Sitting of 23 June 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BRITISH LINEN BANK ORDER CONFIRMATION
Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the British Linen Bank; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 29th June and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the recruitment, equipment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I am satisfied that recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary is proceeding satisfactorily and that arrangements for the provision of equipment and the training of officers by the Police Authority and the Chief Constable respectively meet the needs of the force.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister particularly look at the need for facilities for training on the new weapons? Will he also do all he can to speed up the supply of the promised new vehicles and examine the problem caused by the shortage of accommodation for the regional crime squads?
    Mr. Dunn: The Chief Constable has a working party which discusses these matters and advises him on them. They are continually reviewed. The Chief Constable is aware of the adjustments required to keep pace with the new equipment.
    Mr. Neave: Will the Minister convey to the RUC our congratulations on its handling of the recent strike organised by the United Ulster Unionist Action Council? How many people have been charged with intimidation and will appear before the courts under the Protection of Property and Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1969? Is the Minister aware that the firm stand by the Secretary of State that picketing with intimidation was against the law greatly sustained the police in their difficulty on that occasion?
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. and hon. Friends have conveyed to the members of the RUC, through the Chief Constable, our congratulations on the performance which they managed to achieve during a most difficult and challenging time. We applaud their courage

    1715
    in many of the things they did. From memory, I think that about 40 people have been charged with intimidation under the Protection of Property and Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1969. About 110 charges have still to be processed and have to go before the Director of Public Prosecutions before further action can be taken.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister say whether the RUC's obvious impartiality during the strike has helped it towards achieving peace in the "green" areas? Has it increased recruits to the force from those areas?
    Mr. Dunn: The impartiality of the RUC is recognised. It was projected in the way that it succeeded. It is difficult to know to which "green" areas the hon. Member refers. In the main, the people recognise what is being done. More and more they are prepared to accept that the RUC is serving the Province as a whole.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: What progress has been made with the recruitment of Roman Catholics to the force?
    Mr. Dunn: The recruitment of Roman Catholics is still not as good as we could wish. There are difficulties, but we hope that following the last confrontation in the Province Roman Catholics will recognise that there is a need for their services.
    Mr. Fitt: Has there been any lowering of the standards required for recruitment to the RUC? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of suspicion attached to the standards required for recruitment to the RUC Reserve? Will he undertake, even though there appears to be a shortage of personnel in the RUC and the RUC Reserve, that the same calibre of candidate will be sought and that there will be no lowering of standards?
    Mr. Dunn: All I can say is that to the best of my knowledge there has been no lowering of standards. As far as I am aware—I can only take the figures—about 1,000 people have made applications and of those only 258 have been accepted. That is an indicator that follows the pattern of what has gone previously. That is the only reply that I can give at present

    Political Talks
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has had with the political parties in Northern Ireland during the Whitsun Adjournment to lead to a political settlement in the Province.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with party political leaders in the Province.
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks he has had with parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about his talks with political leaders.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): During the week beginning 23rd May I met separately representatives of the Official Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to discuss security and constitutional matters. Following these meetings, on 8th June I announced a package of measures which offered an intensification of the security effort against the terrorists within existing policy. This has since been generally welcomed.
    In discussions with the parties on constitutional issues, I explained that a fully devolved legislative government remained the goal of the Government, as it is of the main political parties, but I concluded that the parties were not yet ready to come to an agreement on the form this should take. Some parties did, however, show an interest in continuing the discussion by exploring the desirability of some interim form of administration short of full devolution, and this is being done.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Secretary of State understand that there are many outside the ranks of his own party who would want respectfully to commend him very warmly for the firmness he showed in standing up to the attempted disruption of the Province? Does not the repudiation of the leadership of the

    1717
    hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) give the right hon. Gentleman a real opportunity for political initiative? Will he take the House a little more into his confidence and perhaps speculate on the areas in which, as he said in his answer, interim progress might be made rather than attempting a long-term solution at this stage?
    Mr. Mason: I am much obliged for what the hon. Gentleman said initially, but, of course, any firm resolution by any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have been of no avail if the people themselves had not been prepared to contest the intimidation that took place and on occasions to march to work in spite of the fact that there was no transport to take them there.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I told all the political parties I met that I was prepared to consider an interim arrangement which would involve the devolution of real power and responsibility provided that it commanded widespread support from both parts of the community.
    Concerning the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), he has not shown an interest particularly on that score. I think that the Democratic Unionist Party and the hon. Member for Antrim, North were prepared as a first step, but probably no more, to look at the democratisation of the area boards.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to act cautiously, but does he agree that a top level of local government would at least give the Province comparability with the rest of the United Kingdom in the way in which administrative local government is carried out? May I suggest that this is a natural first step which would not really carry him into dangerous and difficult ground?
    Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to understand the political difficulties in Northern Ireland, as distinct from observing them from this House. There are eight major parties in Northern Ireland. Four of them survived the last election, and not one of them, at this stage, is prepared to look at seriously and quickly a form of county council or an upper tier of local government. One party would believe that it
    1718
    would be a divergence from the main goal. Another party would fear that it was giving one of the parties in Northern Ireland unnecessary responsibility too quickly and recognises that participation might come about without it getting its proper bargaining rights. That sort of area is the area of discussion now between the parties concerned. I am hopeful that there will be a solution, but it will take a little more than hon. Members realise.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the asperity of the Secretary of State towards my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), may I ask whether he is aware that my hon. Friend has worked in Northern Ireland for a number of years and has a good deal of knowledge of the affairs of the Province? As Northern Ireland is a Province and not a colony of the United Kingdom, when Ministers have important statements to make, whether on security or anything else, will they ensure that Parliament is the first to hear, and not the Press?
    Mr. Mason: I think that that really depends upon whether the statement that is being made in the Province is of a major change of policy. If that be so, of course the House ought to be properly informed and a statement made. But that must be a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State and his Ministers in the Province. I know to which matter the hon. Gentleman refers, and on this occasion I did not think that it necessitated a major statement in the House.
    I also ought to let the hon. Gentleman know that there is no personal difference between his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and myself. However, it is as well to remind the House that there is quite a large number of political parties in Northern Ireland, which take very strong and different points of view, especially on political movement to devolved executive government with its own legislature. That is where we would like to go. It is the objective of the Government, and I should like to help them along that path.
    Mr. McNamara: At the risk of running foul of my right hon. Friend's asperity, may I add my congratulations to him and to his colleagues for their work during the recent strike? My right hon. Friend talked about political initiatives. He will have observed the comment of the new

    1719
    Prime Minister of the Republic. When does he hope to start to meet his opposite numbers? Have any tentative dates been fixed yet even though there is no actual formation of a Ministry?
    Mr. Mason: Once again, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks at the outset of his question. At this stage, I have no plans to meet either Mr. Lynch or whomever he appoints as Ministers. It is a little too early to say. He is not officially appointed Taoiseach until 5th July. We do not know who will be appointed as Ministers, especially for foreign affairs. Therefore, it is a little too early to say. As I have stated previously, I hope that the close co-operation and the good working relationships that were established with the former Government will continue, and I do not see any reason why they should not continue.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman spoke disparagingly of Ulster's political problems, but does he not recognise that under the present inept Government and under direct rule Northern Ireland suffers from an alarming and heartbreaking increase in unemployment, rocketing prices, lower wages, a lower standard of living, and a stultifying bureaucracy? Is it not about time to hand over Ulster affairs to an Ulster Government and an Ulster Parliament on the British system?
    Mr. Mason: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. There is now an unemployment rate of 11·2 per cent. in Northern Ireland, which is nearly twice the average for Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, however—without being too carping a critic—that Her Majesty's Government have been taking special measures to try to help Northern Ireland in its economic difficulties. My regional friends might disagree with me, but we have managed to save the regional employment premium for the whole of Northern Ireland. It has been phased out completely in Great Britain. That has saved 10,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. When we were called upon to make a contribution to the public expenditure cuts of £1,000 million, Northern Ireland gave a nominal £5 million. It should also be recognised that the major effort by Her Majesty's Government to get the two LPGs for Harland and Wolff has made the biggest practical and psychological breakthrough for Northern Ireland and has given it the first chance in the world
    1720
    of building the most technologically advanced ships on the stocks today.
    Mr. John Ellis: Following the last outburst by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), does my right hon. Friend agree that some of us are of the view that we are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to put forward solutions that we may then disagree with? We are looking to members of political parties in Ulster to come forward with some ideas whereby rapprochement can be achieved in seeking to find a path forward. My right hon. Friend must not go further than he has done, otherwise he will fall into the trap that the hon. Member for Down, North wants him to fall into.
    Mr. Mason: Yes, I think that there is great truth in what my hon. Friend says. There are some Opposition Members who want vigorously to discuss matters but never come to a solution. It must also be remembered that we are paying a major subvention in order to help the economic difficulties of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: It was a matter of surprise that the right hon. Gentleman did not choose to make his major and welcome statement about the strengthening of security and the increase of penalties for terrorist crimes to this House and not first to the Press. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Press on 8th June. Could not the statement have waited until we came back here?
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that I treated the House with discourtesy. We have been working for some time on the intensification of security within present policy, and there was no change in policy. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have been urging me for months to intensify security, and therefore I made my statement at the earliest possible moment without discourtesy to the House.

    Disabled Persons (Telephone Service)
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider financial assistance for the introduction of a disabled persons' telephone bureau which would be structured on similar lines to that which is currently operating in Manchester.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I understand that the telephone information service for the disabled in Manchester is operated by a small number of volunteers who are themselves disabled and who provide the service from their own homes. So far there has been no demand for a similar scheme in Northern Ireland, but if any disabled persons or organisations representing them wish to have such a scheme introduced their views will be considered sympathetically.
    Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his reply. Will he accept that a number of people involved in the voluntary social services are anxious to introduce such a scheme, and that the introduction of this scheme would cost hundreds rather than thousands of pounds? Will he be prepared to meet a number of interested people in order to discuss this matter further in the immediate future?
    Mr. Carter: My noble Friend the Minister of State is responsible for this matter, and in speaking for him I know that he would be only too pleased to meet people who might come forward with any scheme. It does not involve a great deal of money and we are quite prepared to talk about it.

    Police Authority (Building Projects)
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Northern Ireland Police Authority has budgeted for in the year 1977–78 on capital building rojects.
    Mr. Dunn: Provision of £3,820,000 has been made in Police Authority estimates for capital building projects in the year 1977–78.
    Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind that the Minister reneged on his promise to the people of Lurgan to rebuild their police station, will he look into the budget and try to find a few pounds in order to clear and secure the site which we hope will eventually be used to rebuild the station, so that I can convince those people that he is genuine and honest in his assurance that they will have that station soon?
    Mr. Dunn: I do not share the hon. Member's strictures upon me. He would not expect me to do so. Indeed, I tried
    1722
    to explain to him during an Adjournment debate exactly why this decision was made. I thought he had accepted it then. I shall, however, bring his comments to the notice of those who are concerned.

    Terrorist Murders (Penalty)
    Mr. Win. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now take steps to restore the death penalty for murders committed by terrorists in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ross: Is not the Secretary of State aware that when members of the security forces are captured by the IRA in Northern Ireland they cannot look forward to a prison cell but only to the most cruel torture and eventual death? Will he also accept that people in Northern Ireland believe that terrorism will not be finally defeated until the sentences of the "godfathers" of terrorism are matched by society?
    Mr. Mason: I am sure that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland would not want capital punishment to be brought back for conviction on a major charge. They are fully aware that such a course would bring back the full depth of sectarian hatred in Northern Ireland. The first man to hang on a rope, whether Protestant or Catholic, would set off once again the sectarian hatred which we are managing now to sink into the past. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will help to explain to his constituents that capital punishment has gone. That was decided by the House and, as far as we are concerned, it will not return.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that after all that has happened in the last few years in Northern Ireland, and even branching out further on occasions, it is very sad that he should have to answer such a sectarian question as that put by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that hanging or shooting anyone at this stage by the process of judicial murder would be bound to result in inflaming the difficult situation, so that the whole problem would hang round our necks even more than it does at the moment?
    Mr. Mason: Hanging has been abolished in Northern Ireland since 1973. I am firmly convinced that if we brought it back the first man to be hanged would be declared a martyr. If he were a member of the Provisional IRA, it would give rise to a great deal of IRA propaganda and help its cause immensely.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Secretary of State aware of the universal anxiety of prison officers and their families in all parts of the United Kingdom about their own safety? Will he consider the position of prison officers?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman would appear to want me to go back on my statement step by step, through prison officers or policemen, on the way to the restoration of capital punishment. I am not prepared to do that. In the Irish Republic the Government still have that right, but I believe that there have been no hangings, even in the Republic, since 1954.
    Mr. Craig: Did I understand the Secretary of State to say that the result of the judicial process can be sectarian?
    Mr. Mason: The result of the judicial process as at present carried out in Northern Ireland is to treat all the terrorists as criminals, to charge them and, when they are convicted, put them in gaol, and for none of them to be a martyr and for none to be treated as a political prisoner who can get an amnesty.

    Housing Action Areas
    Mr. Fittasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many housing action areas have been declared in Belfast; and what is the future programme for housing action areas in the city.
    Mr. Carter: Of some 60 potential housing action areas in Belfast, three have already been declared by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the consent of the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland). A further 24 areas have been short-listed for declaration over the next two years. The Housing Executive will be responsible for most action areas, but there will also be significant housing association involvement.
    Mr. Fitt: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what specific features are
    1724
    required to be presented before an area can be declared a housing action area? Is he satisfied that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is aware of the urgency of the problem and that it has the resources to use in those areas?
    In looking at this matter, will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House and assure himself that in an area in Belfast where there are perfectly good houses in existence which have recently been renovated, such as those in Hamill Street, they will not be demolished to make way for a roadway?
    Mr. Carter: We are currently going through a public inquiry on the subject of roadways, and it would not be right for me to make any comment on the last point. As to the awareness of the Housing Executive of the problems of housing in Belfast, my hon. Friend must know that the Housing Executive, the Department and the Administration are more aware than anyone. My hon. Friend might be aware that, in order to heighten the public awareness of these problems, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came with me to the worst areas of Belfast earlier this week.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we shall leave no stone unturned—[Interruption.] That was perhaps an inappropriate remark. One of the unfortunate things about housing in Belfast is that so much of it is now one stone piled upon another. But we shall do all we possibly can not only to preserve decent housing but also to replace the deplorable stock of bad housing which continues to exist in Belfast.

    Detonators
    Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the marking of detonators for use in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland began; and when the security forces first recovered a detonator so marked.
    Mr. Dunn: Marking began during the latter part of 1971, and the first marked detonators were recovered shortly afterwards.
    Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Is he satisfied, however, that the present requirements for marking detonators with the country

    1725
    of their intended use are sufficient for their control, bearing in mind that the key to an explosion is a detonator?
    Mr. Dunn: I am satisfied, and the best advice that has been given to me is that most of the detonators still in circulation are those that were acquired long before 1971. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, their life is very long-lasting.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I travelled home from London to Belfast yesterday with a Member of the other place who had on his person two detonators, and this despite the fact that he had gone through the security check at London Airport? Does not that show how easy it is to transport these vital pieces of equipment to the terrorist, and that the Minister should be taking all measures possible to stop this traffic?
    Mr. Dunn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me the name of the person who acted so illegally. If we can deal with that matter, we can perhaps get the others who may be following that bad example. I would add that although I am pleased he came from Belfast I am not pleased at his previous remarks.
    Mr. Freud: Does not the Minister agree that it is much more important to guard the detonators from the place of manufacture to the place where they are intended to be used rather than marking them? What is happening at the moment is that they get stolen and are illicitly used.
    Mr. Dunn: There are a thousand and one ways in which detonators are obtained. It is not always in transit. They are sometimes taken from storage and sometimes from the place of manufacture. To guard them would be a costly exercise. The way that they are being dealt with is, I believe, the best way of all that has been suggested.
    Mr. Goodhart: As the security forces are finding many unmarked detonators, will the Government reconsider their rather neutral attitude to the Detonator Bill now being guided through another place by Lord Brookeborough, which would markedly intensify restrictions on marking on this side of the Irish Sea?
    Mr. Dunn: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall bring it to the attention of all concerned.

    Ships' Dues (Carlingford Lough)
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to report progress in resolving the dispute over ships' dues at Carlingford Lough.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): The Carlingford Lough Commissioners were asked in November last year to submit a fresh appreciation of their claim against Greenore Ferry Services and the action which might be open to them to pursue through the courts. This has not yet been received but I understand that the Commissioners hope to have the legal advice within a matter of weeks.
    Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the legal approach does not produce results within a reasonable period, this is a matter on which a solution ought to be sought at a somewhat higher level between the two countries concerned for the evident benefit of both?
    Mr. Concannon: I have not ruled out the approach that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I think I should wait until I see the Commissioners before I make a decision.

    Judgment Enforcement Procedures
    Mr. Craigasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer given on 19th May 1976, whether the committee of his officials reviewing the judgment enforcement procedures embodied in the Judgment (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) has completed its work; and whether the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has been asked to consider the need for changes having regard to the dissatisfaction among the legal profession over the existing procedures.
    Mr. Carter: Yes. The Committee has completed its work and interested parties, including the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, have been consulted.
    Mr. Craig: May I take it from that that a working committee of the Supreme

    1727
    Court will be established? If that is so, I hope that there will be adequate representation from the solicitors' profession.
    Mr. Carter: I cannot give a positive response on the right hon. Gentleman's first point about a working party. We shall consult everyone involved. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that an Order in Council will be brought forward after all the discussions have taken place sometime later this year.

    Employment
    Mr. John Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently employed in Northern Ireland; and how this compares with 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the most recent unemployment figures in Northern Ireland, giving male unemployment figures for townships with at least 15,000 population.
    Mr. Concannon: The results of the census of employment taken in June of each year show that, in 1976, 491,600 persons were employed in Northern Ireland, an increase of 25,800 over the number employed 10 years ago and an increase of 51,000 over the number employed 15 years ago. Strictly comparable figures are not available prior to 1959, but a crude comparison with 1956 indicates an increase of 45,100.
    As the answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is in the form of a tabular statement, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Ellis: Can my hon. Friend say what is being done about youth unemployment? Is it true that the position is likely to be alleviated once we get over the birth rate bulge and that the figures will then follow the birth rate in this country?
    Mr. Concannon: The bulge in the birth rate in the rest of the United Kingdom took place in 1960 and is now showing itself in the number of school leavers. The bulge in Northern Ireland has always been a bulge in Northern Ireland. The birth figures there per thousand population are well above those of the rest of
    1728
    the United Kingdom and create an unemployment situation in which we have to find one-third more jobs for school leavers than we have to find elsewhere.
    I would tell my hon. Friend that various schemes for countering unemployment among young people are going on with great speed. We have 10 times the amount of training processes in Northern Ireland that we have in the rest of the United Kingdom. At present, the number of places for the young is five short of 4,000.
    Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister satisfied with the contribution of the Northern Ireland Development Agency? Can he give some instances of employment created by the Agency?
    Mr. Concannon: I shall never be satisfied with the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland until it has come down to a level that equates with the rest of the United Kingdom. NIDA has done, and is doing, a practical job, not only in creating jobs in Northern Ireland but in saving a lot of jobs. I give as one instance a NIDA factory creating 300 jobs in an area of high unemployment in Belfast. That is a great contribution.
    Mr. Freud: When the Minister realises his ambition of reducing the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland to that in the rest of the country, will he bear in mind the number of people employed specifically in security in the Province?
    Mr. Concannon: Yes. Unfortunately, well over 30,000 people are employed in security in the Province. I should like to see unemployment figures without that increase.
    Following is the statement:
    The most recent source of information is the unemployment statistics for 9th June 1977. At that date the number of males registered as unemployed at employment services offices in townships with a population of over 15,000 was as follows:

    Bangor

    …

    …

    695

    Belfast

    …

    …

    14,193

    Carrickfergus

    …

    …

    553

    Larne

    …

    …

    533

    Lisburn

    …

    …

    936

    Newtownards

    …

    …

    713

    Ballymena

    …

    …

    1,033

    Coleraine

    …

    …

    1,234

    Lurgan

    …

    …

    1,180

    Portadown

    …

    …

    739

    Londonderry

    …

    …

    3,909

    House Building Standards
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to ensure that those house builders who fail to build to a reasonable standard must make good the defects which develop in a building within a certain period from the date of construction.
    Mr. Carter: No, Sir. I am satisfied that effective administration of the existing legislation will protect house buyers against builders who fail to build houses to the required standard.
    Mr. Kilfedder: It will be no surprise that I am disappointed with that reply. Surely the purchase of a home represents a considerable financial burden, particularly when taken on by young people. They therefore ought to be protected from inferior materials and from bad workmanship by some scandalous house builders, who, when asked to remedy defects, refuse to do so. Will the Minister look at this matter again?
    Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would introduce legislation. Although I said that I shall not do that, that does not mean that I or my Department are not concerned about building standards. We have been in correspondence about a particular problem and I take the matter extremely seriously. Administrative machinery is available in order to protect house buyers, and I am very concerned that we should use it to the utmost. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member from Northern Ireland discovers cases where builders are not building to adequate standards, we shall use all the machinery and powers that we have to ensure that the situation is remedied.
    Mr. Mellish: In the rest of the United Kingdom this matter is dealt with by the National House Builders Registration Council. That is a voluntary body which has done a magnificent job on this side of the water, where no house without a certificate would be approved by a building society. Why does not Northern Ireland take a lesson from us and, apart from living with each other irrespective of religion, encourage builders to build houses properly and get a certificate for them?
    Mr. Carter: The NHBRC has now become the NHBC. We have a parallel organisation in Northern Ireland. I have had recent discussions with it and have made known that I want to see a more rigorous interpretation of the powers devolved to that organisation to protect the consumer. We must remember that we are concerned not only with the building industry but with the consumer, the person who buys the house.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that excellent work is being done by the Northern Ireland National House Building Council, as the Minister of State well knows and as I can personally testify? Will he recommend to house purchasers to make sure that they buy only from registered house builders who get the protection of the scheme?
    Mr. Carter: That is quite true. I am aware of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's association with the NHBRC. I must stress that there is room for improvement in Northern Ireland. I am anxious, as I am sure is the NHBC, to see an improvement in the surveillance of building standards.

    Education (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards an integrated education system in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Carter: My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Melchett, will be speaking on this subject in another place later today. I would not wish to anticipate his remarks.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a great step forward in Northern Ireland if the education system were integrated? How soon does he expect to see progress made?
    Mr. Carter: There are differing views in Northern Ireland about this whole issue. It is an issue on which both sections in the community have different views. My noble Friend has instigated discussions between all the elements involved. Irrespective of what we are trying to do in secondary education, we shall continue to consider ways and methods of extending the principle of integrated education, which to some extent already exists.
    Mr. Grylls: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the Government's view on integrated education, and especially their response to the Bill that is to be introduced in another place this afternoon by Lord Dunleath? Will he tell the House why an important statement on secondary education was made not in the House of Commons but outside? Why did that happen?
    Mr. Carter: It happened because in the judgment of my noble Friend it was right that he should make that statement in the House of Lords. I am aware that some people have said that the statement should have been made in this House. The plain fact is that we have not heard such criticism from Northern Ireland Members or from anyone in Northern Ireland. My noble Friend, who is responsible for education, thought that the right place to make it was in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Fernyhough: As I presume my hon. Friend knows what his noble Friend will be saying in the House of Lords, what inhibits him from telling Members of this place what his noble Friend will be telling those in the House of Lords?
    Mr. Carter: The subject is the responsibility of my noble Friend. Although I could tell my right hon. Friend in general what my noble Friend will be saying in another place, I could not be as specific as perhaps he might want me to be.
    Mr. Neave: Surely the point is that the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Melchett made the statement to the Press last week in full. Why did he not wait to make it in Parliament?
    Mr. Carter: That was on an entirely different subject, the 11-plus. My noble Friend will be making a general statement on education policy this afternoon.
    Sir Nigel Fisher: Do the Cowan Report proposals mean two sets of comprehensive schools, one for Protestants and one for Catholics? If so, that is expensive as well as divisive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extraordinary that shared schools, the only constructive education suggestion in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, are barely mentioned in the Cowan Report, although incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the subject of Lord
    1732
    Dunleath's Bill that is to be introduced in another place this afternoon, which I hope very much the Government will not oppose?
    Mr. Carter: I cannot anticipate what my noble Friend will be saying in another place. The hon. Gentleman's views on integrated education are well known, but he must know that in Northern Ireland the subject is a matter of deep controversy. One side has one view and the other side has a completely different view. The Government have an impartial role. If we see signs in the community that there is a pressing requirement for greater speed towards integration, we shall encourage it.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman will not act in matters that are controversial? Surely the present Home Secretary promised a conference on integrated education over a year ago. The Government are dragging their feet on this issue as they are on divorce and family law reform, which is urgently needed in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Carter: I do not think that that is a fair accusation. My noble Friend and his predecessors did all they could to pursue integrated education and to discover the precise state of affairs. As for saying that we have burked the issue because it is controversial, if the hon. Gentleman considers other aspects of education he will remember, for example, that we have announced the abolition of the 11-plus. That is a clear indication that in education we are prepared to grasp the nettle even though it may be controversial.

    QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER (GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD.)
    Mr. Speaker: I introduce a brief word of caution before we turn to the Prime Minister's Questions. I want the House to know how I propose to exercise my discretion in respect of the sub judice rule if there are questions about Grunwick. Questions which in general terms include the conduct of the police and the crowds will be allowed. However, in exercising my discretion in respect of the sub judice rule I shall disallow any

    1733
    reference to arrests where charges are pending or cases due to be heard. I think that this holds the balance between the rights of the House and avoiding creating prejudice about cases before the courts.

    EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (DIRECT ELECTIONS)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland concerning direct elections to a European Assembly.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): None recently.
    Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly have a word with the Irish Prime Minister about the whole principle of the inflated salaries of about £25,000 and allowances of about £25,000 which it is proposed to pay to the Members of the European Assembly, if any? Does he realise that it would cause great umbrage among the British people if they received that amount? Could the surplus over and above the salary of British Members of Parliament be collected from them, paid into the Consolidated Fund and redistributed to us?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen references in the Press to the proposed salaries but I do not know whether they are right. If they are right, I regard them together with the allowances as grossly inflated beyond the responsibilities of the work to be done. I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's interesting and ingenious suggestion.
    Mr. Spearing: When the Prime Minister next meets the Prime Minister of Eire, will he draw his attention to the fact that we are now paying a levy of about £50 a ton on imports of wheat from Canada? Will he ask him whether he supports that levy in view of the fact that the forthcoming Euro-elections are to be for direct rule, which will determine such levies as Britain might pay? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Leader of the Opposition would be wiser to allow her party a completely free vote, which my right hon. Friend has had the wisdom to give to those on the Government Benches?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland
    1734
    will be interested to hear about our internal domestic arrangements. As for matters of legislation here, I have the feeling that he and I will be discussing rather different issues when we meet. He has already indicated to me—at least, he has already intimated publicly—that he will be seeking a meeting. As for the suggestion of my hon. Friend, it is not a bad idea, is it?
    Mr. Dykes: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the ease, skill and rapidity with which the French have processed ratification of and legislation for European direct elections, despite a reputation for a high degree of nationalism? With the introduction of the Bill on Friday, does the right hon. Gentleman hope to emulate the French example?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I shall be discussing the French example with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, nor many other interesting matters which arise out of the European Community. I do not really like the use of the word "process" in respect of legislation in this House, especially after what we went through yesterday.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Whether or not the Prime Minister of Eire supports direct elections to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade him to sign the European convention on extradition?
    The Prime Minister: It has always been our view that it would be a good thing for States to sign the convention, and that remains our policy. Although I express that view, I do not think it would be a good thing to begin by impressing that point on a newly-arrived Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be greeting Her Majesty the Queen on her arrival at Barry Docks.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister find time to visit the Grunwick picket line to get a fairer assessment of the situation than the Tory Leader, who sends her lackeys and message boys to support a ruthless employer, or the other member of the Shadow Cabinet, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who does not have the guts to withdraw his unsubstantiated allegations about the Secretary of State for Employment using unfair, very foul and illegal methods to coerce people into joining trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: I shall not visit the picket line at Grunwick. I understand, and I am very glad to hear, that the General Secretary of APEX has now decided—I think that I made the suggestion to him first—that he should identify pickets by arm bands or in some other way so that those who latch on to this in order to turn an industrial dispute into a political battle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that applies to the National Association for Freedom as well as to the International Socialists—can be kept clear of this industrial dispute. [An HON. MEMBER: "Identify the police."] I hope—I say this because I think that this situation is getting extremely serious —that legitimate pickets, properly identified, can be allowed to operate. Those who wish to demonstrate in support of the workers who have been dismissed at this factory should be separately organised into a demonstration and clearly distinguished from the pickets. That would make the job of the police very much easier in trying to sort out this dispute.
    As regards the interjection about identifying the police, every police officer carries a number as a means of identification. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not plainclothes men."] If there are complaints about their behaviour, they can be properly investigated through the new machinery which has recently been set up. That is the way to handle it.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister, arising out of the answer he has just given, whether he is really asking people not to join the picket lines —he recognises that numbers themselves can be intimidating and can obstruct— and that he wishes to give his full
    1736
    support to the police in the way in which they are carrying out their dangerous duties?
    Mr. Flannery: They are hooligans: we saw them.
    Mrs. Thatcher: What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to protect the right of the law-abiding citizen to go peacefully to work?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Lady issued a statement to the Press last night, although it was totally unnecessary to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It was another example of politicians latching on to this dispute. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his officers are in no doubt about the position and the Government's support. This is my reply to the right hon. Lady, because she may have overlooked the fact that her deputy leader asked a question about this on Monday and was given a clear reply about the support which was being given by the Home Secretary and by the Government to police officers.
    I am glad to know, from the statement that the right hon. Lady issued, her indication of support for the Government's attitude in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now answer the question".] I am answering the question by saying that the right hon. Lady, with her statement last night, was doing no more than repeating the statement which had been made by the Home Secretary. But now that she has intruded on this dispute which has been going on for 44 weeks, and now that she is supporting this matter, will she also make it clear that she gives total support to the view that anyone is entitled to join a trade union and should not be dismissed for doing so?
    Mr. Mike Thomas: She is an opportunist.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the scenes which have been shown almost daily outside Grunwick have been and are most alarming to the public, and that so far we have had no total condemnation of intimidation and violence on the picketing lines from the Prime Minister—no condemnation at all? Will he now answer my question about what action he proposes

    1737
    to take to protect the rights of the law-abiding citizen to go to work peacefully? Will he also remember that, when he was asked about Ministers joining the picket line before, he did not condemn them for joining it but even invited other people to go as well?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady reinforces my view that she is trying to turn this matter into a political battle. I agree entirely that this is a most serious issue, and that is why I resent the politicians who latch on to it. As regards the members of the Administration who went on to the picket line, they were members of APEX, members of the union, at a time when the dispute was being peacefully conducted. Now, it is not being peacefully conducted, and I therefore believe that it is necessary to separate legitimate and authorised pickets from those who latch on to it. That seems to me the best way of doing it.
    As regards protecting the citizens who want to go to work, it is the job of the police to do that and also to protect the right of peaceful picketing.
    Mr. Adley: Without bottles.
    The Prime Minister: Of course without bottles. Why does the hon. Gentleman make such obvious remarks? Does he think that it is necessary for me to stand here and defend the police from being hit over the head with bottles? [Interruption]. Hon. Members should try to calm this thing down. It could become extremely serious. I am not addressing myself to anyone in particular except, for the moment, those who are bellowing from the Opposition Benches. I have suggested that Mr. Grantham should try, with the Commissioner of Police, to limit the number of pickets in this matter, that they should agree who they should be, that they should be easily identified and that others should stay away or demonstrate in a different way. There is really no need to try to make this situation worse. It will get bad enough and we should try to keep the temperature down.
    Mr. Pavitt: May I assure my right hon. Friend that, except for last Monday week, there has been a clear distinction between the six Gujerati pickets —girls of about 4 ft. 8 in.—and the large mass demonstration which exists on the
    1738
    other side of the picket lines? May I thank the police for their courtesy? When I and my colleagues seek to talk to the picket lines, we are permitted to do so and we do so and we come away.
    May I also assure my right hon. Friend that we are most grateful for the fact that, when there was a breakdown of communications with the police last Monday week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to repair it and Mr. Roy Grantham was then able to speak to responsible officers, which he had not been able to do before that time? As a result, although there have been problems with the demonstration since then, the relations between the official union and the police have gone on very well in spite of the difficulties which both sides are suffering
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter and has not tried to exacerbate the issue in any way—in contradistinction to some others. I want to make it clear to him that the police have very clear instructions. They are carrying out their difficult task. Complaints will be investigated. If they are made in the proper form, they will be carried through.
    On the general situation, it seems deplorable that after this dispute has been going on for 44 weeks, and on three occasions at least in the last few years people have been dismissed for joining a union, it has had to come to this before we could get people talking about it, as they have been doing this afternoon.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Prime Minister agree that one reason why this dispute has become violent, when it was not violent before, is that it has attracted a great amount of publicity? One of the reasons contributing to that publicity was the presence of three Cabinet Ministers on the picket line. In view of that, will not the Prime Minister agree in retrospect that the presence of those Ministers was most unwise?
    The Prime Minister: No. Anybody is entitled to picket peacefully—even the hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition or myself. I hope to hear from at least one hon. Member opposite this afternoon that the Opposition deplore what has happened in this factory, where

    1739
    workers who simply wanted to join a trade union were dismissed for that reason.
    Mr. Skinner: I have been invited on two or three occasions to visit Grunwick at a time when very few people were taking much interest in the situation there. Does the Prime Minister agree that the fact that there are 1½ million people on the dole has not helped and that it is inviting people like Mr. Ward to recruit cheap labour? We passed the Employment Protection Act to deliver the basic freedom for people to organise. Is the Prime Minister aware that on 16th May this year the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who is Opposition spokesman on employment, issued a letter in which he urged acceptance of the ACAS Report at that time? The Leader of the Opposition should stand up today and announce that she agrees with the acceptance of that report—not five weeks ago, as her right hon. Friend did, but now, when the matter is most important.
    The Prime Minister: I have already expressed my view. I have always felt that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) had an understanding of industrial problems. I was not surprised when he issued a statement before the court case saying that in his view, ACAS should be recognised. Is there not one man to be found on the Opposition Benches who will stand up and say this this afternoon.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Private Notice question—[Interruption.]
    Mrs. Thatcher: Am I right, Mr. Speaker, in thinking that the ACAS Report is in dispute and that the matter is before the court and has been set down for hearing?
    The Prime Minister——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is quite correct. As I said in my ruling last week, any reference to the ACAS position would be out of order because the matter is sub judice.
    The Prime Minister: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the question that I asked the Leader of the Opposition was whether she supported the management of Grunwick in dismissing workers who join a trade union? That has nothing to do with recognition.
    Hon Members: Answer!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Private Notice Question, let me remind the House that it is concerned solely with the Post Office side.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED
Sir M. Havers Sir M. Havers (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that there are more than 80 sacks of mail at the Cricklewood sorting office to go into and out of the Grunwick processing laboratory which Post Office employees have been wilfully detaining or delaying and whether he will take action to enforce Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953.
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): In answer to the first part of the Question, the best information which I can obtain is that the outward mail which reached the Cricklewood sorting office from Grunwick on Wednesday, 15th June, and which consists of approximately 65 sacks, has not been handled by the Post Office employees at the sorting office and remains there. No other outward mail is there. That sorting office does not handle inward packages for Grunwick, but I understand that a number of letters are there and are not being handled.
The action by the employees at the Cricklewood sorting office is, according to my information, contrary to the instructions of their union's executive committee and general secretary. I understand that those instruction are being followed at other sorting offices and that Grunwick is receiving its inward packages for processing in the normal way.
The Post Office has a responsibility to deliver the mail, and I have to consider whether I should take action to enforce the provisions of the Post Office Act, having regard to the facts which I have stated. I explained in answer to questions on 13th December last that responsibility for taking whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with the law is normally for the Post Office, for very good reasons which I gave. I said that it was of the greatest importance that the Post Office, which is best placed to

1741
establish the facts and has to take decisions affecting delivery of the mail to the public generally, should be left to carry out its responsibilities and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should the Law Officers step in so as to take the matter out of the hands of the Post Office. On the information available it would appear likely that there are prima facie continuing breaches of the Post Office Act.
In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist, I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with, on the one side, and, on the other, the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions.
In making this balance it is plainly necessary for me to do so with the best possible information as to the intentions of all those concerned and in particular of the Post Office itself. I have therefore formally written to the Chairman of the Post Office asking him to inform me of the steps which he has taken or proposes in the immediate future to take in accordance with the responsibilities of the Post Office.
Sir M. Havers: Since in its operation of carrying mail, the Post Office, which is a monopoly, is failing in its responsibilities to deliver mail, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he has a duty ultimately to see that the law is enforced? Will he undertake immediate action, so that this firm is not forced to close as a result of an illegal and gross breach of duty?
The Attorney-General: I have said quite sufficient to make it quite clear what I am doing, the information that I am obtaining, and the reasons why I am obtaining it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—and may I take this first opportunity of congratulating him upon that honour?— knows very well the doctrine which my predecessors and his have enunciated again and again. The mere fact that there has been an offence committed does not mean that automatically there must be prosecutions. It is absolutely right that before I make a decision of this kind, which can have the most
1742
momentous consequences, I should be fully acquainted with all the facts and should not give undertakings or assurances in advance of knowing them.
Mr. Beith: Does the Attorney-General accept that grave damage to the public as a whole could arise if the principle is ever accepted that the mail of individual customers can be singled out and not delivered or collected? Is there not a world of difference between that and the right of Post Office workers in general to withdraw their labour?
The Attorney-General: I can see a number of differences between those two concepts. One of those differences is that it is the general view, and was a view tentatively expressed by the Master of the Rolls, in the Gouriet case, that for Post Office employees wholly to withdraw their labour would not be a breach of the criminal law and, accordingly, that if the result of premature action, before I know precisely what is the situation, is that Post Office workers in that sorting office, and indeed in other sorting offices throughout London, were totally to withdraw their labour, they would not be committing breaches of the criminal law. It is absolutely right that I should have that in mind as one of the public interest factors which I have to consider when I know all the facts.
Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that part of the 1956 Act that is called in aid by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) is, word for word, that which exists in an Act of Queen Anne, now deceased, in chapter 10, in the year AD 1710? In the light of that, will he examine the possibility of learning something from this in terms of changing the law in view of all the circumstances?
Secondly, is the Attorney-General aware that this week I saw outside the Grunwick factory two Post Office vans, fully manned, the contents of which could not be delivered, through no fault of the postmen? Will he take that into account when he examines the facts?
The Attorney-General: On the second point, I will take into account all factors in my examination of the facts in deciding which is the right course for me to take. On the first part of my hon. Friend's

1743
supplementary question, I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has already announced the Government's intention to change the law.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Attorney-General think that he is encouraging the rule of law to be obeyed by the pickets and demonstrators when in his statement he implied that he can be blackmailed out of applying the law by the threat of widespread action?
The Attorney-General: I made no such implication.
Mr. Kinnock: Is the Attorney-General aware that it is not blackmail but practical sensitivity which has dictated his general approach in these matters? Is he also aware that the fundamental question at stake in this case involves sympathetic action? Does he think it right in a democratic society that citizens of this country, by reason of the fact that they become part of the Post Office, or indeed of any other industrial or commercial or civil concern, should have to surrender their rights to undertake sympathetic action in support of their fellow men?
Hon. Members: Yes.
The Attorney-General: In regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has stated that the Government intend to bring in legislation to amend the law, and so far as postal officers are concerned to bring it into line with the law as it is as a result of the Conservative Government deliberately amending it, so as to take industrial relations out of the criminal law. That deliberate intention of those who were in charge of the Industrial Relations Bill was clearly stated at the time.
In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, of course I must take all these factors into account, but I must not at this time be asked to anticipate a decision, which will be an extremely difficult and delicate decision and one in which I shall take into account the precedents set by all my predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, in making the decision which I shall ultimately have to make.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: In assessing his position in regard to the two competing considerations identified by him in his opening statement, will the Attorney-General give an unequivocal undertaking to give priority to the rule of law and not to support or promulgate the unconstitutional doctrine that the enforcement of the law becomes unnecessary or impracticable if a sufficient number of people combine to seek to break it or to persuade others to do so?
The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that that is not what I said. Nor is it in accordance with what has been said by predecessor after predecessor in my office on both sides of the political divide. One does not, as I have said, decided that, simply because an offence has been committed, automatically a prosecution must follow. There is a wide public interest factor here, and Conservative Members would be saying a different thing if, as a result of action taken hastily, whether by myself or by anybody else, the whole of the mail of this country were brought to a standstill.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that preservation of the rule of law requires restraint in the initiation of prosecutions in regard to industrial disputes?
The Attorney-General: Of course that is true. It requires restraint whether in relation to industrial disputes or in relation to any other matters. Conservative Front Bench spokesmen who have had my responsibility or its equivalent know that very well indeed.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with a Private Notice Question for which I have allowed a quarter of an hour. I shall take one hon. Member from each side of the House. Mr. Carlisle.
Mr. Carlisle: In making his decision, will the Attorney-General bear in mind— in view of the fact that he appears to accept that prima facie there is a continuing clear breach of the law—that one of the major factors he has to take into account in coming to his final decision is that if at some stage no action is taken, is one not conceding that democracy has given way to mob rule?
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in some cases that may happen. That is precisely why I want to know all the facts. I hope that the implication from the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that, for the first time from the Conservative Benches, there is a recognition of the real and important dilemma in this case.
Mr. Atkinson: Does the Attorney-General agree that if the 65 bags of mail now undelivered had contained pornographic or other offensive material, the postmen would have had every right to refuse to deliver them to Grunwick? Why, then, in the Attorney-General's opinion, do Opposition Members demand a different set of conditions than those for pornographic material when dealing with something that is equally offensive, or even more offensive, to postmen, who consider that they have a right to refuse to deliver it?
The Attorney-General: I think the only answer I can give to my hon. Friend is that one hot potato is enough for anybody.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: The Lord President—Business Statement.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Post Office Bill.
Motions on the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating, the Child Benefit, and Supplementary Benefits Orders.
Remaining stages of the Local Authorities (Restoration of Works Powers) Bill.
Motion on the Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order.
TUESDAY 28TH JUNE—There will be a debate on energy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 29TH JUNE—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE, on a motion for the Adjournment.
1746
At 7 o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Motion on the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure.
THURSDAY 30TH JUNE—Proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.
Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on Various Emergency Provisions (Continuance), the 1974 Act (Interim Period Extension), Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) and Fatal Accidents.
FRIDAY 1ST JULY—Motions on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order.
MONDAY 4TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: the subject for debate will be decided by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
Mrs. Thatcher: On Thursday's business, is the Leader of the House aware that we are grateful to him for responding to representations from this side of the House to include increased penalties for acts of terrorism in the Bill which is the first Order of the Day, so that they will take effect this summer?
Secondly, we were promised the direct elections Bill on Thursday or Friday. Will the Lord President confirm that it will be introduced tomorrow, because we had thought that the debate would be coming on more quickly than now appears to be the case? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of when it will be?
Mr. Foot: No doubt the first matter will be a subject for comment during the debate on Thursday and Friday of next week.
The direct elections Bill will be published and presented to the House tomorrow. I cannot give the right hon. Lady an exact date for the Second Reading debate, but I presume that I shall be able to make an announcement on that next week.
Mr. John Mendelson: Would the Lord President undertake to discuss with the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Secretary of State would make a statement early next week on his attempt to help achieve a settlement in

1747
the Grunwick dispute, especially in view of the fact that, so far, the House has discussed only the legal implications of a situation which is essentially industrial, and because Parliament and the country could then see how trade union rights are being threatened? That would also enable legislation that the House has passed and discussed in detail—during which discussions the present situation was foreseen —to be properly considered by the nation as a whole.
Mr. Foot: I shall discuss the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has raised with the Secretary of State for Employment and we shall consider whether a statement from him next week could help.
Mr. Powell: In view of the approach of the long recess, does the Leader of the House expect to be able to announce next week the establishment of a conference under your presidency, Mr. Speaker, so that it can begin its work before the recess?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a statement next week, but I shall certainly see how we can expedite matters to try to get a statement as soon as possible.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will the White Paper on transport be published soon and, if so, will the Leader of the House allow adequate time for us to debate it soon after its publication?
Mr. Foot: I expect that the White Paper will be published next week and we shall then give consideration to the time that the House may wish for debate. However, let us first publish the White Paper.
Mr. Crouch: Is the Leader of the House aware that, notwithstanding the rigours of an all-night sitting and our appearances, we are all a day younger than we should be, and what will he do about it?
Mr. Foot: I am not sure how I can give back to the House its lost day. However, despite the fact that we would have been happy to get through business in the time previously allocated, the House seemed to do pretty well.
Mr. Molloy: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to
1748
Early-Day Motions Nos. 377, 378 and 379, which relate to the appalling case which has outraged almost the entire nation, of a young woman who was brutally assaulted and subjected to attempted rape? Her assailant, a soldier, was sentenced by the judge to three years' imprisonment. The appeal judges, on a false premise, reduced that to six months' suspended sentence and told the assailant to be a good boy. One of the judges recommended that perhaps the girl should have submitted to being raped. Is the Leader of the House aware that the judges went on to say that their decision might arouse public outrage and that they had made the decision in order to ensure that there was public outrage. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many people are asking why Parliament cannot discuss the matter? Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to give that consideration?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the Right Honourable Sir Wentworth Roskill from the office which he holds as Justice of the High Court.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the honourable Sir Gordon Slynn from the office which he holds as Justice of the High Court.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the honourable Sir Philip Wien from the office which he held as Justice of the High Court.]
Mr. Foot: I shall not comment on all the detailed statements that my hon. Friend has made. I know that there is considerable interest about this in the country, the House and the Government. There was a leading article in The Times two or three days ago on the subject and I hope that it will not be regarded as too intrusive of me to say that I agreed with it.
Mr. Cormack: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that there is no particular significance in allowing the Scottish National Party 4th July for its debate?
Mr. Foot: It was not my choice. I believe that it was chosen by the Opposition.
Mr. Kinnock: Is the Leader of the House aware that, although—in my right hon. Friend's terminology—the House did "rather well", there is a growing opinion on both sides of the House and outside that this is a most incompetent way to scrutinise legislation, although it is no fault of the existing establishment? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a substantial demand for the system to be radically changed and that the sooner we get down to doing it the better?
Mr. Foot: The whole question of any radical change in our procedures, to achieve the effects indicated by my hon. Friend, is being discussed by the Procedure Committee and we shall see what that Committee recommends. I shall not prejudge that. However, I have always held the view—and I have seen no reason for changing it—that the possibility of longer sittings, which do happen from time to time, is necessary in order to ensure that the Opposition enjoy their rights as well as the Government.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of holding a foreign affairs debate before the House rises for the recess, particularly a debate on the subject of Cyprus, which, now that there is a new Government in Turkey, is a matter worthy of consideration by the House?
Mr. Foot: Of course the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred would be worthy of consideration and I understand his reason for suggesting a debate. However, I cannot promise a debate in Government time before the recess. But there are other opportunities for debate either on subjects chosen by the Opposition or by other means.
Mr. Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, although his observations on The Times editorial on the rape case are interesting, they do not go far enough, because we now want a debate on sentencing policy for rape? The law and the judiciary are being brought into disrepute by the exercise of sex discrimination and by the prejudices of leading judges. Shall we have an opportunity to express our view on sentencing policy for rape?
Mr. Foot: As I said in my previous reply, I understand the strong feelings on the subject that exist in many parts of
1750
the House and the country. I cannot exclude the possibility of a debate on the subject at some stage, but the article in The Times indicated some of the concern that prevails in the country about these decisions. The questions that have been put in the House today have also helped to indicate feelings here.
Mr. Fairbairn: In view of the statement made by the Attorney-General today, will the Lord President find time for the House to debate the criteria upon which one may avoid prosecution for a criminal offence in England and Wales by organising sufficient hysterical public or political reaction? I have a Press Association photograph of the serious assault that was committed upon a police officer today, and I wonder whether the person who committed that assault may be able to escape prosecution by organising sufficient threat of industrial action.
Mr. Foot: Not merely do I repudiate every inference that the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn from my right hon. and learned Friends remarks, but I do not believe that there is any justification for the implication in what he has just said. I am sure that, on consideration, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be eager to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the overriding importance of preserving the rule of law and of the abysmal ignorance of hon. Members opposite of the effects of indiscriminate prosecution, as evidenced, in particular, by the question of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), is it not time that we had a debate on the rule of law so that the education of hon. Members opposite could at least begin?
Mr. Foot: That is a more powerful case for such a debate than any I have heard from hon. Members opposite.
Mr. EIdon Griffiths: May I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) that there should be a statement by the Home Secretary on the threat to public order outside the Grunwick factory? Will the Leader of the House approach you, Mr. Speaker, so that the House may extricate itself from the difficulty of, on the one hand, your having to protect the rights of

1751
individuals at law and, on the other, of the House having the duty to consider a major matter of public importance?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has completely misinterpreted what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said. My hon. Friend went out of his way to underline that he was asking for a statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on the industrial aspects of the case so that we may move towards a settlement.
Mr. Lipton: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at my Early-Day Motions Nos. 377, 378 and 379 about the three High Court judges? They have the support of a large number of hon. Members and they are unusual motions because this is the only way in which High Court judges can be brought to book by Parliament. Can time be found between now and the Summer Recess for a short debate on all the ramifications of this case, because public opinion is disgusted by the fact that a girl was brutally and savagely assaulted and her assailant received only a suspended six-month prison sentence? Judges cannot be allowed to get away with that sort of conduct.
Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what I said previously on this subject, though I shall take into account the representations of my hon. Friend, who has very great experience in these matters.
Mr. Wiggin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a rumour that, in an endeavour to avoid a carry-over Session, we shall be asked to sit for at least one extra week in July? Is he aware that the many hundreds of hon. Members, staff and police with school-age children will deeply resent such a manoeuvre and will he try to put into practice his previous commitment to help us to see our children at least for some part of the year?
Mr. Foot: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that the arrangements that will be made will satisfy him.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the five hon. Members who have been seek-
1752
ing to catch my eye since the Lord President finished his statement.
Mr. James Lamond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Hansard for 18th May has not yet been published? Will he inquire why this is?
Mr. Foot: This may be a consequence of the difficulties that we had a short while ago, but in view of my hon. Friend's question I shall certainly make inquiries about the production of this issue.
Mr. Aitken: If the Secretary of State for Employment is to make the statement requested by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on trade union rights, will the Leader of the House make sure that it places equal, if not greater, emphasis on individuals' rights that are at stake here, particularly the individual's right to work whether or not he wishes to join a trade union?
Mr. Foot: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we are awaiting a statement from the Leader of the Opposition and I am sure that we are all eager to see it. I did not say to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone that there would necessarily be a statement by the Secretary of State for Employment next week, but only that we would consult to see whether such a statement would be helpful. The Secretary of State is seeking to get a settlement of the dispute so that many of these other difficulties can also be overcome.
Mr. Madden: In the statement that the Secretary of State for Employment is to make on the important issues stemming from the Grunwick dispute, will he particularly take into account the new development of some employers seeking, during disputes, to transport workers through picket lines? Will he consider the proposal of The Guardian and others that one authorised picket should be allowed to board such vehicles to attempt peacefully to persuade workers not to cross picket lines? This would help to meet the rights of workers and would remove the possibility of violence in disputes.
Mr. Foot: I did not say that the Secretary of State was necessarily going to make a statement next week. I said that I would convey to him the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for

1753
Penistone and others that he should make a statement. If he did so, it would be a statement on the industrial aspects of the situation and no doubt it would be designed to assist in getting a settlement, if that were open to him.
On the second matter of the general law about picketing, the House will recall that we had many discussions on this matter during the passage of the Employment Protection Act and that we all had to admit, including myself as the Minister responsible for introducing that legislation, that we had not yet solved the problem of how all rights are to be properly protected in such circumstances. We therefore carried on with the law as it stood previously and made no effective alteration. The consideration of all these questions involves many wider aspects, and I do not think that we could have a statement on these matters next week.
Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past 10 days there have been six meetings of the Councils of EEC Ministers, but that we have had only one statement? The Government are slipping back into their bad old ways. May we have statements next week on the major meetings that have already taken place?
Mr. Foot: I am, as ever, grateful for the hon. Gentleman's vigilance. I shall see which Ministers have, in the hon. Gentleman's words, slipped back, and what the reasons were. I am sure that there must be good reasons if there has been any departure from the highest standards that we were seeking to introduce. I hope that I shall be able to go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman by remedying the situation.
Mr. Michael Latham: In relation to the direct elections Bill, and the novel idea of including two alternative voting systems in the measure, will Ministers be outlining their preferences on Second Reading and using their best endeavours to carry them into law?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the House will await with interest the publication of the Bill tomorrow. Many hon. Members have shown an interest in it. When hon. Members read the Bill, they will see that we have solved some of the difficulties outlined in our two-day debate on direct elections. For example, the
1754
right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) indicated how difficult it was to ensure that a proper choice could be put to the House. The form of legislation that the Government have devised overcomes this difficulty. I hope that we shall be congratulated by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on that account.

AIR SERVICES (UNITED KINGDOM-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT)
The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the conclusion of the United Kingdom-United States air services negotiations.
Agreement was reached yesterday on the main provisions of a new air services agreement. Final texts still have to be completed before the new agreement can be formally signed and come into effect. This will probably be at the end of next month. The agreement will then be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper. Meanwhile, services will continue as at present.
The most important and novel feature of the new agreement is the mechanism to control capacity on North Atlantic routes. This is designed to reduce the waste of fuel and other resources that results from flying too many empty seats, while preserving competition and benefiting the travelling public. This has from the outset been one of our most important objectives.
Moreover, our airlines will be able to open up new routes to the United States. The new points are Houston, Atlanta, Seattle and Dallas-Fort Worth, and a non-stop route to San Francisco. These routes will enable us to increase our penetration of the North Atlantic market. We have also got a better route across the Pacific for future passenger and cargo services from Hong Kong to the West Coast of the United States.
We have also secured agreement to single designation by both sides on all the North Atlantic routes except two. This means that with these exceptions the British carrier will face competition from only one American airline. The Americans will be putting two airlines on New York and Los Angeles. My intention is to designate Laker as our second carrier to New York. We shall

1755
retain the option to designate a second carrier on some other route. I intend to keep this open.
We have obtained substantial reductions in the rights of United States airlines to carry fifth freedom traffic beyond London and Hong Kong to other destinations, although some important fifth freedom rights will continue. A number of these rights will disappear immediately, others after three and five years.
There will also be greater flexibility for the airlines, our own as well as the American, to carry passengers on the same aircraft to more than one destination but without the right to pick up passengers from one destination point and take them to another. This is a new concept which should contribute to more economic use of resources. But we have given notice to the United States authorities that if it turned out to our disadvantage we would want to review it.
A new tariffs article has been agreed which removes the ambiguities of the old tariffs article and should avoid the disputes that have occured in the past.
It has also been agreed that, in accordance with my airports policy statement of 5th April, the new routes to Houston and Atlanta will from the start come into Gatwick. This will also apply to the Dallas route, provided that the British carrier uses Gatwick.
New routes have also been agreed linking Bermuda and our dependencies in the Caribbean to the United States.
Finally, the Americans have agreed to work with us towards a new multilateral arrangement on charter services between North America and Europe. We already have a bilateral arrangement with the United States, which is working well. This will now become part of the new air services agreement. The development of charter services, which both sides desire to foster, will offer further benefits to the travelling public.
I believe that this agreement will open a new and expanding era. It will provide significant new opportunities for the airlines of both sides and promises real benefits to the consumer. It will give British airlines a fairer opportunity to fight for a bigger share of a growing market.
Mr. Nott: May I confine myself to three particular questions at this stage? First, could the Secretary of State prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to enable us to debate the heads of agreement as soon as possible, because we would like the opportunity in the House to assess the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement and it would be useful to do so before the Summer Recess?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with the benefit of hindsight, he still thinks that he was right to abrogate the agreement in the manner and at the time he did last year? Does he not think that many of the advantages which he has obtained from this arrangement could have been obtained without the brinkmanship which arose?
Thirdly, has he ever known any cartel, whether an industrial one or a Government one, as in this case, which has in the end proved of greater benefit to the consumer—and I am talking of the airline users in this case—than the free play of competition?
Mr. Dell: At any rate, I congratulate the hon. Member on posing those questions rather than making the silly and, may I say, ignorant statement that he issued to the Press yesterday. As to a debate, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, but I will speak to him about it because I should be very glad to have a debate.
The hon. Member asks whether I was right to denounce the previous agreement and to do so at the time I chose. Yes, I was right to do so. I have gained benefits from doing so. The time was carefully calculated. My own view of negotiations of this kind with major commercial interests involved is that the final agreement should and could be concluded only at a time of crunch. Whether that had happened in the last few days, in six months' time or in three months' time would not have made any difference at all to the situation. The timing was right, and we have gained from what has been done.
As to a cartel, the hon. Gentleman speaks as though the airlines operated in a free market. He should wake up to the situation that the operations of airlines are subject to Government agreements. What we have been trying to do and have

1757
succeeded in doing in this agreement is to improve the conditions from our point of view. That could be done only by the Government's intervening to denounce the previous agreement and to negotiate a new one. We have done that successfully.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be widespread satisfaction, certainly on this side of the House, at this fair and just resolution of a difficult situation which has affected relations between the United States and this country? Is he also aware that his Department's initiative in seeking to resolve this difficult problem in the way it did will certainly earn the gratitude of very many people, not least those in the airline industry?
Mr. Dell: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am particularly grateful to him for describing the agreement as fair and just. The main thing about this agreement was that it should be acceptable to both sides and should be able to provide a framework within which both sides could operate. I was very glad to see on the tapes last night that the Chairman of Pan-Am, while conceding that there had been a transfer of economic benefits from the United States flag to the British flag, said he welcomed the fact that a framework had been created within which both sides could operate. That was what we were trying to do, and we succeeded.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of State go further than merely talking to his right hon. Friend the Lord President and actually press for a debate. Is he aware that questions and answers of this sort are bound to deal with matters so particular as to ruin the attempt to understand the whole package, or in generalities so general as to be almost banal?
In the meantime, will the Secretary of State say how he satisfied himself that allowing services by an American carrier to start from two American gateway cities —namely, Atlanta and Dallas—while allowing only one city to the British carrier concerned would be fair? Can he tell me what it is that so pleases him about getting services to a British carrier across the Pacific from Hong Kong to the West Coast, because I was flying such services 17 years ago?
Finally, could the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about how—[Interrup-
1758
tion.] If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) will wait, I will get to something he can understand. Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about how the capacity limitation agreements will work?
Mr. Dell: I shall certainly speak to my right hon. Friend, but it might be better for the House if a debate on this subject took place after the agreement had been signed.
As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some inequity in the solo rights for three years granted to United States airlines as against British Caledonian at Houston, taking the national position overall, including Manchester, and the relative value of these points, we were of the opinion that this was a reasonable deal. I should also say that we were asked by British Caledonian to obtain for it solo rights at Houston for a period during which it could build up that traffic. That was a very difficult demand to satisfy but we satisfied it and we have, therefore, provided British Caledonian with a very significant selling point as well as, through the system of capacity control, enabling it, when it goes into Atlanta, to go in with some prospect of success.
As for the route to the West Coast, this is something which the associates in Hong Kong wanted. They wish to develop it for a period and they think this is a valuable route to have been included in the agreement.
As regards the working of the capacity control mechanism, this derives, first, from the existing situation and, secondly, from estimates made by airlines as to the capacity that should be provided during the next similar period, with provisions for a fall-back mechanism in the agreement. This is a mechanism which obviously has to be seen in some detail, and no doubt when the Command Paper is before the House the hon. Gentleman will want to examine the details.
Mr. Pardoe: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about there not being a free market before the agreement, is he aware that any consumer ought always to look with a jaundiced eye at any agreement which allows producers to limit competition and that this agreement does just that? Will he therefore tell us what benefits consumers will receive? Will there be any lower prices? Will there

1759
be any greater choice? Will there be any better services which we have not had so far?
Secondly, why has the right hon. Gentleman left open the question of the second British carrier on the Los Angeles or other North American routes? There is a second British carrier, British Caledonian, which claims that it has been very adversely affected by this agreement. Why has British Caledonian not been designated for the second route?
Mr. Dell: The benefits to the consumer will derive from a number of elements in the agreement. The first is that in our judgment and according to our calculations—I have not seen these challenged, and I believe that the United States accepts them—the savings in the waste of energy and of capacity flying across the North Atlantic should eventually lead to lower fares in real terms. What consumers want in transatlantic travel is lower fares in real terms. They do not want empty seats. The other element in the better provision for consumers is the additional gateways into the United States that we have as a result of the agreement.
On the question of a second British carrier, in our judgment Los Angeles is not at the moment worthy of dual designation because the amount of traffic does not justify it. It is open to us to select a point in the United States at the time we wish for dual designation. That is a matter that we now have to consider, and that is an option that I must keep open for the time being.
The hon. Gentleman referred to British Caledonian being adversely affected. I am prepared to go into that matter in detail, if necessary, but it is not true that the agreement adversely affects British Caledonian. The agreement is beneficial to British Caledonian on terms far better than the company could have expected to achieve and certainly better than would have been achieved under the Bermuda Agreement.
Mr. Conlan: Will my right hon. Friend be rather more specific and tell us whether the new agreement allows United States carriers to fly more passengers into British territories than British Airways and the other British carriers may fly into the United States?
Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the number of passengers who travel on airlines within a system of single or dual designation will depend on the competitiveness of the airlines. I cannot command the relative competitiveness of particular airlines. The combination rights granted under this agreement will enable American airlines, without taking on new passengers at London, to go forward from London to other destinations. We have similar rights in the opposite direction. I am coming nowhere near to saying that the agreement results in a fifty-fifty splitting of passengers. We have tried to give British airlines a better opportunity to get a fairer share of this relatively rapidly rising market.
Mr. Adley: If the criticisms of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) have any validity, should they not be aimed at IATA rather than at the Bermuda Agreement? Have Concorde's-landing rights at New York and Washington been reconfirmed in the new agreement? Have the persons signing the agreement on behalf of the United States-Government authority to sign on behalf of all 50 States in the Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British Government are entitled to expect the American Government to assert our rights in any court dispute which may subsequently arise about the conditions entered into in the agreement?
Mr. Dell: In respect of Concorde, we have the same rights under the new agreement as under the old. The prospects for Concorde at New York in the immediate future depend on the results of court proceedings now in progress in the United States. I hope that they turn out favourably in the end. The trial period in Washington ends in September. I am satisfied, after examining the procedures through which the United States Government have to go before confirming rights at Washington, that they cannot confirm those rights before about February. I think it is unlikely that Concorde's rights at Washington will not be extended up to the date of that determination. I very much hope that the determination will be in favour of Concorde.
The question whether the treaty is signed on behalf of all 50 States raises

1761
interesting points about the federal constitutions. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the situation there as well as I do.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and note the reluctant, grudging approval by the Opposition for what he has done. Will he instruct the Opposition on the outcome of the operation of a free-for-all in this area, which they seem to advocate so actively?
Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the very large losses made by American airlines on the New York route. One achievement of the agreement is that passengers will obtain better fares in real terms. It is no use the Opposition trying to pretend that this is a free market. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is perhaps new to this subject and does not understand the element of control on the civil aviation scene. That no doubt led him to make the curious remarks that he thought it right to make yesterday. We are dealing with a situation in which Governments are involved. In my judgment of that situation, Governments should support their national airlines as well as protect the interests of consumers.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already considerable doubt whether the agreement is as benefical to United Kingdom airlines as the statement suggests, that the optimistic forecast in the last paragraph may not come to pass and that, therefore, an early debate on this subject would be welcome? Will he assure the House that the terms of the agreement are wholly in accord with the policy principles agreed in the House last year?
Mr. Dell: On the second point, the terms of the agreement are very much consistent with the policy that was debated in the House two years—not one year—ago. One thing that surprises me is that, although the Opposition seemed to go along in general with the policies outlined by the Government at that time —leaving aside Laker Skytrain—they seem to have reneged on that view. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was doubt as to how beneficial the agreement will be to British airlines. I should emphasise that the extent to which the agreement is beneficial to British airlines
1762
will depend to a significant extent on the competitiveness of British airlines. We have achieved a framework that gives them better opportunities. That is what we sought, and that is what we achieved.
Mr. Viggers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that direct air links with a number of United States cities—I have specific knowledge of Houston—will be warmly welcomed in those cities and should also be welcomed here because they will strengthen Britain's position as an entrepot? Will he tell us more about the new combination rights? Is he satisfied that there will be no loss to British carriers from the fact that Pan-Am and TWA have the opportunity to switch passengers on through flights from London to Europe?
Mr. Dell: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about Houston and the warm welcome he gives to the agreement. He should see the combination rights against the background of the cancellation of the significant fifth freedom rights which United States airlines had. Some of those are immediately cancelled. But those being operated from this country are to be cancelled in a phased way. It is against that background that the combination rights have to be seen. We have certain equivalent combination rights. Nevertheless, combination rights could be a cost to this country which would have to be set off against the benefits.
I said in my statement, as we said in the course of the negotiations, that we would watch the operation of these combination rights carefully. If they operate to our disadvantage, this is a matter which we shall wish to discuss under the consultation provisions of the new agreement.
Mr. Sandelson: My right hon. Friend has referred to the specific benefits to be derived by British Airways and British Caledonian. Will he say something about the charters, bearing in mind the statement made yesterday by the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in which he suggested that charters were at least as well off, and probably better off, under the old arrangements?
Mr. Dell: The position of charters is entirely satisfactory under this new agreement. This is another curious aspect of

1763
the statement by the hon. Member for St. Ives yesterday. He seemed to think that charters operated in a free market. We have done well in charters because there is a favourable agreement with the United States governing their operation. That agreement is now incorporated in a sense into this new agreement, but it is likely to be continued with its favourable elements as a result of the new agreement. Therefore, the point that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday about charters is another example of his entire ignorance of the subject.
Mr. Trotter: Is it not to be regarded as fair that there should be, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) outlined, an equal division between the United Kingdom and the United States services between these two countries? Is it not a fact that that was the aim of the Government—to achieve parity—and that they have failed in that objective?
In particular, how is it that a cargo service has been authorised from Houston to London when there is no equal provision for the United Kingdom operator to operate a cargo service in the opposite direction? Is that not damaging the passenger service, which should carry cargo on that service?
Mr. Dell: I shall check what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think that he is wrong about cargo between Houston and London. As for equal division, we have achieved single designation on all except two routes over the North Atlantic. That is a very significant achievement. I was told by the Opposition during the process of the negotiation—when I learned from the hon. Member for St. Ives that they were taking a helpful attitude by keeping silent—that single designation was something that the Americans would never accept. They have, in fact, accepted it on all routes except two.
Mr. Neubert: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the welcome features of the agreement is the full establishment of the Laker Skytrain on the London-New York route? If this prompts American competitors, as is likely, will they be subject to the same very stringent conditions as have been imposed on the Laker licence at both ends of the route, including the use of Stansted Airport?
Mr. Dell: I have just confirmed that I am right about cargo between Houston and London. There are equal rights in both directions. It is one of the oddities that it should be considered by some that they are entitled to solo rights from London to Houston on cargo. We could not achieve that, but there are equal rights in both directions.
In reply to the question about Skytrain, we shall have to see what proposals the United States makes by way of such reciprocity as it may wish to exercise.
Mr. Roper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on their remarkable breakthrough in persuading the United States to accept the idea of having some measure of capacity control, which we were told for a long time was anathema to the Americans. When are we likely to have the details of the White Paper? Has my right hon. Friend's Department made any calculations of what the increasing share of North Atlantic traffic will mean in the rate of return on capital invested by British carriers in aircraft on these routes?
Mr. Dell: As to the time when the details of the agreement will become available, as I said in my statement the intention now is to write the detailed agreement. We expect that to be signed by the end of July, and then the details will be made available to the House.
My hon. Friend asked me whether we had made any calculations as to the rate of return on British capital invested in the airlines. The calculations which we have made so far show that there are likely to be beneficial results to the British airlines in revenue terms arising from this agreement, but these must necessarily be highly speculative. The result will depend on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom airlines, and the return on capital will depend on the rate at which they exploit their new opportunities.
Mr. Higgins: Whilst I accept that the arrangement may do something to ameliorate the effects of an imperfect market, may I ask how the Secretary of State proposes to ensure that reduction in costs is reflected in price and not in profits? Secondly, what does he believe will happen to the aircraft and aircrews

1765
which are not needed as a result of the capacity restraints?
Mr. Dell: I hope that the latter will not occur. As for how we shall control prices, there is a tariff article in the agreement and no doubt the degree of competition which exists in this field will help.
Mr. Nott: Will the Secretary of State explain one other point about single designation? We had always understood that this was what he was out to achieve. There is double designation on two main routes. Is it not the case that if the number of passengers builds up on any other routes a trigger operates and then it is possible for double designation to arise? The right hon. Gentleman said that he had achieved single designation. That is clearly not generally the case. It is not even the case, is it, on other routes if the traffic builds up to a certain level?
Mr. Dell: There is a threshold in respect of gateways with single designation—600,000 passengers in two consecutive years. Where there is solo operation, it is 450,000 passengers in two consecutive years. Our estimates show that it is unlikely, especially taking into account the fact that in due course new gateways will be open, that these thresholds will be reached until at any rate the late 1980s.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED
Mr. Arthur Latham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious public consequences of developments in relation to the Grunwick dispute and the imminent danger now in prospect."
Like me and the rest of the House, Mr. Speaker, you will have been gravely concerned to learn today of the policeman admitted to hospital with serious head injuries as a result of events at Grunwick. We are all gravely concerned, too, about the other 19 people who have suffered injury in events there today.
It is evident that the situation has deteriorating daily and now, with morning's events, I submit that it is
1766
likely to become hourly worse. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a grave risk, from the way in which events are proceeding, that it will not be long before someone is killed in consequence of some of the conflict which has occurred in that part of London. It is better to seek to achieve a debate now than to do so subsequently against the background of a fatality of this kind.
I am aware that in considering such an application, Mr. Speaker, you are required to examine and consider, amongst other things, the probability of dealing with the matter in another way and at another time. In the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House this afternoon there was no intimation of a possible debate. There was a request from one of my hon. Friends for a statement about the dispute itself, which is not what my application deals with directly.
May I also draw to your attention Mr. Speaker, the evidence of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, which seem to indicate that the question-and-answer form is not the most satisfactory way of dealing with the issue anyway.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is within your discretion either to grant a debate later today or to propose a debate on Monday. It might be ironic to make provision during the Report stage of the Post Office Bill on Monday, but I think that it would be more fitting, in view of the urgency, if you were able to see your way to recognising that the matter should be debated today.
I am aware of the importance of the fisheries matter which will be before the House later today. It will be for you to decide, Mr. Speaker, whether my application should have precedence over that matter. It would certainly be open to the Government to propose a suspension of Standing Orders to make good time that might be devoted to this issue rather than fisheries.
I wish to emphasise that between now and next Monday, or any other time during next week when a debate might be granted, there will have been at least two more busy mornings in the Grunwick area, with the possibility that we may be discussing a death rather than simply injuries by the time that debate takes place.

1767
May I also emphasise, Mr. Speaker, that my application is in different terms from that which was made on Tuesday? It does not deal with the Grunwick dispute itself. It is true that there is one ACAS aspect of that which it might be argued is sub judice. It could also be argued that the Secretary of State for Employment and the Law Officers have been busy in that connection, which would meet the question of dealing with the issue in another way, a question which you are asked to take into account. I am not seeking in my application or in any proposed debate to deal with individual arrests and charges. Obviously, they will be dealt with in court and can be subject to the sub judice rule as regards consideration in the House.
Thirdly, I submit that any complaints about allegations concerning individual policemen or groups of policemen, which may be subject to the use of the new procedure of the Police Complaints Board, would not be the subject of such a debate, because clearly they would also be in a sense sub judice. What I am seeking to have debated in the House is how the situation outside Grunwick is being handled.
There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been recent eyewitnesses to the events at Grunwick and who, with many others in London, have made comments about things they have seen at first hand. Whether it be right or wrong—which it would be improper for me to comment on in making such an application—it seems to be the fact that the policy of arrest and the use of force is not being exercised as a local discretion but is part of a deliberate policy ordered from the top. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. I do not understand the protests. It is accepted that the police may in certain circumstances determine that it is—[Interruption.]——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has long been established that in making an application under Standing Order No. 9 the hon. Member concerned makes a very brief speech outlining why he believes that I should grant the application, but he does not try to make a speech on the general issue.
Mr. Latham: I was not seeking to do that, Mr. Speaker. What I was seeking
1768
to do, with some emphasis, was to distinguish between the application I am making and one which I know you have already rejected and any other form of application which might relate to matters which are sub judice. I am urging that there is a case for the House to consider a situation in which it is being said, rightly or wrongly, that actions are being taken in some respects to enforce the law, in other respects partially and in other respects not at all.
What I am seeking to establish with the Chair is that the public consequences are considerable. There are at stake several matters of public concern, not least the standing of the police and the regard for their impartiality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] This is a serious situation, and the place for a debate about it——
Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has made his points. Perhaps he would now be good enough to wind up his application and let me consider it.
Mr. Latham: I am simply urging, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is deteriorating at an escalating rate, that the place for these issues to be determined is this House, and that there should be a debate here because issues of public order are at stake. I believe that Parliament has a responsibility and a function to act as a safety valve in such situations. Unless we carry out that duty as a Parliament, the consequences of what happens at Willesden will be very serious.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would make this application this afternoon for leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious public consequences of developments in relation to the Grunwick dispute and the imminent danger now in prospect"
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have given thought during the day to the issues that are raised, but I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's application.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

1769
"the Attorney-General's answer today to a Private Notice Question that he intends to inquire as to the intentions of postal workers to widen the interference with the mail in retaliation if he should initiate action to enforce the Post Office Act against those who have been interfering with the mail of Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd."
I make this application because we have heard from the question-and-answer session this afternoon that about 85 bags of mail are immobilised in a post office in London in undisputed breach of the Act. There was no dispute about that at all. The Attorney-General said today that if the Post Office continued not to take action to enforce the law his intention was to find out how serious the retaliatory action of Post Office workers would be before he decided which way the balance tipped. That inevitably means that if the Attorney-General receives a very hostile and militant reply from the Post Office workers or the Union of Post Office Workers he will, in accordance with his answer today, decide that the balance tips against enforcing the law.
I put it to you Mr. Speaker, that under the terms of the Standing Order this is a matter of the highest importance, because it means that the principal Law Officer of the Crown is saying that if there is to be an unpleasant row he will not enforce the law, but that if he finds that the reaction—[Interruption.]—upon the public—I admit that he put it in that way—is not too serious, the balance could tip in favour of his enforcing the terms of the Act.
In my submission, the importance of this matter within the ambit of the Standing Order is that it undermines the authority of the law and subordinates it to organised militancy. The matter is urgent, because mail has been held up already for a considerable time, and the hold-up of mail on this scale in respect of a single user of the mail raises a matter of most urgent principle, because the damage being done to that mail user is obviously enormous.
Unless the machinery of Standing Order No. 9 is used there is obviously no prospect of the matter's being debated within the next 10 days, because we know the business for next week. It makes no possible provision for the matter to be debated. There is no way in which it could be introduced on any of the sub-
1770
jects announced. We also know the business for tomorrow.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the matter comes within the three requirements of the Standing Order. It is urgent and important and should be debated so that we may express to the Attorney-General our view of the criteria he should use in deciding whether to enforce the law.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Attorney-General's answer today to a Private Notice Question that he intends to inquire as to the intentions of postal workers to widen the interference with the mail in retaliation if he should initiate action to enforce the Post Office Act against those who have been interfering with the mail of Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd."
I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member's argument. I am asked to take into account all the various factors and to give no reasons for my decision. I am afraid that I cannot accede to the hon. and learned Member's application.

SUB JUDICE RULE
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the Minister, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and, indeed, to the fish for delaying matters longer. I wish to raise a matter of importance for the order of our procedures. On the one hand, the House must be conscious of the sub judice rule and the need to preserve the rights of individuals who might find themselves before the courts. On the other hand, there is the clear matter of urgent public importance arising out of the threats to order at the Grunwick factory.
I recognise the dilemma in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker, in wanting to protect both of these aspects. However, one cannot always be bound by the precedent of "Erskine May" in these matters. Perhaps over the next day or two you might find it possible to consult the Lord President, who did not answer my question on

1771
this issue earlier, and other authorities of the House. Perhaps you could consider whether there is a way in which the House could extricate itself from the present difficulty which would allow us to do our duty by discussing these issues without being inhibited in every respect by the sub judice rule.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. No doubt he reflects the views of many other hon. Members. I listened carefully to today's exchanges. I must say that I am anxious to protect the rights of the House, but also, of course, to maintain our complete caution with regard to cases before the courts. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 11TH JULY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Charles Morrison,

Mr. Mike Noble,

Mr. Ronald Bell.

BILLS PRESENTED

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Mason, supported by Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. James A. Dunn and Mr. Ray Carter, presented a Bill to increase the maximum term of
  1772
  imprisonment which may be imposed on conviction on indictment of an offence under Section 19 or 20 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 or Section 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  NATIONAL LAND FUND (NO. 2)
  Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Stanley Newens, Sir David Renton, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Ms. Maureen Colquhoun, Mr. Jasper More, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Robert Rhodes James and Mr. W. Benyon, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment of Trustees to administer the National Land Fund established by Section 48(1) of the Finance Act 1946 and to extend the purposes for which the fund may be used: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Tobacco) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 921) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Snape.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  FISHERIES
  [Commission Documents: R/1173/77, R/ 1174/77 and S/779/77.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Snape].
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: We have waited for some time while the quota of allotted time for Supply has been eroded by various contributions, the merits of which, by using some restraint, I shall not comment upon.
  This afternoon we want to give some expression to the real anxieties of the fishing industry which over the last few months has already lost, to all intents and purposes, the whole of its distant-water operation. We are concerned to echo its fears that, if there is no change of mind and will on the part of those who now claim an almost unfettered right to fish in the North-East Atlantic, the fishing stocks in these waters may be virtually wiped out in a very few years.
  We believe that long-established fishing communities in the country are entitled to expect that rapaciousness and indifference as to consequences will give place to prudence and proper concern.
  Conservation is a word designed to delight the hearts of legislators and bureaucrats. It implies that one composes a policy which one then puts into legislative language—preferably incomprehensible—subjects it to some kind of lawmaking process and that is the problem solved. Conservation has been much discussed by many people and many nations. The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has been meeting for years. There has been widespread agreement. There have been rules governing such important subjects as the mesh of nets and the size of fish. But who observes these rules? Perhaps Britain, Norway and a few other countries.
  I shall quote briefly from a letter from Sir Basil Parkes, who is well known for his association with the industry. He states:
  1774
  "Not only did our Government make it illegal to carry under-sized nets, and impose heavy fines if we did, but they also stopped us, the producers, from selling undersized fish, they stopped the merchant from buying it and further along the line, they make it illegal for the retailer to sell it to the public."
  That gives a good summary of the British attitude to such regulations. However, one is tempted to ask—who else even knows the rules, let alone observes them?
  I quote again from the same letter from Sir Basil, who recently went aboard a French trawler at Hull, acting as French Consular Agent. He said:
  "The Skipper complained that he did not know he was breaking any rules in fishing with herring net, according to the instructions issued to him by the Ministry. I took him up on this, and he produced some official papers dated 31st December 1976, which clearly stipulated that he was allowed to use a 50 mm. herring net so long as he landed at the end of his voyage, 20 per cent. of herring or mackerel. This of course is the complete reverse of what our regulations are. If we get permission to carry a herring or mackerel net, we have to be catching and land at the end of the trip at least 80 per cent. herring and /or mackerel, and we have to be catching that proportion during the voyage—otherwise we are not allowed to use that size net".
  Who has even got the rules straight? There has been no lack of either rules or agreement, hence my position on these documents to which we are referring this afternoon. Good as their intentions may be, they will not get us any further forward. What has been lacking is restraint —restraint from over-fishing and restraint from methods such as beam trawling and industrial fishing with fine-mesh nets, which are destructive in that they leave behind them nothing on the seabed.
  We joined the Community because we thought that it was right and in our interests so to do. We preferred it to isolation. We knew, and the present Government knew after their renegotiation, that some problems would remain to be solved. The Government have made much of the fact that the common fisheries policy was not settled, but their own failure to renegotiate that policy —they must be fair about it for once—is explainable only by the fact of their own reliance upon the specific undertakings given during the negotiations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Undertakings were clearly given not that the Community would listen to our case but

  1775
  that there would be a completely new look at the fisheries problem.
  It would not be inappropriate if I were to quote from a speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, who was very much involved in these negotiations, as recently as 17th June in the European Parliament. He said,
  "I did, however, Mr. President, make it plain on behalf of the British Government— and I am sure this is a matter upon which the House of Commons as a whole would be unanimous—that no future British Government could in practice be forced into arrangements which, in their judgment, failed to safeguard our vital fishing interests as they then defined them. Now I may say Mr. President there was no other issue in the whole of the negotiations to enlarge the Community on which I felt it necessary to make such a specific and firm declaration. Fisheries proved to be the most sensitive and the most difficult issue in the whole of the enlargement negotiations, and it was simply because the agricultural ministers made such a hash of the whole business."
  For the moment, at any rate, I am entitled to say that it is the habit of agriculture Ministers to make a hash of the whole business. Whether I shall retain that view in the future is another matter.
  We now have to hope that the Council of Ministers will pay due attention to the facts of the situation, to the arguments and to the undertakings that were given during negotiations but which seem to have been put rather under the carpet in recent times.
  I accept that a treaty, having been signed, there are certain obligations following upon it, and the particular obligation with which we should all be concerned is to make the Community live and work. But that does not mean that we should not learn from experience or that we should not judge the declared intentions of member States as to conservation by what they have actually done in the past. We must ask which of the countries that now seek to fish our traditional grounds can point to a record in conservation that creates confidence that in practice they will not loot any new grounds which may become open to them. What possible reason have we to believe that those who have fished out their own waters will not do the same to ours, and quickly?
  There must be two main pillars to any common fisheries policy. First, there must
  1776
  be strict protection of the breeding grounds, some of which should, perhaps, be permanently closed. One of the documents before us today proposes that herring in the North Sea should be given a bit of a rest and a chance to recover. But one wonders how much reliance one can put upon what so far is only a paper proceeding.
  The second pillar of any sensible policy is that methods of fishing must be restricted. Those methods that I have described as literally destructive of fish stocks should be banned. Those who use or countenance the use of such methods cannot expect to have their words as to conservation taken very seriously. Indeed, one hears very little from those sources as to how conservation and regulations governing it would be enforced.
  We are told that catch quotas would be the main means of giving the policy some meaning, but to rely upon such measures would be to turn a blind eye to experience and to put our faith in a device which would be a nuisance to the few who observe the law and a joke to the many who do not.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a fishing debate in Strasbourg on Friday, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) admitted that when he signed the treaty he knew that adequate safeguards had not been taken by his Government in regard to the fisheries policy? Is it not just a little hypocritical that we should be expected to have to listen to this stuff coming after the event?
  Mr. Peyton: I would not wish to cross swords with the hon. Lady when it comes to hypocrisy, but as her memory is not evidently very long, I should like to refer her to her own words—this is the first time that I have ever quoted her—as reported at column 283 of the proceedings on the same day:
  "May I echo my support for the sentiments expressed by Mr. Rippon? "
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the statement by Mr. Rippon was extremely clear—[HON. MEMEERS: "Order."]—and thoroughly understood by all those in the European Parliament and, at the time, by Mrs. Ewing herself.
  Mr. Peyton: I am glad to have——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is used to European practice, but here we refer to hon. Members by their constituency.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has already persuaded me to give way to her once. I think that it would be kindly if I did not allow her a second opportunity.
  I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) for confirming the impression that I gained from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech and for her recollections of the views that were then held —all of a week ago—by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
  I think that we must acknowledge that it would be wrong for us to seek to disregard or overlook rights which have long been enjoyed by other nations, and particularly those which are our partners in the Community. But we, too, have historic rights, and it ill behoves those who claim to rely on theirs to deny ours, which are even more powerfully established.
  It would also be wrong for us silently to accept the disaster which shortsightedness and greed could so easily bring about. I cannot see any alternative to making each country responsible for the management and policing of the waters nearest to its coastline. I share the view of the industry that a zone of 50 miles would be the best way of ensuring that conservation requirements were observed and due penalties exacted for their breach.
  Great difficulties attend the settling of agreements with third countries, for those third countries are themselves anxious to know how far they can rely on undertakings given on behalf of not one nation but many. Experience so far does not encourage me to look for much progress from negotiations carried out by the Commission with third countries. The Community might do well to organise individual countries to negotiate on its behalf.
  I come now to the most important question of all, that of enforcement,
  1778
  which I have raised on a number of previous occasions with the right hon. Gentleman. I have always had the impression that he, too, takes a serious view of the problem. But the point one has to face here is that both the new extended areas of sea and the intensive methods of fishing now introduced have increased both the size and urgency of the problem.
  I have no doubt that a Nimrod aeroplane is a very useful thing for many purposes, but I cannot help feeling that, when it comes to the enforcement of the fishing rules, it has certain limitations. It is somewhat remote. Reliance upon Nimrod is hardly likely to calm our fear —I quote again from Sir Basil Parkes— that
  "The fleets which are going to converge on the poor British grounds are so much in excess of what the grounds can produce, even if they adhere to the conservation measures, which they have never done up to now."
  I believe that the Minister will probably agree with much that I have said, but what does he intend to do about it now? We shall certainly support him in his claim for a total re-examination, that re-examination to be made in the light of and in accordance with assurances repeatedly given to my right hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will be fair enough to acknowledge that those assurances were given, otherwise he has no excuse at all for not having renegotiated the policy.
  My second question to the Minister is: does he intend to go it alone, in the same way as he did with pigs? This would be a very serious matter for a man who has found himself in the courts once and has been defeated there.
  Thirdly, what about enforcement? We no longer have a fisheries protection flotilla? Why not? Apparently it is because the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, decided that we could not afford such expensive luxuries. The position is that at a time of greater need we no longer have the use of eight vessels working full-time on fisheries protection. We have instead only the odd frigate from time to time and a few inshore vessels which are not fitted for operations in distant waters or in weather in which the big trawlers can quite safely operate.

  1779
  As we see it, the Minister, because of the Government's policy on defence, lacks muscle to enforce any policy, whether it is agreed or otherwise with his colleagues. We also believe that, by his attitude in the Council of Ministers, the Minister has evaporated that good will upon which those who lack strength are obliged to rely.
  Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose——
  Mr. Peyton: The Minister rather prides himself on being tough, but he has gone so far on certain occasions as to give the impression that he equates the keeping of promises with surrender—a novel doctrine and not one likely to make him many friends. He burst into poetry the other day. He gave it to The Times for nothing. He appears to us to have given such offence to his colleagues and partners in Europe that they may not be minded to listen to his arguments, no matter how well founded. They may even be minded to forget undertakings given in the past to my right hon. Friends. We fear that his toughness will in the event be seen to be that of a paper tiger, since he and his colleagues have stripped down the means we once had of defending our legitimate interests.
  It will be our intention to give our anxieties and fears expression in the Lobby tonight unless the Minister can give us some reasonable ground for thinking that they are without foundation, but they will need to be very strong and they will need to be much more convincing than anything he has previously said on this subject.
  5.15 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I am very glad that we are having this debate because, in addition to taking in the three EEC documents which have been circulated, we can, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has shown us, debate the common fisheries policy as a whole—and I am not afraid of doing so. But first, perhaps, I ought to deal with those EEC documents, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I deal with them a little more intensively perhaps than the right hon. Gentleman did.
  1780
  Document R/1174/77 deals with conservation measures for herring and was discussed at the meeting of the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers on 16th May, but was not adopted. As I told the House on 18th May, a temporary extension of the North Sea herring ban was agreed for the month of June, together with a similar temporary ban for the same period for the West of Scotland stock. Herring conservation measures as a whole will be discussed at the special Fisheries Council on 27th June, on the basis of this proposal or something very like it. Changes to it will be needed to take account of the latest scientific advice, but generally speaking we think that it is an acceptable basis for discussion.
  Document R/1173/77 is a communication to the Council from the Commission, rather than a formal proposal for Community legislation, identifying what the Commission believes are the fundamental problems on which it feels that the debate within the Community should be concentrated. The Council has not yet discussed this document, but I have to say that it adds little to the Commission's previous ideas and certainly does not acknowledge the United Kingdom's special needs.
  Document S/779/77 is a proposal by the Commission for licensing third country fishing boats in the waters of EEC member States after 30th June. Until then, licences for third country boats will be issued by United Kingdom Ministers in their role as President of the Community. This document proposes that the Commission should issue such licences after that date, a procedure for deciding how many licences to issue, and that licensed vessels should be required to report regularly when fishing within the limits of member States.
  At present, only boats from the Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Portugal and Spain require a licence to fish, but the Commission's proposal provides for fishing by all third countries to be licensed. Licensing is a valuable contribution to controlling the fishing activities of third countries, and placing reporting requirements on licensed vessels should increase our knowledge of what licensed vessels are doing.
  We welcome the basic purpose of these proposals, but there are aspects of them

  1781
  which need to be considered further in the light of progress in the overall reappraisal of the common fisheries policy. The Foreign Ministers' Council therefore agreed on 21st June to continue the current arrangements for licensing by the Presidency for another three months. This will give time for us to ensure that the system proposed in S/779/77 is as effective as possible and does not prejudice member States' rights, when necessary, to introduce national measures to conserve fisheries.
  But these proposals—ad hoc attempts to deal with piecemeal problems—merely demonstrate the need for a coherent fishing policy designed for a world of 200-mile limits and threatened fishing stocks. There are, after all, two basic essentials which are interlocked: first, conservation of fish and, secondly, conservation of the livelihoods of those who live by fishing. Unless we conserve fish, there will be none left and the livelihood not only of fishermen but of all those who live by fishing, including boat and dock builders and people employed in distribution and processing, would be at risk.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: Does not the Minister agree that there would be adequate fishing for all the people he has just mentioned if only we could get our EEC partners to stop fishing for industrial purposes and allow the fish to grow to maturity so that they could be used for home consumption?
  Mr. Silkin: I think I shall touch on that in chapter 4. Fishing is not only their livelihood; it is part of the nation's livelihood. In my visits to English ports I have seen overwhelming evidence of thise. My right hon. Friend the Secretaries of State responsible for other parts of the United Kingdom report the same problem. To appreciate these problems we have to understand the pattern of our fishing to-day, a pattern very different from that which existed before we entered the EEC.
  With regard to pelagic fish—essentially herring, sprat and mackerel—there has been a serious decline in herring stocks, as we have all become aware. There has also been a greater utilisation of mackerel stocks since 1972. Pelagic catches of other countries around our shores have increased out of all recognition and in 1975 amounted to 750,000 tonnes in the
  1782
  United Kingdom 200-mile zone. Conservation therefore becomes absolutely vital. The right hon. Member for Yeovil and the House are quite right.
  It is quite possible that more than 200,000 tonnes of herring, on which our industry mainly depends, are still being taken by the herring fisheries, whereas the stocks in their present state can bear not much more than one-third of that. The picture for mackerel is similar although not quite so severe at present.
  I turn to demersal fish—cod, haddock, plaice and sole. From the time of the Treaty of Accession, when we caught 760,000 tonnes, our catch has been reduced to about 600,000 tonnes, of which 130,000 tonnes comes from waters of non-EEC countries. The loss in value to the industry of distant-water fishing has been of the order of £80 million a year. But the demersal catch by other countries in our waters, under our sovereignty and jurisdiction up to the 200-mile limit, increased from 360,000 tonnes to about 470,000 tonnes, although nearly half of that was by non-EEC countries.
  Of course, many of the problems with which we are faced would have existed had there been no common fisheries policy. It may be helpful to see what we could have done in the circumstances, and then perhaps we can make comparisons. If there were no common fisheries policy, we would have got notice of the extended limits of other countries—Iceland and so on. We would have had to offer reciprocal agreements where we could to those other countries. The end result would probably have been diminished fishing possibilities off Iceland, perhaps the Faroes and, to a lesser extent, Norway.
  What would we have done in those circumstances. First, we would have had to utilise the fish around our shores to the best advantage by trading surplus fish in our waters—those fish which our consumers primarily do not want—with fish that we would want in the waters of other countries. Secondly, we would have had to phase out from our 200-mile limits those countries without reciprocal fishing benefits to offer. Thirdly, we would have had to control very tightly the fishing of those countries to which we have given the right to fish in our waters by limiting effort. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that catch quotas are not

  1783
  enough and by themselves simply do not work. Fourthly, we would have had to subject all fishing in United Kingdom limits to a strict conservation policy.
  Mr. Peyton: Will the Minister say whether the Government have any intention of reviving the fisheries protection flotilla? The more I look at this, the more inevitable I think it becomes.
  Mr. Silkin: The question of enforcement and the policy connected with it are probably better left to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have spoken to him about it. I do not want to delay the House too long in what is inevitably a bit of a tour d'horizon.
  Mr. Peyton: Will the Minister use his persuasive powers on his right hon. Friend to make sure that he does answer the point?
  Mr. Silkin: I do not have to use any persuasive powers. My right hon. Friend is the most reasonable man I know.
  The fact is that we have to deal with the problems posed by the common fisheries policy. That is a policy which inevitably inhibits our freedom of action. It still remains true that within the common fisheries policy we must try to pursue, as far as possible, the same aims as we would have done without it.
  On conservation, we have taken the lead in pressing for a coherent conservation policy to protect the fish stocks of member States. We have succeeded to a limited extent. The Council has adopted measures including a ban on fishing for Norway pout to protect immature white fish and various measures to protect herring stocks. But more needs to be done. I freely concede that.
  Our aim is an effective and comprehensive Community conservation policy. But the whole House, as was shown by the unanimous acceptance of the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) the other day, also accepts the importance of individual member States retaining the right to take national conservation measures within their own fishery limits, where member States see that need as urgent and it is not possible to reach Community agreement quickly.
  1784
  Negotiations with third countries are still necessary though they are now conducted by the Commission on behalf of the Community. The result with regard to United Kingdom waters is that many countries—for example, Romania and Bulgaria—can no longer fish there, because in those cases there was no possibility of reciprocal arrangements, and that limitations have been imposed on fishing by several other countries—for example, Spain. This reduction of fishing effort by third countries will, of course, leave more fish for EEC fishermen.
  Our own distant-water fishermen are themselves interested in the waters of third countries, particularly those round Norway, the USSR, Faroes and Iceland. The position on this is, first, that in the case of Norway negotiations are continuing and I have good hopes that an arrangement will be concluded allowing for continued fishing by United Kingdom fishermen in Norwegian waters, though at a somewhat reduced level.
  Secondly, United Kingdom fishermen are still fishing at the Faroes but the negotiations are continuing and have proved very difficult. If the present Faroese restrictions on our fishing are not eased, we may have to reconsider the continuation of Faroese fishing in our waters.
  Thirdly, the USSR has also extended her limits to 200 miles recently. Substantive negotiations on reciprocal quotas have not yet started.
  We are still talking to the Icelanders, although I am not for one moment attempting to say other than that I do not wish to raise any false hopes about the outcome. There will continue to be some scope for fishing in distant waters, but it is clear that in future the great bulk of the catch of the United Kingdom industry must come from our own waters.
  The vital point—this is where membership of the EEC affects us most—is what proportion of the stocks in these waters will be taken by fishermen from the different countries. It is a question of access. Membership—let us consider it carefully—means that we cannot treat EEC fishermen like those from third countries.
  But the facts are that the fish in United Kingdom waters amount to nearly two-thirds of the total stocks in the waters

  1785
  of member States, and that our fleet has suffered grave losses in terms of fishing opportunities elsewhere. In our view, these factors alone entitle United Kingdom fishermen to a very substantial proportion of the total catch. A division such as the Commission has proposed based on historic catches within 200-mile limits only is simply not good enough.
  The real difficulty is that unless we secure the necessary changes in the common fisheries policy now—here we may go back to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—we may be faced in 1982 with a system that will allow free fishing by all up to the beaches in all the waters of member States. That is the danger. And any change in this situation requires the unanimous agreement of the nine member States.
  We consider that United Kingdom fishermen can obtain their fair share of the stocks only if the common fisheries policy is radically redesigned. In particular it should include provision for substantial areas around the United Kingdom coast in which they have exclusive or preferential access. The Commission itself recognises that changes are needed and has suggested a limited coastal belt and quotas covering all fishing by fishermen of the member States in their waters. Unfortunately, neither the belt nor the quotas are satisfactory.
  For our part, over a year ago Her Majesty's Government proposed a variable coastal belt of up to 50 miles covering the most vital areas for the British industry. Our aims were—and remain—the conservation of the fish stocks within that belt and the satisfying of our own fishermen's requirements. Of course, I have always said that any surplus after these two basic conditions had been met would be available for our EEC partners, or as part of a trade-off with third countries upon a reciprocal basis in which we could share. As the House knows, up to now the variable belt proposal has met with fierce resistance in the EEC. However, that proposal remains on the table. We are ready to consider in the Council any alternative measure, provided always that it gives us these twin objectives of conservation and dominant preference.
  Mr. John Lee: By my right hon. Friend's refer-
  1786
  ence to the unanimity rule I understand that this is one of the instances in which the Government will be prepared to use their veto effectively if we do not get a satisfactory situation.
  Mr. Silkin: The trouble is that it is the wrong way round. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present during the debates concerning the fishing industry, but exactly that point came up over and over again, as well I remember.
  Mr. Lee: I anticipated my right hon. Friend's answer. If that is the case, what redress have we if we do not get our own way?
  Mr. Silkin: The persuasive ability that the right hon. Member for Yeovil assured me that I have when he asked me to draw something to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The present EEC arrangements already regard the area within 12 miles as having a special status. Access to important parts of this zone is already in practice limited to coastal fishermen. In our view the whole of this zone should ultimately be reserved exclusively to fishermen of the coastal State, but we should obviously need suitable phase-out arrangements for the fishermen from the other member States who currently fish there. In time the entire catch—subject to conservation limits—within the 12-mile zone should be allocated to the coastal State.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman include the areas between six miles and 12 miles that in some portions of the United Kingdom were signed away by the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Silkin: Certainly. The area between 12 miles and 50 miles will in future be of crucial importance to our industry if it is to be redeveloped for work in near and middle waters.
  It is possible to catch around 150,000 tonnes of demersal fish and about 250,000 tonnes of pelagic fish within 12 miles of our coasts. The two must be considered separately since they are caught by different methods of fishing and demersal have about two and a half times the value of pelagic. The 12-mile exclusive zone would provide us with the bulk of our

  1787
  traditional pelagic catch but only one-fifth of our traditional demersal catch, and even that would include a substantial tonnage of less familiar species.
  Mr. James Johnson: Even with all these permutations and combinations, does my right hon. Friend think in his heart of hearts that it will be possible to reach a national total equal to the 900,000 tonnes that we have been catching for decades? Is it possible to do that?
  Mr. Silkin: We must get the most viable state for our industry that we can. We might have met these difficulties, or some of them, but I am trying to show the greater difficulties that we now have to face.
  The stocks out to 50 miles contain enough pelagic fish not only for our present needs but to cater for considerable future expansion. Some of the fishing concerns catching demersal fish will have to switch to pelagic. That is bound to be so. However, the total demersal catching to 50 miles is 500,000 tonnes. If we had sole access to all that it would not enable us to maintain the present size of our demersal industry, but a dominant priority there, together with a share of the fishing elsewhere, including the remainder of our waters up to 200 miles, would enable us to have a firm economic base on which we could rebuild the industry.
  We must face the possibility that other member States, or some of them, despite all the arguments and the sweet reason that the right hon. Gentleman wants me to exercise, and which others may put forward, may not react constructively and may refuse to accept what we regard as the minimum changes necessary to the common fisheries policy. We shall have to face that situation, if it arises. I cannot claim that we shall have an easy ride.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: I think that we all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to obtain these objectives. However, he must face the possibility that we shall not be able to convince the other eight countries of the legitimate claims that all the parties in this House consider we have. Has the Minister contingency plans now for unilateral action in that event?
  Mr. Silkin: I always start with the assumption that others—even the Opposition and the Scottish National Party— are essentially reasonable men. That is always the best basis from which to start. If one finds that they are not, the contingency plans have a way of organising themselves. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has pointed out the difficulties that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fairly assessed.
  At the time of the Treaty of Accession our rights were all too quickly discarded. The result of that folly cannot be too quickly remedied. Negotiations will be difficult.
  Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman cannot make that sort of comment without going on to say why he did not seek to make repairs during the renegotiation.
  Mr. Silkin: I suppose that I should supply the right hon. Gentleman—modesty has heretofore prevented me from doing it—with an autobiography of what my attitude was to the whole thing at the time of the Treaty of Accession and also at the time of renegotiation.
  Mr. Peter Mills: The House is entitled to know why, in the renegotiation, the Socialist Government did not make that point. If it was so vital, why did they not do it?
  Mr. Silkin: I dare say that the House may be entitled to hear that. The House is also entitled to know that I have searched diligently, but I am afraid without success, for any speech or any utterance from the Opposition Front Bench in which they called for a renegotiation of the fish question.
  Mr. Peyton: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to break with his usual practice and answer a question. If he is accusing the present Opposition of having failed to settle an acceptable fisheries policy during the original negotiations, why did not the Government of the day, when they came to renegotiate the accession, in the name of conscience repair the omission which they attribute to us?
  Mr. Silkin: If it had been possible to do so, that is to my mind something which at the time should have been in the renegotiation package, but there were certain other factors. I have never

  1789
  dissembled from the House my personal view. I am being asked what I personally thought about that whole renegotiation. All that I can say is that it does not lie in the mouths of the right hon. Member for Yeovil and his colleagues or cohorts to criticise that. They were only too glad to see that the renegotiation was a success. [Interruption.] I searched for a speech of any sort on fishing that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) had made at that time.
  One thing is clear, despite the difficulties of the negotiations. Sound and comprehensive arrangements, at least for conservation, are absolutely essential. The introduction of proper conservation measures for United Kingdom waters cannot be postponed. That is our policy and I have tried to tell the House exactly how we propose to deal with matters at the Council meeting on 27th June and in the event of any lack of a constructive agreement or understanding with our partners.
  Let no one here or abroad get the impression that because we are reasonable we are prepared to surrender the needs and rights of our fishermen. We understand the problems of other nations, but they must be prepared to understand ours. If they do not, the result will be to harden, not to soften, our resolve. We shall be guided by one overriding objective. Every member of the Community has some interest, but not every member of the Community has a vital interest, in conservation. Not every member of the Community has a fishing industry of such national importance as we have. We are determined to preserve both our industry and our stocks, so that a stable and prosperous future may be assured.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad to be called to follow the lucid speech of the Minister of Agriculture, but I must say at the outset that this whole debate is overhung by an atmosphere of unrealism and hypocrisy. This is a Supply Day. This is a day on which Her Majesty's Opposition are entitled to choose not only the subject but the weapons, and we listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to see what it is that Her Majesty's Opposition on behalf of the country wished to attain or at any rate to assist
  1790
  by utilising the opportunity which our parliamentary system gives them.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it was essential that each country in the Community should be responsible for management, control and enforcement within a zone of 50 miles from their respective coasts. I regard that as rather less than the minimum which is requisite as a satisfactory fisheries policy for this country; but at any rate it is an uncontestable statement, on the basis of experience, of what this country needs.
  Now, there was nothing whatsoever to prevent Her Majesty's Opposition from putting a motion at any rate to that effect upon the Order Paper— "that in the opinion of this House the interests of the fishing industry of this country and of the nation require the exclusive management, control and enforcement of conservation measures within a 50-mile zone around the coasts of the United Kingdom". If they had put that motion on the Order Paper I wonder whether there is any hon. Member who would have gone into the Lobby against it. I doubt it. It is evident from the speech of the Minister that he would have encouraged and supported those who wished to affirm such a proposition.
  Therefore, the Opposition had the power, by the simple process of tabling a motion which enshrined part at any rate of what they have told us today they consider to be necessary and desirable, to secure the affirmation of that proposition by this House of Commons, to make it part of the policy of this country, and to add that reinforcement to the work of the Minister in the European Economic Community.
  Instead of that, we are to divide tonight, some of us, upon the proposition that the House should, rather than should not, adjourn—that is to say, whether we should or should not wipe out the subsequent debate upon EEC matters. The Opposition have thus deliberately renounced the opportunity to make good their words. Anxious as they have shown themselves this afternoon to rebut the suggestion that they were in any way delinquent in 1972, 1974 or 1975, they could have hauled some of their delinquency back by saying, "At any rate there is our resolution, that is what we put before the House, not merely in the speech of the right hon. Member for

  1791
  Yeovil but on the Order Paper: let the House vote one way or the other. This is where the Official Opposition stand."
  But not a bit of it. They have used their control over the procedure this afternoon to prevent this House—the motion is not amendable, or someone would have amended it—from asserting its will, even from defining its will, within the European Economic Community. It is just one example of the preference for the development of the Community and its supra-national character over national interests, over—we dare use the word nowadays—national sovereignty, which has unfortunately characterised the whole policy and behaviour of the Opposition.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman at least be fair enough to admit that if it were not for the Opposition the fishing issue would not be discussed at all before Monday's meeting? All our appeals to the Government for a full day's debate on this matter have been rejected time and time again.
  Mr. Powell: We had a good deal of discussion on fisheries when this House passed a Bill introduced by the Minister to create what he referred to this afternoon as "Our waters—waters under our sovereignty and jurisdiction." Five minutes of that debate was worth many hours of talk without a motion on the Order Paper. But if we are short of time for discussion of fishery matters, it is all the more important to crystallise our conclusions and make it clear to the Government and the world where the balance of opinion in this country lies and what our determination is.
  Now these waters which are "our own, and under our jurisdiction and sovereignty"—does the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) seriously think that for our access to those waters, for the conservation of the resources of those waters and for our national requirements we can r0eally rely, and still less that we should be "obliged to rely"—the right hon. Member's words—upon the mere "good will" of the other members of the Community? Conservative Members are remarkably innocent if that is what they understand about this Europe that we have entered. Are they suggesting that we should rely for our access to and con-
  1792
  servation of waters containing 65 per cent, of total stocks upon the very people who have hitherto pillaged and looted them?
  Mr. Peyton: I have never known the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) be almost intentionally as unfair as he is being now. He has misquoted me completely. My point was quite clear. The present Government have stripped this country of the ability to protect our fishermen and our fishing in that we no longer have a fisheries protection flotilla. I made that absolutely clear. I went on to say that we thought that the Minister was lacking muscle, and therefore was forced to rely on a degree of good will that he had dissipated.
  Mr. Powell: It would indeed be advantageous in this respect—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—if we could have a separate debate and full investigation upon the present effectiveness of our fishery protection measures and what is still required. All I will say is that those of us who were most anxious about this six months ago have been partially reassured by the success with which at least the flagrant breaches of our controls and our law are being apprehended and dealt with, I am not claiming by any means that this has been sufficient; but it has been more than some of us were inclined to fear, recalling the debates last December.
  However, I am talking about securing our rights and a common fisheries policy which meets our national needs; and it was in that context that the right hon. Gentleman alleged that we were "obliged to rely on good will". Before I sit down— and I intend to make a very brief speech —I shall indicate certain weapons—other than good will, which one should always presume until it is found to be absent— upon which we can rely.
  We are fortunate to be able to have this debate on the same day as the publication of the White Fish Authority's annual report and accounts; and it is right to put on the record of the House the view of this whole matter which appears in the Authority's report, namely that
  "the treatment of fish as a common resource of the EEC was essentially an unsound conception",
  and it is
  "curious that fish, alone amongst Community resources, on land or in the sea, was to be treated in this way".

  1793
  That is a conclusion to which most hon. Members have come or are coming, if they would only admit it.
  The report continues:
  "Like the industries of the two countries"
  —and a 50-mile exclusive zone is the demand of the British fishing industry—
  "the British and Irish Governments are persuaded"—
  we heard this from the Minister this afternoon—
  "that effective conservation depends on a wide area of water under the exclusive control of the coastal state."
  It is that determination which, despite the fact that we cannot record it tonight, should issue from this debate today, and because it is expressed by the actions of the Government and not by the determination of the Opposition to prevent this House from arriving at a conclusion and decision, my hon. Friends and I will have no part in the pantomime at 10 o'clock of pretending that we are doing something for the fishing industry by voting on the motion for the Adjournment.
  The Government have indicated their conclusion on the present state of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy in the explanatory note to R/1173/77, where they say:
  "While the review so far is welcome, there is still no recognition on the part of the Commission of the United Kingdom's requirement that the re-allocation of Community resources should be on the basis of Member States' contributions to those resources and of the losses sustained by Member States' fishing industries in distant waters."
  If it were up to me to put a motion on the Order Paper those words would have been included in it and reaffirmed by the House tonight.
  In these negotiations with the Commission we are in an immensely strong position. We are in the strong position of being the possessors in international law of the majority of the fishing resources of the Community—approximately two-thirds was the estimate mentioned by the Minister this afternoon. We are entitled and able to say that in this matter, where we are discussing our own territorial and sovereign waters, it remains ultimately in our power and discretion what arrangements we make, within the Community or outside it, for access to these waters and for the conditions to be fulfilled if the access is allowed, conditions of conserva-
  1794
  tion no different from those that we shall impose upon our own fishermen; and may I say that my own fishermen in Mourne are as keen as possible upon scrupulous observation of the domestic law laid down for the preservation of fishery resources?
  Mr. James Kilfedder Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North) indicated assent.
  Mr. Powell: I see that I have the assent of my colleague in the representation of County Down.
  It would be useless for the Community to turn round and say to us "Yes, but you are effectively our prisoners. You are dependent upon us for benefits with which you cannot dispense; so, like it or not, you must toe the fishery line that we choose to prescribe." That is not so. We are net contributors financially to the EEC, not net recipients. So the Community cannot say that it will cut us off without a penny, because it is the other way round—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) was explaining in another context.
  Nor could the Community say "If we restrict our trade with you and refuse you free trade in industrial products, you will be in a difficult position." On the contrary, it is the Community which enjoys the benefit of an uncompensated surplus on the trading balance of payments in industrial products; so what it would cut off in that case would be its own nose.
  The Community also cannot say "either toe the line or else you shall starve". The threat would be "Toe the line, or you will be forced to buy what food you require from the best and most reliable markets in the world. You shall have your food more cheaply." What a terrible menace.
  That, then, is the powerful negotiating position we have in the EEC. The matter is within our control. Nobody wishes to place on the right hon. Gentleman or on the Government prescriptions as to the modalities by which they will secure these results. It is the results themselves which we demand. Those results have to be secured, because they can be secured, as I have demonstrated, and because they are essential to the well-being of one of our great industries.

  1795
  I believe that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has so far deserved well of this country and, whatever else is said, even if we go on after the hour for the Adjournment at 10 o'clock, he should be encouraged to persevere as he is doing and to exploit the invincible bargaining power which this country possesses.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: There is no doubt that there are strong storm clouds gathering on the horizon which threaten the future of our fishing industry. We spend almost all of our time in these fishery debates simply reflecting the anxieties of our constituents who are producers, marketers and, just as important, consumers of fish. Therefore, I believe that it is worth while putting on record a small optimistic note for the fishing industry.
  In the annual report and accounts of the White Fish Authority, published today, it is worth recording that, despite difficult circumstances, which are acknowledged, large sections of the fishing industry on the catching side have had a prosperous year. Total British landings of white fish rose by over 10 per cent, compared with those in 1975, reaching 750,000 tonnes. The value rose proportionately very much more, from £126 million to a figure in excess of £175 million. Including shellfish, weight was up by 11 per cent, to 841,000 tonnes, and value went up by 41 per cent.—which is a significant figure—from £140 million to virtually £200 million. It is worth recording, therefore, that the fishing industry has had some success both in catch and value terms.
  Even if we take inflation into account we must conclude that the industry has had a much more prosperous year than it had in 1975. Bearing in mind the dire and grave warnings about the fact that the fleet was unlikely to be viable and that the industry faced total catastrophe, the turn-round from expectations of disaster to an improvement amounting to 41 per cent, in value is very worth recording.
  Many take the view that uncertainty created by lack of confidence is not doing the industry any good. That lack of confidence is reflected in the fact that in the last year there has not been a single grant
  1796
  in respect of applications for vessels of over 83 feet in length. If the fleet is not replaced the potential catch in the industry will be affected.
  This matter is of great interest to me because, unless vessels are kept up, it will prejudice the safety of those who go to sea. We do not want to see those men taking to the sea in ships which are growing old and have maintenance difficulties. It is also worth recalling the increase in the number of applications for improvements in boats—an aspect which should be borne in mind.
  I echo what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said as to the stand we should take on fisheries policy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I underline what he said, because these matters must be repeated time and again so that these points are driven home. I shall quote from the official document produced by the White Fish Authority. Sometimes when hon. Members make points about the importance of a common fisheries policy, the approach of people outside the House is that we are anti-EEC politicians churning out the same old dirge, but that is not the case. Even those who are pro-EEC would accept that damage has been inflicted on our industry by the EEC common fisheries policy. Even those who are fairly neutral and on neither one side nor the other of the argument accept that that is the case.
  On page 3 of the Authority's Report we see the following comment:
  "In last year's report we remarked that the treatment of fish as a common resource was an essentially unsound conception, and we might have added that it was curious that fish, alone amongst Community resources on land or in the sea, was to be treated in this way."
  The report goes on to point out that the British and Irish Governments have taken certain steps towards conservation and so on, and it continues:
  "Even more depressing has been the tendency amongst them"—
  referring to our EEC partners—
  "to disregard scientific advice in matters of conservation in a manner that represents no improvement on experience in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission."
  The point stressed in every debate in the House on fisheries policy is summed up in this sentence of the report:
  "Until disagreement about the common fisheries policy can be resolved, all else hangs

  1797
  fire. Effective conservation by quotas and by effort limitation cannot in practice by prescribed and enforced. It is impracticable to discuss restructuring of the fleets. Arrangements with third-party countries have become more difficult to formulate."
  Every single aspect of domestic fishing policy is affected or held back or is incapable of solution or rational discussion till we can resolve the CFP. Unless we can persuade our EEC partners—and here I strike a less optimistic note—of the gross denial of British rights by regarding fish as a common resource, we shall never secure proper agreement. That conception is basic to our thinking.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who, unhappily, has departed from the Chamber, said that the Minister of Agriculture had upset our Community partners by his aggressive defence of British rights, not only about fishing but also about agricultural policy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister was prepared to go it alone on the pigmeat subsidy, on which subsequently we were taken to the European court. When that policy was being discussed I do not remember the right hon. Member for Yeovil throwing his weight against the Minister for taking unilateral action. I thought on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman felt that the Minister had gone that far. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman is treating each debate on its merits —and the merits of his speeches become fewer as each debate succeeds.
  For the first time in all our fishery debates the right hon. Member for Yeovil was driven to defending the previous Conservative Administration's decision to go into Europe and to accept the CFP. It was the first time that he tried to produce an answer, and all that he could produce in evidence was a speech that had been made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in which an assurance had been given. That was a pretty pathetic defence, because, accepting that we are now in a strong position, we in the North-West were put in a poor legalistic negotiating position, and the greatest damage that was done to us by agreeing to the CFC was the removal of our veto. If we try to debate any agreement we just reinforced the kind of thing that we are trying to avoid. It is the removal of the veto powers in negotiation that has been so damaging.
  1798
  Many hard things have been said about the Government for not properly negotiating the CFP. I am willing to accept that much of that is true, but I must say in defence of the Minister of Agriculture that he at least made his disagreement known and campaigned to keep us out of the EEC during the referendum debate. At least he has an honourable position. Perhaps I am sticking my neck out, but it may be that some of the fishermen who are so hard on the Government and those people who are trying to do their best should reflect on how many of them voted against staying in the EEC.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I have good contacts with the fishing industry, and, as far as I am aware, most of the fishermen were against the EEC from the beginning. In my constituency, which was the only one that voted against remaining in the EEC, all the fishermen known to me were totally opposed to the Common Market.
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has anticipated my point.
  It may be that the majority of fishermen were against the EEC from the beginning, but if one checks the record it shows that most of them did not vote the way that they said. In private conversation a number of them have said that they either voted to stay in or abstained. Fortunately, the figures show that the majority of people voted in favour of staying in. I am tempted these days to put an advertisement in the missing persons column of a newspaper to find out where they are, because I cannot find people who will admit that they voted to stay in. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) signifying that he did, but we already know that he did.
  Mr. James Johnson: We are all agreed here, and that is a happy position. The people who were in favour of the EEC were distant-water fishermen, because that is a much more capitalised industry, but the inshore fishermen were always against it, not our people in Hull or Fleetwood.
  Mr. Hughes: We can now let confession time go past. Our position is much stronger than appears on paper, as the

  1799
  Minister said in his powerful speech. We are in a position to go it alone. One of the things that makes me more optimistic about our going it alone—unless I am now about to expose myself for not having read the most up-to-date news—is the position of Eire in Europe which is still hanging fire. One of the interesting things is that while Britain was taken to court over the pig subsidy and immediately rebuked, that did not happen in relation to the 50-mile limit of Eire. Eire was allowed to continue with the existing limit while the case went to proof, and that is still the position. The fact that there was not an immediate direction to the Eire Government to change that policy gives me hope that perhaps Eire's view will be recognised. That would have an immense impact on our position.
  The Minister would not respond to the question about whether he had contingency plans for going it alone and he said that people should be assumed to be reasonable till proved otherwise. Of course, no one can reveal contingency plans before going into negotiations. We are in total agreement in demanding of the Commission and our partners that our special needs should be taken into account. The whole House should whole-heartedly agree on that.
  On reflection, I hope that the Opposition will divide the House. I am sure that the Opposition do not want the motion to be carried, because if it were they would have their farming constituents on their necks. There would be no great enthusiasm even if the Opposition did decide to divide the House.
  The Minister gave one of the best comprehensive reviews of the Government's approach to fishing that we have ever had. The matter of the CFP must be resolved or we cannot go any further. However, many of us have argued for a long time that it is not simply a matter of renegotiation and dealing with catch quota and limitations. Much more must be discussed.
  There is the matter of what we should do about the size of the fishing fleet. A point that I noticed in the report of the White Fish Authority was that the Scottish inshore fleet was declining and that has started happening comparatively recently. It may be that the fleet must be
  1800
  stabilised, and that it must decline if conservation fails to keep stocks up. However, we should be worried, and we should be considering the size of the fleet and the kind of fleet that we want.
  Aberdeen fishermen are worried about decasualisation in the middle- and deepwater fleet, but we cannot discuss that because we do not know how many men will be employed in the industry. There is a lot at stake. We must consider what will happen to consumer prices, because people are starting to resist buying fish.
  As long as the Minister stands up for the rights of British fishermen in the way that he has in the past he will have our wholehearted support and one hopes that he will have the wholehearted support of the Opposition.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) talked about persuading our Common Market partners of the lightness of our case. I do not think that there is much to be gained from that exercise. We need the more robust approach of the Minister of Agriculture. We should simply say that these are our decisions on fisheries and fishing grounds and that we believe that any objective fair outsider would agree that we have a good case. We should tell the Common Market that we shall not have fisheries carved up in the way that it has proposed.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his strictures on the Tory Party. In view of their record it is hard-necked indeed for the Tories to put down such a motion. We said at various times during the negotiations before entering the EEC that the livelihood and future of inshore fishermen should be protected in the negotiations, but we found repeatedly that that aspect counted in but a minor way, if at all, with the negotiators of that day. The same demands were made of the Labour Government when it was their turn to renegotiate and I recall pointing out to the then Prime Minister that they did not even have the fishing industry on the agenda of matters to be discussed.
  The crisis in the fishing industry has been developing for about 20 years. It was predictable and avoidable, and was precipitated by Governments who assumed that the resources of the sea

  1801
  were inexhaustible and could be plundered indiscriminately. This was compounded by the growth, particularly among continental fishermen, of industrial fishing, with small-mesh nets and trawls, in the spawning grounds. A high proportion of the product of this fishing was for reduction to cattle food. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) mentioned in a fisheries debate some months ago the case of the Shetland vessel "Langdale" fishing for pout. One-sixth of its catch of Norwegian pout was industrial fishing. The rest could have had a commercial value.
  The EEC suggests reliance on a system of quotas as a method of conservation, but experience has shown that when quotas are intended to operate there is massive cheating. Scottish fishermen regard quota systems as unenforceable.
  The Scottish position is different from that in England. Last year we had about 1,000 inshore vessels based in dozens of small communities around the coast. If stocks are not protected up to 100,000 jobs in fishing and ancillary industries will be lost. My party believes that British negotiators have not been tough enough—although we pay tribute to what the Minister is doing.
  If the EEC will not accept an exclusive 50-mile zone there should be a unilateral decision by the Government to declare a 50-mile limit. The Common Market had no fisheries policy until it appeared that the British application was about to be approved. Common Market countries have no fishing grounds to put into the negotiations. With a 20-mile limit, the United Kingdom has 56 per cent, of the EEC's territorial waters, Belgium has 1 per cent., Denmark 5 per cent., France 5 per cent., Germany 2 per cent., Ireland 27 per cent, and the Netherlands 4 per cent. United Kingdom and Eire together have 83 per cent, of the waters, and, with a bilateral declaration, would have the greater part of the waters concerned.
  The other countries of the Common Market are waiting for a carve-up. There is plenty of propaganda from the EEC about fisheries. No doubt, most hon. Members have received a copy of the magazine "Facts". It examines what the EEC calls fisheries' facts and myths. It says that one myth is that foreigners will come into "our" waters and take "our"
  1802
  fish. The word "our" is put into quotes as if to imply that they are not really our waters at all.
  The magazine states as a fact that Eastern European countries are among the worst offenders in industrial fishing. No one would quarrel with that, but the worst offenders of all are the Danes, who are allegedly one of our Common Market partners.
  The magazine also claims that young herrings originate off the Dutch coast. I have heard many discussions about where herrings originate, but I have never heard that suggestion. I should like to know what evidence the EEC has for that claim. The magazine says that the Dutch could catch these fish if they wanted to. They catch them now anyway. What the magazine claims as fact is actually myth and what it claims as myth is really fact.
  I turn to a constituency point, namely, the herring ban in the North Sea. The Dutch have a concession of 1,500 tonnes for their Matje season. They made their case, and it would be a pity to deprive them. There are in my constituency two vessels that fish only for herring by drift net, and I ask that a similar concession should be granted to them. I had a letter recently from the Scottish Undersecretary turning down my request. There are people in my constituency who eat herring five days a week during the summer, and salt it in autumn for the following spring and summer. The ban is a great privation for them. I hope that the Minister will investigate this point in negotiations, and urge an exemption for these vessels. The other vessels in the fleet have no objection. If the Community cannot make such a concession, it is even more inhuman and bureaucratic than I think.
  The Tory Party did not protect fisheries at the right time, and the Labour Party did not do so when it had the opportunity. Both are culpable in the eyes of Scottish fishermen. It was a bit thick for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to accuse the Minister of lacking muscle. In the eyes of Scottish fishermen the Minister is the most likely looking Samson from either party for many a day. We welcome the robust stand he has taken, and hope that he will be successful in the negotiations on behalf of our fishermen.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: A debate on fisheries has an air of unreality, because we are but pale reflections of the daily preoccupations of the industry, and because the audience for the debate is not here. Just as Aneurin Bevan found, in his pursuit of power, when he reached his local council, power was not there, when he reached Westminster, it was not there; and when he reached the Cabinet, it was not there: so the fishermen who sailed up the Thames on a protest demonstration recently would have found, if they had reached the House, the power is not here either. The power in this vital matter rests with the Commission and the Common Market.
  Our preoccupation, therefore, is to voice the needs of the industry, to provide support for the efforts that the Minister is making in the Common Market, and to provide more power to his elbow and steel to his backbone by pressing unitedly the needs of the industry. We can do no less than that, because the fishing industry has never had in national priorities its place to which it is entitled by the employment it provides, the imports it saves and the way of life it sustains.
  What are the needs of the industry? The most immediate need is for an early decision on its future. At present, the whole industry stands deadlocked. The distant water side is no more than ticking over because of the exclusion from Iceland and the curtailment of the effort in Norway and other grounds. Nothing can be done to remedy that situation or to reorganise the industry till these vital decisions are taken.
  We have to decide where the main fishing effort will now lie, what size of vessel should be used, what sort of equipment will be necessary, what scale of Government support will be forthcoming, which waters will be fished, and what scale of effort will be made there. All these vital decisions have not been taken. Till they are they hold up the investment and re-equipment that the industry so vitally needs.
  Another important decision concerns our exclusive waters. The industry, asked, first, for an exclusive zone of 100 miles, and then retreated—wrongly in my
  1804
  opinion—to a demand for an exclusive zone of 50 miles. I should think that all hon. Members will be in favour of a 50-mile exclusive zone for British fishermen, and hopes have risen monthly that a change in the common fisheries policy might be secured in negotiations.
  Like the children's serials at the Saturday afternoon picture show, we thought every month that the climax would come —that Gundelach would be pinned to the rails by the express train racing for the 50-mile limit—but every month the negotiations have been deadlocked and the decision has been postponed. Every month the decision is not taken. This is because delay seems to suit everybody but this country. Delay particularly suits those nations, our Common Market partners, which are looting and pillaging the fishing grounds of this country while no decision is taken on the future of the common fisheries policy.
  We are united in this House in saying that the kind of common fisheries policy that the Common Market wants is not a practical, viable proposition, that conservation measures can never be carried out in this common fashion. This is because a nation is the best guarantor of its own vital interests. And conservation of fish stocks is a vital interest to us. We know that any quota system soon becomes a mock auction as the total is bidded up beyond what is acceptable for conservation. We know that the Commission has no adequate way of policing a common fisheries policy because it has not got the expert staff and cannot even get its own proposals through the Council. We know that the proposals made so far show no recognition of our contribution to the Common Market pool, which is of the order of 60 per cent. Two-thirds of the fish stocks of the Community area are ours. There has been no recognition of that in allocating the quotas.
  I recognise the Government's problems and I recognise that the pass has been sold in the lemming-like rush to Europe. I recognise, too, that we are now united, the industry is united, in demanding a 50-mile exclusive zone, but it is not just a matter of demanding a 50-mile zone. That is easy. The real question is what should be done if the negotiations for a common fisheries policy to give us a 50-mile exclusive zone break down and we do not get that. We can and must assume

  1805
  good will initially, but the test is, what should be done if the negotiations fail?
  I should be interested to hear from the Opposition what their commitment is if these negotiations fail. What are they prepared to do, what stand are they prepared to take, if we do not get the 50-mile exclusive zone? Are they prepared to say that if we do not get it through negotiation we should take what is, after all, our right, that we should take it by regulation, that we should take it in three stages, the first stage being exclusion from the 50-mile zone of the fishing fleets of third parties except where reciprocal rights can be agreed; the second stage being the ending of industrial fishing in the 50-mile zone; and the third stage being the exclusion of our Common Market partners? I recognise why they will not give us a commitment. They cannot give us a commitment because of the problems it will provoke with the Common Market. Are they prepared to say that we should take the 50-mile limit if we do not get it through negotiations?
  The third need of the industry is one that becomes immediate because of the unanimity within the industry produced by the common fisheries policy. Traditionally it is an industry which has been divided into different sections with different interests. The interest of the merchants, who want to get fish coming through, is different from that of the catchers, because the merchants will take fish no matter where it comes from, even Icelandic catches, as is the case in my constituency, Grimsby. And the interests of the inshore fishermen are different from those of the distant-water fishermen. All this has prevented them from speaking until now with a common voice, but the present situation has produced a united industry, and the industry must now seize the opportunity to put its own house in order by creating a united pressure group. We, too, should seize the opportunity by creating for that industry some kind of development council, a NEDC for fishing, which can plot strategies, plan investment, forecast demand and channel investments into the areas and ports where it is vitally necessary. I should like to see this trend towards unity completed by the creation of a ministry of fisheries to put the demands of the industry to the Government.
  1806
  In conclusion, I urge my hon. Friends to recognise that this is not just another industry. I urge them to recognise that this is not a party political issue, that this is not even one of those negotiating counters which are pushed forward and pulled back and eventually possibly lost in the protracted negotiations with the Common Market. This is a vital national interest, an industry which is threatened in a way it has never been before, and which, I hope, the whole House will support by backing the kind of efforts that the Minister is making in Europe, and saying to Europe both that the 50-mile exclusive zone is essential for the British industry and that this is a need from which this House will not retreat.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I think that speakers from all sections of the House who have contributed to today's debate, or indeed, will speak later, agree that the present situation of the common fisheries policy as it affects our own United Kingdom fishing industry is totally unsatisfactory. This policy was, after all, hastily conceived in 1970. It took no account whatsoever of the subsequent enlargement of the membership through the membership of the Republic of Ireland, and of Denmark, as well as ourselves—three countries which together produce over 80 per cent, of the total fish catch of the EEC.
  I believe that no useful purpose whatsoever is served on these occasions by merely mounting a sterile argument— indeed, a sterile battle—over which party when in office was the one most responsible for this present unsatisfactory situation. It is no good hon. Members from the Scottish National Bench talking to me about this. In January 1971, the first occasion on which this House had a debate on the negotiations then taking place in respect of the United Kingdom's possible entry into the EEC, it so happened that I made my maiden speech, and on that occasion, during the course of two days, only two hon. Members mentioned the problem of inshore fishing. So both parties are indeed responsible, and I believe that absolutely no purpose is served by just dragging up these sterile arguments.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: They are not sterile.
  Mr. Hicks: Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that the principal purpose of the kind of debate we are having today is to impress upon both our European partners and the Government the concern of this House for our own United Kingdom fishing industry, in particular in regard to the present proposals to find acceptable solutions for the Community's common fisheries policy problems.
  We have had a series of proposals emanating from either the Commission or the Council of Ministers since the formulation of the common fisheries policy and most of us agree that all fall short of what we consider to be necessary for our United Kingdom fishing industry. After all, during the course of the last year or so we have, on the one hand, lost major fishing grounds traditionally used by our deep-sea fleet, and, on the other, more recently, with the extension of the territorial limit to 200-miles, found ourselves in the situation of the United Kingdom providing over 60 per cent. of the fishing waters of that enlarged area. Therefore we believe that we have a special requirement, which has not been met hitherto by any of the proposals that have emanated from Brussels.
  Members of this House who take an interest in fishing matters will welcome in general terms the approach to a system of community licensing for all vessels from non-EEC countries and the move towards the adoption of more effective conservation and management of resources. In no way do these add up to the ultimate requirements if we are to sustain a meaningful United Kingdom fishing industry.
  I sense that I shall, perhaps, be the only contributor to the debates from the southern part of the United Kingdom, particularly the West Country, but I make no apology for concentrating on the difficulties facing our West Country inshore fishing industry. We have faced a traumatic experience in the past two years or so, largely as a result of the overfishing of mackerel.
  This was highlighted only yesterday in evidence given to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee by the Ministry's own Director of Fishery Research. He is reported as having said that mackerel catches off Cornwall in 1975 and 1976 had been about 500,000 tonnes in each year and that
  1808
  about 100,000 tonnes of that was caught by United Kingdom fishing vessels. Scientists of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea have recommended a total catch of 240,000 tonnes of mackerel per year. In other words, for the past two years, mackerel have been fished at double the advised rate. In Cornish coastal waters 400,000 tonnes have been taken by non-United Kingdom vessels. Of this total, approximately 200,000 tonnes were taken by fishing vessels of the Soviet Union.
  I appreciate that the exclusion of some foreign fleets from these waters and the licensing of a limited number of others should, in theory, lighten the pressure on mackerel stocks off the South-West Coast of England. However, I urge on the Government the fact that there is still widespread apprehension felt by all sections of the inshore fishing industry.
  We have seen this situation in the past. Older fishermen remember that herring were very common in West Country coastal waters, but this is no longer so. There was also a time when pilchards were plentiful, but they declined, too. The inshore fishermen justifiably fear that the same thing will happen with mackerel because of overfishing.
  Although the overfishing has been largely caused by vessels from third countries—non-EEC countries—in the past two years the problem has been accentuated by a limited number of large vessels from Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. The reasons are clear for all to see. Our exclusion from the traditional distant waters has put pressure on the middle waters, and those boats which traditionally fished the middle waters have been obliged to come to the United Kingdom coastal waters.
  In the past there has been a good supply of mackerel, but the key question is, how long can these shoals last? This is causing grave concern to local fishermen. Indeed, it is a reflection of the fundamental problem confronting the fishing industry, namely, that our national catching capacity exceeds the availability of markets.
  Hon. Members and the various sections of the fishing industry have different ideas about how to solve the problem. In the South-West I believe that, in the short term, particularly with regard to mackerel,

  1809
  we can solve the problem unilaterally and legally without offending any of our EEC colleagues. The solution lies in the introduction of firm methods of conservation, involving the size of boats, net meshes and so on. This applies primarily to coastal waters where, apart from France and Belgium which have limited historic rights, we have exclusive control at present.
  We must also take into account the international situation in respect of the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, which is causing great concern to our inshore fishermen. We are vulnerable because we are just across the English Channel from our European partners.
  Cornwall is a development area, which implies a high level of unemployment and a shortage of suitable alternative occupations. It is an area where incomes are 12 per cent. below the national average. About 200 boats regularly fish from Cornwall, providing direct employment for 1,000 people. This may not sound many when compared with figures for other parts of the United Kingdom, but, in the context of the local and sub-regional economy, all these jobs are very significant. The jobs are also associated with other economic activities, the obvious ones being the freezing, packing, selling and transportation of fish.
  The industry also has an integral link with the tourist industry. Why do people come to places like Looe and Polperro in Cornwall? One reason is that they are extremely picturesque parts of the world. Another reason is that the villages are still alive. They are not dominated by the second homes of absentee owners who come only for the odd weekend. There is a live fishing community in those areas. People come there to see the fishing industry, to take an interest in it, to watch the fishermen. Tourism and fishing are intimately connected.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit pointless to cry over spilt milk when the milk was spilt by the Tory Party—his party which took us into the Common Market? I know that some people would like to forget that the Tory Party led us into this situation. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the town of
  1810
  Lossiemouth in my constituency will be a ghost town if we do not obtain a 50-mile exclusive zone. I sympathise with the social point that he made, but it is no good crying over milk spilt by his own party.
  Mr. Hicks: I thought that I had made my point clear in my opening remarks. I mentioned this matter in the debate in January 1971.
  Mr. Beith: Some of us have often done so.
  Mr. Hicks: I did not hear anything said at that time on this subject by the Liberal Party. The Liberal spokesman who followed me on that occasion was the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I remember it exactly. Furthermore, I see no point in going over all this ground, because both major parties bear part of the responsibility. Members of the Labour Party may say that the Conservatives were not strong enough in the original negotiations between 1970 and 1972. Members of the Conservative Party may say that the present Government were not firm enough in the renegotiations of 1975. Like all minority parties, which can afford to be all things to all people at all times, Liberals can only take credit for always pointing out blame but never having any responsibility.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more difficult to have a renegotiation than to have a negotiation in the first place? A negotiation starts from strength, whereas renegotiation starts from a subordinate position. The test is not which side was right in 1972 or in 1975. The ultimate test is which side is prepared to take a stand for the rights of this country and this country's fishermen if the common fisheries policy cannot be changed in a way favourable to our case.
  Mr. Hicks: In defence of my Government, in 1972 the 10-year interim agreement was negotiated. It gave us the base, I would have thought, for the renegotiations to take place. I agree that it is sterile to go over the matter again. I am sorry that we have got into this situation.
  Mr. Lee: Leaving aside the past, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what action should be taken unilaterally by this country if, as may be the case, we do not get

  1811
  what we want from the common fisheries policy?
  Mr. Hicks: I am not the shadow Minister of Agriculture, nor am I in any way responsible for the formulation of our policy, but what I would put on record is that possession is nine-tenths of the game, usually, and we have something like 60 per cent. plus in our hand at present. That is my own view, as a humble Back Bench member of my party.
  To conclude, I hope that as a result of this debate the Government are very much aware of the genuine depth of feeling, particularly in rural areas where the fishing industry is important. I hope that they are aware that any action that they may take which will threaten the livelihood of those inshore fishermen will have very severe consequences also for the local economy of those areas. I welcome the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this afternoon. He has no easy task next week when these negotiations are continued. As has already been said, we have put forward in answer to the Commission our proposal involving variable exclusive areas. It was also reported that for the South-West this involved a distance of 35 miles. I hope that those reports were not accurate. It is necessary for the House this evening to demonstrate to the Government that a 50-mile limit over which we have exclusive control in respect of management, control of resources, conservation and licensing is essential. I hope that this is the message the House will give the Minister to take to Brussels next week.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: This debate is important and timely, because next week the Minister enters the next crucial round of discussions on the common fisheries policy. He does so in the knowledge that Members in all parts of the House back the industry's claim for a 50-mile limit.
  The degree of common view, not always apparent in debate, had already become apparent in the all-party Fisheries Group. Those who have attended its meetings regularly know on what broad agreement it has been able to proceed recently in pressing the claims of the fishing industry. There was no better
  1812
  demonstration of that unanimity than the support I gratefully received from Members of all parties when I introduced my Ten-Minute Bill, which has now passed Second Reading. There is scarcely any hon. Member who would not be prepared to go further with that Bill in order to make it clear that the willingness to take unilateral action is now widespread.
  It would be unwise to break that spirit of unanimity tonight by proceeding to, of all things, a vote on the Adjournment. There are many Members, not least on the Government side, who believe that the House ought to proceed to the business which is already on the Order Paper for the rest of the evening. It would be pointless and undesirable to seek to defeat the carrying on of that business and in no way to express an opinion on the vital issue before us. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right when he said that it would have been better if we had had before us a substantive motion on the 50-mile limit which all hon. Members could have supported. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) stressed how important it was that the opinion should go clearly out from this House that we support the industry and wish to press that support upon the Minister. I see no way in which a vote on the Adjournment can assist that. It will be much wiser if, on reflection, the Conservative Front Bench, when it has heard the remainder of the speeches, withdraws from the curious decision which it seems to have taken and ensures that the unanimous view of the House is reflected, and that nobody is confused about the feelings of the House. There is no doubt from what has happened already that there is overwhelming support for the industry's case and overwhelming determination to back it. That is what we should reflect, not some party division on whether we should continue after 10 o'clock.
  The key to the industry's case is the conservation point, although there is also the point of the needs and problems of the British industry. We would never be so hypocritical as Iceland was at certain stages in pretending that we were concerned solely with conservation and not with the particular rights and needs of our own industry.
  Let us look first at conservation. I am sorry to say that I have no reason to

  1813
  believe that the Commission or any of the other member States understand the need for conservation, are willing to institute appropriate measures, or are capable of getting their industries to comply with such measures. There is little evidence that they understand the need for conservation.
  When I see member States opposing the herring ban, the necessity for which must be obvious to all, I am astounded at the lack of appreciation of scientifically established fact which is involved. It is apparent that the herring fisheries will disappear entirely—they have already become perilously close to doing so—if we do not maintain restrictions on herring fisheries. For member States to proceed with happy abandon with the scale of industrial fishing, which is causing enormous damage, is further evidence that they do not understand or care about the need for conservation.
  The lack of willingness to institute appropriate measures is illustrated by their devotion to quotas, the limitations of which we all know, the near unenforceability of which we all know, and the doubts about which are apparent to anybody who knows the fishing industry well. The ability of member countries to get their industries to comply is shown to be deficient by the well-known instance of the interpretation of the regulations to French fishermen by their own Government, and by some other more recent cases.
  There is a disturbing case about which I have been told which does not reflect very well on the instructions being given to our own enforcement vessels. There are reports of an East Coast incident involving a chase after six Belgian fishing vessels, one of which was caught and subsequently boarded. The vessel was fishing for scampi with a very small-mesh net shaped like a lady's stocking. The catch consisted of about one-third prawns and two-thirds white fish, many of which were under-sized. The fisheries officer said that he had contacted London expecting to be ordered to make an arrest but had subsequently been told to release the vessel. Such cases should be investigated promptly.
  I would hate to be following the example of some of our Community partners on the enforcement side. We are all convinced that we alone have the
  1814
  capacity to mount effective enforcement. It can be done at present only by national Governments. There is not the capability, let alone the willingness, to do this on a Community scale. No one can demonstrate an alternative to action by national Governments for effective conservation measures.
  My constituents and those of other hon. Members from fishing areas have had to suffer a great deal in the interests of conservation, and they have been prepared to do so. I take the herring industry as an example. There happens to be off my constituency, in the area of the Farne Islands, the Longstone herring fishery, a small pocket where the stocks have been carefully fished on a well-controlled basis. It is generally accepted that there is no threat to the future of that fishery as there is to the North Sea fishery in general. Most scientists who know it accept that it is renewing itself and is not under immediate threat.
  In the interests of obtaining general conservation, fishermen from my constituency have had to accept the general herring ban and watch the Dutch catching herring, not in their own area, for their festival purposes, while they themselves are denied access to what is a successfully conserved herring fishery. If there is to be any relaxation, they should have priority.
  The wider herring ban has also affected my constituency. As any lover of kippers will know, the production of the famous Craster kippers has been drastically reduced. Those kippers, eaten all over Europe and the United Kingdom, are smoked at Craster in my constituency. Not enough herring are now landed, and so another small local industry is seriously threatened, and with it the future livelihood of those who work in it. In every other fishery one can quote similar examples.
  We cannot ask British fishermen to accept strict conservation measures if they are not convinced that fishermen from other member countries who come into our waters, within 200 miles, 50 miles and even 12 miles of our coast, are subject to the same limitations. We have far from even a general 12-mile limit around our coasts. As a result of the decisions made on our initial entry, sections of

  1815
  the coast have only a six-mile limit, and Northumberland is one of them.
  The fishing industry of this country faces an emergency. We must have control and the primary responsibility for conservation all around our coasts. We shall suffer a great deal if we do not, and if the fish that are caught are caught by vessels from other nations. It is often said that all around the coasts of Scotland are small fishing villages. In many parts of England there are similar small communities dependent on fishing and with ancillary industries providing almost the only sources of local employment.
  Will they find words of comfort in the documents before us? Document 1173/77 refers to the possibility of
  "specific measures of limited scope to allow for localised biological conditions and certain disquieting socio-economic or socio-structural situations, while at the same time not distorting the general effect of measures in the preceding category".
  Does that mean that the EEC is worried about Seahouses and Craster and about the communities around our coasts? It does not read like that to me.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: In the European Parliament I mentioned just those places in introducing the document.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I am glad that he seems to be spending his holidays in my constituency. As he attends the European Parliament, I am sure that he knows better than I what those curious phrases mean.
  There is precious little evidence that so far the Community understands the problem or that it is prepared to act. The Commission has the strange idea that if one is about to kill off an industry one must find grants and give it money so that the people involved go away and do something else. My constituents do not want to go away and do something else. They want to catch fish for as long as fish can be conserved for the catching. My constituents have the skills and experience to do that, and there is no reason why they should give way to vessels from elsewhere. There is no reason why they should give up the craft that they have traditionally operated and are best skilled to carry out carefully and moderately.
  1816
  If one good thing has come out of this very worrying time for the industry, this dreadful situation, it is that, faced by a common threat, there is more unity in the industry than I have ever known. I am very impressed by it. There are substantial differences of interest on how the waters which will be available to us if we achieve our objects will be apportioned between the section of the industry which has retreated from deep waters and the inshore section. Those are problems that we must resolve. I am more convinced than ever that the industry is becoming capable of resolving them. The industry's organisations have improved enormously, both in their capacity to represent the industry and, equally important, in their attempts to put their own house in order. The industry is going a long way with self-policing, and tries to make sure that it has a record to be proud of.
  The Government must recognise and encourage these developments. I wish to suggest two constructive responses they could make. First, they should encourage and support the producer organisations which have developed in the industry and the new federation of producer organisations in England. They should give more recognition to the work these organisations are doing. In particular, they should help them take on the quota management powers which the sea fisheries legislation in 1976 put on the statute book. The Government could show that they see in the producer organisations the basis for effective representation of the sections of the industry involved, and for self-policing and management by the industry of its own affairs. Fishermen most respect the judgment of other fishermen, and they are showing an increasing willingness to work together on conservation matters.
  Secondly, the Government should look again at their own organisations involved in fishing, to see whether we have an ideal structure. The statutory and legal basis for the White Fish Authority comes up for review shortly, and that will give an opportunity to examine the Authority, the Herring Industry Board and the county sea fisheries committees. There is considerable scope for working out the best structure for these Government organisations. We see some curious things in my constituency, where there are four

  1817
  separate bodies with conservation responsibilities, each running its own vessels for the purpose. The Navy has vessels in the outer waters. The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee has its own vessel engaged on protection and conservation duties. The Northumbrian Water Authority has a vessel at sea off my constituency. The River Tweed Commissioners have a small boat in the area of sea off Berwick for which they are responsible. There needs to be a means for these organisations to work more closely together. They may not all be appropriate for the job. Those parts of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland that are not occupied in the present negotiations could examine these matters, and I hope that there has already been some discussion about them.
  In conclusion, I return to the main issue, which is, the need to secure protection, at least within 50 miles of the coasts of the United Kingdom, of the fish stocks there, and to see that our own fishermen have the first claim on them. It will be no use the Minister's returning to the House without some means of fully protecting our industry. If the other countries of the Community send him back empty-handed, he knows, and the Community should know, that there is widespread willingness and determination in the House to act on our own. I say that as somebody who believed, and still believes, that in its own wider interests Britain should be a member of the Community. I equally believe that it is essential that this piece of unfinished business be properly dealt with.
  If the Community cannot see that it will have to face with us and with Ireland an interminable wrangle in which we shall have to stand up for our own rights and interests and protect them even if doing so carries us into the European Court and heaven knows where else. We shall have to take that action if the Minister is unable to return saying that he has found the means to protect what we know is so important.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). However, I wish to comment on the speech of the
  1818
  hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who said that he was the only speaker who came from the South-West peninsula. Like him, I was interested in the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I have almost forgotten it, it was so inadequate and skimpy. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Bodmin say that the Minister was not doing his job or that he lacked the guts to do it.
  We had an international exhibition in Hull on Wednesday last week, followed by a conference on Thursday. All these matters, and many others, were discussed. I defy anyone to talk to people in the fishing industry who were at that conference—whether inshore or deep water— and to say that therere is not the deepest admiration for all that the Minister is attempting to do and for the way in which he is tackling the problem. I am a little puzzled about why there should be a vote tonight.
  The hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is always lucid, and today he made many fine suggestions. Although there are 60 vessels in South Down, he deserves for that speech a deep-sea fleet such as that of Hull, with more than 100 vessels.
  Mention has been made of the White Fish Authority and its annual report. I have known the Chairman of the Authority, Charles Meek, for many years. I first met him when he was Colonial Secretary in the old Tanganyika. He is a man of the highest integrity and he has used the words "confidence trick" about the CAP. I fully endorse his opinion about the CAP and the way in which we got into it. We all know that the policy was cobbled together by the Six members in a few days, not long before we entered the Community. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for sanctioning our entry under those terms. However, that is all in the past.
  In today's debate, hon. Members identify themselves with their constituents. In no other industry—and I include mining—can an hon. Member so closely identify himself and feel in harmony with his constituents. Although I am not a skipper, I feel as keenly as my constituents about the difficulties of fishing in

  1819
  areas where we fished before, particularly off Iceland. I feel strongly about their present plight.
  I speak in a sombre mood because, although it is not all gloom, no one can have any cheer in his heart for this industry in 1977. Shipyards are not building vessels. No ships over 80 ft. in length are being built. Skippers have fewer vessels to command and deckhands are on the dole. We are the Cinderellas in this situation.
  I agree with the suggestion that we need a Secretary of State to look after the interests of fishing. In Brussels, we need a Commissioner for Fisheries instead of being part of the responsibility of the Commissioner for Agriculture. I would support any move by the Government to set up a little Neddy for the industry.
  I ask the House to look at all difficulties looming ahead. What is to be the shape and size of the fleet in these changing conditions? What about decasualisation, and the mood of the men and how they feel about conditions of work on the deck? That is particularly important in bigger ports such as Hull and Grimsby.
  I turn to the EEC documents. If they tell us anything, it is that if the EEC policy stands, not merely shall we have over-fishing but some places will be fished out. The farmer allows his land to lie fallow from time to time. The only occasion when our seas are stocked with fish is at the end of a war. After the last war against Hitler the fishermen had a bonanza. Such situations do not last long. Conservation is the name of the game. These documents are full of such matters as total allowable catches and allocated quotas.
  What are fair shares? Fishermen, like other men, cheat. Men cheat at cards and with women. Without doubt our partners are cheating. The Dutch are over-fishing off Dogger Bank. The French take 80 per cent. of their total catch from our waters, fishing mainly off the South-West peninsula. There is no doubt that hon. Members will have to face incursions into the south-west waters of the Channel from our own vessels.
  If our distant-water boats cannot get to Iceland and have only a minuscule share of fish from the Norwegian area,
  1820
  it is clear that we must catch fish elsewhere. Some of our vessels that have been fishing off Iceland will go southwest and fish for mackerel. That will be poor cheer for some hon. Members opposite.
  Hon. Members have talked of natural justice and equity concerning our position inside the Community. There is no doubt that the key to conservation is enforcement. We must have a bigger, better and tougher fisheries flotilla to keep out poachers. There is no natural justice in our fishing situation. No other EEC commodity is treated like fish. Our partners do not believe that they must have a share in any of our other resources. No Belgian or Dutch farmer expects to have a share of land in East Yorkshire, for instance. But, by 1982, Belgian and Dutch fishermen will be fishing a few yards off Spurn Point. They will then be fishing up to the high-water mark—unless policy is changed.
  What is to be the future of the distant water fleet? We could alone have negotiated bilateral arrangements with Norway, the Soviet Union and other nations that would have given us adequate shares of the catch. To put it bluntly, the Norwegians fear that other nations will not keep any agreements that they make, but they do not believe that about us. Instead of achieving a settlement alone, we are now inside the team of Nine. We experience endless procrastination and delay. That suits the book of our EEC partners, who can then continue fishing within present limits because no definite decision is being made.
  What appals me is that our EEC partners are demanding and expecting to get shares in fishing north of 62 degrees north latitude, where they have never fished previously, so here we are getting a diminished share of any total quotas that the EEC gets, and we shall get doubly diminished shares if our EEC partners want to fish where they have never fished previously.
  Concerning Iceland, my view is that after the cod wars we shall now get nothing. No honest Member of this House—of course, we are all honourable Members—can really go to his constituents and tell them that he thinks that we shall get anything. I do not think so.

  1821
  The sum total of all this is a scarifying prospect for Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby and other places. Where do our men go? Our fleet in Hull has been denuded. Not so long ago we had over 120 vessels, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) knows. That figure is now down to 60. I am talking not about boats of 80 feet but about boats of 140 feet and over, boats as long as 72 feet, and costing £1 million. Here we are having to scrap boats of that kind.
  Where do we go? Iceland—nil. Norway—a fraction; perhaps, if we are lucky, 20,000 or 30,000 tonnes. The Soviets do not accept the EEC as an entity in this bargaining matter. Therefore, where do we stand? Do we send vessels to the Falklands to have an Anglo-Argentine cooperative off South Georgia? We all know the political difficulties there. At the end of the day we are now having to send our boats in pairs, with skippers, mates and crews, to Perth in Western Australia, Lagos in Nigeria and so on. Indeed, perhaps part of our future lies in having partnerships with Commonwealth countries or other States for fishing in that particular fashion.
  Other States exclude us from their waters. Can we exclude them? Today the cards are completely different. We cannot negotiate separately. It is a ludicrous position. We are dependent upon a Danish Commission, Mr. Gundelach. Commissioner Gundelach has visited Hull. Many of us heard him there. He gave a polished performance that was worthy of any Whitehall mandarin. I say that with all respects to the Whitehall mandarins. However, he was equally ineffective upon his audience. Indeed no one in the university in Hull was impressed.
  I have always thought it cheap to use the word "bureaucrat" about our public servants—but we have some in Brussels. Our people here fight for the United Kingdom, but where lie the loyalties and attachments of international civil servants? They lie in Brussels and in the organisation there. I do not think that I am a chauvinist. I spent five years as Chairman of the Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe. I have been over there in the last few months, in the company of colleagues in this House, talking with senior civil servants there. In my judgment, the EEC is completely unde-
  1822
  pendable in this context. Therefore, what can we do?
  I conclude by following the tenor of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. As a fisheries Member of Parliament, I have no doubt whatever that there is no equity in the present situation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the all-party committee does not contain a dissenting voice. Its 40 or 50 fisheries Members all feel the same way. We believe that there is no equity in the present situation and that it must, therefore, change. We think that the documents before us today and others like them are unjust—in fact, indecent. Therefore, the situation must be altered as soon as possible.
  We believe that Eire and the United Kingdom both vitally need a 50-mile exclusive economic zone—no less than Norway wished to safeguard her waters before negotiations began. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed has introduced his Bill. I think that it went through on the nod last Friday. Some people say that that Bill is superfluous and allege that we have powers in the 200-miles extended limits legislation that was passed a few months ago. If we wished to do so and had the will, we could do this.
  Next Monday the Minister will be in Luxembourg. I do not think that he will get anything there that is worth fetching back. It is all Lombard Street to an orange that he will get nothing in the negotiations. Therefore, I believe that the Government—and I speak from the Government Benches—should proclaim a 50-mile limit. Let us be taken to the International Court. After all, we were taken there over pigmeat not long ago——
  Mr. Patrick Wall: And lost.
  Mr. Johnson: —so let us go there and await what happens. I think that we shall be in good company with the Irish.
  Finally, the Minister gave a pledge last week in Hull that he would fight for the industry, and he made a startling impression. People believe in his sincerity and efficiency. They believe that if anyone can do the job, he will do it. I believe that the industry still has plenty of old-fashioned British guts in it, and I hope that there is plenty of old-fashioned British guts somewhere else. We had a

  1823
  fisheries demonstration on the Thames last week. It was a huge success. Let us have a "demo" like that go to the Scheldt, the Seine, the Weser and the Elbe and convince people there that people here mean what they say.
  I know that the Minister will do all that he possibly can. I wish him all power to his elbow. If he will only fight, he can be quite certain that he has the full backing not merely of fisheries Members but of all those in the House who want our people to do something worthwhile in the EEC.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I think that the House knows that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and myself are nearly always in agreement over the basic fundamentals affecting the fisheries industry. I certainly agree with what he said about our backing for the industry's demand for an exclusive zone of up to 50 miles. I also agree with his criticism of the EEC. I agree with him, too, that on broader issues, other than the fishing industry, it is to the great advantage of this country to remain within the EEC, although on the narrow ground of fisheries we have considerable criticism of the EEC.
  Mr. James Johnson: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about himself or myself, he knows that I was the only Humberside Member on the Government side of the House who was in favour of Britain entering the Common Market, and I still believe in such an association— but on this matter, no.
  Mr. Wall: That is exactly the point that I was making. We both believe that it is to the advantage of this country to be in and to remain within the EEC, although we both agree that it has severe disadvantages for the fishing industry.
  The only thing over which I would slightly quarrel with the hon. Gentleman is the question of where the blame lies. I do not labour the point. Both major parties must accept certain blame for the present position. Certainly the Conservative Party negotiated our original entry, but I remind the House that at that time we were considering a 12-miles exclusive zone, and no one would have thought of 200 miles at that period. When it came to renegotiating, if the hon. Gentleman
  1824
  looks at Hansard he will see that on a number of occasions at Question Time I raised the point that the CFP should be renegotiated before we had the referendum. That the Government failed to do. That is why we criticise them. I agree that both parties share a certain amount of blame, but the 200-mile issue became an issue only at the time of the renegotiation. The main argument therefore took place then, and the Minister was pressed time and time again about it. There were several matters the Government said had to be settled before they agreed to our entry. The Minister of that time was urged to make the common fisheries question one of them, and he did not.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: When the initial fisheries policy was cobbled together it was stated that in 1982 there would be no limits. The question of 12-, 50- or 200-mile limits arose subsequently, but it does not affect the basic position that control over fishing limits was totally given away by the hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Wall: It will be recalled that at the tune we were involved with Iceland, and the general consensus in the world related to a 12-mile limit. Then it became 50 miles and now the norm is 200 miles. Both parties have a share in the blame, but the hon. Gentleman's party has considerably more blame attaching to it for the reason I have given. But this is all water under the bridge, and we have to consider the future.
  There are two basic problems to be considered today. One of them does not much involve the EEC and the other definitely does. The first is the future of the distant-water fleet. The report of the White Fish Authority, which has only just come out, states that in 1974 there were 163 distant-water vessels. In the few years since then Grimsby has lost 18, Hull 12 and Leith 14.
  The position is really considerably worse than that. While the report was at the printers the position deteriorated. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West knows only too well that a large number of trawlers are laid up in the docks in his constituency which are still regarded by the owners as operational—or the owners are hoping they will still remain so. But it may well be that quite a large number of them will never go to sea again. That is the difficult position facing the owners of the distant-water vessels.

  1825
  Indeed, in opening the debate I think the Minister said that the loss in terms of catch was about £80 million.
  It is quite clear that the future of the distant-water industry is very grim indeed. The writing was on the wall way back in 1948 when the Icelandic Parliament authorised the Government of Iceland to go out to the Continental Shelf. First they went to 12 miles, then to 50 and then to 200. As I said earlier, 200 miles has now become the norm. We quarrelled with the Icelanders—quite rightly, in my view—because they took unilateral action. They got away with it each time. That is what has really put the whole future of the distant-water industry into jeopardy. That is what led to the three cod wars.
  If the Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen trawlers can no longer fish in Icelandic waters, what other courses are open to them? First, they can fish within our own 200-mile zone. The point has already been made that they will fish off the ports of the South-West, or certain Scottish ports, and we shall then have complaints in this House that their vessels catch more fish in one day than the locals catch in a week or a month.
  The Minister in due course will have to legislate on this, otherwise we shall have major rows within our fishing industry, and both sides would be in the right from their own point of view. The Minister will have to consider this very seriously indeed.
  The second alternative is to have a swapping arrangement—herring for cod, for example—with various other countries. I have been to Iceland in recent times and I am convinced that none of our vessels will be allowed into Icelandic waters for fishing until the end of next year. I say this because there is likely to be a general election in Iceland in June next year, and neither party can afford to make any concession before then.
  In any case, Icelanders have said to me "It is not much good our allowing your vessels in to fish for cod until we can fish for herring in the North Sea, and you have fished out the North Sea to the extent that it will take 18 months for the herring stocks to recover." For these reasons I believe that Iceland will be a write-off for some time to come.
  As for Norway, when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I went
  1826
  to discuss these matters in the EEC, I got the impression that we would get an agreement with Norway which would allow possibly 30 distant-water vessels from our country to fish in Norwegian waters. Seventy per cent. of the foreign catch in Norwegian waters was caught by British vessels, but since then, unfortunately, Norway has taken action and has imposed a unilateral cod quota of 54,000 tons for this year, as compared to the 98,000 tons which the British alone landed last year. That is a very serious restriction indeed on what remains of the distant-water fleet.
  The position is more serious—this is where the EEC is involved—because the EEC is doing the negotiating with Norway, and when the foreign quota is decided it will be divided between the EEC members. In the past, as I have indicated, British vessels took 70 per cent. of the fish in those waters. Shall we get 70 per cent. of the EEC quota? I very much doubt it. We shall have to fight very hard in this respect.
  The next possibility is to fish further afield. Already some Hull trawlers are going to Australia and, I hope, to New Zealand, to set up joint companies in that part of the world. I think this will be very successful from the point of view of catching fish and feeding the population of Australasia, but it will not help feed our people at home, and the skippers and crews will virtually have to emigrate to that part of the world.
  But there are the Falkland Islands. We have greatly neglected them. I refer to a paragraph in a letter sent to me by Mr. David Toulson of the Confederation of Fried Fish Caterers' Associations. It states:
  "We know from the Argentinians that they catch 160,000 tons of fish between the Argentine and the Falkland Islands. This compares with the 170,000 tons from Icelandic waters last year. On the other side of the Falklands the German research vessels are catching six tons of fish an hour. This is only one eighth of the potential fishing area and we therefore know there are vast quantities of fish to be caught. If research was carried out introducing spawning cod and haddock into these waters then the fishing prospects would become even greater and more attractive."
  We should follow this up. Some Hull trawler owners have made experimental voyages to the Falklands. I have taken up this question with the Foreign Office and received very dusty replies. It is

  1827
  obviously unwilling to encourage British trawlers to fish off the Falklands because it may exacerbate the situation with regard to Argentine. I believe that this is very wrong. We have commitments to the Falklands and to our own fishing industry. This is not germane to fishing but let us not forget that the Falkland Islands include a section of Antarctica, and the mineral resources in that part of the world may be vital to the future of this country.
  These are the courses open to us, and they do not offer very much scope, therefore the effect on the distant-water industry in Hull in particular will be very serious indeed. Owners have not yet scrapped their ships but many of them will go. Some of these vessels cost £1 million each and have a crew of 30 to 35. For every man at sea five are employed on shore. No fewer than 2,500 jobs have already gone, and there is 10 per cent. male unemployment in that area. It can be seen that the effect on the distant-water industry is wholly disastrous.
  I now turn briefly to the other section in which the EEC is distinctly involved. That is the inshore industry. I agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House in demanding an exclusive zone. We demand this— my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made the point very clearly in opening the debate—because of the Danes' industrial fishing, which sweeps the sea clear, and must be stopped. It is to some extent checked by some of the regulations which we have considered in this House recently. There is also the problem of the Belgian beam trawlers off the South Coast, which are far too efficient in their methods and are spoiling the fishing grounds with their beams. Above all, we have the problem of the French, who disregard the rules.
  My right hon. Friend quoted a letter from my constituent, Basil Parks. I asked the Minister today how many infringements of North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission rules on mesh sizes and the landing of immature fish have been reported by various nations. The list supplied by the Minister will be in Hansard tomorrow. The figures show that in regard to mesh sizes and undersized fish the French have five or
  1828
  six times more infringements than other countries. We are ourselves not blameless but the French record is bad and the figures only show those that have been caught.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned the case of the Belgian trawler that was arrested. HMS "Achilles" was the frigate that was involved. The vessel was found to have nets for prawning, but two-thirds of her catch was white fish. HMS "Achilles" asked the Ministry what to do and was told not to make an arrest. There may be a special reason, but this has caused considerable concern in the fishing industry. We ought to have arrested that trawler.
  However, we know of the reaction when we do arrest trawlers. When a French trawler was recently arrested all the other vessels blockaded their home port in protest. The French do not regard these rules as rules. Whether the blame lies with the French Government, which does not promulgate the rules, or whether it lies with the fishermen who ignore them I do not know. But it is a matter which must be put right if we are to have any form of fishery conservation in the EEC.
  I turn to the issue of protection. We have a great responsibility inside the 200 miles. I agree that catch quotas are absolutely useless and that we must have effort quotas—in other words, fishing by named vessels. These vessels should be fitted with IFF so that they can be recognised and their numbers should be painted on them so that they can be seen from the air.
  Incidentally, Nimrod is such a sophisticated aircraft that it cannot even talk to the trawlers. It can talk to satellites and almost anything else but not to trawlers. That is a fantastic position. Once Nimrod does spot a chap poaching, we should arrest the trawler and take it into port. We can do that only by ship. The Island Class is too slow. They may be seaworthy vessels, but what is also needed are fast vessels that will react quickly in arresting a vessel when spotted by aircraft.
  We also need cheaper aircraft than Nimrod, because Nimrod will suffer from metal fatigue, and we should use Nimrod for military occasions. If we use it

  1829
  entirely for fishery protection it becomes a very expensive aircraft. It originally cost £3½ million. I do not know what it costs today. I would have thought that some smaller aircraft like the Islander could be effective. Above all, we want small fast vessels.
  I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said. I believe that it was utterly wrong to disband the fishery protection squadron. I protested at the time and said that it was a great mistake. The Government said it did not matter because frigates would be available. I believe the real reason is that they wanted frigates for the ill-fated Beira blockade. The Government have left us with three or four frigates, the Island Class and inshore minesweepers. But we do not have the expertise of the captains of the ships and the senior officers who had been on fishery protection for two or three years and knew the thing backwards and above all knew the trawler skippers and the fishing grounds. I hope that the Minister will consider reintroducing the fishery protection squadron.
  I finally turn to what happens on Monday. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about the success of the fisheries demonstration on the Thames. It was an impressive demonstration which showed the strength of feeling in the industry. But what is important is to show the Common Market that rather than being a fishing matter this is a national matter. It was not only the fishing industry that is demonstrating about this; it is a national problem which involves everyone.
  As you, Mr. Speaker, know only too well, only about five or six hon. Members represent distant-water ports. But about 300 or 400 Members of Parliament have a personal interest in inshore vessels. It is a national interest. I hope that this can be put over to the EEC. I have done my best to do so because I believe this is the key issue.
  Having said that, my heart goes out to those hon. Members who said that we should take unilateral action. But my head advises a certain amount of caution. If we take unilateral action we shall be taken to the International Court. The Irish have been taken there, although their case is entirely different. They may
  1830
  or may not win, but that is not a precedent for us to follow. Certainly the Minister has our full support in doing everything that he can, but if the Government had more credibility in the EEC there would be much more chance of negotiating a satisfactory solution. Now that even certain members of the Cabinet want to come out of the EEC, along with several Labour Members, the Government's credibility is even less. That makes their negotiating position more difficult.
  Mr. Watt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if Britain were to come out of the EEC that would take away not 50 miles but the whole 200 miles and all the fish in those waters?
  Mr. Wall: I said at the beginning of my speech that in my view there was a big advantage in Britain staying in the EEC. I agree that on fishing alone there are many disadvantages. However, the big picture outweighs the small picture. If we are in this wonderful position of declaring an exclusive 200-mile limit around our coast, how could we protect it without the EEC working with us? We would have all those countries working directly against us. Clearly we shall be much more effective if the EEC works with us.
  I therefore personally hope that the Minister will do all that he can—I shall back him—to try to persuade his European colleagues to settle this issue on a reasoned basis between reasonable men. Above all, it must be made clear that this is a national issue in this country and it is, I am sure the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) would agree, an even bigger national issue in Scotland. He made that point clear when we visited the EEC together. This is a matter that concerns everyone in this country, not just the fishing industry but the housewives who buy the fish, as well as many hon. Members in this House.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: It may be of interest to the House to be informed that it happened to be my job in the European Assembly to present the report for the Agricultural Committee on the licensing proposals. I would draw the attention of the House to a number of minor but significant changes that were made to the proposals, at the behest

  1831
  of myself and others, before they go to the Council of Ministers on Monday.
  The first is that the licences should have a fee attached to them. Clearly, whether it is an EEC asset in common or a private British asset it is still an asset and the right to fish that asset, when conservation is at grave risk, is a valuable commercial proposition. Therefore, these licences should not be given away. They should be charged for, and part of the revenue, if not all, should be used for the purposes of improving the lot of fishermen.
  Secondly, on a more minor matter, we noticed that in the annex the specification of the vessels included overall length. When we questioned why the Commission proposed overall length as opposed to the normal marine surveyor's concept of waterline length, we were given the splendid answer that most of the surveillance of the licence system will be carried out by aircraft and that photographs will be taken from the air. The reason for overall as opposed to water-line length was based on how a certain amount of surveillance will be carried out.
  We then came across an entertaining legal problem. If a British frigate were to arrest, for example, a Russian trawler acting in the British 200-mile zone, and if en route back to the nearest available British port it at any stage entered the 200-mile zone of another member State—that could happen off the Irish Coast, for example—the captain of the fisheries protection vessel could be at risk of prosecution for piracy on the high seas. That is because in international law the Community has no standing on the high seas.
  A little earlier in the previous Session we discussed the first agreement entered into between the Community, acting in unison, and a third country, namely, the United States. What emerged was fascinating. The United States clearly laid down the conditions: "Either you fish under our conditions or you do not fish". That is being increasingly used as a precedent by the Community in its negotiations with third countries. The licence proposals are a part of that.
  In the midst of the negotiations, which left some of us overwhelmed, reference
  1832
  was made to prawn fishing off Guyana. That is French Guyana in the southern part of the Caribbean. It suddenly emerged as Community water. For legal purposes Guyana is part of metropolitan France, as are Martinique, Guadaloupe and various other places. We suddenly find that these are so-called Community waters. There is no legal status, but we still talk about them. They are dotted around all parts of the world—for example, St. Pierre and Miquelon in the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. In all sorts of curious place we suddenly find 200-mile Community waters.
  Mr. Watt: Do the Falkland Islands and their waters come into that category?
  Mr. Hughes: No, because the islands are not part of the metropolitan United Kingdom.
  There are a series of extraordinary positions left by the constitutional state of French colonies or ex-colonies. We suddenly find parts of distant waters from which the fishermen of Britain have been excluded. Let us take the Newfoundland Bank, where there has been historic British fishing and from which the French area has been excluded. No one intended us to get it back in those terms but we did.
  I was referring to the Agricultural Committee and those from the Community who received licences from the United States to go and fish. Mr. Gundelach it on record as saying that when we get Community licences in other places the distribution of the licences will be reflected in the internal fishing policy. When pressed, he explained that if Germany, for example, has received a licence to fish for so many thousand tons in United States waters, that will be taken into account mathematically in allocating how many thousand tons Germany will get in the so-called internal Community 200-mile zone.
  I raise that issue expressly for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hill, West (Mr. Johnson). It is clear that if that statement is honoured—I have no reason to doubt the intention to honour it—Britain's exclusion from Norway will bring compensating advantages in terms of the size of catch allocated to Britain. That is what is being contemplated.
  Mr. James Johnson: On the other side of the medal, how does it come about that the Germans can negotiate and get a so-called licence in these waters whereas we cannot? We have to get Mr. Gundelach and the EEC to negotiate for us with Norway?
  Mr. Hughes: No. The Community negotiated licences. America issued licences on the basis of those who had historically fished in its waters over the past 10 years, which happened to be Germany and France. We did not apply for licences. There was no application from Britain for a licence to fish off the United States; therefore, we did not get one. The Germans had historically fished in those waters and the United States granted German fishermen those licences through the Community.
  Part of the difficulty when we discuss the common fisheries policy with colleagues and friends from all sorts of political parties in Europe is that they all accept that there is an element of tribal hunting about fishing throughout the Community. Each port in Brittany, for instance, speaks of having its own little tribal hunting area, and behaves along those lines. Without being unkind to our fishermen, regrettably there are vestigial remains of tribal hunting and practices still present.
  We have suddenly given a technological capacity to an industry that has had to progress from the skills of the indevidual skipper. Modern radar and other equipment have given the industry enormous skills. It is well known that by means of radar it does not matter where the fishery protection vessel is as the fishing boat can skedaddle out of the restricted zone before the protection vessel can reach it. If the fishing boat has its radar properly tuned it can pick up the protection vessel and move out to where it is supposed to be fishing. As soon as it has seen on the radar screen which course the protection vessel is taking it can return to the more profitable but less desirable waters.
  What the fishing industry wants and needs is increasingly becoming incompatible. What the fishing industry individually wants is a free-for-all with everyone else excluded except the individual.
  1834
  There is a curious paradox. I have listened to the interesting speeches today, and it has been said that when a Scottish, Grimsby or Fleetwood boat ends up off South-West England it is slightly undesirable. If a Grimsby boat goes to a port in the North-East of England it is undesirable. When I was in Northern Norway I happened to speak to a Norwegian skipper and a South Shields skipper. It was clear that the Norwegian skipper looked upon the South Shields skipper as his enemy or rival. The attitude is that the fishermen from one's own port always fish cleanly and with decent methods but that the fishermen from the next port down the coast, particularly if they do not speak the same language, invariably fish wrongly and with indecent methods.
  Unfortunately, whatever we may say— some of it has been said today—about our fishermen being better behaved than the French, the French will adduce evidence to the contrary. I do not believe that their evidence is as good as ours—I have a natural chauvinism on the matter—but one gets constant complaints from French members of the European Assembly who have fishing interests. They ask why we cannot keep British fishermen from doing something in their waters. So there are difficulties.
  Conservation is and must be the responsibility of the nation State right up to the limit of the 200 miles. It must not stop or have a halfway house at 50 miles. One needs only to look at the maps of the spawning and breeding grounds of certain species like whiting to see that they occur about 60 miles off some parts of the coast. It is more important effectively to conserve a part of the sea which may be more than 50 miles from the coast than to preserve other areas well inside the limit. Therefore, although I agree that "50 miles or bust" is an excellent slogan, conservation may have to be applied throughout the 200-mile limit.
  Once that is decided, we must envisage a licensing system for internal fishing, whether it is done unilaterally by the British or by the Community, so that no vessel may fish unless its capacity to fish and its location for fishing are predetermined. Only thus do I envisage the possibility of defending the inshore fisherman against some of the depredations of

  1835
  middle-water and deep-sea people. Certain areas of waters can then be allocated as the economic preserve of particular endangered groups of people, like the small inshore fishermen and so on. Only when we apply the licensing processes internally as well as externally shall we start to get an effective conservation policy.
  Mr. Wall: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest, and I agree with him entirely. Who, does he say, should define the conservation zone, whether it is 50 miles or 200 miles—the coastal State or the EEC? I believe that the law says that it should be the coastal State, in which case it will have to keep out its own vessels as well as those of other nations.
  Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the key to the Irish case, that it is, apparently, even-handed, applying to Irish vessels as much as to the vessels of any other country. I have no doubt that the fact that there are relatively few Irish vessels of a size to which it could apply is the purest accident.
  The determination of the marine biology for conservation zones is already internationally nearly agreed. The Copenhagen Institute, for example, is of sufficient repute to be acknowledged as impartial between nations on marine biology. It thereafter must and shall remain the duty of the coastal State. The key then comes in what has been debated in the European Parliament and the Socialist Group of that Assembly time and time again. That is, should the States control it as agents of the Community? We say that they should, if the Community produces a fair and viable fishing policy. If the Community fails to do that, they must act in that way in any case. Unless the coastal State supplies and applies the conservation measures, there will be no fish to catch for anyone but if, as we hope, the Community can provide a fair and equitable internal policy, as well as negotiating with third parties, the coastal State, acting on behalf of that agreed collectivity, must do the surveillance, because no one else can do it. We cannot leave conservation to some rather amorphous body. At the moment, only the coastal States have apparently the ability or the will to do it.
  1836
  In regard to Danish industrial fishing, the House will not be surprised to notice that only two votes were cast in the European Assembly against the proposals on licensing. One was cast by a Dane who objects to all forms of licensing and wants only quotas. The other was cast by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) who voted against licensing on the grounds that, because she did not know how many were going to be given, she could not support giving any. That was rather curious.
  Mr. Wall: But typical.
  Mr. Hughes: Therefore, while one accepts the need for licensing as a conservation tool, a representative from Scotland, who would have the Europeans in the Assembly believe that she is the only true representative of that nation, was one of two who voted against the concept of licences.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The House will have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), whom I am glad to follow, not only for his experience in the European Parliament and for telling us what happened in Friday's debate, but also for his practical and sensible approach to the fishing problems which we face in the Community.
  The hon. Gentleman has underlined the fact that talk of specific limits in terms of so many miles, although necessary for international negotiation—the limits have grown from three miles to six to 12, and now there is talk of 50—is totally artificial in biological terms. The fish no more know about limits than any other species. We may, therefore, become obsessed with these artificialities, as though they were ends in themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention rightly to the paradoxical attitude of fishermen. Having spoken to many fishermen I know that they recognise this as well. The significant development of the last six or eight years has been among fishermen themselves, and has taken two forms. The first is a realisation that to maintain their livelihood there must be conservation. Attitudes have changed dramatically, especially in recent years. In Scotland, fishermen have volunteered to have a haddock quota scheme. That kind of co-operation shows how the industry

  1837
  has advanced. From my experience in the Scottish Office I remember the problems caused in the early 1970s by closing fishing areas. I recall that when I wanted to close one small area for herring in the Firth of Clyde for a limited period of the year the opposition to that proposal was enormous, greater than anything one would see today. The industry has moved forward and it is right that we should move in support of it.
  There has been another significant development. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we are dealing with an industry that is organised now. It was not organised 15 years ago in the way it is today. It is a sad comment that it is because of threat of international events that the sections of the industry have been brought together. However, the industry is very much more mature, better organised, and has a greater understanding today, than it had a few years ago. In my dealings with fishermen I find that they are not only concerned with the narrow interests of the industry, but with the wider repercussions and implications for affairs in a much wider field.
  The timing of this debate is particularly useful because tomorrow Mr. Gundelach is visiting Aberdeen. He will look at the fishing industry, not only in Aberdeen but also in Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and he will have an opportunity to meet fishermen and other members of the industry, who are organising large demonstrations and marches, and to meet representatives of local authorities. The best message that can come from the debate tonight is to let Commissioner Gundelach and others in Europe realise the unity in this House for the case of the fishermen and the general support for the industry by politicians.
  In one sense this debate is one of a continuing series that aims to obtain recognition in Europe for the case of the fishing industry. I am the first to understand and appreciate that we do not expect any immediate resolution of our problem in pressing our case. This debate may well have to be repeated in one form or another on many occasions before we can arrive at a conclusion.
  In this respect I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he spoke this afternoon. He helped to reassure many of us about his understanding of the
  1838
  industry and its case. If he sticks to that he will have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  I draw attention to the Minister's dealing with the question of the way in which our membership of the community has brought us problems. It is wrong to think that the road outside the EEC would have been strewn with roses and without any problems at all. Of course it is true that the Community brings us problems, but there would have been problems—perhaps of a different or more limited nature—had we remained outside. To claim that there would have been no problems outside is not a true representation of the likely events had we not joined.
  Unfortunately, many of these debates are just a forum where our colleagues on both sides of the House put forward pro or anti-EEC views. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) say that he hoped that the arguments today would be put forward on their own merits and not because of an attitude one way or the other about membership of the EEC.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who said that this issue was too important for party politics. We are dealing with a very important industry and an issue that affects men's livelihoods. We want to see the industry supported in the House of Commons on its own merits and not simply as a means of making party capital.
  The Minister made it quite clear that our basic objectives in renegotiating the common fisheries policy were to conserve stocks and to maintain the livelihoods of communities and people who are dependent on fishing.
  I was involved with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in the original negotiations for entry into the EEC. These two points were precisely the two to which we held in 1970–71 in those negotiations. The conservation of stocks and the maintenance of livelihood of people were the two things that were recorded in the minutes of the EEC at the time as being fundamental, in our view, to the review of the common fisheries policy to take place before 1982. It is not true to say that fishing was

  1839
  pushed to one side in those negotiations. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham said there was no single issue of this nature that caused more debate and discussion at the time than the fishing industry.
  I remind the right hon. Member for Down, South that fishing was treated differently in those days. Issues like Commonwealth sugar, butter from Australia and New Zealand, and our own problems in relation to agricultural policy were dealt with under the transitional arrangements. Fishing was dealt with in quite a different category. It was not in the agreed transitional arrangements, but we agreed to accepting the CFP with derogrations for 10 years up to 1982, with a provision that, in the period up to that date, the policy should be reviewed with particular reference to the crucial matters that I have mentioned. I think it was right to treat fishing in a different way, and in fairness to the events of 1970–71 I believe that this should be recognised.
  I come now to the position at the end of 1982. It is absolutely true that in the purely legalistic sense under the Treaty of Rome, one could return to the situation of fishing up to the beaches, but one must remember that it is not just legalism but the actual practice of the Community that should be judged. I believe that the Minister would support me on this. The practice of the Community does not follow exactly the letter of the Treaty of Rome. If we look at the actual practice of the Common Market—and I refer here to the Luxembourg agreement of January 1966—it is quite plain that the Community should be judged by its spirit and action rather than by legalism.
  I remind the House of the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) which he made in the House as Prime Minister on 17th November 1966. He made it quite clear that we should judge the Community by its actions, and I believe that is right. It is worth recalling the agreement arrived at when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), as the then Prime Minister, met President Pompidou. As is made clear by the Official Report of 24th May 1971, at col. 32, it was made absolutely clear that, regardless of the legalism of the Treaty of Rome and what might
  1840
  have been negotiated, where any country which was a member of the Community felt that its vital national interests were affected that view should be taken into account if the Community was to move forward with the unanimous agreement of its members.
  I do not want to labour this point, but I wish to stress it very strongly indeed. I believe it demonstrates the way in which the Community works. I have mentioned Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers who have shown their belief in that proposition. That surely is a realistic and practical way to approach that matter.
  Mr. Powell: On that basis, what happens if there is no unanimity before the end of 1982?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall return to that point before I finish. I believe that is the crux of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to mention it.
  I wish to deal with one other aspect of the policy. I refer to the renegotiations entered into by the Labour Government. It is fruitless to keep on stressing what was right or wrong about the negotiations in 1970–71, or to make similar fruitless exercises about the renegotiation process. It is pointless to say these things about what happened in 1970–71 unless the people concerned are prepared to say on the basis of Government responsibility, not personal responsibility—and I wish to make that clear to the Minister—why they did not raise the problem then. I believe they were right not to raise it. I believe that at that time the political importance of the fishing issue might not have been given the attention it deserved. I believe that on tactical grounds it may have been right not to raise the matter then.
  I now come to the point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I believe this debate has two main purpose. The first is simply to indicate, through the voice of this House, that the Government, when negotiating, have behind them the strength of this House of Commons, and that we expect them to fight as strongly and as toughly as possible. We hope by that means to obtain a 50-mile exclusive zone in which the British Government have exclusive control over those limits.
  The second purpose of the debate is to demonstrate to the EEC the strength of

  1841
  our case and the feelings of the House. I have not attempted to go into the details of the case because I have done so on previous occasions, and other hon. Members have already dealt with the details. I believe that the issue of fishing and its importance becomes a real test of the integrity of the EEC in its ability to deal with a matter which we believe to be vital to our national interests.
  By entering the EEC, I believe that we brought into that organisation a new dimension on fishing. This is demonstrated by the fact that the common fisheries policy evolved at only the eleventh hour before we entered. The EEC should be an organisation that considers the vital interests of its members. If it moves forward in that way, and has the unanimous support of its members in what it does, it will prove to be an international organisation giving greater stability and security to us all. That is the reason I and others supported its entry initially.
  This is where I come to the crunch. If the EEC does not take that attitude and shows that it is not sensitive to these issues which are so vital to national interest—and provided that the Government represent them in that way and if the EEC is not prepared to adopt changes to meet the interests of its member countries, the result is that the EEC will have failed. If that happens, the EEC's days are numbered. That is the sanction our Government have, and that must be recognised by any Government when pressing a case that is a good one, as it is here, to a conclusion. That consideration is extremely important for this country and the fishing industry.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: I apologise to the House for not having been present throughout the debate. I had the advantage of hearing the Minister's speech, but I had to leave the Chamber to attend to other duties. I intend to be brief because the time of this debate is running out. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has deal with a number of the points I wanted to raise.
  These debates have been haunted in the past six months or so by several considerations. In these debates held on Supply Days many contributors have fastened on the issue whether we should
  1842
  be in or outside the EEC. It is understandable that those who personally opposed entry come to the House to say "I told you so. I told you it was a mess and you went in with your eyes open." Those people are entitled to say that.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: They are right, too.
  Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue his point, and he usually does—eiher sitting down or standing up. We have to face realities. I supported our entry into the EEC and the legislation that went with it, and I shall have to take the consequences in my constituency. But I believe that we must try to make the system work. Indeed, I see no practical alternative because, however much howling there may be, we shall not come out of the EEC for some foreseeable time. In the meantime, we have a problem and it must be dealt with. The Minister knows that when he meets his colleagues in Europe on this subject, he will have the full support of the House in however tough a line he decides to take. I know that the case the Minister deploys will be more vigorous than that pursued by Ministers who have conducted these affairs in the past.
  There has been a dilatoriness about the way in which the negotiations have been carried out, but I believe that time is of the essence—for two reasons. The first reason is the importance of conservation, which must be stressed. Attacks on stocks have been long and sustained. If there are no fish there, it does not matter whether we are in the EEC or out of it because the fish will not be there to catch.
  The second reason that time is so important involves the problem of redeployment of the fleet and the question of the 200-mile limit. But owners cannot build ships until they know in which waters they will be fishing because that will govern the type of ship built and other considerations.
  Therefore, time is of the essence. I hope that the Minister will say this to the EEC, and I am sure that he will. Time is not on our side. It may be on theirs, but certainly not ours. I ask the Minister, when he is at the negotiations, to consider the position of Iceland. What

  1843
  worries me about the negotiating stance that is taken by the EEC in this—and I know that the EEC does not have an easy job but nor do we in dealing with Iceland—is that I should not like to feel that the fact that Germany has already concluded a bilateral agreement with Iceland on taking 50,000 tonnes of fish out would mean that the EEC would take that into account and say that we should go softly in case the Germans lost their fish. If the EEC is to negotiate, it must do so for the Community as a whole.
  A further point has been raised in the debate today that affects fishermen in my constituency and it will certainly continue to affect us, whatever the situation may be. That is the matter of protecting the fishing zones that we have left. Practically speaking, there is a pretty impressive system in Scotland, where small aircraft are used in combination with fishery protection vessels. The aircraft can identify the ships at sea, locate them and guide other vessels to them. That gets round the problem that was identified by my hon. Friend, the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) whereby a ship with radar can escape while the fishery protection vessel is approaching.
  The loss of the fishery protection squadron was a great loss and mistake. We said so at the time because the expertise that the squadron had built up over the years in detection, and its knowledge of fishing, cannot be matched by detaching a frigate or other vessels from time to time. That is not good enough. That is where I shall part company with the Government tonight, if we do not receive a definite assurance from the Minister that something will be done to improve protection. With a licensing system particularly, protection will be vital, much more so than with a quota system, because there will then be a situation in which ships must be seen while fishing and identified, to make the system work. If we have only the air ability, it will be easy for ships to slip in and out. The Icelanders work that system successfully from the shores around Iceland. I feel strongly about this aspect.
  I promised to be brief, but I must say again that time is of the essence for my port. Every stratagem that the owners can use—using a bit of a quota here and
  1844
  there, sending ships to Greenland and experimental voyages—is coming to an end and unless something is evolved by the EEC soon we shall be in grave difficulties. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns that this is a test for the EEC to show that we can take the fishing industry into the EEC. It is an act of good faith and I hope for everybody's sake that the EEC will use its powers in good faith.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: The last two speakers from the Government side have at least had the grace to contemplate the possibility that all may not be well and that the problem may not be satisfactorily resolved. I intervene as a representative of a landlocked urban constituency—without even a river with enough fish for freshwater purposes—purely eschewing all technicalities, to raise one matter with the Minister. The matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), when he said correctly that this is a national problem and not just a fisheries one.
  The fact remains that every time we discuss anything upon which the EEC impinges—whether it is the manufacture of isoglucose, the pig subsidy, the localities for refining North Sea oil, patent law, comparatively humdrum matters such as poultry slaughter, or vital matters such as cheap food imports—we watch the steady erosion of our interests because they conflict with EEC interests.
  The fisheries problem illustrates perhaps more starkly than most the fact that our kind of economy is different from that of our partners. The fact that we hold 65 per cent. of the fish stocks means that invariably we find ourselves in a measure of confict with those with whom we are in this incongruous alliance.
  My purpose is to ask the Minister, with the utmost good will, to face up to what will happen if he does not get the answers that he wants. It is not good enough for him to say, as he did in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), that he was an optimist and would work strenuously in the interests of this country. We know that he will do that. He is the first Minister of Agriculture for donkeys' years who has done so, and all honour to him. It is strange

  1845
  that the Opposition should support him by putting on a three-line Whip on a Supply Day which implicitly censors him —though they do not have the guts or political guile to do so specifically. My right hon. Friend goes about his duties with the good will of many hon. Members, and that will be shown by the size of the majority at the end of this debate.
  However, my right hon. Friend cannot escape a measure of criticism if he or the Minister who winds up the debate does not say what will happen if we do not get the answers that we want. My right hon. Friend is already in conflict with the Community in its court and has, for the moment, backed down over pig subsidies. I understand why he has done this although I wish that he had not.
  Because conflict with the other members is likely, if we are to end the uncertainty that has plagued this industry, and so many others, since we joined the Community, we must know the Government's contingency plans in case we do not get our way.
  I am not optimistic that we shall get our way. It is clear that some of our partners, including, as ever, the French, will try to do us down. Are we going to find ourselves pleading a suit at the court of the Community? If that suit goes against us, what will happen then?
  I suspect that, on a strict interpretation of Community law, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to establish a 50-mile limit, which I wholeheartedly support, would be ultra vires Community law. It will be fascinating to see what happens.
  Some hon. Members would not be content with a 50-mile limit and would prefer us to follow the admirable example of the Norwegians and Icelanders and introduce, wherever possible, a 200-mile limit.
  At present there is no chance of that, but if we left it, it would become a live issue again.
  May we have from the Government a clear indication of their policy in the event of the Minister's proposals being rejected by the Community? Are we prepared to defy the EEC and to act unilaterally? If so, are we prepared to take the consequences that might follow by way of retaliatory action? I hope that we are. We have all the bargaining power because we have all the stocks.
  1846
  The same is true when we talk of action on manufactured imports. There has been a consistent adverse trade balance and it has got worse since we joined the Community. In this area, as in fishing, the Common Market is not in a position to take painful retaliatory action against us.
  At all events, the present uncertainty must be ended. Some time this year the court of the Community is going to adjudicate substantively upon the pig subsidies dispute, so sooner or later the Government have to face the situation of being declared illegal by the Community. I know the kind of answer I would give to them. I want to know what my right hon. Friend's answer will be, and I should like to know tonight.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: During these debates on the fishing industry we very often of necessity have to hear the same facts and figures and the same arguments deployed in successive debates and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, it may well be that we shall have more fishery debates, when the same arguments will have to be repeated yet again. But I hope that one theme which has come to be only too well known in these debates will not have to be repeated yet again, as it has been this afternoon, and that is this rather futile question of who was to blame for the EEC negotiations.
  The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party in 1970–71, when it was negotiating, considered that it was more important to get into the Common Market when we wanted to get in than to negotiate on fisheries. That may have been wrong, but it was what we believed at the time and that is why I voted for it although I knew that many people in Aberdeen and the North-East did not like it. It is also true that when the Labour Party was renegotiating it may have had the same sort of argument. Many of us on both sides of the House urged the Labour Party to renegotiate fisheries also, but—by our votes in the referendum, in so far as we are willing to talk about which way we voted— those who like myself voted "yes" in the referendum were saying that we considered it more important to get info the Community than to protect and to get

  1847
  the best for our fishing industry. I hope it is not necessary to put up any smokescreens about this; it was an honourable attempt to do what was best, whether or not it was mistaken.
  I shall be brief, since I imagine that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) will want to make a short contribution. I certainly welcome this opportunity to reinforce the argument which the Secretary of State will take with him in an attempt to achieve, or to take the first step towards achieving, a fairer deal for the British fishing industry. Of course, the most important thing that he will have to try to do is to make the EEC realise that the United Kingdom has a special interest and therefore deserves special treatment.
  There are those who say that the EEC does not understand what is Britain's special interest. This was the sort of argument we had from some of the more fanatical of the pro-Europeans. It is not a question of not understanding what the British interest is. It is, on the part of the French for example, a refusal to understand or to admit that Britain has a special interest, and we do not have to look very far to see why the French, for example, refuse to admit that we have a special interest in a 50-mile exclusive limit. I think I am right in saying that some 80 per cent. of the fish the French industry catches is caught within a couple of dozen miles of the British coast, so of course they will resist as long and as strongly as they can what we regard as our just claims.
  Let me enumerate some of the reasons why Britain has a special interest and therefore deserves special treatment. First, the United Kingdom provides 60 per cet. of the fish in the whole EEC fishing pond. Secondly, the United Kingdom has the largest number of fishing vessels in the EEC. Thirdly, the United Kingdom fishing industry catches the greatest number of fish for human consumption within the EEC.
  Fourthly, in recent months we have lost out in three of our traditional major fishing areas—Norway, the Faroes and off Iceland.
  Fifthly, fishermen in this country naturally distrust the apparent faith that the EEC continues to have in the quota
  1848
  system. Our fishermen do not believe that anyone else apart from us abides by the system very much. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), in a very interesting speech, pointed out that, wherever he went in the Common Market, he found that the fishermen of one country always thought that the fishermen of another country behaved worse than they did. There is probably a certain amount of truth in that, but there are some facts that cannot be gainsaid.
  It is no use the French saying that they do not catch 80 per cent. of their fish within a couple of dozen miles of the British coast. That is a fact. That is why they behave in a way that we regard as worse. It is not just a question of unfounded smears being thrown about.
  Another fact is that a delegation has come from the North-East of Scotland hoping to see the Secretary of State for Scotland to point out that in the last three weeks, while there has been a ban on herring fishing in the North Sea, the Danes have fished 2,000 stones of herring. That is not a vague smear. This is the sort of thing that naturally causes our fishermen to distrust fellow members of the EEC with regard to quotas.
  The sixth point, which has not been made as explicitly this afternoon as it usually it, but which bears repeating, is that certain communities in this country are heavily dependent on the fishing industry. One is my own constituency of Aberdeen, and there are others all down the North-East Coast of Scotland and England. I remind hon. Members that, although oil has been found off the coast of Aberdeen, and Aberdeen is now known as an oil city, 25 per cent. of the workforce is almost wholly dependent on the fishing industry. If we are not successful in our renegotiations, those jobs and the livelihoods of those people will be put at risk.
  My seventh point is that it is a curious fact that, although oil in the middle of the North Sea is regarded as a national asset and is accepted as such by other members of the Common Market, the fish that swim in the same location are not regarded as a national asset. That is illogical. This is brought home to me all the more forcibly when, as one of the Members for Aberdeen, I may speak with two sets of business people within a hundred yards of each other and realise

  1849
  that the resources of one group do not belong to this country while the resources of the other group do belong to this country. This is an illogicality which the EEC has not yet taken into account in formulating the common fisheries policy.
  Mr. Heffer: Precisely because it is an illogicality, is not the logic that the Commission and our friends in the Common Market will eventually argue that all the oil resources found in the Common Market pool should belong to the Common Market and not necessarily to the individual country concerned? Is not that the logic of the next step in the argument.
  Mr. Sproat: That would be a logical step. It is not a logical step that I would follow, for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member knows, oil is of importance to this country. Any Government would have to admit the logic of that. But that is what one might perhaps call the force majeure answer.
  I would give a logical answer to anybody who put forward that argument by saying that I do not believe that the fish should be within a common EEC pool any more than is the oil. Britain is being asked to make a totally unfair bargain under the common fisheries policy. We are being asked to swap 60 per cent. of the fish within the EEC pond, fish which in a sense are in British waters—I say "in a sense" because it has been a unilateral declaration by the EEC—for the 1 per cent. of fish which we take out of the fish in EEC waters which belong to the other members of the EEC. Sixty per cent. for 1 per cent. is a totally unfair bargain.
  Hon. Members might ask "What would you do?" I would say that if the EEC refuses to have regard to the natural justice of this argument this country would be justified in making a unilateral decision, a unilateral extension of the 50-mile limit. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The fisherman's friend.
  Mr. Sproat: The fisherman's friend, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Why is my hon. Friend able to say, without immodesty and with truth, that he is the fisherman's friend? The answer is that, some months ago, it was he who came
  1850
  to Fraserburgh and made what has become known as the Declaration of Fraserburgh, where he pledged the Conservative Party officially to a 50-mile exclusive limit.
  I hope that my hon. Friend, having taken that bold and original step then, will say, when he winds up the debate, that if the EEC continues to deny this country what it should have in natural justice, a 50-mile exclusive limit, he will pledge the Conservative Party to take unilateral action in extending the 50-mile limit.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must know——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Is the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) giving way?
  Mr. Sproat: I was halfway to my seat when the hon. Gentleman rose, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: Speaker after speaker this evening has talked of what must be done to save the fishing industry, but no one has talked of why we must take this action to save the industry. I sometimes despair at this country's ability ever to get its balance of payments right. If we were talking this evening of the problems facing the motor vehicle industry, heavy industry or the electrical industry, there would be solid ranks of Members on both sides of the House, but because it happens to be the fishing industry, an industry which has about 140,000 work-people in small pockets all around the coast, very few hon. Members take the trouble to come to listen.
  We face a great deal of out-of-date Treasury thinking in this matter. It is high time the Treasury started to take a look at the import content of some of the exports that this nation makes. We must remember that in order to export a car we have to import a great deal of raw materials and many parts, whereas if we export fish all of the fish, all of the content of that export, is real money coming to the nation. If we examine the export of heavy goods we find that half the time it is subsidised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, whereas with the export of fish it is a case of money on the nail. The cash is paid straight over and there is no liability on the Exchequer.

  1851
  I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) taking a great interest in the fishing industry, and so he should because it was the fishing vote that put him into the House. I was pleased to hear him call for the setting up of a little NEDC to look after the fishing industry. Unless the nation realises this industry's potential the industry will continue to be the Cinderella in the House. It is obvious that the industry was the Cinderella when the Administration of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) took us blindly into the Common Market and paid no attention to the industry's needs but accepted the common fisheries policy, which, it has now been generally accepted, was rapidly cobbled up just before our entry.
  The dreadful legacy that the present Minister inherited gives him no excuse for his continued lack of meaningful action to protect the interests of the British fishing fleet. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland tell us, for example, why the Government agreed to an extension of the pout boxes only to 60 degrees North? Why was it not 62 degrees? Did the Government not know that in those extra two degrees there are valuable fishing grounds? Those grounds are now available to the Danish industrial fishermen to come in with their small-mesh nets and take away some first-class haddock, hake, and many other varieties of fish that should be going for human consumption, instead of down the holds of those Danish vessels, which take it straight to the fishmeal factory. It is vital that we try to get our EEC partners, the Danes, to stop industrial fishing. If FEOGA or regional aid funds from the EEC are needed to do that, by all means let the Danes have them all. We would much rather have a viable fishing industry than all the subsidies from the EEC.
  There was a so-called total ban on the fishing of herring in the North Sea, but there was just a little chink left, which said that the Dutch might have 1,500 tonnes so that they could celebrate some special festival. It is well known in the fishing industry that they promptly took four times the quota that was allowed. They landed about 6,000 tonnes within one week, and I have it on good authority that those herrings were making 50p each on the pierhead in Holland.
  1852
  That is surely a clear indication that imposed quotas do not work. Whenever the fishing industry has the opportunity, it grossly exceeds the quotas. Let us examine the position where there is a voluntary quota, one imposed by the fishermen themselves. I wish to give the example of the haddock quota that the Scottish inshore fishermen imposed on their own members, a quota of 40 boxes per man per week landed. It is an awful pity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) knows so little about his fishing job that he cannot see that a voluntary quota of 40 boxes, whether gutted or ungutted, is much better than an imposed quota of gutted haddock. In fine weather such as we are enjoying now it is no hardship to a fisherman to gut up to 80 boxes in a week. It will take him a long time, but he can do it. It is too bad if he is to be made to stay on deck in the teeth of a winter gale and go on gutting haddock that should be coming into our factories and providing jobs for the women in the fishing communities around our coasts. I ask the Minister to re-examine this matter closely. Here we have the fishermen prepared to impose a tight quota on themselves, and yet they are forced to accept a quota that will not be so useful.
  I am watching the time. I am sure that the Front Bench speakers from both sides of the House will be prepared to give up a few minutes in order to allow me to finish my speech.
  I turn now to the wider context. It is obvious that only limited fishing will be available in Icelandic, Faroese and Norwegian waters. We hope that the Minister will impress upon the EEC how hopeless it has been in looking after Britain's interests. Mr. Gundelach has negotiated with Iceland and the Faroes and he is supposed to be negotiating with Norway. He has done a bad job on each occasion.
  I was sad to learn tonight that Regulation S779/77 was not extended for a further three months. That means that boats from third countries will be allowed to come into our waters and take away our fish for a further three months. There should be a reduction in the number of EEC boats allowed within our limits. There should be a reduction in the allowances we give to third countries. Allowances should be made only when there are reciprocal arrangements and facilities

  1853
  are offered to our fishermen such as are offered by Russia and Norway.
  When is the EEC going to face its responsibility to save fish stocks? It is a pity that the House gave away our jurisdiction over two-thirds of the EEC waters. I have never had faith in the EEC and its ability to look after widely divergent interests, such as those of Scotland and Italy. I am now totally convinced that the EEC has neither the skill nor the will to look after our fishing interests or administer the CFP.
  As a member of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of this House I recently visited Humberside. I was saddened to see the number of trawlers that were tied up. They had many years of fishing life left to them, but I saw fishing gear being taken from their decks. I was saddened to sec young, able fishermen taking nets from the boats because the boats had nowhere to go to fish. I urge the Government to take a fresh look at the problem of the boats that are tied up on Humberside and to try to find a way to get them back to sea.
  Although there is a shortage of areas in which to fish in the North Atlantic, there are fishing stocks in the South Atlantic. Why do we not make a deal with the Falkland Islands and set up a viable fisheries industry there? We asked the trawler owners and skippers if they could prepare ships to catch these fish. They said that they could and would be delighted to do so, rather than allow their men to remain on the dole.
  Fishermen who are on the dole are doing nothing to help our balance of payments. It is unfortunate that the Minister who is responsible for fisheries is also responsible for agriculture and food, but he must get down to this problem of getting these boats back to sea.
  I realise that the Treasury will become complacent because of the vast sums of money that will now be flowing into the Exchequer from the products of Scotland's oilfields. I urge the Government to use the money wisely. Oil supplies will not last for ever, but fish stocks will, if they are used wisely. If the Government would use some of the oil money to send boats from Humberside down into the South Atlantic, I for one would be absolutely delighted.
  1854
  Some hon. Members may have noticed that tonight I have not spoken particularly about the Scottish fishing industry, but I assure them that never for a moment have my thoughts left it. I particularly want the Humberside boats to be sent down into the South Atlantic so that we shall get them out of the waters around Scotland and have them away doing a job for which they are better suited. Many of these English boats are too big for inshore work. It is important that we put them to a task for which they were built.
  The fishermen of Scotland know perfectly well that the Scottish National Party will fight for their interests first, last and all the time, and that it is totally behind them in their struggle for a 50-mile zone. I am not very sure that Mr. Gundelach, the EEC Commissioner, knows that yet, but by this time tomorrow he will know perfectly well because in Aberdeen tomorrow he will be told in no uncertain terms and left in no doubt whatsoever of the absolute determination of the Scottish fishing industry to have a 50-mile zone.
  I return to the problem of the order on haddock that we debated in Committee yesterday. There are two hon. Members who will be left in no doubt about the feelings that the Scottish fishing industry has about them. I refer to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who yesterday voted for that order.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Far be it from me to defend the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) or the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), but the fact is that they did not vote, and that was despicable, because they were not prepared to face their responsibilities.
  Mr. Watt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course those two hon. Members did not vote. Come January and February, in the teeth of a gale, their names will be taken through hand by fishermen many times, and they will not at that time be called "honourable Members".
  I intend to conclude my speech very shortly, but I make no apologies for saying that we in the SNP believe that Scotland has a wonderful future ahead of it,

  1855
  especially if we build up our fishing industry. If we look after our oil interests and our fishing industry we shall be able to snap our fingers at this House.
  I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by giving you one idea. Nothing is permanent——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not about to make any gifts of ideas to me.
  Mr. Watt: Nothing is permanent, and perhaps the most urgent task that faces the Government now is to protect stocks of fish within 50 miles. I suggest to the Minister that he does a temporary deal with the EEC, asking the EEC to keep its boats out of our waters for a period of five years. It will take about that time for fish stocks to recover. I believe that under the control of our fishermen, who will fish sensibly, the stocks will recover. If at the end of that time there are extra fish in the areas under our jurisdiction there may be a case then for letting some EEC boats, under strict licences, back into these waters. I put that to the Minister because I know very well that the EEC often works to a time clock. It may well be that it would accept just such a deal. The alternative is that there will be no fish left, either for their fishermen or for ours.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The one advantage of hearing a speech by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) is that one realises that on a subject such as this, as on all subjects, to him it seems that all problems have very simple solutions. However, the experience that I have had in listening to the debate and talking to my hon. Friends who have knowledge and experience of the fishing industry, so many of whom have spoken in the debate, is that this problem, like to many others, is very complex and that there are certainly no easy answers.
  I say this only because I thought that the hon. Gentleman's summary of what happened yesterday on the haddock order was one of the most unfair and distorted attacks that could be made on my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr
  1856
  (Mr. Younger). If we were to approach this problem with the blind simplicity of the hon. Gentleman, we should certainly have even less success than we are haying at the present time. However, there is one matter on which I would certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. Members emphasised how vital this industry is to Scotland. Scotland has only 9 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, but it accounts for about half the fish landed in the United Kingdom. In 1976 916,000 tons of fish were landed in the United Kingdom, of which Scotland accounted for 442,000 tons—in other words, 48 per cent. by volume. In value the percentage landed by Scotland was 42 per cent.; that is to say, £85·5 million out of a figure of £200 million.
  Apart from that, there are other indications of the importance of the industry to Scotland. In the annual report today of the White Fish Authority the employment figures were given—7,500 in Scotland as against 9,000 in England and Wales.
  Apart from that, as I am sure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) would agree, with her knowledge of fishing, the Scottish inshore fishing fleet is more modern than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. We can see from the figures published in the report this morning that 23 per cent. of the Scottish inshore fleet was five years and under in age, and 20 per cent. from six to 10 years old. In England the figure is 8 per cent. for both categories. We therefore have an industry which is important, modern, and vital to a number of communities.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very strange that he should be reciting our speeches in this House to us, telling us what we know already, and wasting the time of the House in doing so, when his Government took us into the Common Market, without—as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) admitted on Friday in Strasbourg—a safeguard for this vitally important industry?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I strongly deprecate hon. Members undertaking or usurping the duties of the Chair. The question of wasting time is entirely for the Chair and not for any hon. Member to determine.
  Mr. Taylor: I am sorry that after only a few sentences the hon. Lady thinks I am wasting time. She has asked me a serious question. She referred to a debate last week in the European Parliament. As it happens, I have with me the full text of what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He referred to what had happened and made quite clear what the position was and what steps were taken by the Conservative Government at the time to safeguard the position in regard to fishing.
  In the reports of proceedings of the European Parliament, unlike our Hansard, sometimes at the end of a speech, as in this case, the word "Applause" appears. What astonishes me, particularly in view of what the hon. Lady said, is what she said on that occasion. I have a copy of her speech, which followed immediately after that of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I see that the hon. Lady said: "May I echo"—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was also there. The hon. Lady said:
  "May I echo my support for the sentiments expressed by Mr. Rippon?"
  This is rather typical of the hypocrisy of the hon. Lady, that——
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If quotations are to be made, they must be made accurately. I was applauding the apology of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not a copy of the report and it is not up to me to determine whether it is accurate or not. Hon. Members can make up their own minds.
  Mr. Taylor: I have the full text here, and any hon. Member may see it and judge whether my interpretation is correct or wheher the hon. Lady's interpretation is correct. On this issue, as on so many others, the Scottish National Party speaks with different voices in different places, depending on the audience. The
  1858
  hon. Lady is a great European over in Brussels but takes a different view when she comes to Scotland. [Interruption.] In Scotland the fishing industry is absolutely vital.
  It has been generally accepted by all those who have taken part in the debate that, apart from the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland in general, there is the question of its vital importance in particular communities. Only a few weeks ago I was in Shetland, where 30 per cent. of all those in employment are engaged in fishing, fish processing or the ancillary industries. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) made clear that a great number of villages and towns in Scotland are largely dependent on fishing.
  In addition, another thing which has been generally agreed is the situation of crisis which exists in the industry at present. The report of the White Fish Authority refers to the excellent results of the last 12 months but also to the serious crisis which is building up. The report this morning indicates that British trawlers are being driven out of the traditional fishing grounds of places such as Newfoundland, Greenland, Norway, Russia and Iceland. It also points out that two-fifths of the distant-water fleet has gone out of business since our entry into the Common Market and that the whole of the North Sea is subject to a degree of depredation which can only arouse the most serious concern. This problem was outlined in the Herring Industry Board's report published recently, where the chairman pointed out that the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has nearly exterminated all fishing round our shores.
  The one thing that has united all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate is the importance of securing an exclusive 50-mile management zone around our shores. I would make it absolutely clear that the Conservative Opposition wholly support the claim of the industry for this exclusive management zone. The case is overwhelming. As the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have pointed out, the United Kingdom contributes 60 per cent. of all the fish going into the EEC pond. In addition, there is the special factor of Britain

  1859
  having lost one-third of her traditional fishing areas in Iceland, the Faroes and Norway.
  One further point which ought to be borne in mind, and the EEC certainly must bear it in mind, is that Britain has hardly anything to gain from common access. As shown from figures published in the White Fish Authority's report, the 200-mile limit was imposed by the EEC. However, Britain catches less than 1 per cent. of all her fish in waters of other member States. While the other member States have a great deal to gain from common access, Britain has virtually nothing to gain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, who is grunting away as usual, should appreciate that when the debate on the Common Market took place I, along with a number of other people, campaigned against it. During the referendum I also campaigned against it.
  We are now facing a real problem, and what we need to do is not to allocate blame and responsibility to individuals or parties but to try to find a solution to a real problem which affects lives and jobs in all our communities.
  We should also remember that many communities in Britain are wholly reliant on fishing. The United Kingdom has the largest tonnage of vessels, and catches the greatest amount of fish for home consumption. Another very important reason for an exclusive management zone is that Britain has probably the best conservation record of all the countries of the EEC. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, was absolutely right when he said that other nations have not been successful in keeping the rules or in policing.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make some reference to the serious issue which has arisen with regard to Area 4 of the North Sea. This was drawn to the attention of the people of Scotland by the chairman of the Conservative Fisheries Advisory Committee in Scotland and has since been commented on by others.
  So far as we are aware, Area 4 is an area which the EEC closed in 1975 under an agreement for international co-operation on exploitation of the sea. The object was to conserve fish stocks. The area is beside two other areas which are closed
  1860
  to the United Kingdom but not to foreign vessels. There have been a number of reports, which have been confirmed by two skippers, that Danish and Faroese vessels have slipped into this closed area simply because no one has been stopping them. The Danes are fishing for herring and have been landing them as part of the by-catch allowed under the arrangement for catching fish. Policing is not effective.
  I understand that Mr. Gilbert Buchan, the vice-president of the Scottish Fisheries Board, called to see the Secretary of State yesterday. We are entitled to an indication from the Minister of what action he will take in respect of the very serious complaints. There is little point in having the best agreements and the best conservation arrangements in consultation with other members of the EEC if they are being ignored or if there is no question of effective policing. What is important is the policing not merely of our own waters but of all the waters around EEC shores as long as we have the present arrangement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was right in what he said about the habits of the French and the dangers posed by the Danes in carrying out industrial fishing. There is no doubt that a long-term solution will depend a great deal on the elimination of industrial fishing techniques and on ensuring that everyone obeys all the rules.
  Another vital reason for ensuring that we get a 50-mile management zone is that that would give Britain the freedom to negotiate adequate reciprocal deals. It is a fact that almost all the fish caught by the Faroese and Norwegian fishermen were from British waters before the changeover, as has been pointed out by the British Fishing Federation of Aberdeen. That makes it clear that we would be in an adequate and sensible position to make reciprocal deals with both the Faroese and the Norwegians.
  The situation in the Faroes is serious. The negotiations between the EEC and the Faroese seem to be getting nowhere fast. The Commission cannot effectively talk about the quantity of EEC fish available to outsiders until the internal régime has been resolved.
  Probably some hon. Members will have seen the telex sent by the British Shipping

  1861
  Federation Scottish office to the Secretary of State. I believe it was sent on 17th June. It states:
  "The United Kingdom trawling industry is totally frustrated and dissatisfied with the latest negotiations with the Faroese which took place earlier this week. It was obvious to everyone involved in the negotiations including the Faroese that the restricted grounds presently open to licensed United Kingdom vessels do not afford sufficient flexibility to enable viable fishing to take place at Faroe and do not enable us to catch even the very reduced quota of cod and haddock currently being offered, and the figures for April, May and June so far demonstrate this very clearly."
  The frustration on our vessels is heightened because the activities of the fishing fleets of other Common Market members have been hardly affected in Faroese waters and have undergone virtually no reduction. That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am sure that the Minister will agree.
  The negotiations are not getting anywhere. If we had an exclusive zone, we would be in a good position to make a sound agreement, bearing in mind the amount of fish caught by the Faroese in British waters. The same applies to Norway. Norway's fishing grounds are probably more important to British trawlers than any other grounds. The Norwegians have made it clear that they are fed up to the teeth with the delays in getting satisfactory arrangements. They have also made it clear that they do not entirely trust other countries to keep the rules. It is important that we should be able to make a deal with Norway. That would be quite possible if we had an exclusive zone.
  There is also the important consideration that a 50-mile zone is in some ways rather easier to police than a 12-mile zone. That was made clear in the evidence given to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee by British United Trawlers, which said:
  "In our opinion it is possible to police effectively a wide exclusive fishery zone, given a reasonable number of patrol aircraft and fast protection vessels, at least as fast and seaworthy as the Icelandic vessels 'Aegir'. A narrow belt, however, would in our view be almost impossible to police without a greatly increased fishery protection service. This is simply because offending vessels can enter and leave a narrow belt so quickly—in the case of a 12-mile zone within an hour or so—making necessary surveillance virtually continuous. A wider zone is much easier to protect, as was shown at Iceland in the recent dispute."
  1862
  That is also an important argument for the 50-mile limit.
  We should aim for strong policing in a 50-mile limit and proper penalties for the evasion of the rules. When we consider some of the penalties that are imposed in Britain and other countries it is clear that there is scope for penalties to be increased for those who fish illegally. The BUT thought that for the first offence the catch should be confiscated, and that for the second the boats should be confiscated and one fewer licence be given to the country which had been given the right to fish in our waters. That would be a major step forward.
  The overwhelming case for a change and for a 50-mile limit is that the CFP has been totally overtaken by events, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) in an excellent speech. First, Britain and Ireland joined the Common Market, which resulted in a big increase in available stocks of fish. Second, the EEC introduced the 200-mile limit. The third event was our exclusion from certain deep fishing waters. It is vital for all these reasons that we have a 50-mile exclusive limit, and time is not on our side.
  Much of the argument today has been concentrated not on how we can get the best arrangement but on who is to blame for our present situation.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and say whether the Conservative Party is saying clearly that, if it was elected, which God forbid, it would make a clear declaration that it would unilaterally impose a 50-mile limit? Is that correct or not? The logic is that we would then be expelled from the EEC. That would not upset me, but I should like to know whether that is the official position of the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Taylor: No, what we have made clear is that the Conservative Party stands firmly behind the industry in its claim for a 50-mile limit. We have made that clear previously and will do so again.
  Mr. Powell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why, if that is so important and so clearly the policy of the Conservative Party, the Conservatives did not move a motion to that effect.
  Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) introduced a Private Member's Bill, which received a Second Reading on Friday, confirming a 50-mile limit and that no hon. Member objected to that. It would be sterile to have the same debate twice in a very short time. By having the debate in this form, we have made it possible to debate much wider issues than one on which the House is unanimously agreed.
  It is only fair to point out to Labour Members who have protested strongly about our joining the Common Market that when we did so—I was very much engaged in those debates—a 50-mile limit was not talked about all the time. The interest then was a 12-mile limit. As for making our position clear, on 15th December 1971 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, talking about the CFP, said:
  "if, contrary to all practice and precedent, the members of the enlarged Community failed … to reach agreement on the arrangements which could follow the present derogation … there would clearly be a major crisis involving the coherence of the Community itself."— [Official Report, 15th December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 735.]
  So there is no question of this matter being left to go by default. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that we believed this to be the one issue which was absolutely vital, the one national interest which would, and should, not be neglected.
  Mr. James Johnson: What was the time scale? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman talking in terms of 1982, 11 years ahead then?
  Mr. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend was making it clear that at the time he hoped and expected that arrangements would be made long before 1982. They certainly would have been if he had continued with the good work which he was doing. The hon. Gentleman will remember that at that time I was on the other side in that important debate.
  We have here a very serious situation and one that will demand tough negotiation and the Government using all their diplomatic skills. It will also involve maximising the good will in the EEC. To that extent I hope that the Secretary
  1864
  of State will accept—and this is not a rebuke—that it is not simply a question of using tough words. If tough words would get our fishermen the guarantees they are seeking, we would get plenty of guarantees tonight. We have had plenty of tough talking in the House of Commons. But tough talking will not necessarily guarantee the industry the kind of deal and arrangements that we all want to see. We shall, in fact, have to use all possible diplomatic skills and get a maximum of good will.
  One question on which I hope the House will reflect is whether the diplomatic skills, the negotiation pattern, and the techniques used up to now by the Government are those likely to get the kind of agreement that we are seeking.
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear why we are dividing the House tonight, but I am concerned as well about the question of the fishing protection flotilla. It is absolutely vital, as a gesture of the Government's steel and commitment to the future of the industry, that there should be adequate protection for the fishing industry. It is only fair to say that if there is any possibility of a meaningful announcement—of the Secretary of State for Scotland making it absolutely clear tonight—that the Government will reverse the earlier decision to abandon the flotilla, we shall review our attitude towards the Government's conduct of affairs.
  I do not have a great deal of confidence in the way in which the Government are handling our affairs. I do not feel particularly confident about their negotiation techniques or the individuals they are putting forward to negotiate. We have the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) as the Scottish fishing Minister. It is accepted by everyone that the House is relatively united on the question of the 50-mile limit. We should make sure that we go ahead with a solid front and a strong negotiating position. Yet, when the hon. Member for Provan met fishermen in Aberdeen, who made it clear that they were not happy, he said that there was not a hope in hell of getting a 50-mile limit. This did not increase the confidence of the fishermen or those concerned with getting the right answer for the fishing industry.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I notice that in his speech the hon. Member for Glasgow,

  1865
  Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has talked about a 50-mile exclusive management zone. Is that, in fact, what the industry is asking for?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes. The industry does not just want a 50-mile exclusive limit for British fishing vessels. It wants the right to make adequate reciprocal deals with the Faroes and Norway in order to guarantee the future of not only the inshore fleets but the trawlers of Aberdeen and Hull, which are laid up at present because they have been squeezed out. No one is suggesting that we want a 50-mile zone for British vessels only. We want to guarantee for ourselves the right to use these waters and the possibility of providing for reciprocal deals with Norway. There is no point in guaranteeing the position of the Scottish inshore fleets if there are no guarantees for the trawlers as well.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Scottish fishermen are asking for an exclusive zone for fishing and certainly they are encouraged by the Scottish National Party. Is that the hon. Member's position, or not?
  Mr. Taylor: Our position—and this has been accepted by the industry—is that we want the right to decide on the use of vessels that come within the 50-mile limit; we want the right to make bargains and other reciprocal deals; and we want to fish in Norwegian waters. Since the hon. Gentleman who intervened in my speech represents Aberdeen, I would be surprised if he did not agree with that point of view. He knows that Aberdeen trawlers are as important as any other vessels in the Scottish fleet. We must safeguard them, and they can best be safeguarded in a 50-mile management zone.
  Mr. Neil Marten: What my hon. Friend is saying is that we want sovereignty over the 50-mile limit, which we can trade away if we so wish.
  Mr. Taylor: I have already made my position quite clear. We want a right of a 50-mile management zone. That is our position, and that is where we stand. We have made that clear.
  We are far from happy with what has been achieved so far. We do not have confidence in the negotiating skills or attitudes of the present Government. Labour Ministers sometimes apear to go
  1866
  into Europe with the attitude of a businessman going to see his bank for a loan and telling the manager that first he wants to overthrow the banking and capitalist system. We hope that there will be success, but we are far from confident that the tactics and attitude of the Government will find the answers. Certainly so far as industry is concerned, we cannot afford for the negotiations to fail.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I welcome this debate from the point of view of its timing, because on Monday there is to be a special Fisheries Council meeting in Luxembourg, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I shall be going.
  This is, nevertheless, a peculiar debate. Presumably, the choice of debate and the way in which it was chosen by the Opposition was to allow them to have a vote at the end of proceedings. But there has been nothing in the course of the debate to justify the Opposition or anybody else voting against the Government. On the main lines of policy, I think that the House as a whole has been in favour of the attitudes and points of view put by the Government in recent months. I see nothing at all in anything said today by the Opposition to justify a vote at the end of the debate.
  It is a considerable mistake from a national point of view that a day or two before this important fisheries meeting we should have a vote in this House. I regret that very much, apart from the considerable degree of hypocrisy which is involved in the Opposition choosing to vote on this matter.
  I want to deal with a number of the major issues which have been raised tonight, and I wish to instance the question of enforcement. I do not accept the various criticisms which have been levelled at our enforcement effort. I accept absolutely, as do the Government, that if we are to have effective arrangements with third countries in our waters, and if we are to have effective implementation of conservation measures affecting Community countries, it is essential that there should be adequate provision for enforcement. But the present enforcement provision, which includes the

  1867
  fishery protection squadron, was planned specifically on the basis that we would be extending our national zone to 200 miles.
  It is untrue to say that the enforcement machinery and reasources have not been considerably increased. They have been increased in the case of the Royal Navy by the Island Class, two of which are now operating. The gap can be filled in the meantime by frigates, mine counter vessels, fast patrol boats, and other patrol craft, as well as by the three inshore and three offshire vessels run directly by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. Added to this effort is the considerable enforcement surveillance undertaken by the Nimrod aircraft.
  I repudiate the allegation that we are operating an ineffective enforcement. I noticed that the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee examined this matter carefully and, although it has not reached its final conclusions, nothing in its report published in March justifies criticism of our enforcement effort.
  I can give an example of that from the Scottish point of view. Since 1st January there have been nine prosecutions in Scotland for fishing offences by foreign vessels and substantial fines are now regularly imposed in Scotland. In these cases the total fines were more than £100,000 and in all but one case the catch and gear were also confiscated. I am by no means complacent. I accept that with a 200 mile zone there are problems of enforcement quite different from those in the past when we were dealing simply with inshore waters. We have put much additional effort into it, and nothing that has happened since January would justify voting against the Government on this issue any more than anything else that has happened since January in fishing matters would do so.
  Mr. Wall: Does the Minister agree that frigates are now taken off other duties and put on to fishery protection for short periods whereas the fishery protection squadron had each vessel staying in that squadron for two or three years so that those concerned really understood the job? That was the basis of the challenge.
  Mr. Millan: It is not true that we do not have a Fishery Protection Squadron, and anyone who goes to the Spithead Naval Review next week will see it on display. I agree that the stop-gap measures with frigates are not satisfactory, and that is why we are building up the Island class. It is absurd to say that there has been no effort put into enforcement measures since the beginning of this year.
  Mr. Peyton: Nobody is saying that no effort is being made in enforcing protection, but the charge made by the Opposition is that the effort has been significantly diminished at a time when pressures and needs have become greater.
  Mr. Millan: That is absurd. It is simply factually and completely inaccurate. Effort has been significantly increased in recent months. If the Opposition are trying to justify a vote against the Government on that basis, it is too silly for words.
  I turn to conservation, because hon. Members generally have stressed the importance of adequate conservation. There has already been a certain amount of discussion within the EEC for working out an adequate system, but that will take time, and we accept that shorter-term measures must be taken as necessary for the protection of our stocks. We have made it absolutely clear—as the Minister of Agriculture made clear this afternoon—that we are prepared to take unilateral, non-discriminatory action on what we regard as urgently needed conservation measures. We have made that clear within the Community. We have had, for example, an agreement on the Norway pout box and also a ban on fishing for herring in the North Sea. We stand ready, if we are not able to obtain Community agreement under the terms of the agreement we reached within the Community last October in The Hague, to take further unilateral measures. I make that clear.
  If we are to have conservation measures they must be adequately monitored. We are therefore pressing ahead, in conjunction with our Common Market partners, with such arrangements as the keeping of log books, checks at sea, full collection of data on landings, and the sending of data to a central source as well as

  1869
  its being collected within individual countries.
  I accept what has been said by many hon. Members today—that there is a great deal of scepticism in the British fishing industry about the way in which conservation measures have been carried out in the past and a great deal of suspicion that, in many places, there has been a considerable tendency to look for loopholes and doubts whether every Government have always carried out the policy with the honesty upon which conservation ultimately depends.
  The herring skippers raised with me yesterday difficulties in the Skagerrak area. I have taken this up with the Commission and said that we believe that this area should be regarded as part of the North Sea and subject to the conservation measures in operation there. We are well aware of all these problems, and we do not approach them on the innocent basis of believing that if someone puts something nice on a piece of paper, it will necessarily be put into practice. We know that there has to be adequate enforcement.
  The question of herring stocks in the North Sea and off the West Coast of Scotland is a matter of immediate interest and is on the agenda for the meeting in Luxembourg on Monday. There is no doubt that scientific evidence points to only one conclusion—that there should be a complete ban on fishing for herring in the North Sea and that it should be sustained for a sufficient period to allow the stocks to regenerate. To be fair to the Commission, it has twice recommended this action to the Council of Ministers, and we have supported it, but we have been in a minority of one.
  Despite that, we have managed to get a ban on fishing for herring in the North Sea, but only for a month at a time. We believe that this should be extended. We fully appreciate that this will cause damage to our own herring industry, but we believe that it would be worthwhile in the long run because, without it, there is a danger to the herring stocks in the North Sea.
  The question of herring off the West Coast of Scotland is also under discussion in the Community, on our initiative. There is a ban for a single month, which we supported, but we want an allocation
  1870
  of quotas in this area. I shall not go into detail now, but the original quotas suggested by the Commission were too large. They gave us an allocation of more than 70 per cent. of the total allowable catch for the Community, and we consider that proportion right, although we do not necessarily consider that the total allocation makes sense in terms of conservation.
  As I shall be saying at Monday's meeting, we are anxious to get a conclusion about the bans off the West Coast as well as in the North Sea. Our industry is in a state of complete indecision and we want to remove that as rapidly as we can.
  There are other matters with which I shall try to deal in detail. Before I come to exclusive or coastal preference zones, let me deal with third-country fishing. In some respects, we have made progress here in the last few months. There has been a certain advantage in the negotiations that we have had, through the Community, with third countries, given the widespread establishment of 200-mile national limits.
  We have been able to make considerable reductions in the allowances for countries of Eastern Europe, particularly the USSR. We take a simple view in these negotiations with countries outside the Community. If they have something to offer us in reciprocal fishing rights in their waters, we are willing to reach a sensible agreement with them. When other countries have nothing to offer us in their waters, our intention is to have them phased out of our waters as rapidly as possible. It is on that basis that we are proceeding on third country fishing at the present time and, as I say, with some of the nations concerned we are making a certain amount of progress, although with the principal nations with which we have difficulty, such as Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, the situation is a good deal less satisfactory. We admit that absolutely frankly.
  But I do not accept that there has been any lack of effort on our part in any of these third country negotiations. One of the things that makes it very difficult to get final agreement, for example with Norway, is that we have not yet settled within the Community our own internal

  1871
  régime, and it is only when we have settled that in a satisfactory way and know how much fish is available to the Community, how it is to be allocated within the Community, how we are to enforce those allocations, and so on, that we shall be able to get completely satisfactory agreements with third countries, including those which are particularly important from the point of view of the British fishing industry. Therefore, we have always argued that we should get ahead with discussions on the definitive internal régime as rapidly as possible, and I hope very much that we shall make at least some progress on this matter at the meeting in Luxembourg on Monday.
  But I must make it absolutely clear to the House that in many of these matters the situation in which the Government find themselves because of the very existence of the common fisheries policy per se is that we have certain interests and the other nations of the Community have certain interests which are antithetical to the interests of the United Kingdom. It is in that situation and with that background that we are negotiating, but we are negotiating with utter determination and we have not conceded anything in the discussions on ancillary matters over the last few months on any particular item which would prejudice the situation with which we have to deal in terms of the definitive internal régime.
  I am very glad to hear the House unanimous today about the importance of the 50-mile zone round the United Kingdom. There has been unanimous approval, I think, of the suggestion that we ought to concentrate on the 50 miles round the United Kingdom. But I hope that hon. Members will read very carefully the remarks that were made by my right hon. Friend today and the analysis he made of the 12-mile zone in the first place and then the wider zone between 12 and 50 miles. This demonstrates that if we could achieve an exclusive right to fish within the 12-mile zone—there would have to be a phasing-out period— and then what my right hon. Friend called a dominant preference within the 12- to 50-mile zone and also a satisfactory level of fishing in other waters—that is, in the rest of the United Kingdom's 200-mile zone and those of third countries—we would
  1872
  have the basis in terms of potential fish catches for providing an economic fishing industry for this country.
  What the House must remember all the time is that all the arguments about limits, preferential zones, exclusive zones, enforcement and the rest are directed towards achieving a satisfactory total catch, satisfactorily distributed over the different species, for the British fishing industry —and in saying that I have the Scottish industry, my own responsibility, very much in mind.
  Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that we may even get in total 800,000 tonnes, but what about the distant-water fleet, because if we are not allowed an entry into the old fishing grounds, these big vessels of ours cannot go into inshore fishing? What will they do about these?
  Mr. Millan: There has been a reduction, and my right hon. Friend gave the figures for distant-water fishing. I think that a realistic appraisal of the situation is that we shall not be able to recover all of them within the waters concerned because the Norwegians themselves are cutting back on what they are willing to offer to us and the rest of the Community since from their point of view we are third countries. So it is not a practical possibility to reproduce in the future exactly the same fishing pattern as we have had in the past.
  That does not mean that we should not have an industry of the same size rather differently distributed with a firm base for progress in the future. That is what the argument is about. We are basing our argument—apart from the history of the matter—on the simple proposition that we contribute to the waters of the Community as a whole more than 60 per cent. of its fishery resources, and that that must be given full consideration in any negotiations on the internal régime as well as matters of historic catches.
  In taking account of our demands we have very much in mind the losses that we have inevitably incurred in the waters of third countries. We are determined to make this up, as far as possible, first, within the 50-mile limit and then within the waters of the United Kingdom up to the 200-mile limit.
  We are facing very difficult negotiations, but I think it is common ground

  1873
  that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers in these negotiations put the case for the United Kingdom with considerable vigour and determination. I notice that the Expenditure Committee, in the report to which I have already referred, stated:
  "We have been impressed by the determination which the Government has displayed in attempting to secure the best possible future for the British industry within the Community's CFP.…We have been satisfied with the Government's negotiating stance so far".
  I return to the point that I made at the beginning of the debate. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should have chosen to organise the debate in this way with an apparent determination, in the face of all the facts and, in my view, against the national interest, to have a Division at the end. Nothing has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, nor by Opposition Back-Bench Members, to justify a vote against the Government tonight.
  I believe that, given the history of this matter and given the abject failure of the Conservative Government to protect the fishery interests of the United Kingdom when leading up to our accession to the Common Market——
  Mr. Teddy Taylor Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Millan: I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart took

  Division No. 181]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fry, Peter

  Alison, Michael

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Arnold, Tom

  Cockcroft, John

  Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cope, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Corrie, John

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Bell, Ronald

  Crawford, Douglas

  Goodhew, victor

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Crouch, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Benyon, W.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, John

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gray, Hamish

  Blaker, Peter

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Body, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Grylls, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Drayson, Burneby

  Hall, Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Durant, Tony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hampton, Dr Keith

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hannam, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Elliott, Sir William

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Emery, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brooke, Peter

  Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Brotherton, Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Hay hoe, Barney

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Henderson, Douglas

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hodgson, Robin

  Buck, Antony

  Fell, Anthony

  Holland, Philip

  Budgen, Nick

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burden, F. A.

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Carlisle, Mark

  For man, Nigel

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fox, Marcus

  Hurd, Douglas

  slightly more than his fair share of the time. Given the failure of the Conservative Government to protect our fishing interests during the negotiations for entry to the Common Market and the fact that there is considerable agreement on both sides of the House tonight about the essential interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry which have to be protected in the renegotiations, I consider it utterly deplorable that the Opposition, for what I imagine to be some misguided belief that it would be politically opportune, should have chosen to debate this subject in such a way that it will lead to a Division.
  It will cut no ice with the fishing industry. I and my right hon. Friend have acted all through these negotiations in the closest consultation with representatives of the fishing industry. I met them yesterday, and they will be in Luxembourg during the discussions next week. I believe that what we are doing has the support of the industry and of the country. I hope that the House will reject this deplorable attempt by the Opposition to defeat the Government.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
  The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 250.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Monro, Hector

  Sinclair, Sir George

  James, David

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Jopling, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Speed, Keith

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Spence, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester

  Kilfedder, James

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Sproat, lain

  Kimball, Marcus

  Mudd, David

  Slanbrook, Ivor

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Neave, Airey

  Stanley, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Knox, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Lamont, Norman

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Langlord-Holt, Sir John

  Nott, John

  Stokes, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Onslow, Cranloey

  Tapsell, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Osborn, John

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Loveridge, John

  Percival, Ian

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Luce, Richard

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, George

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  MacCormick, lain

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Trotter, Neville

  McCrindle, Robert

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Raison, Timothy

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  MacGregor, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew James

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Madel, David

  Rhodes James, R.

  Walters, Dennis

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Watt, Hamish

  Marten, Neil

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mates, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wells, John

  Maude, Angus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Mawby, Ray

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Younger, Hon George

  Mills, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Moate, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Allaun, Frank

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Forrester, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Corbelt, Robin

  Freeson, Reginald

  Ashton, Joe

  Cowans, Harry

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Barnelt, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cronin, John

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Ginsburg, David

  Bates, Alf

  Cryer, Bob

  Golding, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Gould, Bryan

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony (Wedgwood)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Graham, Ted

  Bennelt, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boardman, H.

  Deli, Rt Hon Edmund

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Doig, Peter

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hatton, Frank

  Bradley, Tom

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunn, James A.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hooley, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Horam, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Edge, Geoff

  Howe, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Campbell, Ian

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Huckfield, Les

  Canavan, Dennis

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Cant, R. B.

  Ennals, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carter, Ray

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Cartwright, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Janner, Greville

  1876

  1877

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Moyle, Roland

  Snape, Peter

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Newens, Stanley

  Stallard, A. W.

  Judd, Frank

  Noble, Mike

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stoddart, David

  Kelley, Richard

  Ogden, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Kerr, Russell

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Orbach, Maurice

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Kinnock, Neil

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Swain, Thomas

  Lambie, David

  Orenden, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Padley, Walter

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Lamond, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Pardoe, John

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Park, George

  Tierney, Sydney

  Lee, John

  Parker, John

  Tinn, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Parry, Robert

  Tomlinson, John

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Torney, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Penhaligon, David

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Perry, Ernest

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Radice, Giles

  Ward, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Watkins, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Joe

  Weetch, Ken

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Weitzman, David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wellbeloved, James

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  White, James (Pollok)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Whitlock, William

  Madden, Max

  Rooker. J. W.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Magee, Bryan

  Rose, Paul B.

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Mahon, Simon

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ryman, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Rt Hen Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Selby, Harry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Meacher, Michael

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Woof, Robert

  Mendelson, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Sillars, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

  Silverman, Julius

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Molloy, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Small, William

  Question accordingly negatived.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS)
  10.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strong): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents R/1125/7 and R/1149/77 and, while welcoming the opportunity which the proposal in R/1125/77 would offer for reducing monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat, considers that the scope and criteria for its application in other sectors ought to be more clearly specified.
  The green currency system is of great importance to the United Kingdom and, indeed, to all member States of the Community. Clearly, therefore, it is right that proposals affecting its basic functioning should be very carefully examined, and I welcome the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to recommend these two documents for debate. I am also grateful to it for setting out so clearly in its reports the complicated technical implications of the proposals.
  We have often in this House debated the quesiton of the green pound. These proposals, however, are not just about the green pound. They are about the green currency system as a whole. Before looking at the proposals in detail, it is worth recalling the basic aims of the green currency system. CAP support prices are converted into national currencies at fixed exchange rates. If fluctuating market exchange rates were used for this purpose, support prices expressed in national currencies would vary daily. This would conflict with the basic CAP objective of providing stable prices.
  But the effect of having special exchange rates for CAP purposes is that support prices are not the same throughout the Community. In countries whose real currencies have appreciated, such as Germany, CAP support prices are relatively high. In countries whose real currencies have depreciated, such as France or the United Kingdom, they are relatively low. If this situation were combined with full free trade, CAP commodities would be attracted to the high-price countries. This would put the intervention arrangements in those countries
  1880
  under impossible strain, and it would, of course, be harmful to consumers in the lower-price countries.
  Monetary compensatory amounts are, therefore, applied to imports and exports of the main agricultural commodities in order to bridge the gap between the differing real support prices being applied by the various member countries.
  Against this background, the Commission proposal in Document R/1125/77 may sound revolutionary. If it were accepted, the Commission would be able to set MCAs at a level which was less than the full difference between intervention prices in the various member countries. In a sense this is contrary to the basic objective of MCAs. In practice, however, it has already been found that there are circumstances in which the full gap does not need to be bridged. For example, in the beef sector the Council agreed in 1975 to a reduction in MCAs to cope with the situation in which market prices can be below full intervention prices.
  There is also a more general precedent. The MCAs of countries such as France or the United Kingdom whose currencies are floating have to be reviewed each week in the light of developments on the currency market. Even so, they can only reflect past performance of the currency, not its exact situation on the day in which the MCA is applied. An MCA which is somewhat less than the full gap between intervention prices has been found in practice to be reasonably effective. Our MCAs and the MCAs of other floating currency countries are abated by 1·5 percentage points.
  We recognise the reasons for these precedents. I need hardly remind hon. Members that we have also argued strongly on pigmeat that MCAs should not cover the difference in intervention prices. The basic justification for this is that public intervention is almost never used in the pigmeat market. MCAs need do no more than offset the differences in cereal feed costs, just as they do for poultry and eggs. We do not, therefore, quarrel with the principle of the Commission's proposal, and we welcome this recognition of the strength of our arguments on pigmeat.

  1881
  The text of the amendment proposed by the Commission, however, may need more clarification. Indeed, the view that the amendment is too widely drawn is shared by many member States. Several of them also argue that they cannot consider a detailed change in the system separately from more fundamental reform. They refer to the long-term proposals which the Commission made at the end of last year for changes in the green currency system. These proposals involved automatic adjustments of green rates based on the size of each country's MCAs.
  These matters were discussed on Monday, and it was interesting to see in the Council the line-up of the various member States. On the one hand, the Benelux group, with Denmark, strongly took the view that we should not agree to this proposal without more radical changes in the green currency system, by which they meant something like the automatic adjustments originally proposed by the Commission last year. On the other hand, there are countries, such as Italy, France and the United Kingdom, which see some merit in this proposal, provided that it is reasonably tightly drawn, to enable some adjustments to be made by the Commission to certain MCAs. Ireland tends to go with the Benelux countries on this, and Germany seems to be in a position of its own, in that it is generally opposed to any change in the MCA system and is certainly unhappy about the proposal to give the Commission the power to fix MCAs on the basis of prices lower than the current intervention prices.
  Hon. Members will recall that these proposals were discused by this House in the course of the debate before this year's price package. My right hon. Friend then made clear the Government's opposition to them, and the House, in the motion adopted, endorsed
  "the Government's view that decisions on whether Commission proposals for changes in a member State's representative rate should be accented are primarily a matter for that member State."—[Official Report, 16th March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 417.]
  Mr. Neil Marten: Were the countries in favour thinking nationally? What, for example, did the countries that were against it think of it? What is the Community answer to this problem?
  Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman is talking in terms of the conventional
  1882
  policy of the Commission, the attitude is against MCAs, because the thinking of the Commision and of the proponents of the system, as it were, the idea being MCAs, and they are still seen by some people as a sort of temporary noise in the system, as it were, the idea being that we should return to a position in which we do not have MCAs. Indeed, when this issue was raised during the original United Kingdom negotiations, we were informed that we did not need to worry about MCAs because they were temporary and would have gone by the time we acceded to the Common Market. However, perhaps I may continue with my speech.
  The second document before us tonight, R/1149/77, is a communication from the Commission which shows that it is considering very substantial modifications to that proposal—by which I mean last year's proposal to make radical adjustments in MCAs. The communication is only in very general terms and, before it could be acted upon, a legislative proposal would have to be prepared. This would be submitted to the Scrutiny Committee in the normal way, and I have little doubt that, in view of its importance, the House would wish to have an opportunity to debate it. I know that this is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  What we have before us tonight is simply an indication of the way in which the Commission is now thinking. It suggests that its new proposals, when it is made, will be based on three ideas.
  First, existing MCAs should be gradually reduced, but this process should be carried out in a way flexible enough to deal with any economic and political difficulties which it might cause.
  Secondly, new MCAs should normally be eliminated at each price-fixing.
  Thirdly, the European unit of account, EUA, should perhaps be used for the common agricultural policy.
  The last idea is the most novel. MCAs are now calculated on the basis of market rates of exchange with the currencies in the European joint float. This is convenient technically because the MCAs of countries in the joint float are fixed and change only on the rare occasions when these countries change either their green

  1883
  currencies or the value of their real currencies in comparison with all other members of the joint float.
  It has, however, the perverse effect that movements in the joint float as a whole show up in the MCAs of non-joint float member countries. This does not matter so long as MCAs are used only for bridging the gap between intervention prices. But it matters a great deal if MCAs are to be the criterion for changing green rates. We made this point very strongly in Brussels when the Commission proposed its automatic adjustment mechanism.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Since this is a technical matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive this apparent naive interruption. Is he now referring to what I, and some of my hon. Friends, call the "burst snake" effect— in other words, using the calculation after the "snake" has changed? If he can confirm that that is so, it will be helpful to some of us who get rather lost with some of these mathematical calculations.
  Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is, in his own words, describing what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that the agricultural unit of account is based on an unrepresentative basket of currencies because the United Kingdom, France and Italy—three major countries—are all excluded from the joint float.
  Returning to the point that I was making before my hon. Friend intervened, I am glad to see from this communication that they recognise its validity. If MCAs were based on the European unit of account and, hence, on all member currencies, as the Commission now seems to be suggesting, the MCA system would not be discriminatory between joint float and non-joint float countries. Even, however, if the system itself were corrected in this way, we should still need to consider very carefully our attitude to any automatic adjustment proposals.
  The EUA is certainly the most interesting point in the Commision's communication. I can be briefer on the rest of it. The Commission is suggesting that it would be possible to find a way of gradually phasing out existing MCAs which takes account of the political and economic difficulties involved. This can be properly judged only when we have
  1884
  details of the Commission's proposals. The same must also be said of the idea that new MCAs should normally be eliminated at the price-fixing.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: What time scale does the Minister foresee for this event? The Commission has used the phrase that it wishes to see future MCAs eliminated within "a short time". How does the Minister see this coming to pass? What is the time scale?
  Mr. Strang: The Commission document refers on the one hand to existing MCAs and on the other to new MCAs which would develop subsequent to the introduction of the new policy. The idea is that it would like to see the new MCAs phased out at each price-fixing. I cannot answer with regard to existing MCAs, because no one knows until the Commission brings forward proposals. That should not be before October, and as yet we have no idea. It may well be that those proposals will not spell out the time scale because it is common in the Community, and in Government generally, that such things take longer than originally intended.
  There is obvious sense in linking decisions on green currencies, which determine what common prices mean in each individual member State, with decisions on common prices themselves On the other hand, anything which removed an element of flexibility from the price-fixing process could make the job of finding a generally acceptable price package even more difficult.
  Clearly, therefore, the Commission's proposals will need very careful scrutiny when they are available. I cannot do more now than indicate the principles against which we think that the proposal should be judged when it is made. First, in so far as it affects the green pound, the Government's attitude will be to judge whether it implies any changes which are contrary to our national interest. This is exactly the same basis on which we have judged individual proposals for changes in our green rate. Secondly, as it affects other green currencies—and it is worth reminding the House that it affects other green currencies as much as it affects our own—we shall wish to bear in mind the need to avoid introducing a system under which the fixing of support prices in the currencies of the various

  1885
  member States is so rigid that it fails to take account of their differing economic situations. Thirdly, we shall want to form a view on whether the proposals would help or hinder the process of holding down the real level of common support prices or would be neutral.
  We cannot apply these criteria until we see the proposals in detail. That is why I recommend that the House simply takes note of this communication from the Commission, which is not itself a proposal for legislation. I need hardly add, although it is not, strictly speaking, relevant to the debate, that it is still the Government's view that common support prices in general are fixed at too high a level in the Community. It will continue to be our policy to maintain a moderating influence on the level at which the prices are fixed in future.
  I hope that I have said enough to give the House an indication of the Government's approach to these issues. I shall, of course, be happy to answer particular points which may be raised in the debate.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: First, I must declare my interest as a farmer in these matters. I repeat and endorse what the Under-Secretary of State said in expressing our gratitude to the Scrutiny Committee for dealing with these matters in its customary way and drawing our attention to these two most important proposals.
  The Minister has given us an unusually detailed helpful explanation of what is implicit in the proposals. I am grateful to him for giving what we do not hear often enough—namely, an explanation of how some of our colleagues in the Community are lining up for or against the various proposals that come forward. It is helpful to know what problems are being met in negotiations on these issues.
  When we consider the documents it is wise to recall the origin of MCAs. It is as well to remember that they arose because within the common agricultural policy we are not able to have a single European currency with which to back the various price structures and support systems. We on the Opposition Benches still regard it as our aim as members of the Community to arrive at a single European currency.
  Mr. Richard Body: No.
  Mr. Jopling: For a long time it has been——
  Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that official Opposition policy is entirely backing a common European currency within as short a time as possible?
  Mr. Jopling: I did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman will hold himself in control for half a second he will hear what I intend to say in my next sentence. He will recall that we when we joined the Community a timetable was allowed, which has since foundered, to arrive at a common European currency. Although that is still our aim, we realise that its fruition is some years away. However, we must not forget it.
  MCAs were originally introduced in the 1960s as a temporary expedient to follow a devaluation of the French currency and a revaluation of the German currency. As Document 1149/77 says, they were originally intended to be temporary and not to become permanent features, costing huge amounts, as they seem to have become in the last few years. They have grown recently to mammoth proportions in trade with the United Kingdom— basically because of the catastrophic fall in sterling. That has given rise to a large green pound discrepancy, because of what the world sees as the Government's economic failure. If the Government had taken the proper steps three years ago to control inflation, our currency would not have fallen so much and we should not have had these massive problems with MCAs.
  The considerable increases in food costs because of the slumping pound would have been avoided because it would be worth more. The massive devaluation last year made our food prices shoot up— for example, sheepmeat, tea and coffee. Apart from world shortages, those rises were caused by our devalued currency and had nothing to do with membership of the EEC. The MCAs have been a welcome buffer to those rising prices.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend is now advancing into areas of economics. Is not the fall in the value of sterling invariably due to the balance of trade position? Does he not agree that part of

  1887
  the cause of the fall in sterling is that in 1971, before we joined the EEC, our deficit with the eight other countries was £180 million, whereas in 1976 it was £2,300 million and is still running at that rate?
  Mr. Jopling: I do not agree. The fall has been much more due to the Government's failure to control inflation. The MCAs have acted as a welcome buffer to food price increases following devaluation. It is a paradox that those who are most passionately opposed to our membership of the EEC seem to be the most passionate advocates of making the green pound system and the MCAs permanent. We cannot expect high MCAs to continue as a permanent feature of life in the Community. As Document 1125/77 says in the explanatory memorandum:
  "High MCAs could create distortions of competition."
  I think that is the understatement of the debate. The present pig crisis distortion is caused by high MCAs. Because of this distortion we find ourselves in a situation in which the pig breeding herd has slumped by about 10 per cent. in the last six months. If we do not want to see a repetition of the pig crisis and potential crises in other sectors of food production, something will have to be done to avoid the high levels of MCAs.
  The high level has caused an increase in heavily subsidised imports and the ruining of our domestic markets. Those who do not understand this should talk to beef farmers and find out about their experiences last winter. This leads to cuts in production at home, as in the pig sector, which leads to a loss of home-produced food, which means high prices for the housewives, and we are all trying to avoid that.
  These two documents move towards the end of trying to reduce high levels of MCAs rather than coping with them, as is the present position. Document R1125/77 proposes to lower them by lowering intervention prices on which most are based, or by widening the franchise, which now runs at 1½ per cent. below the intervention price, thus lowering the percentage used to arrive at the MCAs. The Secretary of State's explanatory memorandum left out the second alternative, and I hope that in future
  1888
  these memoranda will be more comprehensive.
  We do not quarrel with that concept, but we wonder which of the two proposals the Government prefer. How much do they anticipate they would be prepared to accept in the reduction of intervention prices, so widening the franchise?
  Are the Government satisfied to have these matters controlled—as the document proposes—by management committees. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is wise to take these matters out of the responsibility of Ministers? That seems rather doubtful, and I would be somewhat dubious about seeing these matters in the hands of management committees.
  I agree with the motion, which says, while taking note of the document, that there should be more clearly specified proposals before we can come to a final solution. But, in general, Document R/1125/77 is on the right lines, and we approve it.
  Mr. Welsh: If the Conservative Party is in favour of a common European monetary policy, does the hon. Gentleman accept the Commission's proposal for use of European units of account?
  Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Member will contain himself, I shall come to this in dealing with the next document.
  Document R/1149/77 follows with wider issues of existing and future levels of MCAs and the methods of dealing with them. I know that the Government have set their face against the original proposals of Commissioner Lardinois to have automatic reductions. The proposal in this document is a compromise away from that situation. It is first of all intended to freeze the present discrepancies. While accepting the national political and economic problems—which means goodness knows when the existing discrepancies will be reduced—the Government have set their mind against automatic changes, and it would be absolutely catastrophic to food production and industry in this country if the present level of MCAs were abolished too quickly. In terms of milk consumption, I think that the worst thing we could do would be to reduce the present level of MCAs too quickly.
  I like the proposal to remove systematically any new MCAs which may

  1889
  arise due to currency fluctuations in future. It is a good idea to take the view "We have this discrepancy at the moment, but let us be sure that any others that arise in the future will be dealt with". We should not allow the problem to build up, and we would not quarrel with such an approach.
  The Minister said that the proposal to remove annually any new discrepancy that arose would remove flexibility. That is true, but when the value of sterling is fluctuating anyway the cost of a great many foodstuffs goes up and down consequent on the changes of sterling without any flexibility, and there is nothing much we can do about it. To include in that sector of food supplies ones which are affected by MCAs is not, as the Minister seemed to imply, a fundamental step.
  We do not quarrel with the proposals in Document R/1149/77. A good deal in those proposals is vague. Some Community countries have criticised the proposals for being piecemeal. I share with the Minister a feeling that many of our colleagues in the Community are unlikely to accept either of these proposals while they think that there is a chance of getting a much more fundamental approach through automatic procedures to deal with MCA levels and green pound discrepancies.
  I think that the Government are wrong to dismiss out of hand any automatic adjustment. It may be a good thing for us to examine carefully the possibility of having a system of automatic adjustment, one which, I stress, does not reduce the level of the MCAs too quickly, otherwise this would have the devastating effects I described earlier.
  The European unit of account is a most interesting development. I would say to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) that I do not think any of us know enough about it. It is not spelt out in enough detail for us to be able to appreciate the implications, particularly countries such as the United Kingdom which find themselves outside the snake.
  In the short term we want to know how these measures could be brought in to help the present crisis in the pig industry. The Government have presided over the present decline in the pig industry, which is a very important sector.
  1890
  They missed the boat in October in altering the methods of calculating the MCAs for pigmeat. Secondly, they brought in a 50p subsidy which had little effect on declining profits in the industry.
  Mr. John Ellis: The Tories supported it.
  Mr. Jopling: Since the hon. Gentleman is muttering so much from a sedentary position, perhaps he would like to make an intervention standing up.
  Mr. John Ellis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that at the time the Conservative Front Bench supported the 50p subsidy. Therefore, it is a little rough for the hon. Gentleman to denounce it now. He had better go and check Hansard.
  Mr. Jopling: It is late at night and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. What I said was that that subsidy had had little effect. While that subsidy was in effect, losses to pig producers continued. It did not put a stop to the losses that they were incurring.
  The Commission has produced a scheme for the diminution of the MCAs which is a transitional arrangement, and, again, these would have a minor effect. Because of the high level of MCAs, pig producers are now in a state of total gloom. I know that the Government appreciate this. Matters have not been helped by the Minister saying that a devaluation of the green pound would not help pig producers. That has been vehemently denied by many farmers. It seems, from the speeches I have heard from farming interests, that the Minister has not considered the price differential between the market price and the support price of the cereal content of the food input. The devaluation of the green pound would lift the support price and reduce the differential, while market forces would still dictate the market price. That point has been put graphically and persuasively by farmers, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to this serious difference of opinion between the Minister's statement—particularly at the Bath and West Show—and the response from farmers. We are entitled to know the Government's response to the strictures that have been put on the Minister's conclusions by farmers' leaders.

  1891
  These documents attempt to deal with the principal reason why British agriculture has declined so steadily during the last two or three years. The industry has had to put up with lower productivity and lower farm incomes. Food producers have the right to feel that they are moving into a position where they will be competing with European farmers on a fair basis. Apart from anything else, that is in the best interests of the consumers at a time when plentiful long-term supplies of food are in serious doubt around the world. I hope that these proposals will mark a start, before too long, in moving in this direction. Such proposals are, in the long run, in the interests of the whole nation.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthrope): I have listened to such debates for a considerable time on other occasions. I shall be critical of the Minister, but, because Hansard is read outside the House, we ought to spell out the matter as simply as possible. The reason why I start with the Minister is that a study of the Which? document on the common agricultural policy is instructive, and it is possible for us in the House to do better. The same applies to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).
  Having listened to the speeches that have been made, it seems that, while there is some criticism, the main point is always missed. We should not be in this position had we not joined the Common Market and got into the CAP. I am sorry if hon. Members think that I am being over-simplistic, but if one talks to farmers throughout the country one realises that there has been a boom in agriculture since the war because of deficiency payments —the name of Tom Williams is always mentioned—which put agriculture back on its feet. One can theorise about the Common Market in many ways, but the CAP has been a disaster for farming, and there is no gainsaying that.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Prove it.
  Mr. John Ellis: We had a deficiency payments scheme that put agriculture in such a position that were able to work out our own policies in this country whether for hill farming, marginal land or good land. We had the agricultural reviews. We could do all these things.
  1892
  If the Opposition cannot see this, they are missing the main point. This always happens in these debates. Hon. Members always miss the main point. If we get the principle wrong, it does not matter how much we mess about with it, because we shall not be able to put it right.
  This document is dependent on what happens in negotiations. We do not know details of the amounts involved or the timing, and the pig industry is still in serious difficulties. If the hon. Member for Westmorland had wanted to launch a serious criticism of the Minister, he should have stressed the fundamental point that we must get the principles right.
  We do not know when the measures that we arc debating will come into operation. It will certainly not be tomorrow or next month. Hon. Members have always said that we need to make long-term plans for agriculture. What are our pig farmers supposed to do? They are faced with changes, but they do not know the amounts involved or the timing. What plans can they make for the future?
  In France there are more people on the land and they have greater political pull than their counterparts in this this country. But we have the most efficient agricultural industry in the EEC. In any system, these diametrically opposed facts will be reflected in the policies of individual Governments. In agriculture, as much as in any other subject, policies will be divergent because member States do not have the same interests at heart. We shall not be able to look after our own best interests as we have done in the past.
  I appreciate the impatience of hon. Members opposite when my hon. Friends and I talk about fundamental principles, as we always do in these debates. They say it is the same old song, but sometimes the old songs are the best, and we insist that if the principles are wrong the dilemmas will remain.
  As always, I wish the Minister well in the negotiations. He will be trying to get an agreement that is in the best interests of this country even though he is not master in his own home. He was most successful when he took arbitrary action and made what the hon. Member for Westmorland sneeringly referred to as

  1893
  illegal payments. The Opposition welcomed those payments when they were made, and I support my right hon. Friend in any measures designed to protect the interests of our pig farmers or any other sectior of our agriculture. Support for such measures would not necessarily come only from this side of the House.
  It is a gloomy picture which faces pig farmers; it was gloomy before the debate and will be after it. It is not the fault of hon. Gentlemen on either side who have criticised the principles of this, because it is inevitable under the system.
  The Member for Westmorland and his hon. Friend, who has been smiling throughout, may think they are informed in these matters, but if the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) can hold his hand on his heart and swear to the House that he can get these EEC documents from the library and understand every jot and nuance, he is remarkable. He would be hard-pressed to say that.
  In one matter hon. Gentlemen opposite have to agree with me, that this regulation does not immediately make the way plain for the pig farmers of this country. Even if the hon. Member for Westmorland were the greatest exponent of these regulations and welcomed them, he would have to agree with me that the fundamental principle that the pig farmers have a right to expect from this House is that we should be able to take measures and let them know what the measures are and what the results of them are.
  Those who support the Common Market are in no way in a position tonight to tell the pig farmers that next month, or the month after, or the month after that, they will have all the basic knowledge they need, as people living in a Community, to tell them what their future will be.
  That is the tragedy of the Common Market, and will continue to be so, while we slavishly follow the dictates of the people who have no responsibility but seem more tied to the bureaucratic farce which these documents always represent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that less than 45 minutes remains, including time for the Minister to wind up if thought necessary.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: Deficiency payments are permissible and exist for two commodities. They are only a means of subsidising and supporting farmers if the Community is in the position of importing food. As, however, the Community is not only self-sufficient but often in surplus in most commodities, deficiency payments are not available as a useful mechanism for supporting the incomes of farmers.
  Although it might be permissible of practical, if we had our own agricultural policy, to go back to deficiency payments, that would be unworkable and unhelpful for farmers while we are locked inside the common agricultural policy. A policy of deficiency payments would be of no use to our farmers inside the common agricultural policy.
  I agree that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) was pretty well right about the pig industry. I got out of pigs just after the referendum because I knew that the price of feeding stuffs would rocket if we stayed inside the CAP. None of my hon. Friends, however euphoric about the EEC, could deny that if we were outside the Community feeding stuffs would be considerably cheaper than they are now. I have argued this on many occasions, and nobody can fault my conclusion that feeding stuffs would be £25 a ton less outside than they are now inside.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Rubbish.
  Mr. Body: My hon. Friend says "Rubbish", but when he kept pigs last year he was paying £26 a ton less.
  Mr. Mills: Is my hon. Friend saying that the world price of the cereals which make up feeding stuffs is £25 a ton less than the average price in the Community?
  Mr. Body: More, considerably more. I am not talking about soya and fish meal. We know that they have gone up. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that the world price is now down to £57 a ton. He shakes his head. If he looks it up in the Financial Times on almost any day, he will see that I am absolutely right. Indeed, the United States Department of Agriculture in its recent report has expressed alarm about how to market its wheat. Countries such as India,

  1895
  for example, do not know where to store surplus wheat and are asking other countries to accept it. There is no problem about obtaining supplies on the world market.
  I do not want to go into this matter in detail, because Mr. Deputy Speaker has indicated that time is short. But the fact is that feeding stuffs would be markedly cheaper—I say by £25 a ton, but it could be a little less—if we were able to buy cereals on the world market. Of course, we are no longer able to do that, despite the mounting surpluses which are apparent to anyone who reads the reports of the FAO and other bodies.
  I want to return to the fears which have been expressed about this draft regulation. I listened carefully when the Parliamentary Secretary listed the criteria. I go along with him to some extent, but he was being a little complacent about how MCAs are now working and seriously distorting trade. That is happening in three ways. I emphasise that if the regulation goes through as it now is these three elements will be made worse, to the disadvantage of importers and exporters in this country and, therefore, at the end of the day, of British agriculture.
  First, MCAs introduce a speculative and arbitrary element into trade. If the Parliamentary Secretary doubts that, I suggest that he ask his officials to obtain for him a copy of the International Currency Review dated, it is true, January-February 1974, but every word is valid today. The article in question is entitled:
  "Monetary Compensatory Amounts: How MCAs create disorderly marketing conditions."
  It sets out in a responsible and restrained way allegations about how the MCA system is distorting trade. It reaches a crescendo towards the end when it describes the speculation, bribes, frauds and fortunes which can be made by people who understand the MCA system and are willing to speculate. That is serious for us as farmers.
  I used to export when I was in farming, because I was in a large enough way of business to do so. I could not start dabbling in the business now. Only large firms can afford to take the risks which are inherent in the present MCA system because of its speculative and arbitrary nature.
  1896
  This wretched MCA system was institutionalised in the 1970s. I am not talking about the early days when it applied on a small scale and France and Germany were affected. Since we joined the Common Market, the MCA system has become an important element in intra-and, to some extent, extra-Community trade. There is no doubt that the smaller firms have had very worrying times in calculating the figures. We have been told throughout the years by the Comission that we cannot have MCAs permanently fixed; they must be calculated, as they are now, on a weekly basis. This results in three serious distortions of intra-Community trade.
  Having studied these documents as best I could, I am convinced that this proposal will make things much worse. I repeat that a speculative element is introduced. I am appalled to hear of the astonishing certificate called the "advance fixing certificate". If one is a speculator, one can get a fix. It is a little bit of jargon picked up from the drugs business. If one lodges sufficient security with the Intervention Board in Reading, one can obtain one of those certificates even though one does not intend to trade. If one is a speculator and thinks that the currency will go up or down, one can sell the certificate. I am told that there is quite a market in the certificates.
  One can, if one is canny, make a calculation and have a gamble. If we arc to have this draft regulation, with all the uncertainty, with no clear criteria, with so much power handed over to the Commission, surely we shall add to the speculative element. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary and other Socialists would be on the rampage against making it possible for more speculators to come into this kind of dabbling, legitimate though it may be, within the law, but an undesirable practice which no hon. Member on either side of the House would tolerate.
  The other distortion—this is something that the Parliamentary Secretary may not appreciate—is that the system is so complex that the smaller firms are no longer trading. When we listen to representations about these matters, we are liable to hear views from the trade associations, the views of the larger firms. There are large firms engaged in the importing and exporting of food that positively like this

  1897
  MCA system. The more complicated it becomes, the more they like it, because they know that only a very few, an elite few, really understand it. This is acting as a non-tariff barrier. It is having the effect of making it impossible for the smaller firms to take part in the amount of exporting and importing that used to be the speciality of so many small firms.
  The other objection to the MCAs— and this will be exacerbated by the new proposal—is that the MCA can never be quite accurate, except by a fluke. It can never truly be the correct position. It is either too much or too little.
  I hope I have persuaded the Parliamentary Secretary that we must examine the proposal very carefully and make sure that the interests of smaller firms and firms which have exported food over the years to Third world countries are safeguarded. This applies also to certain firms, particularly in Holland, dealing with countries which believe in a rigid system of price control. There are many countries with a system of price control that is absolute. Important food items have a fixed retail price and nobody can sell them for more. Therefore, retailers and importers in those countries must know exactly what price they will pay.
  At present, when a consignor in the Community tries to export food items, he adds into the contract that the price is subject to the MCAs at that time. Importers in this country cannot accept that condition, with the result that if the consignor is to have the export he must accept responsibility. Exporters are not willing to take that risk when MCAs are bobbing about. They might make money, but they might lose it.
  These regulations will increase the uncertainty. The Commission should appreciate the difficulties of the smaller exporters, particularly when they have the problems of exporting to Third world countries where there is a rigid system of price control over food. I am convinced that the Commission will not listen to representations unless they are made as forcibly as possible. I hope and pray that the Minister will make them forcibly.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The speech by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) is significant for two reasons. The first is that he
  1898
  has told the House something of the practicalities of the matter in respect of the first document, R/1125/77. The second reason is that he has injected into the debate not merely something which is practical but something which is real.
  One of the failings of politicians—of our own profession—is that we adopt grand designs and arguments but we forget the side effects which are caused by the actuality. The hon. Member has shown us some of the difficulties arising from the system. At the moment I support the MCA system, but the hon. Member has shown that it will be more difficult if the principles behind the document are adopted. It is important for the House to take that on board. I am not saying that the MCA system is perfect, but it is better than a common market and totally common prices, as I shall show in a moment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston agrees with me.
  There could hardly be a greater distinction than that between the hon. Member's speech and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). For 36 hours this week the House has been obsessed with prices and price control. We debated the Price Commission Bill. It is strange that the hon. Member for Westmorland could come to the Box and say that he approves document R/149/77, which by my calculation would double the levy on wheat imported into this country if it were adopted.
  What the hon. Member says shows that the official Opposition are biased heavily towards the food producer, not only among their ranks physically but in their attitude. That is not surprising, but I warn the hon. Member that if the sort of attitude he displayed tonight is continued, his party will suffer a disadvantage. Perhaps I should not warn the hon. Member, because I want his party to suffer that disadvantage. His boldness is surprising, but I must commend his frankness.
  The subject is even more important than the 36-hour debate that we had amid great publicity. The difference is that this is not our own legislation. When we voted in Committee on the Price Commission Bill, the Opposition hoped that by chance, design or good luck they would change the Bill. But tonight's

  1899
  debate will not change anything. It is not within the power of the House to change it.
  I do not suggest that our Bills are models of clarity, but at least most of us can understand them and the amendments to them. I must say—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)—that I was a little disappointed with my hon. Friend's introduction. It might have been good in detail but it was thin in principle for the man in the street.
  When Ministers come to the Box—this should be noted also by those who advise them—they should start by spelling out, in as simple terms as they can, the likely effects of regulations which are proposed, so that any reasonable mythical man in the street can, at least with care, understand what they are about. My understanding is that only about 1 per cent. of the population, if that, has ever heard of monetary compensatory amounts.
  That illustrates the difficulty that we have in the Market. The complications of keeping up with the regulations, even in small professional firms, become impossible. When that situation arises, the con man and the fraud are in. That is a typical characteristic of this organisation. On almost any aspect at which one looks, it becomes virtually impossible for anyone to keep up with the mathematics, the regulations or the amendments. Only a very few people are absolutely in the know.
  In that respect even the House, including, I must confess, myself, is left far behind in trying to understand these things. That is not democratic. It is wrong. It is essentially undemocratic by its nature. That is one of the many reasons why some of us do not like the organisation from which these regulations originate.
  On document R/1125/77, the explanatory memorandum states:
  "The proposal would permit the Commission, acting under Management Committee procedure"—
  I wonder who will be on the management committee and under what criteria it will operate; it is not even Ministers now—
  "to reduce MCAs in certain circumstances where to do so would not distort trade".
  That is the criterion.
  1900
  Distortion of trade is a hot subject in the Community. What is a distortion of trade and what is not, and how do we judge? In the last week it appears that even the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" was judged by Commissioner Gundelach to be threatening the distortion of trade. He wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has put copies of the letters in the Library, saying,
  "Public speeches by Ministers encouraging agricultural self-sufficiency may not in themselves fall within the scope of the directive mentioned above."
  That is the Commission directive of 22nd December 1969.
  "But in so far as they are indicative of a consistent line of policy which the Government of a Member State intends to adopt, such recommendations must be a matter of concern for the Commission."
  In other words, even the adoption of the policy on "Food from Our Own Resources" threatens a "distortion of trade". Indeed, we are told that our Milk Marketing Board does that too.
  Therefore, the definition of the term "distortion of trade", the criterion which is to be operated by the management committee, is very wide in scope, very indefinite and inflexible. As has been said, it is almost impossible to say which way the cat would jump in those circumstances.
  I turn to the second document, R/1149/77. Frankly, I was surprised to hear the official Opposition support it almost without qualification. The document is very explicit in what it is saying. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not said something about this in the motion. I know that it is only a communication and that therefore, as he said, the matter will come back here again. But the implications of this for prices in this country are very great indeed. Perhaps that does not disturb food producers, who are rather in a minority among the people of the community, but it is of major importance to food consumers.
  The explanatory memorandum states:
  "In their communication the Commission state that they are considering the following ideas:—
  (a) the introduction of a system under which existing MCAs would, through adjustments to representative rates, be phased out by a set date."

  1901
  I know it is said that this is to take account of political and economic difficulties, but at least they would be phased out. Secondly, it says that any MCAs introduced in the course of a year would
  "normally be eliminated at each annual price fixing through adjustment of representative rates."
  In other words, for most practical purposes the MCAs would disappear. Those are the MCAs that we are constantly hearing about which help the British consumer. I think that they do—but they help German and French producers as well.
  In Hansard for 21st June, in Part II at columns 461–62, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has shown the existing common levies together with the existing ACAs and MCAs as at 13th June. The House might like to know that the common levy on wheat is now £78 a ton, on butter £1,483 a ton, and on boneless frozen beef £1,542 a ton. Those levies are not actually made, because at the moment they are offset by MCAs. The ACAs—accession compensatory amounts will go in addition, leaving relatively small amounts imported, with the exception of wheat, because they are designed to keep the food out and to put up the internal price.
  If the MCAs are phased out over a period, instead of paying about £40 a ton levy on Canadian wheat, as we do at the moment, for our bread, which is nearly the world price anyway, we should have to pay £78 a ton. Wheat is a good example because it is emotive, and the Corn Laws are in our minds on this sort of issue. We import about 1½ million tons of wheat from outside the Community each year, for which we are having to pay about £60 million.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is this a filibuster?
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may not know these figures. If he does, he ought to tell them to his constituents, because at this moment there is a lot of argument about food prices in this country and people are not being told the truth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell them. I also hope that he will go to his usual channels and tell them that we want—more than one and a half hours for debates such as this. If we can take 36 hours in discussing
  1902
  a Bill about prices—something which is in the control of this House—we ought to have more than one and a half hours for matters which are not in the control of the House and which are vastly more important.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views, but he might have consideration for other hon. Members who desire to speak. It is entirely in his own hands.
  Mr. Spearing: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we have had many of these debates. The points I am making are matters of information which I do not believe are commonly known to Members of this House, let alone to people outside.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who opened the debate, has given us a great deal of the detail, and I intend to finish before 11.30 p.m. If the ACAs and MCAs were phased out, the levy would not be £40 but would be about £80 for each ton of Canadian wheat imported into this country. As we import 1½ million tons, that would be about £120 million a year. We import 2¼ million tons of grain from the EEC. The cost of that grain is within the common external tariff and, therefore, it is higher than it otherwise would be if we could import Canadian or Australian grain levy-free.
  My calculations show that if the MCAs were phased out we should be having to pay about £280 million more over world prices. Therefore, I say to those who support this second document that they should be careful what they are supporting, because if it means that the proportion of tax on imported Canadian wheat is two or three times that of the Corn Laws, the issue is certainly two or three times greater than that of the Corn Laws. But we all know that the issue at stake here is far, far greater than that.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland in leading for the Opposition, declared his interest, quite properly. I declare mine—that of protecting the prices of food for the British consumer.
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Scrutiny Committee, I am a farmer and I am a consumer.

  1903
  Therefore, I have a right to say a few words.
  I should like first to reply to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I really feel that if he had to look into the whole position of agriculture in the past and what is happening now, he would not make the sort of remarks that he has made concerning deficiency payments. I recall the time when the Treasury was very upset at the enormous sums of money—taxpayers' money, the hon. Gentleman's money— which was being paid out. There was also the business of the control of production through deficiency payments. Perhaps the hon. Member has never heard of standard quantities, which was the biggest method of controlling the food production of this country. Of course it was an entirely different time and system to what it is now. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this more carefully rather than making such wild statements.
  There is no doubt at all that MCAs are absolutely crucial, given the position that we are in. If we are to get food production moving again for the benefit of the consumer, British agriculture and the farm workers we must solve the problem of the MCAs. The system of monetary compensatory amounts was designed to offset the benefits and the differences and so prevent distortions in trade. The sad thing is that it has done the exact opposite. It has caused even more distortions and even more problems.
  Why is that so? It is not the fault of the Community which all these weary Willies keep on about. It is entirely the fault of the Government of the day. There is no question that if the pound had retained its value of $2·3, as it was when we were in power—now it is down to $1·7—all these problems, although there, would be nothing like they are now.
  It is dishonest of Labour Members to be saying that these high food prices have been caused by the Community. The Community represents only about 3 per cent. The real nigger in the woodpile are the Government, who have allowed the pound to deteriorate so much that all the problems of the MCAs have made the cost of food rise so dramatically.
  1904
  The Government talk about being experts, but if they looked into this matter with an honest appraisal they would see how wrong they are. It is interesting to think what would happen if this Socialist Government had retained the pound at that value. What a difference it would have made. It would have made an enormous difference to agriculture, to the consumer and to this country as a whole. The consumers and agriculturists are suffering because of the effects of a Socialist Government who have allowed the pound to deteriorate so much. There is no doubt at all about that.
  The future of MCAs is crucial to food production in this country. If the Government wish to destroy the pig industry —that is what they are doing—in the long run it is the consumer who will suffer. I believe that the price of pigmeat will rise dramatically in the autumn because so many pig farmers have gone out of production, not because of the cost of feed but because they cannot stand the unfair competition from the Danes and the rest of the Community. It is no good blaming it on the Community. It is simply because of the drop in the value of the pound and the rise in the compensatory amounts.
  I shall finish because the Minister wishes to reply. But if we are to have a pig industry in the future we must do something about MCAs. They have to be reduced. I leave it at that.
  11.34 p.m.
  Mr. Strang: I shall try as best I can to reply to the main points raised in the debate. I shall take them in the order in which they were raised.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) criticised the explanatory memorandum. I must rebut that criticism on the ground that when he referred to the suggestion in the document that the adjustment could be made by reducing the percentage used in calculating monetary compensatory amounts he did not fully appreciate that that was mentioned in the document only in order to dismiss it. It is not a legislative proposal. It was preferable not to mention it in the explanatory memorandum, which aims to be as simple as possible and to provide guidance to the Scrutiny Committee.

  1905
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point that these matters should be controlled by the Council rather than the management committee—this point was echoed by a number of hon. Gentlemen— I would make it clear that the Government substantially agree with that. We are anxious to limit further the powers which this proposed regulation would give the Commission. In other words, we think that the powers of the Commission are too sweeping, and we want to see them defined more clearly.
  I do not want to get drawn again into the argument about the effect on pig producers of devaluing the green pound, but we must recognise that, if we devalue the green pound, it means a reduction in the MCA. The MCA abates the common levy. That means that the price of cereals will rise. Therefore, a reduction in the MCA, which abates the common levy, would lead to an increase in the levy. There is no doubt that a devaluation of the green pound would have some implications for the price of cereals and feed whereas altering the method of calculating the MCA now gets over that point and enables us to reduce the MCA on pigmeat without affecting the price of cereals.
  I come next to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Sounthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I know that he supports the Government in that he has called on a number of occasions for a recalculation of the MCA. I agree with him that membership of the Community has exacerbated our pig cycle. We always had a pig cycle, of course, when pig producers moved from a situation of high profitability into one of very low profitability. Membership of the Community has had an effect on that cycle, and the high import subsidy on imported pigmeat has made the position worse in the United Kingdom market.
  It will also be said that membership of the Community limits severely the scope for our Government to take corrective action, as has been seen with the pig subsidy. But I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe picked up the hon. Member who referred to this as an illegal payment. I remind the House that the question whether it is an illegal payment has not yet been decided. That is not what the case in the European Court was about.
  1906
  We shall have to wait and see what the decision of the European Court is on that when the case reaches the court.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) both complained that I did not explain the issue in simple terms similar to those in the Which? report. We had a substantial debate for a whole day on the fundamental issue of MCAs. When we have only an hour and a half, it would be a mistake for a Minister to spend time explaining in simple terms what MCAs are. If he did that, he could not do justice to the nature of complicated proposals of this kind, especially when a number of hon. Members understand fully and take a considerable amount of time to read up on the subject in order to make informed contributions to the debate.
  Having said that, I come to what I regard as the very valuable contribution of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I should not like to give the impression of complacency about the effect of MCAs on trade. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that speculation is a real problem. However, I am sure that he will agree that, the bigger the MCA, the bigger the problem. If the MCAs are relatively small, the scope for profitable speculation is much reduced.
  There is another point which should be made, although I do not make too much of it, because there are aspects of the common agricultural policy which provide additional scope for speculation. But I wonder whether we are not seeing more speculation right across the board. Today, I heard on the radio a report which said that there are now more investments in commodities than in equity shares. It may be that, with multinational companies and the development of international capitalism, greater communications and more trade, investors or speculators, whichever word is preferred, are more active in such commodities as tea, coffee and cocoa. It happens that those commodities have nothing to do with the CAP in this sense. I am not sure whether that factor is operating in the background.
  I can understand the comment that these matters are complex. It is the first time that their complexity and the position

  1907
  of small firms have been put to me directly.
  It is true that the importer will want to know precisely what price he will have to pay when engaged in external trade. The Commission is seized of that fact. That is why it is proposing to introduce the prefixing of MCAs for external credit. It argues that it will not introduce it for internal trade as that would increase the scope for speculation. It is seeking to introduce prefixing of MCAs on trade with third countries.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that the phrase "distortion of trade" is used rather loosely, especially in Commission documents. What is a distortion of trade? We agree that there is a distortion of trade in pigmeat. We want a reduction in the MCA to force up the price of pigmeat in this country. We are talking about relatively small adjustments in MCAs, but we must bear in mind that we cannot be certain in which direction we shall be wanting to move within the adjustments that are made in future.
  I think that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) makes the great mistake of thinking that the green pound and the size of the United Kingdom MCA dominate the whole question of the monetary compensatory amounts. There is just as much concern shown by the Danes and the Dutch about the level of protection that the MCAs give to German farmers. There are just as many worries in Italy about the excessive imports of livestock products. There is the question of French and Irish assistance and the level of MCAs imposed on their exports.
  References to MCAs are made repeatedly in the Council. They are just as controversial in other countries in the Community as in Britain. We should not be on the defensive. We should not think that the United Kingdom is the great odd man out. Other member States pursue a similar policy to that pursued by Britain. If they think that a change in their representative rate is in their interests, they will press for it. If they do not think that it is in their interests, they will oppose it. That was brought out clearly in the last price-fixing.
  I have tried to cover as well as I can the main points that have been raised. I
  1908
  remind my hon. friend the Member for Newham, South—I do not need to remind him as he is already aware of what I am about to say, but I tell him none the less —that the original proposals for perhaps automatic adjustment of MCAs and the application of the European unit of account, which I would favour for agriculture, will be important events. No doubt they will be modified in the course of discussion in the Council. It will be important to study the proposals carefully. The proposals and the draft regulations will be more important than the matters we are now discussing.
  It has been a short debate but I think that it has been useful. It has brought out some of the important matters that must be borne in mind by the United Kingdom representatives in the Community.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents R/1125/77 and R/1149/77 and, while welcoming the opportunity which the proposal in R/1125/77 would offer for reducing monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat, considers that the scope and criteria for its application in other sectors ought to be more clearly specified.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),
  That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to.

  WATERWAYS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I wish to raise the matter of capital provision for waterways. My criticism of the Government is not of our present Government alone but of successive Governments. I hope that the Minister will understand my use of the phrase "Whitehall thinking". My criticism is

  1909
  that Whitehall thinking, knowledge, understanding and vision of waterways has been sadly deficient. I hope that in this Government's attitude to integrated transport that attitude will change.
  I think of Whitehall thinking in its entirety but Ministers are responsible. Although the Minister may be personally new to this matter, I hope that he will press upon his right hon. Friends that the reputations of past Ministers have not been high in this matter. I hope that that will change in time.
  Our thinking on this subject has sometimes been wrong. Whitehall often thinks of waterways in terms of the British Waterways Board alone. That is wrong. Our estuaries and rivers and extensions to them are just as much waterways, albeit extensions of ports, as the waterways run by the BWB. The Manchester Ship Canal is perhaps the biggest and most important waterway in this country. It is said that what Manchester does today the nation does tomorrow. Alas, that was not so in the case of Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham, but it shows that, surrounding the coast of this country, we have a natural waterway—the sea—and that access to the sea can be made available for craft or some seagoing vessels by relatively small improvements to the important estuaries and rivers which drain to our coast.
  Perhaps we have been too well provided with the waterway around our coast to realise that. On the Continent of Europe conditions are different, but because they are not so well placed with the immediate sea coast they think differently. I do not want my Government to be forced by the EEC to harmonise capital provision for waterways as they may be for roads.
  I hope that the Government will adopt some of the systems already in existence on the Continent, especially in Germany, because of their merits. The German method of investment in waterways is comparable to ours in roads. The capital sum is made available, there may be some calculation of return, but there is no interest cost and there is no test such as I understand our Government make on investment in new waterways, which is comparable to the 10 per cent, test for industry. That is the big difference. I do not wish that change to come by being
  1910
  forced on the Government; I hope that they will adopt it of their own volition.
  There is a long history of discussion of this matter in the House. On 3rd March 1972 I initiated a debate on the matter, when I quoted a reply from the Minister, written on 16th February 1972, to the effect that matters of waterways were under continual study. That was in reply to a claim that studies had shown that developments of waterways would not be economic. It is shown throughout the history of this matter. This has been the sort of reply that we have had all along. The Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure 1974 noted that expenditure on canals was not eligible for the transport supplementary grant and recommended that the exclusion should be reconsidered.
  Alas, the Government response to this recommendation was that since there was plenty of subsidy given to the British Waterways Board they did not consider that inclusion of this expenditure in the TSG system would serve any useful purpose. The Government were responding to the belief that the Board was concerned solely with waterways, and in doing so they showed ignorance of the situation as it exists.
  But it is not just a matter of the TSG. Section 8 of the last Transport Act gives grants for new railway sidings and extensions of railways. Why not give them for extensions of waterways? The principle is the same. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.
  In the debate on the Select Committee report in May 1975 there was no proper reply from the Minister. Unfortunately, we have to accept that sort of thing frequently. On 7th May I received the same sort of unsatisfactory answer when I asked what was the difference between the railways and waterways, and why they were dealt with differently. The then Minister replied:
  "Canal users do not pay equivalent taxes, but they can and do contribute directly, in tolls, to the cost of the facilities they use."—[Official Report, 7th May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 454.]
  The Government are falling back on the idea that the waterways are like the old toll roads, and should be financed as such. For a Government in 1977, looking forward to an integrated transport system,

  1911
  that is an attitude that is backward-looking to an extraordinary degree.
  The present Government criteria are spelled out in two Orange Papers published earlier this year. Paragraph 11.18, one of the few sections on waterways says:
  "The Government are at present considering the British Waterways Board's proposal to improve the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Naviation at a cost of about £5 million."
  The most important thing about the transport consultative paper is the appendix in Volume 2, which sets out in detail the assessment of the return on capital of the infrastructure. The calculations are made for the cost-benefit analysis in roads. Roads are dealt with separately—there is a once-for-all grant. The cost-benefit analysis, through the COBA system, was used. The most extraordinary words are used on Page 99:
  "Time savings are valued at the cost to the employer of employing the traveller."
  In other words, if someone goes to work quicker in a car, it will calculate the cost of his time. That is extraordinary. If one applied that sort of cost-benefit analysis to the waterways there would be no time-saving, but there might be a saving of the environment and many other benefits that are not calculable by the same criteria applied to the roads.
  Unfortunately the Government do not apply cost-benefit of any sort to the waterways, so it cannot be used anyway. If there were such a procedure it would need to be adjusted to take account of the value of the waterways as such.
  Following the imaginative document produced by the Inland Waterways Association, called "Barges or Juggernauts" the then Transport Minister published a Press notice which said:
  "In particular places and for particular kinds of traffic waterways are the right transport mode, and I hope that wherever these conditions exist they will be identified and pursued".
  The then Minister for Transport said in a letter to the then Secretary of the Inland Waterways Association:
  "I entirely agree that some waterways may be able to play a significant local role and the possibilities should be thoroughly investigated."
  He concluded by saying:
  "I look forward to seeing the results of these studies. And you will be pleased to know that the Department itself is proposing
  1912
  to commission some general research into the prospects of greater use of waterways for transport purposes."
  Hurrah! At last something is to happen.
  The Inland Waterways Association put forward some proposals to the Minister, and I believe that the Board suggested a particular research remit and said that certain transport authorities in the Netherlands would be able to help. But, alas, nothing came of it.
  I had tabled a Question on this matter for answer yesterday. In response to it, the Minister has written to me as follows:
  "The proposal put forward by the British Waterways Board in December 1974 was for associating the United Kingdom with research being undertaken in the Netherlands and my officials told the Board that the work in question seemed inappropriate to the circumstances of water traffic in this country."
  My first comment is to ask why an official took this decision, although the Minister, through letter and Press statement, had said that studies were to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say what studies were continued and why the discontinuance or refusal of this effort—an imaginative one —was refused by officials and apparently not by Ministers.
  The second point about this strange incident was that it was left to the judgment of officials, and apparently they decided that the work was inappropriate. I understand that some of the work was an assessment of traffic likely to be available on waterways. I would have thought that the Dutch were pretty good at that work. I would not have thought that the mathematical technique of network analysis was inappropriate to a fairly wide section across the international frontiers. Although the Dutch experience may be different, I do not think that the formula used would have been inappropriate to certain parts of this country. I put it to the Minister that, the Government having said that they would do something, officials—not the Minister—took it into their hands to refuse the offer without any reference to ministerial level—something which, I suggest, should not be tolerated.
  I have tried to make the case that Government or Whitehall thinking has not taken proper cognisance of the possibilities of improving the waterways—not necessarily in linear miles but in particular areas. The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation project has not

  1913
  been agreed to because, although the cost would be relatively small, the interest on the depreciation would be added to total cost. That is an inappropriate form for this matter, although even that navigation showed a pretty reasonable return.
  We are expecting a re-examination of transport in the Government's White Paper, though I doubt whether it includes a waterways section. It is high time that the Department of the Environment reassessed its attitude to waterways. Waterways are a track not to be compared with others. They are a track-plus—because they cater not just for commercial navigation but for recreational and sporting activities, including sailing, canoeing, and fishing. Waterways can also give a raw water supply for industry and others requiring it. they can fulfil drainage functions, they have flood control functions, and possibly pumped storage functions, too.
  Conventional methods are inappropriate. It is still less appropriate to try to calculate commercial return on the same basis as that of the nationalised industries, because the whole situation is different. I look forward to the Minister's saying that the matter of capital for waterways is covered by the White Paper on transport—I suspect that it is not— and that his Department will undertake a deep and searching examination of these matters. If it will not, I suspect that a Select Committee of the House will have some severe remarks to make. I understand that it is already engaged on a study of this matter. I hope that the Minister will ensure that his Department does better in future.
  I hope that my remarks have not been too personal, but I also hope that Whitehall thinking will now take a turn and I look to the Minister to see that it does.
  12.1 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on obtaining this debate. I know that he has a long-standing interest in British waterways and a detailed knowledge of the subject. There are some hon. Members who think that my hon. Friend's only interest is his anti-Common Market stance, but I, as an Environment Minister, know better.
  1914
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for advance information on some of the points that he raised and I shall try to be as helpful as possible in answering them. He reminded me that British waterways are not the concern merely of the British Waterways Board. As a Manchester Member I am well aware of that. As a child I always thought that the seven wonders of the world were the Halle Orchestra, the Manchester Ship Canal, the Manchester Guardian—as it was then —Manchester Waterworks, Manchester United, Manchester City and Manchester's education. I recently inspected the full length of the Avon Navigation, which is also not part of the British Waterways Board's responsibility. There has been a splendid improvement of a canal that had been neglected.
  My hon. Friend mentioned a number of points in connection with the White Paper on transport but as this is to be published on Monday I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate the contents. I seem to have spent a great deal of time replying to debates recently saying that the White Paper on transport will be published next week and that the White Paper on the water industry will be coming out shortly, so my style of reply is rather cramped, because I must not anticipate what is in those White Papers.
  First, I shall try to put my hon. Friend's particular points in context.
  The Transport Act 1962 provides powers for the Board to borrow money for capital purposes, and on a temporary basis for other purposes. The Transport Act 1968 limits the total borrowings which may be outstanding at any time, and also provides for the Secretary of State to make grants from time to time to the Board.
  As a statutory body dependent on public financial support, the Board's requirements for investment on capital account are considered and settled by the Department in consultation with the Treasury—normally as an annual exercise—within the framework of the Government's policies for public sector spending. The present position is set out in the Government's published public expenditure plans, which show the actual

  1915
  capital investment by the Board sanctioned since 1971 and the agreed projections up to 1981. The provision for the current year is £2 million, and similar provision, at 1976 survey prices, is proposed for each of the next three years.
  In January each year the Board submits to the Secretary of State a five-year investment review in the context of the annual survey of public expenditure, listing any proposals for expenditure on the Board's fixed assets—land, buildings, waterways, docks, craft, plant, and so on —which is prima facie eligible for advances from the National Loans Fund.
  The programme as a whole is discussed with the Department and on completion the Board is given a provisional investment ceiling for two years ahead and confirmation of ceilings previously set for the current year and the following year.
  The Board's report for 1976, which was laid in the House on 15th June, shows that total expenditure last year under its investment programme was £1·725 million. Actual total borrowing has now reached £11·9 million, against a current limit of £12 million. The Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill, to which the House gave a Third Reading on 14th June, provides for the raising of this limit to £20 million. Any proposals of a revenue-carrying nature would, if sanctioned, have to be financed from this provision and to comply with the procedure outlined.
  In the case of projects costing over £250,000 the Department would make its own detailed appraisal, as was done for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation scheme. In fact, that is the only project costing over £100,000 that has been submitted by the Board in recent years.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the Select Committee's report, in which it drew attention to the Board's view that major new investment is needed and recommended that outstanding matters should be brought to the attention of Ministers. Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that the Select Committee said:
  "In particular we would draw attention to the view expressed by the Board that major new investment is needed both in craft and in route improvements and that unless some
  1916
  positive lead is given or action taken by the Government, the industry will die. We recommend that matters still outstanding between the Board and the Department of the Environment should be brought to Ministerial notice for urgent review".
  Of course that was done, and Ministers are well aware of the position.
  As I have said, however, the only major investment proposal before us in recent years has been the Sheffield and South Yorkshire scheme. I know that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that scheme and I am aware of his concern about the basis on which the Government declined to make finance available for it. I can only repeat the assurance given to him my my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate of 25th May last year, when he refuted the allegation that we applied differing standards of assessment as between waterways and road projects—that although the techniques of assessment must differ the same principle of cost-benefit analysis is applied to both categories.
  The techniques differ, because for one thing, in the case of a canal project the expected benefits can be related to market-based direct charges for the service and much of the evaluation can be made in terms of a direct financial return. This is not so with roads, and the return on road investment therefore has to be assessed indirectly through cost-benefit evaluation. The salient point is that there are always more desirable road schemes than the funds available will accommodate at any time and the assessed return on such schemes typically exceed the figure of 15 per cent., which is the minimum acceptable return for a high-risk project.
  I have discussed this with the Board and I know that it is unhappy with this criterion, and claims that the Department has underestimated the likely increase in traffic to be expected as a result of the scheme. There is inevitably, in a case such as this, room for disagreement about forecasts—when I dealt with transport matters, I spent some time on the COBA scheme to which my hon. Friend referred—but the Department has gone into the matter very thoroughly and is satisfied that, even on the basis of the most favourable assumptions that we feel it would be prudent to make, a return of as much as 15 per cent, cannot be confidently foreseen for the SSYN project. Some of the traffic forecasts that we were

  1917
  using then have turned out to be far too high.
  For example, we included in our calculations an estimate for 400,000 tons of steel and we think now that a more accurate estimate would have been 30,000 tons.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the 15 per cent, return include a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits to people other than British Waterways in terms of cash as well as the reduction in road wear by lorries and other benefits? Unless this is done, there will be a difference in the assessment.
  Mr. Marks: With roads and canals we attempt to make an assessment of the environmental advantages of the proposed work. It is difficult to make such assessment and calculate the effect of an improvement in, say, the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation on something else many miles away. However, we do try to make these assessments.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned the environmental or side benefits of such a scheme. He may think that they have been accorded insufficient weight; the benefits to towns bypassed by new motor ways or bypasses may be great but they are difficult to assess in pounds and pence.
  There is benefit not only in environmental terms but to the general economy and amenities of that area, but in neither case is it possible to quantify these benefits accurately. I suspect that my hon. Friend and I would argue for a long time about the importance or priority which should be given to them. However, they can certainly be taken into account —I believe that "qualitative weighting" is the technical term—in taking decisions on particular schemes, but they are most unlikely ever to be of more than marginal significance.
  In the case of road projects, the un-quantifiable items would usually provide a net positive balance, but as I have said, any such projects which are acceptable invariably meet the financial criterion of a percentage return on investment.
  The BWB has indicated its wish to seek alternative sources of finance for the SSYN, such as a partnership with local authorities, industry or commerce, or the EEC, if I may use such an expression in my hon. Friend's presence. However, the crux of the matter is the viability of the
  1918
  scheme itself. If it were possible to find partners who would be prepared to bear a sufficient element of the risk to make the Board's own investment viable by our criteria, of course we would be willing, as we have already indicated, to look at the scheme again. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the different methods of financing canals in other countries, particularly in Western Germany. I am sure that he will recognise the totally different scale of operation there, with waterways like the Rhine or the Scheldt. My hon. Friend mentioned the prospective research in co-operation with Dutch experts, about which he had tabled two Questions for answer on Wednesday 22nd June. Unfortunately, as far as this House is concerned, 22nd June did not exist. I have, however, written to my hon. Friend, as he mentioned, answering his points.
  The problem was that the project was geared so much to Continental conditions that, as he would expect, there is a great deal of difference, and I undertake to examine that further. It is difficult to get information on this, but I shall seek information, from both German and Dutch contacts and see what can be done.
  I must refer to the Board's general financial position and prospects, so as to present a balanced picture. The Transport Act 1968 placed certain obligations upon the Board, particularly for the maintenance of the existing waterways system. With the passage of time and the continued decline of its commercial operations as well as changes in the financial climate, the extent to which the Board has been able to finance its essential expenditure from revenue has declined, from 74 per cent, in 1970 to less than 50 per cent this year. The grant aid from the Government has correspondingly increased, and now stands at £12 million. Given the increasingly adverse ratio of revenue to expenditure and the small scope for increasing revenue, the Board's capacity for funding borrowing for capital investment is clearly very restricted. Nor is this the whole story.
  The House is well aware that, following the Board's submission in 1970 of a programme designed to bring standards of maintenance up to the requirements of the Transport Act 1968, the Government commisioned a comprehensive study by consultants and that this report—the Fraenkel Report—was handed in last

  1919
  year. It confirms that the Board has indeed been unable to meet the obligations placed on it by that Act and makes recommendations for a very substantial programme of deferred maintenance.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate of 25th May 1976, we can see no prospect of obtaining finance of the order of magnitude required for this programme through the normal Treasury channels. This was a prime consideration in proposing, in the Green Paper of March 1976, that the waterways should be brought within the scope of the water industry. We received a wide range of comment on that proposal, and the results of the Government's further consideration of the future of the waterways and the BWB will be set out in the White Paper on the water industry which is due to be published
  1920
  shortly. It is proposed to release the Fraenkel Report at about the same time.
  My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the canals for water supply and their potential contribution as channels for moving water between regions. Already nearly half the Board's total revenue from the waterways comes from those water charges—far more than from tolls and licences, and so on. I know that the regional water authorities are very conscious of the importance of the canals.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Pensions and Wages
  Pensions and Wages
  Rent Payments
  Rent Payments
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Adoptions (Medical Examinations)
  Adoptions (Medical Examinations)
  Dietitians
  Dietitians
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
  Pensioners (Mobility Allowance)
  Pensioners (Mobility Allowance)
  Brain Operation (Personal Case)
  Brain Operation (Personal Case)
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Disabled Persons (Pension Scheme Cover)
  Disabled Persons (Pension Scheme Cover)
  Employment
  Employment
  Departmental Staff (Dispute)
  Departmental Staff (Dispute)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  English
  English
  Art Collections
  Art Collections
  School Managers and Governors (Taylor Report)
  School Managers and Governors (Taylor Report)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  HULL
  HULL
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  DOCTORS' PAY
  DOCTORS' PAY
  PRIME MINISTERS' POLICY UNIT
  PRIME MINISTERS' POLICY UNIT
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  BLACK COUNTRY
  BLACK COUNTRY
  ORMSKIRK
  ORMSKIRK
  ABERDEEN
  ABERDEEN
  POWER PLANT INDUSTRY
  POWER PLANT INDUSTRY
  STANDARD OF LIVING
  STANDARD OF LIVING
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
  MARTIN AGRONSBY (BROADCAST INTERVIEW)
  MARTIN AGRONSBY (BROADCAST INTERVIEW)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
  ARGENTINE
  ARGENTINE
  HONOURS AWARDS
  HONOURS AWARDS
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Broadcasting (Welsh Language)
  Broadcasting (Welsh Language)
  Paroled Persons
  Paroled Persons
  Police (Additional Employment)
  Police (Additional Employment)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Police Forces
  Police Forces
  Cypriots
  Cypriots
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Saccharine
  Saccharine
  Fishing (Mesh Size Infringements)
  Fishing (Mesh Size Infringements)
  Covent Garden Market
  Covent Garden Market
  Bacon (Preservatives)
  Bacon (Preservatives)
  Food Flavourings
  Food Flavourings
  Food Products (Labelling)
  Food Products (Labelling)
  Cream
  Cream
  Import Prices
  Import Prices
  Council of Ministers' Meeting
  Council of Ministers' Meeting
  Land Loss
  Land Loss
  Mr. Gundelach (Correspondence)
  Mr. Gundelach (Correspondence)
  Grain Levies
  Grain Levies
  Butter
  Butter
  Lard
  Lard
  Eggs Authority
  Eggs Authority
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Coal (Concessionary Schemes)
  Coal (Concessionary Schemes)
  Coal Industry (European Community Assistance)
  Coal Industry (European Community Assistance)
  Gas Pipeline (North Sea)
  Gas Pipeline (North Sea)
  Oil Rigs
  Oil Rigs
  Oil Price
  Oil Price
  Oil Refining
  Oil Refining
  Wind Energy
  Wind Energy
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Bodies (Appointments)
  Official Bodies (Appointments)
  "Morning Star"
  "Morning Star"
TRANSPORT
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Lorry Drivers (Working Hours)
  Lorry Drivers (Working Hours)
  Motorways (Breakdown and Repair Services)
  Motorways (Breakdown and Repair Services)
  M25
  M25
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxpayers (Outstanding Settlements)
  Taxpayers (Outstanding Settlements)
  European Community
  European Community
  Tax Refunds (Sickness and Unemployment)
  Tax Refunds (Sickness and Unemployment)
  Tate Gallery
  Tate Gallery
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Productivity
  Productivity
  National Land Fund
  National Land Fund
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Community (Gross Domestic Product)
  European Community (Gross Domestic Product)
  Dependant's Allowance
  Dependant's Allowance
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Professional Persons (Pay)
  Professional Persons (Pay)
  Area Action Committees
  Area Action Committees
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Journalists (National Coal Board)
  Journalists (National Coal Board)
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Training
  Training
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
  CHILD ADOPTION
  CHILD ADOPTION
  MR. PETER MACBRYAN
  MR. PETER MACBRYAN
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Parliamentary Salaries
  Parliamentary Salaries
  United States Expenditure (United Kingdom)
  United States Expenditure (United Kingdom)
  Commissioners (Pay)
  Commissioners (Pay)
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Cayman Islands
  Cayman Islands
  Cameroons
  Cameroons
  Virgin Islands
  Virgin Islands
  Christmas Island
  Christmas Island
  Cocos Islands
  Cocos Islands
  Angola
  Angola
  Overseas Representation
  Overseas Representation
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference
  Independent Territories (Minorities)
  Independent Territories (Minorities)
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (STAFF)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (STAFF)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Onchocerciasis
  Onchocerciasis
  Teachers (English Language)
  Teachers (English Language)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Lands (Ownership)
  Lands (Ownership)
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
TRADE
  "Halcyon Isle" (Crew's Pay)
  "Halcyon Isle" (Crew's Pay)
  Catering (Statistical Inquiry)
  Catering (Statistical Inquiry)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Overseas Relatives Reunion Club
  Overseas Relatives Reunion Club
WALES
  A55, Llandudno (Flooding)
  A55, Llandudno (Flooding)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Gyffin, Conway (Sewerage Scheme)
  Gyffin, Conway (Sewerage Scheme)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
  Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
  Police (Deaths)
  Police (Deaths)
  School Examinations
  School Examinations
  Security
  Security
  Employment (Equal Opportunity)
  Employment (Equal Opportunity)
  Education (Reorganisation)
  Education (Reorganisation)
  Northern Ireland Finance Corporation
  Northern Ireland Finance Corporation
  Architects
  Architects
  Employment (Training)
  Employment (Training)
  People's Garage, Falls Road, Belfast
  People's Garage, Falls Road, Belfast
  "Wellbeing"
  "Wellbeing"
  Farm Amalgamations
  Farm Amalgamations
  Wages (Underpayments)
  Wages (Underpayments)
  Strathearn Audio Ltd.
  Strathearn Audio Ltd.
  Government Offices (Refreshment Facilities)
  Government Offices (Refreshment Facilities)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Detonators
  Detonators
  Foyle Fisheries
  Foyle Fisheries
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  Peace Movement
  Peace Movement
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Constitution
  Constitution
ENVIRONMENT
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Norman Shaw North Building
  Norman Shaw North Building
  Old Palace Yard
  Old Palace Yard
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Mattresses (Fire Risks)
  Mattresses (Fire Risks)
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Local Government Act 1974
  Local Government Act 1974
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Waste Collection
  Waste Collection
  Lydiate (Building Application)
  Lydiate (Building Application)
  Barratt Developments (Chester) Ltd.
  Barratt Developments (Chester) Ltd.
  Gren Belt Land (Redditch)
  Gren Belt Land (Redditch)
  Liverpool Street Station
  Liverpool Street Station
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas)
  Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

AIRLINES AND PASSENGER OVERBOOKING
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 they are aware that the Civil Aeronautics Board of America now requires air carriers to post notices at every ticket counter and on every passenger ticket, warning passengers of the overbooking practice and the potential risk of being oversold and that "stuffers" to this effect are included in airline tickets; and whether they will ask the Civil Aviation Authority to recommend the adoption of such a procedure in this country.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware that, as from 3rd April, the United States Civil Aeronautics Board has required all air carriers selling tickets in the United States of America to display notices warning passengers that airline flights may be overbooked and that a similar notice be issued with each ticket sold. The Government, however, do not propose to ask the Civil Aviation Authority to recommend the adoption of a similar procedure in this country.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that means that the Government have not the authority to ask the CAA to make such a recommendation, or whether it means that the Government do not approve of the recommendation which is suggested? Secondly, does the Minister realise—and I think he does from what he has just said—that all British airlines issuing tickets in the United States have to follow these regulations and make the
752
position of passengers' rights clear to passengers? Could the Minister tell the House why he feels that similar rights should not be accorded to passengers in this country?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, this is essentially a matter for the CAA, as I sought to make clear on 19th May. The Government do not see any reason strongly to dissent from the judgment reached by the CAA. Indeed, in reply to a further point which the noble Baroness made, the Government would not have the power to give a direction, but my noble friend has put down a Question for Thursday of next week about the relationship between the Government and the CAA. As to the situation in the United States which my noble friend describes, may I point out that the conditions there are not the same as those in this country. For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board has the power to impose this scheme on all airlines in the United States. The Civil Aviation Authority in this country is reluctant to press changes on the participants in our voluntary scheme, which appears to be working well, and it does not wish to try to impose conditions on British airlines alone.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I first ask the Minister whether he is aware that I did not ask the Government to issue a directive? I asked them to request the CAA to recommend a procedure. Moving on from there, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that I am greatly disturbed that our own Government in particular should take this attitude towards consumers, an attitude which I hope will be deplored by the House? Reverting to the reply which the Minister gave me on Tuesday at col. 532, does he wonder that I feel strongly about the independence of consumer committees? What does he propose that the Airline Users' Committee should do when it is answerable to the CAA, when the CAA will consider consumer requests only in relation to what the airlines are likely to decide and when the Government, as the Minister has just stated, refuse to intervene?
Several Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I recognise, of course, as I said on Tuesday, the very strong views that my noble friend has about the need for independent consumer voices in these matters; but, as I stated earlier, it is clear that for a matter of this kind the responsibility rests clearly with the CAA. As I said on 19th May, I have gone a long way—and my noble friend acknowledges this—in conveying her views to the CAA. But again, as I said on that occasion, I have had, perhaps reluctantly, to reach the conclusion that I have done all that I personally can within the powers that I have. I am sorry that that is the situation we have reached, but it is so.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the voluntary scheme to which he referred a moment ago is working tolerably well? Can he say what would be the cost to British Airways, for example, if they were obliged overnight to withdraw all the tickets presently in the world, reprint them with the caveat mentioned by the noble Baroness and reissue them to all their stations around the world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord has said about the voluntary scheme working well, but he is a little unfair in suggesting that such a change would have to take place overnight. As I have indicated, I am not proposing that such a change should take place; but, if that should be decided, it would be possible to phase in the new situation. However, I agree that the cost of these changes is an important consideration which British Airways and others have to take into account.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it not be anomalous, even if the tickets did not have to be changed overnight, if one aspect of the scheme were voluntary and another aspect were compulsory?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, I very much doubt whether the voluntary scheme would survive a compulsory attitude on the part of the CAA and British airlines.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, despite what was said by the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench, does the Minister realise that the cheers which
754
were given to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, indicate very wide support in this House for her point of view? Will he convey to the CAA the Question which she has put, and the discussions in this House, so as to influence it in that direction?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the cheers which came when my noble friend was asking her second supplementary question were, I thought, more in relation to her vigorous defence of consumers in general, and those are sentiments which I personally very much share and I wish I could have joined in the cheers. But the particular point of this Question is a distinctly narrower one which I have answered on several occasions and I would prefer not to continue repeating the Answer.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the cheers will be as nothing compared with the day when we eventually succeed? As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is not likely to be speaking for the consumers in the near future, can the Minister answer the question which I asked him: what does he now propose that the Airline Users' Committee, which represents the users of airlines in this country, should now do, as they can get nothing from the Civil Aviation Authority and nothing apparently from the Government?
A noble Lord: Change the Government !
Lord ORAM: My Lords, offhand I do not know what I would do if I were a member of the Airline Users' Committee, but I indicated that I had given favourable consideration to this matter and consider that I have reached the end of the road. It may be that the Airline Users' Committee will have reached the end of the road on this particular point, given their particular powers; but that does not mean that there is not wide scope for discussion as to what the Committee's powers should be and whether they have the right degree of independence and so forth. The wider question is certainly one for fruitful examination, but I am suggesting that, given the present situation, there is little further that can be done on this question of publicity in relation to compensation for overbooking.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, may I ask what "stuffers" means in this connection?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think it means a piece of paper that is stuffed in the ticket.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is it still the case that both these organisations share the same chairman?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think technically, Yes, this is so, but there may be changes in that respect.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we should proceed to the next Question.

OFFSHORE PROTECTION SHIPS
3.16 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 they intend to build for the Royal Navy ships designed for the protection of oil rigs in the North Sea.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, five new ships of the "Island" Class are being provided to the Royal Navy for offshore protection tasks, including protection of oil installations in the North Sea. Three have already been accepted for service with the Royal Navy and the remaining two are due to be accepted later this year.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these ships have been very much criticised for their lack of speed, and is he satisfied that in these circumstances they can perform adequately the very serious increasing commitment, referred to in the Defence White Paper, to defend these installations?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, their 16 knots is adequate for the job in this limited area. The qualities they must have are good sea-keeping and good communications, and these they have. If higher speed is required, or a greater force, they only have to communicate
756
with the headquarters and others of the Armed Forces could be sent to assist them.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the report correct that none the less the Government are considering bringing into operation at least one hydrofoil which would have the speed required to make arrests, not only with a view to the defence of our oil platforms but also from the point of view of fishery patrol?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at the moment, but if the noble Lord will table another Question I will try to answer it. In fact, if speed is required frigates are used, and arrests have been made by frigates which have been summoned by a ship of the type of the "Island" Class.

RHODESIA: THE FRONT LINE PRESIDENTS
3.18 p.m.
The Marquess of DONEGALL: 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 qualifications have been taken into account in deciding the selection of front line Presidents for consultations regarding Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the question of selection did not arise. The five Governments of the front line States—Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique and Angola—have been co-ordinating their own policies on Rhodesia for some time and it is appropriate, in view of their close and direct involvement with the problems of the area, that Her Majesty's Government should consult with them.
The Marquess of DONEGALL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, arising out of which I should like to ask whether it does not seem strange to Her Majesty's Government that the Governments of Angola and Tanzania are consulted at every point although their

757
borders are further from Rhodesia than those of Malawi, which so far as I can make out is never consulted at all?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Marquess, but contiguity is not the conclusive factor in these matters: it is the involvement and the interests of countries in the future of Rhodesia. These five countries and their Governments are very closely involved. I am glad to say that they have co-operated with the Consultative Group so far and there is every prospect that they will continue to co-operate with them when the Group return to Africa.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people of Rhodesia are also concerned in their own fate? What do the Government intend to do about hearing the wishes of all the people of Rhodesia with regard to their fate, as opposed to listening only to the front line Presidents?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will wish to look at her supplementary question in print in the cold light of the morning. We are already of course, and have been, consulting the peoples of Rhodesia, and indeed in contact with the illegal régime, as is perfectly proper and necessary; we are consulting interests in Rhodesia via the Consultative Group, and we shall continue to do so. We are in contact with a wide range of countries and interests who may be able to assist in the pursuit of a peaceful and lasting solution, not least, of course, the United States of America, who completely approve of the British Government's approach to this question.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's reply. Would he at some stage be prepared to expand on the results of the consultations he is having with the peoples of Rhodesia, and indicate which groups in Rhodesia the Government are in fact consulting with?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course, in due course, as we do from time to time, we shall report to Parliament about the progress of these consultations. I do not want to put too high the expectations arising from the latest attempt we have, with our American
758
friends, set in train—I am referring to the Consultative Group—but so far it gives reason for cautious optimism, very cautious optimism, knowing the difficulties of this matter. I expect that when the Group return to Africa, as they most likely will, for a second round of talks, all the elements of consultation that the noble Baroness has mentioned will again be consulted.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the Minister agree that Malawi also has very close interest with Rhodesia? Certainly in the past a lot of Malawians used to work in Rhodesia, and I think quite a few still do today. Would not the Minister agree that it might be helpful to us if we had one of the front line Presidents on our side? I am quite sure that Malawi is pro-British and pro-West generally. If the Minister will allow me to put another supplementary question, would he not agree that it seems extraordinary that the President of Malawi, which, after all, is nearer to Rhodesia than Tanzania geographically, is not included as one of the front-line Presidents?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have excellent relations with Malawi, and indeed I would say with practically all the countries of the region. Indeed there is no lack of contact with Malawi. I personally, and I am sure the Government, would agree with the noble Viscount that to the extent that the Government and the leaders of Malawi wish to contribute to these consultations we shall be delighted to engage in them, and that applies to other countries as well. There is no question of appointing any country to the ranks of the five Presidents. They came together over the years, since about 1971. We recognised that fact, and therefore acted practically to consult them.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Tanzanian border is no less than 470 miles from Rhodesia at the nearest point? How then can it be seriously maintained that Tanzania has a neighbourly interest in the matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, clearly they have an interest. They have expressed an interest, with the other five. We accept that. Whoever expresses an interest, and certainly an interest in

759
helping to reach a solution, we accept as being worthy of consultation. As I said before, it is not contiguity that is the test here; otherwise we would not be working with our friends and allies the United States of America.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, surely all the black peoples on the Continent of Africa have an interest in eliminating a white minority racist régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord puts in philosophical terms what I prefer to put in practical terms.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, remembering the definitions given to the House yesterday in very generous measure by the Minister, does he not realise the perplexity that is widespread as to why there should be such strong leaning on Tanzania, which seems to be a centre—particularly Dar-es-Salaam—for subversive elements in Southern Africa, while it is not even contiguous with, and does not march with, Rhodesia? Further, would the noble Lord not agree that in the tribal trust areas wherein live the largest proportion of the African population of Rhodesia there is a strong desire that there should be an internal settlement of the problem?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the desire for an internal settlement in Rhodesia is shared by a very large number of people indeed, and in Rhodesia. It must be our task to mobilise, over as wide an area as possible, without regard for simplistic questions of contiguity, support for a peaceful and lasting settlement. We are far from reaching this, but the approach which, with the United States, we are now pursuing offers the best hope for it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that Tanzania has helped us greatly in our policy of sanctions against Rhodesia by its co-operation in building the railway from Zambia to Dar-es-Salaam, which has enabled Zambian products not to go to Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is so, and looking beyond sanctions we would hope that a solution
760
is reached which will bring together all African States, as the noble Lord reminded us is necessary, in a new situation of co-operation for the good of the entire continent. Tanzania and others have a contribution to make—we hope it will be by consultation and negotiation—to settle this matter, and to move on to a safer and saner future for Africa as a whole.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope we can now proceed to the next Question.

BRACKEN: UTILISATION OR DESTRUCTION
3.28 p.m.
Lord KILMANY: 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 progress has recently been made into possible utilisation or, alternatively, destruction of bracken; and whether they are satisfied that research on this subject is receiving sufficient priority.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the presence of persistent toxins in bracken militates against its use for agricultural purposes. There are established methods of suppressing bracken by chemical and other means. Present research is concentrated on evaluating new forms of chemical treatment and related questions of management.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would be correct to assume from his reply that, apart from a single letter to The Times, which was very quickly contradicted, there is really no spark of hope of bracken being used as food for man or beast or even for bedding for animals, and that, that being so, the Government are faced with the need to concentrate upon elimination of bracken? Is the noble Lord satisfied that the methods of eliminating bracken, which are still so costly and so laborious, have really been sufficiently explored?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, all the remarks the noble Lord has made are absolutely true. With regard to Government policy, successful chemical suppres-

761
sion depends upon application during the short period when the weed is most vulnerable, and it normally makes dormant the underground parts of the plant rather than killing them. If you kill the plant, of course, there are risks of injuring the soil as well. With regard to the objectives of present research, these are to evaluate new chemicals as they become available, in the hope of finding an agent which kills the underground parts of the bracken, and, secondly, to define more closely the management practices which prevent its recolonisation.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as this Question refers to the destruction of bracken, would my noble friend care to advise the Government to seek the assistance of our noble friend Lord Kilbracken?
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the damage done by bracken, through ticks and so on, to sheep flocks, could the noble Lord look into the question of grants for its elimination? At present a grant is available for elimination of bracken provided that afterwards a very severe treatment for grass is introduced. Will he look into the position of grants simply for eliminating bracken so that sheep flocks may thrive on the ensuing heather, and thus avoid the necessity completely to grass over the whole area afterwards?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, grants at a rate of 50 per cent. of approved costs are available under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme and the Farm and Horticultural Development Scheme; and in Scotland also under the Crofting Counties Agricultural Grant (Scotland) Scheme.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Will he agree that that applies only if it is followed up by grassing, rather than simply elimination and allowing heather to grow?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is one of the directions in which research is going.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, on the question of control and elimination, as New Zealand is the other country
762
in the world which is most troubled in a similar way to the British Isles, is there the fullest knowledge here of theextent and character of the methods followed in New Zealand as regards the utilisation or destruction of bracken?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, so far as I know, there is a good deal of exchange of information between all countries which are affected. In Scotland, Government funding research is concentrated through the work of such organisations as the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the three Scottish agricultural colleges; and in England in the Investigation Unit at Thirsk.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD:My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Scotland one can receive a 50 per cent. grant towards the eradication of bracken, and that one does not have to follow it up by any sowing of grass?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that that information is very useful.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say in reply to a question a short time ago that the research effort is based solely on evaluating the effect of various chemicals? Could the Minister suggest that more money should be spent on developing new chemicals, because those chemicals are badly needed for both forestry and farming?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, of course, my Lords. One of the objects of the research is to evaluate new forms of chemicals. A great deal of research—which I am sure will commend itself to noble Lords opposite—is done by commercial firms.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first Earl Lloyd-George bought some land at Churt in Surrey which was heavily infested with bracken and keeping a large number of pigs on it made it suitable for cultivation? Is the noble Lord further aware that if Her Majesty's Government made pig producing profitable, my noble friend and others in this predicament could eradicate their bracken and also usefully supply the country with pork and bacon?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I really cannot believe that Lloyd-George, who in addition to being a very distinguished statesman was a successful farmer, fed his pigs on a toxic weed like bracken.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although I do not live in Scotland, I rid my farm in Sussex of bracken by the simple process of ploughing it up, without the aid of any chemicals, research or grant?

GRUNWICK LIMITED MAIL
3.34 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice and which is, I believe, identical to a Question being asked in another place. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that there are more than 80 sacks of mail at Cricklewood Post Office sorting office inward to and outward from the Grunwick Processing Laboratory which employees of the Post Office are wilfully detaining or delaying, and whether they will now take action to enforce Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953".
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will answer that Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by a Statement, which will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Oram, on the air services between the United Kingdom and the United States.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
3.35 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time. In moving this Motion may I make a Business Statement about the Bill. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Bill should be taken through all its stages on Tuesday next. A Motion will be tabled tonight to suspend Standing Orders for that purpose.
764
To enable Members of the House to have as much notice as possible for any Amendment they may wish to table, arrangements have been made for the Public Bill Office to receive and circulate Amendments tomorrow, as soon as the Bill is available in print.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the reason for the speed with which the Bill has to be taken?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. It is a matter of considerable importance in the financial world. It was taken through all its stages yesterday in another place and we hope to do the same thing in this House.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL LAND FUND BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. By way of preamble to what I have to say, may I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is not my intention to carry out a post mortem on Mentmore or even to conduct a memorial service. Nevertheless, inevitably there are inferences to be drawn from what happened on that occasion and, I hope, some lessons to be learnt.
I have not seen Mentmore, so I am not in a position to judge whether the disposal of the house and contents as an entity is or is not a loss to the national heritage. But I would say that at £2 million, or even £3 million, Lord Rosebery's offer was a

765
bargain and, if I may use vulgar parlance, a snip. Until the final balance is struck we shall not know by how much the Rosebery estate is advantaged and the nation disadvantaged by Her Majesty's Government's failure to take up Lord Rosebery's generous offer. I was abroad when the controversy raged and also when your Lordships on 9th March this year, in a memorable debate, debated the matter of the national heritage. But from all I have read and heard, the crux of the dispute is very largely concerned with the use or the non-use of the National Land Fund. Indeed, its very existence is questioned by some. The National Land Fund was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, as a piggy-bank, the keys to which were hidden in a whole series of Chinese boxes—a very telling metaphor. The purpose of this Bill is to provide her with the keys.
If you go back into the history of the National Land Fund, your Lordships will recall the very high hopes with which Dr. Dalton inaugurated the Fund. I do not think that Dr. Dalton will go down in history as one of the greatest of our Chancellors of the Exchequer. But whatever his standards were, I can hardly believe that he could have so allowed himself to have the wool pulled over his eyes by his officials as to the nature of the Fund. Whatever Dr. Dalton's dream may have been, the National Land Fund was in fact merely a book-keeping entry; a name for an account on which the Treasury alone had power to draw, and one that was outside the control of Parliament.
Very little was spent out of the Fund and it grew from the original £50 million to £59 million in 1957. In 1953, the Public Accounts Committee in another place reported:
"It is undesirable in principle that substantial amounts of public money for which there is no foreseeable need should be kept in special funds or accounts outside the direct control of Parliament".
Mr. Gladstone would have heartily approved of that sentiment. Accordingly, the Public Accounts Committee recommended the reduction of the Fund, and in 1957 the Fund was reduced from £59 million to £10 million.
There was a Division on that occasion in the House of Commons, and it may interest your Lordships to know that of
766
the 438 who voted in that Division, 50 are presently Members of this House. If it does not interest your Lordships, it might interest the Guinness Book of Records. Of those 50, 29 noble Lords voted "Aye"—that is, for the reduction of the Fund—including myself; 21 noble Lords on the other side then voted "No". I should like to ask any of those noble Lords, if they happen to be present, whether in the ensuing years they made any efforts to have the Fund restored to £50 million, or what they have done to maintain the value of the Fund. The Fund now stands at £17 million, which is worth far less than the £10 million in 1957, and in real terms it is less than the figure in 1974 when the present Government were returned to power.
May I go back to that Public Accounts Committee Report for a moment and quote two phrases. One was that they talked of "substantial sums". You have to see those "substantial sums" against the background of a present public sector borrowing requirement of £9,000 million, which means that the sums can hardly be described as "substantial" in the current day and age. Secondly, they referred to "no foreseeable need" for the Fund. Well, that comment seems incredible today, when we are all aware of the threat that looms over the whole of our national heritage for reasons which are painfully and palpably obvious to all of us.
Yet if one reads the 1957 debate, one is very conscious of the fact that there was no sense of urgency on any side. The most constructive suggestion, if rather remarkable one, made in that debate was that the National Land Fund should be spent on bringing electricity to the National Parks. The most surprising remark was made at col. 790 by a Member of the Labour Party, who said:
"Is it not the fact that in all the years during which the Fund has been in existence there has been no danger…".
I do not think that anyone should have believed those words then or would believe them today. But now the argument rages as to whether or not the Fund exists, and it almost smacks of mediaeval theology. I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "exist". In search of wisdom, I went to the dictionary, where I was told that "existence" means a state of being. So I then looked up

767
"being", which means "existence", so you come back to where you started. But of course the Funds exists. It holds securities. It exists in the sense that a banking account exists. It is a book-keeping entry, as I have said, by which Parliament voted certain monies into an earmarked account outside Parliament's control but under the control of the Treasury to be spent on purposes of the validity and merit of which the Treasury alone is the judge.
The real issue now has become that if the money is spent from the National Land Fund, is it or is it not part of the public sector borrowing requirement. The answer in my view is, Yes, in strict orthodox terms. It is also Yes if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is and treats it as such. But the real question is whether or not it should be treated as part of the public sector borrowing requirement, for what we have now is a Fund the use of which is restricted by controls on public expenditure so that it is least available at the time of greatest need, when the economic and political pressures on Government and governed alike are most likely to result in crises which can only be resolved by use of the Fund. In other words, the Fund is not a contingency fund such as seems to have been Dr. Dalton's intention.
It is this situation which has led to current difficulties such as Mentmore. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her frank and fair speech on 9th March, said at col. 1138 of the Official Report:
"…the expenditure involved, even though reimbursed from the Fund, is still public expenditure. Therefore, it is treated no differently from money spent on schools, housing, hospitals, and the case for it has to be balanced against other claims on the public purse".
Then:
"Mentmore could be purchased only at the price of an equivalent cut in housing and other programmes, and this is the rub".
It certainly is. But should it be regarded as such, or should not an exception be made?
The whole National Land Fund, if it was spent in one go tomorrow, must still be seen against the background of the current PSBR of £9,000 million. Would the International Monetary Fund really have jibbed at another £3 million? Of course not. The truth is that it is a
768
matter of political judgment—or, to be more accurate, political pressure. Is it not the inevitable contrast drawn between spending £3 million on a Victorian mansion in Buckinghamshire and the needs of a hospital in someone's constituency? Anyone who has been a Parliamentary candidate or a Member of Parliament knows the kind of questions that are posed and the invidious comparisons which are sometimes, and often, drawn. But anyone who has done that also knows that there are times when these pressures must sometimes be resisted, and it is more easy to do so if the expenditure criticised is done and carried out by an independent authority.
There seems to me also to be a degree of inconsistency in the Government's argument. Her Majesty's Government offered £1 million towards Mentmore, yet last year I understand that no less than £2 million were spent out of the National Land Fund. For the first time in history it spent more than its income. Does this expenditure not equally rank against the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, and have countervailing economies been exacted from the Department's other expenditure to make room for that £2 million?
Is there not another aspect: what is the purpose of restricting the PSBR and public expenditure generally? Surely it is in order to release funds for investment in the private sector, yet after offering £1 million, the noble Baroness appealed to industry and commerce to put up the rest of the money, which in turn of course means funds diverted from investment in industry. There seems a certain confusion of thought.
The truth, in my opinion, is that the present Government machine is not equipped to deal with recurrent crises of this kind. There are two snags. The first is the political and economic pressure on available resources, with which I have tried to deal, and the second is the question of the timing and speed of decision. I do not assign the blame to anyone; the chronology of events concerning Mentmore was too complicated to do that. However, the total delay over reaching a final decision was nothing short of scandalous, but it was also inevitable. We must recognise that Government Departments are handicapped in reaching decisions

769
quickly on such matters; there are so many people to be consulted and so many people involved. How many Departments were involved in the issue of Mentmore? I reckon at least four. We know what happens in Whitehall—the minutes go round and round in a stately minuet while in the outside world time passes very quickly, so we lose these opportunities.
I turn to the Bill itself. The noble Baroness said that the Fund seemed to be rather mythical. This is an attempt to convert myth into reality. I recognise that the Bill is not perfect; it is incomplete and inadequate, but I think its purposes are clear. What I propose is that trustees should be appointed to take over the Fund as it was established in 1946. Clause 2 empowers the trustees, therefore, to acquire and dispose of various properties. I emphasise the word "dispose" because I visualise that we might have a situation, which of course is entirely hypothetical, in which the Government might, in satisfaction of death duties, he offered a house and its contents for, say, £2 million or £3 million. If my Bill became an Act the trustees could without more ado, if they thought fit, acquire it and in due course dispose of furniture and chattels of no great merit. One might even have an auction on the spot with a great auction house promoting it. Who knows—if the word and the thought are not too shocking—they might eventually make a profit, and what a good cause it would be in; to find more funds for helping the national heritage.
Clause 3 deals with the administration of the Fund and here I have offered one or two sops to Cerberus, if I may so describe the Treasury. It limits the amount of capital which the trustees can spend in any one year and the trustees can he ordered to make good any invasion of capital. This would accord over a short period with the general Public Sector Borrowing Requirement of the Treasury.
Clause 4 deals with the appointment and dismissal of trustees. On further consideration, I would make certain changes; I would have had the trustees appointed by the Prime Minister and not by the Secretary of State. I would also have sought to widen the expert knowledge which trustees would have to possess to be appointed to their task; I would have
770
included, for instance, the question of the Nature Conservancy and so on. I am particularly keen on Clause 4(4) which empowers Her Majesty in Council to dismiss the trustees, and I call this the "off with his head" provision.
There it is, a Bill which is short and, I admit, very imperfect. It needs much more expert knowledge than I have to be made adequate. It would be my hope that the Bill would go to a Select Committee which could build on this modest foundation. I appreciate that the Bill is no solution to the problem of preserving our national heritage—only money or lower taxation can do that—but it is I think a step forward which would provide an authority which could act swiftly and which would be immune from pressure. The House should realise that this matter of the preservation of the national heritage remains a very live issue. Even if this Bill does not find favour in the Government's eyes, they should know that another Bill in almost identical terms is being presented in another place backed by Members of all Parties.
This Bill cannot make progress without the help of the Government. If it is not acceptable and if the Government have no alternative proposals, they should face the facts and abolish the National Land Fund, which seems to serve no useful purpose except to mislead and confuse people who cherish the national heritage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved that the Bill be read 2ª.—(Lord Reigate.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

GRUNWICK LIMITED MAIL
3.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, in answer to a Private Notice Question on mail for Grunwick which was identical with a Question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. It may be for the convenience of the House if I read that

771
Question again so that the Statement which follows can more easily be followed. The Question was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that there are more than 80 sacks of mail at Cricklewood Post Office sorting office inward to and outward from the Grunwick Processing Laboratory which employees of the Post Office are wilfully detaining or delaying, and whether they will now take action to enforce Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953."
The Statement of the Attorney-General was as follows:
"In answer to the first part of the Question, the best information which I can obtain is that the outward mail which reached the Cricklewood sorting office from Grunwick on Wednesday, 15th June and which consists of approximately 65 sacks has not been handled by the Post Office employees at the sorting office and remains there. No other outward mail is there. That sorting office does not handle inward packages for Grunwick but I understand that a number of letters are there and are not being handled. The action by the employees at the Cricklewood sorting office is, according to my information, contrary to the instructions of their Union's Executive Committee and General Secretary. I understand that those instructions are being followed at other sorting offices and that Grunwick is receiving its inward packages for processing in the normal way.
"The Post Office has a responsibility to deliver the mail and I have to consider whether I should take action to enforce the provisions of the Post Office Act, having regard to the facts which I have stated. I explained in answer to questions on 13th December that responsibility for taking whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with the law is normally for the Post Office for very good reasons which I gave. I said that it was of the greatest importance that the Post Office, which is best placed to establish the facts and has to take decisions affecting delivery of the mail to the public generally, should be left to carry out its responsibilities and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should the Law Officers step in so as to take the matter out of the hands of the Post Office. On the information available it would appear likely that there
772
are, prima facie, continuing breaches of the Post Office Act.
"In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with on the one side and on the other the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions. In making this balance it is plainly necessary for me to do so with the best possible information as to the intentions of all those concerned and in particular of the Post Office itself.
"I have therefore formally written to the chairman of the Post Office asking him to inform me of the steps which he has taken or proposes in the immediate future to take in accordance with the responsibilities of the Post Office."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
4.3 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack for having repeated that extremely serious Statement to the House. Speaking generally, I think it desirable that we should be kept abreast, stage by stage, of matters that are discussed in the other place. We should not get out of step and we should be kept in touch.
The Post Office Act 1953, which is the subject matter of this Question, is perfectly explicit in its provisions and I believe that the House should realise how plain it is. I shall read the relevant words of Section 58:
"If any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty … wilfully detains or delays—
I am leaving out irrelevant words—
"or procures or suffers to be detained or delayed, any … postal packet, [in course of transmission by post] he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment or to a fine, or to both".
That is a consolidation Act that has been accepted by both sides of the House and has been in force for more than 20 years.
I note with pleasure—and it is, I think, the only thing I do note with pleasure—that the Executive Committee and the General Secretary of the union have

773
issued instructions to their members to abide by the law, and Section 58 in particular, so that what is happening is not only against the law but against the instructions of the union concerned. I therefore do not have to criticise either the union or the Government for what is happening at the moment, but I want to ask one or two questions about it. In the first place, how many members of the public does this collection of 65 sacks represent? How many members of the public are having their holiday snaps or whatever it may be illegally detained contrary to the criminal law of this country?
Secondly, while I agree—as I believe we all agree—that, as we handed over responsibility to the Post Office for the handling of the Act, the Attorney-General should enter into the matter only in, as he describes it, "exceptional circumstances", I wonder whether these circumstances are not exceptional, with 65 bags of mail illegally detained contrary to the law and to the instructions of the union? I wonder whether those who are responsible have asked themselves, or whether the Government have ever brought it to their attention, directly or by other means, that they should ask themselves, where they are taking the trade union movement of this country and where they are taking civil law and respect for law? There may or there may not be a case for altering Section 58 of the Post Office Act, but is it really to be said that people can make up their own mind whether or not to abide by a law so long as it is in force; and, if it is done on this scale, is it not a matter of exceptional importance in the light of what we read in the newspapers every day?
I hope that the Government will take my concern most seriously. I am anxious not to embarrass them, but many of us on this side of the House and, I doubt not, on other sides of the House too, are deeply concerned at the deliberate defiance of the law and the apparent ability of certain members of the Post Office to get away with it when they defy the law to the great damage of the public, the great damage of those whose mail is being detained, the great damage of the reputation of their union, which has given them instructions to act differently, and the great damage of respect for the law and the rule of law in this country.
4.7 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, this is clearly not an occasion upon which to make emotive observations about the merits of an industrial dispute, parts of which are sub judice and in many of which there is no clear evidence as to the precise facts. But, in thanking the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for repeating the Statement, I am bound to say that my noble friends on these Benches view some of its contents with considerable perturbation.
We view with particular alarm the paragraph in which the Attorney-General is saying in terms—when one clears away the obfuscation of the surrounding language—that, in deciding whether to proceed when there is clear evidence of a breach of the criminal law, the Attorney-General is prepared to bear in mind how many people are opposed on political grounds to the law in question. In our view, this is a dangerous path down which to proceed, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would not agree that it is the Government's duty to amend the law if it is unsatisfactory and that, until they do that, it is their clear duty to enforce it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the questions asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, clearly, I am not in a position to say how many members of the public are involved with the 65 sacks of mail now in the Post Office. That is not a question that I am presently able to answer.
On the matter of the taking of criminal proceedings, which is a matter for the decision of the Attorney-General, that decision he alone can and must make. He does it himself. He has a duty as the protector of the public interest to make that decision, and when he does so what he will consider will be the public interest in the matter. No Minister can require or compel him as to what he shall do. Indeed, your Lordships, sitting judicially, are considering that matter in another context; therefore, I shall make no comment upon it. However, that is the clear position under our Constitution The decision must be that of the Attorney-General.

775
I need not say that of course the intention and wish of Her Majesty's Government is to see that the law is complied with. That is our approach to this matter.
I cannot help thinking that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has not read the Statement of the Attorney-General with sufficient care. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, the Statement did not seem to justify the anxiety to which it gave rise. What the Attorney-General said was:
"In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with on the one side and on the other the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions".
The next sentence of the Statement related to the announcement of the Attorney-General that he desires to learn from the Chairman of the Post Office the steps which he has taken or proposes to take in the immediate future. It is obviously right that the Attorney-General should properly inform himself. He will do so; he will make a decision and that decision will be his in the light of his judgment of the public interest in this matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I ask another question. I was very careful in what I said neither to cast into doubt that the Attorney-General's role as a prosecuting authority in the criminal law is a quasi-judicial one, nor one in which the noble and learned Lord, or his colleagues, have the smallest right to bring pressure to bear on him in either direction. I was very careful to press that. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Attorney-General is fully aware of the very great urgency of his coming to a conclusion in this matter. Let us suppose that the firm were to disappear completely as a result of the illegal action which the Attorney-General is investigating with the Post Office. Does he realise that a great number of people will wish to investigate the length of time that he has taken in arriving at a decision, with regard to whether it was not possible to arrive at the decision a little earlier?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel sure that the Attorney-
776
General has been watching the progress of this unhappy matter most carefully, and that he is acting as he thinks right in the circumstances. But I will certainly draw to his attention the anxiety which the noble and learned Lord has just expressed about the urgency of the situation, although, with respect, I do not think it is necessary to do so. I think that the Attorney-General understands it, but I will certainly communicate it to him.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the Statement which he has read out implies that if there are a sufficient number of people who threaten to make sufficient serious repercussions— I think that that was the word—then the law will not be enforced?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Attorney-General has identified what balance he has to strike in his coming to a decision in this case. I would rather leave the matter in the proper way in which it stands constitutionally. It is his decision, and his decision alone. I cannot command him, and I would be acting unconstitutionally if I were to do so.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say whether it is legally possible for individual members of the public to go in person to the sorting office in question in order to collect the property which is rightly theirs?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that raises an interesting question, to which I am afraid I have no immediate answer. I will seek to find information and communicate with the noble Lord.

AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT
4.14 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"Agreement was reached yesterday on the main provisions of a new Air

777
Services Agreement. Final texts still have to be completed before the new Agreement can be formally signed and come into effect. This will probably be at the end of next month. The Agreement will then be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper. Meanwhile services will continue as at present.
"The most important and novel feature of the new Agreement is the mechanism to control capacity on North Atlantic routes. This is designed to reduce the waste of fuel and other resources that results from flying too many empty seats, while preserving competition and benefiting the travelling public. This has from the outset been one of our most important objectives.
"Moreover our airlines will be able to open up new routes to the United States. The new points are Houston, Atlanta, Seattle and Dallas/Forth Worth, and a non-stop route to San Francisco. These routes will enable us to increase our penetration of the North Atlantic market. We have also got a better route across the Pacific for future passenger and cargo services from Hong Kong to the West Coast of the United States.
"We have also secured agreement to single designation by both sides on all the North Atlantic routes, except two. This means that with these exceptions the British carrier will face competition from only one American airline. The Americans will be putting two airlines on New York and Los Angeles. My intention is to designate Laker as our second carrier to New York. We will retain the option to designate a second carrier on some other route. I intend to keep this open.
"We have obtained substantial reductions in the rights of United States airlines to carry 5th Freedom traffic beyond London and Hong Kong to other destinations, although some important 5th Freedom rights will continue. A number of these rights will disappear immediately, others after three and five years.
"There will also be greater flexibility for the airlines, our own as well as the American, to carry passengers on the same aircraft to more than one destination, but without the right to pick up
778
passengers from one destination point and take them to another. This is a new concept which should contribute to more economic use of resources. But we have given notice to the US Authorities that, if it turns out to our disadvantage, we would want to review it.
"A new Tariffs Article has been agreed which removes the ambiguities of the old Tariffs Article and should avoid the disputes that have occurred in the past.
"It has also been agreed that, in accordance with my airports policy Statement of 5th April, the new routes to Houston and Atlanta will from the start come into Gatwick. This will also apply to the Dallas route provided the British carrier uses Gatwick.
"New routes have also been agreed linking Bermuda and our dependencies in the Caribbean to the United States.
"Finally, the Americans have agreed to work with us towards a new multilateral arrangement on charter services between North America and Europe. We already have a bilateral arrangement with the United States which is working well. This will now become part of the new air services agreement. The development of charter services, which both sides desire to foster, will offer further benefits to the travelling public.
"I believe this Agreement will open a new and expanding era. It will provide significant new opportunities for the airlines of both sides, and promises real benefits to the consumer. It will give British airlines a fairer opportunity to fight for a bigger share of a growing market."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement to us. I think I should say at the outset that my noble friends, my right honourable friends and I are not over-enthusiastic about the Statement and about the outcome of the negotiations. I think that the timing of the abrogation of the original Bermuda Agreement was really most unfortunate. Your Lordships will recall that the American Bicentennial celebrations were in progress, so they were not able to proceed immediately

779
with the new negotiations; the question of the landing rights of Concorde in New York was then, as it is now, unresolved; and the Presidential elections—most important of all—were pending in the United States, and it was clear from the outset that meaningful negotiations on the new agreement could not begin until President Carter's team had taken office in January of this year. So from the very day that we abrogated the agreement we must have known that there were going to be only six months instead of 12, as we might have thought, to negotiate a new one. I should like to ask the noble Lord, in that context, whether the decision to abrogate the Bermuda Agreement, and particularly the decision on the timing of it, was taken with the concurrence of the Civil Aviation Authority. Presumably they were consulted. What was their view?
With regard to the content of the new agreement, I believe that the balance of advantage is very fine, and I do not think it is possible for the Government to say that the new agreement is clearly better than the old one. The details are very technical, and it will take a little while to evaluate the results of the new agreement and to decide whether, indeed, we have achieved any advantage. In any event, my Lords, I personally believe that such small advantage as we may have gained could easily have been achieved within the context of the old agreement without the drama and trauma of abrogating it at a totally inappropriate time.
To turn to what the noble Lord has announced as being contained in the new agreement, I should like to ask him, in particular, what provision there is to be for the regulation of charter flights, which for my own part, at any rate, I welcome as being included in the new agreement. When I asked the noble Lord some months ago whether charter flights were to be included, my recollection is that he was not clear, and it may be that that point had not then been decided. But I welcome their inclusion, and I think that the fact that 50 per cent. or so of the traffic across the North Atlantic, which is carried in charter flights, is now to come under the protection of a formal agreement as distinct from the old memorandum of understanding is a good step forward.
780
The other major point is the question of 5th Freedom rights. We gather that American carriers are to be progressively denied certain of the rights that they presently enjoy from the United Kingdom, but that in return they will be granted certain additional rights in the Far East. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us an indication of how the balance of the value of business is seen to lie; whether the loss of business in Europe will be offset or not offset by the additional business that these American carriers will be granted out of Hong Kong.
One final point I should like to ask the noble Lord about is related to the 5th Freedom point, which applies in the Far East, and concerns the item in the fourth paragraph of the Statement, which refers to the better route for British carriers across the Pacific for certain passenger and cargo services between Hong Kong and the West Coast of the United States. As the noble Lord may know, there is already a very strong American presence on that route, in particular with North-West Orient Airlines, and there are, indeed, certain other Far Eastern airlines which possess rights to operate on that route even if they are not doing so. I hope that the noble Lord feels that the great advantage claimed for that point is really worth having.
4.25 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, which seems, on the face of it, to have gone quite a long way towards what we wanted, even if we have not got 100 per cent. of what we wanted. I think we ought to congratulate the British team of negotiators who have got through this very long, difficult and, if we are to believe our Press, at times acrimonious negotiation without any breakdown of the services. We should like to reserve any further comment on this matter until we have seen the vital details concerning 5th Freedom traffic rights through London, the charter arrangements across the Atlantic and the fare arrangements. All these details have not yet been resolved, and they are all vital to the agreement. Until we have seen those, which presumably we shall when we get this Command Paper in which they will be fully set out, we do not think we can say further than, "So far, so good.".
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord clarify a little the effect of this agreement on British Caledonian Airways? He will no doubt have observed that the chairman of that airline is reported in this morning's Press as having expressed extreme disappointment. Indeed, he is said to have used the strong expression that he had been "sold down the river". Can the noble Lord make it clear whether or not it is true, as alleged in the Press, that British Caledonian will not be allowed to operate on Atlanta immediately but only after an interval of some years? Can he also confirm the position of services into Dallas/Fort Worth? Is he aware that Dallas/Fort Worth serves broadly the same traffic areas as Houston, and that if another airline is operating out of Dallas/Fort Worth then the value of Houston is of course very much diminished? Can the noble Lord in fact confirm that British Caledonian have been given what the Government themselves promised to them in paragraph 9 of Future Aviation Policy, issued as recently as last year?
4.28 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the three noble Lords who have asked their various questions, even though the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, prefaced his remarks with expressions of lack of enthusiasm. I do not think that his lack of enthusiasm is generally reflected in the comments that we have received so far. I believe, as I indicated yesterday, that this is a new agreement which will be advantageous to British interests. The noble Lord raised the question of the timing of our notice to terminate the old agreement. This was a matter for the Government. The Civil Aviation Authority were in support of our objectives, but the timing had to be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who took careful account of the points that have been made, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, this afternoon. But it is so often the case with important decisions of this kind that no particular point of time is ideal, and one has to make a choice, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The noble Lord asked about the balance of advantages, and doubted whether the claims which have been made by myself
782
and others can be substantiated. I have again this afternoon said that I believe it will work out to our advantage, and I think it is worth quoting the view on this matter of the chairman of Pan-Am, who said:
"The new agreement transfers net economic benefit from the United States flag system to the British flag. That was the purpose of the British denunciation of the old agreement".
So there is, I think, an expert view that we should take into account.
On charter flights, I am glad that the noble Lord raised this point because it is important and there have been some misunderstandings about it. I think I should, therefore—I am sure the noble Lord would wish it—spell the situation out a little. The Americans had a restriction on the carriage of their charter traffic by foreign operators, and this imposed severe restrictions on the accession of our independent airlines to the US charter market.
We were able to obtain the lifting of these restrictions as a result of very hard bargaining in a Memorandum of Understanding which we negotiated in the spring of 1976. This Memorandum was renewed for a further year in April 1977. As a result of this Memorandum, our airlines are now carrying at least half the total UK-US charter traffic. Without that agreement, we could not compete effectively. This Memorandum has been caught up in the new air services agreement. It obliges both sides, subject to certain conditions, to renew that Memorandum annually until a permanent bilateral agreement covering charters takes its place. The Americans have also undertaken a formal commitment to work with us and our fellow members of ECAC towards a multilateral arrangement on charter services between North America and Europe. I apologise to the House for taking so long, but it is an important elem wenthich, perhaps, has not been spelled out sufficiently.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked about the freedoms. He correctly said that some will be phased out but that others will continue. This, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has said, is a very detailed and complex question. A full statement on this is being prepared and copies will be placed in the Library. I would say by way of general answer to

783
the noble Lord, since he asked me to quantify, that these things really are not easily capable of being quantified. They are points on which judgments have to be reached and the actual effect on quantities can be seen only after a period of operation.
I welcomed what the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said in his statement. I welcomed, also, the fact that he prefers to defer comment or question until the details are available. It is, as I have indicated yesterday and today, a most complex question and informed comment must await sight of the complex documents. These will be available, in the form that the noble Earl mentioned, in a Command Paper. I should indicate that there are already in the Library copies of the two Press statements issued yesterday, one by the Department of Trade and one by the American Embassy; but they were in only rather general terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked me about the situation of British Caledonian since, as lie said, the chairman of that organisation has expressed disappointment. I can confirm the point that he asked specifically: that British Caledonian will not be able to operate London to Atlanta until three years have elapsed; solo operation rights will be for the Americans on that route. But the important point which has, perhaps, not been stressed is that British Caledonian will have solo rights on the London-Houston leg. That should be a very important asset for them. Indeed, they will be able to get going on that operation, I believe, well before the Americans begin their operations on the London-Atlanta route, because they have not yet decided which carrier should be used and I believe that a considerable process will necessarily have to be gone through before that decision can be reached. So I think that British Caledonian will have, in practice, an advantage of that kind. British Caledonian have not only that advantage which I have mentioned, but they will derive considerable advantage from the capacity mechanism which was referred to in my right honourable friend's Statement when there are the two carriers operating on the London-Atlanta route.
My Lords, a further point which is of some significance, although I would accept that it is not perhaps the major point, is
784
that British Caledonian now have established freedom rights beyond Houston into certain Latin American countries; namely, Venezuela, Peru and Colombia, and one airport, I think Manaus, in Brazil. I should emphasise here that only as far as the agreement between the Americans and ourselves is concerned has that been agreed. The negotiations have yet to take place with the authorities in Venezuela, Peru and Colombia; but we see no ultimate difficulty about that. It is a matter of time and of going through the correct procedures.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: And Dallas?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord means it is nearer to Houston. Yes, this I accept. This is part of a competitive situation between the Americans and ourselves. In terms of jet aircraft there is only a comparatively small distance between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. That, I accept, would be a hard competitive situation that British Caledonian will have to face.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I make a brief comment, and also ask a question on a point of information? The brief comment is that I regretted, and I hope the House regretted, the unmitigated gloom that came from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on this particular matter. A great deal of work has gone into this matter and I think that every credit is due to the people who brought about this result. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may be better informed than I am, but my understanding is that this agreement will bring considerable benefit to this country. I know, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has said, that we must wait and see the exact results; but I think it would have been nice if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had exchanged the unmitigated gloom which took up at least half of his statement for some measure of congratulation.
The point of information is this. It may be that I should know the answer, but I do not. What happens now regarding the negotiations concerning Concorde? I understood my noble friend to say that this agreement provides for double designation from London to New York. We have British Airways and

785
Laker as the two airlines from here; and we have the two from America. Does this mean that if—and, certainly, as I am sure we all hope, when—Concorde is given landing rights in New York, there would have to be designation of three airlines? Or am I wrong in assuming that any of this comes under the terms of the Bermuda Agreement?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has been scarcely fair to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne who was not gloomy but, I think, was accurate in his analysis; because this agreement gives no great cause for rejoicing. Whether the concessions which we make offset the advantages we are supposed to get, as the Minister himself has said, only time and experience will show. I think the Minister was slightly contradictory in that he lauded this agreement as being something of tremendous value and of great benefit and then, in almost the next sentence, he, himself, said that only experience will show where the margin of advantage lies.
My fear is that restriction of capacity growth in order to match the demands will not be to the advantage of a consuming public and, indeed, the Airline Users' Committee—in which the noble Baroness played such a prominent and distinguished part—may in due course have to play its part if restriction of growth to match capacity is found to be penalising the consumers who wish to travel across the Atlantic. We shall have to watch that.
My other worry is the 5th Freedom position. The Americans are going to be allowed to continue indefinitely the 5th Freedom to take traffic from London to West Berlin, and 5th Freedom rights will continue to exist for three years to Belgium and Holland, and five years to Norway and Spain. We all know that once somebody has practised something for a period of years with some success they have dug themselves in, so in fact in this agreement we are giving away 5th Freedom rights indefinitely to those particular countries, and the question is: What are we getting in return? Only time will show and we await the White Paper which the Government have promised, setting out the full agreement, to make our judgment. Until then, I do not think that this agreement is worthy of great rejoicing and great praise.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I will leave aside the question of whether I was too optimistic and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was too pessimistic. Let us all agree that we all hope—I would say expect—that this will provide an agreement wherein, if we take our chances, we can have an increased share of the North Atlantic business. I believe that that will prove to be the case. My noble friend Lady Burton asked about Concorde. British Airways are already designated to operate Concorde and any other aircraft to New York, and all our rights for Concorde will be continued in the new agreement. The provisions of the new agreement concerning Concorde are basically the same as in Bermuda. There has been some useful tightening up in the text, but basically the situation about Concorde remains unaltered.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was too apprehensive about the capacity mechanism. It is complicated and I will not delay your Lordships by spelling it out, even if I thought I could with great success do so. But there is a minimum growth which is assured, and there is full opportunity for airlines and Governments to make proper comment on the way in which airlines' plans match demand. When the noble Lord comes to study the details, his fears will prove groundless. The same is true about his fears over the 5th Freedom. Serious reductions are planned in the Americans' 5th Freedom rights. It is not that they are being given new ones; they are being phased out. I accept the statement that the noble Lord made in outline as to how this will operate. Here again, as I indicated in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, this is a lengthy part of the subject and we all ought to await the full statement and study it.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I for the Record say that I made one stupid mistake when I said we were giving away our 5th Feeedom rights. Of course I meant to say that we are giving away our restriction rights of 5th Freedom which the Germans enjoy.

NATIONAL LAND FUND BILL [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, getting back to the National Land Fund Bill, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Reigate for giving us not only an opportunity to debate his Bill, but possibly a continuing opportunity to keep our thoughts on this matter in the future. Whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will welcome this further opportunity to return to the subject is a matter of doubt. On a previous occasion I think she said that the name "Mentmore" was written on her heart. It may well be that before the hopefully short life of this Government comes to an end the words "Land Fund" may be marked on another portion of her anatomy.
It is not for me to go into the questions posed by the deplorable affair of Mentmore—if I may so call it—at this stage. I say that for two reasons: first of all, I opened at considerable length a debate on this subject in March. I spoke for longer than I have ever spoken before, or intend to again in this House. More especially, the Order Paper for this afternoon is crowded and it would not be justified to detain your Lordships for too long, although equally it must be said that this is an important subject, one which is going to be of continued and increasing importance in the future.
When we debated Mentmore, I criticised the Government—gently, I hope—for what I considered to be their dilatory behaviour over this affair. There is no doubt about it, a great deal of time was spent in discussing what form the Land Fund actually takes; what use can be made of it, and in what circumstances. A great deal of ignorance was shown, not least by me. But it is a complicated subject and I hesitate to ask the question, but one wonders whether all the Government advisers were totally sure of what advice they were giving at any particular time. I can justify that comment if necessary.
We were all more or less convinced at the end of the day that the National Land Fund was a notional, almost fictitious, sum of money. If ever it had existed in the mind of Dr. Dalton, it pretty soon vanished into thin air. Since then, it has been a mere paper exercise, in effect to provide the Government with a means of spending money without at that stage having to have a Vote in Parliament, but which would have to be justified on a later
788
occasion. That was the sum total of how the matter came to be understood.
I was "re-perplexed"—if such a word exists—on looking through the Official Report for the Commons of 12th June, at column 293, when I saw an answer to a Question put by my honourable friend Mr. Cormack to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked, in effect, if the Chancellor would state whether during the 20 years since 1957, any of the investments held from time to time by the National Land Fund had been purchased on the open market and, if so, whether he would specify the total sum expended on the acquisition of such investments. The Answer was:
"During the past 20 years stocks totalling £44,120,269 were purchased on the open market through the Government Broker on behalf of the National Land Fund. In addition Treasury Bills totalling £79,869,935 were purchased in the same period".
Whatever the transactions regarding Treasury bills, to me the effect of that Answer seems that cash was used to buy securities on the open market. If that be the case, the whole artificiality—if that is the word—of the National Land Fund is once more thrown into question, if not doubt.
Since this is a debate which is ranging over the whole subject of the National Land Fund, may I ask the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, whether, if these figures are right—and of course they must be, since they came from no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—public expenditure has already taken place in respect of the investments now held by the Land Fund. If that is the case, when we come to what I might call, "a Mentmore situation", surely it is then wrong to say that the Fund cannot now be used to meet such a situation, because that would imply new public expenditure in the future. That is how the situation seems to me, my Lords. It may be that I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick—if I have it will not be for the first time—but I just wonder. This is important, because it throws into question the Fund and its use and also, of course, my noble friend's Bill, which seeks to place the matter beyond doubt.
I know that my noble friend will not take it amiss if I say that I am not going to comment in any great detail upon his

789
Bill because, as he himself said, it is perhaps deficient in one or two instances, excellent though it may be as a vehicle for its purpose. However, there are one or two matters I should like to take up, because it seems to me to be important that if this matter is going before a Select Committee in the future, no false premises should be laid either now or in the future.
Clause 2 of the Bill says:
"The Trustees may in their discretion acquire any land, buildings, property or chattels which may be in the market at any time, or which shall have been offered to the Treasury in lieu of tax, duty or for any other reason,".
Pausing there, it seems to me that Clause 2 lumps under the same heading that form of property, either in the form of chattels or of real property, which is offered by a tax debtor in satisfaction of a capital debt (imposed of course by tax) which has existed since, I think, the 1959 Finance Act and which is something which falls completely outside the National Land Fund.
I know it may be said that, when such chattels, or whatever it is, have been offered and accepted in satisfaction of a debt, it has been the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be reimbursed in effect from the Land Fund in respect of that expenditure. If that is so—and I believe it to be correct—that reimbursement is a practice which has grown up. It is not mandatory; not only is it not mandatory but it is not compulsory. Therefore, in those circumstances, in my submission, it would be wrong necessarily to equate the acceptance of works of art or real property as a part or whole discharge of a capital tax debt as something which inevitably is going to fall on the Land Fund, because it does not need to. Therefore, if I quarrel with my noble friend in the drafting of his Bill, it is over that.
A second matter worthy of comment is the fact that under this clause the trustees, according to subsection (2), seem to be treated as principals, because it says that they:
"…shall be empowered to dispose by sale or otherwise of any fond, buildings,".
and so on through the subsection. My quarrel with that is that in such an instance trustees of this nature should never be principals. They should be
790
monitors; they should review the situation; they should hold the cash and advise the Minister how, when and in what circumstances it shall be used. If anything, they should be advisers of the Secretary of State, but they certainly should not be creatures of the Secretary of State; nor should they be principals acting on their own behalf. That is something which I hope will be considered in the future, but otherwise I think that the Bill is a good vehicle for further discussion, as I have said.
I think we have to take in the lessons of Mentmore, because future consideration of a Land Fund, or whatever sum of money is going to be devoted to this purpose, must get straight what the sum is to be used for. To my mind, the whole purpose of a Land Fund should be to act as a safety net to save properties in certain instances when otherwise either they or their contents would be dissipated by sale, by virtue of the inability of the former owner to meet his commitments one way or another. They do not have necessarily to be concerned with tax.
When the noble Baroness replied to the Mentmore debate, if I may so call it, she said that she intended to prepare what she was pleased to call "a league table" of properties which would be designated as worthy of salvation in some kind of order. I was horrified by the whole idea and I hope it has been quietly put in some pigeon-hole, where if ideas can gather dust it is gathering it. The effort, expertise and judgment required to put items of our national heritage in some kind of league order would defy the wisdom of Solomon, in my respectful submission. The Land Fund, I repeat, should be used when all else has failed to save a property in circumstances which should be conveyed to the Minister by a body of responsible people who are there to give advice. The real way in which the historic houses, and indeed our heritage in general, can be preserved for the future is to devise a tax policy which will ensure that as few as possible of them come on to the market, unless their owners are either extravagant or foolish, so that they can no longer keep up their commitments.
The Times today contains word of an Amendment which apparently the Liberals or the Government—they are more or less synonymous these days—are tabling

791
in another place during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. That will, as I understand it, lower the penal tax rate to be paid by the trustees of a maintenance fund for the upkeep of an historic house. Due to some dispute, I have not been able to get the Official Report. However, that is the kind of change of policy and consideration which we on these Benches will continue to urge upon the Government and, in particular, upon the unfortunate noble Baroness, Lady Birk, while the Government remain in Office, because we are convinced that unless and until the Government realise that the future of historic houses lies in putting them in a position where they do not need to be saved, then the Mentmore situation will recur, all too frequently. However, taking the Bill as we find it, it is one which I am sure your Lordships will unhesitatingly welcome. I very much hope that the House will, at a later stage, decide to send it to a Select Committee.
4.59 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I think all Members of this House will agree that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for having once again called to our attention this vitally important question of the future of the artistic and architectural heritage of this country and for having produced such an admirable vehicle, at least at this stage, in the form of this admirably simple yet at the same time most promising and potentially effective Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, have already spoken at length about the problems of our heritage. I do not think there is any reason for me to repeat what they said, except to point out once again that the historic houseowners of this country are, in greater and greater numbers, finding themselves unable to keep up their properties. I am not just talking about the great stately homes; I am also talking about the little village manor houses and almost every other historic building between the two. There are more and more who are now forced by the increasing weight of taxation and the financial situation—having struggled heroically and valiantly for many years—to give up. What can be done to save what remains of the heritage and, above all, to see that Mentmore does not occur again?
792
Until a few years ago, we could point to the National Trust which, in the first 20 or 25 years after the end of the Second World War, certainly let very few important houses of architectural value slip through its fingers when there was no other way to save them. Here I should perhaps declare an interest, as I have done so frequently, and say that I am a member of the Executive Committee of the National Trust. I should also say, in the same breath, that here I am speaking personally for myself, and for the Party from whose Benches I am speaking, and not in any sense for the Trust. But the Trust, I am afraid, much as it grieves me to say it, can no longer be looked upon as a lifeline, except possibly in very few cases.
We have always had to ask for a very substantial endowment in order to keep up a house, but the endowments which we are now forced to request from donors are such that it is extremely unlikely that any donor will be able to contribute anything like enough. Indeed, we are having appalling trouble with the endowments of houses which are already in our possession, endowments which were very carefully calculated only a few years ago, but which now, thanks to galloping inflation, are wholly insufficient to keep the houses going.
What else is there, failing the National Trust? Fortunately, there is the Land Fund. Unfortunately, in recent months the Land Fund does not seem to have been working any too well. So what can we do to make it more effective, to give it power, to give it teeth? Even before we get on to that question, it is important to say that the Land Fund is not the answer, nor can it ever be the answer. There is only one possible answer; that is, to alter the whole climate of taxation in this country in such a way that historic house-owners do not feel themselves impelled to give up the fight. Until that happens, problems of this kind will continue to plague us all. But, obviously, that can be achieved only in the longer term and there is no time to lose. Therefore, the Land Fund, representing as it does a fire brigade, must be put into the best order that is possible. It seems to me that this is what the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, does extremely well.
So far as I can make out—and I know that this is an over-simplification—there

793
were two principal problems that bugged the whole unhappy saga of Mentmore. The first was the extremely cumbrous machinery by which the whole Land Fund could be brought into operation, involving correspondence and endless very long, slow communications between the Treasury the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, the Inland Revenue and possibly, at certain moments, several other Government Departments as well. That was one problem. The other was the problem which has already been discussed in some detail this afternoon, and which I shall not go into again at length, of public expenditure.
It seems to me that the present Bill admirably manages to get rid of these two stumbling blocks. First, it streamlines the administration of the Land Fund, taking it away from heaven knows how many hundreds of civil servants, in heaven knows how many Government Departments, and putting the whole thing in the hands of just half a dozen highly trained and highly experienced people. Secondly—and I confess that here I am not an expert, and certain doubts hang over my mind, just as they do over the mind of the noble Earl who has just sat down—so far as I can see, the question of public expenditure has also been solved. But I think that we should all like a little more information about that, because it is difficult to know whether arty future expenditure from the Land Fund will be so treated. For the rest, it seems to me that it works very well.
At the same time, there are one or two points which I, too, should like to bring into slightly greater relief and ask for further elucidation about. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the Trustees of the Land Fund. My view is that they should be principals. If they are to be only creatures of the Treasury, if they are to be only advisers to the Treasury, then we are in very serious danger of getting back into the same position as we started from. The whole of this glorious streamlining will not do anything, and we shall have to start all over again. I think that they should be principals, and I see no reason why they should not be.
I would even go a little further than that, and express some slight doubt about
794
subsection (3) of Clause 3, which states:
"In any given financial year the Trustees shall not spend more than one-sixth of the capital sum standing to the credit of the Fund at the commencement of that financial year".
If I am not mistaken, that would not have enabled the Land Fund to solve the Mentmore crisis. The Land Fund at present standing at, I believe, £17 million, the sum of £3 million having been asked for Mentmore, the Government offering £1 million on their own and asking for £2 million more, the Land Fund would presumably have been asked to pay the full £3 million, which is more than one-sixth of its present total. I should have preferred that clause to say,
"…shall not spend more than one-sixth of the capital sum without prior authority from the Treasury,"
or something like that. There should, at least, be some kind of let-out clause, which could be used under given controls at a given time. But these are obviously points for Committee stage if, as I very much hope, your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
There is one other point which I am not suggesting should be written into the Bill, for the very good reason that I do not see how it possibly could be. I was extremely surprised to learn recently that there is no machinery at all, even with the subject's consent, by which the Treasury can be informed of the tax position of an individual who may or may not be a potential vendor of his property. I understand that even Treasury Ministers may not be confidentially informed of the tax position of an individual, even if that individual is perfectly prepared that they should be. This problem also caused endless delays and unnecessary complications over the whole Mentmore trouble. How lovely it will be when we do not have to talk any more about Mentmore!
Anyhow, if this is so—and I am open to correction—could there be some directive by which people, who find themselves in a position very roughly akin to that in which the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, found himself some time back, could at least be asked whether they would give authority to the Inland Revenue to send copies of relevant documentation about their tax problems to the Treasury? After all, they have nothing to hide since

795
the Inland Revenue knows it already. Probably it would be very much in their interests, as well as everybody else's, if this information could be transferred.
Having said that, I do not think that I need to detain your Lordships any further—there is a great deal more business to be done this afternoon—except to repeat once more what I have already said: that this is only a holding operation and that until the general question of the taxation of historic houseowners can be changed in such a way as to allow them to keep their houses for themselves, and for the general public to whom they should by all means be obliged to give reasonable access, then our historic heritage will continue, alas! to be in danger.
5.10 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, if I may come hack to the Bill, let me say at once that I strongly support it and that I very much hope—although I have fears that it is not very probable—that the Government will give it their blessing. It is not very probable, because, having succeeded in stultifying the purposes of Dr. Dalton in setting aside the National Land Fund to help in preserving our national heritage as a memorial to those killed in the First World War, a purpose that was endorsed by Parliament, it is evident that the Treasury will fight tooth and nail to keep the National Land Fund sterilised in their own hands.
No one can study the history of the Fund objectively without becoming aware that the behaviour of the Treasury in this matter has been monstrous and disgraceful. I cannot use any other words, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will think I am using terms that are too strong. The Fund, established by Parliament at Dr. Dalton's instance in 1946, was originally a sum of £50 million, raised from the sale of surplus war stores. It was not part of the general revenue. Since that time, although grants have occasionally been made from it, in every year but one the interest has been underspent. In fact, in each of 30 years, it has been underspent. There has never been recourse to the capital, and the accumulated interest has grown and goes on growing.
The Treasury have somehow managed to establish the picture, first of an unnecessary Fund, with the result that
796
Parliament agreed in 1957, under a Conservative Government, to their eternal shame, to the Fund being raided to the tune of £50 million. And ever since that time the facade has been put up that it is not merely an unnecessary Fund but that it can hardly be said to exist—that it is a mere book entry. So far from that being the fact, it is now clearly established by the Written Answer to a Question asked in another place on 17th June last by Mr. Patrick Cormack, the Answer to which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, that during the past 20 years stocks totalling more than £44 million were purchased on the open market on behalf of the National Land Fund; in addition, Treasury bills totalling nearly £80 million had been purchased. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to understand those figures, and when she comes to reply I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten us on how they are made up. But however that may be, so much for the myth, sedulously propagated, that the Fund does not exist or, if it does exist, it exists only as a book entry. Of course it exists and we have all—Parliament and the public—been shamelessly hoodwinked.
The question then arises, what can be done to enable the Fund to be applied for the purposes for which it was established by Parliament, the preservation of our heritage: historic houses and their surroundings and their contents, and our most beautiful countryside. Funds for that purpose are more urgently needed now than ever before. Mentmore is only the tip of an iceberg, the main bulk of which, forced to the surface by penal rates of taxation, will become more and more disastrously evident in the next few years.
It is perfectly clear that if the Fund is ever to be applied for the purpose for which it exists it must be taken out of Treasury control. The purpose of the Bill is to remove the Fund from Treasury control and to place it in the hands of independent trustees. Only in that way can we hope that the Fund will be used, and used for its proper purpose. That is why I strongly support the Bill and I hope that the House will agree to refer it to a Select Committee.
5.15 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, this question seems to have come round again to me fairly quickly, although answering on behalf of the Government I have changed my Department of the Environment hat for a Treasury hat, which is filled with thorns at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept all that he has said, or agree with it. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity which is afforded by this Second Reading to make the Government's position clear, and in particular to clarify the various misconceptions about the National Land Fund itself which, possibly with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, seem to be shared by everybody who has spoken. I think the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, was rather hard on it; but he was hard because, if I may say so with great respect, he has got it wrong.
I shall not go into the history of the Fund because the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, did so most succinctly and admirably, and time is getting on. My only quarrel with him about its history is that I thought he was unduly harsh about Hugh Dalton, who was a most distinguished and able man. Perhaps I may explain what the National Land Fund has done and some of its pluses, since we have heard so much about the minuses.
The National Land Fund accounts, published each year, provide an impressive inventory of what has been preserved with its help—for example, the Penrhyn Castle estate, Denbighshire, land in the Lake District and Cornwall, Ickworth House, Bury St. Edmunds, Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire, Brodick Castle, Tatton Park, Cheshire, Brownsea Island, Dorset, Sissinghurst Castle, Kent, works of art associated with such great houses as Chatsworth, Petworth and Knole and, most recently, Cragside in Northumberland which was acquired specifically through the National Land Fund. Quite recently, the Stackpole Estate in Pembrokeshire, parts of the Foxwold Estate in Kent, chattels associated with Cotehele House in Cornwall, Erdigg Hall in Denbighshire, Van Dyck portraits from Althorp and the Blenheim archives have been preserved. I am sorry to have gone into such a long list, but it seems to me that sometimes we should remember what has been achieved by the Fund,
798
which has been battered with words—including, I agree entirely, my own from time to time.
This means that disbursements from the National Land Fund have amounted to some £10½ million since 1957. During most of this period, the income earned on the investments held by the Fund has exceeded disbursements, so that the capital of the Fund has appreciated. This is despite the plundering of the Fund in 1957. I share the feelings of those who believe that this was a very bad and wrong step to take.
The Fund is still comparatively sizable and amounted to £18·3 million at the end of March this year. Nevertheless, recently expenditure has exceeded income and the Fund's capital started to run down during last year. If we continue to draw on the Fund at the rate of between £3 million and £4 million a year, we shall have preserved for the nation a very impressive list of buildings and works of art on a scale even greater than seen in the past, but the Fund will be extinguished in about five or six years. That is the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate: how is it possible to have spent this money and for the Government to have been able to offer even £1 million towards Mentmore?
Any spending, whether as grants for repair of historic buildings, or capital taxes exemption, or special grants to the national galleries and museums is a direct cost to the Exchequer. I must remind noble Lords opposite that they, together with other Members of the Conservative Party, have been calling constantly for restriction of public expenditure. Although the Fund is a central Government Fund and payments from it either to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or to the Secretaries of State exercising their powers under the 1953 Act are internal transactions, they still count as public expenditure and as such are subject to the same constraints as apply to other public expenditure. In the case of expenditure by the Secretaries of State under the 1953 Act the position is easy to understand.
The Secretaries of State are acquiring property from the private sector, by using, in effect, the resources of the National Land Fund. The reimbursement to them from the Land Fund of the expenses they

799
incur is scored as public expenditure, instead of the payments the Secretaries of State make directly themselves to the private sector. In cases where the Land Fund meets the cost of Inland Revenue of accepting a property in lieu of tax this transaction is counted as public expenditure, to represent the purchase which is implied in this arrangement. If the arrangement were not treated as two simultaneous transactions, first the purchase of the property by Government and, secondly, the surrender of the proceeds of Government as tax, the transaction would be left out of the accounts completely, implying the writing-off of a tax liability for no consideration and acquisition of valuable property at no cost.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene there as I think it is a convenient moment. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, could answer the question—
Baroness BIRK: I am just coming to it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: —which I postulated, where objects are taken in discharge of a capital debt. Perhaps the noble Baroness is coming on to it but I thought she had gone past it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was coming to the point made by the noble Earl when he raised the question of the National Land Fund investments and purchases on the open market, and—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, that was not what I asked. My point was that if under the 1909 Finance Act objects are taken to satisfy a capital debt it may be the practice for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be reimbursed from the National Land Fund but it is not a mandatory duty for such reimbursement to take place and therefore—and I am putting the position a little stronger now—it is idle to pretend that in effect that is a drain on the public sector borrowing requirement.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl will allow me to get through this part of my speech and come to that particular point at the end because I do not think it is as relevant to the Bill—or the context in which I am trying to
800
set it—as the other points and it will spoil my flow of argument. So perhaps I may deal with that as a "one off" at the end. The point put by the noble Earl during his speech was that of the investments and purchases on the open market and I think he particularly asked me to comment on that. This really demonstrates nothing more than that the fund is not a myth but that the Treasury is managing the Fund's portfolio. It has nothing to do with the main issues, but is a means of managing the Fund because it is still in Government securities, even if some are sold and some others are bought on the open market. Thus payments out of the National Land Fund are necessarily subject to the same disciplines and constraints as other items of public expenditure and, unless total public expenditure were to be increased, any payments from the Land Fund in excess of the provision made for them by the Government in their public expenditure programmes would have to be met by off-setting savings in expenditure elsewhere.
I agree that the whole subject is extremely complicated, but this is a point which I find one simply has to keep in mind. I do not think there is any need for me to stress the many competing claims and priorities that the Government are faced with in all areas of public spending, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, appreciated and acknowledged but which, on the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, did not appreciate when he said that the public expenditure problem has been solved. If it had been solved there would have been no problem at all because the underlying problem is that of having a sufficient amount of money. Too rapid a rise in public expenditure not matched by increased revenue forces up the borrowing requirement; this in turn has its effect on interest rates and the rate of inflation. And it is this very rate of inflation which has been responsible for the sharply rising costs of the maintenance of our valuable historic heritage. This is the canker which has been competing with death watch beetle in destroying our national heritage.
It is quite impossible to discuss this without seeing it in the context of the economic climate and that is why it is essential for us to have the strongest all round support for the policies which are being pursued by my right honourable

801
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring down the rate of inflation, to control the growth of public expenditure and ensure that interest rates are brought down. It is only in these circumstances that we shall be able to develop a soundly based coherent policy and be in a better position to create the greater resources necessary to preserve our heritage, as we would all wish.
At that point, perhaps I should say that as far as preserving the heritage is concerned and the anxiety not to see it disappear, there is no difference between those who have spoken so far—and probably many who have not spoken—and myself and my colleagues. It is not a question of those who want to destroy the heritage and those who want to save it but the best way one can do it in the present very difficult economic circumstances.
In a situation of severe economic restraint where difficult choices have to be made, the question is which works of art and which buildings can we preserve? The only way to make this very difficult, and at times tightrope—balancing choice, is to seek the best advice and therefore we go to experts like the Director of the National Gallery, the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the authorities in the British Museum and the Historic Buildings Council, which advises me in my capacity as a Minister at the Department for the Environment. These advisers have helped to direct and guide the Government's decisions since the Fund was set up over 30 years ago. But at the end of the day whatever system we have and whatever machinery we have the Government still have to decide what can be afforded.
Further, since the Government are not in a position to run historic buildings or to care for all the works of art, they have to ensure that before accepting property there are institutions—national and local galleries, the National Trust or local authorities—who are willing to take on the day-to-day task of preservation. The question of management and maintenance costs cannot be ignored and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, quite rightly pointed to the problem of the National Trust at the present time. Given the size and value of our national heritage, together with all the other demands on
802
public expenditure which we really cannot forget, the Government cannot possibly agree to an open-ended commitment.
I will now turn to the noble Lord's Bill which is being given a Second Reading today. Understandably there are many technical deficiencies in the Bill and since the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has said that he recognises them and as there is a great deal of business facing the House after this debate, I do not propose to go into them in detail. I would only point out that there is already one interesting dichotomy where the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made the point that he considered the trustees should be in the position of being advisers, in the same way as the Historic Buildings Council are my statutory advisers, whereas on the other hand the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, felt they should be the principals, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, obviously does, because he put it in his Bill.
There are two legitimate and complete differences of opinion over that and one immediately sees within the Bill itself, even with its imperfections, how the problems will arise. But these imperfections—and some others which I will not go into at the moment—could be resolved and it is not really these that concern me. Unfortunately the noble Lord's Bill does not solve the basic problem. This really is the core of the Government's opposition to it. The noble Lord has, alas!, not produced the key to the national Land Fund which I was searching for in the last debate and which he promised me he had found today. He has not, I am afraid, been able to do so, although I must certainly give him top marks for trying extremely hard.
First, it does not deal with the difficulties about priorities. Second, it provides for less expenditure than we plan, which is currently £32½ million a year. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, pointed this out. Third, it does not consider what happens when the Fund capital is run down. Even with the one-sixth, with this type of revolving Fund at the end of the day you are going to have one-sixth of less and less.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, on that one point about the one-sixth, the next clause—and I do not defend either of these clauses because I put them in only to satisfy the

803
Treasury—says that the Treasury can instruct them to make that good.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, but you still have to find the money in order to make it good, and, alas!, the noble Lord does not seem to have satisfied the Treasury because he still does not deal with what happens when the Fund capital is run down; it would mean feeding it again, and, as I am now coming to it, it again involves public expenditure. If the Fund is transferred out of the public sector into the hands of trustees, as the Bill proposes, this amounts in the first instance to £18 million of public expenditure, and would lead to a call on the Contingency Fund, and it immediately would be a direct competitor with other claims on it.
What happened in the past, I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is water under the bridge. Whether it would have been possible in 1946 for it to be set up differently, one does not know. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, feels that Hugh Dalton was, so to speak, done by the Treasury. I do not know. We had a very big debt at that time and it may have been very difficult to get support in other ways. As the noble Lord recognised, we are currently constrained by our undertaking in the Letter of Intent to the IMF. This undertaking is a crucial plank of the Government's economic strategy and cannot be undermined. The proposal in the Bill would seem to go straight against this.
I have very great sympathy with the noble Lord's view, when referring to Mentmore, that we could have spent £2 million, that it is very little out of a gross £9,000 million expenditure. I had that sort of feeling myself about it. But when you look across the board and realise that at the same time there are claims for housing, schools, hospitals, all sorts of things on which people may put different priorities, then you have to see it in that context and not just as what seems to be a comparatively small amount out of a very large total expenditure. Some form of planned disbursement is necessary. The Fund has also to be able to deal with contingencies, the special cases, the special work of art or properties offered unexpectedly. This is a fundamental problem which I cannot believe a Select Committee or a group of trustees can possibly get round.
804
The noble Lord has referred—he did not mention it here, but he has done so in conversations with me—to the Select Committee on which I believe he sat, on the Sex Discrimination Bill. One of the big differences between that and this situation today is that there was a general all-round agreement that there was need for some legislative action in that field, and there was no question of public expenditure being involved except to a very minor degree. But this is an entirely different situation. This is why I am convinced that a Select Committee, looking at this Bill, cannot come up with any answers to the perennial problems of expenditure priorities. The Committee cannot produce more money and could not make the Bill acceptable to the Government.
The Government's commitment to the saving and protection of the national heritage is not in doubt. Indeed, the noble Viscount spoke about the Historic Houses Association. I was this morning at Woburn, opening their conference, and my noble friend Lord Donaldson was speaking there at lunch. The acknowledgement by the members of the HHA of what this Government have done in order to help the historic house owners is appreciative; they are extremely frank about it and say that no other Government, certainly no Conservative Government, have done as much as this Government have. The noble Viscount also mentioned the further tax concession, to ease the burden of maintenance, which is now going to be introduced into the current Finance Bill.
Nevertheless, we shall have to face problems of the exhaustion of the National Land Fund, and this would come to the same thing, even without its other imperfections. If one is looking at the noble Lord's Bill, it would still have to be funded very much more, even putting into it what is in the National Land Fund at the moment, though that itself, as I have explained, would still be a public expenditure transfer. It is premature for us to take specific decisions now, but we are very aware of this problem of the future running down of the Land Fund itself and we are looking very hard at it.
In changing circumstances any element of administrative machinery, including the National Land Fund, which comes

805
under very considerable odium, has to be kept under review. I can assure noble Lords that the Treasury, in close consultation with their art advisers, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and Science, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Historic Buildings Council, are doing this. That is a lot of Departments, I agree, but there are a lot of people and many interests involved.
I am only too aware—and it has been stressed again this afternoon—that noble Lords and many others were concerned about the way in which Lord Rosebery's offer of Mentmore and its contents to the nation was handled. I will not go again into the Mentmore argument, arguing about whether what somebody said was right or wrong; but let us look forward and use some of the lessons of Mentmore to take a positive line towards the heritage in the future. It prompted what I said in an earlier debate about the need to establish which houses with their contents are of paramount importance to the nation. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, feels that this proposal should have been left to gather dust. I think it is extremely important. If we begin to discuss and see what is of great importance, this, I would submit, is taking a rather broader view than we were taking when I was replying to the Mentmore debate, when I referred, in shorthand, to a league of historic houses.
This is something I think we have to do, because, apart from anything else, it puts us on the alert; it brings these things constantly to our minds so that we are not taken by surprise with the eruption of a Mentmore situation, which did, quite frankly, at the time take everybody by surprise. Therefore, I am currently asking a group from the Historic Buildings Council—probably with additional experts to supply the expertise which they have not got on the Council—to advise quickly on this. I hope, too, that at the same time they will be able to offer advice on a generally acceptable interpretation of what we mean by the national heritage, which really is by no means crystal clear.
This came out very strongly in the whole Mentmore debate. I do not mean just in this House, but in the newspapers and in the country generally. There were the people who felt very strongly
806
pro-Mentmore. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, at least admitted that he had not been down to see the house and contents. Most of the people who spoke in the debate which I answered had not seen it either, although they spoke as though they knew every inch of the way and every object and picture there. What we have realised from that is that we have to try to find some sort of definition, because so many of the people who are not quite so articulate and vociferous about it, now that the sale is over, have said quietly, to me and many other people—and some of them are extremely distinguished people in the art world—that in their view Mentmore is not a part of the national heritage. I am not adjudicating either way. I am simply saying that there is a degree of disagreement over many of these places and we should start by saying that there are certain houses and contents together on which there is practically total agreement that they are part of our national heritage and then go on to find those which are more marginal. As I keep saying, this is a very complicated subject and naturally the Government are concerned about the misconceptions and confusions which appear in connection with it.
There was obviously a lack of understanding of the present system and the way in which it operated as regards Mentmore. I accept that the Government are not always very good at communicating. It is extremely difficult to communicate a very complicated subject, particularly when it is connected with finance. There was a great deal of misunderstanding of this complicated subject and not a great deal of appreciation of the need for a planned control of public expenditure was shown. Unfortunately, there was a disregard and a lack of appreciation of the agonising choices that had to he made when taxpayers' money and public expenditure was involved.
Before I conclude F shall try to answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. We are certainly not obliged to reimburse from the National Land Fund, but if we did not reimburse the Revenue from that Fund, we should have to raise the tax forgone by other means; namely, by increasing taxes generally or

807
increasing borrowing in the market. The money must be found somehow. In other words, the books must be balanced.
I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, that unless one is able to make a change—as he suggests in his Bill and which I hope I have proved is really not tenable—the National Land Fund should be abolished. Although it is part of public expenditure, it is hypothecated. If it did not exist, I am now convinced that it would be even more difficult to obtain money quickly for the heritage or to obtain that amount of money. At least one has it under that name. Although I agree that it is not the same thing as being ear-marked and outside the public sector—but it was not set up in that way—in spite of all the remarks that I have made about it in the past, difficult as it is and a nuisance as it can be at times, it has the advantage of being there and that is better than nothing. For those reasons and circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, will withdraw his Bill and save me asking noble Lords to reject it.
5.44 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and particularly to those who have given me some support. My noble friend Lord Mansfield gave me one or two backhanders in the way of criticism. I was not sure that I quite understood his first point but I shall have to think about it. As to his second point, I certainly did not intend that the National Land Fund should not be principals. I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, that the Secretary of State and the Treasury have quite enough advisers already. We want someone who can act quickly and that would be the purpose of having trustees. After all, the National Land Fund is already a principal. At the moment I think I am right in saying that technically it owns Heveningham Hall in Suffolk.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, Yes.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the kind words that he said about it. I love his simile of the fire brigade. I have never thought of my modest Bill as being any
808
kind of a fire brigade or anything else. But it helps me greatly to clarify the purposes that I had in mind. I am deeply grateful to him for his support. My noble and old friend Lord Cottesloe quite rightly attacked the past, as I did, and I am grateful for his support. I turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I did not expect anything more than a dusty answer. I had hoped that she might conclude by giving me a little crumb of comfort, but I did not get even that. I do not wish to be critical. I cannot wait for her to get rid of her Treasury "crown of thorns and put on her much more becoming Department of the Environment hat, because she really is in a very sympathetic mood. I heard her make a speech that I cannot think she wrote with a full heart; in fact, I could have written it myself if I were in a hard-hearted Treasury mood. I am afraid that I found it very unconvincing. I am sorry that she thought I was unkind about Dr. Dalton. He thought that he had had the wool pulled over his eyes too. He said in that famous speech that there was a little man in the Treasury writing a brief to say that the National Land Fund really did not exist. Therefore, I think it is perfectly fair to say that Dr. Dalton had the wool pulled over his eyes.
The noble Baroness gave us a full list of the achievements of the National Land Fund. I refrained from doing so myself because it did not seem relevant to my Bill and I had read them in the various reports. Lastly I turn to the fact that the Bill is not considered to be practicable. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is against a Select Committee. I believe that her kind and polite words about the national heritage do not quite appreciate the extent to which there is continuing political concern about this matter. It is not an epoch-making decision whether to abolish the National Land Fund. However, there is a growing body of people who are concerned. I agree with the noble Baroness that the real problem is money. I am sorry, after criticising the reduction from £50 million to £10 million, that she was unable to say that she replaced it. It is one thing to criticise in 1957 and another thing to say 20 years later that it was wrong and do nothing about it. They have had plenty of time to do something about it meanwhile.

809
I still regard the whole subject as having been dealt with unsatisfactorily. The noble Baroness defended the Treasury and her own Department, but one always has the feeling of delay and the feeling that people could act quicker, and that more satisfactory decisions could be taken. My Lords, there it is. We are up against a brick wall, if I may so describe the Front Bench opposite. There is no point in pursuing this Bill unless it has Government support. I am sorry and disappointed that my modest suggestion has not received favour in the eyes of the noble Baroness. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.49 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Both the principle and the purpose of the Bill are simple and in my view indisputable. The Bill itself is a lot of nonsense unless one makes continuous reference to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, because although the principle is simple, the technicalities of it are fairly complicated. With your Lordships' permission, I shall not go into them today, but rather deal with the rationale and generalities of the Bill. Perhaps the Committee stage—if it gets that far—would be the right moment to deal with the technicalities of it.
While we were contemplating this measure, we realised that there were several ways in which we could go about it. After much deliberation, we decided that this fairly tightly drafted, and certainly not over-ambitious format, would be the best. But it is not the only one, and I shall welcome suggestions from noble Lords if there are better ways they feel we could go about it. In particular, I look forward to hearing the comments of my noble friend Lord Melchett, who I think undoubtedly has a deeper first-hand knowledge and more up-to-date first-hand knowledge of the education system and
810
the problems thereof in Northern Ireland than any other noble Lord in this House.
At the start—and I apologise if I repeat this later on in my speech—there are two things I ought to make absolutely clear. The first is that this is a purely enabling Bill. Any element of compulsion would be completely foreign to the spirit of it. Secondly, rather than in any way weakening parental choice it strengthens it. Rather than coercing parents into sending their children to a school that is not of their choice, it would involve them more in the decision-making process.
Perhaps I ought to explain at the start that in the main there are two principal systems of education in Northern Ireland. There is the State system which, in the 1972 order, is described as controlled. This is a State system but the schools were, in many instances, built originally by Protestant landowners or Protestant millowners. At the time of the 1930 Education Act, they were transferred to the State, but the transferors still have the right to at least 50 per cent. representation on the school management committee. For this reason, though they are technically non-denominational schools and no religious education of a denominational nature is allowed, their teacher and pupil affiliation is essentially Protestant and they are looked upon by the Roman Catholic community as being "Protestant schools".
The second category is the voluntary maintained school, which is almost completely Roman Catholic. Following an agreement arrived at by the then Ministry of Education in Stormont and the Roman Catholic Church, a four and two committee was set up whereby the Church was represented by four trustees, or their representatives, and the Ministry by two. Under this agreement, the schools receive 85 per cent. of capital grant and 100 per cent. of running expenditure. The trustees, or their representatives, are appointed by the bishop or parish priest, and those trustees, or their representatives, have complete control of appointment of teachers, unlike the situation which obtains in Scotland. Since 1968 it is a matter of some disappointment that more progress has not been made towards incorporating greater parental representation.

811
The purpose of the Bill before your Lordships' House today is to explore means whereby a measure of integration can gradually be introduced into the education system of Northern Ireland, hopefully with the good will of the Churches, when the desire so to do is expressed by parents of differing religious and cultural backgrounds. It would also create a legal framework to safeguard those schools where some integration is already taking place voluntarily. This is referred to in subsections (4) and (8) of the Bill. There are already some controlled schools which have a relatively high proportion of Roman Catholic pupils, but it is difficult at the moment for the management committee, in these circumstances, to reflect the integrated aspect of the school. I should add, perhaps, that at the moment I can see no reason why the proposals contained in this Bill should entail any further expenditure.
The Bill therefore suggests that, where such circumstances exist, if three-quarters of the transferors of a controlled school are in favour of its becoming a controlled integrated school, then it is up to them to make a request to the Area Board. An obligation would then be placed on the Area Board to ascertain the views of the parents. If at least 75 per cent. of the parents are not opposed to the school becoming controlled and integrated, then the management committee would be reformed as set out in Clause 2 of the Bill.
This, in a few words, means that there will be increased parental involvement in the management committee, because the parental proportion would be increased from a quarter to one-third; the Church representation would be decreased from a half to one-third; and the Area Board representation would be increased from a quarter to one-third. I should like to make it absolutely clear that by decreasing the Church representation from a half to one-third—and that third to be evenly split between Roman Catholic and Protestant, one-sixth each—there would be no intention whatever to sacrifice, or even dilute, the element of religious education. We certainly do not want to sacrifice that, a good thing, for another good thing which is integration. We want to have both things, both of which are good.
I strongly sympathise with the feelings that Roman Catholic parents have about
812
religious education. It would be our intention that denominational education should continue in controlled integrated schools for as long as this is desired. We would expect that the new management committees would ensure that religious education was given, if not by ordained priests or clergy, by teachers who are known to be committed Christians. We would certainly not want diluted religious education, but full-blooded religious education, which is what the parents desire. Unlike the circumstances in certain parts of Great Britain, there are many committed Christians competent to give such education.
Those who favour integration, such as the All Children Together Movement, who were responsible for initiating the drafting of this Bill, feel that another worthwhile measure would be to consult the parents in the area—not just the parents of the school itself, but the parents in the area—whenever a school is faced with a possibility of closure because of falling birthrate, because of movement of population, et cetera. It is a nonsense and a waste of resources to have a school about to close on one side of the road and another school, maybe a maintained school, bursting at the seams because it is in urgent need of extension. It is so much better to share the pupils between the two schools. Here again, if the parents were in agreement, machinery would be set up to bring it about.
It must be recognised that in recent surveys in Northern Ireland more than two-thirds of parents have declared that they are in favour of integration, yet at present 98 per cent. segregation still exists. The Bill is designed to provide a framework whereby integration can be brought about without treading on anybody's toes. I am not so naive as to think that a measure of this sort would be an instant solution to our tribal problems, but I sincerely believe that integrated education is an essential element in breaking down the social barriers which exist in our society.
The benefits which this measure would bring about could well take up to a generation to work through, but a start must be made at some stage, and I say the sooner the better. Indeed, it is fortuitous and appropriate that my noble

813
friend Lord Melchett made a full Statement on education last week which, on the whole, received a general welcome and I would like to think that the Bill might be complementary to some of the proposals made in his Statement.
A start should be made as soon as possible because communication is one of the biggest problems in Northern Ireland. Discussing the sad situation there with a Protestant friend of mine the other day, in a complete breakthrough of liberalism and ecumenism he said, "I once knew a Roman Catholic and, to be quite honest, he wasn't a bad chap at all." One side knows so little about the other; in my view it is the communication gap that we must bridge because lack of communication, lack of knowledge, provides a fertile breeding ground for misconception.
If Protestants and Roman Catholics knew more about each other they would realise that there was far more that they had in common than separated them. If you learn in the same classroom and play on the same sports ground as your neighbour, you cannot grow up thinking that he is some sort of foreign body. The myth, the shibboleth and the imagined stereotype never have a chance under those circumstances because you know that your friend is a fellow human being, and religious adherence is an irrelevance. Some very timely words were spoken by Dr. Doyle, a former Roman Catholic Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. He said:
"I do not know of any measures which would prepare the way for a better feeling in Ireland than uniting children at an early age and bringing them up in the same school, leading them to commune one with another and to form those little intimacies and friendships which often subsist through life".
Unfortunately, that was not a recent statement of policy; it was delivered in 1826, when the climate seems to have been somewhat more liberal than it is today. In overcoming our problems we have a long, hard road in front of us, but if your Lordships would agree to give the Bill a Second Reading I believe that it would be a major, indeed perhaps an historic, step in the right direction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Dunleath.)
6.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Dunleath for giving us the opportunity to debate an important issue that has been attracting increasing public attention in Northern Ireland over the last few months. I wanted to intervene at an early stage in the debate so that I could give noble Lords a full statement on current Government thinking on integrated education.
During the time I have spent in Northern Ireland I have discussed integrated education with a very wide range of individuals and groups, including the main political Parties, teachers' organisations, education and library boards and, of course, the Churches. This is a sensitive issue and one which touches on deeply-held feelings not only, but perhaps especially, in Northern Ireland. Although we must at the outset face up to the fact that the Roman Catholic hierarchy remain opposed to integrated education, all the other organisations and groups I have consulted are, to some extent at least, in favour.
The Government's attitude to integrated education in Northern Ireland is clear and simple. We believe that in a divided community only good can come from greater contact and better understanding between people of different religions. A greater degree of integration in the education of school children is clearly one way of increasing this contact. The Government's policy is therefore to encourage integrated education where there is a local wish for it.
But the Government also believe—and believe very firmly—that they ought not, indeed cannot, enforce integration against the wishes of local communities. They must have regard to the genuine desires of those communities and of individual parents. Given the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church, any attempt to force integrated education on Northern Ireland could only be counter-productive. So there is no question of the Government attempting to force anyone to act against their will, nor any question of withdrawing public financial support from denominational schools.
There is one firm conclusion that I hope noble Lords will draw from what I

815
have said so far. If there are any barriers to integrated education in Northern Ireland that are of the Government's making, we would wish to see them removed. We wish to encourage integrated education, but we will not force it on people. I believe that that is the right policy and one that would be agreed by the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
It also follows from what I have said about the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church that it would not be realistic in the short-term to expect major changes in the existing pattern of largely segregated education in Northern Ireland. And it is important for those who comment on these matters, in particular from outside Northern Ireland, to remember both the deeply held religious views of many Roman Catholics on this subject and the genuine apprehensions of some of the minority community in Northern Ireland, that they would not play a sufficient part in the control of the institutional bodies involved.
There are two other important points I should like to make. First, while theoretical debate on this subject is reasonably easy, the issues involved are not academic but intensely practical. In practice, there are no easy solutions which Government can impose. The matter is one which is very much in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Secondly, I think it is important for people to come to terms with the fact that there are no easy solutions to the problems that lead to communal conflict in Northern Ireland. We also need to remember, first, that in Northern Ireland possibly more than in Great Britain, the views of children tend to mirror those of their parents and, secondly, that schools alone cannot counteract the influences of the home and the community in which a child lives. Integrated education is not some sort of panacea that can solve all the problems overnight.
I stress that I am making these remarks in the context of the wider debate on integrated education, rather than about my noble friend's Bill. I readily acknowledge that all those in Northern Ireland who favour integrated education see it not as the immediate answer to all our
816
problems, but as an inevitably gradual but important means of bringing the two communities closer together.
As noble Lords will know, educational provision in Northern Ireland has its roots in the fact that, when the Government of Northern Ireland became responsible for education in 1921, the overwhelming majority of schools were under denominational control, even though they were financed chiefly by the State. When State schools were introduced, the right of any Church or group to maintain its own schools was not disputed. All were given the same choice, to continue to function as voluntary schools, assisted by the State, or to transfer the school to the State system and join with the State in the running of the school. Over a period of time, a clear pattern developed. The Roman Catholic community preferred to continue to maintain their own distinct and separate schools. On the other hand, the Protestant Churches more often opted to transfer their schools to the State while continuing to play a part in school management.
That extremely short account of educational developments in Northern Ireland is inevitably oversimplified, but I hope it will serve to explain how segregated education evolved. It is understandable that a school provided by Roman Catholics, emphasising Roman Catholic teaching, and largely staffed by Roman Catholics, should not prove attractive to the majority of Protestant parents. Conversely, the State schools, or the controlled schools as they are now called, seldom proved attractive to Roman Catholic parents. So a self-perpetuating pattern of attendance has developed.
This pattern has remained unaffected by the fact that in Northern Ireland there are specific statutory provisions which safeguard the right of parents in the religious education of their children. Any parent can withdraw his or her child from religious instruction in any school, and all schools must in law be open equally to children of all religious denominations.
I said earlier that integrated education could provide no quick and easy solution to Northern Ireland's problems. There are many cultural differences between the two sides of the community and I certainly

817
do not believe that it would be possible to obscure these by imposing a single system of education, even over many generations. However, people may wonder what the difficulties are, given, as I have said, and as my noble friend Lord Dunleath has indicated, widespread support for the principle amongst the people of Northern Ireland.
The problem is that, in spite of a degree of theoretical agreement, there remain considerable practical difficulties. For example, in many parts of Northern Ireland there has been a strong tendency for Protestants and Roman Catholics to live in separate areas. Historically, this was partly due to the desire of each group to be close to its own churches and schools. In recent years, as a result of communal conflict, this tendency has increased. In the more troubled areas, it is now common to find the population of entire districts clearly segregated along religious lines. Since schools are essentially local institutions reflecting the characteristics of the locality which they serve, this amounts to a substantial practical obstacle to integrated education. It is a perverse fact that integration is least practicable in those areas where community relations are most strained, and where many would therefore feel that the potential benefits of integrated education were most needed.
It is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland wishes Roman Catholic children to be educated in Roman Catholic schools; the three main Protestant Churches are not opposed to integrated schools as such, but are concerned that schools should not be secular and that the teaching of religion should be an integral part of the education of children. Different parents have different views, and it has to be said that there is no very reliable way of knowing exactly what people think about the practicalities as opposed to the theory. On the one hand, all the bodies and organisations, with the one major exception, and indeed all the surveys of public attitudes that are available, show a large majority in favour of integrated education. On the other hand, many parents undoubtedly want their children to be brought up in either the Protestant or the Roman Catholic ethos. I would also have to say that a theoretical acceptance of integration may in practice occasionally amount to the view that "they" are free
818
to come to "our" school if they wish, and, of course, to be taught in "our" way by "our" teachers.
However, while we have to be realistic, I would not wish to make too much of these practical difficulties, which I know are fully recognised by all those—including my noble friend—who have studied the problem in Northern Ireland. I have said that the Government's policy is to encourage integrated education wherever there is a demand for it, and to ensure that no barriers to integrated education exist. In pursuing such a policy, it has been suggested, as noble Lords may well know, that the Government should hold a conference on integration. I have carefully considered this suggestion during recent months. To be a success, such a conference would require a climate of opinion within which all concerned would come together for discussion in a co-operative and constructive spirit. There would be no point in a conference in which major interested parties would not take part and, in particular, such a conference would be meaningless without the involvement of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, to whom the vast majority of the voluntary school authorities would look for a lead. From my consultations, I am satisfied that the Roman Catholic hierarchy are not in favour of a conference and would be highly unlikely to participate in one.
Given the fact that integrated education cannot be imposed by Government and that Government cannot force changes in the attitudes of those who are opposed, and given the fact that the sort of general views of almost all the interested groups that might he expressed at a conference are already well known, I do not believe that such a conference would carry us very much further forward in practice. If there is to be progress—and I very much hope that there will be—it will be achieved only by facing the facts and by adopting a strategy that shows some promise of practical results.
As I have said, our strategy is based on two beliefs. The first is that it is not for the Government to seek to impose integration. The second is that the Government should not stand in the way where there is a wish for integrated schooling, either of an individual family or within a community. "Not standing in the way" means ensuring so far as

819
possible that there are no obstacles, either within the current legislation or arising from administrative practice to prevent the family or the community from fulfilling this wish.
As regards administrative arrangements, I can give a practical example of what is possible. It is a relatively small change in the arrangements for school transport. I recently reviewed these arrangements and was able to broaden the discretion which the education and library boards have to assist parents with school transport costs. In doing this, we were able to provide that in suitable cases it is now possible for school transport to be provided to help parents to exercise their free choice to support integration, a choice which I believe they have a right to make. For the future, we will, as in this case, bear in mind the implications for integration when considering changes in what are often long-standing arrangements, and we will make similar improvements where possible.
My noble friend's Bill is, as I understand it, primarily designed to deal with what is seen as a legislative obstacle to integrated schools; that is, the existing statutory provisions for school management. I believe that school management in Northern Ireland is a subject which now needs to be carefully studied. As noble Lords will know, school management in Great Britain has been under examination by the Taylor Committee, whose report is, I understand, about to be submitted. In Northern Ireland, the decision that I announced last week to proceed with the restructuring of secondary education has implications for school management, particularly for the comprehensive secondary school and the sixth form and tertiary college.
I therefore announced the setting up of a small independent Working Party to take a completely new look at the way schools should be managed in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may be interested to know that this Working Party is to be chaired by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University, and has as its members the chairman of one of the education and library boards, the chief officer of another board, the Professor of Educational Studies at Queen's, and a leader writer for the Belfast Telegraph. I propose to
820
invite this Working Party, in considering the form of the new management structures that will be required, and, indeed, the management of all schools in Northern Ireland, to have special regard to the Government's policy to ensure that integration, where it is desired, should be facilitated and not impeded.
There are, I believe, particular opportunities for the future. To take one example, I should say that the Working Party will need to give thought to the management arrangements for any sixth-form colleges which may be created in Northern Ireland as part of a new comprehensive system. Because there are no existing sixth-form colleges, there is no current provision for their management, and we thus start with a clean slate. The sixth-form colleges are a particularly good example in the context of today's debate, because it is an inescapable fact that in many parts of Northern Ireland such colleges will be able to provide broader educational opportunities if they are catering for all appropriate pupils in the area they serve, irrespective of the religious denominations of their pupils. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that none of the interests which I have consulted has ruled out in principle the idea of an integrated sixth-form college in appropriate cases. Clearly, it is most important that there should be nothing in the management arrangements for these colleges which could stand in the way of integration.
I am very conscious that I have already spoken at some length without touching in any detail on the content of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Dunleath. I was anxious that before doing so I should explain as fully as possible the approach which the Government are now taking to the central issues with which the Bill deals. May I first of all congratulate my noble friend on the care with which the Bill has been drafted. The idea of using redundant school premises to broaden the range of choice of schools is certainly an interesting one, but I regret to say that the Government would see some snags in this provision, which I should like briefly to outline. The first and most obvious difficulty is that schools are closed only when there is good reason to do so. It may be that the premises are very old and in poor condition, long past being

821
worth preserving; or it may be that the population in the area has declined, or moved away. In either case, retention of the premises would involve substantial additional expenditure, and we would often be duplicating provision.
The cost in itself might not be a prohibitive factor, but there are other practical difficulties. The Bill envisages a poll of parents in the area of such a school to see whether it should be kept open as an integrated school. However, it is not at all clear how the area of the school should be defined, or what would be the natural catchment area for such an integrated school. I have already mentioned that, because much housing is segregated, most schools in Northern Ireland draw their pupils from only one section of the community. More importantly, the procedure could lend itself to abuse. It is a fact that, however compelling the reasons for the closure of a school, local people are often inclined to regret and dispute the closure. There is, of course, already statutory machinery for allowing such views to be considered. However, I would be afraid that the proposals in this Bill could be used as a means of keeping open a school which properly should close. A school might in fact have absolutely no prospect of attracting an integrated enrolment, but parents in the area might well prefer to see it kept open as such—if only integrated in name—rather than see it closed.
I have one or two other problems to raise. One is the concept of a "controlled integrated school". This seems to imply that all other controlled schools are not to be expected to he integrated. This is not an assumption that I think we should accept, nor is it one supported by the degree of integration that already exists in some controlled schools in Northern Ireland. My own consultations about integration would also lead me to wonder whether there is any real prospect that the Roman Catholic Church would be prepared to be represented on the management committee of a controlled integrated school, as provided in the Bill.
I am afraid Government spokesmen at Second Readings of Private Member's Bills often have to register the sort of doubts, that I have about this Bill, but I certainly do not do so in any way as a criticism of the principle behind the Bill. As I said at the start of my speech, I
822
very much welcome this opportunity to discuss this vital issue, and I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords during the debate. I hope that noble Lords will agree that what I have said today about the Government's attitude to integration is entirely consistent with the spirit behind this Bill.
The Government fully support the general objectives that the Bill seeks to achieve. I have some doubts on the particular provisions for keeping open redundant schools, but the Government have, in the last few days, set up a highly qualified, independent Working Party to look in part at the main issue raised by this Bill—the need for school management structures in Northern Ireland that will enable integrated education to occur wherever there is a demand for it. I also hope that the approach to integration that the Government are now adopting will contribute to the continuing evolution of a climate of opinion within Northern Ireland that will enable that demand to continue to grow from local people of all denominations.
6.26 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, first, from this side of the House I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for introducing this very important Bill on integrating schools in Northern Ireland. I also want to thank him for helping me in the past few days over some of the thoughts he had regarding his Bill, and for the way in which he presented the Bill to us this afternoon. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has just given us a very good account of what the Government are intending to do regarding education in Northern Ireland. I have heard from numerous quarters how kind and generous the noble Lord is in helping people, not only those in your Lordships' House, over Northern Ireland educational problems and so on, and how he throws himself into his job in Northern Ireland; and if I may say so, that is not easy. From these Benches we support the noble Lord's Bill, but obviously we have one or two reservations. In principle, it has everything which we are seeking in integrating schools in Northern Ireland.
For a number of years now crime and violence have persisted throughout the

823
Province of Northern Ireland without any let-up, and one of the tragedies, as I sec it is that children have become involved, believing that it is great fun to throw stones at soldiers or vehicles; or through either their parents or other adults holding religous or political beliefs which they have been unable to retract. Many of these children are growing up in a society full of hatred and bitterness, and it is, I understand, a fact that a whole generation has now grown up in this horrifying world of crime, violence, fear, bitterness and hatred. It can only have a lasting damage psychologically on these children later, when they grow up.
Therefore, we are bound to turn to education to help and to start to build a new generation of children for the future. I believe that it was in the early 1970s, in the Government of the late Lord Faulkner (I think it was about 1973 or 1974) that Mr. Basil McIvor brought out a plan to begin with shared schools at the nursery level, which would thus allow a new generation of schoolchildren to begin growing up together. I think his idea (and the noble Lord will probably remember) was to catch them young; to educate both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant children together, so that they could mix with each other without always fighting and throwing stones and be able to walk down the streets together instead of walking down on opposite sides. But, as we know, his plan fell through when the Assembly collapsed.
My Lords, 1973 again saw the creation of an organisation which the noble Lord has mentioned already this afternoon; that is, the All Children Together Movement. I understand that this movement, which was formed to press for voluntary integration in the Northern Ireland school system, has been working behind the scenes, slowly but surely, in order to bring about the idea which is contained in the Bill we are discussing today. The idea of this group, brave as they were, and are, was to bring all the political Parties and religious denominations together, and to try to form a basis on which to build the mixed school system. I congratulate that group. It has presented its Bill through the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, this afternoon, and this is, yet, a step forward. But I am afraid—and I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord
824
Melchett—there is always a slight streak of pessimism. It takes an enormous time to get the movements going, to arrange conferences and to get people round a table; and I believe that even if we pass this Bill this afternoon—and the noble Lord has made it only an enabling Bill, which is quite right—it will be manyyears before even the first steps can possibly be taken.
My Lords, I was born under the stars of Aquarius, my blood is Irish and I am not generally pessimistic; I am always optimistic. This afternoon, I have a fraction more optimism. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, I have that little bit more optimism this afternoon, even if the idea behind this Bill takes years to materialise. I understand that in a recent poll over 80 per cent. of the people, taking both Catholics and Protestants, were shown to be thinking now that integrated schools should come about. I do not say that they said that they will; they are thinking of it. I am trying to be careful, because every time I, the noble Lord or anyone else takes a step forward we might take four backwards. My Lords, 80 per cent. of the people are now thinking that integrated schools should come about, and as few as 13 per cent. of Protestants and Roman Catholics are against the idea. I am prepared to be corrected on these figures because, as we all know, percentages in Gallup polls move day by day. But it is interesting to note that there is a high percentage of people now thinking of trying to correct the problems of Northern Ireland through education and integrated schools.
There are, of course, barriers in the religious sector, and the Roman Catholics, especially those in the hierarchy, are bound to be suspicious, though one sometimes wonders why those in senior positions should be suspicious all the time. But I was interested to read that the Second Vatican Council had demanded—and I quote—that,
"parents should enjoy the freedom of their choice of school. Through it public authority will see to it that parents are genuinely free to follow their conscience".
It seems, if anything, a tragedy that there we have a message from the Vatican that they want this, and yet in Northern Ireland we find the Roman Catholic hierarchy still being a part of the stumbling block.

825
My Lords, these facts are a basis to go on and to continue arguing about; but while we have the Government now throwing their full weight into a new educational programme, which I shall come to in a moment; while we have the ACTM working along the lines of bringing about integrated schools; and while we have other private people, religious denominations or political Parties on the move, then I am sure that, slowly but surely, a further step is being taken. But I keep on emphasising, as did the noble Lord—and I listened to him carefully—that it is going to be very slow indeed.
My Lords, I turn now to the noble Lord's comments on the new comprehensive secondary modern educational programme, the abolition of the 11-plus and the forming of new Working Parties under the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University—and I personally hope that they have every success. I wonder how long they are going to be able to take; and one wonders how much, at the end of the day, is going to be the cost of producing the new comprehensive schools on which they are to report. There were some figures given, but they were only approximate and are not worth suggesting at this stage. I am bound to feel at this moment that it is a little early to comment on this new programme of comprehensive schools, but I am wondering how it will eventually take place. I look at the mixed family first. At the moment, the Roman Catholics are not allowing their children to be integrated into all mixed schools. I look at the Protestants. They are fairly happy with comprehensive schools, I should think. But as to the Roman Catholics, I wonder.
My fear is that we may well have to build two comprehensive schools unless we get at the root of the evil, which starts in the nursery schools, and educate the children early on in life in order that, once they get to comprehensive schools, they can mix. It seems to me a massive and delicate programme, and I hope that the working teams will be able to come up with the answer. It probably will take a long time and by then other ideas might well come forward. But, as the noble Lord has spoken, I will not ask him—since it is not his Bill but that of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—but I will cast a few ideas, So long as he keeps
826
smiling and working there must be an answer to some of it somewhere.
My Lords, I feel that I ought to finish now. I think I have said enough. The fact is that this Bill is a step forward. There could be larger steps taken later on: the parents on the management committees, the children being allowed eventually to integrate; but without force. No force! That is why I like this Bill. As the noble Lord said, if you once use the word "force" then up goes the balloon and nothing will get done. Suspicion will come into it.
Of course, there are other problems. There is the problem of housing: that if a school is in a Roman Catholic area it does not mean to say that Protestants are not going to use it. But, in theory, from these Benches—and I say "in theory"—and, I think, with a little practice, it can work. We from this side of the House support it. I feel it would be workable if the noble Lord did not press too hard with it; and I think the Government have set their sights on a Working Party to look into this. I think the thing to do is to tread carefully and let the Government work it out. I have nothing more to say about it. I congratulate the noble Lord. It is a step in the right direction and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his help.
6.42 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, on this Bill and to pay tribute from these Benches to those of his Party, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, who are working on this matter in conjunction with the All Children Together Movement. This Bill seeks not to compel, as has been said, but to facilitate integrated education in so far as a decided majority of parents wish it. The noble Lord also stated—and it is worth repeating, and the noble Viscount, Lord Long, supported this—that recent surveys in Northern Ireland have revealed that more than two-thirds of the parents would favour integrated education yet 98 per cent. segregation still exists. If these figures can be substantiated, as I believe they can, there are grounds for cautious optimism and, I submit, a need for early action.

827
Briefly, I will say why I believe such action to be essential. It is clear that many of the people in Northern Ireland are living in a situation of appalling stress. In wartime, there is a feeling of unity against a common enemy, a sense of camaraderie and a breaking down of barriers; in Northern Ireland today there is often hatred on the doorstep, division and agony in the streets. In the gheto areas one reads of the harrowing daily spectacle of files of youngsters, flanked by soldiers, going to and from school—the Catholics on one side of the street and the Protestants on the other.
The Protestant child and the Catholic child are taught to distrust each other even to hate. And these children have no opportunity to learn otherwise. What is more, my Lords, as Morris Fraser writes in his book Children in Conflict:
"It seems that a cut-off point exists after which age neither explanation nor real life contact with the feared group can modify the basic hostile stereotype".
If this view is accepted, as I believe it must be, then it makes it vital that the vicious line of bigotry and distrust passed from parent to child must be broken. No one can believe that it can be done overnight but that does not lessen the urgency to start. A directive passed to IRA members read:
"Youngsters and older children are ideal material for the work of planting bombs and rigging booby traps. They attract less attention and suspicion than adults, are more sensitive to rewards and ask no questions … British Army patrols can be lured into ambushes more easily when children, youngsters and women are the bait …".
My Lords, that was written a little time back, the Army have learned their lesson the hard way. An officer I know who has served in Belfast and Londonderry on a number of occasions tells me that he actually caught young children being taught how to riot by a member of the Provisional cadet force. Children of four and five are not too young to start. On one occasion, he was sworn at in the most vile language by a two-year old child who did not know what it was saying; but it was probably the first sentence it had been taught.
I am ashamed as a Christian to be reminded of the words used by a clergyman in a Protestant paper a little time back:
"With all the recent outrages…more bitterness and anti-Catholic feeling has been generated
828
than ever before…I thank the Provisional IRA. God will use it for good".
I will quote again from the book Children in Conflict. In his introduction the author, to whom I pay tribute as a man of understanding and compassion, uses these words:
"It isn't so easy to teach young people not only to bombard an army scout car with rocks, but also to jeer and stone the ambulance that carries away the body of the young driver. Yet it can be done…".
The appalling tragedy is that it not only can but still is being done four years after those words were written. I am sure that while we consider those children who become active participants in the struggle, we must not forget the large numbers of passive, involuntary spectators. One can find recorded all too many tragic cases.
My Lords, I am convinced that there will not be a real solution to the problems of Northern Ireland until children of different religious, ethnic and cultural groups are encouraged to go to school together. As has been said, I believe that "the common features in practice far outweigh those that are alien". It may be a slow process, particularly alas! in the ghetto areas where it is most necessary; but if children can learn to work and laugh together and to play the same games, then, I believe, the forces of evil will steadily lose power. The parents should be helped so far as possible, that is why we on these Benches support this Bill.
My Lords, I end by quoting the headline:
"Ulster at last gets green light to go comprehensive".
But the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has expressed no positive commitment to integrated schooling. I understand that he is not prepared to set up a Working Party on the issue. I am not convinced that the Government are facing this issue as it should be faced. I shall listen with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and subsequent speakers have to say.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. He quoted something from the paper about the statement last week on comprehensive reorganisation. It is true that at that stage that Statement did

829
not deal with the subject of integrated education. But I feel that what I have said at some length and with some considerable care to the House this afternoon amounted to a commitment to integrated education from the Government. It is true that that may not have been said last week, but it has, I hope, been said this afternoon.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I understand also that the noble Lord was not prepared to set up a Working Party on this issue. That was the point that I meant to make.
6.50 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, if I have stayed a little later than I usually do on a Thursday night, it is purely to support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in his continuing efforts to improve the situation in Northern Ireland. Tribute has rightly been paid to the great work which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is doing; and I should also like at the same time to pay tribute to the courage which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has always shown. The one bright spark from the local government elections was the increase in the power of the Alliance Party which all of us with any good sense must welcome.
This brings back many memories to me, and if people think I am in a nostalgic mood, I have always regarded it as my job and duty in your Lordships' House to try to educate your Lordships a little on the appalling problems, difficulties and extraordinary situations which arise in Northern Ireland. I just arrived at Stormont in time, very shortly after the war, to support the Government in the Education Bill, which was extremely controversial. If I remember rightly, at that time grants for voluntary schools in Britain stood at 50 per cent. and we were introducing a system where grants for voluntary schools would be brought in at 65 per cent. This led to tremendous extreme Protestant protest and eventually the Government got the Bill through, but only with the greatest difficulty. I made my maiden speech on the Committee stage, which was highly improper, but we got the Bill through.
Years later, I mentioned this in a little book that I produced. I received a furious letter from a Liberal Catholic in Ulster
830
saying: "You are one of the people who is responsible for separate education in Northern Ireland. If you had not given these large grants to the Catholic schools, they would not have been able to continue and we might have started on integrated education earlier.". I merely tell you this, my Lords, because this is an example of what happens in Northern Ireland.
May I move on to my next point. I was extremely gratified when I saw that Cardinal Hume had come out in favour of integrated education in Northern Ireland. May I tell another story of my own experiences to show how little effect I am afraid that will have. I remember that in one of my early speeches in Stormont I thought it my duty to try to strike a new note. I became slightly historical. I said, addressing the Nationalist Party opposite, that if only they could find some way to recognise the existence of Northern Ireland, then they would find themselves accepted and it would be far better for their community. I gave as an example the case of Lord Howard of Effingham, commanding the British Fleet at the time of the Armada, when he had to decide whether his loyalty was to his Church or Queen Elizabeth. He decided that his loyalty was to Queen Elizabeth. I was just working up to my peroration when a dear old Nationalist MP shouted from the other side of the House:
"Ah! sure, he was only a bloody Englishman, anyway".
That is why it is so difficult for British people to understand the situation. Sometimes my good Catholic friends in Britain feel that they themselves can help—and of course naturally they all try to help—but because they are not Irish they are not accepted, and this is something which it is very difficult for people to understand. While I welcomed Cardinal Hume's statement, I must tell your Lordships that fear it will have no effect whatsoever.
Now let us get on to opinion polls. How do opinion polls work in Northern Ireland? Usually, in my experience, the very opposite to the way they work in England. About two months before I was forced out of Office, in early 1969, an opinion poll was held by the Belfast Telegraph which showed that an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland of both religions wanted me to stay on and carry out my policies. Within

831
two months I was out, and another two months later the whole of Northern Ireland went up in smoke. The British Army became involved and have been involved ever since. That is only one of my experiences of opinion polls. What the Northern Ireland people do when they are polled is that they give what they think is a respectable answer, the kind of answer which would be appreciated by middle class moderates. It is not the true answer. What they really feel, they keep to themselves and use at election time. This is one of the tragedies of the situation.
A little time ago—I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Dunleath, saw it—there was a very good article in the Belfast Telegraph explaining the difficulties—I am speaking as a person in favour of integration—of bringing about integration. If you come to think about it, it is a difficult problem. The State schools which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, explained were originally Protestant schools and are regarded by Catholics today as Protestant schools, naturally are all in favour of Catholics coming to their schools.
I remember that one of the arguments put up in this article—I am sorry I do not have it with me tonight—was this: What happens after that? Are these Catholic children to be educated solely by Protestant schoolmasters? If Catholic schoolmasters are going to join these State schools, there will be endless arguments and rows as to which ones they should be, and so on. So while I am fully in support of integration, fully in support of this Bill, nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is fully entitled to point out some of the problems which will arise.
May I therefore end by suggesting to your Lordships that while obviously immediate integration is totally impossible, I regard this Bill as an enabling step towards the slow beginning of integration. For that reason, I commend it to your Lordships' House and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading. I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for introducing the Bill.
Lord STONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will
832
forgive me if I ask him one question, which is this. What would be the Catholic opinion, if perchance he was speaking on the Catholic cause in Northern Ireland at the moment, so far as the integration of education is concerned?
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I do not entirely follow the noble Lord.
Lord STONE: My Lords, what I am trying to say is that I should like to know the opinion of the Catholics so far as integration is concerned, as opposed to what I gather is that of the Protestants, who are the Establishment over there.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, the opinion poll showed that many Catholics are in favour of integration; but that does not mean to say that, if this were to be an issue at an election, the Catholics would vote for it. Unfortunately, fear is one of the dominant influences in Northern Ireland, and people do what they are told or what they feel they must do in case of the consequences. I can see already that I have failed tonight in trying to explain the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. It does not matter what views I hold, it is the views of the people that matter.
Lord STONE: My Lords, could that ever be overcome?
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: Not for a long time, my Lords.
6.59 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, in joining in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for introducing and moving a Second Reading for this Bill, I notice that I am the only ecclesiastic whose name appears on the list of speakers. I can also imagine that some Members of your Lordships' House might think: "A very good job too", on the grounds that whatever view one may take of the details of this particular problem, it is very closely identified with religious issues. Those religious issues, if not the prime cause of the troubles from which Northern Ireland people and Irish people in general are suffering, are one of the dominant elements in any understanding of that problem. I noticed with interest that

833
my noble friend Lord Melchett—and I do not accuse him of a Freudian error—used the phrase "different religions", as discriminating between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. That is a terrible indictment of those who perforce claim to believe in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; and if it is possible to say this, it is an alarming comment on the way in which religious animosity has almost eroded the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
I believe it is quite improper to regard the intransigence as entirely to be found on one side or the other. There is a convention in your Lordships' House that no one here should make an aspersion upon a Member of another place. That will shorten my speech, but it no way diminishes my enthusiasm for the proposition that any kind of totalitarian, ecclesiastical, hierarchical religion is not to be found only in one quarter, but that there are just as many intransigent representatives of a hateful kind of totalitarianism on the side of Protestantism as there are within the Roman Catholic camp. It is one of the most alarming and, I think, dispiriting of all the comments to which we have listened today that so many people, with a wealth of experience which I covet but do not possess, are convinced that it will be a very long time before this long and terrible period of misunderstanding, futility and violence is abated, let alone completely finished.
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, was entirely on the ball when he represented to your Lordships the fact that no scholar of under 16 has known anything in Northern Ireland but violence, hatred and suspicion, and that these particular differences have been set in focal order and are represented, sometimes falsely but always categorically, in terms of, on the one hand, Roman Catholicism, and, on the other hand, Protestantism. I do not believe that fundamentally many of these issues are ecclesiastical or religious, though I believe that they have been exacerbated by churchmen. They are very often a mask for economic and political issues, and they are hitched to a particular matter of ecclesiastical importance, as if that completely diagnoses their condition. I do not believe that it does.
What I do believe is that if there are to be any resolutions of these differences
834
among young people, they must enjoy the controversy in fellowship—because it is a controversy which is not to be overcome merely by dogmatic assertions on either side, or intentions of godliness or of goodness on either side. They will be finally overcome only when those who have settled opinions, or have been exposed to settled convictions, are able to test them out in fellowship with others, and in particular, with those who may radically disagree with them. Therefore, the principle of an integrated educational system is, I think, inseparable from the possibility of the rising generation improving upon the failures of its fathers and mothers and being able to discriminate between that which is ecclesiastically unimportant and that which is morally imperative.
I may say that I am under the strongest injunction from all quarters to speak very briefly, and I do so—but having one thing to say, let me make it, as I believe, a penultimate or an ultimate conviction rather than just a contribution to a debate. I do not believe that this problem of education will be soluble in terms of a new spirit among youth today in Northern Ireland unless it is radically associated with that primary concept of Christianity, which is not metaphysics but moral and ethical behaviour. If, within the integrated schools—and I recognise the difficulties and am well aware of the hesitations—there can be the beginning of that which is already evident, if not at the hierarchical level, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, among an increasing number of Roman Catholics and Protestants, that is, the acknowledgement that they are sick to death of this ecclesiastical rancour, which is the midwife with all kinds of animosity, hatred and bitterness, whether or not their hierarchical superiors tell them so, they will eagerly welcome what, after all, Mr. McIvor was able to introduce into the power-sharing Executive of 1974, namely, an agreement to set about this particular task of which the Bill speaks—an agreement to which the Members of the Executive, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, agreed and of which they were enthusiastically in support.
I believe that at the grass roots there is a possibility of reversing the processes of the past. Therefore, though I am quite sensible of the difficulties that face us, I am a little more optimistic than

835
some, because I have noticed that within the last few years there has been a measurable transition from the acceptance which was so general in past days. There is a new spirit of adventure, to which I hope this Bill will give added acceleration.
7.5 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that I can be as short and as succinct as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, but I come from the North of Ireland and feel that some of the remarks I have to make may be important, especially as some of them probably will contradict other remarks that have been made. Certain of the points which my noble friend Lord O'Neill mentioned are slightly out of date.
First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in bringing in this Bill. It was certainly time this was discussed in your Lordships' House. Also, before launching into matters concerning the Bill, I should like to welcome the statement by the Minister. I always find that I take a great deal of time to absorb these long Statements made from the Government Front Bench, but this one is clear to me. The noble Lord has made a very great step forward. But even if he had not done that, I should still like to pay personal tribute to him, because, by his energy, his patience and his frankness to ordinary people, he has really been a breath of fresh air to the people of Ulster. I have seen him working with groups of parents who have had problems. To those parents those problems were very important. To the noble Lord, with his huge Department, they may have been small, but he made them feel that to him they were important; and they left delighted after having spent time with him.
In the midst of violence, Governments quite often find that a proper course is not possible, because the violence makes the proper course undesirable in other ways. I believe that integrated education is one area where we can make progress. There is general agreement across the board: that is shown by opinion polls but, more than that, in my personal experience—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, has not had the experience that I have on that—parents are prepared to stand against intimidation of the worst
836
variety and still continue to send their children to mixed schools. So things are not as black as they have been painted in that way.
I can speak of the courage of parents who face these problems. I do not think anybody doubts that segregated education is a contributory factor to the problems of Northern Ireland. It is not the only factor, of course, and when I say that we may respect the Roman Catholic Church for its determination to preserve Roman Catholic Schools, I think we must remember that it is an enshrined part of our legislation that parental choice shall exist. That is supported by VaticanII. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, made the point that it does not lie only with one denomination. I would entirely agree with him about that; but still that is one area in which segregated education is a contributory factor and where there is one denomination which is not contributing at the moment towards its removal.
Even if it is right to have your own churches in one part of the world, surely, in the state of violence that Northern Ireland suffers at the present moment and considering the problems that exist and with the general agreement that segregated education is a contributory factor, some modification and some attention should be paid to public opinion. That would be a help. All my own children went to the local school in Brookeborough for some time. I would ask your Lordships to try to imagine what it is like for children who are walking up the street to their school while a stream of other children —Roman Catholics in this case—are going up the hill to the other school. Your Lordships can imagine what the language is like, because children of that age are extremely abusive and not slow in coming forward.
In July last year, the Government produced a consultative document which is known as the Cowan Report. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, widened the debate a little, and if I also do so I think that it will be in keeping with what he said, because we cannot isolate these matters. In many ways, this was an excellent report but, entirely due to its terms of reference, it did not deal with the problem which we are discussing tonight, which is the gradual voluntary integration of education. In Northern Ireland, plenty of people have said that

837
integration is a very sensitive subject, and I know as much about that as anybody. But the Cowan Report classified the schools into two completely different categories: first, denominational schools; and, secondly, Roman Catholic schools. The result was that it was made to look to the outside world—and I believe that some speakers today have made it look to this House—as if there is no integration of schooling in Northern Ireland. It looks as though all children are in totally opposed, irreconcilable camps, which is not so.
If the Cowan Report had been accepted and implemented, the rigid catchment areas which had been proposed would have made for totally segregated education. By not recognising the amount of integration that already exists, the Cowan Report upset a great many people who have been working for a very long time to maintain the integration that exists. What we are talking about is not only beginning integration, but maintaining integration that already exists over a large area of Northern Ireland. Belfast and Londonderry are not Northern Ireland. There is a vast area outside. Of course, the problems are centred there, and I do not deny that. But many of the so-called Protestant schools have very large intakes of Roman Catholics. To take but one, Methodist College has over 300 pupils who are Roman Catholics. The noble Lord, Lord Stone, asked about the introduction of Roman Catholics, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, said that he did not know what would happen if a Roman Catholic teacher was introduced. Quite honestly, my Lords, there are Roman Catholics in many Protestant-controlled schools, or State schools. Many State schools have Protestants. The Five Mile Town school, about which I shall speak later, has always had a high proportion of Roman Catholic teachers to pupils.
We ask for two things today: first, let us have some voluntary move towards integration; and, secondly, let us make sure that parental choice is exercisable and that no administrative device will be allowed to stand in its way, thereby making sure that the integration that exists today is not further eroded. Those are very important matters and, for my book, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has satisfied us on them. I think that at the end the noble Lord,
838
Lord Dunleath, might he advised to withdraw his Bill, because I believe that he will have made his point absolutely clear to Northern Ireland and to the rest of the world; the Government have accepted it and we shall see action at a later date.
I should just like to mention my own area. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows, County Fermanagh is the best part of the United Kingdom, not just of Northern Ireland. It is a country area, and I am not talking from experience of the cities where there are these interfaces, and where the situation is completely different. For over 100 years, education of the children has been at a mixed school, with teachers of mixed denominations. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I crossed out the word "religion", in order to make sure that I was right. This mixed education was further extended when the high school was built, as a result of the 1949 Act. In the neighbouring village of Lisnaskea, and throughout Fermanagh, the same thing was happening. At one time, the attendance at this high school, which is not a large one, was 160 Roman Catholics and just under 500 Protestants, which was roughly equivalent to the denominational practices of the area.
My community throughout the whole of these troubled years has been unaffected by sectarian violence from within itself. I do not like quoting too many figures, but I was interested in one survey which questioned children about their friendship with Roman Catholics, and asked whether Roman Catholics counted Protestants as their friends. The 28 per cent. who could not count other denominations among their friends were more inclined to accept violence as reasonable. What greater reason can one have for saying that there should be integration? I have asked as many questions as possible in my own area, and I can find no case where people educated in integrated schools have been convicted of crimes of violence.
In the last few years, we have seen a Roman Catholic comprehensive school being built 17 miles away, with a Roman Catholic primary school 200 yards from the gate of that high school. The attendance of Roman Catholic children at the high school has now dropped to 60. It is interesting that the head boy—this is quite coincidental, and has nothing to do with this debate—is a Roman Catholic, and it is

839
purely because he has the ability that he is there. This high school, or State comprehensive school, is first-class academically. Its past teachers have been very far-sighted and its present staff are brilliantly led by John Burrel, to whom I certainly owe a great deal.
I hear daily, from the lips of churchmen, pleas that we must all come together and be reconciled. If we do not come together as children, whenever can we come together? What a tragedy it would be for my own community if, for administrative or other reasons, the integration which exists at present were broken up. The noble Lord has covered the two points which I consider this debate has raised; but I should like to see whether or not he nods his head on this point. When the Roman Catholic pupils finish at the primary school, which is 200 yards from the gate of the high school, will they now be able to go to the high school if the parents exercise their parental choice, or will they have to bus 17 miles? That is a test which his Ministry will have to face.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, rather than nodding, may I put it on the record and say that I certainly do not see any reason at all why, if the parents so choose, and the high school is able to take the pupils, they should not go there. As the noble Lord knows, if there is a need for transport to be paid for by the State, that will now be available under the amended school transport arrangements.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that absolutely clear statement. I can only repeat to the House that the noble Lord has already done an enormous amount for the cause of integration in Northern Ireland. I want to come to a slightly sour note now, because the problems of the opposition of the heirarchy, about which the noble Lord has spoken, were highlighted the other day by Bishop Philbin, who said that he would not confirm children in one school because they were attending a State school. The reason was not put quite like that, but the implication was that by attending a State school they had not reached a high enough religious standard. But he did not examine them
840
to see whether they had done so. This seems to me most inexcusable, because the first precept of Christianity is that children should obey their parents—at least, I keep on telling my children that. If they have obeyed their parents and gone to a State school, how can he punish them, because confirmation ought to be something that they value. I say this because I do not think that people realise what a quite extraordinary state of affairs we sometimes encounter when we meet really educated people and people who have this authority in the community.
May I end by once more paying a tribute to the Minister for his Statement on 15th July. This Statement altered the emphasis in the Cowan Report. This was a masterpiece which has broken away from the rigidity which was set by the 1976 document and pays a very warm tribute indeed to the achievements of the past. If this approach is continued, I believe that it should enable the best features of our grammar schools still to be retained in the State system. I can assure the Minister that my friends and I will remind him continually of the need to press forward on these lines, and also to push forward with integration so that we in Ulster can have the best education system in the world. Before I sit down, I should like to repeat that the noble Lord has gone such a long way towards meeting the situation that I believe the Bill should be withdrawn.
7.21 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I am sure we can all draw a great deal of encouragement from what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough has just said about what might otherwise appear to be a rather gloomy situation. May I make clear the standpoint from which I approach the debate. I speak as a Christian who was born and brought up in the Catholic community in England. However, all my school years were spent in what will be called Protestant schools, and I think that I derived at least some benefit from that. My eldest son goes to a Protestant preparatory school, while my younger son goes to a Church of England voluntary-aided primary school where I also have the privilege of serving as a manager. I fully take the warning that was given by my noble friend Lord O'Neill

841
of the Maine, that this does not make one acceptable in Ireland. One has to put up with that fact and do whatever one can.
May I go on to welcome the Bill and all that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has said, particularly concerning parental choice and the importance of consulting and involving parents. I so much agree with him that a start has to be made somewhere and that perhaps direct rule provides certain opportunities. Also I very much welcome the noble Lord's statement, that in future there should be no dilution or sacrifice of religious education. The noble Lord indicated that instruction in denominational points could and should continue in shared schools, and this is something which we should all welcome. He asked for full-blooded religious education, which is also important and ties in with much of what was said during the recent debate on religious education in England. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for drawing from the Government such a major statement as we have heard today.
I should like to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the training of teachers will be very important. Many people will agree that teachers in training— and, indeed, later on during in-service training—should be prepared for their future roles in mixed and shared schools. In passing, perhaps one might also observe that there is a role to be played in education by those who are rather loosely known as the peace people, for they have made an impression and captured the imagination of many. I feel that they could help forward the work of integration.
I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Long use a very well-chosen quotation from the Second Vatican Council and emphasise again parents' freedom of choice. I agree with him. I feel that the fundamental influence is likely to be that of the home and the example set by parents and the family. Some parents in the Northern Irish situation may even see it as their duty to send their children to shared schools as their own personal contribution towards helping to heal ancient and longstanding communal wounds.
At this point may I appeal to the authorities within the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland to try to help such parents to ground their children in their own faith so that they can take a construc-
842
tive part in a shared or mixed school without in any way abandoning their principles. With that, may I wish the very greatest success to this Bill.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I take part in this debate with considerable hesitancy, not only because I know that there is another quite long debate to follow—and I will therefore be brief—but also because there seems to be something slightly indecent in a comfortable Anglican in the South of England suggesting how religious education should develop in the fraught atmosphere of Northern Ireland. However, the courage of Lord Dunleath and the importance of the subject make me overcome the reluctance I feel about entering into this field.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had to say. I can well understand that he could not go further than he did this evening, although I wish he could have said that he is able to give the Bill his wholehearted backing. I can understand, too, that he feels he has to adopt a very even-handed approach. I wonder, however, whether he could show slightly more bias, because I believe that he really does feel a very strong bias. The noble Lord said that the Government would not be prepared to enforce—and of course they could not enforce—integration; neither, he went on to say, would the Government stand in its way. Could not the Government be a little more positive than refusing to stand in its way? Could not the Government say that they would put their weight behind all voluntary effort to move in this direction?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, at one point in the speech that I made I said that the Government's policy was not to stand in the way, and I went on to say what I thought that meant in terms of administrative and legislative practice. However, at the beginning of my speech I said:
"The Government's policy is therefore to encourage integrated education where there is a local wish for it."
I hope that this is the kind of positive statement that the noble Baroness is after.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I was hoping—and I think I have been successful—to give the Minister the opportunity to modify the remark that the Government

843
would not stand in its way, which, taken out of context, surely would be seen as a more negative approach than I believe the Minister meant to indicate. While one is not speaking in the hope of getting the Government to agree to give their support to the Bill, I believe it is very important indeed that it should have a successful Second Reading in this House, for three reasons. The first is the obvious intrinsic merit of shared education. I am not going to speak on the subject; other people have made the point that, in the long run, surely it can only be through shared education that the bitter, deep-rooted problems of Northern Ireland will be overcome. None of us believes that anything which can be done immediately can have an immediate effect.
There are two other reasons. One is the importance of publicity for the idea of shared schools. I speak as a representative of the widespread ignorance on this question which dominates so many people on this side of the Irish Sea. I believe that very few people would recognise that there is even the possibility of a development of shared education, which would be thought of as Utopia. Yet it is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has told us, already a reality, even in Northern Ireland. If people could see this as something which is already going on, as a hopeful possibility towards which they can work, and work in confidence that they are not just whistling in the wind but are working for something which really can be brought about because it is already happening, and if publicity can be given to this, that by itself will have made it worth while to have held this debate, as also would publicity for the fact that although no doubt the attitude of part of the Roman hierarchy is a real obstacle, not all the Roman hierarchy everywhere takes this line. Only this morning an Irish Roman Catholic said to me: "We envy the fact that in Redhill in Surrey"—and of course I recognise that Redhill in Surrey is light aeons away from Ulster—" with the approval of the Roman hierarchy a shared education is going on". It has happened, and if there are some members of the hierarchy who can accept it, then surely we can he hopeful that the time will come when greatly increased numbers, if not all, of the hierarchy can accept it.
844
Next, publicity for the idea. It is good to see members of the Press in the Press Gallery tonight. Is it too much to hope that the Press which, understandably and probably rightly, gives so much space to violence in Ireland, will give space to this very hopeful development that in the House tonight, led by a leader of the Alliance Party, supported by both Catholic and Protestant speakers, the idea of shared schools has been given so much solid support?
Then, publicity and also support for the courageous people in both Protestant and Catholic communities who are taking the risk of going ahead with the idea of shared schools. It is a risk; it must be very difficult indeed for people who have been brought up in the Catholic faith, who have been disciplined by Catholic ideas of teaching, to risk sending their children to schools against the wishes of the hierarchy. That in some cases is true. Seeing their children refused confirmation and refused communion, which means a very great deal to people who have been brought up as good practising Catholics from their earliest days. So give support to them, that they may know that other people believe that this is the right and courageous thing to do and that we admire them greatly for it.
7.33 p.m.
The DUKE of NORFOLK: My Lords, I do not want to speak for long at the end of this debate, but I should like to add all my support to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for having moved the Second Reading of this Bill. The point of the Bill is to try to restore more peace to Northern Ireland by means of integrating education, and the noble Lord and several other speakers tonight have noted that maybe some of the hierarchy in Ireland regard this as a dangerous thing to happen because it might detract from the religious content of their education. I should like to assure your Lordships that there are other Catholic hierarchies in the world who have moved to integration. Take the hierarchy in Switzerland, where they have 26 cantons: the education system is entirely integrated in some cantons although it may be denominational in others and it works perfectly well.
The hierarchies of that noble and great country, Poland, have intensely integrated

845
education. In the Polish Catholic schools there are other denominations of Christianity, and I need hardly say that in other parts of the European nations there are integrated schools. I understand that an encouraging feature is that Mr. Lynch is not against the integration of schools and I think that might be of considerable importance. I made inquiries about this the other night and was assured that this was so.
Finally, I want to try to be optimistic and encouraging about the outcome of this debate. I think it has revealed an immense (shall we say?) groundswell of opinion in favour of trying to helpNorthern Ireland to attain peace, and after all, my Lords, Northern Ireland is similar to Lancashire in its religious divisions. In Northern Ireland there are one-third Catholics and two-thirds Protestants and the ratio is the same in Lancashire. In Lancashire—and I know this because I came hack from there only the other day, and I go there frequently—the integrated and the denominational going side by side produce the most successful Catholic education, and I do not believe that the Catholics of Lancashire are any less fervent in their religion after being educated beside Protestants, and in the atmosphere of our country than the Catholics of Northern Ireland need be if they attended integrated schools.
7.37 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate for their very constructive, interesting and well-informed contributions. The hour is late, so I hope they will forgive me if I do not refer to all the points that were made in their speeches. Indeed, perhaps I might be forgiven if I were to pick up just one or two points made in the significant speech of my noble friend Lord Melchett. I should like to thank him for the fullness of his response to my opening speech and, incidentally, I should like to take this opportunity of endorsing the tributes that were paid to him this evening. I can endorse them from my own personal experience at home in Northern Ireland.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and other noble Lords recognise some of the difficulties, and indeed it would be foolish and short-sighted not to recognise
846
them. But it is one thing to recognise difficulties and another to put something into the "too difficult" file. We must see how those difficulties, such as they are, can be circumvented. For instance, the point was made that where integrated education is most needed, where it can perhaps do the most good, where community relations are most in need of reconciliation, it would be least likely to work and there would be least likely for there to be a will for it—some of the ghetto areas, so to speak. I accept that, but equally there are just as many cases where it could work and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, it does work. I would go so far as to say that it does work, despite the fact—and I say this with respect—that in my view the existing management laws are not a help towards integration, and indeed in certain cases can be a barrier.
I would further say that there are schools which tomorrow would opt for controlled integrated status if this enabling measure were law. There are schools where it could start working tomorrow, and I can foresee it spreading out from there. So let us not take a hopeless look at this just because there are some areas where quite clearly it would not work at this stage.
My Lords, the point was also made that it might never be possible to get a controlled integrated school off the ground because the Roman Catholic hierarchy might not be prepared to nominate a member or members to the management committee. Careful study of the Bill—and I know it is a difficult one to read—does indicate that the Bill allows for the school to go ahead even if that nomination is not made. So that is another difficulty that could be got round.
I will not continue and speak on the other interesting points that were made, but rather I would sum up by saying that I would like to make it absolutely clear that I fully accept that Her Majesty's Government are in principle in favour of integrated education in Northern Ireland. But without casting any aspersion whatever on the membership of the Working Party or committee—I cannot remember what the title is—that the noble Lord announced this afternoon to look into school management, I. would say that the terms of reference of it are so much

847
wider than the specific topic that we have been talking about this afternoon that I would doubt that it would be possible to hope for either expeditious or meaningful results from that Working Party. Therefore, I am afraid it will make my noble friend sigh deeply, but I cannot bring myself to withdraw. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
7.42 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Close Seasons.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, after ("order") insert ("either generally or in relation to any area specified in the order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This Amendment is a very simple one. It would give the power to the Minister to alter close seasons, if it ever became necessary, region by region or area by area. This is just a power the Minister would possess in case he ever needed it. I am sure the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after ("species") insert ("and description").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. These are entirely drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 4 goes with the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 62 on the Marshalled List, which is simply a replacement for the words in Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("for") to end of line 16 and insert ("deer of that species and description").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Unlawful weapons, etc.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 34 to 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 13 and is again drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and done").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is purely drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Prohibition of poaching, etc.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 12, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 18 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and, with permission, the Amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. If we could take these together, they amount to a redrafting of Clause 4 on the lines which I think appeal to those noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill. The drafting, I acknowledge completely, has been done with the help of the Home Office, who, I understand, although not happy with the principle of the clause, are now satisfied with the wording of it with these Amendments. If I may repeat it, I accept the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("person") to end of line 17 and insert ("enters on any land without lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("(2) Subject to section 18 of this Act, if any person while on any land without lawful authority—

(a) takes or wilfully kills or injures any deer; or

(b) searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as being on any land without lawful authority at any time if, at that time,—

(a) he believes that the person or persons whom he believes to be entitled to consent to his being there have so consented, or would so consent, if he or they knew of his being there; or

(b) he is in constant pursuit of an injured or wounded deer and such injury or wound was inflicted on land where the pursuer was lawfully entitled to take deer.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 12 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 11:
Leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as entering or being on any land without lawful authority at any time, if at that time,—

(a) he believes that the person or persons entitled to consent to his entry or his being there have so consented, or would so consent if he or they knew of it; or

(b) he is searching for or pursuing an injured deer which was injured on land on which he has the right to take or kill deer.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend has already intimated that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 12. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 11, as amended, shall be agreed to?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, hesitate to interrupt this headlong rush, but I am going to do so for two minutes. It is for this reason. This Bill is now getting to its penultimate stage in your Lordships' House; in fact has got there. I must confess that I regard these Amendments to Clause 4 with a great deal of satisfaction. It may be a suitable moment to say this. There was a great deal of
850
anxiety expressed over various parts of this Bill at various times, as anybody who reads the Official Report will confirm. I myself was particularly concerned with two clauses, of which Clause No. 4 was one, because I thought that particularly subsection (3) made, not to put too fine a point on it, legal nonsense. I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who has persisted indefatigably to get agreement from all sides on his Bill and in particular this clause. It would he wrong for the clause to pass into history without some reference to and acknowledgment of his powers of advocacy, powers of persuasion and powers of compromise. This is an Amendment which I think will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I must say this to the noble Earl: I was almost discourteous, because I should have said at the very beginning that he himself played a very great part in helping to redraft this clause.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Taking etc., of live deer
. Subject to sections 18 and 19 of this Act, if any person—

(a) takes any live deer; or

(b) marks, or attaches any tag, ring, collar or device to, any live deer,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. It is linked with Amendment No. 5. It is replacing lines 34 to 38 on page 2 by a totally new clause, and does not alter the sense of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Offender may be required to quit land]:
7.50 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 19:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("person") to ("suspected") in line 27 and insert ("is found committing or is with reasonable cause")
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("under") to ("to") in line 29 and insert ("the preceding

851
provisions of this Act on any land, it shall be lawful for any constable or authorised person")
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("such") and insert ("the")
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("and, if that person on being") and insert ("(1A) If any person who is")
Page 3, line 35, after ("person") insert ("in relation to any land")
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("on which the action authorised is taken")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to move these Amendments en bloc. These are all drafting Amendments and do not alter the sense of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Penalties under Part I]:
Lord NORTH FIELD Lord NORTH FIELD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("excluding") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Sale, etc., of venison]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 33:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
("(1A) If any person sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale, or purchases or offers to purchase or receives, any venison which comes from a deer—

(a) which has been taken in circumstances which constitute an offence under Part I of this Act; and

(b) which he knows or has reason to believe to have been so taken,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.")
Clause 9, page 4, line 26, after ("sale") insert ("or has in his possession for sale any")
Clause 9, page 4, line 27, leave out ("wherein shall be entered") and insert ("containing")
Clause 9, page 4, line 28, leave out ("all")
Clause 9, page 4, line 30, leave out ("such book forthwith full particulars of") and insert ("that book forthwith all")
Clause 9, page 4, line 38, leave out ("the") and insert ("his'record").
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
("(4) Any authorised officer, on producing, if so required, his written authority, and any constable may inspect—

(a) the record book of a licensed game dealer;

(b) any venison in the licensed game dealer's possession or under his control, or on premises or in vehicles under his control; and

(c) any invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents which relate to entries in the record book (including copies where the originals are not available);

and may take copies of, or extracts from, the record book and any such documents.
(5) A record book shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the last entry was made in the book, and any such documents as are mentioned in subsection (4) of this section shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the entry to which they relate.
(6) If any licensed game dealer without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) If any person wilfully obstructs any authorised officer or constable making an inspection under this section, or knowingly or recklessly makes or causes to be made in a record book any entry which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
(9) In this section—
"authorised officer" means any officer of the council of a district or London borough, or of the Common Council of the City of London, who is authorised by them in writing to exercise the powers of this section;
"record book" means a book kept in pursuance of subsection (1) above.").
Leave out Clause 10.
Leave out Clause 11.
Leave out Clause 12.
Leave out Clause 13.
Clause 14, page 6, leave out lines 2 to 5.
Clause 14, page 6, line 8, leave out ("the servant of") and insert ("a servant of any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 33 inclusive. Perhaps I may pause to allow noble Lords to take in the full impact of that. It means that we shall be taking all the Amendments on pages 4 and 5 of the

853
Marshalled List together. These Amendments are suggested by the Government as a means of bringing together in one clause what had been in several clauses in the original draft, and at the same time making a few drafting Amendments. I can again say that they do not alter the sense of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will take them extremely briefly. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Powers of search, arrest and seizure]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 35, after ("seize") insert ("and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to bring the text of Clause 15(1)(d) into line with that of paragraphs (e) and (f) by the inclusion of tile words:
"… and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act",
which were omitted. In view of the presence of these words in the two following paragraphs, their absence from paragraph (d) might throw doubt on whether any such powers to detain a deer exist. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.53 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 39, after ("(b)") insert ("or (bb)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which is consequential on splitting Clause 16(1)(b) into two parts, and the Amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Forfeitures and disqualificalions]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("or of any dog used (by the person convicted)") and insert—
("( ) order the forfeiture of any dog used (by him)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, but it has a slight misprint. In between the brackets at the beginning of the Amendment the two letters "(bb)" should be inserted so that the Amendment would then refer to Amendment No. 35 just moved by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 37:
Before Clause 18, leave out lines 6 and 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to delete the words:
"Part IV Miscellaneous and General".
It will pave the way for the retitling of the various parts of the Bill made necessary by the transposition of clauses and other alterations. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [General exceptions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 9, leave out from ("under") to ("protecting") in line 24 and insert ("any of the provisions of sections 1 to 4 and (Taking etc. of live deer) of this Act by reason of any act done for the purpose of—

(a) preventing suffering by any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived of its mother; or

(b) preventing suffering by any deer which appeared to be so seriously injured or in such a condition that to kill it was, or would have been, an act of mercy; or

(c)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have not been able to have a word with my noble friend Lord Northfield, but I know that he has some reservations about this particular Amendment. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I propose not to move this Amendment in the hope that we can have some discussion before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert ("and nothing in sections 1 to 4 and (Taking etc. of live deer) shall

855
make unlawful anything done by virtue of any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly, by or under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Rabies Act 1974 or sections 9 or 10 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in fact a substitute for Amendment No. 45 which my noble friend has not moved. It is to meet a legitimate point raised by the Government about the need for powers under the Diseases of Animals Act and other matters as they are specified. I beg to move.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is to Amendment No. 45 which has not been moved.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I must beg noble Lords' pardon. I apologise most sincerely and I should have pointed out at the beginning that that again was due to a printing error. Those words should not have appeared on the Marshalled List.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("the deer was causing, or had caused, serious") and insert ("deer were causing, or had caused").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49 and 51. These Amendments are designed to narrow the restrictions imposed on farmers who need to take advantage of the exemptions provided in the Bill for shooting deer in the close season or at night in defence of their crops.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he has said that he is speaking to Amendment No. 51, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 50. I thought it was agreed through the usual channels that we should not, in fact, tackle Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 this evening because we have only a short time left and these are rather controversial Amendments. Is that not right?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled. Is the noble Lord
856
suggesting that this should be the point at which I should move the adjournment of the debate?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, yes.
Lord NORTHFIELD: If it is for the convenience of the House, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE CUTS
8 p.m.
Earl CATHCART Earl CATHCART rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what reductions are to he made to our Reserve Forces and stockpiles of key stores as a result of the recent series of cuts in Defence expenditure and to what extent these cuts will reduce our ability to transport essentials to BAOR quickly and in time. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. When we debated the Statement on Defence for 1977 in your Lordships' House on 12th May, I asked for an assurance that the defence cuts, then announced, would not adversely affect the size or equipment of our Reserves nor inhibit our ability to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine effectively and in time.
My Lords, I find that I am not addressing any Member of the Government at the moment. I wonder whether perhaps we should wait until they return. Would that be in order? Is the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, coming?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, a search party is now looking for the noble Lord. There was an impression that the other debate we have now suspended would have gone on until 8.15 p.m. Apparently there is a misunderstanding.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it be in order if we adjourned during pleasure until the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is available?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord has arrived. The situation is now saved.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, perhaps I should start again. I should like to repeat one sentence. When we debated the Statement on Defence for 1977 in your Lordships' House on 12th May, I asked for an assurance that the defence cuts, then announced, would not adversely affect the size or equipment of our Reserves nor inhibit our ability to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine effectively and in time. For reasons which are well understood, the noble Lord who replied to that debate on that occasion was unable to answer my questions. But the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, acknowledged that it was an important matter and encouraged me to raise it again in the manner in which I am now doing.
I shall not repeat my speech of 12th May, except to remind your Lordships that I stressed then the essential part that our Reserves must play in our strategy from the very outset of hostilities, and even before that. I also stressed that these hostilities, if tragically they are ever to occur, are likely to occur swiftly and suddenly and without a long period of rising tension. We had been told that these cuts have not been made to the teeth arms, and therefore my anxiety is that we must assume that economies will have to he made to our reinforcement capability and our logistic units, many of which are part of our volunteer Army. If economies are made in training time, or training ammunition for these Reserves, or if slippage occurs in the rate with which they are issued with the most modern battle equipment, we cannot expect them to be fully operational to complete the British Army of the Rhine to war establishment and to take their place with field force units immediately on mobilisation.
Equally, if proper reserve stocks of essential stores and equipment are not pre-positioned to the correct scale and in the correct locations in peacetime, the fighting capability of the 1st British Corps will be badly impaired and the task of moving those stores on mobilisation will be extremely difficult. I hope that in order to economise in the expenditure of foreign currency, these British reserve stockpiles are not being run down on the continent in the central region of Europe and set up again instead in this country.
858
The other matter that I dealt with at length on 12th May was the very difficult problems that this country would face next time during the period of mobilisation; more difficult than any previous experience this country has had, since mobilisation next time will not be carried out at the leisurely pace we experienced in the last two wars. With this in mind, I asked whether Her Majesty's Government would undertake to consider the speeding up of their modernisation programme for the military port at Marchwood.
Before I sit down, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who will be speaking in this small but important debate, especially in view of the lateness of the hour. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in anticipation of his reply, and also for the good natured and patient way that he always listens to us on these subjects. Finally, I should like to say how much I am looking forward to the speech of my noble friend Lord Avon, not only because it will be his maiden speech, but because, as happens so frequently in your Lordships' House, he will bring experience in the matter on which he will be speaking. He commanded a volunteer battalion of a very distinguished regiment with a most important operational role on mobilisation, and on giving up that command he was promoted to colonel; and in the appointment of volunteer colonel he was responsible for advising his superior officers on all Volunteer Reserve matters. I know that we all look forward to his speech with very great interest.
8.6 p.m.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for those kind remarks, and indeed for raising the subject of our Army Reserves in relation to their BAOR commitment. I believe that any more cuts in expenditure on the Reserves at this moment could seriously harm their efficiency, credibility and even their morale. At this point I believe that I should declare an interest. I am currently a vice-chairman of a Greater London TAVR Association.
I should like to put forward this evening four major reasons why this is not a good moment to cut the Reserves in any way; indeed, why it is a time when thought

859
should be given to expansion rather than to curtailment. First, there is the increased importance that this Government themselves have given to the TAVR by making many units of the TAVR on mobilisation an integral part of the Army in BAOR. Having given them this task, the TAVR should have been equipped and established to work alongside regular battalions. This has not yet been completed. There is, for instance, a general shortage of radios and FFR vehicles; infantry battalions are equipped with Wombat and not even with Mobat; they have a smaller allocation of Carl Gustavs, and thereby a lower anti-tank capability. Some of their equipment is old: the expression "beyond economical repair" is not unknown in the TAVR. The TAVR is proud of its role in BAOR, but to carry it out, and thereby fulfil this country's commitment to NATO, the TAVR units need more equipment, not less.
Last September I was able to witness in Germany part of the preparation for an exercise in which regular and volunteer troops worked together. It was carried out by an airportable brigade. But the participation of the TAVR in the infantry units was seven companies, which amounted to 842 men out of an infantry total of 2,100; just over a third. The Reserves also provided over 1,000 personnel in the Logistic Support Group, making the total TAVR share of just under 2,000 in a grand total of 5,500—again just over a third. That such an exercise can happen is proof of the viability of the TAVR; but the value of their performance would be considerably enhanced if their equipment and establishment more closely resembled that of their regular counterpart.
My second reason is that the TAVR remains our only reserve against the unknown. It stands at 60,000 strong—a ludicrously small number. Sixty thousand is the highest figure that it has been for some time. Is this not the moment to increase it? In fact to invest in success, rather than to make cuts? Much in this country is in disarray at the moment; it would be a gross pity to jeopardise this excellent investment. May I remind your Lordships that the TAVR was conceived under a Socialist Administration. It was ten years ago that the
860
Government set the liability bounty at a maximum of £60 per annum. It has never been increased. No account has been taken of the fall in the value of the pound or of rising prices. Should not some increase now be given to them, rather than wait for them to come and beg for it? It would ease recruiting problems. It would take no mathematician to work out that the cost would be minuscule. Many members of the Reserve are out of pocket and, to give one example, their petrol allowance is 4·9p per mile compared with your Lordships' 12p.
My third reason is the shopwindow that the TAVR provides for the Armed Services. The presence of the Reserves and their drill halls up and down the country are part of this country's way of life. Throughout the United Kingdom they are taken for granted, like the local town hall or police station. It is essential to maintain their outward and inward condition, otherwise it will lower the standing of the soldiery in the eyes of the general public. Of course economies are necessary, but the postponement of painting and refurbishing is just bad housekeeping; as we all know, the putting off of a decision nearly always leads to more painful answers later. Cuts in this direction must surely end; the alternatives will be difficulties in recruiting, bad morale and lowering standards.
My last reason for an expansion rather than a retraction is on a more general note, and I should like to include the Army Cadet Force in this plea. There are over 200,000 people in the tri-Services cadet forces and Reserves. When discussions take place on the permissiveness of youth or the selfishness of the new society and we worry about future standards, many of us are frustrated that there seems little positive that we can do about it. I believe that in this body of boys, young men and women we have available just such a positive opportunity. Here are organisations that train citizens to be responsible, to help others, to be a member of a team and to understand that service to Queen and country is a healthy and worthwhile idea. Could not Ministers persuade the Treasury that this is an occasion to invest in the youth of tomorrow? Incidentally, this group of 200,000 also provides many good recruits for the Regular Armed Services.

861
The direct expenditure on the Reserves is such a tiny portion of the total defence expenditure that it makes this force the best possible investment. I hope the Government will continue to support these loyal citizens, will encourage them by positive means, and not cuts, and will ensure that more, not less, of the defence budget is spent on the Reserves. I can assure the Government that some cuts are already having an adverse effect on morale. I trust that the Ministers responsible are aware of this and that they will commit themselves to the maintenance of the TAVR at its present good level and will reject any further cuts in this direction. I conclude by quoting from the Defence Estimates published earlier this year. Paragraph 126 says:
"States that wish to preserve peace have never achieved that aim by neglecting their own security".
I recommend that maxim to the Government, particularly in relation to the Reserves and their role in BAOR.
8.13 p.m.
Lord WESTBURY: My Lords, I wish at the outset to congratulate my noble friend Lord Avon on his interesting and well-informed speech, and I am sure it will add a great deal to our defence debates to have somebody with first-hand knowledge of these matters. I also thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for introducing this Unstarred Question and I agree with all that he so wisely said, which, luckily for the House, cuts down enormously the speech I had intended to make. I must say that I am shocked by the lack of interest being shown on the Government Benches for a Question of this paramount importance at this time.
I suggest that there are two main factors: Do we have the time or capability to back up our forces in BAOR if war breaks out? First, the question of time. I reckon that, if attacked, our aggressors would be at the Channel ports in one week. How on earth could we get our Reserves from the United Kingdom and Ulster to BAOR in less than one week? It is not possible. Secondly, our capability. We do not have the reserves of equipment in the United Kingdom, or large enough stockpiles in BAOR to make it possible for our forces to stand fast in Europe. Her Majesty's Government must realise that by the continuous
862
cutting down of our reserves they are making it impossible for our troops in BAOR to withstand an onslaught from the East.
8.15 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I too wish to start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on his maiden speech and I hope we will hear him often again on this subject, on which he is so well-informed. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for raising this Question again—it is not the first time he has raised it—and at the same time I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for encouraging him to ask the Question; obviously he did not know the answer on the last occasion and wanted to dodge it in that way.
When I first came to your Lordships' House I happened to be the Territorial Army ADC to the Queen and the noble Earl was then commanding a TA brigade. He was in those days still living in Devonshire and many a time and oft—not in the Rialto but anyway in the depths of darkest Devon—did we discuss the frightful proposals which were then in the air and which preceded the Healey massacre. Going back to those days, and particularly on the subject of the Reserves, it is well to point out to the Government that the strongest critics of their policy for reducing our Reserves were the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in this House and Mr. Crawshaw, another member of the Labour Party, in the other House. However, as so often happens, the sensible Members of the Government did not have their way.
The Reserves in this country in the modern concept really sprung into life about 140 years ago when our Regular Forces were all overseas. The Duke of Wellington, then in his 80s, issued a warning to the House about the danger to the country from all our Regular Forces being overseas. That was followed up by a well known admiral of the time who pointed out that we had only 50 artillery pieces in the whole of the United Kingdom, with not one fixed gun on coastal defences between Land's End and Portsmouth. From that time, the volunteer movement started and it was a movement which came from the people; the first volunteer battalion of that era was raised by a doctor, at his own or other people's

863
expense, in Exeter, and the descendant of that battalion I had the honour to command many years later.
Then in the Boer War the volunteers produced the Imperial Yeomanry and volunteer companies served with the Regular battalions. In the Great War the first thing that happened was that the TA battalions replaced the battalions in India and elsewhere so that they could come back to reinforce the troops in Germany, and later all the Service battalions were built up from that. In those days, when Aden was defended by an Indian brigade, it had one English battalion. When one of these TA battalions went out, the English battalion always had a detachment on Kamaran Island, so that when the battalion arrived out there off went this company to Kamaran Island. They were not used to overseas service in those days and on one occasion, about a week after they had gone out there, a message came to battalion headquarters saying, "We have one case of beri-beri". A reply went back from headquarters not long afterwards saying, "Give it to the sergeants' mess. They'll drink anything".
In the last war, the TA produced, inter alia, nine full infantry battalions. What are we reduced to now? The TAVR II which, as your Lordships have heard, is committed to reinforcing Germany, and the TAVR III which is, I suppose, the only thing we have in the way of home defence. I happen to be the honorary colonel of a TAVR III yeomanry unit and all one can say is that this is completely, utterly and entirely inadequate. I went to Sennybridges in Wales only a few weeks ago to visit them in camp and there was this one yeomanry unit in that camp which, the last time I went there when I was a deputy brigade commander, had a complete brigade group plus divisional headquarters. To see what the country is letting itself in for by not having adequate Reserves is absolutely appalling.
We have heard so much about the increase of the Russian navy and about what we have in the Reserves being committed in Europe. There will have to be more because the forward theory of defence which I believe will have to take over in NATO will mean that we in
864
this country shall be back at the state we were in 140 years ago. The TAVR II will be in Europe. All our Regular Forces will be there. What will be left here in case this very superior potential enemy force should try to land?
There is a crying need for more and more Reserves. Earlier this afternoon I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and I feel that I cannot do better than quote him. He said, "If I were Minister of Defence, I would double the largest number of Reserves we have ever had, pay them the highest bounties, give them the best equipment. Then the country need never fear an attack." My Lords, that would be the cheapest way of defending the country anyway.
8.23 p.m.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, when I spoke in the defence debate, I mentioned the scarcity of noble Lords with any recent experience of defence problems, so I should like now to say how glad I was to see from the Birthday Honours that that deficiency was about to be remedied. Equally good is the appearance of my noble friend Lord Avon, who brings such great knowledge and recent experience of the Reserve and cadet forces to this House. It is a delight to one Greenjacket to say how pleased he is to see another make his maiden speech, and only the lateness of the hour and great self-restraint prevent me from expanding on what my noble friend has said, particularly about the cadet forces. All I shall do is to say that, as a former Director of the Territorial Army and the Army Cadet Force, I agree with every word that he has said and hope that his speech has registered with the Benches opposite.
I want for one moment to look a little further back at the origins of the trouble which my noble friend Lord Cathcart has so clearly outlined this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to answer, but I am bound to say that I do not think an Unstarred Question a very suitable vehicle for a debate like this for, although the reply that the Government make is very interesting, it cannot be debated. Therefore, we shall perhaps need to put down another Unstarred Question later on in order to debate what the noble Lord has said.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Viscount might organise a mini-debate of two and a half hours.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to go back to the origin of some of the troubles that Lord Cathcart mentioned; that is, the 1957 White Paper. Everybody knows that, in that White Paper, the policy was laid down that the deterrent fear of nuclear retaliation was likely to keep the peace. At the same time, however, the White Paper emphasised the importance of reserves. Alas and alack— from that day to this, the importance that the authors of the White Paper attached to reserves of equipment and manpower has been very largely honoured more in the breach than in the observance, by, I am sorry to say, successive Governments of different complexions.
There are other factors involved. One is what I see as the stupidity of trying to divide nuclear from conventional warfare so that one was followed by the snobs and the other was unpopular. Then there is something that always conies up in considering modern warfare. It is the blurring of the old-fashioned 18th century line between peace and war. We have cold war and guerrilla warfare which may or may not legally be war under international conventions. It means that one never knows whether one is at war or peace and that war is no longer confined to the battlefield.
I should like to mention one other matter. I go back to 1921, when the late Lord Trenchard had an idea, which turned out not to be right in practice, that peace could be kept in places like Iraq and the North-West Frontier purely by aircraft; it was not necessary to have people on the ground. That, again, seems to have been forgotten and now we have here a White Paper which, although it tells us the number of Reserves, does nothing to indicate whether or not they are sufficient. However, I fancy that, if one knew the figures since 1957, one would find that the number and the quality of the Reserves had steadily declined every year. A point which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, touched on just now was the cadres of TAVR III, for example: if they have not been destroyed they have been as nearly destroyed as makes no
866
difference. I should like to come back to that in a moment.
I am not myself competent to talk about the Naval or Air Force Reserves but, as to the Army Reserves, one wonders whether they are sufficient to cover the needs which I imagine still are the needs for Reserves. They certainly used to be in my time. Those are transition from peace to war establishment; the provision of the first reinforcement, and the provision of what was called the "three months' war wastage" to tide over the time before the people enlisted on mobilisation can be trained.
Then, as I believe I said in the defence debate, there is the factor that the National Service Reservist has run out. Nothing is said about this in the White Paper, but it is very hard to believe that that run-off of the National Service Reservist has not had a very significant effect on the total Reserve position. I hope we shall be allowed to hear something about this, though I am not quite confident.
It is very easy to make a speech advocating the building up of Reserves, but I think that one should be realistic and should say that it will not be nearly so easy in practice as we should like it to be. Equipment can be developed and built to quite an extent while the public is not looking, even if foreign Powers know what we are doing. One does not have mass demonstrations by polytechnic students because someone has invented a missile to outrange any other. If there are any demonstrations, they are much more likely to be in places such as Barrow-in-Furness because someone has stopped building a cruiser and a lot of people are out of work.
Successive Governments—and here should like to mention the Attlee Government—have, in the past, had good records in developing equipment when nobody has been looking. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, if he were in his place, would probably agree, especially as I think that he had some hand in it and ought to take some of the credit. But with manpower it is a different matter. Nothing can take place behind the scenes, because one is dealing with people. One is making demands, if not on the full-time on the part-time activities of a very large number of individual men and women, and also, as I said just now, with things as they are

867
the cadres have to be built up almost from the start. So there are plenty of opportunities for interference with any action, however necessary it is to rebuild the Reserves. It is not merely the students and the Left-Wing; there would be many more respectable people who would complain that to do this would spoil their efforts towards detente and the rest of it.
There we are, my Lords, and the hour is late, but not so late, I hope, that we do not realise the very great importance of the matter which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has brought to our notice, together with the hope that we may hear something tonight which will make us feel that, in the modern jargon, there is credibility in our Forces, that there really are the men and the Reserves to keep them at the proper degree of readiness for war.
8.31 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Avon. It is good that a Territorial soldier should make his maiden speech on this occasion. I had the privilege of serving his noble father as military adviser in Geneva at the Indo-China and Korean conferences of, I think, 1955. This is an important subject; it should not be lightly treated tonight. The first point on which I should like to know more—and I hope that an answer may one day be forthcoming—concerns the fear, at least in the Rhine Army, and in some ways in the Territorial Army, that the shortages of equipment are in fact affecting the role of the Rhine Army and affecting the role of the Territorial reinforcements of the Rhine Army. The role is being altered to suit the shortages. I hope that this is not so, but it is a very strong and popular feeling in both the Regular and the Territorial Armies at the moment. It was introduced by my noble friend Lord Cathcart in his opening speech.
My next question is: what fighting Reserve Forces are left in this country after mobilisation, after the Territorial units have gone to the Rhine Army? What is left here to guard the home base? I believe that what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said on manpower may not be quite as bad as that. I believe that if we were given the go-ahead we could increase manpower now. Certainly in the unit in
868
which I work—the Yeomanry in Kent and London—we could increase. We only want the go-ahead to be allowed so to do.
Finally, my Lords, I ask one more question which may seem small, but the effect is large. Rumour, again, but fear, again, has it that the Regular Army appointment of the Director of the Territorial Army (he is called something else now) is either to be downgraded to a brigadier's appointment or to be absorbed into the appointment of one of the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff appointments. I hope, and ask, that it should not be so. As a Regular who has never worked with the TA before, I know the importance of the rank of the man representing the Territorial Army at the Army Council level. It is essential that he should be a major-general. It is essential that it should be independent from any other appointment, and perhaps he should be brave enough to resign when he thinks he should resign, as a friend of mine did once when occupying the same appointment. My Lords, as usual I have kept to my time limit, and I hope that these points may at some time be answered.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for introducing this subject. We all know that he has spent the greater part of his life in serving his country as a soldier, and we are very grateful to him for the knowledge that he brings to this House and for the work that he does here. I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on his excellent speech. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, and myself are the only two people in the House tonight who served in the other House with the noble Earl's father, and therefore we are delighted to see that he is following so well in his father's footsteps, and we hope that he has an equally good career.
I am of course a little nervous of speaking in front of so many "brass hats", but I should like to mention the other Services; in other words, the RAF and the Navy. I understand that the RAF has very little in the way of Reserve Forces. In fact, with the virtual disappearance some years ago of the old RAFVR, its Reserve Forces are very small indeed. Transport Command having disappeared, I suppose that

869
in an emergency the RAF would have to commandeer civilian aircraft. In view of the fact, as I mentioned in the previous debate, that so many pilots have left and are serving now, for example, with the Cathay Pacific piloting VC 10s, I wonder whether any of them are being asked—for, after all, we paid a great deal for their training—when leaving the Service and taking up other jobs as pilots, whether they would sign a contract to return to serve in case of war. I have in mind a kind of Supplementary List.
The Royal Navy has already had to "hire" merchant ships in peace time to transport the Navy and the Royal Marines to Norway. In regard to transporting equipment to BOAR quickly, can the Minister state how the Army is streaming the system and improving the flow of men and stores? Has the implementation of the cuts affected this work, which I gather was going on very well?
The total cut affecting the TAVR is not quite as bad as one had anticipated. What I really want to know is whether the noble Lord can give an assurance this evening that there will not be any further cuts, especially affecting training or equipment. Can he also say what is happening to the weapons needed in the future, especially in regard to the Centurion tank which I gather will have to be used until the 1990s and will by then be out-gunned?
Though today the Minister may be able to say that cuts have not affected the TAVR too badly, it is the long-term aspect which is at present the worrying factor. I understand that 30 per cent. of our NATO Army strength comes from the citizen Reserve, and about 3 per cent. is the cost to the defence budget, so we in the United Kingdom should offer grateful thanks to the Reserve Forces. An interesting point to my mind is the fact that the Territorial Army Volunteers have become part of the Regular Army, with the 289 Commando Battery of volunteers as the first unit. Should an emergency occur on NATO's Northern flank, within less than a week I understand that barristers and businessmen, builders and bus drivers, who form this élite unit, would be on duty in Northern Europe. Perhaps the Minister can confirm this? I gather that on 4th May the 289 celebrated its integration with the 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, which supports the third Royal
870
Marine Commando Brigade in East Ham, and the red berets of the paratroops were also exchanged for the green ones of the Royal Marines. I should like to hear a little more about that, if possible.
With regard to the Royal Navy, I understand that on 1st March last year the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Command assumed responsibility for the RNR, and for the WRNR, and for the nurses. I should like to know whether this arrangement is working, because I gather that it was designed to achieve closer integration between the Royal Navy and its Reserves, and to ensure that the Reserves are better placed to keep up to date with the present rapid changes in maritime technology and tactics. Is this proving to be successful? I gather that the RNR are to man the minesweepers and the mine countermeasures vessels, and I understand that they are very keen to do this. In fact, on 14th December last year these Reservists were in Portsmouth to celebrate their centenary.
The reorganisation of the Royal Naval Reserves has meant that part-time volunteers must be kept up to date, and I hope this will continue. Perhaps I should mention that there are others. For instance, at the present time there are, I gather, only 2,253 officers and 3,125 ratings in this Reserve Service. Then perhaps we might think of the Royal Marine Reserves, whose training is designed to support the commando forces. They have been doing this since October 1976; and I think there are 66 officers and 863 men. I was very glad that the University Officers' Training Corps was mentioned. Could I just say that I myself have had the benefit of knowing how well these Reserves of the Royal Navy can work. When I was helping to evacuate from Indonesia prisoners who had been imprisoned under the Japanese, except for the engineer all the officers and men were Reservists, and they were working on a very uncomfortable ship—a utility ship lent by the Americans. The work that they did among the women and the children on that ship was absolutely magnificent, and they rescued a great many of them.
My Lords, I understand that the last Minister for the Navy in the Conservative Government set up a Departmental Committee in regard to the future of the Royal

871
Naval Reserves. I wonder whether their report has yet been published, whether it is going to be published or whether, anyhow, the Minister could let me know what is happening to it.
8.41 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene in this debate which has been initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and distinguished by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I should like to make two points which I made in the last defence debate but which seemed to be overlooked. In that debate I said:
"The most serious effect of the British cuts has already been automatically to brine the theatre nuclear threshold closer". [Official Report, 12/5/77, col. 420.]
The Government do not seem to mind that. That is a terrible thing, to my mind. That leads to the all-Party report by the Expenditure Committee in the House of Commons, from which I quoted in that debate. It said:
"We are bound to report to the House that we have come to the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the cuts has been and is likely to be increasingly felt not only by the Services' support structure, itself important, but also by the frontline forces".
My Lords, it could not have been put clearer, and yet the Government have not answered it. Incidentally, we have a lot of catching up to do. I reckon that 5 per cent. a year, which is the Supreme Commander's estimate, is 62 per cent. over ten years; so we are 62 per cent. behind the Russians already, and we ought to catch up at that rate.
My second point is this. In that same debate the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said that there was no such thing as "teeth and tail". I myself was corrected by a very senior officer in the Defence Ministry when I underestimated the number of riflemen, or active fighters, in the divisions at 15,000, and I said, "40,000 administrative tail". This very senior officer corrected me and said that there were 55,000. As we were fighting Germans at the time, I think it ought to he taken seriously. Anyway, the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said:
"If you cut anywhere, you cut the whole". [Official Report, 12/5/77, col. 433].
That is proved by the all-Party report of the Expenditure Committee in the House
872
of Commons, so I think that point must be answered. My suggestion is that we ought to do these things only by agreement with NATO, and that we ought not to spring a surprise on them by saying that we are bound to do this and that for economic reasons, for financial reasons. We ought to consult NATO.
8.46 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to intervene at this rather late hour and before the winding up speeches, more especially in the rather unexpected absence of my noble friend Lord Kimberley who was going to make a speech for the Liberal Party. Perhaps your Lordships will therefore permit me first to make a few comments from the Liberal point of view on the debate which has just taken place. It seems to me that all noble Lords who have spoken—and all without exception are men of authority who know what they are talking about; they do not speak foolishly or without profound knowledge—have said that our present Reserves are totally inadequate. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, especially has said that it would be extremely difficult in any case to get them to the right spot in time. There is no doubt about it: anybody who knows anything about it thinks that that is the situation. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, in an excellent maiden speech, made essentially the same point. He said that in his view the present cuts have had their effects on the British Army of the Rhine. He spoke of reported shortages which we have discussed very often before now, and of the very low level, unfortunately, of the TAVR. To sum up, all noble Lords have said that the Reserves are insufficient and that they would not be easy to reinforce at the present moment.
My Lords, I should however like to raise just one other point of substance. In the last debate we had on this subject on 12th May the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said:
"The new clement that is being injected into our discussions at this point, which I find most interesting, is that for the first time I have heard that the flexible response doctrine is being challenged. It is being challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Giadwyn". [Official Report, 12/5/77, col. 444.]
It was very interesting for me to hear that declaration because as a matter of fact I

873
have indirectly, and more and more of late directly, been challenging the doctrine of flexible response in every conceivable forum: first of all in the Western European Assembly, then in the European Parliament and lately elsewhere in articles and speeches all over the place. I have never hesitated to challenge it because I think it is fundamentally wrong and is becoming increasingly incredible. We cannot get—as a matter of fact we shall not be able to get—the Reserves into the front line in sufficient time. That will become increasingly clear as time goes on; and even if we did, the Reserves are not sufficiently trained or armed to have any effect on the battle.
The only hope, in my view, is for us to build up—and I have said this time and again—a credible conventional defence in Western Germany with our allies, more particularly with the Americans, and let us hope also with the French, which with the use of modern weapons would be able to establish a line which it would be very difficult for the Russians to penetrate by conventional means, thus forcing the Russians if they want to achieve a victory—although it would hardly be a victory—to employ tactical "nukes". And they would not employ tactical "nukes" if they thought that they were going to be held up by conventional means. It is as easy as that. It is easy to understand.
Why can that not he generally accepted? It is logical, it is reasonable and it would not cost very much more if we got together on such lines. Why not? Well, reason has not much to do, I am afraid, with policy, a conclusion I have come to at my advanced age. The only things which really dictate policy are greed and fear. Reason plays a certain role, but greed prevents us having the forces which are necessary. Fear? Well, we might be able to depend on that if people thought they might be menaced by the Russians—but hardly anyone does. Détente has the field at the present time.
For that reason I have ventured to put down for July 28th an Unstarred Question addressed to the Government, asking whether they think that the flexible response doctrine is likely to be credible for much longer and, if not, what they propose to do about it. Then I hope that we shall have a debate on what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said the other
874
day was "a matter of enormous importance" which he would "like to discuss at length". So should I, my Lords, and I hope that all noble Lords interested will do so too, on July 28th.
8.51 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for another opportunity to hear what we hope are going to be some forthright answers from the Government to the many questions which have been put time and time again on the many defence debates. I must offer my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Avon. He has a great deal of first-hand knowledge. He has given many figures and facts and has also asked a great many questions of great import. I hope that the Government will pay deep attention to what he has said from the knowledge that he obviously has. This is not a defence debate, as such, and therefore we must try to contain some of the anger that is certainly felt throughout the whole country and the worry about the state of our Armed Forces. I must add my voice to those noble Lords who have already expressed their wish to see, occasionally, a Labour voice in defence debates. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has to reply, but once again to have no Labour Members to speak is, indeed, sad.
My Lords, we are part of NATO and our major contribution to NATO is in BAOR. We have Standing Forces and we have Reserve Forces. The problem, really, is to ensure that our resources are available at the right time. NATO is very heavily reliant upon reinforcements. The question is: will they get there? And if so, will they be in time?
Lord GLADWYN: No.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, the Government know of the enormous amount of opposition to their cuts which exists on this side of the House. The cuts have reduced spares and ammunition. They have definitely reduced morale and people and, certainly, conclusively, reduced the ability of the fighting forces to do their job. They have so reduced the Regular Forces that the Reserve Forces have an increasing role. But what are they given to do it with?

875
There is no point here in going into the argument about how many days the war would last. This is a matter for debate by the military. The Government must look again very hard at the availability of Reserves without which BAOR cannot operate as it is required to operate. There are 101 questions which one could ask. For instance, do we really have to hire 2,000 "B" vehicles in BAOR when the balloon goes up? Will they be available anyway? Will the Northern Ireland Forces come soon enough? And what about the troops training in Canada? A great many deficiencies will certainly come to light only when battle commences. There are a great many problems like this which are not being faced by the Government.
In the early days of a war, undoubtedly, casualties will probably be heavy. I am sure that the Government will be aware of the enormous shortage of field hospitals and the terrible shortage of doctors. The doctors are so short-staffed that they can hardly cope with the families and the soldiers at the moment—without casualties and without movement problems. When will they get more doctors? What are the Government going to do about it? We have heard from several noble Lords about the few aeroplanes and boats available to transport troops. I am not suggesting that we should have enormous boats waiting in case they should be wanted to transport troops. But will they be able to do the job that we expect of them? The Reserve Forces are totally dependent on civilian transport.
So far as spares are concerned, a great deal has been said already. There are a great number of instances of spare parts and replacements not being available at all. Two of the larger ones come to mind. They are helicopter spares and tank engines. I think, too, that I should mention to the noble Lord opposite that we seem to have reached a pitch where recently, according to my information, a particular spare part for one of our military vehicles had to come from Russia. When we reach that stage it has gone too far and the risk of military problems there are too great to think about. Ammunition is very short; not only for training but, certainly, if there is any decrease in expenditure, it will be a hopeless situation. Undoubtedly, forward dumps
876
are required. I believe that something is going on in this area; but when will it happen? How far have the Government gone in arrangements to place dumps for ammunition and fuel? It is not only spares which are short; there are too few drivers to cope with them when the action comes. I wonder how it is going to be coped with when the situation arises.
My Lords, I should like to mention again something that I raised in a defence debate: the problem of the political decision of when to call for Reserves. Have the relevant Ministers ever given enough thought? Have they been trained and exercised in this vital area so that they know when to call up Reserves? We do not want them to arrive too late. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, brought out the argument of "teeth and tail". It is a ridiculous animal that the Government have dreamed up from somewhere. There is no such animal. The cuts over the past few years have seriously affected our Forces' ability to perform the tasks for more than the briefest period. I cannot do better than to quote my honourable friend Sir Ian Gilmour when he said:
"There is not much point is having front line units which look strong if their weapons are not fully up to date, if they cannot be transported to the place where they are required, if they do not have enough fuel to move about when they get there, if they do not have enough spare parts to keep their equipment serviceable, or if they do not have enough ammunition to fire their weapons as often as they need. Those are the functions of the support arms, and indispensable they are. It is untrue to suggest that to cut them does not harm our contribution to NATO. Of course it does." [Official Report (Commons) col. 1345; 31/3/761]
My Lords, there are serious deficiencies in the equipment and supply of our Forces which a Conservative Government will endeavour to put right as soon as they are able to do so. Meanwhile, we can only hope for reasoned and accurate answers to our questions, if not tonight than at some stage where we can all get to see them. Meanwhile, we can only hope for some improvement in the commonsense of the Government in this area and I hope that the Government will remember that the first duty of Government is to safeguard the people.
8.58 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before I answer what I think is an exceptionally interesting debate on this Un-

877
starred Question, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on his maiden speech. May I say that it was a model of what such a speech should be: it was informed, short and to the point. I can say that this House will be most disappointed if the noble Earl does not continue to take an interest in the defence matters which concern your Lordships' House to a great degree and in many other matters in which the noble Earl is interested.
May I say that I am pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, put down this Unstarred Question so that we are enabled to debate it. As I have said previously in our defence debates, it is a fundamental point in our defence thinking. I am grateful to him for indicating that it is a combined operation between us. Noble Lords must be aware that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee in another place—the one that conducted the inquiry which the noble Lord, Lord Newell, mentioned and which was so relevant to our problems—has conducted an inquiry into Reserves and reinforcements, the report of which is likely to be published shortly; and by that I mean in the course of two or three weeks. The Government will present their observations on the report when it appears.
This evening I am somewhat inhibited in my reply because I must not pre-empt the Government's response to what will be a very important report, which was carried out at a very high level of security clearance. It will be as important a report as the previous one on supply. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, considers that this is not the way to conduct a discussion on defence. It is the second best action we can take. The best we could do would be to have a 2½ hour mini-debate on certain elements on defence policy. Those of us who are interested in defence might consider this for some future date.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that if this report is forthcoming from the Committee in the other place, we might have an opportunity to debate it when we know the views of the Government on it?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there are things called "usual channels" which we must all obey. They are responsive and if it were the feeling of the
878
House that this would be of value, I am certain that time will be made available, possibly not before the House rises in the summer, but in not too far a distance in the future.
I should like to start by giving your Lordships a categoric assurance that our ability substantially to reinforce BAOR and also RAF Germany and to provide reinforcements of all three Services for NATO headquarters is unaffected by recent cuts both in terms of the level of reinforcement and the speed at which it can take place. Indeed, on the latter point we have achieved real improvements over the last couple of years, and studies continue. Equally our War Reserves will continue as at present to be generally in accordance with NATO's stated requirements.
As your Lordships are aware, the question of the time available for reinforcement of BAOR is closely bound up with the assessment of the threat that NATO faces. There has been widespread recent public comment on the increasing strength of the Warsaw Pact forces and the implications of this growing imbalance in conventional forces for NATO's policy of deterrence and flexible response. Perhaps most disquieting of all, is the apparent increased preparedness of the Warsaw Pact forces leading to speculation on their ability to launch a surprise attack against NATO. Your Lordships will appreciate that the intelligence assessments of these matters are highly sensitive and not something that can be discussed in public.
I should like, however, to put this into context. To begin with, there is no evidence to suggest that deterrence is yet failing, or that the Warsaw Pact is contemplating aggression against the West. Secondly, military indicators are not the sole guide to national intentions and a marked deterioration in the political climate might be expected prior to any attack. On the basis of the information available to him, General Haig, who as SACEUR is the supreme NATO operational commander in Europe, has recently reaffirmed his view that although a surprise attack cannot be ruled out, it is more likely that a period of warning will be available. This is an assessment with which we concur, although that is not to say that either we or our NATO allies are complacent. The state of readiness of the Alliance is kept continuously under

879
review and we do, of course, maintain in Europe a substantial Army with a significant fighting capability even before reinforcement. But we are working hard to ensure that BAOR can be reinforced quickly. We have made improvements and hope to do better still.
It may be of value to your Lordships if I outline, as far as is possible in public, what our plans are. In the first place, the Government are committed to returning to Germany those units temporarily redeployed to Northern Ireland—who normally number some 4,000 personnel—within 72 hours in an emergency. Plans also exist for the early return of individuals on training or leave in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and the effect of all these measures will be to ensure that BAOR is fully up to its peace time posted strength of some 55,000.
Before leaving the subject of units from Northern Ireland, I should also mention that the operational role in Germany of Headquarters 39 Infantry Brigade, which is located in Northern Ireland, has from the 1st April this year been taken over by the 5th Field Force, the major part of the regular element of which is located in BAOR in peace time. This is a new formation that has been created as part of the restructuring of the Army in BAOR which has concentrated on improving our numbers of front-line troops within the framework of our Brussels Treaty commitments. The effect of this change is both to enhance somewhat the readiness of BAOR, and reduce the need to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland to BAOR at a time of tension.
Moving on to the reinforcement of BAOR, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army has repeatedly stated in another place that it would be more than doubled in size upon mobilisation. While these reinforcements will contain an element of Regulars, they obviously contain a significant proportion of Reservists, both members of the Regular Reserves and the TAVR. The efficiency and rapid mobilisation of Reservists are therefore matters of the utmost importance. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has once again underlined this point. It is no good having Reserves if they are not there when the balloon goes up.
880
Let me first assure any noble Lords who have memories of the old Territorial Army—an admirable organisation which served the country well in two World Wars, but which was founded in a period when we went to war at a more leisurely pace—that the modern TAVR is alive and well and living at a high state of readiness. By 1st April 1978 there will be no complete operational Reserve formations (in fact at present there is only one, and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, 44 Parachute Brigade); TAVR units being used instead to reinforce Regular formations. That way, we believe that they will be ready to fight more quickly. The TAVR units are ready to move at very short notice; many units with a NATO role have a proportion of their equipment stockpiled in Europe—where it is inspected annually by the unit commanding officer or his representative—and there is close contact between the units and the formation commanders under whom they would come in war. Their tasks will have been reconnoitred in detail, and the complete units will train on the Continent at least once every three years. This training involves some 16,000 TAVR members travelling across every year and provides, among other things, an opportunity to exercise parts of the reinforcement machinery.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, in a very interesting speech, raised a number of points; but he will forgive me if I mention only one in particular. We accept that some TAVR equipment is older than we should like. We have adopted in the past few years the concept of "one Army"—an integrated force of Regulars and Reservists. Under this concept, TAVR units shall be comparably equipped to Regular units with a similar role. As part of this policy, we have started delivery of the new "Fox" armoured car to the TAVR in advance of delivery to some Regular units, and it is intended that they, as well as the Regulars, will also receive the "Blowpipe" low-level air defence missile system and Milan anti-tank guided weapon system.
Noble Lords have also mentioned the question of TAVR recruitment. Over the past two years there has been a steady upward trend in recruitment. Recently the strength exceeded 60,000 for the first time: I believe the establishment is 72,000. While it is too early yet to assess the full impact

881
of the recruiting campaign held this spring, preliminary indications are that it will give added impetus to this upward trend.
Of course, not all the Reservists we plan to use are members of the TAVR. There are also regular Reservists; that is ex-Regular soldiers who accepted a period of Reservist service as part of their regular terms of service. These men will be used principally as individual reinforcements to ensure that all units, both Regular and TAVR, are right up to strength. Although they do no training, the types of men who are posted to front-line units, so far as possible, would have left the Regular Army only comparatively recently and are therefore able to fit into the military environment. These Reservists hold documentation in peace time that tells them where to report upon call-out, and also mobilisation travel warrants to enable them to get there. Unlike members of the TAVR, they do not already possess their personal equipment but draw it before moving forward to join the units to which they are assigned.
The call-out of all Reservists, both Regular and TAVR, will be by a combination of broadcasts on radio and television, postal notices and notices in the Press, as deemed appropriate at the time. The use of postal call-out has been the subject of some misinformed comment in the Press. It is important to realise that the Ministry of Defence will not be acting in isolation, but rather that it forms a part of an integrated crisis management system in which principal decisions will be taken by the Government and measures co-ordinated centrally. The recall of Reservists should be seen within this framework. Without going into detail, I can assure noble Lords that, depending on the circumstances at the time, use is expected to be made both of the news media and of special arrangements that exist to ensure the rapid delivery of postal call-out notices.
Finally, the crux of the matter must be our ability to ensure that the planned reinforcements for BAOR can be transported there with sufficient speed to ensure their timely arrival. This is the very essence, without which no amount of training or call-out planning will be of any avail. Noble Lords will be aware that purely military transport resources will not be sufficient to meet this task,
882
and that civil resources will also be employed. It is always a matter of surprise to me that such an arrangement meets with criticism. After all, it is the method that we used with complete success to transport our Forces to the Continent in 1914 and in 1939. The size of the task and the speed with which it must be accomplished would necessitate an inordinately large expenditure on transport equipment alone, were it the intention to use solely military ships and aircraft; this could not but be to the detriment of the Forces themselves. Presumably, the criticism of the use of civil resources springs from a belief either that they will not be available at the time or that they will be available only after protracted negotiations or Parliamentary activity.
That is a fear which I myself have shared, as some of your Lordships will know. Quite simply, it is not the case. The plans, which are based on a worst-case assessment of the numbers of ships and aircraft required, envisage the use of both independent operators and the nationalised industries, in addition to military resources. In the first case, dormant contracts or letters of agreement have been or are being negotiated. The two major nationalised industries involved are British Airways and the Sealink Division of British Rail, which is a major operator of cross-Channel roll on/roll off ferries. No legislative or other Parliamentary action is required to place those organisations at the disposal of the Government, provision for this being embodied within existing Statutes. All that is required is a Cabinet decision, followed by the necessary executive action.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom? Do the measures he has described in some detail amount to what General Haig asked for in April in Paris, that is, an increase, a regular annual increase, of 5 per cent. in NATO?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that this is an entirely different point. We have certain Reserve Forces in existence; we have to get them to agreed positions in Western Europe at a time of crisis, and the question is: Have we the transport rescources to get them there? This is a different point from

883
increasing our contribution. It is a question of how we get our existing contribution to the location where it will be required in Germany and the Central Front. I am now satisfied that the transport resources are available to get them there, without legislation and simply upon the basis of a Cabinet decision.
In the course of the discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, raised the question of what forces will remain upon mobilisation within the United Kingdom. I am unwilling to go into detail on this, but I assure your Lordships that substantial forces, both Regular and TAVR, will remain in all districts. Indeed, this year's White Paper mentioned the recreation of a new formation, the 8th Field Force, containing both Regular and TAVR units with a specific rôle of home defence. This formation came into existence and raised its flag in South-West District on 1st April this year.
To summarise, I assure your Lordships that there will be no cut in the size of our Reserve Forces as a result of recent cuts in defence expenditure—indeed, as I have indicated, we hope that they will increase in size—that the cuts will in no way impair our ability to provide effective and timely reinforcement to BAOR, and that our holdings of key stocks will continue to be generally in accordance with NATO's stated requirements. Of course, at the end of the day, we all know that everything depends on a timely decision by the Government of the day to order mobilisation. This is part of the business of training Governments to act. But assure noble Lords that, if it has to be done, this Government will do it.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can give an undertaking to answer many of the questions that remain unanswered and which are not affected by the two to three weeks' delay in the coming out of this Paper.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will, as usual, carefully study the discussion and, where necessary, will send written answers. I am thinking particularly of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and for the
884
benefit of the record, will he answer my question about the military port of Marchwood?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I forgot that this was an important element in this defence debate. The position is that in the debate some weeks ago the noble Earl questioned whether the commencement of the proposed redevelopment of the military port cannot be advanced from 1980–85, as presently planned. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army has said in another place that this is part of a complex plan, which has to be considered on both operational and economic grounds. Though we are pressing ahead with planning for the redevelopment, the issue has not yet been resolved; it is still, to use a cliché, actively under consideration and there is nothing that I can usefully add at this stage, except to say that the cost is considerable and would have to be justified in operational terms.

  SEABED NON-NUCLEARISATION TREATY
  SEABED NON-NUCLEARISATION TREATY