybody who heard our two maiden speakers this afternoon is convinced that their speeches will be a valuable asset and contribution to our discussions here. We are grateful to them for having spoken as they did. I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, as I am, for introducing this important Motion and for the efficient way in which she has done so.
There can be no doubt in these days of rising costs that every avenue should be sought and encouraged to meet human needs for food, particularly at prices which are as small as possible. Although, fortunately, we are not afflicted by the result of man's neglect of the natural resources available, as are some other countries in the world, we are still far from being free from blame in not having exercised the necessary resources and care in utilising to the full the potential for the provision of home produced foods,

123
particularly dietary protein which has already been referred to and which is so essential for mankind. In this respect, adequate fish farming can make a very valuable contribution, as has been fairly demonstrated by the speeches which have already been made in our debate today.
Perhaps I ought to say at once that I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, had to say, particularly in view of his position in the fish fanners' organisation, in outlining the difficulties. What I have to say may help him in the researches which he wishes to make into the best method of coping with the situation. I have been convinced of the importance of fish farming by what I have seen and by the information I have received here and in other countries, two of which I propose to refer to. I believe that the plea which has been made by the noble Baroness should be heeded and acted upon as speedily as possible. I refer first to the achievement of the remarkable pioneers of Israel in this direction. They are not confronted by the special difficulties of which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, spoke. It might be of considerable value to the noble Lord if he got in touch with the Fish Breeders' Association in Israel, because they have achieved successful results by the avoidance of certain of the bureaucratic difficulties to which he referred. I have not time to go into details of this at present. However, they have set up a successful breeders' association and they control their own affairs very well indeed. Consequently, they are happy in their work and they are doing a good job.
I was referring to the remarkable achievements of the pioneers of Israel in this direction, which is consistent with their determination to provide for themselves and other inhabitants of land the utmost that toil, sweat and courage in facing the menace of malaria and other diseases which have brought death to so many of them can provide. In spite of these sinister obstacles—obstacles which happily do not confront us in respect of any project which we may undertake— they have succeeded in obtaining highly desirable and necessary results. Much praise has been given to their outstanding reclamation of land from centuries of erosion and to their general successes;
124
but even many of their own people are not aware of the extremely important part that fish fanning has played in providing them with a valuable portion of their essential food.
From small beginnings in 1939, the fish industry has grown so that it produces an annual income of £4 million. That income may not sound very great to us, but in a small land about the size of Wales or even less, and remembering the number of inhabitants that they have, it is a considerable sum of money. It is nearly 10 per cent. of the total annual value of agricultural production in Israel. The first fish ponds were constructed on 15 hectares, which is about 37 acres, and they yielded at that time 1,000 kilogrammes per hectare for the year. In 1972, 4,500 hectares were in use, yielding an average of 2,700 kilogrammes annually, which is about 53 cwt. per hectare. This was done with the advice and assistance of scientists, some of whom are part of the personnel of the farms. The varieties of fish yielded by the ponds have been varied by continuous research. Different species were introduced in addition to carp, which was the original production and which is still the main production.
The monosex system and hybridisation are practised by more and more pond farmers. May I say also that perhaps we could learn from the fact that more and more pond farmers are practising these systems. In recent years, the silver carp has been introduced as a supplement, and monoplankton feeder in the pond turned out to be very advantageous. Not only does it not compete with other fish for its food, but it contributes greatly to the sanitary conditions of the pond. The main problem with this fish will possibly be consistent with similar experiments made with other fish, which prove that consumers' susceptibility has to be reckoned with. However, I think consumers can be invited, and ultimately induced, to accept some of these fish which are very tasty. I myself have eaten them there and I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House have also done so with pleasure.
The conventional techniques employed are typified by the following features. Growth is based upon the maximum exploitation of the natural foods present in

125
the water, in which the fish grow. Their culture depends upon the amount of oxygen which is present in the fish ponds. Fertilisers are applied to increase the natural food resources. Artificial feed-stuffs are added to the natural ponds in a suitable proportion. A polycultural stocking system is used, whereby several species of fish occupy the same pond. In view of the figures which I have already given, I think that using these techniques the highest yields obtained so far will be of interest to your Lordships. They have reached 4,200 kilogrammes per hectare. Your Lordships will realise that this is the impressive result of an effort which has not only been utilised in the ordinary sense, but has obtained—as, indeed, agricultural experiments in that land have always obtained—the help of scientists specialised in the sphere in which they are active.
I turn now to another land which I have recently visited. Some little time ago I had the privilege of leading a party from your Lordships' House to Japan to a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and naturally, as most of us do when abroad, we inquired about the products of the land and became interested in certain aspects. Fish certainly interested me, and I think it interested my colleagues. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan said that the total Japanese fishing catch for 1968 was about 8¾ million tons. The total rise in the value of fishery products in Japan during the five years, 1963 to 1968, was over 55 per cent. That gives an idea of what can be done when proper regard is paid to research and experimentation in these matters.
Most of the rapid development was the result of expanding shallow sea culture of fish promoted by the Japanese Government. Perhaps this could be used as a hint that our Government might take hold of. Formerly, this culture was concentrated on pearls and oysters but more recently many new types of fish and seafood, such as the yellow-tailed prawn, have been successfully developed and are being produced at an increasing rate. Much of the big increase—millions of pounds sterling per year—in the value of Japanese fish products is derived from the shallow sea culture programme. As a major fishing nation, I think we in Britain should concentrate more on
126
marine conservation, repairing the harm done by overfishing and the depletion of formerly rich fishing grounds, and thus increase our fishery resources. I think it will be clear from what I have said that we are impressed by Japan's achievements.
So far as Israel is concerned, I have been impressed for many years with their desire and keenness to develop as much as they possibly can for the benefit of human beings, by land reclamation and by the production of the necessities of life with the utmost help that they can get from the experiences of those emigrants in the lands from which they came, as they did in regard to those who had lived in Europe, in respect of the fishing industry. The production of food by fish farming in Europe has been going on for a considerable time but in Israel, the land to which these immigrants went, in spite of the fact that fish breeding there was a very ancient practice indeed, dating right back to pre-Biblical times, nevertheless it had been neglected for so many centuries that the Jewish settlers had to start again from the beginning.
I conclude by saying that I hope the result of this debate is that the Government will do whatever they can to assist such organisations as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has referred to, and help our people in every way possible to get as much food as they can from the fish farming industry.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I felt quite sure that the debate inaugurated by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, would be immensely interesting and important. Many debates are apt to become less interesting after the first few speeches, but this one has got more interesting, and I was quite fascinated by the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, of what is going on in Israel. I have the highest admiration for the way in which they manage their agriculture, and no doubt their fish farming, too. Although I have not had the opportunity of actually seeing that, I have seen their agriculture.
I was most interested in the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, of the difficulties besetting people who have the energy, enterprise and desire to

127
increase food production and to utilise what at the moment is under-utilised. Unlike the land of this country, which I think is intensively farmed, the sea and the inshore lochs, and the areas where fish farming can be carried on, are obviously not being used to the fullest extent. Therefore it seems to me that we are all engaged in doing something of great importance today, since all speakers have agreed that the production of protein and of food which is acceptable to great masses of people is of enormous importance.
I was also extremely interested to hear our two maiden speakers. The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, spoke about the need to alter the law and the legal difficulties involved. I had not thought of that aspect, to which I am sure the Government will pay great attention. Also I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn. We all knew his father very well and remember what a splendid Secretary of State for Scotland he was. It is most encouraging that the noble Viscount should take part in this debate.
I am afraid I speak all too often in this House, and quite often on agriculture, in which I have some small expertise, In this particular form of agriculture I have no expertise. However, I have a great interest in it, and so I wanted to take part in this debate. I should like most strongly to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, said, that this is an agricultural industry and should be treated as such. Like agriculture, it provides food from natural resources and therefore in my opinion should be given the same treatment as is given to agriculture. It should be derated, it should be allowed grants for buildings and equipment in the same way as farmers are allowed such grants, and people should be encouraged to invest capital in this industry and to plan ahead. None of this can be done unless, as one speaker has said, we change the law and we have the will to do something which is worth doing and which we should all press any Government—whether the present Government or a future Government—to undertake.
128
I wish particularly to emphasise, as has the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, how valuable this industry could be to Scotland, with our enormous number of Highland lochs and many freshwater and seawater lochs. The advantage of this industry as opposed to the development of oil, for instance, is this. I am not opposed to the development of oil, but this industry is superior to oil in that it will not spoil the landscape; it will not entail enormous buildings or great outlays of iron, steel and God knows what else! and will not at any point incur the wrath of the National Trust in Scotland or any of the conservationists. Tanks in the sea are at sea level, and we need not spoil any of our great and beautiful areas; nor need we spoil fly fishing or any other sport, since the lochs and sea water can be shared with those who want to engage in those sports.
The industry about which we are talking is a very valuable asset to Scotland. In a Paper presented to the Royal Society in September 1974, Professor Kerr gives an encouraging account of the development of this industry, and of the hatcheries which are being developed. He gives an account of work at Port Erin in the Isle of Man, coupled with developments in Argyllshire where there are developments in the production of plaice, sole and turbot. At Hunterston in Ayrshire, trials have taken place in warm sea water provided by the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Here again, there is valuable co-operation in that one is able to bring together two industries. I was very interested in the speech of Professor Kerr. He says that turbot are more robust than sole, that halibut are also more robust than sole, and are more easily developed. On the other hand, as we all know, Dover sole is the most delectable of all fish. The Dover sole likes warm water, and can be developed in these tanks, in warm water supplied by the Electricity Board. The only trouble, apparently, is that in summer the tanks get too hot, which is very dangerous for the fish. Obviously, much skill and knowledge is required in the development of this industry. Difficulties have been encountered in experiments, when air has got into section pumps. As was mentioned earlier in the debate,

129
damage can be done to sea tanks by bad weather, by seals, and also, no doubt, by careless people in motor boats.
My Lords, fish are no easier to produce than are animals on a farm. One must accept that as part of the developing industry. On the other hand, this is a very under-developed industry. In the crofting areas of the Highlands of Scotland there is opportunity, I would think, for teaching the crofters how to farm fish. In some areas they are at present producing salmon. Crofters in smallholdings have more time than others engaged in full-time agriculture. I hope very much that the help being given by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the crofting areas will be encouraged. I am sure the Government will encourage it, and that it will pay a dividend. Crofters are paid by weight of salmon produced, which can be sold fresh or sold to the canning industry. Therefore, encouraging developments are reported from the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and also through a company called the Highlands Trout Company of Scotland. All these things are important because they bring new activity and new interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, there is an enormous demand among people to go into this industry. The White Fish Authority Report makes fascinating reading. The experiments of the White Fish Authority are valuable for this development.
My Lords, in summing up, may I put forward the hope that the Government will encourage this form of food production; that they will work out a policy on how the water resources of this country can best be used. I hope that the Government will treat this industry as an agricultural industry and provide derating and grants for equipment; that they will encourage the development of this industry in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland as well as in the areas now developed, and also that there will be a positive policy for controlling disease.
In reading the documents I was so kindly sent by various people, it seems to me that disease is one of the most difficult problems. This is a new industry. I am sure the Government will realise that here we have something we should all support in order to bring it to ful
130
filment. We in Scotland have great faith in the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate. He is one who understands and knows Scotland from end to end, and has worked for Scotland all his life. I suggest that he would earn the gratitude of all Scotsmen and Scots women if, in winding up, he gives us some encouragement for the future.
5.15 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the well-merited congratulations for the two maiden speeches we have heard this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, who has held high office in the Fishmongers Company, comes to our debate with a wealth of knowledge, from which I am sure we shall all profit on future occasions. May I say also that it gave me great personal pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn. Like many other noble Lords, I served under his father, who was Chief Whip in another place for many years, and where he was held in respect, in admiration and affection. It is good to see his son coming to join our debates today.
My Lords, the word "encouragement" was a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, in opening this debate, but more encouragement is needed from the Government. It seems to me that from this debate one thing will be clear to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who is to reply; that is, that action is now required by the Government. I would summarise the need for that action in four different directions, all of which have been mentioned by previous speakers. First of all, it is quite clear that a fish farm at the present moment is no one's child so far as Government Departments are concerned. No one really knows whether it is industry, fishing or agriculture. As was rightly said by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, valuation officers—ordinary men in the field, as it were, who are not members of the higher echelon—are in confusion because they do not know how they are to value fish farms. Equally, in the administration of Government higher up, as it were, it is not clear whether the Government have a view, as yet unannounced, as to which Department fish farming should belong. Personally, I hope the consensus of views expressed in this

131
debate today, that fish farming should be agriculture, will be the one to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government. That is the first of the four areas where I think we need Government decision.
The second area has already been mentioned; that is, the need to amend the law to give sea fish farmers, using the new techniques of rafts and other machines off the bottom of the sea, the same legal rights and protection as the Act of 1868 originally gave to shellfish farmers. That was subsequently amended by the Acts of 1967 and 1968, where poaching from the bottom of the sea was made an offence. This amending legislation is needed particularly for the existing new development of sea fish farming, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno—the artificial production of salmon, about which I should like to say something quite briefly. It is really a dazzling prospect. Your Lordships have spent many afternoons debating the conservation of the wild salmon in the seas and in the rivers. Would it not be splendid if, as a result of the salmon sea farming, there was no need for further debates in your Lordships' House; that the supply of salmon was adequate and that the price of salmon came down. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, who spoke about the new era of fish and chips—no longer cod; it might even be salmon and chips in the future.
Let me say at once that I have no financial interest in any direction, but I must express my admiration for the Unilever concern, private enterprise at its best, who in 1963 embarked on a 20-year programme for the development of salmon by artificial means. I believe they have spent something over £1 million on it so far. They expect, and have obtained as yet, no economic return on their capital; it is indeed a long-term project. Now there are no fewer than six other large first-class industrial concerns of the highest order developing along ten-year plans the same project for artificial production of salmon. There has been some degree of success, too. About 1,000 tons of Atlantic salmon go through Billingsgate Market every year. In the year 1973, none of that 1,000 tons was from artificially produced salmon. In 1974 60 tons of that 1,000 tons, 6 per
132
cent., was produced in salmon fish farms. This year the percentage will be 10 per cent. and the curve is going up all the time. Therefore, it is very necessary that this dazzling prospect—and I use no exaggerated term—for the development of salmon should not be impeded by lack of amendment of existing legislation. That is really the second need: to amend the law in order to give security to salmon fish farmers in the same way as bottom of the sea shellfish farmers have.
The third area for Government action has again already been mentioned, and I mention it again. It is the alteration of the Immature Sea Fish Orders, because for salmon these were made before salmon farming, sea farming, or indeed any other form of sea fish farming. They were made, and quite rightly made, to conserve the wild stock, but they are not applicable to the development of artificially reared stock. The turbot has already been mentioned. The experts tell me that in two years they can produce by artificial means what they call a good plate turbot. But it is illegal to sell it because it comes at present under the Immature Sea Fish Orders. Lord Balerno said that small lobsters are having to be kept in captivity because it is illegal to sell them. I am sure that no noble Lord would criticise in any way the introduction or the existence or continuation of Immature Sea Fish Orders, provided that they are applicable to the wild stock and not to the developed stock.
The fourth and final area of requirement for amending legislation is a law to allow reserved areas in the sea for expansion of marine sea farming. Under the Treaty of Rome, in ten years' time members of the EEC will be able to come and fish right up to our beaches, except in reserved areas. Therefore, surely now, while the opportunity exists, is the time for the Government of the day to corns forward with powers to make reserved areas.
I have tried to summarise those four areas of decision where I think we must ask the Government—and this is no Party matter, thank goodness!—to consider the urgent need for legislation. I very much hope that today the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will tell us that the many points put forward so forcibly by so many

133
speakers in this debate, so wisely and well initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, will be taken note of with a feeling of urgency—and I repeat the word "urgency"—and that the Government will consider each and every one of them.
5.27 p.m.
The Earl of RADNOR: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for bringing to our notice the possibilities of farmed fish as an important addition to the national and in fact to the international protein larder. At the same time, I should like to congratulate our two maiden speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, on their excellent and interesting contributions. I think we have all learned a great deal from listening to what they had to say. Finally, I must declare an interest, because I am currently running a sizeable fish farm in the South of England, producing rainbow trout for the table, to the tune of about 200 tons a year or 5 tons a week, and I have a financial interest in it. I think the importance of this debate is underlined by the fact that I am one of a small number of people engaged in this occupation. That is really part of what we are talking about.
I must leave it to others—and indeed the question seems to have been very thoroughly covered—to talk about farming fish in the sea, whether they be fin fish or shellfish. There is obviously a vast potential here, and equally obviously it seems from what various noble Lords have said that there are various legal and maritime difficulties which should perhaps be ironed out. In this country, even this year, we are blessed with a high rainfall, an equable climate, not too many extremes of altitude, and a reasonable number of water courses left unpolluted by our forebears. We are, on the face of it, a country ideally suited to fish farming—particularly of the salmonid family—and by inland we mean the farming of rainbow trout for food. Yet we have no fish farming industry comparable to say Denmark, France or Italy, and we import trout into this country from Denmark, Japan and Ireland in considerable quantities. This, on the face of it, would seem to be a waste of our foreign currency, to my
134
simple way of looking at it. It would perhaps be better to fulfil our national need for this type of fish from our own resources.
Perhaps this is too simple a view to take. The ultimate purchaser of the fish naturally wants them cheaper, and it is desirable that he should have them cheaper. It is a sad fact that fish from Ireland and Japan tend to come on to our market cheaper than we ourselves can produce them. The same, to a certain extent, is true of the Danish fish, but here there are complicating factors. The Danes have a tremendous continuity of supply and a very high standard of packaging and grading. If we lived up to this ourselves, we might be able to do better in competition with them.
It has already been said that about half the tonnage we consume—and I am not sure of this figure, because it is complicated by gutted fish or wet round fish—comes into this country from abroad, and we are not fulfilling our own needs. In the long run—and this is really the key to the whole matter—expansion of inland fish farming in this country must be dependent upon being competitive in relation to the imported article. It is worth examining some of the ways in which this might be achieved. Here I shall be as brief as possible, because I think I would be repeating what many other noble Lords have said. But I want to start—and make no apology about it—by saying that it would be helpful, to put it mildly, if fish farming were thought of in a broad sense as a farming operation, because that is precisely what it is.
Fish farmers themselves, in England anyway, are beginning to make a move in this direction by forming their own association, which is coming under the umbrella of the National Farmers' Union. But, my Lords, I would not suggest that any feeling that fish farming was farming should necessarily imply requests for capital grants, as has been the practice in farming circles for many years. I believe quite strongly that there is a danger that, even without these inducements, people will embark on fish farming ventures which are doomed to failure and which, after a while, will add absolutely nothing to the general supply of fish. They will be time-consuming and expensive, and

135
ultimately distressing to the people involved. It has always seemed to me —this is a personal view—that one of the great strengths of our emerging fish farming industry is that it has grown up without direct Government financial aid. It has had the advantage of growing up without many of the hampering rules, regulations and standards that almost inevitably go with such aid and often lead an operator—blinded by the promise of riches—to over-capitalise the whole operation and spoil the business. It would be a pity if we got into what I think is known as the "broiler syndrome", where so many people, having started, have to drop out through bankruptcy, and so on.
There are, however, certain areas where your Lordships might feel it reasonable that fish farmers should be treated on an equal footing with other farmers. Here the rating matter has been mentioned so frequently that the message must have got home that there really is no difference between rearing a broiler or rearing a trout, except that one is cold-blooded and does not have feathers. It seems absolutely sensible that the 1971 Act, in the appropriate section, should be looked at in order to avoid the completely haphazard way in which fish farmers have been rated up and down the country, and to obviate the necessity of the various test cases which seem to be passing through the courts at the moment.
There is another area which might prove to be of great value to the fish farming industry, and this falls into the realm of research. Any ordinary farmer will acknowledge the great aid that Government finance, research and experimentation has given to his industry over the years, particularly in areas of research which lie outside the knowledge and scope of even the most experienced farmer. In the same way, it would be a great advantage to the inland fish farming fraternity if there were an extension into the area of fish nutrition of the experimental work practised by the Ministry at Weymouth on disease. If the pattern of expertise and helpfulness which people have come to expect from the Ministry establishment at Weymouth and elsewhere were duplicated in the field of nutrition, it would be of great advan-
136
tage to the industry, particularly if this extension was made in consultation with the industry itself.
Nutrition is of importance because hall the cost of the production and delivery to market of a trout goes straight down its throat and, as has already been said, what goes down its throat is usually another fish. It is a wasteful world, and it is rather unsatisfactory that we are feeding a low grade fish to a high grade fish for us to eat. I think that research here—with a possible look at the recycling of animal waste products— might lead nowhere, but it might also just lead to the kind of breakthrough to vastly cheaper fish food which fish farmers need; this would lead to expansion and cheaper fish for the housewife. Research of this nature is always dull and apparently uneventful, but if it is not undertaken no progress can be made.
I feel that a small outlay here would stand a very good chance of helping this country to produce not only more fish but fish that is cheaper and is capable of competing with countries which are able to benefit from feeding their trout, or being allowed to feed their trout, on the vastly cheaper wet foods. Your Lordships will appreciate that wet foods in this country would be considered a polluting factor; they leave an oily scum on the surface of the river and would be unsatisfactory, but it gives some of our competitors abroad an edge over the home producer.
Before I finish, I must say a word or two about our Water Authorities and their relationship with the fish farming industry. As I have already said, we are an emergent industry and we are few in number. The new Water Authorities are responsible for our water courses. They are responsible for extraction and for the control of pollution, and for seeing that our rivers are kept in a proper state. They are responsible for seeing that sporting interests are kept happy and that drainage interests are properly controlled, and they are very powerful people. If there is to be an efficient commercial expansion of inland fish farming in this country, it would be essential that these authorities look with at least a kindly eye on such expansion, because—and I do not mean among the authorities—there are many people, possibly not always too well informed, who

137
would rather that this industry was not allowed to grow. There are those who fear pollution. There are those who fear the spread of fish disease, and there are those who fear that the countryside would be spoiled visually. On the whole, I think that these fears are really unfounded. Treated with care, pollution should never be a great issue. I will cite a personal example. The effluent from the farm with which I am concerned is as pure after a short run as the water at the intake end. That has flowed through 1½ million fish. I go even further—although it might be an obtuse argument—and say that the presence of fish farms on a river system would be one of the greatest guards against pollution that one could possibly imagine, because the fish farmer is so entirely at risk. As it comes to him he himself will monitor the water with the greatest care.
Again speaking from personal experience, the laws governing disease, the movement of fish and the importation of fish eggs seem entirely adequate, and, in practice, to work well. Many of the doubts cast upon the fish farms in this respect are possibly unfounded. One point which is always missed is that people will make the assumption that it is the fish farm that is giving the disease and not the native stock in the river. They never perhaps think that it may be the other way round because we have never in any way efficiently tested our native stock. It would be impossible so to do for some of the diseases which we say are not in this country when they might well be.
So far as the planning and visual aspects are concerned, I maintain that a fish farm is almost invisible because it is a series of holes dug in the ground. I cite an example. I wished to have photographs taken of the fish farm which I run and I had to send someone up in a helicopter to take them. It must of course be desirable to produce more fish in a controlled manner, particularly in view of the fears which have been expressed that the oceans are being over-fished. I am sure these are real fears. I feel that in this country any such expansion should not be too expensive so far as the Exchequer is concerned. I put it this way, that what is needed is the absence of discouragement—and there is some
138
discouragement lurking about—and then I think it will happen in an orderly and efficient manner.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley. We know how hard she always works. In view of the large number of speakers taking part in this debate, I think she would have made an excellent Whip. If I am not too presumptuous (as I have been in the House only a short time), may I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn on his maiden speech. I had the pleasure of knowing his father. He is so much more experienced than I and is obviously an expert. However, I have been interested in this subject for some time on the research side. In Plymouth we have the Marine Research Laboratory, and many people from overseas have come to study there to find out how different varities of fish in our waters can be acclimatised in their waters. I once asked an Indian student why he was in this country. He said that he had come to study the love-life of a shrimp, meaning that he wanted to find out how they could propagate in the warmer waters around India. This subject is of importance to many Indian students, and I hope that this type of research work will be allowed to continue. It is not only useful in this country but also overseas, particularly in some of our Commonwealth countries.
The noble Baroness kindly loaned me a briefing note which I thought was absolutely excellent, except for one point. She said that the reason why freshwater fish farming is treated as a Cinderella is that the traditional influence of fly-fishing has been dominant. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because I run a small syndicate on a river for fishing trout. I assure her that if it had not been for the hatcheries, both the salmon and trout in rivers would have been denuded by private enterprise and private owners. Many rivers in other countries have no fish in them because they have been excessively poached. More water could be taken from some of these rivers for fish farming without doing any harm. I support what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said about the water authority.

139
We have had difficulties not only in Wilt-shire, but also in Devonshire. One danger is that they pump too much water from the heads of rivers which lower the rivers to such an extent that, in one river we thought that a disease had developed when it was in fact due to lack of oxygen which caused fish to die. I hope that this point may be considered by the Water Authorities, who, as the noble Earl said, are powerful bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Hale, said that we should not talk about other countries, and then proceeded to do so. Perhaps I may be excused, therefore, if I emulate him. When I came to this House I was warned that it contained many experts, and that in a long debate you needed to produce two speeches. I shall therefore refer to fish farming in China. I had the opportunity of visiting China in 1961 and again in 1973, to see something of their fish farming. It is remarkable what they have achieved in a short time. Last year, China's total fresh water fish rose by 1·4 times over the 1965 figure and the total catch went up by 11·1 per cent. compared with 1972. In many areas their climate is similar to ours, although China, being a much larger country, has major fish producing provinces. In the first quarter of 1974 production went up by 6·7 per cent. I mention these statistics because it is encouraging when you see that the production of fresh water fish was 1·4 times that of 1965 and has risen to such a large extent in 1974. Of course, China is fortunate in having more inland water resources—lake, reservoirs and ponds— and for years the Chinese have been fish farmers in a small way in small areas. Now they have gone into fish breeding in a large way.
In 1973 I had the opportunity of visiting some of these farms in Shanghai. I think we can compare them with what could be done here. On one of these rural communal farms there were 24,000 people. They were able to be fed entirely by the fish they bred as well as selling the surplus to the surrounding neighbourhood. They have a great advantage, because in these farms the fish are drawn in by nets. I hope that this method will prove to be the way in which we can catch our fish. By this method the breeding fish and the smaller fish can be
140
returned to the water and therefore you do not harm either. This helps greatly in the quick reproduction of fish.
Reservoirs and lakes have been dredged so that fish can be bred in a planned pattern. In the West Country I have tried many times to get some of the reservoirs either dredged—particularly one on Dartmoor—or planned properly. If fish are put in—and at one time 10,000 fish were put in as a gift from the water authority—they mostly die. If it is to be done, I would agree with the noble earl that it must be planned and that areas must be properly dredged. But I do not see why we cannot use the reservoirs in this country to a greater extent.
The question of the canals has not been mentioned so far, and the fact that we have a great deal of fish called grayling. They are a good-tasting fish, especially in the autumn, and what we do when we clear them out, because of interference with the trout, is to put them into the canals, where they breed quite happily. The fishing clubs use them for their activities and, of course, they also eat them. As I say, they are quite a nice fish, with a pink flesh, and particularly in the autumn they taste very nice if they are cooked well.
Herbal medicines are used to prevent and treat diseases which are common among domestic fish and I suggest that we should get in touch with the Chinese to learn more about these herbal medicines. They have been very successful with them and these medicines have been considerably effective in controlling the death rate. There is one lake, called Taihu, which last year produced 2·5 times more fish than in 1973 because aquatic plants were used to produce artificial breeding, a development which has proved most successful. In this country we have a great many gravel pits. We have in Cornwall, for example, china clay pits which could be used for breeding fish and, as I have said before, I cannot see why we cannot make more use of our reservoirs.
In order to raise fish densities, research has been carried out by workers in Shanghai and Wusih to increase the oxygen in various waters. Many fish die from a lack of oxygen and not from a lack of food. Of course they need food, but the oxygen has to be augmented into

141
the water. I believe that all fish, what-ever their kind, can taste very nice if they are well cooked. One of the troubles in this country is that we do not know how to make nice sauces which make these various kinds of fish tasty, and that is why many people do not eat them.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I have been to Wicklow and have seen the excellent trout farm. I understand that all the fish from that farm come here. I gather that it is a very easy place to run, although I believe that they had a small accident some time ago when the water broke over the banks and some trout were lost for a while. If they can farm successfully there and send all their fish, packed in ice, to London, it proves that we have a very advantageous market in London and that we can perfectly well, if we concentrate on the various suggestions which have been put forward today, make a success of this form of farming. But we must also heed the warnings which have been expressed by the experts who have put forward their views. I therefore hope that the Government will support my noble friend Lady Emmet, who has a very clever method of getting her own way, and I hope that this debate will represent another success in her very successful political career.
5.45 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, for giving us this opportunity to discuss what I believe is a young and thriving industry, one which does very much for rural areas and which utilises all our rivers, lakes and reservoirs—and, as I heard the noble Baroness say this morning on a radio programme, our gravel pits as well. This is an admirable use for what may be unsightly blots on the countryside. I also have great pleasure in congratulating the two maiden speakers on their notable, concise, relevant and well-informed contributions. I hope that we shall hear a great deal from both of them in future, and I know that I echo the views of all noble Lords when I say that we welcome their views.
I have learned a great deal from this debate in which it has been generally agreed that fish farming is very much an industry,, one which up to about five
142
years ago was relatively insignificant. Since then, it has been placed in a some-what anomalous position so far as various financial and legal factors are concerned. I understand that fish farming is not mentioned specifically as an agricultural operation within the meaning of the 1971 Act; fish are not classified as livestock, a point which has been made clear by several speakers today. Thus, fish farms are unable to claim the reliefs and benefits to which they would be entitled if they were following any other form of food production, agriculture or anything else. I have also been given to under-stand that the United Kingdom is the only country in Western Europe which treats fish farming in this way. But worse still within the United Kingdom, as a result of various court decisions, English and Welsh fish farms are not rated whereas Scottish farms are. This is a sad and, I believe, avoidable anomaly, and we look forward to hearing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on this subject in reply to the debate. More sympathetic financial treatment would be very welcome for these small but very efficient operations, particularly as fish farms in general are small, employing, in the main, perhaps 30 or 40 people, depending on the season.
It is important to encourage support for the industry for a number of reasons. First, the demand for rainbow trout, brown trout and, of course, for the delicacious salmon and salmon trout, which I believe we call sea trout, is very large and, as several speakers have made clear, is increasing each year. One example I have unearthed is the fact that we in the United Kingdom eat approximately 2,500 tons of rainbow trout each year, and according to information given to me, this represents about 100 million rainbow trout, each weighing half a lb.— or, under our new metric guise, 226 grammes give or take one or two. This is an operation of quite considerable complexity and it deserves close attention by the Government.
The second reason why I believe the Government should help in this matter is that for sporting purposes fish farming is eminently valuable as a means of restocking rivers, reservoirs and lakes. Where, for various reasons, the natural population of reservoirs and rivers has been decimated or has been reduced by

143
pollution or disease, fish farming can provide the basis for restocking. It is not the whole answer, but at least it provides the basis for the population to increase.
Thirdly, as we have heard from virtually every speaker, fish as food is very rich in protein. I am told that fish are cold-blooded—certainly I do not know of any hot-blooded ones—and that they live in what is called thermal equilibrium with their habitat, which is water, which tends to indicate that their body temperature is the same as the area in which they live, something which does not apply to mammals. I am told that this is very important in that fish do not require such large amounts of protein to keep themselves warm or alive, or to put on body weight. Instead, such protein as is fed to them can be converted to edible weight. I understand that fish use protein far more efficiently then the next in line, the common domestic hen, and we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, the protein conversion rates. Now that proteins and feedstuffs are so expensive and scarce in the modern world, it is more important then ever to succour the most efficient and thrifty use of these valuable foodstuffs. I believe that it is in this field that we can reap real benefits by encouraging fish farming. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, how large quantities of fresh fish are imported from all over the world.
There are. of course, different methods of raising fish. In some countries various antibiotics and concentrates are added to the fish food. In this country these antibiotics and concentrates are considered dangerous, or at least inimical to health. Naturally, different nations have different criteria for feeding or raising fish, much of which ends up on the British table. I would ask the Government to consider restricting imports from countries which have these problems of pollution, or which are unwilling to use concentrates which we consider safe. The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, pointed out that Japan, which is a very considerable producer of trout for the British table, has great problems of pollution in its seas and in its fresh waters. While we sympathise, I do not believe that we should condone any relaxation in the standards of the fish which come into this country.
144
That is why I ask the Government to ensure that fish which are imported from all over the world, whether it be from Japan or elsewhere, meet the standards of fish which are produced in our fish farms here. I have heard that up to half our potready trout are imported from Japan and elsewhere.
My Lords, so far as my personal position is concerned, I have no interest in fish farming, though I own a stretch of freshwater fishing in Scotland which at various times has suffered from disease and from pollution. Nevertheless, through the efforts of all the owners of the river and of the inshore fishermen, steps are being taken to build up the stocks in the river as far as is possible. I would, however, ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to use all his influence with his colleagues in the Government to ensure that this burgeoning industry can provide continuing and profitable employment in areas which are remote and which are often unable to provide alternative employment for the population. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that fish farming can present problems, but it is far more suitable and better based for these remote areas—and I am thinking particularly of Scotland—than the ephemeral, noisy, pollutant, unsightly and often unwanted operations in connection with offshore oil exploration. We all appreciate that there is a necessary evil here, but I believe that many of us would agree that such operations will tend to slacken off and possibly disappear in thirty, forty or fifty years. However, I believe fish farming will be a continuing industry and will have a most beneficial effect on the countryside and on the working population. It is a very valuable import saver. It is a welcome and appropriate employer in those remote rural areas to which I have referred, and it is a most efficient user of proteins. I also believe that it is one of the means by which our sporting fisheries can be restocked. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, for giving us an opportunity of discussing this important issue and of being able to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his comments.
6.5 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations on the two notable maiden speeches which we

145
have heard. Although I have endeavoured to educate myself a little prior to the debate, I cannot pretend to have the profound' knowledge of fish farming—or "aquaculture", as my noble friend Lord Balerno said it should be called—displayed by so many of the speakers this afternoon. My participation stems from my concern about how this country is to feed itself between now and the end of the century, when the population of the world will have doubled, or very nearly so. It will go up from 3,600 million at the present time to nearly 7,000 million in 25 years.
My Lords, as a result of depending for so long on cheap imported food to feed an ever-expanding population—it is still expanding, notwithstanding the falling birthrate—we have placed ourselves in an extremely vulnerable position. The food is no longer cheap, it may not always be available and because of our high population density we depend on it to feed roughly half our inhabitants. For example, in 1972–73 imports provided over 50 per cent. of the bacon, ham, mutton and lamb and over 40 per cent. of the wheat which we consumed. The figures for beef and veal were more favourable; only some 10 to 15 per cent. was imported, but this was because so much of our home grown cereals was fed to beef to increase production. I understand that British cattle now consume 5 million tons of grain a year— an increase of 50 per cent. in 20 years —and pigs and poultry consume another 8 million tons. To see the matter in perspective, 4 million tons would, according to a recent article in The Times— and that is what we import—suffice to feed 20 million people in other countries who might otherwise die of starvation.
My Lords, the moral of this is fairly clear: grainfed beef is an extraordinarily wasteful way of providing protein. As a nation, we should aim to change our dietary habits, to eat less meat and to develop other sources of protein. That brings me to the subject of fish farming and I should like to say also how indebted we are to my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley for introducing the subject this afternoon. It is a subject which I believe will grow enormously in importance in the future. If carried out on a sufficient scale, fish farming could release grain to those countries which
146
are in greater need than ourselves. It would reduce the balance of payments deficit. It would make us more self-supporting in foodstuffs and, thus, Jess vulnerable to outside pressures. It has the further immense advantage, which has been referred to by other speakers, that it can be carried out in areas of the sea, reservoirs, disused gravel pits, and so on, which might otherwise be unproductive.
Moreover—and this was a point brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley—the conversion ratios of fish compare very favourably with those of other forms of protein. The noble Earl mentioned poultry. I believe he said that the ratio was 2· to 1. As I brought up the subject of beef, I can say that an average bullock consumes three tons of feedstuffs to reach a body weight of 10 cwt., which is a ratio of 6 to 1, whereas for the carnivorous rainbow trout the ratio is 1· to 1, and for the vegetarion carp it is 1 to 1. The carp was, after all, cultivated in stewponds by the monks in the old days and, when we are talking about changing our dietary habits, why should we not think about the carp? As the noble Baroness has said, 250,000 tons of fish are produced annually in East Europe and I believe that it is mainly carp. I feel that we have a good deal to learn there.
My Lords, it is of course important not to become starry-eyed about the possibilities of fish farming production. There are immense difficulties to be over-come, especially where marine fish farming is concerned, before it can be practised on any economic scale. But there are at least some encouraging portents. Some of them have beeen mentioned, but some have not. For example, there is already evidence that farmed flat fish produce a higher fillet yield than wild fish. We know that at higher temperatures, which can be provided by warmed seawater emanating from coastal electricity supply stations, various species can be grown to market size in less than half the time required by nature. We know that no major disease problem has yet been encountered which cannot be controlled. We know that the marine environment is hostile to viruses, which are so detrimental to some of the freshwater fish, and so on.

147
All these and many other factors would seem to justify a continued—and I hope, perhaps, increased—Government investment in research. But the Government should not confine their resistance to research. Support for the industry should be given in more immediate, and more tangible, form. My noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, and my noble friend Lord Balerno both indicated some of the difficulties which are being faced by fish farmers today: difficulties over rating; difficulties over the legal definition of "fish farming"—to give it the protection it requires—and difficulties over capital grants. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to tell us that the Government are prepared to adopt a new and much more encouraging attitude towards the industry than has been adopted in the past, and possibly to bring in a Bill on the lines suggested.
Unlike China, which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned, where it has been practised for many centuries, and unlike Japan and Israel, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, where intensive efforts are being made, as they are, I think, in the United States, the industry in this country is in its infancy. By European standards its production of 2,500 tons a year is derisory. At present a small number of individuals are staking their livelihoods and their future on a business which is inherently risky because of the disease factor, but which is of great potential benefit to the country. They are, in fact, performing a public service and as such they should be backed by the Government, up to the hilt. If anything, fish farmers should be treated more generously by the Government than conventional farmers, and they should certainly not be treated less generously.
My Lords, there is a natural tendency in Whitehall to look askance at imaginative new ventures which have not yet proved their worth; to emphasise the difficulties and the expenses of development, while not perhaps taking full account of the long-term benefits. It is a mistake which we have frequently made in the past to our cost, and I hope that we shall not make it again with fish farming.
6.15 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I should like to add my gratitude to that expressed by other speakers to my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley for inaugurating this debate. I also wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cairns who spoke with such tremendous experience. I should particularly like to say a word of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn for his cogent and well-informed speech. Like other noble Lords here, I had the honour to call his father a friend. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary in the early 1950s, and his Under-Secretary, and I was his friend until he died. He was, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said—also like Lord Cairns—a Prime Warden of the Fishmongers' Company. As I heard my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn speaking, it seemed to me a sad disadvantage for hereditary Peers in this House that they cannot have the pride and pleasure of hearing their sons make their maiden speeches. How glad James would have been had he been able to be here this afternoon.
This debate has made me, as it will have made many other Members of this House, aware of the tremendous success in other countries, and it will have put in our minds the position of fish farming in Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, made it perfectly clear what our needs are here. I wish to speak very briefly about the place of fish farming in Great Britain. Noble Lords now know that of the total fish consumed here the proportion of farmed fish is very small, because today farmed fish are—to use a trade term —at the top end of the trade. They are at the expensive end. They cannot compete with the cheaper fish taken straight from the sea. There have been successes. Trout, which has been mentioned by many speakers, has indeed largely replaced the wild fish on the market, and there are considerable prospects. Salmon were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who spoke of the successful growing of trout in Lochailort, which is an enclosed loch, and my information, too, is that it is both satisfactory and now profitably grown.
But there are limits at present to these salmon, because they can be taken out

149
profitably only when they weigh between six and eight pounds. This limits the sale of fanned salmon. On present information, farmed salmon will never completely oust the larger wild fish, nor will they ever be an inexpensive protein; though they might be less expensive if the closed season for salmon—which I understand is from 11th February to 31st August— could be eliminated. It seems about as irrelevant to have a closed season for salmon as it would be to have a closed season for growing battery hens. But that having been said, both these expensive fish, which are not at the moment a very important export can, and will, become a highly desirable export for this country, because they have two points in their favour. One is that they have continuity of supply, and the other is that they have continuity of quality. In fact, they can be like Scotch whisky—expensive to sell and independent of the weather.
My Lords, mention has been made of the other farmed sources. We eat some farmed species of oysters, although a great many Natives are still eaten. We eat a certain amount of farmed plaice, and, as everybody has told the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and I am going to tell him in a moment—we would be able to eat more plaice if they could be given better legal protection. The situation about turbot seems to me to be not so satisfactory. We have a long way to go. Probably when the housewife does get it, if it is legal, it will be a whole turbot instead of a whole grilled sole or a whole grilled plaice; but from the point of view of the fishmonger it is a real marketing job to sell to the housewife and to you and to me the idea of eating not the great piece of turbot that we are used to, but a small fish. This is going to make turbot, like so many other farmed fish, expensive. Then there are going to be exciting, fast-growing, palatable hybrids, known, I understand, as the "halibaice", the "turbrill" and the "plounder". We shall see them all in due course but they will be expensive. So that an occurrence like the recent glut of cod is an occurrence that will never be relieved by more farmed fish which, in my view—do what we can; and we are going to do a great deal—will always be in the more expensive bracket. Farmed fish have a great benefit based on continuity of supply and controlled conditions when they are
150
grown under the proper controlled conditions.
What can the Government do to help? Basically, it is legal protection that they need to make it worth while to invest in a wide variety of farming activities. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, pointed out, at present farmed fish are not livestock, because livestock is defined as "mammals or birds", so fish farming is an industrial process and not an agricultural one. Technically, fish farmers do not own their own fish until they actually farm them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I like the title "the aquaculturist". The aquaculturalist should be placed on the same legal footing as the agriculturist. Should he obtain the same financial aid? Or would the noble Earl. Lord Radnor, prefer that he did not get any financial aid at all?
The aquaculturalist needs exclusive rights to specify sea areas as well as specified seabed areas. He needs the same security for his property in floating mesh cages as the land farmer has for his implements on his land and in his enclosures. The fish farmer needs the same legal redress against poachers and vandals; and for his farmed area and farm property, the same protection from speed boats and other craft as does the farmer now from passing motor vehicles. As some noble Lords have pointed out, this would call for some reservations or enclosures of the land or the sea shore and interference with public rights. But this is no new principle; because there is the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1976, which already gives a wide measure of protection for oyster and mussel fisheries. Similarly, there are restrictions already made by the Minister of Defence and by the port authorities for the protection of marine works and other purposes. All these last points that I have been making are, as the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, said, in the 1970 Report made by Lord Cameron as Chairman of the Scottish Inshore Fisheries Committee. All that is being said today was said in 1970 by Lord Cameron.
My Lords, there are other ways in which the fish farming industry can be helped. As marine fish are carnivorous, the manufacturers of the necessary pelleted foods have a problem—and this has been mentioned—of finding a suitable edible protein at the right price and

151
to save us the necessity for imports. I realise, because what I have been saying may be read by some of those manufacturers, that finding the right price when talking about supplying even an inedible protein is the great difficulty they have. But it is the feeling of many that nevertheless they could do more to find fish farmers a cheap source of protein food. Again, as warm water improves the conversion ratio—the conversion of unacceptable protein eaten by the fish into palatable edible protein—then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, has said, the electricity undertakings could do more to provide warm water for this purpose. We thank and congratulate the South of Scotland Hydro-electric Board for the example they have set at Hunterston.
We have been told about the farming already taking place in Japan and of how successful they are; and of the carp farmed in Eastern Europe and Israel. I wonder whether we should eat more carp in this country. One problem is that the fishmonger, mentioned by one noble Lord, will tell him that, as has been found all over the world, in trying to give people fish that is good for them, or even food that is good for them, you cannot persuade them to eat what they do not want to eat. I do not know whether British people will eat carp; but if they were to do so then, because carp is a converter not of edible protein but of vegetable matter, it would be very satisfactory to grow carp in this country. Catfish in the United States is a success; and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Janner, a great deal about Israel.
My Lords, a great deal is being done; but although fish can be in these ways helped to grow into a palatable, edible protein food, they are basically poor converters of protein. As the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, even for a nation fanning fish locally, with present knowledge, farmed fish cannot be a significant contribution to the nation's protein; that is, for a nation like us. Internationally it has not been, and may never be, demonstrated that farmed fish or fish farming or fish products will make any wide or significant contribution towards the protein for a growing world population in need of it.
152
The nations of the world who are short of protein must find it within their own borders. They cannot find it outside their borders—for one reason only, if for no other. It is that they have not the hard currency to buy it. Whatever food the rest of the world can give the starving nations, they have not the hard currency to buy it; and this is the great difficulty. Therefore, what is the obligation of the free world to feed the starving world' —and I am not talking about the nations who have available proteins themselves. I disagree entirely with people who say that a chicken is a worse converter than a fish; because if you take a fish turning an inedible protein into an edible protein, of course, it is a good converter; but I suggest that starving nations would do better to grow hens which can eat the available food in the country whatever that may be. I suggest that our job as free nations is to teach each nation how to grow the most suitable indigenous protein themselves in their own country. Help them if you like by giving them the equipment; but the answer to the world food programme is not fish farming at all. It is the farming of whatever is suitable for that country.
Finally, it might be suggested that instead of growing cattle and ruining the country in which they live, they would do better to take the indigenous animals that have evolved in the country and eat the wild animals which are there and which will continue rather than to ruin their land with cattle. Apart from the last part of the Motion of my noble friend Lady Emmet, nothing I have said in any degree reduces the need for more protection and encouragement for fish farming in this country. I should like to finish by repeating what the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, said, that we are on the verge of a revolutionary advance.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and, like everybody who has taken part in it this afternoon, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for introducing this subject into your Lord-ships' House. Before I go any further I must declare my interest, with which I am sure your Lordships are only too well acquainted, in fish, fish farming and fish hatching. It is interesting that this debate, like so many debates in your Lordships'

153
House, has produced its own patterns of thought. Although each speaker has played their own particular "tune", all these "tunes" together orchestrate into a theme which is well worth listening to. I should like to try to point out the situation to your Lordships as I see it.
First of all, there is a great enthusiasm for the use of fish farming and fish raising in one way or another as a means of adding to our protein in our diet and, indeed, the diet of the whole world. With this of course I agree. But we should not be too carried away by some of the apparent attractions of fish farming. I liked the admirably short and cautionary speech of the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, in which she referred to the half truths and the costs of fish farming. It is perfectly true that in certain circumstances you can raise 1,000 tons of protein per acre from a fish farm, but you have to throw on it 1,500 tons of protein first. This is something we have to remember. Something else we have to remember, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is that this is the top end of the trade in this country. We are not in fact producing ready-made fish fingers in our fish farms; we are producing expensive forms of fish which are delightful and which, as we have been able to develop the standard of living of people in this country, have become more and more common on the tables of everybody's home in this country. Smoked trout is something which you can buy in the supermarket; trout is something that you find in many restraurants, it is not just something you find in the top restaurants of the West End.
But in whatever form the fish farms of this country are operating, they are, on the whole, producing high-value fish and, as such, they are not yet making great inroads into the problems of producing large quantities of cheap protein. Certainly they depend as much as anybody on a high price in order to be able to sell their products. Indeed, the people who are producing salmon at Lochailort would be as horrified as anybody—even probably more than me!—if the price of salmon dropped below a certain level. Their fish might become uneconomic and their whole operation might become difficult.
So we should not think that by encouraging fish farming we shall necessarily
154
get cheaper fish; but we might well examine how the trade in trout, and particularly smoked trout, grew up. It did not really grow up in this country, but in Denmark. Denmark first managed to produce trout effectively and they built up the trade in trout on two things. One was the right supply of water, which they happened to have, and the other was a supply of commercially-fished fish, many of which came out of what we might regard as our waters around the Shetlands. Commercially-fished fish formed the basis of the wet fish diet which was the basis of their whole trout industry. We in this country do not and cannot fish for this kind of fish, because we choose to conserve sea fish by mesh size. Therefore it is not legal for us to build up a fishing fleet of the kind which fishes out of Esbjerg and brings in the commercial fish which produces the fish meal and trout food that we have heard about. We are inhibited by our own regulations from developing the trade to the extent that the Danes have developed it.
On the other hand, for various other reasons, the United States of America, Japan and certainly also Denmark, have developed pellet foods for stewpond fish which have certain advantages, in that you can feed the fish automatically by setting guns which fire pellets into the ponds at regular intervals and therefore cut out much of the labour requirements. It is the development of foods of this kind that has helped us with the development of trout farming and salmon farming in this country. It is upon the use of pelleted foods that we shall probably establish a fish farming industry in this country. None of these things, such as the possession of the water, the know-how or the ready supply of commercial fish on which to feed the trout, would have developed the industry as the Danes developed it if they had not marketed their fish extremely skilfully. It is very much the skilful marketing of the trout which has made the smoked trout the success it is, which has made fish farming in this country look attractive and which has indeed initiated this debate.
When it comes to talking about fish like carp which are not carnivores but herbivores, you simply could not start to think of developing a fish farming industry based upon carp until you really made a go of marketing carp as a fish for the

155
housewife to eat. I am not saying that this could not be done, but you would have to overcome a certain amount of inherent prejudice; you would have to educate and spend a great deal of money. Therefore I do not think there will be any quick result in this matter. But running through the whole of this debate has been a recognition of the value of what is being done, a recognition of the possibility of using by-products, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, pointed out, using single cell proteins, which is a most interesting new possibility as a basic fish food.
The people who are interested in the production of fish would like to see fish farming given a fair chance. Here again we come to another of the threads running through the whole debate. The debate was enlivened and enriched by two top quality maiden speeches to which we were all privileged to listen. The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, pointed out in his maiden speech that fish farming does not get a fair deal at all. This is true because it is nobody's child. During the debate we have heard many speakers asking for fish farming to be put under somebody's wing; we have even heard people asking for it to be called "aquaculture" and given a status, perhaps through a new name. I should like to think that we would recognise at the same time the importance of the interplay of all forms of fish production. If we are to regulate fish farming it should be given a status and legal rights, which would be best done by putting it under a Ministry dealing with fish production from the sea.
The marketing of fish will be important. What is done in the way of producing fish from the sea will have a bearing on fish from the fish farms. Similarly, what is done by way of producing fish from fish farms will have a bearing on the marketing of fish produced from the sea. I think that nowadays we ought to co-ordinate the production of fish, whether wild-caught or from hatchery-reared stock, and perhaps devise more logical ways of trying to conserve our fish by means of net size, and by recognition of the fact that perhaps we ought to have a commercial fishery operating out of our own shores,
156
catching the commercial small fish that grow in our territorial waters for feeding to fish in our own fish farms.
During this debate we have been asked to consider and to press upon Her Majesty's Government the idea that they should legislate for ownership of fish, to make it legal for people to own various fishes of what at the moment are illegal size—because at present anybody engaged in the farming of sea-fish is in danger of breaking the law. The moment any-body lifts a fish out of the water he breaks the law, if it is a fish of an illegal size. I think we should consider putting fish farming on a basis equal to either agriculture or industry. Here, again, I like the idea of putting fish farming under the wing of a fishery Department so that it would be getting the kind of help that might be given to sea-boats— or the sort of derating one might give to enterprises connected with sea fishing; also, the kind of capital grants, and so forth, that might be considered necessary in connection with sea fishing.
We have also heard during this debate about research. The quality of research in this country is second to none, and we ought to make certain that this quality is properly spread and used. We must see that there is a proper "come and go" of ideas between the research institutions and the people actually on the ground or on the water, who are working at the job. Perhaps such a cross-fertilisation of ideas might be achieved by giving help to the larger organisations which are researching on their own account. This might be done by seconding scientists to people who are already engaged in fish farming and who already have a facility, so that the scientists might come in "on the side" and use that facility for research projects of a practical nature.
I feel that if, through this co-ordination of sea and fish farm produced fish, we encourage more research into customer taste, this would be most helpful. I know this has already been very well done by some research institutions, and the research done by the White Fish Authority in particular has been very well done, because they have discovered how to turn almost any kind of fish into a fish finger. However, I do not think they have done research upon freshwater fish in the same kind of way. It would be helpful, if we are going to develop

157
fish farming to the full, to do the same kind of research in relation to the fresh-water fish and the ways in which they may be used by the housewife and the consumer.
If I may sum up my reaction to this debate, my Lords, I feel it has been useful to hold it, because it has put down on paper some conflicting attitudes. I think we can look to fish farming for a considerable and growing contribution to our supplies of fish and high quality protein. But we cannot expect miracles. We must look at fish farming with a thoroughly critical mind. We should not let it suffer from undue disadvantages. We should certainly consider legislating so as to legalise those aspects which are desirable to make fish farming effective. We should try to put this under the aegis of one Department of State; and personally I would prefer to see this under a fishery Department, properly designed to co-ordinate the activities of both fish farming and sea fishing.
6.47 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree so much with the very first words spoken by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and indeed with most of the rest of what he has said, because this has indeed been a fascinating debate. It has been illuminated by two maiden speeches which I think everyone was delighted to hear. If it is not presumptuous of me, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cairns, who said that he had to wait for 25 years—for reasons which are thoroughly commendable—before speaking to your Lordships. All I can say is that his speech was very well worth waiting for. It is not often one has the privilege of hearing a maiden speech delivered without a note in a manner which, if I might say so, was quite beautiful, and in language which was very agreeable to listen to. As regards my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn, many people have already said that they are glad, as indeed I am myself, to see among us the son of a person who played such a distinguished part in public life. His was a speech of much clarity and knowledge, and also of great common sense. Both those speeches added greatly to the level of this debate, and I am sure that everyone will be looking for-
158
ward to the times when they next address your Lordships' House, whatever the topic may be.
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley must feel very pleased with the result of her Motion, because it has turned our attention to one aspect of food production which is relatively embryonic, and about which relatively little is known. I am bound to say that I am astonished at the amount of knowledge about this subject that has emerged this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Vernon was concerned as to how the world was going to feed itself. Of course, the extraordinary thing is that over the last 25 years we have seen huge technical advances in agricultural production, and yet the increase in agricultural production from the under-developed countries in the world has merely kept pace with the increase in population which those countries have sustained. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere.
It is of course to the sea, and, as the psalmist would say, all that therein is, that we have to look. The curious fact is that in comparison with the development of food from the land, our efforts in the oceans and on the ocean beds have been astonishingly small. Our basic aim is still simply to hunt the fish. It is perfectly true that the methods by which we hunt fish are almost totally scientific, using echo sounders, laiser beams, freezer ships and so forth; but the fact remains that we still hunt and try to catch what-ever happens to be there. As we have developed our agriculture, so I believe we shall have to develop our fish food crop beyond the stage of taking out of the earth's mass what nature happens to grow there for us.
As my noble friend Lord Balerno said, this business of fish farming embodies just the same principle as broiler chicken production which has resulted in a massive increase in chicken meat production and the lowering of its selling price to the public, and the loss or gain (whichever way one looks at it) of the status of the meat in the public diet from one of a luxury food to that of a cheap food. My noble friend Lord Cairns said that in fish farming there was a parallel revolutionary advance. My

159
Lords, I believe that he is right. The potential to do with fish the same as has been done in broiler production is enormous. But do not let us delude ourselves: so are the problems.
I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, and I think with my noble friend Lady Sempill, who I think visualise the production of fish by fish farming to be a means, as the Motion suggests, of providing cheap protein for the growing populations of the world—if by that is meant it is a method by which the underdeveloped countries of the world can expect to see their supplies of protein increased. I believe we should be deluding ourselves if we felt that fish farming has that particular contribution to make to food production. What it may well do for those who have the capacity to pay, is to make more available species of fish to eat which are at present scarce and therefore a luxury and expensive, which by this method will become more plentiful and therefore cheaper. In that sense fish farming has an important part to play in the total food production of a country.
The most obvious example of what has been done is that which my noble friend Lord Radnor gave from his personal experience of trout. It used to be a great rarity, only fished by the angler, and now it is produced in considerable quantities in fish farms and is relatively commonplace. Whereas trout can now sell for about 60p a lb. in a shop, salmon can be in the region of £2 a lb. But, as my noble friend Lord Balfour said, there is little reason why salmon cannot be produced, or mass produced, in the same way as are trout. But I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Radnor would hope that the adage or the legendary advice which I think hoteliers give themselves when dining out and inspecting the menus of other hotels will not be continued, which is, "When in doubt don't touch the trout".
The real interest for the future development of fish farming lies I believe in part with salmon and trout, in part with shellfish, but mainly with marine fish and sea-water fish such as have been mentioned—Dover sole, turbot and halibut. An extraordinary fact is that a
160
Dover sole will produce hundreds of thousands of eggs over a period of three weeks; the turbot will produce millions of eggs over the same period. Yet, to keep the balance of nature right, all one requires is two of those eggs to come to maturity to replace its pair of stock. Nature has therefore provided a massive over-supply of potential fish. If this potential, or even part of it, can be harnessed, fish production can be increased enormously; and this is precisely what the White Fish Authority and the Sea Fisheries Laboratory at Lowestoft, which is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, and others, are trying to do.
In the natural state in the sea it is supposed to be a fact that only 5 per cent. of the eggs which are laid actually hatch, but I have often wondered who has popped down to count them. But in scientific and laboratory conditions, and under scientific control, up to 100 per cent. actually hatch. The fish then emerge as round larval fish and stay like that for a matter of some 10 weeks until they turn into the metamorphosis stage and become a flat fish. The scientist can achieve survival rates of 50 to 60 per cent. in Dover soles up to this stage, but thereafter the problems are huge and research workers have found no easy way to rear and fatten soles after they have become flat fish. Here I am bound to say that my particular knowledge is at variance with some of that which has been expounded this afternoon. My information is that once Dover soles become flat fish they become extremely difficult to rear because they are nocturnal feeders, are very timid, and if they are fed food they just do not eat it; the food crumbles in the water, the water turns sour, and before you know where you are the fish have died. My information is that the mortality rate is about 95 per cent. after that particular stage.
With turbot, however, the situation is totally different. If they can be got up to the metamorphosis or flat fish stage, then the problem is relatively easy because they are voracious feeders; they fatten well and their food conversion is extremely good. They feed at all times of the day. But the difficulty with turbot is in the larval stage. The eggs are tiny, being only a millimetre in diameter, and a food must be found which

161
is small enough to feed to these larvae. This problem has been solved by cultivating minute fish, called rotifers, which are so small they can be seen only through a microscope; and then they are fed, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberely, said, rather larger fish from America which are called brine shrimps, but even then they are so small they have to be looked at through a microscope.
The point of these observations is to show that up to 1972 no one had reared turbot eggs from the eggs to the flat fish stage in captivity. But now this has been done at the Sea Fisheries Research Laboratory. I would pay tribute to them and would pay tribute indeed, with the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for all the work these research workers have done. In 1972 they succeeded in getting 100 of these tiny eggs up to the metamorphosis stage. In 1973 the figure was 1,000. In 1974 it was 2,000. This year it is hoped to get the number up to 10,000. When it is got up to 100,000 the problem will be overcome because that will not then be on a laboratory stage but on a commercial stage. The best results so far have been with only a 5 per cent. livability, and the hope is that if a 25 per cent. livability can be achieved then the project will become commercially viable.
Of course, whether the growing of fish is commercially viable depends upon the price received. At the moment only about 1,000 tons a year of turbot are produced and therefore there is scope for producing this fish. But any fish costs about £800 per ton of fish to produce, and so it is clear if we are speaking about turbot, which may sell at £1,200 a ton, or sole, which may sell at £1,600 to £2,000 a ton, that if these can be produced at £800 a ton it is commercially viable; but if, as with plaice, the price is lower than that then it is not a commercially viable operation. If it is possible to reduce the price of growing these fish there is scope for enlarging the types of species which can be commercially grown. Research is still being done to lower the costs. As my noble friend Lady Emmet said, one way is to use warm water from power stations. The odd thing is that plaice and sole react to this warmed water, but turbot apparently do not. Experiments are
162
being done by growing trout in salt water conditions, and indeed for lowering feed costs by feeding cheap whole fish like sprats as opposed to using fish meal which is imported.
We are always being told that protein will be in such short demand that soon we shall not be able to eat meat but will have to eat synthetic protein. Therefore, I asked a respected source whether, as fish are primarily protein eaters, we could feed synthetic protein to fish. I was told, "Oh, no; that wouldn't work". When I asked why not, the answer I was given was that "the fish might not like it"! I am bound to say that this could be undesirable, because the synthetic proteins have a high Deoxy Ribose Nucleic Acid content. I have no idea what it is, other than that this substance can be mutogenic—and has been in experimental organisms—and, as I understand it, it could be, but not necessarily is, carcinogenic. Therefore, my view is to go along with the fish and say that so far as synthetic proteins are concerned, let us not have them.
It is said that fish farming produces the biggest amount of protein per acre. That is not, of course, strictly true. Fish are carnivorous, and in order to achieve this output per acre you must feed fish to them; so you have to go out to the sea in ships to catch the fish in order to make fish meal to feed the fish which you are farming. Slightly cynical people might say, "Why mess about with fish farms? Why not let nature do it for you?" But one cannot escape the fact that if you produce the right conditions you can achieve some astonishing results.
My noble friend Lord Vernon referred to carp in Europe. It is perfectly true that many European countries eat and use carp and we do not. The Russians carried out some experiments with carp and found that a natural pond will produce about a cwt. of carp per acre. If you have a man-made pond of the right uniform depth, with plenty of sun, you can double that output to 2 cwt. per acre. If you then add some fertiliser and control the acidity, the output can be doubled again to 4 cwt. per acre. If you then supplement their diet with waste vegetable material and protein, the out-put can be increased to 2 tons per acre. Therefore, you can move from a natural production of one cwt. per acre to one of

163
2 tons per acre, and more, under controlled conditions.
The productivity of static water is limited by the level of oxygen in the water to a maximum of about 2 tons per acre; but trout farming, which, as many noble Lords have said, has been practised by Japan and Denmark for many years and more recently by us, employs a much more intensive stocking rate. The oxygen problem can be overcome either by having continuous water flowing through or by putting the fish in cages in the sea. In Japan they have achieved an average productivity of 67 tonnes per acre, and from our own results it seems not unreasonable to expect turbot outputs of 40 tons per acre.
Here I am bound to join in what might reasonably be described as the clamour of protest with regard to the present legal position, which not only is inadequate but is most unclear. If one wishes to cultivate fish in the sea one has to obtain several fishing Orders to do so. These Orders are frequently given to those who cultivate shellfish, and they relate to an area of land on the seabed. But if you wish to grow your fish in a cage or on a tray which rests on the seabed, you are entitled to do so. If you were to put the cage on a couple of bricks in order to lift it two inches off the seabed, I suppose that you may do so; but what is perfectly clear is that if you were to suspend the cage or to float it so that it was two inches off the seabed, you would not be entitled to the contents—or you may not be entitled to them. As the lawyers say, it depends on whether the fish was "reduced into possession" or whether it was still "wild as it swam within its confines". The mind boggles at the idea of two lawyers arguing over that particular point; it really is an absurdity.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye when he said that scientific progress with turbot—I think that the same was said by the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, about lobsters—is such that now you can have small turbot and small lobsters, but that you are breaking the law in having them. As my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said, the Immature Sea Fish Orders prevent you from having small turbot. Also,
164
it is an offence to have in your possession lobsters under nine inches. This was a perfectly sensible law which was introduced to prevent people from over-fishing; but it is an absurdity nowadays when fish farming of all kinds is becoming a commercial venture, and when research into it means that research workers, who are operating with hundreds of thousands of these creatures, are operating outside the law. Apart from dealing with the novel hazards—and, heaven knows, there are plenty of them—of this particular enterprise, those who are involving themselves with fish farming are having to wade through a legal morass which is usually to their disadvantage and which is certainly to their very great discouragement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give them some hope this afternoon that their prospects will be improved.
It has been said by others that the Department of Employment classifies fish farming as an industrial process, not as an agricultural process; therefore, it determines that fish farms are rateable. However, the Department of Trade and Industry says that fish farms are agricultural and, therefore, that if they are in development areas they are not eligible for development grants. Then the Ministry of Agriculture comes along and says, "Ah, but fish farms are not agricultural; therefore they cannot have recourse to capital grants." This is an absurd situation which I hope that the Government will try to put right.
We now have the situation where this industry has emerged extraordinarily over the last 10 years, and especially over the last five years. It can only change and it can only become even more important over the next 10 years. It is a producer of valuable food. It has a contribution to make to national food production, even to exports and to import savings. I think that the Government ought to encourage it and not, even unintentionally, to discourage it. The law governing fish farming ought to be altered and clarified and possibly even brought into line with EEC law where agricultural provisions include the farming of fish. There is some urgency over this, because action, especially on that part of fish farming which takes place within the sea, needs to be taken before the period

165
of derogation which we have been allowed over fishing comes to an end.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Craighton, referred to the 1970 Report of the Scottish Inshore Fisheries Committee which was headed by Lord Cameron. May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of what the report says. No doubt he has seen the report, but it will not be unhelpful to remind him of its contents. The report says this:
"There is a probability that within the next decade"—
and we have already gone halfway through it—
"the cultivation of some species of free-swimming sea fish on a commercial basis will become a practical proposition. The law as it stands at present is uncertain as to the extent of the power and right of the Crown and the public respectively in the matter of grants of the exclusive rights over areas of the sea bed for fish farming purposes and is unsatisfactory as a means of granting, protecting and controlling the exercise of these rights. The law on these matters, including the law governing the right to take shell fish, requires restatement and extension … ".
I very much hope that the Government will take that advice. This is a new industry and an exciting one, even if my guess is that it is a financially hazardous one, and at least it needs encouragement.
7.10 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, it would be the usual courtesy if I were to start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, how grateful I am to her for having introduced this Motion today. However, I must go on to say that when, yesterday, I found that I was to reply to the debate rather than speak in the early stages, I was somewhat appalled at the length of the speakers' list and I was not at all certain that I would, in fact, have any cause to thank her. But events have proved that the normal procedure was perfectly accurate. I have sat through many debates to which I was to reply; I have sat through many debates in which there were a number of very good speeches; I have also sat through many debates where there were a number of speeches which would have been very much better if they had never been made! That has not been the case today. I do not think I have ever heard a debate in which everyone made a contribution which was so worth listening
166
to, and I have been absolutely fascinated throughout. So we are doubly grateful to the noble Baroness for having made this possible for us.
Some time ago I was interviewed in connection with a programme about the House of Lords which was subsequently broadcast in Scotland by the BBC, and in the course of my interview I said that I had viewed with a certain amount of doubt a remark which was often made before I came here, that whatever was discussed in the House of Lords, no matter how unusual or abstruse the subject, an expert would be produced. I do not know whether or not this debate has produced 17 experts, but if each of those who has spoken has not been an expert in his or her own right, obviously there has been very close contact with experts, and I have the feeling that almost any of those who have taken part in the debate would be better able to reply to it than I am myself, even although I have had at my call my own experts. Incidentally, some of the statistics which were produced about turbot by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicated either that there was duplication of experts or that we have been speaking to the same people!
The debate today has been very wide ranging. We are grateful for the opportunity it has provided to clarify the Government's attitude towards fish farming in general. It falls into a number of related but separate compartments. Of course, the expertise applicable overlaps, but in fact there are three—or perhaps four—distinct areas of interest: marine fin fish farming, shellfish cultivation, the rearing of game fish for restocking or for the table, and coarse fish rearing, which is more wholly related to angling than the others. It is against a background of these different areas of activity that we need to consider the extent to which they can make a contribution, both toward shortfalls in the supply of protein and as an aid, even if small, to our balance of payments.
It may help your Lordships if I mention a few figures. We consume nearly 4½ million tons of meats of various sorts and a comparable amount of cereals each year. The total fish supplies landed in this country, including imports, amount to nearly 1·3 million tons. Fish farming

167
produces in Great Britain slightly more than one-thousandth of this figure, of which about two-thirds is produced for the table. The economics of fish farming at present appear to dictate the concentration of its efforts on the more expensive end of the food market. One obvious conclusion to draw from the very small part of the market which is served by fish farming is that the potential for increasing its proportion is obviously greater.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has drawn attention to the volume of fish production in Europe— 325,000 tons—but the breakdown of this figure shows that about three-quarters of it is carp. Very little carp is sold in this country for the table market—and more than one speaker has referred to this fact—and at this stage I welcome the cautionary notes entered by the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. It would be un-wise to encourage production of a fish for which as yet there is no obvious demand. We have only to look back at the efforts to persuade the people of this country that snoek was desirable to know how unwilling they are to eat something that is new to them. I am quite certain that many people go abroad and enjoy eating fish which they would never see on the market, and many times one asks what it is and finds that it cannot be translated into English because we do not have it in our waters and do not bring it into the country. We enjoy it there, but I am quite certain that if it appeared on the fishmonger's slab it would eventually finish up in the dustbin.
The rainbow trout farming industry in Europe is very much involved in prestige advertising and promotional marketing. There is no similar development in the United Kingdom. This might well be a priority for our trout farmers and would do much to stimulate the growth and prosperity of their industry. In this connection, I should like to refer to the remarkable speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. This was obviously a case of producing the expert. He is certainly an expert and I never imagined for one moment that someone would actually take part in the debate and would say, "Yes", this is what I am doing ".
168
A number of speakers referred to fish farming in different countries. My noble friend Lord Hale and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to it as far afield as China. My noble friend Lord Janner referred to what is being done in Israel, and if I were to visit the various countries in Europe which were mentioned, and Japan, just to get first-hand knowledge, it would be a welcome relief from the legislative burden of the next few months. I doubt very much whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would approve. However, the last time I had a similar opportunity was on an official visit to Denmark about ten years ago, when for the first time I saw rainbow trout farming on a really large commercial scale.
With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said about getting action, I was so impressed by what I saw and by some of the information I was given—for instance, about fishing for sand eels and conservation which went beyond what we were required to do under international regulations—that I pressed hard for some changes. While it would be totally wrong for me to take credit for anything that happened, I can say that I had some influence, and perhaps the two pieces of legislation which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, were not unrelated to the pressures which I exerted on my return from Denmark.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that he goes abroad again as soon as possible?
Lord HUGHES: No, my Lords. I have a cheaper suggestion to make, if the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will accept it. I should very much like to see what he is doing in this country, and then use that as an example to press inside the Departments.
Referring to feedingstuffs, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has mentioned the volume of our imports of fishmeal and suggested that we should be able ourselves to produce the raw material for the input into fish farming. This is a point to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, also referred. Obviously, it makes good sense to be able to do so, but we have to remember—and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, warned

169
us about this—that industrial fishing itself poses problems. If everyone had done what the Danes did to enable them to build up their industrial farming, I think our problems of conservation would have been very much more serious than they are at the present time.
Inevitably, other species of fish are caught in the small mesh nets used for this type of fishing, and problems of conservation are real indeed. None the less, the use of industrial fishing to provide additional feed for fish farming is something to which the industry should direct its attention. There are perhaps sections of the ocean, 200 miles out in the Atlantic, where one can safely fish for certain species, which probably the housewife would be quite unwilling to buy for cooking in her own kitchen, but which might be suitable for this particular purpose, and which would not create a conservation problem. I am happy to say that this is being seriously investigated by the Departments at the present time.
My Lords, the Motion before the House refers to the need to encourage fish farming in this country. The Government consider that they can play their part in this by the encouragement and undertaking of research and development work. A great deal is undertaken by the fisheries Departments to assist the development of freshwater and marine fish farming in collaboration, where appropriate, with the White Fish Authority, marine stations of the NERC and universities. On the marine side, research work on fish cultivation in Departmental laboratories began about 15 years ago in Lowestoft with attempts to rear plaice. Since then, work has been carried out at Port Erin in the Isle of Man in collaboration with the White Fish Authority who, in 1968, moved their base to Hunterston in Ayrshire. The current programme is aimed at providing the biological, engineering and economic information required for the establishment of a viable industry for the cultivation of marine fish.
My Lords, the prospects of major supplies becoming available from this source are at present slender. Of course, it is possible that techniques of marine fish cultivation will be developed and the existing problems overcome to enable us
170
to tap an additional source of high quality fish, for which there is a consumer demand in this country and Western Europe. The work is essentially long-term. It is necessary to overcome the problems associated with obtaining a uniform stock of breeding fish to produce high quality eggs and larvae. A reliable system of rearing them into juveniles has to be established and, perhaps most important, cheap feedingstuffs will have to be available to ensure that enterprises can be economic.
Under the normal conditions of fish farming, it will be essential to ensure adequate disease control and prevention of depredation by pests. The marine fish upon which work is being undertaken are plaice, sole, halibut and turbot. I do not know the extent to which there is any mixture of these along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the variety of possible names which were put in. It seems to me that if anything of that kind emerges, I hope they do not produce these names, because it will certainly put me off them. The idea of eating something and not being certain whether it was a survival from the French Revolution and those vehicles that went along to the guillotine fills me with horror. It is almost akin to the reaction of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to the synthetic protein. When the noble Earl talked about something that had to do with possible mutations from DNA, I wondered whether he was going to make the suggestion that there might be a fish with feathers, or a hen with fins!
The White Fish Authority is developing the technology on sole and turbot at Hunterston (utilising warm water from a power station) and in a sea loch at Ardtoe. We know that several commercial firms are also interested in this activity, and are either planning an entry into the business, or have, indeed, started work. Considerable progress has been made in developing means of successfully rearing plaice and sole. Unfortunately, however, plaice would not be economically viable in commercial terms if reared by fish farming methods. Sole, one of the traditionally high-priced species, can also be reared from the egg to marketable size, but the young fish are timid feeders and highly skilled husbandry is needed with attendant high labour costs.

171
Turbot have distinct advantages over sole because they are better feed converters, and adapt readily to domestication. Noble Lords will notice that although the language is different, the theory is the same as that put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it shows the confidence which he ought to have always in whatever I happen to say.
Lord HUGHES: No, my Lords; it simply reminds me that when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has access to the same experts as I have, I can accept what he says, but when he is putting it forward on his own initiative, I must treat what he says with a reasonable degree of doubt! The noble Earl is like me; sometimes he is bound to be right, but it is then only by accident. That was once said of me at local authority level, that I must be right sometimes, even if only by accident.
My Lords, the problems of rearing the young en masse from the egg remain. I do not want to repeat the statistics used by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, except to say that the survival rate at present is less than 1 per cent. If this problem is solved, turbot might be the most suitable fish for cultivation, particularly as their present market price is high.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, if I might be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, he will realise that there must be the same difficulty in feeding between two kinds of fish as there are between two sizes of individuals like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell!
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, tempts me into embarrassing comparisons. Halibut appears to be almost equally promising, but there are problems in maintaining the very large breeding fish required. Some investigation has been made into marketability of cultivated marine fish. Although they differ in colour from the same species caught in the sea, there is no reason to believe that they will be less acceptable to the consumer than sea fish. In this connection, tests carried out show that more than half of the people asked did not know the difference. Those who did detect a dif-
172
ference said they did not like it. Research has also been carried out on feedingstuffs, both live and artificial, and work on disease has identified some causes of serious loss. Work on this is proceeding.
Shellfish farming has been commercially exploited with considerable backing from Government and White Fish Authority research and development work. Sea mollusc hatcheries are in operation, and production of seed oysters is substantial. I saw this being carried out in Scotland a little over a year ago. Commercial interest is being shown in prawn cultivation, as a result of the successful rearing techniques developed by one of the Ministry's laboratories. In a sense, the problems of shellfish farming may be separated from the generality of problems which I have already touched upon. These creatures obviously differ in characteristics from those of other types of fish—most markedly in that they are largely sedentary. There is already a background of legislation specifically designed to cover some of the problems arising in the cultivation of shellfish. Of course, the Government understand the anxieties of those undertaking this activity, who feel that the legislation should be updated. This is a matter in which action can be taken when a suitable opportunity presents itself. In the present state of the legislative programme, your Lordships will not expect me to go any further than that tonight.
My Lords, turning to salmon and freshwater fisheries, there is no doubt that the number of trout rearing farms is increasing every year. The great majority of these are privately owned, and there is every appearance that they are a profitable undertaking. This was the only point on which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, did not specifically inform us, but I assume from the way he is still smiling that he is not losing a fortune. Many of these farms rear rainbow trout for restocking waters for angling. In this sense, the trout rearing industry is ancillary to angling. Also, there is an increasing number of rainbow trout farms which rear fish for food, but, as I have already made clear to your Lordships, the tonnage of protein produced is small, especially against the total intake of food in this country. There would have to be a most spectacular development of the industry if it were to be able to play more

173
than a minor role in the provision of food supplies. Nevertheless, there has been an increasing investment by commercial undertakings in the development of salmon and trout farms.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, did, I particularly wish to pay tribute to what Unilever have done. Perhaps this is the best encouragement in the long term. They have felt it worth while from the long-term point of view to make a massive investment in this particular development. There are not many firms or companies which can afford to do this sort of thing, but one of the benefits which must inevitably flow from it—when it has been shown how successfully they can do it— is that others will follow in the field without necessarily having to lay their hands on a similar amount of money at the out-set. The investment in salmon has been concentrated on sea fish farms in Scottish lochs. The fisheries Departments maintain liaison with them and do all they can to assist in their work. Recently, specific proposals have been worked out under the auspices of the Departmental Fisheries Research and Development Board for increased liaison on these matters. My Department is also planning a new research programme on salmonid farming covering important areas such as genetics, husbandry and nutrition. I am sure that these steps cannot but enhance the prospects of continuing the successful development work which has already been initiated.
My Lords, in replying to these debates I like to reply to most, if not all, of the points which have been raised. There have been so many expert points raised in this debate that this would be quite impossible, unless your Lordships are prepared to listen to me for the next two hours and unless I am prepared to stand here for the next two hours, which I am not. I am equally certain that your Lord-ships would not be prepared to sit there. I want to touch on one or two points. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, spoke about action. I do not know whether I laid a trap for myself by saying that perhaps some action had flowed from what I had done on a previous occasion, but certainly I can assure him that we are anxious to do something about the legal position; that the anomalies under existing legislation should be removed, and that the Government should
174
reserve areas for sea farming. These I have particularly noted, and I found it desirable to emphasise the matter because the two previous winding-up speeches (if I can so refer to them) by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, both touched on the same point. Obviously it is unsatisfactory that the legal position should be as it is at the present time. While I cannot guarantee immediate action on the legislation, I can guarantee early action on its consideration.
On the subject of the way this has expanded, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to the growth that could take place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to the way in which this had expanded in China. I think we ourselves are entitled to take a certain amount of satisfaction in the way in which our own people have gone ahead with this. Since 1965 the United Kingdom fish farming industry has increased its output from under 100 tons a year to roughly 1,500 tons in 1974. So while the figures are small, the rate of progress is really remarkable, and if it goes on at anything like that rate the wishes of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, may come about much more quickly than the more cautious among us may have thought possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, my noble friend Lord Hale, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and others, said that fish farming ought to be the responsibility of one Department. It is. It is the responsibility at the present time, on this side of the Border, of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Whether we call it fishing or agriculture, it still lies in that Ministry. In my own country it is the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. I may say that all the people that I had meetings with on this matter were fisheries experts, but they are part of the combined Department. But, like other things, there are parts of it which are affected by other Departments.
When it comes to the question of valuation, it does not matter whether it is a beef farm, a poultry farm or fish farm, it becomes the responsibility of that Department to decide on valuation and rating. On that aspect the Department of the Environment comes in in England and

175
the Scottish Development Department in Scotland. The White Fish Authority, to which so many wellearned tributes have been paid in this debate, are a body linked to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Highlands and Islands Development Board, which plays an important role in this connection in Scotland, is a regional body covering not only fish farming.
The question of derating came up. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, made a comparison with the broiler industry. This is, of course, the only part of the agricultural field which does not get any grants at all, so it was not a terribly good comparison, except from the point of view of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who did not want grants; what he wanted was the removal of disabilities and discouragement, as I think also did the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. On the question of derating there is a difference, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, knows this well, because he and I corresponded about this some years ago. If a broiler industry is an operation associated with the land, it is subject to derating; but if you were sufficiently foolish to take a warehouse in the middle of Edinburgh or Leeds and do your broiler rearing there it would not get any derating at all. This has already been established, not on quite that scale, but where it was not on the land itself; derating was not available. So there may well be a comparison on this level.
What I would suggest, if it has not already been done, is that the industry, or any of those of your Lordships who would wish to intervene on its behalf, might wish to direct the attention of the Layfield Committee to this aspect, because they are considering all aspects of rating, and it must include the question of derating. This might be a worth while way of having this looked at reasonably early, because we expect this Committee to report before the end of this year.
There is one other point to which I should refer (and I am just inside my time limit) and that is the training facilities for fish farmers, to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the Hampshire College of Agricul-
176
ture is setting up a special two-year course for fish farmers dealing with salmonids and coarse fish. That is, at least a start in this direction. There are so many other points to which I would have wished to refer. What I should like to do, as is usual in these cases, is two-fold; I should like to write to noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken, and to the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, who in Scottish terms, of course, is not a Baroness, on any points on which I have not touched.
I should also wish to assure your Lord-ships that I will make certain that my right honourable friends are made aware of the terms of this debate, particularly those points where the Government are being asked to look into aspects of the problem. The importance of a debate of this kind from the Government's point of view—and I hope from the point of view of your Lordships—is not what the Minister says in reply, but the use which the Departments make, in due course, of the material to help to form their attitudes. In this case, we have had a debate which I am certain will have as great an influence on Government thinking as any debate it has ever been my pleasure to take part in.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily interesting debate. If one promotes a debate in this House, it is rather like going out in a trawler deep sea fishing and wondering what is going to come up. This House is the most remarkable place from the point of view of experience of out of the way subjects. When I started on this debate I wondered whether I should have one or two speakers, or three, instead of which we have had 18 expert and absolutely first-class speeches. I feel a certain maternal pride in having two maiden speakers—though perhaps so far as age is concerned it might be that I could not consider them from the maternal point of view. I sat under Lord Stuart's father in another place, and I was very touched that the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, should have come because he is only just recovered from an operation on his hip and he should not really have been here at all. His speech was admirable. I should like to thank them, and the other speakers who have supported this debate.

177
I have learned the most extraordinary amount. Four month ago I knew nothing about fish fanning at all, and I have learned about it and become thoroughly immersed in it. If I was 20 years younger, I would start tomorrow. I was tremendously impressed by the study that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had put into his speech. What he has learned in the last week is quite phenomenal, and I congratulate him. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and tell him that when I started my speech I said that I felt that fish farming should be complementary with deep-sea farming. We should work it in together, and there should be no rivalry of any kind. We should help each other so far as possible.
So far as carp are concerned, in the Middle Ages everybody had to live on carp. You would not get any game in the winter. During the war we had to live on whale steaks, and the question of getting the housewife to take on new types of fish is not quite so problematical as it might seem. I should like to conclude by saying that I was very much consoled by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. There were little gleams of sunshine. He said that there might be legal action taken when the opportunity is suitable. I do not say that that is
178
very concrete, but it is certainly something. Then, again, what he said about his Department really taking to heart what has been said today in detail will be helpful to our fish farmers. I do not know whether noble Lords realise that our galleries were full of fish farmers in the early part of the afternoon. I think that they will have been very pleased with the interest shown in this debate. I know that this is a young industry—it has growing pains—and that there are many problems about legal changes which will have to be made. But I feel that we have made a start today, and I should like to thank everybody who has helped. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NURSING HOMES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.