Sitting of 21 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 4th April.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    NATO (Secretary-General)
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what issues he expects to discuss when he next meets Dr. Luns, Secretary-General of NATO.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I expect to meet Dr. Luns at the biannual meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group next month, which will review general nuclear issues.
    Mr. Atkinson: When my right hon. Friend meets Dr. Luns will he remind him that in our October 1974 manifesto the Labour Party very clearly declared that it was not its intention to introduce any new generation of nuclear weapons, either nuclear warheads or methods of delivery? Will he now stand by that declaration that we made in the election campaign?
    Mr. Mulley: As I have told my hon. Friend and others on many occasions—this was also the position taken by my predecessor—we have no plans for any new generation of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Pattie: On the question of the percentage share of GNP, which the Secre-
    1300
    tary of State is often discussing with Dr. Luns, next time he sees Dr. Luns, will he put to him the other way of tackling this matter, which is that far from this country reducing its share to the level of the other nations, the other nations might be encouraged to increase their share to equal ours?
    Mr. Mulley: I am grateful for that point. It is a point that I made at the last discussion among NATO Ministers.
    Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend point out to Dr. Luns when he next sees him that, at a time when a more buoyant German economy would be in the interests of world trade, it cannot possibly be justifiable for Britain to continue to accept the heavy economic burden represented by BAOR? Will he discuss with Dr. Luns as a matter of urgency the need for cutting down the cost to Britain of this commitment?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that our Allies are aware of the particular economic difficulties that we have had to face and also of the very substantial contribution that we make to the Alliance. We have no plans to reduce the forces in BAOR, which are consistent with our treaty obligations.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Secretary of State says that he has no plans for a future generation of nuclear weapons. Will he elucidate what he means? Does he mean simply natural indecisiveness, or that the Government have decided not to go ahead with any future generation of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Mulley: It means quite simply that as our existing strategic nuclear force has many years of effective life ahead of it, there is no occasion for a decision to be taken about what may or may not happen thereafter.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: With respect to the Secretary of State, that is a rather evasive answer. It is, surely, generally agreed that if we are to have a new generation of nuclear weapons the decision has to be made well before 1980. There is not very much time. Therefore, what does the Secretary of State mean by suggesting that we go on as we are?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says that is is generally agreed that we have to take a decision by 1980. Somebody

    1301
    wrote a pamphlet about it expressing a point of view, of which, of course, I am aware. But many things can happen in the next decade, all of which could have a relevance to our future role in these matters.

    Armed Forces (Trade Unionism)
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now initiate discussions with the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress about opportunities for members of the Armed Forces to join independent trade unions.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from the TUC about trade unions in the Armed Services.
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate discussions with the TUC about opportunities for members of the Armed Services to form and join independent trade unions.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no plans for discussions with the TUC on this matter.
    Miss Richardson: That is a short but not very sweet reply to a very genuine Question. As my right hon. Friend has no plans to invite the TUC to discuss this very important matter with him, will he tell the House what facilities he would be prepared to provide in order to make a reality of his often-stated view that Service men have the right to belong to a trade union?
    Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend knows, Service men have a right to join trade unions, and a number of them do, particularly in order to safeguard their trades, and so on, when they return to civilian life. But active trade union organisation of the kind that I think my hon. Friends have in mind, according to my own evidence and advice, is not demanded or required by the Services at present. It would also be necessary to have legislation before a trade union could operate in the way that I think my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Hoyle: How does my right hon. Friend arrive at the view that the Services do not want this? Would it not be better
    1302
    to give the trade unions facilities to recruit, so that we would know? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that those NATO forces that have trade unions have far higher wages and salaries than have our Armed Forces?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that it would be premature to allow recruiting facilities until it was quite clear to the members of the Armed Forces what benefits could arise and what the trade unions could do for them. Under existing legislation, that would be very little.
    As I have also said, the Armed Forces are concerned that many of my hon. Friends want to reduce our defence expenditure and that this means a shorter career or redundancies for the Service men concerned.
    Mr. Litterick: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is nothing in Queen's Regulaions to prevent a member of the Armed Forces either from retaining his trade union membership, if he had it before he joined the Services, or, indeed, from joining a trade union while he is in the Armed Services? Furthermore, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the case that a member of the Armed Forces who is a member of a trade union may, in a situation in which he is faced with a court martial, choose a trade union-appointed lawyer to defend him?
    Mr. Mulley: Members of the Armed Forces can retain their membership of trade unions if they so wish. In the case of court martial proceedings, counsel is made available through military circles, but if the Service man concerned wants someone else to represent him, he may choose someone else.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that the very last thing that the men and women of the Armed Services want is a Socialist press gang to take them into trade unions, and that because of that the Secretary of State has a special duty to be fair to the Services in terms of pay and conditions?
    Mr. Mulley: I certainly agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's observation. It is my intention that the Services shall have a fair deal when we get the recommendation of the Armed Forces Pay Review body—I hope quite soon.

    1303
    As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the emotive terms that the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends use are not at all helpful to a rational approach to what is a serious problem.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to remind his hon. Friend how many of the Warsaw Pact countries, towards which they show such feelings of warmth, allow the members of their Armed Forces to join independent trade unions?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the definition of "independent trade unions", in any aspect of activity within some Eastern European countries, might be a matter of debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is putting the matter in an emotive way and not a serious way, which is not helpful to our discussion.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As it is clear, as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends have said, that the members of the Armed Forces show no desire to join a trade union—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW do you know?"]—and as—
    Mr. Litterick: How long is it since the right hon. Gentleman was in the Army?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall need a Speakers' union at this rate.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As those hon. Members asking this Question are among those who are most hostile to Western interests and less concerned than almost anyone else with the interests of the Armed Forces, would it not be a fair inference to draw that their wish to introduce trade unions into the Armed Forces is a desire to damage them?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that it would be right to draw that inference, nor do I think that it would be right to suggest that all of my hon. Friends and hon. Members in all parts of the House are not anxious to see the Armed Forces get proper remuneration.

    Armaments
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence what action is proposed to prevent further acceleration of the arms race and the development of new weapons.
    Mr. Mulley: Negotiations continue at the United Nations and elsewhere in pursuit of these aims; our own proposals for action in this field are set out in our draft programme of action for the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
    Mr. Evans: In the SALT talks, will my right hon. Friend seek to get international agreement to prevent the manufacture of the Soviet SS20 and the American neutron bomb, as a step towards a peaceful situation in the future? Does he realise that with an international expenditure of $276,000 million on arms when there are great needs in the underdeveloped countries of the world, the cause of peace would be best served by reducing the arms race and not accelerating it?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that we can all agree with my hon. Friend's concluding sentiments. We should all wish to see a great reduction of armaments on both sides.
    Mr. Litterick: That is why my right hon. Friend is increasing them.
    Mr. Mulley: As to the first part of the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), we are not ourselves directly involved in the SALT talks, but neither the Soviet SS20 nor the so-called neutron bomb, being a theatre weapon, is involved in those talks.
    Mr. Cormack: When the right hon. Gentleman discusses the question of arms expenditure, will he please bear in mind that for every rouble the Russians spend on arms, 80 kopecks go on weapons and 20 kopecks go to soldiers, whereas in the Western democracies about 83 per cent. of arms expenditure goes in pay and only about 17 per cent. goes in arms and research?
    Mr. Mulley: Without wishing to endorse those exact figures, I think that it is the case that a higher proportion of Soviet expenditure goes on weaponry, because on our side we pay a greater amount to the manpower involved.
    Mr. James Lamond: Following the proposals outlined in the excellent draft submitted by our Government for consideration at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, would it not be a good idea for my right hon. Friend

    1305
    to suggest at the NATO conference next month that the decision about the manufacture and deployment of the neutron bomb should be postponed until at least the United Nations Special Session has concluded?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure whether the question of the production and deployment of the enhanced radiation warhead will or will not be on the next agenda for Ministers' meetings, but this is quite a separate issue from the wider issues, although, of course, the ERW should be seen in the context of the total arms picture. I do not think that it would be appropriate for that to be taken at the United Nations Special Session.

    Royal Air Force Pilots
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he is taking to overcome the shortage of skilled jet pilots in the Royal Air Force.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 27th February.
    Miss Fookes: As I do not remember what that was, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me? May I also suggest to him that dissatisfaction over pay may be a major factor in persuading jet pilots who are skilled and experienced that it is no longer worth while to remain in the Service?
    Dr. Gilbert: I would not detain the House by reading all of my hon. Friend's wise remarks over again, but I certainly accept what the hon. Lady says—that pay is one of the factors. But other factors are involved, such as the question of training and the question of selection.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Would the Minister of State care to say how large is this shortage? If it is about 100, and if it takes three years to train these pilots, how will the Royal Air Force maintain the right standard of readiness without these pilots?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point—that is, the question of how long it will take to train people. But, as of now, the Royal Air
    1306
    Force's shortfall is less than 3 per cent. in terms of pilots and it is able to meet its full commitment. I hope that the other question to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be taken care of, in part, by the next pay award.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the Minister explain how it is that Armed Forces pay has fallen so very badly behind the civil sector that the operators of one-man double-deck buses in Greater London are being paid £130 a week whereas the captain of a strategic nuclear Vulcan bomber is paid less than £110 a week?
    Mr. Litterick: The captain is not in a trade union, is he?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is perfectly well aware that at each stage of pay policy the Armed Forces have had the maximum amount available to them under that policy. Although the hon. Gentleman knows that, he continues to try to make cheap political capital out of the question on every possible occasion. He should come clean with the House and say whether he supports pay policy, with its unfortunate results, or not.

    Survey Ships
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the availability and deployment in United Kingdom waters of the Royal Navy's ocean and coastal survey ships.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. F. P. Duffy): The matter is under review; but during 1978 surveys of home waters are planned to be undertaken by ocean survey ships and coastal survey vessels in the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea, St. George's Channel and around Rockall.
    Mr. Pattie: Is the Minister aware that because three survey ships were retired, following the defence cuts in 1974, none of the existing vessels will be available this summer for more than a very few weeks to carry out vital survey work in British waters? Can he say whether the first of the new replacement vessels has yet been ordered
    Mr. Duffy: The hydrograph strategic review body recognised at its recent meeting that sufficient capacity will not be

    1307
    available to meet all the survey requirements identified by the Department of Trade within the desired time scale, after essential defence work has been carried out, but this problem is under consideration with the Departments concerned.
    The inshore survey craft continue to perform a very useful job in surveying coastal waters, quite unaffected by their age, although some are now getting rather old, and replacement plans are being considered in consultation with the civil Departments concerned.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the availability and deployment of naval vessels in fishery protection? Has he tightened this in the last 12 months? Can we have some statistics about that?
    Mr. Duffy: I hope at a favourable and appropriate opportunity to give my hon. Friend those statistics, but the House must know that the first year of the new regime of fishery protection was outstandingly successful. There were no problems, and the fishery protection squadron did its job well, as everyone in the industry knows, as well as my hon. Friend.

    Service Families (Rent Rebates)
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service men's families in the United Kingdom are at present receiving means-tested rent rebates.
    Dr. Gilbert: About 5,900 Service men in the United Kingdom are in receipt of rebate under the Services' rent and rebate scheme.
    Mr. Boscawen: That is absolutely disgraceful. The Secretary of State ought to resign.
    Is it not true that the increase in pay which Service men may receive shortly will mean very little after the poverty trap has taken away some of it?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, was not in the House when I said that Conservative Members should say whether they support pay policy, with the unfortunate consequences that it has had. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body report for 1974 made absolutely clear that it would be out of the question—in fact, patently absurd—to pay all members of the Armed Forces a wage
    1308
    that would suffice to keep them above the eligibility level for rent and rate rebates, for the simple reason that rent and rate rebates are not only a function of social policy but are also related to the size of the Service man's family.
    Mr. Litterick: What percentage of the Armed Forces is represented by the figure of 5,900 Service men in receipt of rent rebates? How does it compare with the proportion of the employed population who are also in receipt of means-tested rent rebates?
    Dr. Gilbert: With some very quick mental arithmetic, I would say that it is about 1·5 per cent. of Service men. I am not responsible for the other matter raised by my hon. Friend. I am sure that he would want to have considered figures, and I suggest that he tables a Question.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said, the figures are disgraceful. May I say, in answer to the Minister's rather absurd rhetorical question, that we do not support any incomes policy that discriminates so outrageously against the Armed Forces.
    Dr. Gilbert: It is absolutely scandalous that the right hon. Gentleman should make that sort of allegation at the Dispatch Box. I am glad to see that he has the grace to smile, and I put that on the record. But it is scandalous to suggest that the pay policy has been designed or operated to discriminate against the Armed Forces. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and I repeat, that the Armed Forces have had the maximum amount possible under two consecutive stages of pay policy. It is not true, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) suggests, that other people in the community have done better. Although some people have done better, it is not true to say that everybody else has done better. Many other people in the public service have had no opportunity to benefit from wages drift, overtime or productivity settlements.

    Armed Forces (Pay)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the pay of Her Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot anticipate the 1978 report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
    Mr. Gow: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a serious and growing number of junior and senior noncommissioned officers, and junior and senior officers, leaving the Armed Forces of the Crown because of the very serious way in which their pay has fallen behind that of those on comparable activities?
    Will the Secretary of State direct his attention to the 50p-a-day special allowance for Northern Ireland, which has not been increased for four years, and which now has a purchasing power of only one-third of what it had when it was introduced?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the very great importance that the Services attach to the outcome of the current pay review. I am very well aware of that. Obviously, until we have the report, which we have not yet received, I cannot anticipate what its recommendations will be. It is open to the review body to make recommendations about the Northern Ireland special allowance. Indeed, one of the first acts of the present Government was to institute that allowance. There was no allowance before 1974. Indeed, in 1974, although we were then working under the Conservative pay policy, we introduced some additional recommendations outwith the strict policy at that time, and it was under the Labour Government in 1975 that the Armed Forces had full comparability restored to them.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Service pay and the conditions of all Her Majesty's Forces should have the attention of this House? That is a right and proper thing. What is disgraceful is to use Her Majesty's Forces for the sort of political gimmickry that we have witnessed here this afternoon.
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he would agree that we cannot debate a report that has not yet been finalised.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will the Secretary of State now reply to the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill)? Is it or is it not true
    1310
    that pilots of nuclear strike aircraft are often paid less than a bus driver in Greater London?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has not put a question to me. I should have thought that he was quite capable of asking his own questions. I am not familiar with the detailed pay of all other occupations. This is the job of the pay review body, and it will publish its findings in due course.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that on the Labour side there is a great deal of sympathy about the pay and conditions of the lower ranks? When the whole matter is revised, will he look at the number of ranks that we have in the Services, and the differentials? Although we would have sympathy with the lower ranks getting an increase, we do not want to see increases for field marshals, in the light of present restrictions.
    Mr. Mulley: The review body is charged with exactly that job. It reviews rates of pay, allowances and charges for all ranks within the Services up to the level of brigadier. The top ranks of the three Services are not included.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the Secretary of State explain to privates in the British Army and to Members of the House why privates, who are receiving less than £43 per week gross, should be witnessing the payment by this Government of £43 per week, through the Manpower Services Commission, to individuals for counting street lamps in our cities?
    Mr. Mulley: I hope that I shall have quite a lot to say about the future level of remuneration of the Armed Forces when I have the review body's report. There is no point in trying to anticipate it now.
    Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the plainly unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Oman
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if the number of British troops serving in Oman is likely

    1311
    to be reduced by the end of the current year.
    Dr. Gilbert: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Townsend: Is the Minister aware that British Service men in Oman help to bring peace and stability to that troubled area and at the same time gain valuable military experience? Will he confirm that the Government have no intention of withdrawing the SAS training team from Oman in the next four years at least?
    Dr. Gilbert: The military assistance to Oman will continue only as long as necessary—which means as long as it necessary for the Omanis to take over these responsibilities.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Minister agree that although we claim that Britain needs armed forces to defend democracy, there never has been and there certainly is not now any democracy in Oman to defend? In these circumstances is it not right to ask the Sultan when he proposes to introduce elementary democratic rights for his people if we are to continue to have armed forces stationed there?
    Dr. Gilbert: It is not for me to comment in detail on the internal affairs of Oman. However, I would point out that a very great deal of progress has been made in the last few years under the present Sultan.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Minister agree that quite apart from the situation in Oman, the presence of British forces in that country gives great service to British interests in the protection of the Gulf?
    Dr. Gilbert: British forces are there to help the Omani services protect themselves, which I hope they will be able to do before long.

    Tornado Aircraft
    Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Air Force's Strike Command squadrons of Phantoms and Lightnings will be replaced completely by Tornadoes.
    Dr. Gilbert: The replacement of the Phantom and Lightnings by the Tornado F2 is planned to be completed by the end of the 1980s.
    Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that during the defence debate there was talk from the Secretary of State that delays were being experienced in the delivery and production of this aircraft? This raises apprehension that the strike and defence capability of the RAF will be increasingly inadequate, and outmatched well into the 1980s. What action does he intend to take personally to ensure the scheduled delivery of these aircraft and to ensure that their delivery to the RAF is given precedence over any purchases by the air forces of any other countries?
    Dr. Gilbert: Certainly I have no knowledge—and no proposals have been put to my Department—about sales of the Tornado to any other country. We are satisfied that the Phantom and Lightning aircraft will be fully effective until they are replaced by the Tornado.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister satisfied that the maintenance tasks on the Phantom are being performed as efficiently at St. Athan as they were at 23 MU Aldergrove?
    Dr. Gilbert: I do not know. I shall look into that matter and write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Litterick: Can the Minister give an assurance that the supplies of the Tornado from Day 2 of the Third World War can be guaranteed, in view of the fact that the Russians supply the basic raw materials from which these aircraft are built?
    Dr. Gilbert: I suspect that in the scenario postulated by my hon. Friend there would not be much time to build any more Tornadoes.
    Mr. Tebbit: Which Russian aircraft does the Minister imagine the Lightning and Phantoms would be capable of meeting and dealing with at the end of the 1980s, when the Minister says that they will still be effective for their task?
    Dr. Gilbert: I said that they will be completely replaced by the Tornado at that time. Many Tornadoes will be in operation before then.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his original answer means that as a result of the

    1313
    Government's behaviour the final introduction of the Tornado will have slipped by five or six years?
    Dr. Gilbert: Every time the right hon. Gentleman speaks at the Dispatch Box he gets cheaper. There has been absolutely no action whatever by this Government that has resulted in delays to the delivery of the Tornado.

    Radiological Weapons
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes making any changes in Her Majesty's Government's policy of opposition to radiological weapons.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as set out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 22nd February 1978.
    Mr. Clemitson: Will the Secretary of State oppose the increasingly repugnant refinements of radiological weapons?
    Mr. Mulley: That is the answer that was given on 22nd February. My hon Friend said that not only were we opposed to the development of these weapons but that we favoured a convention prohibiting their production.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is growing revulsion in this country at the prospect of the enhanced radiation bomb or the neutron bomb being part of the NATO armoury? Will he confirm that his counterpart in the Dutch Government resigned in protest at this possible development? Is he inclined to take sympathetic action?
    Mr. Mulley: It is important to make it quite clear that there is an absolute distinction between radiological weapons and enhanced radiation weapons. They are quite different. As to the complex circumstances in which the former Dutch Minister resigned, I am not completely informed about these, but I certainly have no intention of resigning over this matter at present.

    Missiles
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence why in the light of
    1314
    Government policy not to proceed with any new generation of nuclear weapons, or any programme for a cruise missile, contracts have been placed with British Aerospace and a number of other firms for studies of component parts of a medium-range weapon similar to the cruise missile.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Defence why, in the light of Her Majesty's Government's policy not to proceed with any new generation of nuclear weapons or any programme for a cruise missile, contracts have been placed with British Aerospace and a number of other firms for studies of component parts of a medium-range weapon similar to the cruise missile.
    Mr. Mulley: Studies and component developments are under way in industry on a number of missile projects, as detailed in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. They are to meet operational requirements and are quite distinct from our limited studies into cruise missiles which are to enable us to participate in NATO discussions on the defence potential and arms control implications of these systems. We have no plans to develop a cruise missile or a successor to Polaris.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Secretary of State give a firm undertaking that the Government will keep their pledge and not embark on a new generation of strategic weapons? Despite the fact that £120,000 has already been spent on these preliminary projects, is it not true that there has been no mention of the project in the full Cabinet?
    Mr. Mulley: I can assure my hon. Friend that one can buy very little defence technology for £120,000. In fact, that is the sum for cruise missile studies that we intend to spend in the next financial year. Obviously some of the components and the work done on anti-ship and other guided weapons would have a bearing on these studies, and I think that my hon. Friend has confused the components for that with the longer-range cruise missile which is what people normally associate with that term. It disturbs me most of all to think that my hon. Friend prefers to pick up every snip of information that he can lay his hands on from any journal in preference to what I have told him.
    Mr. Allaun—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) be kind enough to wait another 20 minutes, until the end of Question Time?
    Mr. Allaun: But it is on this Question.
    Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, that happens very often.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Minister be more explicit and say why no study has been carried out on a successor to Polaris as an independent British missile? Will he make clear what he meant by his remarks?
    Mr. Mulley: I thought I had made it clear that in our view the existing Polaris force will be effective for many years to come and, that being the situation, there is no need to take a decision on the question whether other arrangements would have to be made.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Minister reconsider his previous answers about nuclear weapons and make a firm and clear declaration to the House and the country that the Labour Government do not intend to introduce any new generation of nuclear warheads or new delivery systems? Will he now state clearly and unequivocally that the Labour Government do not intend to introduce these weapons either now or at any time in the future, whether or not conditions change?
    Mr. Mulley: I have made it clear many times that we stand by the commitment in our election manifesto not to proceed with a new generation of nuclear strategic missiles.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Since even a Labour Government are theoretically supposed to be interested in the defence of this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, first, why he has no plans to introduce a successor to Polaris and, secondly, why he has no plans to introduce the cruise missile?
    Mr. Mulley: On the first point, I have already made it clear that we stand by our election manifesto statement that we should not introduce a new generation of weapons. Secondly, on the cruise missile, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it can be used in a great variety of ways. We have no plans to acquire or manufacture it, because there is still
    1316
    great doubt about its capacity when ready. The United States Government, who have been working on the matter for many years, still only have the project under development.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earlist possible moment.

    Former Prisoners of War
    Sir David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British and Commonwealth former prisoners of war are now estimated to be resident in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Mulley: Such statistics are not available from Ministry of Defence records.
    Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping any check on the fact that many former prisoners of war find that as they get older their health and strength suffer because of their privations during the time they were in captivity? Will he undertake to keep an eye on this matter, and perhaps report to the House on what might be done to help such people?
    Mr. Mulley: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, not least because I was a prisoner of war. Contrary to what was generally thought, I felt in military terms that my number was up at Finningley last July. I have a number of friends who were prisoners of war and who have undergone a good deal of suffering. It is a matter primarily for the DHSS. There is the problem of tracing whether illnesses are related directly to military service. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will send me further details, I shall do what I can to help.

    Pay Office, Cheadle Hulme
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to the Ministry o/ Defence pay office at Cheadle Hulme.
    Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents who work in the office are disturbed at rumours

    1317
    that their work may be transferred from Cheadle Hulme to Glasgow in the near future? Will he allay those fears?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have had representations from several hon. Members on this point. No final decision has been made on the blocks of work to be dispensed to St. Enoch. We shall have to take a decision in the Summer Recess this year.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that it does not make any sense to transfer the pay and records office to Glasgow when it is being operated satisfactorily elsewhere in the country?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have a commitment to a dispersal policy. The MOD is taking its share of that policy, which involves 1,500 people based at Anderston and 3,500 at the St. Enoch site. The packages of work which make up those activities have yet to be decided.

    TUC
    Mr. Gouldasked the Prime Minister when he intends next to meet the Trades Union Congress.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) on 28th February.
    Mr. Gould: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will he give its members an account of the meetings that he had with Chancellor Schmidt and President Carter in their efforts to bring the Western economies out of recession? Is it not likely that the TUC will draw an instructive comparison, as will the rest of us, between my right hon. Friend's constructive efforts to grapple with these international problems and the carping, negative and destructive contributions by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition? In the face of all the problems that confront this country, could we have a leader who is so limited in outlook, background and experience as the right hon. Lady?
    The Prime Minister: When I meet the European TUC I frequently discuss with its members the various attitudes taken by their European colleagues. I am glad to say that there is a considerable degree of agreement between the various trade
    1318
    union congresses that make up the European TUC that stimulus is needed in international economies. That is my view, too. I think that a collective international effort is needed at present if we are to overcome problems of unemployment.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Prime Minister aware that most people who care for this country's defence welcomed the Prime Minister's comments the other day on the neutron bomb? Has he discussed the subject with the TUC? If not, will he do so, and seek its support for his view?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Buchanan: When my right hon. Friend visits the TUC, will he ascertain whether its transport policy, agreed at TUC meetings going back many years, is still the same as it was? Will he ask the TUC leaders to use their good offices to try to find a solution to the anarchic situation that exists at the Didcot terminals?
    The Prime Minister: This matter has been brought to my attention and I have considered whether any action could be taken, but it is not a case in which Government intervention would help. This matter should be resolved by the TUC in conjunction with the unions. I am astonished that Opposition Members, when calling for Government intervention, ask us to butt in on a matter on which we cannot help.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC the problems of workers in multinational companies now facing redundancies? Will he follow the lead of Keith Bovey, the SNP candidate in the Garscadden by-election, and raise the problem of proposed redundancies in the Goodyear factory in that constituency? Is he aware that these redundancies are taking place in an area with a 20 per cent. male unemployment rate and in a factory flanked by two other recently closed factories?
    The Prime Minister: Some of these matters were brought to my attention in Scotland last Saturday, particularly regarding one multinational company. Certainly inquiries should be made into the matter. If we are to have a competition on the relative merits of candidates at by-elections, I hope that the hon.

    1319
    Gentleman will not forget that one candidate who is known to him talked of turning over a yard that is now building warships to undertake the task of building non-existent commercial vessels.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 21st March.
    The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Neubert: Does the Prime Minister accept the Select Committee's call for greater limitation on immigration into this country?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it will be better for me to reserve comment on that document, which is 75 pages long. So far as I can see, although it has produced a unanimous report, the conclusions drawn by some from it are not unanimous. If it will assist the hon. Gentleman to cope with the complexities of the report, I shall be glad to renew my offer of all-party talks on this matter to see what can be secured.
    Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend ponder today and every day whether it is not a measure of the arrogance of Zionism that the new Nazis of Israel, in an act of State terrorism, have launched a force of 20,000 men into a neighbouring country—occupying yet further Arab territory from which, of course, they will not withdraw—in open aggression which can only eventually fulfil Ben-Gurion's warning, many years ago, that if Begin, whom he termed a Hitlerite, ever came to power he would lead his country to disaster?
    The Prime Minister: That is more an expression of opinion than a question. It is not an opinion that I would share.
    Mr. MacKay: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Select Committee report is extremely realistic and in stark contrast to Labour Party conference motions on immigration and race relations?
    The Prime Minister: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not ex-
    1320
    pect me to agree with that. I hope to study the Select Committee report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made some preliminary observations on it. I do not know what impact it will have on the level of immigration. I looked to see whether there are any figures showing any possible level of reduction, but I could not find any. I shall be told whether I am right. I am told that it was too complex a subject for the Select Committee to forecast large reductions. I think that we had better study these matters and ascertain whether there are any loopholes that can be closed. If there are, they should be.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to consider the worsening unemployment situation on Merseyside, and the fact that over and above the present 12·6 per cent. unemployment we have about 10,000 redundancies pending? Will he initiate a new, more radical and more imaginative programme for the regeneration of industry, especially the creation of a Merseyside development agency?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the latest figures for the United Kingdom, but unemployment fell by 47,000 in March. The figures show a fall for six successive months. I believe that I am right in saying that there was also a fall of 3,000 in the number of unemployed on Merseyside. To that extent it is not a worsening situation. I think that everybody must be troubled about the psychological impact of what is happening on Merseyside. However, there are many good things going on in Liverpool and in the Merseyside area. All we hear about are the bad things. Although the situation is serious, I should like to see, and would be glad to help, a concerted effort to give a balanced picture of Merseyside, including all the good things as well as the bad things, to ascertain whether there are any other steps that can be taken to improve the situation.
    Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 21st March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert).
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend remind himself today of what was said in the October 1974 Labour Party manifesto—namely, that we should seek to establish a co-operative development agency? Does my right hon. Friend know that many of us in the co-operative group of the Parliamentary Labour Party are disappointed that no development agency proposals have yet been brought forward? Does he agree that such an agency would help to bring people together to run their own enterprises? Will he tell us what the Government propose to do on this issue?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, the report that was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment was published shortly before the Session began. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Bill to establish a co-operative development agency will be introduced this week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Today."] That confirms what I am saying. That only goes to show how speedily the Government have moved on the report.
    Mr. Budgen: When the House is considering the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations, will the Prime Minister remind it of the reasons that he advanced when he was Home Secretary, when he withdrew the right of male fiancés to enter the country? Will he further explain why it is that the same arguments do not apply today?
    The Prime Minister: All these matters are on the record and in the debate, but they do not happen to be part of my official engagements for 21st March.

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to pay an official visit to the United States of America.
    The Prime Minister: I have accepted an invitation from President Carter to have talks with him on Thursday of this week.
    Mr. Lamond: When my right hon. Friend is discussing with the President his excellent policies for aiding the recovery of Western European economies in future, does he think that he will be hindered too much by the activities of
    1322
    the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who, in her desperate search for power is advancing blatantly vote-catching and divisive policies based on stirring up the maximum discontent in every section of the population, inciting racial hatred and even inciting mutiny among our Service men on the basis that their pay has been held back by the wages policy?
    The Prime Minister: President Carter and I will have plenty to talk about in relation to the economic affairs of both our nations and many other countries. I certainly think that there is the prospect of our getting together with a number of other countries to try to restore some confidence to the economies of the world. That is my primary objective. I do not think that anythting that is being said elsewhere will be any hindrance to me.
    Mr. Rifkind: When the Prime Minister sees President Carter, will he discuss with him the disgraceful refusal of both the British and United States Governments to raise in the Security Council the continuing presence of many thousands of Cuban and Soviet personnel in Angola, Ethtiopia and elsewhere in Africa? How long will it be before the appeasers of the 1970s take action?
    The Prime Minister: Whether these matters are raised in the Security Council is more a question of whether the raising of them is likely to produce the right result than a question of appeasement. In view of the composition of the Security Council at times—because some of its members are transient—and in view of the composition of the United Nations, these matters are sometimes better discussed bilaterally. There have been strong contacts and strong expressions of view that are known to the Soviet Government and to the Cuban Government. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that because a matter is not raised in the Security Council there are not bilateral contacts in which these issues are made very clear.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: When my right hon. Friend sees President Carter, will he impress upon him that no matter how much we try to boost the economy of this nation and world trade the effect will be very small unless there is corresponding help from other nations, such as

    1323
    the United States and Germany? Will some thought be given to the state of our economy? Can we do more to boost our own economy, as well as boosting sales abroad?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. We can do something to boost our own economy. I hope that the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already brought forward, and other measures that he may have in mind, will encourage our economy to grow much faster during this year than a great many other economies, some of which are slowing down. I believe strongly that we need an economic stimulus throughout the world, but basic ally we have to restore confidence. I believe that if confidence can be restored—
    Sir Keith Joseph: By a change of Government.
    The Prime Minister: That will not help the rest of the world. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were to become First Lord of the Treasury—I can think of no fate worse than that to befall the nation—the fact remains that these matters need collective effort, and that is what we must have.
    Mr. Michael Morris: When the Prime Minister meets the President, will he make clear to him that the remarks of Senator Kennedy and other Irish Americans on the subject of Northern Ireland are not helpful, and continue only to inflame the situation in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: There are many things that I could discuss with the President. I do not think that I shall concentrate so much on the matters that might divide us as on the positive action that we might take during the coming months to try to escape from the world recession.
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that all hon. Members will have heard the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) accuse my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of encouraging mutiny in the Armed Forces. However puerile that remark may have been, it must have been out of order and should be withdrawn.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not intervene, because I saw the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition laughing at the remark. But it would be very dishonourable for anyone to do what the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) suggested that the Leader of the Opposition had done. Now that my attention has been drawn to the matter, I feel that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his claim that the right hon. Lady is inciting mutiny in the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Lamond: In view of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw what I said.
    Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

NORTH SEA OIL
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper "The Challenge of North Sea Oil" presented to Parliament this afternoon. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office.
First, I thank all those whose research work, technology, skill and enterprise often carried out in hazardous conditions, have made this great new resource available to our country.
The purpose of the White Paper is to give Parliament and the country an account of this new resource, its consequences for the economy and how the Government believe that it should be used.
The development of North Sea oil has given us a new industry—the offshore oil industry—which has brought over 100,000 new jobs, including some 60,000 to Scotland. This industry is now beginning to build on the success of British technology in the North Sea by pursuing similar outlets in other parts of the world, where there is evidence that countries are interested in buying the technology and expertise that this new British industry can offer.
North Sea oil will make Britain independent of imported energy for the next decade or more. The rate at which it is pumped ashore will help determine the time the oil will last. Agreements already made govern this policy for the next

1325
few years, but there will be important decisions to be taken to determine depletion policies of the 1980s and 1990s.
The oil will increase Britain's resources in three ways. It will increase our national income by about £6 billion a year by the mid-1980s. Secondly, it will help our balance of payments by about £8 billion to £9 billion a year by the mid-1980s. Thirdly, thanks to the action taken by the present Government to offset the effect of the policy we found on coming into office, under which a high proportion of oil is in the hands of overseas owned companies, it will in future add substantially to the national revenues. The estimate is that total revenue yield from the North Sea, including gas, will approach £4 billion a year by the mid-1980s.
In considering how best these benefits should be used, the Government have been conscious, above all, that the oil is a valuable, but temporary, bonus. It will last for many years, but not indefinitely. Our objective is that when the yield begins to decline, the British economy and British society will have been strengthened by its use and not weakened.
The Government's conclusion is that the benefits should be concentrated in four main areas.
First, there will be more resources for industrial investment to re-equip our industries so that they can meet the competition of the next two decades and create new jobs. The full value of such new investment will be realised only if it is coupled with higher productivity to enable us to compete successfully in the world.
The Government have an important role to play through the system of investment incentives, selective assistance and the work of the National Enterprise Board and development agencies.
Most of the new investment will be financed by industry itself through the renewed confidence that will result from greater economic stability, so maintaining a steady and consistent growth in the economy.
Secondly, we shall increase the funds devoted to energy conservation and to new energy investment—our immensely valuable coal reserves, nuclear and other energy sources—to be ready for the time when the flow of oil diminishes.
1326
Thirdly, the Government will reduce the level of personal taxation to increase take-home pay and work incentives.
Fourthly, we shall improve the standard of certain essential services, rebuild the inner cities, train and retrain more people to equip them with the necessary industrial skills and improve our social services.
The Government very carefully considered a proposal to create a separate fund for North Sea oil revenues and expenditure. On the surface it is an attractive idea, but, for the reasons explained in the White Paper, we conclude that there is no satisfactory way of separating and identifying the public spending of the tax reliefs specifically made possible by North Sea oil.
The Government will, however, present to Parliament an annual progress report showing how the priorities set out in the White Paper are being observed, and setting out the revenues received.
To sum up, the Government's purpose is to use the proceeds of North Sea oil to strengthen the country's industrial and social base and to bring to fulfilment the national recovery that has already begun.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I put two points to the Prime Minister? The White Paper is called "The Challenge of North Sea Oil" but is the Prime Minister aware that the real challenge was not in spending the proceeds of the oil but in exploring for it, producing it and bringing it ashore—a task which was completed almost exclusively by private enterprise?
Is he aware that he took an unnecessary swipe at overseas companies who are helping in that process? Without their technology, he would probably not have been in a position to make his statement about how the revenues would be spent. If other countries made the same strictures on BP as the right hon. Gentleman has made on overseas companies, this country would be very much the poorer for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stand up for Britain."] I am standing up for BP, which is more than some hon. Members opposite will do.
Secondly, is the Prime Minister aware that the document states again the arguments and courses of action that have already been well rehearsed and that there

1327
is only one choice facing the Government—whether the extra revenues are to be spent by the decision of the Government and Whitehall or according to the wishes of the people through cuts in taxation? Is he aware that we believe that the lion's share should go to cuts in taxation so that people may decide how to spend or save their money? In that way, they will contribute to greater profits of British companies, and if we get the profits we shall get the investment, and if we get investment we shall get the jobs.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the recovery that has already begun, but is he aware that according to figures published yesterday—
Hon. Members: Too long.
Mr. Speaker: Order. These constant interruptions are very unfair.
Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to figures published yesterday, production in our manufacturing industries was lower at the end of 1977 than at the end of 1976?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady correctly referred to the efforts that have been made in exploring for and bringing the oil ashore. That is why I began my statement by thanking
"all those whose research work, technology, skill and enterpise, often carried out in hazardous conditions, have made this great new resource available".
There is a great place for private enterprise, which has played a great part in this initiative, but there is no reason for using that as a stick with which to beat the Government. We are trying to ensure that overseas companies, at whom I have not taken a swipe, get a fair return, but not an excessive return, on their investment—that is to say, a return sufficient to satisfy their shareholders and to provide for their new investment, but not the return they would have had if we had not introduced the petroleum revenue tax, a situation that would have left far too much revenue in their hands.
Mr. Tom King: Not so.
The Prime Minister: If that is denied I do not know why the hon. Gentleman supported the Bill, why he did not vote against it. He knew that a deficiency had been left behind by his Administration.
1328
I am delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that she is standing up for BP. I am always in favour of something that is partially publicly owned receiving some approval from the right hon. Lady, but how does she reconcile her statement with the statement by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that he wants to sell off the shares?
Mrs. Thatcher: We do not.
The Prime Minister: We do not take the view that the proceeds should go wholly to cuts in taxation. I am interested that the right hon. Lady takes that view. I believe that it will be regarded as quite imprudent to make total cuts in taxation in respect of this when we clearly should provide additional resources to find new energy investment against the day when the oil starts to run out.
I believe also that there will be a substantial feeling in the country that it is right to refurbish our social fabric which would mean the rebuilding of some of our great cities including the east end of Glasgow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, here."]—and other such great cities as that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should wait for more.
The Prime Minister: —and there is—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When the right hon. Lady met with similar noise I protested. The Prime Minister should be heard to the end of his reply.
The Prime Minister: I believe that there is in the country a much better understanding than was shown by the right hon. Lady of the need to cut taxation and to have a proper balance of public expenditure.
As for her third point about the levels of production in this country, I must point out that from the beginning of 1973 to the beginning of 1974 production fell quite substantially under her Government.
Mr. David Steel: Is not one of the most important sections of the White Paper that which acknowledges the fact that we have not made the most effective and efficient use of our manpower and

1329
material resources in the post-war era? Is it not the case that the North Sea oil resources provide only a breathing space and not a cure-all for internal problems such as under-investment and over-manning? Does the Prime Minister accept that we should use these resources sensibly in order to try to overcome the basic problems and secure a better future economy?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. The whole emphasis of the White Paper is that these welcome additional resources provide no more than a breathing space. I hope that the priorities that the nation will, under the guidance of Parliament, select year by year can be reviewed in the annual report so that we can see whether those priorities are regarded as correct. It is not possible artificially to divide up the actual amount paid out, but there can be a general indication of the priorities being followed.
Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major causes of this country's industrial weakness and its lower levels of production than some of its competitors over the years is that the people who own the wealth in this country, to whom the Leader of the Opposition would give more wealth, have a much greater propensity to export their capital than to invest it in development at home? This country needs the capital but it exports it to a far greater extent than, for example, West Germany. Is my right hon. Friend aware, therefore, that we welcome the emphasis in his statement on the need to provide, with Government aid, the investment that we need here at home?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there is the need both for improved and additional investment and for the better use of investment, especially as this country has inherited a number of industries that we regard as traditional, but the viability of which is now being challenged by other countries that can produce better—and more cheaply than we can—the goods we have traditionally produced. That situation demands a substantial change in our approach to investment and in the nature and training of our people, and both of these things can be helped by the bonus of North Sea oil.
Mr. Powell: In order to keep in proportion the contribution of North Sea oil and the scope for the use of it, will the Prime Minister confirm the estimate made by the Government in the Public Expenditure White Paper that North Sea oil will account for approximately 1 per cent. of the anticipated increase in revenues during the next three years?
The Prime Minister: During the next three years the figure that the right hon. Gentleman quotes might be correct, but I was basing myself on the middle 1980s. We are asked to look ahead in these matters. However, the figure I have for 1980 is an increase in our national income of about 3 per cent.; the effect on the balance of payments will be equivalent to an increase of about 12 per cent. in the volume of exports, and that is pretty substantial. Thirdly, the revenue yield by the mid-1980s would be about 5 per cent. of the revenue we now secure—
Mr. Tom King: Do not count on it.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not underrate it. It is a substantial and worthwhile bonus. If he got a bonus of 5 per cent. on his income every year he would regard it as worth while even though he did not deserve it.
Mr. George Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome his statement, especially in its reference to the restructuring of the regions, where heavy unemployment exists? However, will my right hon. Friend take a closer look at the proliferation of development authorities in the regions, perhaps taking the Northern Region as an example? At the moment we have the National Enterprise Board, the North-East Regional Development Council, the Northern Economic Planning Council, the county councils and the local councils. Can we not have a more co-ordinated effort to tackle the problems?
The Prime Minister: That machinery can by all means be looked at, but the major impact of North Sea Oil on these affairs is that it ought to restrict some of the constraints under which the economy has laboured. For example, there have been a number of occasions when Governments of both parties have had to cut growth because of balance of payments constraints. If we can escape from that by prudent growth, that should

1331
enable us to obtain much more stability with much less change in our economic policies than we experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. That in itself will induce confidence and lead to more investment and the better use of resources.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Prime Minister referred to the need for industrial investment and increased productivity. Would he accept that this implies a movement of labour into service industry? He also referred to the need for further energy investment with the intention of exporting energy. Does he accept that this implies a fairly rapid decision about the future of the fast breeder reactor? Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that he has made no reference to the potential use of any extra wealth from the North Sea to be put to the defence of this country and to the expansion of our defence industries?
The Prime Minister: It is true that the labour force has grown substantially during the 1970s and will continue to grow at a rate of about 170,000 a year. The rationalisation of a number of our larger industries has resulted in their slimming rather than taking on labour. This leads to two conclusions. First, we should encourage small firms as, indeed. Government policy does, and I believe that the measures we have taken are already beginning to show results. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be more of a movement into service industries. But it still follows that it is important to restructure and modernise—I think "regenerate" is the word that is used—our basic manufacturing industries to meet the challenge of overseas.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I do not think that I referred to the intention of exporting energy. That is not in my statement. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman misheard me. The future of the fast breeder reactor will need to be considered in the early 1980s. But for the moment the two AGRs, for which we have given permission, are sufficient to occupy the industry. I do not think that we can take a decision on the fast breeder for some time yet.
We have increased the amount to be spent on defence by 3 per cent. over the next year. This has been done in
1332
conjunction with our NATO allies. We shall continue to look both at the nature of the threat that we face and at the economic consequences of assuming bigger burdens.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not least of importance in the points that he mentioned in his statement was his reference to the necessity to use part of the benefits of North Sea oil revenue to investigate the other sources of energy that we might bequeath to a future generation or even to the generation that is born today? Can we expect a Government Green Paper or some kind of discussion or statement on this at an early date?
The Prime Minister: I shall look into that. We did produce a Green Paper on energy, as my hon. Friend will remember, and there was reference in it to major new sources of energy. What is important is that we should account to Parliament in due course for the resources that we are devoting to the subject and for the nature of the new kinds of energy that we are researching and investigating. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the electorate of Ilford will be distressed that their by-election came too early to benefit from his statement? Is he not rather concerned that the revenue from North Sea oil in 1978 will be equivalent to only one-third of the increase in the public sector wage bill, one-quarter of the revised public sector borrowing requirement and about equal to the deficit of two of our nationalised industries?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman wants me to conclude from that. That question seemed to demonstrate what I was saying, that this is a useful bonus but that it will not solve our problems. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant, I agree with him.
Mrs. Bain: In a Scottish context, does the Prime Minister accept that the 60,000 jobs to which he referred in his statement have now shrunk to 56,000 because of their temporary nature? In view of this, and against a background of 191,000 unemployed in Scotland plus a 30 per

1333
cent. shrinkage in our manufacturing base, does he accept that there will be bitter disappointment in Scotland that no special oil fund is to be set up as promised in the Labour Party's manifesto? Many people will feel that, while he himself may have been piped into the Labour Party conference at Dunoon, Scotland's oil resources are being piped very quickly from Scotland? There will be no control under which we can monitor the way in which the Scottish Exchequer spends the oil revenues in Scotland.
The Prime Minister: I recognise that that is the standard formula of the Scottish National Party. I hope that the hon. Lady will read the White Paper objectively and apply her mind to whether it would be possible to set up an oil fund that would be meaningful. It would be wrong to deceive the Scottish electors into believing that it would be possible to do this. I hope that the hon. Lady will not allow her party to do so.
I agree that Scotland is one of the areas—like my own area of South Wales—which is particularly affected by the shrinkage of the traditional industries. Scotland has made a great start by getting into electronics and is doing well in a number of new industries. Indeed, it is hoped that these revenues will regenerate industry there.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a great welcome in Scotland, as well as in the whole of the country, for the emphasis which he has put on the need to use North Sea oil revenues for investment in future prospects and future industry? Is that not in stark contrast to the attitude of both hon. Ladies who have asked questions—the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain)—whose only concern seemed to be to get their snouts in the trough quickly and early?
The Prime Minister: I believe that the country wants us to look ahead on these matters and would not accept the view of the Conservative Opposition that the proceeds should be spent solely on tax reductions. That was the only thing that I heard mentioned. I did not hear anything else. If the Opposition are saying that they agree that money must be
1334
applied to the regeneration of industry, for the investigation of new energy sources and for the rehabilitation of our great cities, they agree with us entirely and I do not know what all the noise was about during my statement.
Mr. Forman: Is the Prime Minister aware that the basic flaw in all predictions such as that which he made about the spending of North Sea oil revenues is the attempt by this Government to get a quart out of a pint pot? If he is to concentrate on one or two purposes, surely he ought to have mentioned the repayment of overseas debt, for which this Government are so severely responsible.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the flaw in all predictions. I wish that was always remembered by his colleagues when they talk about forecasts. But as the House is always interested in the future, the Government must try to provide the best forecasts that are available at the time. Clearly, they are subject to review as the years go by.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to talk about the repayment of debt. Debt repayments will be required in the 1980s. There will be a hump in the early 1980s. But if we can show that there is a steady period of growth—not a sudden boom, not everything put into the pot and forgetting about tomorrow—and a return of confidence, I believe that it will be possible to roll over some of these debt repayments and even them out so that we get an even flow during the 1980s.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that growth is our greatest need and that it has always been frustrated in the past by our balance of payments constraints? Is not the 12 per cent. import saving of the greatest importance with regard to offshore oil, because that will allow us to grow faster than we would otherwise have been able to? Is not that a message which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take on board in his Budget in April?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the balance of payments impact. If we had had this in the 1950s and 1960s I believe it would have affected the prospects for growth very considerably and favourably. In the early

1335
1980s we shall have something like £8 billion or £9 billion at least at current prices on the credit side of our balance of payments. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking that into account. But I warn my hon. Friend that this has still to come. I am talking about the position in the future. This year the impact will be nothing like as great. It will not work up to this major figure until the early 1980s or thereabouts.
Mr. Skeet: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Shetland Islands appear to be making better use of their oil revenues than the British Government? Is he also aware that he has insufficient funds for the many grandiose schemes that he has available? Will he tell the House, of the four categories that he outlined, which percentage or which sum of money he will allocate to the National Enterprise Board? Will he give it £1,000 million? Finally, will he tamper with the depletion allowance before 1985?
The Prime Minister: I should not be surprised if the Shetland Islands are doing rather well. I always think that small areas do very well indeed in these matters. But I think that, on the whole, the United Kingdom is the best unit for this basis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
As for insufficient funds for these priorities, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. I have already indicated that there will not be a North Sea oil fund. This releases certain constraints. We cannot indicate that particular funds will be allocated to particular purposes. It will be part of a much larger pool. It would be artificial to separate it. As regards the percentage to the National Enterprise Board, that is an indication of policy. Precise sums will be placed before Parliament if we wish to increase the allocation to the NEB in due course.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four hon. Members from each side of the House.
Mr. Roy Hughes: To follow tide nineteenth century economic logic of the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister indicate how the British economy will benefit if we proceed to import even greater quantities of Japanese transistors.
1336
hi-fi equipment and so on, plus more cars from Western Europe? Does he agree that, in addition to the proposals that he has made this afternoon, we should introduce a selective programme of import controls to take 1½ million people out of the dole queue?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is taking me rather wide on economic policies. I agree that to import greater quantities of goods does not help our balance of payments. That is why we should buy British, make British and sell British. I hope that that will be the motto.
A selective programme of import controls already exists with the agreement of the EEC and our other international partners. I hope that my hon. Friend will not go overboard on this matter. He should remember that some foreign trade accounts are about 21 per cent. of our GNP. If there are repercussions, our export trade will suffer, too.
Mr. Rost: What is there about the Government's shameful record that qualifies them to be entrusted with the distribution of this North Sea oil bonus in more vote-catching measures when the bonus is desperately needed to repair the ravages of four years of Socialism?
The Prime Minister: If for no better reason than the sight of right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Higgins: Is there not a danger that the effect of North Sea oil revenues on the balance of payments and exchange rates will result in a progressive deterioration of the position of our existing export industries? Therefore, is it not important that a substantial flow of funds should go across the exchanges? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be some move towards relaxation of exchange controls and particularly a more rapid repayment of overseas debt?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right in his analysis that the strength of our balance of payments could result in upward pressure on sterling. A great deal depends on our level of costs and on many other matters which would affect the oil price and a number of other considerations. It is imperative that the Government, in so far as they can prevent it, do not allow sterling either to rise too

1337
high or to sink below a competitive level. That is the object of Government policy at the moment. It is easier to state frequently than to achieve.
I cannot undertake either a relaxation of capital controls or that there will be a greater flow of funds across the exchanges. The remedies required in the world are more fundamental than would be achieved by that process.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour Members are glad that he has noted that the Leader of the Opposition, while paying lip service to investment, brushes the whole thing aside by demanding that all the money be spent on a reduction of taxes? We hope that he will never be deflected from his course by that sweet, siren, seductive voice.
The Prime Minister: I think that, until the Opposition make an official correction, there is obviously a substantial difference between us. As I understand it, their principal priority is the reduction of taxation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."]—and to use the oil funds in that way. There is a substantial difference. Obviously both official spokesmen for the Conservative Opposition agree that that is the principal objective. I shall be very happy to argue that out in the country. I am sure that the country will take the view that it is extremely imprudent, especially as the oil is only a temporary bonus and would raise our standard of life beyond what we could permanently sustain.
Mr. Viggers: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a mouse of a statement? Does he recognise that the oil and gas minerals are capital assets which should be reinvested as capital, not spent as income? Is he aware that references to income, to revenue and to bonus and, above all, a throw-away line reference to East Glasgow show that the Government have a facile approach? Why did the Prime Minister not even mention the energy shortfall at the end of this century?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper—I realise that he has not had time to read it yet—he will see that Appendix II at the end discusses the problem that he raised—the shortfall in energy. It is
1338
not for me to intervene between the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front Bench. However, I would, on the whole, agree more with him than with his Front Bench that this asset should be used as an investment to regenerate our industrial system. The hon. Gentleman should not be more purist than I am on this matter. In other words, it should be possible to find a bonus by way of tax cuts out of it. But to devote the whole of it to tax cuts would, in my view and in his, be totally absurd.
I should have thought that, if the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about the need for capital investment, he will agree that there should be investment in our great cities. For example, investment in the docklands of London or of Merseyside, the centre of Liverpool or the East End of Glasgow, which aroused such laughter when I mentioned it earlier, is absolutely essential if we are to have a modern society which is worth living in. I do not understand the laughter of the Opposition about that matter.
Mr. Gould: How does my right hon. Friend propose to ensure that the oil revenues will not be used up in paying for increased imports of manufactured goods and in spacing industrial production at home, as happened with North Sea gas?
The Prime Minister: We cannot ensure that unless we have such an enclosed economy that many other weaknesses would follow from it. We must follow an economic policy which will make it more likely than otherwise.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in evidence to a Select Committee upstairs the other day, said that it would be reasonable to claim 10 per cent. of the proceeds from North Sea oil for the development of British science and that, if she got such money, she would allocate at least £100 million per annum to the development of British science? In that context, in the context of his remarks on the micro-processing industry and on the importance of regenerating British industry, is it not deplorable that a statement of this kind should contain no mention of British science or scientific effort whatsoever?
The Prime Minister: This is not a total review of the Government's economic policy. Many other matters could have been put into the White Paper. I have many colleagues in the Cabinet who will find very good reasons for spending this money on their own projects. I am sure that there is a very good argument for devoting money to science. These priorities will have to be worked out, as they are now, with each priority looked at against another. That is the argument against having a separate oil fund.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this plan for national recovery will be widely welcomed? As he is likely to be Prime Minister for many years, will he again look at the proposal for an oil fund, because there are those on this side of the House who believe that we should monitor the use of this resource so that it will benefit future generations as well as the present generation? Will he, as a postcript, have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see what can be done to help overseas aid so that we share this bonus with the rest of the world?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for condemning me to this long sentence. I assure him that we did not dismiss easily the idea of an oil fund. As the SNP knows, it has a superficial political attraction. But when the people of Scotland or of England and Wales come to look at it they will see that it is only a superficial attraction. We
1340
entered into this matter with open minds. We decided that, on balance, it would have been rather deceptive and cosmetic to say that we would establish an oil fund. Therefore, I cannot undertake to review it in that way.
As regards the developing countries, a strong Britain will, I hope, carry out its responsibilities. Let us get our own industries going and our unemployment down and we shall be in a better position to meet much of the poverty in the rest of the world.

BILL PRESENTED
  CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
  Mr. Secretary Varley, supported by Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Dell, Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Secretary Hattersley, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Alan Williams, and Mr. Bob Cryer, presented a Bill to establish a Co-operative Development Agency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

  ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT)
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Hodgson: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 to improve the protection given to endangered species; and for connected purposes.
  The purpose of my proposed Bill is very simple; it is to block a loophole in the 1976 Endangered Species Act—a loophole which, a good deal of evidence suggests, is being increasingly widely used as a means of flouting the purpose and intention of the original legislation which was designed to restrict the trade in those animals whose very existence was threatened by their continued trapping and killing.
  The loophole in the 1976 Act to which I refer arises from the lack of explicit prohibition on the "transhipment" of those animals which are on the list of endangered species at United Kingdom sea and more particularly air ports. That is to say, there is no prohibition on the use of the United Kingdom as a staging post in the trade in endangered species.
  While it might seem to hon. Members at first sight that this is a small loophole, in fact closer examination indicates that there are wider consequences to this defect. The United Kingdom legislation is based on a United Nations convention of 1973 entitled
  "International Trade in endangered species of Wild Fauna and Flora."
  Article VII(1) of the convention states that its provisions
  "shall not apply to the transit or transhipment of specimens through or in the territory of a Party while the specimens remain in Customs control".
  Why, one might well ask, was this exclusion made? I am informed that the pressure for this exclusion was led by the British delegation. The British delegation was in turn led by the Department of Customs and Excise, which no doubt feared that prohibition of transhipment would lead to an increase in its administrative workload.
  However, this opposition by Customs and Excise has had serious consequences. For though the United Kingdom legislation does not repeat the clause in the
  1342
  United Nations convention, and indeed though some parliamentary lawyers argue that the wording of the Act is sufficiently wide to include a prohibition on transhipment, Customs and Excise have persistently refused to implement any prohibition on transhipment.
  Let me now explain briefly to the House how this loophole is being widened. Let us take the position of a dealer in wild animals. Let us suppose that he buys two chimpanzees from another dealer in, say, Sierra Leone. When the chimpanzees arrive at Heathrow Airport he applies to Customs and Excise for a temporary import licence. Customs and Excise will undoubtedly give a 28-day licence provided only that, first, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspector certifies that the animals are healthy, and, secondly, that they are shown an air ticket consigning the chimpanzees eventually to a destination outside the United Kingdom. So the dealer buys an air freight tickets covering the shipment of two chimpanzees to, say, Paris, and armed with this he gets his import licence.
  Now comes the trick. The dealer circulates other dealers in the trade with details of his two rare animals, inviting competitive bids. He has his 28-day period in which to do this, though if the time is insufficient he can probably get a further 28-day extension. Once all the bids are in he will accept the highest, probably making a substantial profit. Finally, say the highest bidder has come from a Moscow medical research centre, the dealer merely buys another air ticket, this time for a destination in Moscow, changes the destination on the consignment sheet, and claims a refund on the unused air freight ticket for Paris. The chimpanzees go to Moscow, the dealer makes his profit, Customs and Excise avoid any more work, and another rare species goes a step closer to extinction. It is practices of this nature and others like it that my Bill aims to prevent.
  Britain has two additional responsibilities. First, Heathrow and British airports are heavily used in the international air freight trade. In particular, the national airlines of many Commonwealth countries fly into Heathrow. A ban on the transhipment of rare and endangered species within the United Kingdom would have an enormously

  1343
  restrictive effect on this unpleasant trade. I am not so innocent as to believe that all trade would cease. Some would still go through the United Kingdom, but at least it would be clearly illegal.
  The second reason for the United Kingdom to become involved is that a ban on transhipment here would end the "cleansing" effect of passing rare animals through the United Kingdom. Because this country is a signatory to the United Nations convention, rare animals arriving elsewhere in the world from a United Kingdom point of departure are believed by the authorities in the recipient country to have been carefully processed. The United Kingdom therefore has a special responsibility in this regard.
  If hon. Members consider that maybe only an insignificant number of these transhipment cases occur, they should consider the example of the United States. The United States Congress implemented similar legislation to our own in 1975, and since that date the following total seizures of all animals have taken place: in 1975 there were 1,900; in 1976 there were 7,600; and in 1977 there were 21,000.
  By comparison, in reply to a parliamentary Question that I put down on 20th March the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that so far in the United Kingdom during the entire period that the Act has been in force there have been only 23 seizures and one prosecution. Even allowing for the great difference between the United States and the United Kingdom, 23 is hardly an encouraging total leading one to believe that Customs and Excise are being rigorous in the carrying out of their duties.
  In conclusion, the trade in endangered species and plants is growing all the time. It is easy for us to shrug our shoulders and say that nothing can be done. I believe that this country has a clear duty to do what it can to restrict this trade, and I hope that the House will give leave for the introduction of this Bill this afternoon.
  Question put and agreed to,
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robin Hodgson, Mr. Jasper More, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, Mr. Peter Hardy and Mr. Richard Page.

  ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT)
  Mr. Robin Hodgson accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 to improve the protection given to endangered species, and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st April and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE AND MILK)
  [Commission documents also relevant: Nos. R/3295/77, R13296177, R/1969/77, RI863177, R/2291/77, R/2292/77, R/2648/77 and R/389/78.]
  Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the Government motion, which, as you know, was put down only yesterday. My point is that the fact that we are having the debate today means that we have been given very little time in which to put down amendments. Furthermore, no opportunity has been given to hon. Members on both sides of the House who might wish to do so to add their names to the amendment.
  I think that it also makes difficulties for you, Mr. Speaker, when a Government motion is put down so late, in deciding whether you should call an amendment for debate. Indeed, those who put down an amendment have little or no opportunity to make representations to you. I appreciate the Government's difficulties in this matter, but it would be helpful to have your comments.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The motion is strictly procedurally correct, but that is all I can say in favour of it. This procedure has often been adopted, but it does not give hon. Members much of a chance to put down an amendment. By way of comfort to the hon. Member, may I say that I am selecting the amendment for discussion today, and perhaps those who are responsible for what has happened will try to bear in mind that the House likes to have proper notice to be able to table amendments.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to detain the House, but, as you will appreciate, we are trying in this short debate to deal with about 15 documents, and that makes great difficulty for all those who wish to take part in the debate, in view of the guidance you were kind enough to offer the House last week. You suggested then that a speech lasting eight minutes was good but that anything exceeding that time was not so good and that the names of those who made longer speeches would end up on a little list kept somewhere in this building.
  Is it within your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to draw to the attention of those responsible for arranging the business of the House the immense problems of Back Benchers when we are moving from wine through to olives, milk prices, the future of the Milk Marketing Boards and whether our children receive free school milk?
  Mr. Speaker: I preferred the hon. Gentleman's reference to milk to his reference to wine and olives. He must pursue the matter with the Leader of the House, who is responsible for Government business in the House in a way that I am not.
  4.20 p.m
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents R/3200/77, R/3200/77 Addendum 1 and R/545/78 on agricultural prices, and document R/27/78 on the Milk Marketing Boards; supports the Government's intention to negotiate a settlement which, taking into account the interests of consumers as well as producers, helps to secure a better balance of the market, particularly in those sectors with a structural surplus; welcomes the Commission's proposals to safeguard the essential functions of the Milk Marketing Boards; and supports the Government's intention to seek the changes necessary to ensure the continued stability of arrangements for marketing milk in the United Kingdom.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) has just said, we have a long list of documents to consider today, all related to the negotiations on CAP prices for the coming year which will begin in earnest immediately after the Easter break. Some of these documents deal with detailed and background issues—R/3296/77, for example,
  1346
  which is the Commission's report on agricultural markets in 1977. Both R/ 1969/77, which deals with starch production refunds during the past year, and R/863/77, the document which was put forward by the Commission at last year's price fixing and which deals with isoglucose and the United Kingdom butter subsidy, are in this category; likewise R/2648/77 which contains a proposal by the Commission for the use of the funds derived from the milk co-responsibility levy.
  I shall ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with these matters when he winds up the debate, as well as with some of the other important points—whether they cover wine, olives, milk or anything else—that I do not have time to answer.
  Documents R/2291/77 and R/2292/77 deal with the highly important question of the market support arrangements for beef and veal. The question posed is whether there should be a more widespread use of the dual system of intervention and premiums which we operate in the United Kingdom. I do not expect the Council of Ministers to decide this question at the price negotiations. It may not even be discussed before the summer. As I have explained before, I very much favour the dual support system in our own country.
  Document R/339/78 is the Commission report on distortions caused by the MCA system. Its importance lies in its reference to the question of recalculating the pigmeat MCAs. The House knows that this is a matter on which I pressed the Council alone for many months, although latterly the French and Italian delegations have supported me. I have to say that I find the report very disappointing. It evades the central issue, which is that an intervention price for pigmeat is purely theoretical. Pigmeat levies are based on cereals, and—as with poultry—pigmeat MCAs should also be based on cereals. So far, the Commission's only proposal is to increase the basic price of pigmeat by 3 per cent.—an increase which would have no direct impact on producers' returns but would increase MCAs. I have had no hesitation in saying, therefore, that I will not accept an increase in the basic price unless we get a change in the level of MCAs paid on our imports.

  1347
  As for the main body of the report, suffice it to say that its conclusion that MCAs should be phased out over seven years sidesteps the real problem, which is that the so-called common prices are based on the values of the joint float currencies—in effect, on the German mark. The real level of common prices therefore varies with every fluctuation in the value of the mark. The report does not consider how the system could be adjusted to meet this problem or how common prices could be fixed in more realistic terms.
  Document R/27/78 is the Commission's proposal for a legal framework for the continuation of the United Kingdom Milk Marketing Boards. The boards have provided the United Kingdom with a valuable instrument which has allowed us to preserve the system of doorstep deliveries, which is desirable both on economic and social grounds. While other countries in the Nine have witnessed a calamitous drop in the consumption of liquid milk over the last 12 years—Germany by 36 per cent., the Netherlands by almost 50 per cent., and Denmark by 40 per cent. for example—our orderly and vigorous milk market has continued. The fall in United Kingdom consumption over the same period was only 2 per cent.
  The loss of the daily delivery round would, as all Continental experience shows, lead inevitably to a marked drop in consumption and, therefore, to increased sales into intervention of butter and skimmed milk powder. I know that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has made light of this surplus, but the fact remains that the dumping of excess butter at give-away prices to Russia is an affront to most people in our country.
  I have therefore been at great pains to get these points across to the Commission, and I was glad to be able, broadly, to welcome its proposals when they were published before Christmas. Nevertheless, there are difficulties in the proposals for us. The requirement that 50 per cent. of production be consumed in liquid form is restrictive; we need to protect Northern Ireland, which has its own problems; too many producer-retailers would be allowed to opt out of the scheme and the five-year polls of producers militate
  1348
  against long-term planning. But at least the proposals offer an opportunity for a secure basis for the boards within the framework of Community legislation.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in the Council seem to see difficulties in the Commission's proposals. I do not for one moment underrate the difficulties ahead, but I believe that I have the backing of the whole House when I say that one important objective must be to see the future of the boards made secure.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I wholeheartedly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the Milk Marketing Boards. Has he suggested to the Community that it might be very wise to take a lesson from our boards and seek to expand that system in the Community?
  Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. This is very much in my mind. I do not want to go too much into the objections now, because I have noticed that objections in the Council of Ministers of recent weeks seemed to be wider than the purely narrow point that one was debating.
  Documents R/3200/77, R/3200/77 addendum 1 and R/534/78 between them explain the Commission's approach to the price proposals and give the detailed changes which the Council will be discussing, and R/3295/77 gives the Commission's assessment of their financial implications.
  It is, of course, prices that lie at the centre of the common agricultural policy and form the main subject of the prolonged and difficult negotiations we face every year at this time. For very good reasons, which I have frequently explained to the House, we have found ourselves in previous years negotiating against great odds to secure a fair and sensible outcome. To too many of our European partners increasing the level of farm prices has seemed a desirable end in itself, for reasons of internal policy. Our remit, on the other hand, has been to prevent excessive price levels, which, we believe, damage the whole Community. But in present circumstances they damage United Kingdom interests more than those of other countries. It is natural, therefore, that we fight the hardest every year to hold down price increases.
  CAP prices affect our economy in three important ways. They govern the price

  1349
  of most of the food which the United Kingdom consumer buys and thus influence our counter-inflation policies and our living standards; they affect the general cost of running the CAP, to which we pay a major share through our budgetary contribution; and they affect the cost of many of our imports, which in turn affects the balance of payments and our trading relations with other countries. All these effects taken together can make a substantial difference to our economic performance.
  We have had a timely reminder of this with the publication last week of a summary of the latest study by the Cambridge Economic Policy Group. The study draws a number of conclusions, but there are three in particular that I would emphasise. First, the direct cost of the CAP to the United Kingdom balance of payments is estimated to be currently about £1,000 million per annum and will probably rise to £1,200 million at 1978 prices by 1980. Secondly, food prices here are higher than they would have been if we were not applying the CAP.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Are Messrs Wynne Godley and company still assuming, as they frequently do, that we are concerned with pre-inflation prices?
  Do they not know that we did not buy the bulk of our sugar and butter at world prices before joining the EEC but at Commonwealth Sugar Agreement prices and at special prices from New Zealand, and that New Zealand is no longer prepared to accept those low prices?
  Mr. Silkin: I wish that I had not given way. The hon. Lady can perfectly well read the study for herself.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: She has read the only report available.
  Mr. Silkin: In that event the question seems to be totally immaterial and irrelevant. Let me give an example. The hon. Lady mentioned New Zealand butter. The Wynne Godley team seemed to me to be seriously overstating the figure for butter, not understating it. That figure did not take into account that, without the CAP, butter coming from Europe to the United Kingdom would be cheaper, not more expensive.
  1350
  I should like to finish the line of argument that I was dealing with. I shall then try to reassure the hon. Lady, if it is possible—which I begin to doubt—of what is the Government's view on the matter. I said that there were three points that I wanted to emphasise, and I have dealt with two. The third point is this. To the extent that our economic expansion, says the Wynne Godley team, is constrained by the balance of payments, the real cost to our national income and output could certainly be larger than the direct cost.
  Of course, the precise level of the figures is open to argument. That I agree. They depend critically on the levels of commodity prices outside the EEC. I have no doubt that there can be much argument about the extent to which a balance of payments saving could generate further growth within the British economy. I believe that the calculation of a 12 per cent. increase in retail food prices as a result of the CAP may be somewhat on the high side. But, given present real Community and world price levels, when I consider the cost of the CAP I must tell the House that I think that Mr. Wynne Godley and his team have got it pretty well right. The figures involved may seem to the House to be large, but there is in fact nothing new in this assessment. Indeed, as the study says—this is why I asked the hon. Lady to read it—after making allowance for inflation the overall cost quoted is very close to what was forecast in the 1970 White Paper on the United Kingdom and the European Communities.
  It seems to me that there are a number of important lessons to draw from this confirmation of the size of the economic burden which the CAP represents. The study shows how right we have been as a Government to make our central aim for the reform of the CAP the reduction of Community agriculture prices in real terms. It shows that two-thirds of the cost to the United Kingdom arises from the money that we pay to the Community budget. If we can get the cost of the CAP under control—and this means basically eliminating the structural surpluses—we can make a big reduction in our own net payment. We cannot, therefore, afford to relax our determination to prevent unjustified increases, and this year, as last year and previously, my intention is to use our full negotiating

  1351
  strength within the Council of Ministers towards this end.
  Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £1 billion which the Cambridge economic survey says is the real cost of the CAP to people of this country is in addition to what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and his party want to do by doing away with the discrepancy of the green pound which, if my memory serves me aright, comes out at exactly an extra £1 billion, or £50 per year per family for everyone in this country?
  Mr. Silkin: Mr. Wynne Godley was dealing with that situation.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin rose—
  Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Member for for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) wants to intervene upon an intervention, I shall sit down to allow him to do so. But apparently he prefers to remain seated.
  Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister confirm that not only the present Government but all their predecessors, including previous Labour Governments, have always thought it right to support British agriculture? In doing so, there has to be a cost of some sort over and above the value at which food can be bought at world prices. Is not the Minister making yet again the old point that if we support British agriculture it is costly to the British taxpayer or consumer? Would it not be better for him to divert his efforts towards making it more efficient instead of complaining about it?
  Mr. Silkin: That is a fair point to take in relation to the point made by my hon. Friend. It seemed quite apposite. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. Mr. Wynne Godley was dealing with the present position, not the never-never land that Conservative Members, if they were unfortunate enough ever to be in charge of our destinies, would deal with in the next two or three years or whenever it is. So he is perfectly right on that.
  But Mr. Wynne Godley and his team were talking about the direct costs. They were talking additionally about an indirect cost. The argument of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare is the
  1352
  argument of those who believe that it is right to increase farmers' prices regardless of what they can sell. Basically, at the root of the common agricultural policy is a system which puts hundreds of thousands of tons of foodstuffs into store rather than into the mouths of human beings. That is precisely what would happen if the hon. Gentleman's policy were followed. I am glad that it has not been followed.
  That demonstrates another point I wish to make. Up to now, we have maintained our fight in the face of opposition from the Conservative Party. I had hoped that this year we might have some support from the Opposition, particularly after the vote last week in the European Assembly. A conversion, even at this late hour, will enable me in the Council to speak on behalf of a united nation against those who demand higher prices regardless of the real interest of the ordinary people of our country. I am sorry that that has not been the effect of this debate, but at least we know where we are. The hon. Gentleman put to me very clearly that at least a significant part of the Conservative Party—that was what I thought the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) was saying, too—wants higher prices.
  All this shows that we have been right, too, in our policy towards the green pound and towards the special butter subsidy. The Opposition have chosen to argue in the past that we are humiliating ourselves by insisting on Community-financed MCA subsidies on our food imports. The right hon. Member for Yeovil recently described it in these terms
  "I now turn to the European taxpayer, who deserves some mention as he has been paying quite a substantial contribution to our food costs … averaging more than £1 million a day".—[Official Report, 23rd January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 974–5.]
  He then went on to attack what he called my "mendicant" attitude. The truth is that, so far from being a net receiver of benefits, the United Kingdom is, as the study shows, transferring resources on a large scale to the other member States of the EEC.
  I must tell the House that in these circumstances I feel no inhibitions whatever about our benefiting from MCA subsidies on our food imports. I feel no regrets about having negotiated the

  1353
  special butter subsidy last year. And I am in no doubt that the policy I have been following on the green pound is the right one in the national interest.
  Certainly, Her Majesty's Government intend to bring the philosophy of that policy fully into the price negotiations. We shall fight for a settlement which attacks the structural surpluses at their roots and we shall fight to preserve those national institutions, such as the Milk Marketing Boards, which are suited to our national needs and have proved themselves over the years.
  Accordingly, I find no difficulty in accepting the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. I am sorry that, owing to an indisposition, my right hon. Friend cannot be present today. The wording of his amendment, it is true, is stronger than that of the Government motion, but the spirit behind both motion and amendment is the same—an awareness of what reqires to be done to amend the CAP and a resolve that it shall be done.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I begin by declaring my interests in these matters as a farmer.
  The Minister has initiated the debate in a way which, I fear, did not find as thoughtful and as full of information as we might have expected from him on this occasion. But he has initiated the debate on a highly diverse package, which, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) said before we began, is an extremely difficult package on which to make a co-ordinated speech, in view of the breadth of what we are talking about and the relative shortage of time that we have.
  I should like to begin by doing what I am sure the Minister would have wished to do, and I do so not in platitudinous way. That is to say "Thank you" to the Agriculture Sub-Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) is Chairman. It does an extremely helpful job in drawing these matters to our attention. The danger is that in such a short time and with such a wide breadth of subjects, it is so easy to leave things out. I am sure that I shall
  1354
  do that, although I shall do my best to avoid it.
  Undoubtedly, of the documents that we are discussing, that which has the widest immediate importance is document R /3200/77 on the Commissions price proposals for the next year. Basically, these consist of proposals amounting overall to an increase in institutional prices of 1·9 per cent. The Minister said that he was sorry that the Opposition were not supporting him in trying to maintain that level of increases in prices, but he may recall that during the debate that we had on the green pound devaluation, we made it perfectly clear that we supported that. Indeed, we consider that a rise in prices of this sort—1·9 per cent. is quite adequate in the circumstances.
  We believe that for commodities which are in structural surplus the market forces must operate in resisting further expansion and attaining in certain circumstances an actual cut-back in production. That is the basic truth. The Minister said, quite rightly, that it is wrong to have a policy that allows, willy-nilly, production to increase regardless of the consequences. We believe very strongly that it is a basic truth, and one with which few farmers would disagree, that farmers do not have a God-given right to produce more and more food which can be neither consumed at home nor sold abroad at sensible prices.
  Therefore, for commodities which are in surplus we see little case for a rise. The principal document refers to these commodities—milk, wine, sugar, beef, olive oil and cereals. It also contains an acknowledgement that high prices under the CAP have tended to over-stimulate production and have had a negative effect on consumption. As the Minister rightly said, in many cases high prices damage us more than other countries in the Community.
  Of course, we are all aware that the Commission's method of calculating what the rise should be—what it describes as the objective method—came out with the need for an increase in prices of 4·2 per cent. We believe that that would be wrong. Indeed, we believe that in many circumstances there is a good case for a nil increase in certain commodities. However, the fact is that even with these very heavy increases in prices it will

  1355
  mean, to many producers throughout the Community, a negative increase in prices in view of the way that costs of production have increased during the last year.
  Therefore, the Opposition's message is that we support the vote of the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) played a very prominent part in that vote and will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, towards the end of the debate. The European Parliament certainly did a good job on that occasion.
  We understand that it is a good deal easier for us in the United Kingdom to ask for very small increases in prices, because we have already agreed in this House that it would be right for us to have a 7½ per cent. green pound devaluation, and this, added to the increased prices as a result of the phasing out of transition on 31st December, will give reasonable increases to the United Kingdom farming industry. But this means, as we said during the debate on the green pound earlier in the year, that the Government have the ability unilaterally to help United Kingdom agriculture regardless of what might be decided at Community level.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend also agree that, besides the very important point that he is making, it is also a step in the right direction as regards parity, and the fact that, British agriculture being in the Common Market, we should be moving towards levelling up prices?
  Mr. Jopling: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall be dealing with that precise point when I come to other commodities, such as beef, in a few moments' time.
  What farmers in this country cannot expect is to get price increases both from green pound devaluations and from substantial institutional price increases. But the benefits that will go to farmers as a result of green pound devaluations are only belated moves to bring the industry to that position of fairness and parity with the rest of the Community that it was led to expect when this country joined the Community.
  Therefore, we believe that we must be prepared to move towards the end of very large levels of MCAs and, therefore, green
  1356
  pound discrepancies. As the House knows, we said at the turn of the year that it would be our policy to eliminate the green pound discrepancies that existed then over a period of between two and three years. We are still convinced that this is in the best interests of consumers in the long run, by ensuring that more food comes from our own resources and that the phrase "food from our own resources" does not become a hollow platitude, into which the Government have turned it during the last year or two.
  Mr. John Watkinson: On the question of parity, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the unit of account, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out, is based fundamentally on the German mark, and that if we move to parity, what we shall be having in this country, effectively, is German prices for foodstuffs without the German standard of living?
  Mr. Jopling: I shall come to that point later. One of the disadvantages of the debate is that we have no opportunity to discuss the proposals to form a European unit of account. I think that when we are able to debate that subject I shall have a better opportunity to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
  Mr. Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he squares his support for very modest increases in prices across the board with his commitment, repeated today, to widen out the green pound discrepancy, which would add £50 a year to the shopping costs of every family in the land? How do the two things live together?
  Mr. Jopling: We are not in a position of surplus in this country. We believe that it is absolutely tragic for us to witness the decline in food production in Britain which has taken place, in the last two years in particular, under the present Government. We believe that these trends should be reversed. We believe that the farmers and agriculture can contribute to a much greater extent to the health and to the economy of this country.
  The Minister made much of the report which Mr. Wynne Godley and others produced last week. The only point that I want to make about it is that Mr. Wynne Godley and his associates are

  1357
  keen supporters of the old system of support through guaranteed prices and deficiency payments.
  Mr. Corbett: There is nothing the matter with that.
  Mr. Jopling: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what is the matter with that system of support. I made this point in winding up in the debate that we had a few weeks ago on the green pound. The latest estimate that I have is that to move back to that system of agricultural support would mean extra demands upon the Treasury of not far short of £1,000 million a year. That is the point that Mr. Wynne Godley and others miss on these occasions.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: The hon. Gentleman referred to a guaranteed price deficiency payment. We are fortunate that sheep farmers have a guaranteed price deficiency payment for lamb. The present system has cost our Treasury very little in the last 12 months, so why abolish it?
  Mr. Jopling: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how much it would cost in certain commodities—
  Mr. Howells: Very little.
  Mr. Jopling: —where we find that the world price is so much lower than the domestic price. For example, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the position of cereals in that context.
  I now turn to the individual commodities, and first to milk, which I regard as the most important of them. Here we have a classic example of a commodity which is in surplus, and where restraint on a European-wide basis must be applied. We are still sitting on a surplus of 845,000 tons of skim milk powder in intervention, and even that is reducing in quality as time goes on. We must take more effective steps to eliminate surpluses, and, in relation to the matters of which I have already been speaking, we have also to try to avoid further surpluses being created.
  Various methods and schemes arise in these documents in regard to the encouragement of consumption of milk, butter and other commodities. I agreed very much with the Minister when he said that exports of these surpluses to the
  1358
  Soviet Union are an affront. I can understand that the Commission takes a view that that is the cheapest way of dealing with the surpluses, but I agree entirely with the Minister that they are not practical in political terms. They infuriate our constituents, as we all know.
  One of the problems is that these schemes are very often too slow to come into operation, and they do not work as effectively as they might. For instance, I very much welcome the mention in document R545/78 of making better use of liquid skim milk. It has always seemed to me to be a major mistake not to save drying costs of liquid skim milk by entering into long-term contracts with pig farmers for them to receive such milk at favourable prices.
  This makes a great deal of sense, and I cannot understand why the Commission has been so slow in introducing schemes of this sort. Certainly we would support the steps proposed to make it more difficult to sell skim milk powder into intervention. In many cases it is too easy to sell to intervention. In some States within the Community this is the whole basis of the milk economy, largely because of too high prices, where production is carried on purely for the purpose of selling into intervention.
  We also support that part of document R545/78 on aiding those who want to get out of milk production. On the other hand, we are very much opposed to the proposal in document 3200/77, in the last paper of the addendum, for a ban on investment aid for the dairy sector. This seems to be a backward step, and I hope very much that the Government will do their best to resist that proposal.
  As to the future of the Milk Marketing Boards, the Conservative Party has consistently expressed its support for all our marketing boards, but we recognise that certain parts of the milk boards' activities might have to be altered. However, we believe that it is absolutely vital—we fully support the Government in their efforts—to preserve the basic functions of the milk boards and of the structure of milk marketing in this country. We think, above all, that it is right that the milk boards should preserve their powers to be the sole first buyers of milk and to have the right to pool prices.
  To put in another way what the Minister said, it is no coincidence that the

  1359
  United Kingdom is almost the only country in Europe to have such a statutory organisation, while at the same time it is the only one to have such a large market for liquid milk sold on the doorstep. The Minister's figures, showing the extent to which liquid milk consumption in this country has dropped—far less than in the other countries he mentioned—illustrate this point very clearly.
  We are glad to see, in document R27/78, that there are firm proposals to maintain the status of the Milk Marketing Boards, but we have reservations over a number of matters which appear in that document. We believe, for instance, that to have a poll every five years would put an unnecessary strain of uncertainty upon the boards. We are not happy about the insistence that sales of liquid milk should stay over 50 per cent. I am sure that they will, but nobody can be sure of what will happen, perhaps on a temporary basis, in the future. Therefore, we hope that that matter can be negotiated out of the terms.
  Most particularly of all, we are concerned about the proposals to allow certain producer retailers to operate outside the milk marketing scheme. We believe that this could drive a coach and horses through our present excellent system of milk marketing. We regard it as a most dangerous proposal, especially in view of the very high figure of 150 cows as the cut-off point. The Government, therefore, must persevere. It is essential to present the Community with a case showing that the milk boards strike a fair balance between the interests of all those concerned—producers, retailers, manufacturers and consumers. We shall continue to support the Minister in his efforts in this regard.
  We have heard reports recently that the Council of Ministers is professing to be extremely unhappy about even the inadequate proposals that the Commission has made. To what extent this is caused by genuine opposition, or is another example of the instinctive reaction to the way in which our Minister seems to put his case, I do not know. However, I cannot think of any other issue on which the whole House would be unanimous in opposition but that of failing to get a satisfactory solution to the position of our milk boards.
  1360
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the details of the way in which the Government intend to reply to the letter from Commissioner Gundelach on 22nd December. There are a number of other points to which I have not referred, which I hope will be raised in the debate.
  The beef sector has been extremely badly hit in the last few years. The latest figures show that the number of cattle under six months old is down 8 per cent. on the previous year. The beef breeding herd is down 6 per cent. on 1976 and 15 per cent. on 1974. Great ravages have been caused to the beef industry by Irish imports, and this reflects the Government's failure to act on the green pound issue.
  We welcome the proposal in document R/545/78 to continue slaughter premiums for beef. This must be right and we support changes in the intervention system, if these are designed to reduce the volume of beef that is produced for intervention in certain countries.
  On the question of pigmeat, we have the familiar point about the way in which the MCAs are calculated. We are still convinced that the Minister missed the boat in 1976. However, I think that we shall probably argue about that for ever. It is still an urgent matter.
  Mr. John Silkin: Would the hon. Member kindly tell the House which boats the French and Italians have also missed?
  Mr. Jopling: I do not think that at that time the position was so acute for the French and Italians as it is now. The only evidence that we have from the Minister about this is the letter from the Danish ambassador saying that he does not want us to make this change. I hope that since the French and Italians have, in the last few months, become so strongly in favour of a recalculation of pigmeat MCAs, the Minister will take this new opportunity, with his colleagues who are taking a much stronger line, to force these changes on the Community.
  Mr. Silkin: I do not think that it is a case of taking a stronger line. The line has been strong all along. I cannot have the hon. Member doing his Stalinist trick

  1361
  of rewriting history. The French and Italians have been pressing this for more than six months and the reply by the Danes to them was the same as it was to me. Therefore, I ask him again which boats he thinks that they have missed.
  Mr. Jopling: I said that we believed that the right hon. Gentleman missed the boat in 1976, and that was a good deal more than six months ago. We believe that the Minister now has the opportunity of a new chance.
  The National Farmers Union told us that it did not believe that we should agree to the 3 per cent. increase proposed in pigmeat until the recalculation had been agreed. I gather that the Minister intends to take that line. If so, we support him in making a stand with the French and the Italians on this matter.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how the Government intend to recalculate the pigmeat MCAs. Do they intend to do a total recalculation moving along the lines of feeding-stuff prices, or do they intend that the MCAs should be paid on a lower percentage of the basic price?
  The main point about cereals is the support system for bread-making wheat. There is still a very unsatisfactory specification for it. Evidence has shown that the machinability test for wheats that are capable of making bread is not satisfactory. Now I understand that we shall have two reference prices for bread wheat. If one system was unsatisfactory, it is very doubtful whether we can manage with two. I hope that that will be resisted.
  The problems of isoglucose and starch are interlinked. We are extremely unhappy about the Commission's proposals. There seems to be an excessive and undue interference by the Commission with the industries involved in producing isoglucose and starch. In the case of isoglucose, this involved new investment in a new technology a few years ago. Firms took a risk, with risk capital, and set up in business. Then the Commission clobbered them. Of course we understand the thinking behind that, when there is a sugar surplus of 3 million tons, but we have our doubts whether it is right for the Community to be so Luddite in this situation. We doubt whether it is right for firms which had
  1362
  already committed themselves and taken these decisions before the policy of the Commission was announced.
  I suggest that the Minister may consider that this is unfair, and suggest to the Commission that where firms can show that they had already set up in business to produce isoglucose, their individual plants should be allowed a levy-free tonnage in order to enable them to justify the original investment. It is quite a different matter for those firms which went into business and put capital in after the policy of the Commission was announced. They were taking a commercial risk with their eyes open. However, there is great difficulty, and problems of integrity for firms that went in before they knew the Commission's policy.
  A similar argument could be made for starch. There is great concern at the proposals to terminate refunds on imported maize. Terminating these funds will cause great difficulties if the policy is carried through. The Commission is concerned about the cost of the refunds. When one looks at the history of the imposition of levies on maize and the way in which refunds have been paid on the finished product, one sees that the Commission has organised this whole affair extremely badly.
  When grain prices were high between 1973 and 1975, it implied a low import levy on the maize purchased. At the same time, the Commission paid very high refunds. However, since grain prices have subsequently fallen and the Commission has not had to pay high import levies, these firms have been getting very low refunds. To put it into figures, between 1972 and 1975, when we had high grain prices, the net outflow from the Commission was 231 million units of account. Yet during the last few years, including the estimate for 1978, there is to be a net inflow to the economy of 238 MUAs. This seems a very temperamental way for the Commission to handle this important industry.
  May I make a suggestion which the Minister may consider proposing to the Commission? Why cannot the amount of refund be tied to the amount paid out in import levies? That would be a fair way of handling the matter when we remember that the industry should have some sort of refund, because the residues, the agricultural feeding stuffs, are intended to

  1363
  compete with imported animal feeding stuffs which come in levy-free. Therefore, there is no case for the residues to have a refund.
  I believe that it would be fair to tie the refunds to the amount paid out in import levies in order to put the matter on a reasonable level. In that way firms could calculate ahead where they would be placed in terms of levies and refunds. The discrimination between industrial and food starches seems to be a nonsense, and I hope that the Government will oppose that attitude.
  The background to the matter is that the starch industry has expanded. It has invested £90 million in recent years, and intends to increase its capacity from 900,000 tonnes, to a figure of 1.2 million tonnes. I was glad to see that the European Economic and Social Committee rejected the Commission's view that starch used for food and animal feeds shall no longer qualify for Community refunds. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the situation, because it is causing a great deal of concern.
  Let me try to sum up my remarks, I do not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the motion. Indeed, we also support the amendment. We believe that our food-producing industry is in much better heart since the House of Commons took the basic initiative in the debate that we had on the green pound a short time ago. If that joint action had not been taken by all the Opposition parties, our farming industry would be in much worse heart than it is
  Before that debate the Government's policy was relentlessly grinding down our capacity to produce our own food from our own resources. The decline in our breeding herds made that quite clear. It was right that the House moved in and elbowed the Minister aside so that a proper course of action could be embarked upon.
  The recent policies of the Government have been aimed at serving the short-term interests of consumers. In the end, these policies would have been entirely against the interests of consumers, when imported foods became expensive and scarce and we found that our own supplies had run right down.
  Thank God that the Opposition parties had the courage to reverse this down-
  1364
  ward trend. Heaven help us if the Labour Party ever again finds itself in a position in which it has an overall majority and cannot be brought to book by the Opposition parties.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, to leave out from first "Boards" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'calls upon the Government to insist upon the maximum restraint on all common agricultural policy prices and especially on the prices for milk products, cereals, sugar and other products in structural surplus as a result of the operation of the common agricultural policy and to press for an agreement which fully safeguards the Milk Marketing Boards and the discharge of their essential functions'.
  As hon. Members will have noticed, the amendment appears in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
  It was interesting that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) found it easy to agree broadly with the Government's view on the myriad of documents that are now before the House. I was happy to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he also accepts the amendment. But it is surprising that the hon. Gentleman says that there should be no increases in commodities that are in surplus, but still overlooks the fact that it is the operation of the CAP that encourages the production of surpluses. That has been demonstrated since this policy was put into operation, and we were welded on to the side of this policy without the British people having been asked about the matter.
  The hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying that these matters were no longer to be dealt with through the mechanism of the CAP, but that there should be more scope for national intervention and for us to pursue national policies and needs under the umbrella of the CAP. Perhaps his hon. Friend in his reply will ponder that point, because that is the inference that I draw.
  The hon. Gentleman employed some interesting arithmetic in assessing what it would cost to go back to the old system. His figure of £1,000 million was interesting. According to the Cambridge economic policy review, that happens to be the precise annual cost of our adherence to the CAP at the present time. We are not arguing about the money involved,

  1365
  but there is a difference in the results that accrue, especially to the consumer.
  At the moment the £1,000 million goes to jack up prices of food to pay for the storing of high-cost food produced by inefficient farmers in the Community. That £1,000 million could have been used to produce cheaper foods in our shops and to help our consumers. If a referendum were to be held among consumers on the question where that £1,000 million should go, I think that they would vote in favour of our returning to the traditional method, which experience has shown is better able to deliver food at a more level cost than does the abortion known as CAP.
  Mr. Stoddart: Does not the Cambridge economic policy review show that the figure is £1,000 million across the exchanges, and does that not mean, in internal terms, the generation of new investment at £3,000 million? That is the benefit to this country as a whole, and in that case would not the £1,000 million support generate the actual amount required to pay for farm support from internal sources?
  Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right about those figures, and is right to say that the full effect on real national income would be as much as £3,000 million a year. He is right to say that those assets, if we were not tied to CAP, could be more wisely spent in other directions.
  I never cease to marvel at the ability of the hon. Member for Westmorland and his hon. Friends to do the splits on this subject. At one moment they support the proposals and then make passing and fleeting references to the most expensive piece of policy ever devised, namely, the pledge, commitment, wish or hope, call it what one will, of the Opposition to wipe out the discrepancy in the green pound value in two or three years' time. The consequences of undertaking that course by the Opposition is that it would put £1,000 million on to the price of food, on top of the other increases that we have come to accept as natural.
  It is no use the consumer being misled by being told that this will add only 0·4 per cent., or whatever may be the figure, to the retail price index. What we know very clearly is that because of the workings of the CAP the effect on the
  1366
  consumer is devastating. If this continues, any hope of voluntary effort to control inflation will go out of the window.
  Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate his argument? Will he try to put into perspective the contrast between what we have proposed, which means an increase in the cost of living index of about two-fifths of one penny in the pound in each of the three years, and the way in which the index has increased over the past four years since the Government came to power by no less than 85p in the pound? I hope that he will not fudge the issue.
  Mr. Corbett: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about two-fifths of one penny, but consumers at supermarket check-outs pay bills not in two-fifths of one penny or in percentages but in pound notes. Their best interests are served by the continuing success of the policies of my right hon. Friend in keeping farm price increases to a minimum, and the continuing and increasing success of the Government's policies in keeping inflation under control. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends trying to juggle around with figures. It is the value of the pounds that housewives and others hand over at the check-out that matter. I do not understand why the official Opposition deliberately go for a policy of dear food.
  This week saw the publication of the latest chapter in the national food survey. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have seen it. It shows, for example, that average liquid milk consumption is the lowest recorded in any post-rationing era. That comes after a period of the fastest-ever price rises in the same era. There may be those in the industry, whether producers or distributors, who see some connection between those factors. Milk consumption is falling. As the survey states, it is now at the lowest level of any period in the post-rationing era.
  According to the survey, butter consumption is 2 per cent. down, despite my right hon. Friend's success in achieving a subsidy that meant that in the previous quarter butter was 8 per cent. cheaper, in real terms. Despite that reduction, consumption decreased. The consumption of lamb is static. It is no good anyone involved or concerned with the industry believing that we can continue,

  1367
  whether we are for more price increases or against them, to ignore such statistics. The situation that they represent will have a great and vital effect on the future of the industry.
  We are seeing the warning signals. At a time of falling consumption of some major commodities damage will be done both to the producer and the industry if those who advocate price increases go screaming for wild increases across the board on every commodity. In the long term that will have only a damaging effect.
  We have had some cross-chat about price levels inside and outside the European Economic Community. I hope to demonstrate that prices within the Community over many commodities have been consistently at much higher levels than world prices. The latest figures produced, which relate to 1976–77, are in one of the documents now before us. If we take the world price as 100, it is to be seen that the Community price for common wheat was 204. In other words, the Community price for that commodity was more than double the world price. That, incidentally, is at a time of almost record wheat production. With a world price of 100, the Community price for maize in 1976–77 was 163. Again, taking a world price of 100, the Community price for sugar was 176. The Community price for butter was 401, against a world price of 100. Within the Community prices for butter were four times those obtaining on the world market.
  It is quite wrong for the House to be told again that it is a myth and a legend that there are regular food supplies available from outside the Community and that prices are lower than those within the Community. The figures that I have put to the House demonstrate that the reverse is the case. If right hon. and hon. Members want to adduce arguments to support what they see as the stability of the industry within the Community, that is another matter. However, it is wrong and misleading to pretend that cheaper food supplies are not available on the world market.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: The hon. Gentleman says that there are cheaper food supplies on the world market. Does he agree that they are available because there is a lack of
  1368
  demand? Would not the balance be upset if we started buying on the world market?
  Mr. Corbett: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman, although I acknowledge that he makes a fair point. I do not believe that the answer lies totally in one direction or in another. I am saying that there is a judgment to be made. At present we are enabled only with great difficulty to take advantage of cheaper food supplies on the world market. When surpluses arise within the Community, the stocks are bought in at intervention prices and placed in storehouses. I am arguing that there is a balance and a judgment to be exercised.
  Many hon. Members have been sent by the Consumers Association a report of European consumers on the CAP. It is a most helpful document. I point out to the hon. Member for Westmorland that it suggests that instead of across-the-board increases in commodity prices it would be better for direct payments to be made out of taxes. It is argued that that would be a fairer and more efficient method of charging what amounts to a tax on food. That is probably a reference to direct national payments out of national Exchequer funds instead of trying to use the CAP for social aims that are not properly a part of its operation.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been pleased to receive a document from the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, which contains what can only be described as a glowing testimony to the value of the Milk Marketing Boards in the United Kingdom. The Royal Association speaks for all sectors of the milk industry. It has been in the business for more than 100 years. The document states:
  "Not only have they"
  —the boards—
  "been able to develop order, confidence and justice in the marketing of farmers' produce but, through highly efficient management and relationship with the processing and distributive trades, they have ensured that the health and welfare of consumers have also benefited."
  In a nice size of nutshell, that makes the case for the continuation of the boards.
  I am happy to be able to agree with the National Farmers Union in its concern over the Commission's proposals for

  1369
  the future of the boards and the quinquennial polls on which it seems to be set. I agree that they would have an unnecessary and disturbing effect on the industry. There is no great argument or debate in any section of the industry, despite differences over other matters, that our boards perform a vital job in the buying of milk and its handling to the farm gate.
  We have surely demonstrated that the achievements of the Milk Marketing Boards, with other interests, have given a lead to other members of the EEC. I am happy to see that the co-responsibility levy recognises that there is a great untapped market of fresh milk products and liquid milk. This must be tackled.
  I hope that the Minister has seen the Early-Day Motion in the names of myself and a number of my hon. Friends and I hope that he will be able to persuade the Government that, on the back of the levy, we should return to a system of free school milk for all pupils in full-time education up to the age of 16. They should be given fresh milk, its equivalent in semi-skimmed milk, such as flavoured milk, or yoghurts, through the school meals service. The money is there and the industry can produce the necessary amount of milk. Serving milk through the school meals service might overcome some of the objections of teachers' organisations.
  When the money is available—the annual cost in England and Wales is no more than £14 million—we should restore this service. It would be welcomed by all sectors of the dairy industry. In addition, if the Government's commitment to phase out the £362 million a year subsidy on school meals leads to a succession of price rises, it would be wholly admirable if yoghurts or milk products were supplied in schools so that children could benefit.
  We welcome the decision of the Council of Ministers to ask the Commission to think again about the ending of refunds on starch. The withdrawal of the refund from the starch from maize would have a particularly severe effect in this country because we use that starch in our food industry. The immediate impact would be a rise of about 10 per cent. in product prices, though the impact on food price increases would be
  1370
  less. Continuing the subsidy on industrial starch and withdrawing it from maize starch appears to offend what I understand to be one of the underlying rules of the EEC, namely, that it is wrong to distort competition.
  The proposition is no more than an attempt to discriminate against other kinds of starch and their end uses in the food sector in favour of potato starch and its Continental outlets. The proposals are contrary to the United Kingdom's interests, which are principally in the food sector and are unjustifiable in Community and United Kingdom terms and in terms of simple fairness. The Minister may recognise those words, as he used similar expressions in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North earlier this year.
  I am please to confirm what the hon. Member for Westmorland told us. We even have the support of the EEC Economic and Social Committee, which said:
  "the Committee rejects the Commission's view that starch used for food and animal feed should no longer qualify for Community refunds."
  Underlying our debate—I am sorry that it has to be held in this form, with such a mass of documents to be considered—is the fact that alongside our proper concern about doing what we can to ensure a sensible and growing level of food from our own resources, we have to keep consantly in mind the interests of consumers. Unless they go together and are seen to go together, and unless there is a better understanding between these groups, the industry will get into trouble and consumers will get a bad deal.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Before calling the next hon. Member, I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's decision not to register speeches of nine minutes or less.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to you for calling me so early, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be wrong for any hon. Member to try to speak to all the directives before us, and I shall confine my remarks to the state of agriculture in Britain and go on to the MCAs, the common agricultural price review and the future of Milk Marketing Boards and other boards.

  1371
  As usual, I declare my interest. I am a farmer and vice-chairman of one of the producer boards, and I have interests in the meat trade.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his excellent speech. We are taking stock of the industry and the Minister is right to stand up to his counterparts in Europe. As I have said many times, we have accepted too many directives and orders from the Europeans in the past three or four years. I am sure that every hon. Member will back the right hon. Gentleman in his determination to safeguard the interests of milk producers by retaining the marketing boards. Later this year, the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to defend the interests of sheep producers when the sheepmeat proposals are brought before us.
  I am sure that the Minister will agree that before we accept any proposals from the Europeans, we should ensure that we may look again at the policy of a guaranteed price system in this country. Whatever the views of hon. Members about the scheme, the majority of sheep farmers will not be satisfied if we give in to the Europeans by doing away with a guaranteed price deficiency scheme that has operated well in the last 20 or 25 years.
  I return to consider the state of agriculture in this country. It has been necessary from time to time to emphasise how the production of British agriculture has a bearing on our economy.
  Efficient agriculture, producing to full capacity and expanding and improving, is now recognised as being to the benefit of consumers and producers alike. As a producer I have always believed that unless we can satisfy the consumer we, as farmers, are doomed to failure. We should therefore work in harmony to ensure that the interests of consumers and producers are catered for under the CAP. The Government have acknowledged this fact. Targets were set in the 1975 White Paper which gave the industry reason to believe that its problems were being taken seriously. However, it seems that many of these targets have not been met, and it is important to examine why.
  I do not blame the Government. I blame their counterparts in Europe. I hope that this evening we shall not go
  1372
  into the argument whether we should be a member of the Community, but instead will look at what should be done to reform the CAP from within. During the intervening period since those targets were established, one section of the industry or another has suffered from recession. Many farmers have been forced to give up altogether and others have suffered a decline in their standards of living.
  The White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" stated that
  "The basic conclusion that a continuing increase in the output of our own agriculture over the next five years will be economically worthwhile is drawn from an assessment of the price and availability of imported food and feed and in the view of the Government would remain economically valid, whether or not the United Kingdom decided to stay within the European Community."
  The logic behind that has been greatly reinforced by the subsequent fall in the value of sterling, even though that value has recently steadied. The arguments for expansion were powerful before, but now that the cost of imported food has increased so markedly they have even greater significance.
  The White Paper considered what were desirable levels of expansion from 1974–75 to 1980 and concluded that milk production should have gone up by 21 per cent., beef by 9 per cent., pigs by 11 per cent. and sheep by 19 per cent. We are half way through the term and we could therefore assume that the levels of expansion should have reached approximately 50 per cent. of those figures. However, the figures show a shortfall. In June 1975 the figure for cows and heifers was 308,000, and in June 1977 the figure was 314,000, a shortfall of 8·3 per cent. The total of cattle and calves is down by 16·5 per cent., pigs by 17·6 per cent. and lambs and sheep by 4·9 per cent.
  It seems that this country will produce less in the next few years, and for that I blame the monetary compensatory arrangements operating in Europe and the green pound. I hope, however, that we shall not continue the argument that was conducted in our last debate on the subject.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: How does the hon. Member explain that catalogue of disasters, given that he has just congratulated the Minister on all that he has done for agriculture?
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I congratulate the Minister on his stand. He must stand up to his counterparts in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that we have received too many directives and orders from the EEC, especially those affecting small hill farmers.
  Does the hon. Member recall that we on the Liberal Bench and many Labour Members fought hard to retain the hill compensatory allowance for sheep farmers in this country? The small man has as much right to farm agricultural land as the large man who farms, perhaps, 1,000 acres. Perhaps I can put the hon. Member's mind at ease by reminding him that on the occasion of that debate the Conservatives voted against small hill farmers with between five and seven hectares keeping 16 or 17 sheep qualifying for the hill compensatory allowance. That was one Common Market provision that we accepted that we ought not to have done.
  Part of the cause of our troubles lies in the way in which the CAP in its present form has tended to work against the interests of British farming. Fluctuations in exchange rates have meant that the MCAs have distorted trade within the Community, and Britain, because of its dependence on imports, has come off very badly. Other States, however, have taken advantage of the system and reaped the benefit. Small wonder, therefore, that there is growing discontent among our farmers and a suspicion that we are being taken for a ride.
  It seems entirely wrong that, although we are now full members of the Community, we do not have parity with other member States and have to endure a great deal of unfair competition. It is our duty, therefore, to support the Minister in calling for the MCAs to be reduced immediately and eventually to be eliminated.
  Mr. W. Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman does not want that.
  Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister will take heed of the views of all hon. Members. I have spoken to him personally and feel sure that he will do everything in his power to persuade the Danes, for example, to change the MCAs on pigmeat.
  The Danish pig producer last September was receiving 68p a kg for every
  1374
  pig produced while the British producer was getting approximately 33p. That constitutes unfair competition. The Danes were receiving a compensatory allowance of approximately £200 for exporting bacon to this country. That, too, is unfair competition, and until we have parity with the rest of the Community, our industry is doomed to failure.
  We should give every encouragement to the Minister to persuade his European counterparts not to increase prices for Continental farmers at the annual review this year. I believe that they have been well treated in the past and if we are to achieve parity we shall have to change the MCAs, retain the guaranteed price system for some of our commodities and try to persuade the Europeans to accept our method of marketing. When considering reform of the CAP it is essential that we underline the value of our Milk Marketing Boards.
  I believe that at last the Commission is being persuaded about the importance of our system of marketing and has recognised the potential of similar sys-terms elsewhere in the EEC. I have always thought that it is a great pity that European farmers, especially dairy producers, are unable to visit this country to see for themselves how we operate our marketing scheme, which has been run so sensibly for the last 20 or 30 years. The tendency in Europe is to oppose marketing boards of any kind, but I believe that these boards have served British farmers well.
  I sometimes wonder whether the consumers of Britain recognise how extraordinarily fortunate they are in having a constant supply of liquid milk delivered to their doorstep throughout the year. That does not happen in other European countries. The only reason has been the organisation of the marketing boards, which buy the milk from the registered producers and sell it on their behalf.
  We would not have a surplus of skimmed milk, or a butter mountain, in Europe if only we could change the CAP to do away with the intervention system of which I am not in favour. According to the statistics, 90 per cent. of the milk that we produce in this country is sold on the liquid market. In France and Germany only 10 per cent is sold through the liquid market. If only we could persuade the 250 million Europeans to drink

  1375
  more milk—to drink an extra pint of milk a day—we could do away with the butter and skimmed milk mountains that exist.
  It will take many years to persuade and influence consumers on the Continent to accept our method of marketing, which has done well in the past, has got the balance right between all parts of the industry, and has looked after the interests of both consumers and producers. It is, therefore, vital to retain the Milk Marketing Board while at the same time trying to persuade our European counterparts to recognise the value of such boards.
  Many United Kingdom producers would agree that it was a great pity that the Milk Marketing Board, under the Treaty of Accession, had to abandon the guaranteed price for the end product. I believe that many farmers are worried because within the next year or two they may be forced to reduce the amount of milk which they produce. Without a guaranteed price system for milk, I believe that they could be in trouble. I hope not. Our marketing systems are not perfect, but over the years they have provided stability to the industry. We must urge other members of the Community to accept the principle of marketing boards as well as a guaranteed deficiency payments scheme.
  When aiming for efficiency I do not believe that the value of the part-time farmer in Europe should be derided or overlooked. In a rural community he plays a vital part in the social pattern. It is a great mistake to discourage such farmers on the grounds of economic viability, without taking into consideration their value to the community. I believe that we can expect another directive from the EEC in the near future to do away with many of our small farmers. But, living in rural Wales, I know that part-time farmers play an important part in social activities. It would be wrong of us to do away with them.
  As I said earlier, it was a step in the wrong direction when we took away the hill compensatory allowance from the small hill farmers. We must reintroduce it at all costs, especially when one compares our small farms with the small farms of Europe.
  We have been talking about production and consumption in this country. I am
  1376
  sorry that consumption of many of our commodities has declined. I hope that in his wisdom the Minister will look once again at the Social Fund within the EEC. We are continually hearing that the EEC's funds are underused, especially the Social Fund. Why not direct some of the available money towards subsidising those consumers—such as pensioners and people on small fixed incomes—who are particularly hard hit by the increased cost of food?
  I disagree with the Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, which at its conference on 8th December 1977 passed a resolution stating that
  "The Common Agricultural Policy must develop into a food policy of which agricultural policy is a part, and in which consumers have as much say as producers. A food policy would take full account of consumer needs for reasonable prices, quality and security of supply."
  I hold the view that our Minister has the dual role of looking after the interests of producers and consumers alike. At this moment, I believe that it should be left entirely to the discretion of the Minister to make sure that the interests of both are looked after.
  Many reforms of the CAP are needed. One could go on at length to debate those reforms. I hope that over a period—it may take five or even 10 years—we shall be able to influence our counterparts in Europe and revert to the guaranteed price deficiency payment system within Europe, which has worked so well in the past in Britain. As a practical farmer, I would be willing to revert to the original system, which has served us well. I am sure that is the view of the majority of British producers.
  I hope that we shall be able to change the intervention system. We can improve it a great deal. As I have said on many occasions, it is a sheer waste of taxpayers' money to throw best beef, best quality lamb, pig meat and milk into intervention. It costs millions of pounds to put these commodities into cold storage. Let us be sensible. Let us work together this time to ensure that the interests of the industry, as well as those of the consumers, are looked after in the future.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend

  1377
  the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), when he congratulated the Select Committee on the amount of work that it has done on our behalf and on making the business before us that much more digestible. At the same time, I believe that it is too much to expect hon. Members to tackle this heap of bumph in one debate. It is rather like considering the whole of the steel industry, from the darning needle through to the automobile, in one debate. I wonder whether it would not be better to have a Standing Committee meeting all the time and considering nothing else but European legislation, because tackling it all at once means that it cannot be properly covered.
  The price review is at the heart of these documents. It must be looked at in the light of the difficult and delicate balance between the needs and means of producers and consumers. I do not think that anyone will deny that during this extremely unpleasant bout of inflation the consumer is being squeezed painfully between the increasing costs of the weekly shopping basket and the not so rapidly increasing level of the housekeeping income. It is most important, therefore, that the 1978–79 price review makes "people sense".
  Similarly, the producers in our country are being squeezed between fixed returns and alarmingly increased costs of production. No one will deny that a depressed agriculture will hurt our country immeasurably.
  Nowhere is the conflict of requirements so marked as in the milk sector. Getting things right in the milk sector is all the more important, because of the implications and effects on so many of the other sectors of our agriculture. I am particularly concerned with the decline in liquid milk and butter sales in the United Kingdom and I shall direct my remarks in that direction.
  In his opening speech, the Minister pointed out the drastic decline in liquid milk sales in various countries in the Community, but the decline in this country bears looking at as well. In the second half of 1977 there was a drop in consumption of about 5 per cent. In January 1978, when the price of milk went up to 12p, there was a drop of 2 per cent, in the January-on-January figures. In February it was marginally
  1378
  less than 2 per cent. The decline may be moderating, but it is a decline.
  Butter consumption is expected to be down by approximately 25,000 tonnes, if matters stay as they are, to about 380,000 tonnes next year. It is apparent that at the prices pertaining in the shops, sales of butter and liquid milk are sensitive to fluctuation.
  No good will be achieved if the price review has the effect of further depressing these sales. I think that the whole House would be agreed on that matter. Nevertheless, we must recognise that milk producers have incurred increased costs, although no doubt many have already been looking for ways and means of increasing efficiency.
  We must look at the returns to United Kingdom milk producers and see how they will be affected in the coming year. The NFU has drawn attention to four ways, and I shall take them as the base. It refers, first, to the level of the target price in the Community, which will affect the intervention price for butter. The second factor is the rate of the green pound. The third factor is the level to be determined by the United Kingdom Government of the Milk Marketing Board's maximum first-hand selling price for liquid milk. The fourth factor is the market situation for dairy products.
  I have looked at the last factor first. It is apparent that the market for dairy products is running up against its price ceiling and there will be no easy returns for producers from increased prices on that side. However, there is considered to be growth for production of cheese cream and possibly marginal growth for liquid milk.
  On the third factor, producers will have to be wary in assessing what they are pressing for, since an ill-considered move might be counter-productive. That there will have to be some move in the retail price of liquid milk during the year is indubitable, as producers are facing increased costs all the time. The rate of inflation might be dropping, but it has still not disappeared. It could be that a small increase at more frequent intervals may provide the return with the leas) hiccup effect on the industry. The Government's thinking on the matter would be of great interest. Will the Minister give the matter some consideration in his summing up? What, for the

  1379
  sake of argument, would be his reaction to a ½p increase in June or July this year?
  Turning to the first factor, milk and milk products are in surplus across the EEC as a whole. Price increases would be contrary to the Commission's other proposals to take producers out of production. It would not be reasonable for producers in this country or anywhere in Europe to expect increased support prices for the coming marketing year.
  That leaves us with the second factor only—the green pound. If the retail price of liquid milk is fixed, as it is, the only way for United Kingdom producers to recover their increased costs is through an increase in the price for manufacturing purposes. That can be achieved only by further devaluation of the green pound. It is to be hoped that the 7½ per cent. devaluation will help producers' returns, but it will be the end of 1978 before butter prices come up to intervention levels, and there is that time factor.
  One difficulty about the green pound devaluation is the resultant increase in the retail price of butter, which could lead to a further decline in sales. But one advantage is that the attractiveness of United Kingdom markets to liquid milk imported from the Continent declines as the differential declines. The importation of liquid milk in a form which complies with our health requirements is a potential hazard, which should not be ignored. The hazard is reduced each time the green pound differential is reduced.
  It is apparent that the situation for the dairy industry is finely balanced. The proposals put forward by the Commission go a long way towards attempting to solve the many riddles involved. But we have requirements which conflict with the general European requirements. I look at the whole debate today from the viewpoint of being European. The European context is much wider than the common agricultural policy. We must not forget that.
  The Government's White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources"—we have not yet had the updated version of it—states that it wants to see our milk industry expand. I think that same wish is reflected throughout the whole of agriculture in this country. Nevertheless, means already exist for providing for the increase
  1380
  in sales of milk from Continental sources without having to expand our industry. Will the Minister, in his summing up, give us some line on the Government's thoughts on this matter? It is fundamental to confidence in the milk-producing sector in this country.
  What is the solution? A common policy must work towards creating conditions, first, where structural surpluses—that is above normal reserves for good housekeeping—do not occur and, secondly, for the disposal of surpluses which, through good weather conditions and other factors, do occur. But, as a precursor to that, the disposal of any surpluses must be tackled in ways which make sense to people both inside and outside the Community.
  Mention has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland, and by the Minister in his opening remarks, of the disposal of butter surpluses to Russia. I am glad that the Community institutions have now recognised that that was silly, and I heartily concur. Nevertheless, from an economic viewpoint, it was a logical solution to the exercise. But economics do not necessarily make sense to people. It hurt even more when people found that the butter was being sold on to Third world countries at a profit, with the added benefit to the Russians of providing hard currency into the bargain.
  At a recent gathering of New Zealanders in London, one common request was "Please do not offload your surplus dairy products on to Third world countries at subsidised prices." It does no good to us or to the New Zealanders to cut the ground from under the New Zealanders. It is an expensive way of getting no real return or benefit from our surpluses.
  Both ways of external disposal of surpluses involve a substantial outflow of funds from the EEC. Therefore, it is important to remove the cause of the surpluses.
  Turning to the disposal of surpluses, I find myself in total agreement with Resolution No. 4 of the BEUC conference on European consumers and the common agricultural policy. My French pronunciation is so revolting that I shall not attempt to pronounce the proper words. Resolution No. 4 in that

  1381
  report, which was circulated to all Members, states that:
  "Surpluses should be disposed of in a way that benefits EEC consumers and helps Third World countries and not by subsidising exports. Taxation of competing products or schemes which force the use of surpluses should never be used as a method of disposal."
  It is clear by now that every time they have been adopted they have set up stresses far and away above that which they set out to cure.
  With regard to the matter of avoiding surpluses arising, the concept of the co-responsibility levy makes a great deal of sense—that is, properly used. But it seems as though matters are not progressing as they should. Amongst other things, producers initially insisted that levy funds were to be used to expand and develop markets. It appears that progress towards agreement on the use of these funds has been disappointing 13 slow. I understand that no funds have yet been received in this country, although between £2¾ million and £3 million should be due to the Milk Marketing Board to supplement its advertising and sales expansion effort. Will the Minister tell the House exactly what the position is and what he is doing to expedite matters? I am sure that he will agree that it is a matter of considerable urgency that we should get on with expanding sales in this country at the earliest possible moment.
  The promulgation of milk non-marketing schemes is most important. I think that the extension of the duration of the schemes and the improvement of terms will help to swell the take-up of the schemes. The restructuring of the European dairy herd is often alleged by some—the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) referred to this matter—to be sacrificing the small in the interests of the large. A few moments' reflection on these matters will show that it is not so and need not necessarily be so if the schemes are operated correctly.
  In terms of the expansion of the use of milk and milk products by public sector institutions, the use of more milk within schools is an interesting line. In the United Kingdom we already provide milk for children up to the age of 7, and it is to be hoped that all primary schools in the EEC will be brought up
  1382
  to this level by the use of co-responsibility levy funds. Bearing in mind the constraints on public sector spending under which we must operate, has the Minister any figures available to show what would be the cost to public funds of extending the milk provided in schools to children up to the age of 8—that is for each year on—allowing for the European support offered to us, amounting to almost 5p per pint?
  My last point relates to expanding the consumption of butter. Recognising the price sensitivity of butter in United Kingdom markets, it will become imperative to develop a means of feeding in the money which would otherwise be spent on subsidising exports. As a method of supporting the consumer the Minister put before the House the special butter subsidies. I think that this line of thought wants developing further, because butter is very much the linchpin in reducing the fundamental surpluses, and I think that in terms of expediency any method of genuinely increasing its consumption can only be of benefit to agriculture.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Milk Marketing Board. Those who run and take part in the board are the means for promoting the expansion of sales. I should like to see their work extended across Europe, because this is the right way to tackle it in taking together all parts of the industry. We operate in a managed industry, and good management, as our board has shown, can be made to make the industry work. Coupled with the use of the milk marketing boards, the intelligent use of funds, the recognition of people sense, and making arrangements that take into account always how they will be seen by the man in the street, or the man on the No. 9 omnibus from Clapham, will go a long way towards developing the confidence of people in the aims and objectives of the European Community. This is the overriding requirement.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom is perhaps the only country in Europe which operates a "pinta on the doorstep every day" practice? Our European colleagues do not have a doorstep delivery. Our Milk Marketing Board is successful because milk is delivered to the doorstep and it can be marketed

  1383
  easily. It is not easy to get people who have to go to a supermarket to buy cartons of milk to buy more.
  Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. What I want to see is a litre on the doorstep of every house and every dwelling across Europe, because that is the way to expand liquid milk sales. The formula provided by the Milk Marketing Board has shown that it can be done. Malk has to be taken to the people. It is a heavy thing to carry from a supermarket. Anybody who has done that, as I have regularly for many years, knows that to be so. I like my delivery of milk, and I am prepared to pay marginally over the odds to get it.
  With these main ingredients, the real objectives of the CAP can be met. They are summed up in the report of the BEUC. They are fundamental. They are security of supply, reasonableness of prices, and quality.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: I sense a moderation and a realism in the contributions that are coming from the Opposition Benches. I should like to take up a number of points made., by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), but I should like first to endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) when he referred to the stance which the Minister of Agriculture has taken in Europe. I, too, support that stance. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend has been involved in a painful process of education both here and abroad. I think that he has been right to stand up for our national interest.
  The impression is sometimes given by Conservative Members that within the EEC there is a gentlemen's club to which the Labour Minister of Agriculture comes and acts, as it were, as a, bounder within the context of that club. I believe that to be a nonsensical approach to The EEC. If Conservative Members study the way in which Ministers of countries such as France or Germany conduct their affairs, they will find that those Ministers pursue the national interest of those countries every bit as fiercely as does my right hon. Friend for this country. The EEC is not a club but a jungle in which various countries have to fight for their national interest, and I believe it appro-
  1384
  priate that our Minister should have fought in the way that he has done.
  I said that I wished to take up one or two points that had been made by the hon. Member for Westmorland. The first is a matter on which I intervened when he was speaking. It is the dangerous supposition that is being promulgated by Conservative Members that there can in some way be a return to parity and that this should be a goal that is attainable in the near future. As a result of the intervention policy, Conservative Members accepted that, given the operation of the CAP, which is based fundamentally in terms of its unit of account upon the German mark, if we were to return to parity the result would be that farmers in this country would receive German prices while consumers here would have to pay those German prices without the German standard of living. This is an important matter and one which the Opposition should be at pains to point out.
  I should add, in fairness to the hon. Member for Westmorland, that he says that if we could turn to a unit of account based upon the basket currencies this might be a possibility. Here I should be prepared to meet him somewhere on the argument, but, as we know, the Germans are the last people to be prepared to do away with the present system, because they seek to protect their own inefficient farmers. This is one of the problems of Europe. That is an example of German intransigence. It is clearly the case that the unit of account should be based on the basket and not on the snake currencies, but we see no movement there.
  The hon. Gentleman made a point about deficiency payments. I go along with the hon. Member for Cardigan. It is a system which I should be prepared to support and one which historically has served this country exceptionally well over the years. The hon. Gentleman said that if we were to revert to a deficiency payment system this would cost the Exchequer the best part of £1,000 million a year. That is true, but that is what it is costing us to be in Europe now. The one matter which the hon. Gentleman omitted was that if we had that system we should be receiving cheaper food because we should have access to world markets.

  1385
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that if we were buying on the world market prices would go up, but I take issue with Conservative Members if they claim that price would rise to the current level of European prices. I do not believe that to be the case, because the discrepancy now is so enormous that the impact of British buying in the world market would not act in that way.
  I think that this debate has centred, as indeed have the considerations in Europe, on the problem of structural surpluses, and I think it is now common knowledge and is accepted at large that the very system of the CAP encourages the production of surpluses. In any agricultural system where end prices are supported, there must immediately be a tendency to encourage the production of surpluses.
  But there is one other factor, and it is that in farming there has always been in Europe a potential capacity to produce surpluses. This capacity has been markedly increased not only by the intervention of the British but by the massive improvements which have taken place in French agriculture. It is a myth that the CAP was produced to protect the inefficient French farmer. The French farmer is no longer inefficient but is massively efficient and has the capacity to produce vast quantities of foodstuffs. That can only add to the structural surpluses that are being produced in the Market.
  An end price system also produces problems for consumption. I am glad that that has now been fully recognised by the Conservatives, and even by their Front Bench. It is now clearly accepted, and I assume it to be Tory Party policy, that the farmer cannot expect simply to produce and in a miraculous way have his produce consumed. I have made the point a number of times in agriculture debates that there are two sides to the scissors, supply and demand, and that demand is absolutely crucial if the foodstuff is to be lifted off the market.
  As is now accepted, if the price goes beyond a certain level, the food will not be lifted off the market. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) said that food consumption here was down, and my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the marked decline in milk consumption on the Continent.
  1386
  This is a matter of major concern. We now accept that one cannot go on putting up the pe of food and expect it to be lifted off the market. It is not happening.
  From this debate and the debates in the Common Market, it would appear that the method to try to deal with the problem of demand is to hold prices down, and not to increase prices in the areas in which there is endemic structural surplus. That is considered the appropriate way, the market way, to deal with it. Sooner or later, however, given the enormous capacity of Europe to produce food, we must have a planned approach to agriculture in Europe in order to deal with the vast surpluses and the potential surpluses. Europe may turn to a system of quotas, which may not be acceptable to the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that intervention.
  If farmers have to rely on prices and are not sure from year to year what will happen in the price review, that will undermine the mystical thing called confidence, which I know to be absolutely vital to farmers. Anyone involved in a business which must take decisions relating to a time span of three years must have a certain degree of confidence in order to take those decisions. I am not sure that the system now being adopted in the EEC, of simply relying on prices from year to year, will provide the necessary confidence.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is what deficiency payments did not do.
  Mr. Watkinson: I support deficiency payments.
  Mr. Winterton: They did not provide confidence and forward planning.
  Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Gentleman talks to the farmers in his constituency, he will find that the deficiency payments system was exactly the system which gave them confidence. Many farmers wish to return to that system.
  I come briefly to the problem of the Milk Marketing Board. I think it is agreed on all sides that there is common support for its retention. In the context of what I have just been speaking about—the problem of surplus—I am mystified to know why the Common

  1387
  Market takes the view that it does about the board.
  Here we have an organisation which has proved itself over many years capable of disposing of a great deal of milk. I should have thought that, instead of wanting to do away with it, the Common Market would have been grasping it and saying "Let us incorporate it into the EEC, because it might help us to deal with our surplus." It seems to me that the EEC is trying to sacrifice a significant and useful marketing mechanism on the high altar of dogma, that there must be free and perfect competition. That is nonsense in the face of the reality of the cataclysmic fall in the consumption of milk in the Common Market described by my right hon. Friend.
  To emphasise my point about the board's efficiency, I wish to quote from the annual report and accounts of the Dairy Trade Federation:
  "The distribution margin in pence per gallon in mid-1977, including both processing and distribution of milk, in the United Kingdom was 37p, Belgium 52p, West Germany 62p, Italy 65p."
  Does not that speak volumes for the competence and efficiency of the board? If such a system were adopted in Europe, the margins available to those concerned with the distribution of milk might be such as to make it profitable.
  The delivery of milk is very important, but it is doubly important in remote rural areas such as mine. We produce the milk, but it is easier for someone living in a town to obtain milk than it is for a person in certain remote areas. Therefore, it is vital that the daily delivery be maintained. It is to the advantage of my constituents.
  The debates this year in the Common Market and in this House have marked a change. Until now, the EEC and the Opposition have largely been more concerned with one side of the food business, the farming side. I now detect an increasing realisation here and in Europe of the necessity to combine the two great interests of farming and consumers.
  There are hopeful signs that we are moving away from a common agricultural policy with certain limitations in terms of definition to what I would call a common food policy, where the interests of producers and consumers are
  1388
  equally concerned. I regard that as healthy.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Although my remarks will be mainly concerned with the dairy industry, it is as well to remember that this industry is also involved with other aspects of the livestock industry. We should not forget that as much as 70 per cent. of our beef derives from dairy cattle. Therefore, we are very much concerned with the price of beef, as we are with the price of milk products.
  Before discussing the dairy industry, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the strange way in which the EEC Agriculture Fund was distributed in 1977. Distributions were made in this way. Scotland received £2,020,744, Northern Ireland received £2,188,728, England £7,047,480 and Wales £141,702. I find it hard to believe that the needs of Wales are less—certainly not that much less—than the needs of the other parts of the United Kingdom.
  It is a tribute to the efficiency of the dairy industry that the amount of milk produced in the United Kingdom has increased without there being any lowering in the quality. Unfortunately, the number of dairy farmers has decreased steeply. Over a decade in Wales, we have seen a 40 per cent. decrease in the number of dairy farmers. This is a serious social matters, because it means that we are faced with rural depopulation.
  For us, agriculture is not just an economic matter; it is also a social matter. It is essential for us to keep a large and prosperous population in the countryside. Our thinking about the structure of agriculture should be directed to maintaining the family farm and the smallholding, to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) referred, which also help the income of people who work in other industries or occupations.
  It will not be possible to maintain these family farms and smallholdings, which are comparatively small, unless the farmer gets an adequate return for his product. The EEC proposals for average farm prices for the coming year do not seem to be over-generous. I hope that 2 per cent. will prove to be sufficient,

  1389
  at least to maintain stability. It is unlikely to produce any development in the industry. I hope that the figure of 2 per cent. will prove enough to pay the costs.
  The Government decide the level of the board's selling price for liquid milk. Although the British farmer receives less for his milk than other farmers in the EEC receive, I recognise the constraints upon raising the price. These constraints have been recognised by other hon. Members in the debate. We would come up against consumer resistance, although I doubt whether it is widely realised what a splendid bargain milk is at its present price. The nutritional value of a pint of milk, for instance, is far above that of a pint of beer. Most households enjoy the great advantage of the milk being brought to their doorstep. Yet a pint of beer, I am told, costs three times the price of a pint of milk. It is not so much the farmer who is subsidised here as the household.
  I recognise that there must be some restraint on the amount of milk produced in present circumstances. If restraint is needed on this side of the Channel, it is certainly needed on the other side. The green pound rate is the most relevant factor in matters affecting the price of manufacturing milk. I welcomed the 7½ per cent. devaluation, although the delay in its implementation has had some unfortunate consequences, especially in manufacturing. I speak as one who opposed our entry into the Common Market. I spoke in the debate in the House in 1967 against our entry when the Prime Minister of the day was so enthusiastic about the Common Market.
  In the referendum on the Common Market, I engaged myself actively in trying to get these countries of Britain out of the Market. Therefore, I can speak with some impartiality on the matter of the green pound. I do not believe that farmers are getting a fair deal. Their support for the EEC was, after all, based on the belief that there would be fair competition, common prices and free trade. The present green pound situation was not foreseen by anyone. It is the result of the depreciation of sterling over a long period of time. The current situation is now being used by the Government, and I do not blame them, to keep down food prices.
  1390
  We should take a long-term view rather than a national or even Common Market view on these matters. The time is coming when we shall need all the food we can produce. In that situation, I doubt whether it would be a good thing for anyone if the present disparity between the rates continued indefinitely. It should be the Government's policy to ensure one more devaluation before the end of the year to help the farmer next year. This could be of greater value than all the increases that the Commission proposes. Certainly it would help to close the gap between liquid and manufacturing prices.
  The processing of milk suffers severely from the price gap. In my constituency the creameries are our biggest industry, employing about 1,500 people, of whom 700 are employed in cheese-making. These people naturally look with apprehension at the huge imports of cheese from EEC countries. In 1977 these imports were worth £109,946,000. Because of the way the green pound and the MCAs work, it means that these cheese imports are in our view unfairly subsidised.
  I wonder whether the unique position of the United Kingdom in relation to the other EEC countries and the consumption of liquid milk is fully realised. The figures speak for themselves. In 1976, the percentage consumption of liquid milk was as follows: Belgium 18 per cent., Germany 15 per cent., Ireland 14 per cent., Luxembourg 13 per cent., France 11 per cent., the Netherlands 9 per cent., Denmark 8 per cent., and the United Kingdom 57 per cent.
  I should like to see far more effort made in the EEC countries to increase the consumption of liquid milk. It is here that the co-responsibility levy on milk should prove its worth. After all, a levy has twice been collected in these countries. The Milk Marketing Board collects a levy and uses it effectively to further milk sales. I do not think that all the EEC countries collect the levy, let alone use it. I hope that the Minister will use all his powers to urge these countries to collect the levy and to use it to promote the consumption of liquid milk.
  Another use to which the levy could be put is in subsidising milk for schoolchildren. It is not possible for a child to have better food than milk. This has been proved time and again. The habit

  1391
  of drinking milk should be instilled into children at a very early age and continued throughout their schooling period. I remember how the Labour Party reacted in 1971 when free milk for most schoolchildren over 7 was abolished. Its reaction then was justified.
  I remember, too, that the present Government early in 1976 allowed the local education authorities to supply free milk at their discretion to any child but did not make it mandatory. Then, later in the year, through the Chancellor, the Government withdrew even the discretion for local authorities to give free milk to any children over the age of 7.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the hon. Member recognise that some local authorities such as my own of Harlow still take advantage of the existence of what was the old penny rate to provide school milk for some children over the age of 7? This prevails in a number of local authorities up and down the country.
  Mr. Evans: I am glad to hear that. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the proportion of children throughout the country who receive this free milk over the age of 7 is very small.
  What I am pleading for now is the expansion of free milk for all children over the age of 7 and to restore it to those who lost it in 1971. I think that it should be restored also to the older children who lost it before then at the hands of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who should pay for this?
  Mr. Evans: The cost should come out of the Exchequer and the co-responsibility levy. It would be a very fine way of spending money. It would be in the interests of the health of our people. That has been proved time and again. I am not simply making a case for the dairy farmer but am making a case for the health of our people.
  Finally, I must say, along with many other hon. Members, that much of the comparatively good health of the dairy industry is due to the Milk Marketing Boards. This is clearly also the view of the Minister. We should give him our strongest support in his efforts to withstand all attempts to weaken their powers
  1392
  and upset the balance between the consumer, the producer and the trade interests.
  I speak for all the farmers in my constituency when I assure the Minister that the EEC's proposals for quinquennial elections are unacceptable. The proposal that at least 50 per cent. of the milk should be used as liquid milk is unacceptable, because we cannot guarantee that that figure will always obtain. Also, farmers deplore the possibility of the withdrawal of some producer-retailers from this great board.
  Therefore, the present powers of the MMBs are in the best interests not only of the farmer but of the consumer, and for that reason they should be maintained.
  6.44 p.m.
  Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Bright-side): I begin by taking issue with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). We were old sparring partners before we came to this place, so there is nothing unusual in my disagreeing with him. I begin with his comments about the declining production or lack of expansion in industry and his attack on the Minister and the Government and blaming them for that. We are no longer in complete control, unfortunately, of our own industry. There are the other eight nations in the Common Market which have a say in this matter. That is where the hon. Member ought to be directing his criticism. If there is any danger to the expansion of our industry, it comes from the EEC and not from our Minister and our Government.
  If Conservative Members had had their way on the level of devaluation of the green pound, prices would have been so drastically increased that consumption would have been reduced. That would not help the expansion of the industry either.
  I am particularly amazed at the hon. Member's attitude to the cost of going back to the old system of support. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it would not cost any more than the present system is costing and it would have the added advantage of giving us cheaper food. But I emphasise that it would have another advantage, which nobody has yet mentioned—that of giving security and stability to our industry. That is something which it never had

  1393
  until the Agriculture Act 1947 and everything that flowed from that Act.
  Mr. Jopling: On that point, I should like to ask the hon. Lady a straight question. If the cost of returning to a system of support based on guaranteed prices and efficiency payments is almost £1,000 million—that is the estimate that I have been given-is she happy that the level of taxation in this country in order to pay for that system would be almost £1,000 million a year more than it is now?
  Miss Maynard: I have already pointed out that the present system is costing us that amount. I am being lenient when I say that it is costing as much as that. It is really costing us more.
  Mr. Jopling: Where is it coming from?
  Miss Maynard: Never mind where it is coming from. It is coming from the British people, and is particularly hitting the low-paid people because the percentage spent on food is much greater for low-paid people. There is no justice in that kind of a system.
  I want to deal with the Milk Marketing Boards. I say at the outset that my union. the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, supports the Milk Marketing Boards and would be very much opposed to anything that undermined the boards. The introduction of these boards was for farmers the beginning of moving out of the depression of the 1930s, which some of us, unfortunately, remember. The regular income that came with the monthly milk cheque was the first move away from depression in agriculture and towards a brighter future for the industry. It would be a body blow to the industry if the boards were to be undermined. It would be a body blow not only to the industry but to the consumers.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland that a poll every five years would tend to create uncertainty in the industry. Having to guarantee liquid milk sales of over 50 per cent. makes for uncertainty. All of us are agreed about the importance of doorstep sales in order to make sure that we keep up our sales of milk, particularly for producers and consumers and also to keep down surpluses. I
  1394
  believe, with the Minister and the Government, that the production should be for consumption and not for putting supplies into surplus or into intervention.
  I agree with the idea—I hope that the Government will look at this—of giving free school milk to all schoolchildren. This would be good for industry and very good for the children, who are the future of our country.
  I want to say a word or two about what the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said about parity. I emphasise that there are other parities in which some of us are also interested, such as parity of wages. The problem for the British people is that they have Common Market prices without Common Market wages—that is their problem—and without Common Market social benefits. In particular, of course, if we look at farm workers and the kind of wages they receive—
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am glad to hear of the support of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers for the continuation of the Milk Marketing Board, but I cannot understand the hon. Lady's line of argument when she is completely at variance with the agricultural unions, because they have the sense to say that unless reasonable prices are paid to the producer there is no chance of agricultural wages being increased.
  Miss Maynard: I think that all the facts disprove the hon. Gentleman's statement. I ask him to look at the facts and to look at what the Agricultural Wages Board was giving to farm workers in the 1950s. When farming in this country was booming, the Agricultural Wages Board was giving out wage increases of 4s. a week, 6s. a week and 8s. a week. Whether or not the industry is booming, profitable and prosperous, I know and the hon. Gentleman knows that the real issue is that the wages that workers get are the wages that they are strong enough to get.
  Mr. Howell: Does the hon. Lady compare the wages that agricultural workers are getting in the other eight countries of the EEC with those that are being received in this country? Even in Ireland. where their wages were only half of what ours were about five years ago, they have now reached our level and will soon be overtaking it.
  Miss Maynard: I am not suggesting that farm workers here are paid worse than farm workers in some of the other countries of the EEC. I am merely saying that, as our farm workers produce 50 per cent. of Britain's food, they are very badly paid. If Opposition Members were as anxious to argue for good pay for farm workers as they are to argue for high prices for their products, there would be a good deal of justice in their case.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Surely most of us in the House would agree that there should be much better wages for farm workers. The hon. Lady must be fair. She has been talking about milk. Can she tell me the average wage, roughly, of a cowman these days? It is very considerable and is far better than the wages of many industrial workers.
  Miss Maynard: Perhaps I may answer that question by asking the hon. Gentleman a question: how many hours does the dairyman have to put in to get the wage to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? That is the real crunch issue. The hon. Gentleman says that I ought to be fair. I shall be fair to Opposition Members when they are fair to my people, which is what they have never been.
  Mr. Mills: That is just not true.
  Miss Maynard: I do not supose that we shall ever agree on this issue. Therefore, I should like to move on to the question of our continuing desire to try to reform the CAP.
  I have every confidence in the Minister and his desire to try to reform the CAP. The industry and the people of this country are fortunate that we have such a skilful and able Minister. This applies particularly in relation to the fight that must now be conducted to save the Milk Marketing Boards, in which we are fortunate that we have a Minister of my right hon. Friend's calibre, because if anyone can save the boards it will be my right hon. Friend. The other thing that he has done is to try to maintain reasonable prices, which are in the interests of producers as well as of consumers.
  Having said that, however, I still believe, as someone who has always been opposed to our membership of the Common Market, that the only real solution for the farming industry, the farmers and
  1396
  the people of this country is for Britain to leave the Common Market.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: As I have promised to be very brief, I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) will forgive me for not following up her arguments. I wish to raise an entirely new aspect of the CAP—namely, the possible establishment of a sheepmeat regime. In order to put myself in order, I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to paragraph 4 on page 78 of document R/3200/77.
  At this point, I must declare a personal interest. I am involved, as I think all hon. Members know, in a number of companies which trade in meat from all sources. At present there is no sheepmeat regime, but one is promised. Here we have the opportunity, unlike in all the other matters that we have been discussing so far, of talking in the House about an aspect of Common Market policy which has not been settled. In other words, it is possible that we in this House can attempt to shape it.
  I suggest that there are five different interests that have to be considered and, ideally, brought together in order to produce a harmonious policy. They are as follows.
  First, there is the European consumer, headed, I suggest, by the British consumer. This is not for nationalistic reasons. It is because, as I shall endeavour to show, we eat more lamb than does any other European country.
  Secondly, there is the European producer, headed, again, by the British farmer. Again, this is not for nationalistic reasons but is because the British farmer produces more and better lambs than does any Continental producer.
  Thirdly, there are the traditional external suppliers, headed now almost uniquely by New Zealand, a country towards which, I am sure the House will agree, we have a great affinity and feeling of responsibility. Fourthly, there are the traders, the transporters, the shopkeepers and all involved in the trade. Fifthly, there is the European taxpayer, headed—without being too nationalistic—by the United Kingdom taxpayer.
  I should like briefly to describe the nature of our own trade in sheepmeat, because it is important to realise how it

  1397
  has been established. I should add that I was up very early this morning going around Smithfield Market just making sure that my competitors as well as my colleagues agreed with the points that I wish now to put to the House.
  We in Britain are by far the largest consumers of sheepmeat, principally lamb, in Europe. Lamb has been eaten in British households throughout the year for between 50 and 70 years. This has been made possible by the importation of frozen lamb from New Zealand. The New Zealand frozen lamb trade complements home-killed lambs on the British market. The bulk of New Zealand lambs are sold to the British public between January and July, when seasonally home-killed lambs are in very short supply. Thus the regular availability of New Zealand lamb maintains the habit of eating lamb among the British public. Without it, it is the general view of the trade that the market for home-killed lambs would be greatly reduced.
  Equally, I must point out that prices for home-killed lambs are usually at about the same level as for beef, but New Zealand lambs sell at about 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. lower. The market for both kinds of lamb is particularly price-sensitive. I have no time to develop this point further now, but it is very important when considering what type of sheep-meat regime there should be.
  Of the nine countries in the EEC, only the United Kingdom, France and Eire have any substantial interest in either lamb production or lamb consumption. I think most hon. Members will know that in France lamb is sold largely as a luxury food, at prices that are about double the prevailing levels in either the United Kingdom or Eire.
  If an EEC sheepmeat regime involved a move upwards to the French level of lamb prices, the result would be disastrous, not only for the British consumer and the British producer but for the New Zealand trade. As has been pointed out time and again in this debate, all these agricultural products are price-sensitive, but lamb is particularly price-sensitive. The availability of poultry, pork and beef at relatively cheaper prices would result in a very rapid reduction of lamb consumption here.
  1398
  Until the Commission publishes its precise proposals, one can only speculate. Undoubtedly, we must be ready to negotiate a liberal sheepmeat regime which would be fair to our consumers and to our producers and would also give reasonable access to the New Zealand producers.
  In the past the EEC has favoured variable levies. Any variable levies placed upon New Zealand lamb must not be allowed to exceed the current 20 per cent. ad valorem duty. Most of us in the trade would prefer not to have variable levies at all. If there are to be levies, let them be at fixed levels. This is important in enabling people in the trade to plan ahead. It is important also that any transitional policy should be open-ended and not confined to six years, as is currently suggested in Brussels. If the EEC sheepmeat market were to be closed to New Zealand lamb after six years, I believe that many of the dire consequences that I have suggested would follow irresistibly.
  I suggest to the Minister—I am delighted to see him here—that the object must therefore be to negotiate as liberal a sheepmeat regime as possible. Here I believe that the Government are greatly assisted by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The House will recall that, under the GATT rules, there cannot be any increase in duty on the import of New Zealand lamb above the current 20 per cent. level unless it can be shown that there is an escalation of imports. From purely commercial considerations, it is clear to me that over any transitional period there is unlikely to be any increase in New Zealand lamb entering the EEC. Indeed, it is unlikely that the present levels will be maintained regularly.
  I believe, therefore, that the Minister in this respect has a good negotiable hand to play for a liberal EEC sheepmeat regime. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will wish him success in trying to negotiate such a liberal sheepmeat regime because, as I said at the beginning, it will be in the interests of the British consumer, the British producer, the New Zealand producer and the British taxpayer.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: I must declare an interest, as usual, in that I am a farmer. Although I declare an interest,

  1399
  I intend to restrict my remarks to milk and I have never produced it commercially.
  I have conscientiously waded through most of the papers for the debate that I obtained from the Vote Office. Among them I came across a letter headed
  "Subject: United Kingdom Milk Marketing Boards".
  I read in that letter that before the Government would be allowed to continue with the Milk Marketing Boards, and before the boards could be authorised for recognition in accordance with the regulations, we would need to give certain undertakings.
  Having read through all the regulations, I further noted that the letter concluded by saying:
  "I shall be pleased if you will notify the acceptance of your Government to the above listed conditions as soon as possible."
  Having read that, I came to the conclusion that the debate was once more raising the question which was raised so often, and just as often side-stepped by the House, during the debate on direct elections. I refer to the whole question of the sovereignty of this House.
  I have always thought that we who are Members of this House were elected to govern this country. Now we discover more forcefully than ever before, in clear and brutal terms, the demand from our masters in Europe that we shall conform to what they lay down for the organisation of our agricultural affairs in this country. That is only the forerunner of many more such letters which will be received by the future Governments of this nation.
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in these documents there has been a recognition of the necessity for a derogation for the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board. I am very happy that that should be so. I hope that the Minister will be successful in his efforts and that we shall shortly hear exactly what that derogation shall be for Northern Ireland, and precisely how the milk producer in Northern Ireland will have his income protected.
  It would appear to me that in the past the United Kingdom had a closed market, and because of this the Milk Marketing Boards were given a certain number of
  1400
  essential functions. Those essential functions, mentioned in the amendment, to which I have appended my name, include, I believe, all the present functions of the Milk Marketing Boards. I believe that those functions have to be maintained. They enable the boards to regulate production and distribution and to control the manufacturing of milk.
  That is an aspect of the matter which has not yet been mentioned. I do not intend to go into it deeply, but I believe that the Minister will have it in the forefront of his mind whenever he meets his colleagues in the Commission. He will, I hope, be prepared to defend the powers of the boards in the manufacture of milk products in this country.
  We were able in this country to do all these things purely and simply because the Milk Marketing Boards had control of the sale of milk. They had control of the entire production of this country. It may be going a bit far to say that it was the entire production. There may have been a few producers who retailed, but they were such a small percentage of the total market that they did not really matter. We had, in short, a national system in this country—it was a truly national system—which was carefully tailored to the needs of this nation. It included not only sale and retailing of milk and the buying of milk from farmers. It also included the promotion of milk and milk products.
  I turn briefly to the Common Market levy on milk, which is in addition to what is already done by the Milk Marketing Boards. I ask the Minister whether the money that is being raised from United Kingdom producers from this levy will be used to expand the sale of milk in the Continent of Europe or whether it is to be used to expand the sale of milk and milk products in the United Kingdom. It is our money, and I do not see very much point in the people of the United Kingdom—that is, the producers of the United Kingdom—giving a lot of money to the producers in Europe to enable them to expand their production and their sales, with nothing being done to expand the sales in the United Kingdom. Where is the money to be spent? That is a very important point.
  We are also told by various people that the changes proposed in relation to the Milk Marketing Boards will continue in

  1401
  large measure all the good points of our present system, but I believe that the conditions which are laid down by the EEC are such that it will be impossible to maintain our present system of marketing.
  The end of the pooling arrangement for the whole of the United Kingdom was the first step in that direction. Now we have the demand as to 80 per cent. of producers supporting the boards, under the new arrangements, 55 per cent. of the milk going as liquid market sales, and allowing the producers with herds of not more than 150 cows to opt out. Not many farmers would consider 150 cows a small herd.
  Miss Maynard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the opting out is the most dangerous proposal of all? If people with herds of not more than 150 cows are to be allowed to opt out, they will weaken and undercut the boards. I remember listening to an agriculture debate in the course of which someone used exactly this argument in relation to the first wool board, which collapsed because people were allowed to opt out. When we on the Labour Benches argue for the closed shop, we argue that it is the people outside who weaken the union. That is why we argue for the closed shop. Now that we have converted Opposition Members hope that they will all support us——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Lady has already spoken.
  Mr. Ross: If the hon. Lady had only contained herself for a few minutes and left out the closed shop aspects, I would have agreed with every word she said.
  I was going on to say that these three things, taken together, are a certain way to the destruction of the Milk Marketing Boards in this country. There is no doubt about it. Any one of these measures would destroy the boards. The one to which the hon. Lady drew particular attention, concerning opting out, is the most dangerous of all. There is no doubt of that. In fact, that measure in itself would swiftly mean the end of the orderly production, marketing and retailing of milk that we have seen in this country. Milk producers with relatively large herds of 150 cows, in close proximity to large
  1402
  towns and cities, would immediately opt out, because it would be in their financial interest to do so. Instead of getting rid of the pooling arrangements for the United Kingdom as a whole, we should be getting rid of them in Scotland and in England and then county by county. Anyone who does not understand that does not understand the effect of that kind of proposal.
  There is an attempt here to buy off the total opposition within the farming community to the destruction of marketing boards by giving something which appears to safeguard the present position but which in reality does nothing of the sort. We are being offered a carrot which, if we get it, will turn out to be rotten in the middle. The other nations in the EEC decided long ago that they would destroy the marketing system of farm produce in this country, and these proposals are aimed at that end.
  If the EEC wished to help the farmer and the British consumer, proposals like this would not be brought forward. The EEC would be adopting such things as the Milk Marketing Boards, which are proven in this country, and not destroying them. If at the end of this struggle with the EEC—and it is a struggle—we have a system which does not guarantee the future of the Milk Marketing Boards, it will be a major and decisive defeat for British farming, for the Minister, for the British consumer and eventually for the sovereignty of this House.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Like the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I am concerned with the dairy industry. I wish to declare an interest, in so far as I am the president of the London Co-operative Society, a major consumer-owned enterprise in milk distribution, which is also the owner of a large dairy herd. However, I hope that the House will recognise that I am motivated not by narrow commercial interests but by my interest in the future of a major industry and the interests of the public as consumers of milk.
  In Britain the per capita consumption of liquid milk is very high compared with that of most European—and many other countries. The main reason for this is the existence of regular door-to-door delivery services in most parts of the country.

  1403
  Experience shows that where door-to-door services are ended, the consumption of liquid milk falls substantially. Therefore, it is in the interests of consumers, who benefit very much in nutritional terms, and dairy farmers that door-to-door deliveries should be maintained.
  The EEC recently appeared to recognise the importance of this service. Previous proposals to standardise the butterfat content of milk were, I believe, designed to facilitate bulk sales of surplus European milk in this country through supermarkets and shops. Once the practice grew up of selling milk in bulk at preferential rates, many consumers might be persuaded to cancel their door-to-door milk deliveries.
  That would undermine the viability of the milk round. Since the overheads of the milk round remain fairly constant or rise, it is obvious that once sales fell, the costs would go up and this would mean that certain rounds would have to be cut out. The effect of this would be cumulative on milk sales. Without daily deliveries, many families would consume less liquid milk than at present. We have a precedent in this country, with bread deliveries. Today, door-to-door deliveries of bread have virtually disappeared, because falls in sales of bread on rounds made those rounds uneconomic.
  If this happened with milk it would be a tragedy for farmers, for the rural community, for distributors and for the public as a whole. Therefore, we must pay careful attention to the effects of the EEC proposals at present, and recognise that continued price increases must diminish demand. There is no answer in continually putting up the prices.
  I am glad that the EEC has accepted that the Milk Marketing Board should remain. However, the conditions that it wants to impose are still unsatisfactory and against our interests. In this respect I agree with what has been said by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The condition that at least 50 per cent. of milk produced should be used for direct consumption—that is, drunk as liquid milk—is unacceptable. If we were to increase the manufacture of milk products the balance would be altered. It is totally wrong that in these circumstances the continuation of the Milk Marketing Board and our dairy industry should be at stake.
  1404
  Even if we consume less than 50 per cent. of liquid milk it is still totally wrong for the EEC to try to interfere with the present system. I am opposed to the provision of an option to producer-retailers with fewer than 150 milk cows to opt out. At the very least this should be reduced to permitting those with only 20 cows to opt out. If there is a right for anyone to opt out it should not be farmers who have as large a herd as 150 cows.
  Another condition laid down by the EEC is a proposal for a poll of producers at intervals of five years on whether the Milk Marketing Board should be continued. A poll may always be demanded by any 2,000 registered producers. This is safeguard enough without accepting the EEC proposals.
  In the long run any thing done with the fundamental aim of finding an outlet in Britain for surplus Continental milk will be counter-productive, even from the European point of view, if it causes our system to collapse and paves the way for a substantial decline in milk consumption in Britain.
  There may be a case for certain changes in the Milk Marketing Board. There may be a case for separating the commercial activities of the board from the statutory manufacturing functions. However, any proposals for change must be viewed and examined very carefully before they are implemented.
  There is one other aspect of milk consumption to which I wish to refer, and that is the issue of school milk. I opposed the abolition of school milk to secondary schoolchildren by a Labour Government and voted against it. I also opposed the abolition by' Conservatives of milk for primary schoolchildren over 7. As I have already pointed out to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), we in Harlow felt so strongly about this that we used the old penny rate to continue the provision of milk to children over 7. Unfortunately, our example was not copied in as many parts of the country as it should have been.
  I opposed the withdrawal of milk from schoolchildren on nutritional grounds, and not merely because I was concerned about the loss of a market for milk. That is still my position. I believe that milk is of great benefit to schoolchildren

  1405
  and that we should encourage its consumption among young people in the hope that we shall deflect them, to some extent, from drinking less beneficial beverages.
  I of course agree that sales would also be advantageous to milk distributors and producers. It seems an ironic commentary on the EEC that a couple of years ago an attempt was made to force farmers to feed surplus milk to stock—for example, to pigs and other animals—while we refused to provide milk for children. A number of farmers regarded it as a most unsatisfactory feeding stuff and refused to use it. I believe that we need to restore school milk and that if we did so we could overcome the problems of supervising distribution, highlighted by the teachers.
  I wish to end my remarks by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is right to emphasise that he fought as he did for the interests of British producers, distributors and consumers. I am only sorry that so many people on the Opposition Benches, though not all, who regard themselves as spokesmen for the producers do not recognise the signal service which my right hon. Friend has carried out in fighting on behalf of us all. It is quite shameful that Opposition Members, who have always been prepared to swallow EEC principles but who carp at the inevitable consequences of such a policy, are prepared to generate a barrage of criticism against my right hon. Friend.
  I believe that many farmers, distributors and members of the public recognise the value of my right hon. Friend's fight. Now that the EEC has conceded that the Milk Marketing Board should be retained—
  Mr. John Silkin: I did not want to intervene earlier in my hon. Friend's remarks, especially in view of the fact that he was making some nice comments about me. However, the fact is that the EEC has not conceded the matter of the Milk Marketing Boards. The Commission did so, after I argued for some time, but the decision of the Council of Ministers on the subject still awaits us.
  Mr. Newens: I accept that correction. That shows how important it is that we should make clear that my right hon.
  1406
  Friend has the backing of this House. I hope that hon. Members of both sides of the House will support my right hon. Friend in his battle. That is why it is important that even those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who have so often pressed the advantages of entry into the EEC should support my right hon. Friend on this issue. He represents the interests of the industry and the public. I do not think that those interests have yet been fully thought through but I ask my right hon. Friend not merely to continue the battle for the Milk Marketing Board but to change the limitations which are proposed on it and to which I have already referred. I believe that such a course is in the interests of us all, and I wish my right hon. Friend well in the next phase of the battle that he is about to fight on behalf of the British people as a whole.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: It has for a long time been my ambition to see my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) link arms with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and sing the same song in an agriculture debate. It seems that on this occasion we are within an ace of that notable event. I understand that on behalf of the Opposition my hon. Friend will support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber to hear him say it, although I have a hunch that the next time he drafts an amendment he will pitch it a little more strongly, which may put some of us in a quandary.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and others have mentioned the reduction in the amount of food consumed. The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to milk. These matters are set out in the monthly digest of statistics, and some disquieting figures are displayed. Until 1972 we were among the best fed nations in the world. Generally speaking, we were overfed—and that applied even to families with a large number of children. That is no longer the case. The number of calories eaten in the average family now amounts to 2,220 per head per day. That is just a little lower than the DHSS recommended as being the right amount

  1407
  in a report published in 1969. It is substantially lower than the FAO and WHO recommended in 1957.
  In a document produced by those bodies we were introduced to the "reference man". He was a person aged between 20 and 39 who worked for eight hours a day in an occupation involving moderate activity. Such a man should consume 3,000 calories per day. The average man in this country is just about at that level. But when we examine the position of families with four children or more we see that the average calorie intake has fallen to 2,080 per head per day. That is 88 per cent. of what it should be, based on the Government standards laid down in 1969, and is very much lower than the FAO and WHO recommended in 1957.
  I have tried to calculate the number of children who are affected. It is difficult because there are no up-to-date statistics. But, if we examine the 1971 census, we find that there were 377,800 families with four dependent children and 196,000 families with five or more dependent children—a total of 2,500,086 children. It would be a fair assumption that the figures are now about the same. If that is so, it must follow that no fewer than 2 million children are now suffering under-nutrition. On the FAO-WHO criteria, the number might be as high as 3 million children. I must contrast this with a nil figure in 1970.
  This process has happened in recent years and has come at a time when the price of food has rocketed, particularly for poorer families. They are the very families who have been most affected by import levies. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West and I may not like New Zealand butter, Argentine beef, tinned Australian fruit or South African or New Zealand cheddar. We prefer other food because we can probably afford to buy it, or we could have done so in the past. But the poorer families prefer those other foodstuffs because they were the cheapest available.
  Mr. Newens: I do not know whether the situation is as bad as the hon. Gentleman paints it, but does he not agree that the facts he has presented underline the need for the reintroduction of school milk? Does he not appreciate that many poorer children leave home in the morn-
  1408
  ing without having eaten a breakfast? Furthermore, often they cannot afford school dinners. What they do is to obtain a few pence and spend it on chips, which fill them up but which have no nutritional value. Is that not a strong argument for the reintroduction of school milk for all children?
  Mr. Body: With great regret, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is right. I opposed free school milk, but I am driven to the view now that if we are to have about 2½ million of our children suffering from under-nutrition—the FAO would call it malnutrition—when we had no such children in the early 1970s, it is necessary to have free school milk again. To have 2½ million children suffering from under-nutrition is a horrifying figure.
  It seems that we are back to the standards of the 1930s. That is one of the consequences of having a crazy and wicked scheme whereby food is made artificially more expensive than it should be. Above all, the system affects poorer families and larger families much more than those who are better off. The poorer and larger families are hit in a number of ways. They are the principal taxpayers when it comes to paying import duties and levies upon food. That is inevitably the difference between the present system and the system of deficiency payments, where the burden fell upon those who were generally better off.
  The total cost of supporting agriculture in the Community has risen to an astronomical figure. It is paid for, proportionally speaking, more by the poorer people than by the better off. According to the eleventh annual report of the Commission, the total figure for agriculture now comes to 14,216 million units of account. That means that, in round figures, £1 is spent per head of population per week in subsidising and supporting agriculture. I repeat that the burden is falling primarily upon poorer people and those with larger families.
  Poorer people are hit in three ways. These issues are of vital importance, and I hope that I am strictly in order in' arguing them. Structural surpluses are being created to some extent because poorer people are unable to eat the sort of food that they consumed a few years ago.

  1409
  In the first place, food is being destroyed on a massive scale. That applies especially to fruit. In the previous year, 165,000 tons of apples were wilfully destroyed along with 327,000 tons of pears. The fruit is not destroyed in the way that I destroy my own apples—namely, by letting an old sow loose in the orchard and allowing her to gobble it up. The fruit is purchased by the Commission at a high price. Having been purchased with public money, and proportionately by poorer people's money more than anyone else's, it is subsequently destroyed, so that not even animals eat it.
  Secondly, much of the food that we could be eating is being exported. The hon. Member for Harlow referred to bread. As he is in the business, as president of the London Co-operative Society, he will probably be aware that there has been an 8 per cent. fall in the quantity of white bread eaten in the past 12 months. The hon. Gentleman knows that that kind of bread is the commodity that used to be eaten most of all by poorer families with a large number to feed. If one was badly off, one stuffed white bread down the throats of one's children more than anything else. However, there has been a fall in consumption. That is because the price of the loaf has increased.
  The reason is that import levies on wheat from North America have virtually doubled the price of wheat that is needed for the white loaf. It is appalling that we should be so taxed and that wheat should have doubled in price. I repeat that it is, proportionally speaking, the poorer people who are paying the tax. They are paying a much higher tax in percentage terms than the poorer people at the time of the Corn Laws. In those days, the most that they had to pay was 37 per cent., not 100 per cent.
  We are exporting wheat now that we are self-sufficient to the Community. We have nearly 2 per cent. surplus. In round figures, it seems as if the surplus will be about 3 million tons. That wheat will go on to the world market. I acknowledge that it is soft wheat. However, the folly is that we are heavily taxing imported hard wheats, such as Manitoba wheats. The subsidy on soft wheat is running at about £40 a ton.
  1410
  That has to be paid for by the taxpayer. Again, it is the poorer people of this country who are proportionally paying more than the rest.
  Poorer people are being hit in three ways: by the destruction of food after it has been purchased by the European taxpayer; by the way that food is taxed when it comes into the country, especially the sort of food that poorer people used to buy, such as New Zealand lamb; and by the export subsidies that are applied, which means that food is exported that the people are unable to buy for themselves although they are being called upon to pay a subsidy out of their pockets to enable someone abroad to buy it.
  I believe that it is in the interests of British agriculture for the British people to go back to eating as much food as they were able to eat in the early 1970s, and for as much of that food as possible to be produced by British farms at a fair and competitive price. In the way in which things are now moving—the documents only confirm this—the British people will be eating less than they are now, coupled with the real danger that our farms will be contributing less food to the total produced in the Community.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. John Cockcroft: I should declare interests, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for there are more cows than people in the Nantwich area. I am told that that is so although I have never had time to count them. It means that there are at least 70,000 cows there. I must also say that I have a sore throat.
  I speak briefly, as I have been requested, about the future of the Milk Marketing Boards. There is no doubt that in Cheshire, and in the part of Yorkshire where I was brought up there was enormous agricultural instability in the 1930s. There was a great deal of suffering and unnecessary uncertainty in the countryside during the years between the wars. There were low and unpredictable incomes. There were many bankruptcies as well as a total lack of confidence about the future.
  The Milk Marketing Boards were established after the Second World War. In many ways the system was changed out of all recognition. I know that there are arguments that a monopoly is a bad

  1411
  thing. As a former economic leader writer for The Daily Telegraph, and with my notoriously Right-wing views, I say even so that in some instances a monopoly can be a good thing. Clearly, one must be flexible in approaching economic situations. After having been the Member for Nantwich for four years, I am convinced that what I have just said about monopolies is not a contradiction in terms.
  There is a tendency to talk about one Milk Marketing Board, but we are discussing several boards. These monopolies are good from the point of view of the producer, of the consumer and of the retailer. I do not know how many public opinion polls have been taken on the subject, but I imagine that if there were to be such things we would find overwhelming support for the boards in their present form.
  I have listened to as much of the debate as I could, and I agree that it must be a case of all or nothing. We cannot have a Milk Marketing Board covering 60 per cent. of England while the other 40 per cent. of the country goes its own way and sells milk at the end of the lane leading to the farm. The point made earlier about trade unions is a different aspect. I am talking about the marketing boards which are a major feature of these documents. Unless overall costs and stability are shared, the whole edifice will collapse.
  There is a general feeling that the boards are doomed. The Minister reminded us that the Commission is not wholly against them, though I am not sure myself that it is actually in favour of them—and certainly the Council of Ministers is not in favour. This is a major cause of the instability and insecurity of farmers in the milk and other dairy products sector, and the sooner the situation is resolved, the better.
  As a journalist, I paid several visits to the English Milk Marketing Board at Thames Ditton and wrote several articles about it. I was greatly impressed by the efficiency of the set-up there, the technological progress, its work on artificial insemination and its resurrection of English county cheeses after the Second World War, among other things. None of the valuable work that it has done would have been possible if there had
  1412
  been a free-for-all in milk and dairy products in the last 25 or 30 years.
  I wish to say a few words about the psychological effects of the present situation. There is undoubtedly a need for a higher price for milk, even though it has recently gone up quite a lot. It may be said that farmers are never happy; but in this case they have reasons for not being happy.
  In Western England, including southern Cheshire, many farms are small family businesses, involving just a husband and wife, with perhaps one or two members of the family or a couple of people from outside—though there are not so many of these since the abolition of tied cottages. They work long hours and the businesses are not always economic in the sense that a large factory of a firm such as British Leyland would be judged economic, but they represent a way of life that is not subsidised and certain aspects of British country life that are very important. They provide a good service for almost everyone concerned, and it would be a tragedy if, through absent-mindedness at a late night sitting of the Council of Ministers, a system which is widely admired on the Continent were abolished almost by default.
  There are only two hon. Members on the Government Benches at the moment, but many of their hon. Friends believe that those of us who have laboured in the vineyard for many years, who at the time of Messina were like the early Christians in the catacombs—that is, dedicated Europeans in the early days—all still go overboard for the CAP. That is not so.
  Many of us would argue that, in the long run, the CAP is to the benefit of the British farmers because intervention prices and entry prices on the Continent, at least until the end of the transitional period, have been higher than prices here, and there is a case for saying that the old deficiency payments scheme, which cost £300 million or £400 million a year, was not the right way, even though, technically, it was brilliantly devised, because in the end the taxpayers would say "Enough is enough. There should be some other way of subsidising farms" However, that is not the same as saying that dedicated Europeans are necessarily in favour of the CAP.

  1413
  On the contrary, I am aware that, although it may account for 80 per cent. or more of the budget of the Community, there is a great deal to be said for starting from scratch with the CAP and doing it again. One can argue plausibly in favour of Europe on wider grounds, such as the wider market for our industries, lower tariffs, increased trade and the political and defence aspects, without necessarily being in favour of the CAP. I should like to dispel the myth that is widely held among Labour Members that hon. Members who are in favour of the EEC, even those sitting for wealthy agricultural constituencies, regard the CAP as holy writ, like the laws of the Medes and Persians.
  We need to restructure the policy—it is too late to do away with it—more towards the needs of those who joined the Community later. It is our fault that we were not in sooner and could not participate when the policy was structured in 1962, but let us now recognise that the Community is much wider and the policy must be restructured towards the needs of nations such as Britain which has 55 million people, only 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of whom work on the land.
  I appreciate that the Minister has faced some difficult problems. We do not agree about Europe, but he has been kind enough to talk to me in private several times about the problems. He has done well to take the rest of the Community so far towards being persuaded that the Milk Marketing Boards are, if not essential, not entirely undesirable. I wish him every success in his aim of preserving, virtually intact, the marketing boards.
  There is a lot to be said for taking a low profile, to use a cliché. It may be wrong to imply a British attitude of "Methinks he doth protest too much" in the Council of Ministers. If it can be done, let us not make too much fuss about it and, on the Milk Marketing Boards, let us agree that it is best, as Walpole might have said, to let sleeping dogs lie.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I must immediately declare my interest. I start by turning to probably the most important aspect of our considerations, namely, the
  1414
  price proposals. I agree that the future of the Milk Marketing Boards is crucial, but the price determinations are extremely important this year.
  The Opposition Members who were supporting the Minister so strongly and seeking to defend him have left the Chamber. I do not criticise the Minister much for what he said earlier. There were a number of matters on which I disagreed, but the real problem with the right hon. Gentleman—I have told him this to his face—is his attitude.
  If, over the years, we had heard him put forward as strong a defence of producers as of consumers, it would have been a lot better. The Minister should not be a Minister of Agriculture or a Minster of Food; he must get the balance right and be a Minister of Agriculture and Food. That is our criticism of the right hon. Gentleman.
  It would be a great help if the Minister or one of his hon. Friends said that agricultural producers had suffered tremendous increases in costs, as have other manufacturers and producers—but we do not hear that from the Minister. We want him to agree that there must be some price increases to compensate farmers for the alarming rise in the cost of fuel and other commodities. It is no good the Government expecting to get food from our own resources without paying a fair price for it. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. We want the Minister to make a statement about the tremendous problems of producers. He has not done so and that is why we say that he is not being the Minister of Agriculture.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I wish that the hon. Member would read the recent review White Paper, which explains the problems of the industry and mentions that there has been an impressive recovery in spite of the problems of the last two years.
  Mr. Mills: How many people in this country read White Papers? They see and hear what the Minister says in the Press and on television. The Minister should get the balance right. I appreciate that he is in a difficulty, because he is so opposed to the concept of the Community.

  1415
  I turn now to the price proposals. A 2 per cent. increase is adequate. In some sections of production it should be considerably less. It is no good talking of 5 per cent. increases when we are in surplus. The farming community must accept that we cannot go on producing to intervention. I do not support the view of COPA that the increase should be 5 per cent.
  I sought to persuade British agriculture to enter wholeheartedly into Europe, with all that that means. We should be working towards parity. I want our consumers to be able to pay for the food they consume, and that is where the Government have let the country down. If we had enjoyed the economic growth that we should have, and if wages had increased as they should have in recognition of productivity and harder work, the consumer would now be able to pay the true price for food. British agriculture should be given a gradual revaluation of the green pound to reach parity with the Community.
  We must do something about the surpluses. Perhaps without blowing my own trumpet I may be permitted to refer to the paper that I, my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and another hon. Member wrote about the changes that are necessary. We do not say that our suggestions are the right ones—simply that they should be examined on the basis of both the long and short term. In some areas we need to reduce production and in others to increase it. Prices must be fixed on the basis of the more productive not the least productive farms. Areas that are producing simply for surplus must be provided with alternative work. It is for that reason that we want more money spent in the Community on giving guidance to deal with these matters. We believe that there should be schemes to encourage farmers to abandon certain types of production. If a country wished to support some sections of its farming, that should be done on a national basis, because it is social aid. There are many other ways of dealing with surpluses, and action must be taken, because it is ridiculous for Community farmers to continue producing them. Tough measures are needed.
  I am sometimes accused of speaking too much in support of the Milk Market-
  1416
  ing Board, but it is one of our finest examples of co-operation among producer, processor, retailer and consumer. If other sections of our community and our productive and distributive industries adopted the same sort of arrangements, we should not now be in the trouble that we are. We must maintain the Board. Many other people feel as I do, that it will be over our dead bodies that anything will happen to it.
  It is easy to take the board for granted, because it is so successful. It is easy to suggest changes. But if we do not take care we shall damage the structure of that carefully-constructed edifice. So, while it is easy to suggest changes, it is not so easy to make them.
  There is no point in the Community's sticking out on this matter. I did not advocate joining the Community because I thought that it would fiddle and fuss over such matters, I did so because I wanted to see peace in Europe for my children and my grandchildren, and for the other political factors which are crucial to the future of Western Europe. I wish that the Minister would adopt a more militant attitude on this question. I can assure him that those who are concerned with agriculture and who represent the consumer will take steps to see that nothing untowards happens.
  I do not know whether I am permitted to average my speeches in order to bring them within the seven-minute limit. The last time I spoke I did so for only five or six minutes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am aware only that Mr. Speaker said that each speech should stand alone and occupy less than seven minutes. I realise that the hon. Member is anxious that his speech should not be registered as having taken place. Perhaps I may also tell the hon. Member that the proper designation of the Minister is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Mills: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that he seems so often to be just the Minister of Food.
  Let me now turn to the question of the maize starch industry. It may appear strange that I, as a farmer, should support maize starch and isoglucose producers, but I do so because farmers should never be Luddites. That is the

  1417
  worst that could happen. This is, after all, an important industry and it has had a raw deal from the Community over the last few months. The starch industry should, above all else, know where it is heading. At present it does not. There is an overwhelming need for the Commission and the Council of Ministers to establish, with the industry, a stable policy for the next five to 10 years upon which the industry can base its expansion plans. It is only fair that they should do so. If the Dutch, with their potato industry, want to help that section of their community, I believe that it should be done out of national funds. It is a social problem and it should be dealt with in that way rather than that the maize starch industry should be affected.
  I should briefly like to refer to the isoglucose industry, which is a new one. The sugar beet producers could be affected seriously, but I believe that there is room for both industries so long as the isoglucose manufacturers keep their production to the small amount which they have already started to produce. It would be wrong for the sugar beet growers of this country to think in terms of being Luddites over this matter. The isoglucose industry is an interesting one. Its sugar is very effective in the manufacture of sweets. It puts a nice gloss on boiled sweets, and so on. I believe that it should have a fair share of the market so long as production is kept very low.
  Agriculture has extremely high costs. It is only right that we should ensure that those costs are covered. It is an entirely different matter when one is producing goods for intervention, as is happening in some parts of the Community. In a situation like the present one, where these is a surplus, I believe that the very minimum of price increases should be allowed. But I believe that our own farmers should have their prices increased towards parity.
  I also believe that the consumer must realise that it is all very well to talk about surpluses, but it should be remembered that things can change very rapidly. I still believe that the best future for the consumer is a healthy and prosperous British agriculture.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I agree with the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that there should be a
  1418
  healthy farming industry. I also agree that the Milk Marketing Board should be retained. It might be of benefit for Europe if the example of our own board were emulated more widely within the Community.
  I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Community ought not to be obsessed by small details. It must accept the broad need for amendment of the CAP. I have an almost romantic attachment to deficiency payments, because the scheme was born in my area. Tom Williams, its progenitor, spent part of his life in my small town. I remember his giving me considerable advice when I was candidate in a different constituency from the one that I now represent. I believe that that constituency is still represented by a Conservative Member. Farmers were impressed by Tom Williams's information. However, they did not vote for me. Farmers have never been given to voting in their best interests.
  I accept the point that if we do return to a deficiency payments system it will cost a great deal of money. It is incorrect to suggest that we could get away from the CAP and that the alternative would be light, easy and pleasant. I do not think that is a tenable argument. But the CAP does need amendment, and we need to go further than my right hon. Friend has been able to go in recent months.
  The cost of the CAP is large. It will grow. It may grow to proportions which will cause increasing political dispute and perhaps even stronger feelings than that. However, it needs to be changed so that individual nations bear some of the social problems that are currently transferred to Community funds. We need a more vigorous policy in order to reduce the mounting surpluses of certain products.
  But perhaps the most serious weakness of the CAP is its international effect. When world prices fall the CAP effect is to push them down further, to the grave disadvantage of international producers, particularly in the underdeveloped countries. When prices rise the CAP tends to push them still higher, which makes the lot of the more deprived even more difficult. There has to be change. I hope that this view will be reflected in our representation not merely in this House but in the European Assembly, and in a

  1419
  small way, through the Council of Europe.
  At present, I am preparing, and hope to present to the Council of Europe, a report on agriculture which may strengthen the common sense view that is beginning to be expressed in this country. I recall that during our recent discussions, one European Member of Parliament said that surpluses were the alternative to shortage. I suppose it could be said that in this simplistic point of view there was an important message, which is that we are better off having rather too much than too little. But we can always have too much of a good thing, and we have certainly had too much of a good thing with regard to the number of agricultural products entering intervention.
  If we are to see the CAP expending large sums of money, I believe that some of it should be diverted to the promotion of consumption, perhaps by the establishment of bodies like the Milk Marketing Board, to give encouragement to distribution and consumption in other countries. That would be far better than having butter mountains, which tend to go rancid if we do not sell them quickly at a ludicrously and offensively low price.
  We ought to go further and demand a continuing reappraisal of the role of the individual members of the Community. I believe that specialisation should be encouraged. The British Isles and Ireland should be increasingly seen as the dairy headquarters of the Community. We can produce milk and milk products far more efficiently and effectively than can most other countries of the Community. If Europe is to be sensible it will accept and embrace such a policy.
  I accept that there may be embarrassment for us in certain areas if we accept the specialisation principle. It could be argued that Denmark has a natural claim to be the principal pigmeat producer of the Community, but Denmark has always had a large share of our own market, and it has recently increased that share. We have seen that share reach dangerous proportions in recent years, particularly in 1976 and 1977. I in no way condemn my right hon. Friend for that position. He has had to fight for assistance for our pig producers. It proved more difficult, because he had no help from Con-
  1420
  servative Members, who seemed to be rejoicing in the fact that the Community was extremely obstructive in that regard. We must maintain pig production in this country. Our system of production and use of skimmed milk, and methods of curing, need to be reformed. I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend has taken, but we need to go a great deal further.
  One thing that my right hon. Friend has done—these documents show it clearly—is to accept the fundamental fact that for the first time for many years, the consumer needs production and the producer needs markets. If the producer's costs are too high the consumer will not be able to purchase in the market. We must exercise care, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) suggested in his reference to calorific consumption.
  My right hon. Friend has won a lot of battles in Europe. It would be a great deal easier if Conservative Members were constructive rather than unhelpful and were encouraging rather than gleeful when certain situations arise.
  My last two speeches have been rather shorter than those of the hon. Member for Devon, West—one minute and three minutes—and I wish to be brief. But I must say that I recognise that farm costs have gone up in the last four years, during which time we have been through the worst recession in living memory. I recognise the increased costs faced by farmers and I have discussed them with farmers in my own constituency.
  It would be as well if Opposition Members recognised that, although costs have increased mightily in the last four years, since oil prices quadrupled and other commodity prices soared, there was marked inflation in British agriculture between 1970 and 1973. I rarely hear the Opposition protest about that. For example, in 1970 a combine harvester cost £3,500. It had almost doubled in price by 1973. However, there was not a squeak from the Opposition. I recognise that the increase has been even greater since 1973, but the fact remains that costs increased during the lifetime of the Conservative Government, and they did very little to assist.
  The plight of British agriculture when the Labour Government took office——
  Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hardy: No, I shall not give way. I shall see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I think that he will accept that my statements are correct. If not, I shall apologise to him.
  British agriculture was not in booming and blooming health in February 1974. Some sectors of agriculture were in grave difficulties. I accept that certain sectors have had to face serious problems in the last two or three years. However, I am confident that if my right hon. Friend maintains his polices, we shall secure not merely justice but increased production, which will not be assisted if the benefits of North Sea oil are squandered in the way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I declare my interest as a dairy farmer. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has just left the Chamber. I follow very much his line of thought and agree with the sentiments that he expressed about the Minister.
  We recognise that the Minister is a tough negotiator. The trouble is that he has not directed his efforts aright. I believe that he has done a great disservice to agriculture by antagonising his colleagues in the Council of Ministers. He has not got the best that he could have got had he taken a more sensible line than he has in the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, he has done a great deal to destroy the good will which existed towards this country within the EEC.
  I believe that, by being so rigid in refusing to realign the green pound, the Minister has done a great disservice to agriculture generally. British farmers have been cheated in a big way by his refusal to realign the green pound. The House forced a 7½ per cent. revaluation of the green pound. The fact that that has not yet reached the farmer is an indication of the resistance put up by the Minister and of the damage that he has done. In the meantime, the Irish Government had the good sense to realign the Irish green pound with the pound sterling. That is proving a great service to Ireland's agriculture.
  1422
  The livestock industry particularly has been hit. People are leaving the industry. That is adding to and causing unemployment in the food manufacturing industry.
  I am amazed how little regard the Minister and Labour Members have for the fate of agriculture workers. The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers fully understands that, unless there is a full alignment between the green pound and the pound sterling, its members will never have fair wages. I remind Labour Members that wages for agriculture workers in other parts of Europe are far better than they are in this country. A week or two ago I heard at a farmers' club that a tractor driver in Europe earned £8,000 a year.
  Before dealing with the Milk Marketing Board and the milk surplus, I should like to express my views on the price review and the proposed 2 per cent. increase. I do not agree that this general price increase is designed in such a way as to solve the problems in agriculture. It will not. Neither the 2 per cent. nor 5 per cent. will solve problems across the board. The 2 per cent. will have a different effect in each of the nine member States. Another way must be found. I believe that we must have a quota system, if only to stop the milk surplus from getting larger.
  I congratulate the Minister on his work in maintaining the functioning of the Milk Marketing Board in its original state after 1st January 1978. That is a considerable achievement. It is good to know that the Treaty of Rome can be flexible. It has been flexible in this instance. I encourage the Minister to be at his firmest in insisting that no change takes place.
  What is wrong with the Milk Marketing Board as it is? It has served this country extremely well for 45 years. I see no reason for any change at all. There may be a reason for the importation of milk to some degree, but I see no reason for the structural changes which are suggested. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will stand firm.
  I had the honour to conduct a party of members from the Committee on Agriculture of the EEC on a visit to the Milk Marketing Board. They were mightily impressed with what they saw. We should tell our European partners

  1423
  that the way ahead is to create similar boards in each of the member States. With such machinery, they would be able to solve the problem of ever-increasing milk surpluses.
  The co-responsibility levy introduced last year is a total failure. It is nothing more than a dressed up mini price cut. It will not solve the problem of milk surpluses. Last Wednesday, in the European Parliament, Commissioner Gundelach said that there was no market for 15 per cent. of the milk produced within the EEC.
  There are about 25 million cows within the EEC. It is a simple matter to deduce that there are 3 million cows too many in Europe. These surplus cows exist in Germany and France, and to a lesser extent in Belgium and Holland. We must ensure that we do not go on maintaining these cows wastefully and creating this embarrassing surplus.
  The answer lies not in price cuts and squeezes. The price squeeze that we have suffered will mean that dairy farmers and other producers will try to keep up their incomes by increased production. There will come a breaking point. At that point, everyone will go out at once and we shall have a period of shortage.
  We should consider having quotas for milk production, not necessarily in this country, because we are net importers of dairy produce, but in countries where the excess production occurs. We accept quotas for sugar and for hops. Indeed, thought is now being given to devising a quota system for wine production.
  I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to this matter and to persuade his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to think on these lines. We must persuade them to set up the necessary milk and marketing boards. I agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that we need marketing boards in other areas. I believe that, far from trying to change our first-class Milk Marketing Board, we should urge our partners to copy it and to set up similar boards in the other member States.
  I believe that we must recognise the need to increase food production in this country. The economic situation demands it. The whole country has been put into a false position by listening to Labour Members talking about producing food
  1424
  from our own resources when they have done nothing but restrict production and create a general fall-back. The time has come to look over the fence and see what is happening in other member States, to see how well the German economy is progressing and to realise that they have a different attitude from ours to agriculture. We would do well to take note of that attitude.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. W. Benyon: This is a great day for me because this is the first time I have been called to speak in an agriculture debate in this House. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a Conservative Member who has an interest in agriculture to take part in these debates. I declare my interest as a farmer, and I add my support to the remarks that have been made by so many of my hon. Friends today about the retention of the Milk Marketing Board. I do not propose to say anything further about that. All the arguments have been made, and generally throughout the House we are agreed that this is the right thing to do.
  I turn immediately to deal with the whole problem of monetary compensatory amounts. One can imagine the situation that would arise in this House and outside if a manufactured product, such as a motor car, were to come into this country with a 25 per cent. import subsidy. There would be delegations, deputations and motions in the House until the matter was put right, and nothing could be more ironic than the silence on the Government Benches. No party has been more vociferous than the Labour Party about unfair competition, and yet here we are, in the pig sector in particular, having to fight what is essentially totally unfair competition. It is only the incredible productivity of this industry—5 per cent. still last year—that has enabled it to keep its head above water. If the rest of British industry had a similar record, we should have no economic troubles at all. The most important concession that the Minister must obtain is the recalculation of the MCAs. This is vital.
  After your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I turn quickly to deal with the price proposals themselves. The overriding criticism that has been made by many hon. Members today of these proposals is that they do not attempt to deal

  1425
  with the problem of surpluses in particular products. There are three ways in which one can change a situation of surplus. One can do it through the price mechanism, through structural change of one form or another, or through a combination of the two. My criticism of these proposals is that no attempt is being made to use any of those methods to deal with the surplus.
  Where does that leave the British farmer? We are, of course, concerned about the European position, but, as hon. Members of this House, basically we are concerned about the problem of the British farmer and of the consumer, too. What has happened leaves the British farmer in the position of having the worst of all possible worlds because he is having to experience European costs while he receives British prices.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) say this afternoon that he and his party are in favour of working quickly towards parity, because that is what we are after. We are not talking about the price level in the Community as such. We are talking about the disadvantage which the British producer experiences in relation to the market as a whole. This means a realignment of the green pound in various stages.
  There are not many Labour Members present to whom I can say this, but those in the governing party pride themselves on their knowledge of industrial conditions and they must know, if they are honest with themselves, that the chances of British industry being able to do great things in exports are not there. Gone are the days when we used to manufacture cheap products and sell them abroad in return for our food and raw materials. Of course, a lot can be done for British industry, but everybody agrees that it will be a great struggle to keep our head above water in export markets.
  In those circumstances, is it not both sensible and prudent to look towards import savings for success in the future? We have seen the dramatic transformation that oil has made to our balance of payments. An equally dramatic transformation could be made by the expenditure of a relatively small amount of money to provide import savings. It is, therefore, not a case of farmers versus
  1426
  consumers. Both have a vested interest in having a prosperous and efficient agriculture industry. What that means is producing a financial climate in which farmers can have confidence to invest and expand.
  Mr. Bishop: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that last year total agricultural exports of livestock, machinery and foodstuffs amounted to £3,400 million? That was a great record, which shows how the productivity of our agriculture is helping the balance of payments.
  Mr. Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement, but he has misunderstood what I have said. I am looking for import savings as opposed to export effort. By a relatively small investment, we could achieve enormous import savings to rival even the change in the balance of payments brought about by oil.
  The real problem is that the majority of hon. Members represent constituencies where most of the people either live or work in towns. The result is that there are two temptations to which it is easy to succumb. The first is to fudge the green pound issue and the second is to blame the Common Market for all our ills. It is true that a revaluation of the green pound raises food prices. It is right to say that firmly and definitely, but it is not such a dramatic rise as many people believe. It is, none the less, a rise. But, in any event, the policies that have been pursued by the Government since they took office had had a far greater effect in increasing food prices than has the revaluation that has taken place or could take place of the green pound.
  The important thing is to reinforce success, and British agriculture is a success. The question really is whether one should pay £500 million to resuscitate British Steel or British Leyland when one-tenth of that amount spent on supporting agriculture would make an enormous improvement to our economy.
  I turn quickly to the common agricultural policy, which always seems to go by default. Its aims are worthy. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), but I find his statistics hard to understand. If the position is so parlous, if people find it so difficult

  1427
  to buy food, why is consumption of the cheapest items of food, such as bread and potatoes, going down when one would expect it to rise?
  As I said, the aims of the CAP are worthy. They are to make the Community as self-supporting as possible, to produce the various products as efficiently as possible and to raise the standards of living of the agricultural section of the population to bring it nearer the standard of living enjoyed by the industrial section.
  It is the faults in the operation of the system that are to blame. The system itself should not be totally blamed for those mechanical faults. If the system is distorted by the operation of the MCAs, if we are not allowed to compete on equal terms with our competitors in Europe, if we are taxed more heavily than our counterparts in Europe and if those who produce surpluses do not have to bear the full cost of supporting them, the system cannot and will not work.
  All that British agriculture is asking is that it should be allowed to have the ability to compete on equal terms and to make the market work.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to this important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), despite the fact that I am an officer of our parliamentary committee, I have found it difficult to be called in these debates, because so many of my colleagues seek to catch the eye of the Chair to make positive contributions on a subject of vital importance to this country.
  I come from a part of the country—Cheshire, in the North-West—where milk and the dairy industry are very important. The dairy farmers may not be large in number, but they produce something of considerable importance to the consumer, particularly the housewife. Their position should be understood by the Government. In dealing with our European partners, the Government of the day should adopt an attitude and promote a policy that will help the dairy industry in this country.
  Before I come to the industry, and to the milk industry in particular, I should
  1428
  like to make one or two remarks about the position of British farmers—the food producers—and compare them with farmers in the EEC.
  At present we have in this country the most efficient farmers in the EEC. I say that not in a boasting manner but because it is a fact. I say to the Minister of State—I am pleased that he is present, because he and I have confronted each other across the Floor of the House on less important occasions—that unless action is taken to improve the position of United Kingdom farmers our European competitors, who are coining the cash at the expense of the British producer, will shortly have all the cash they need to provide them with the ability to carry out the investment that will make them as efficient as the British farmer.
  The British farmer is suffering at present. I shall not discuss the subject of taxation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, but it is an important aspect of farmers' ability to cope, to plan and to invest for increased home food production.
  It was interesting earlier to listen to the well-thought-out and well-argued contribution of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson), who talked about a common food policy in place of the common agricultural policy, but his view must not eclipse the unique position of the United Kingdom within the EEC. I shall not trespass on remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston (Mr. Body). The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West stated that both France and West Germany, within the Council of Ministers and other bodies in the EEC, stood up to the rest of Europe for their national interests, and that both had been highly successful in doing so.
  I say to the British Government that we must more responsibly, forcefully and constructively stand up for our own interests within the EEC. That does not mean that we must make enemies of all the other Agriculture Ministers within the Community. We must also safeguard our balance of payments. Although we are members of the Community, if we buy from other Community countries we are still expending exchange currency. This is dangerous for our balance of payments, and unnecessary, too.

  1429
  I have no doubt that the British farmer could produce very much more of the food that we need. The President of the National Farmers Union, Sir Henry Plumb, has also said this. Farming represents one of the most effective and efficient sectors in our manufacturing scene. It has an unparalleled record. How right some of my colleagues are to say that if other sectors of our manufacturing operations had increased their production and proved as efficient as farming we would not be in our present economic mess. It is the duty of any Government, Conservative or Labour, to ensure that farming can continue to play its vital role in the future economy of the country.
  I turn now to the milk sector and to consider the future of the Milk Marketing board. There is no difference of view in the House about the vital need to maintain the Board with its present structure and procedures. It is sad that, despite the fact that the status of this organisation is supposed to have changed under EEC regulation on 1st January, no firm proposals have yet been agreed. I do not know whether to blame our partners in Europe or the Government—the Secretary of State in particular. It is extraordinary that the dairy industry, which believes so fervently in the Milk Marketing Board—which has proved so useful to producer and consumer alike—should be kept waiting on this issue. We have, however, had proposals put before us in this debate.
  It is right to say that the board and the Dairy Trade Federation, which represents the interests of most milk retailers in the country, take the same view. There are few differences between them. These bodies wish to see the board continue. They believe that some of the proposals put forward from Europe are unacceptable. The board, which has managed to promote the continuing large consumption of liquid milk, should be allowed to continue to do its job.
  Some of my hon. Friends have clearly implied that far from importing ultra-heat-treated milk from Europe we should export the Milk Marketing Board to all the other countries of Europe. I believe that we are the only country within the EEC—though I stand to be
  1430
  corrected in terms of the Republic of Ireland—to have a daily delivery service, putting a pint or more of milk on the doorstep.
  Moreover, the fact that our pint of milk costs something under half the price of a pint of beer, both of them being highly nutritious, highlights the importance of milk and the daily "pinta" which our households receive at least six times a week.
  Perhaps, after mentioning beer, I should declare an interest, in that I am involved with a small company which runs a few public houses that are outlets for traditional real ale. I have, therefore, a constituency interest in the dairy industry, which produces milk and, in another capacity, I have an interest in a company which promotes real beer, both, as I say, of considerable benefit to our people.
  At present, the responsibility lies entirely with the Government, and they must get the EEC, whether from the funds which it will have from the co-responsibility levy or however it may be done, to promote liquid milk sales throughout the Community.
  Perhaps, in lighthearted vein for a moment, I should refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). By what I took to be a slip of the tongue, my hon. Friend referred to litres rather than to pints. If anything is liable to get the British people hot under the collar and really angry it is the European mania for changing everything that we hold dear to European measurements of one sort or another.
  Mr. Shepherd: I want my hon. Friend to realise that I am delighted that the litre should persist on the other side of the Channel and that people there should have a litre delivered to their doorstep, but on this side of the Channel let it be the "pinta".
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend is held in high respect by his constituents for the excellent work that he does for them, not least in farming matters, and I am sure that they will be pleased that he has made his attitude clear on that somewhat emotive subject.
  It is essential that the proposals that the EEC is putting to us for certain

  1431
  changes to take place in the practices and procedures of the Milk Marketing Board should be resisted. In my view, the proposal that there should be an election every five years is unacceptable and, in the light of experience here, totally unnecessary.
  What is more, I believe that for certain producer-retailers to have the ability to opt out would undermine the whole business of the Milk Marketing Board and the valuable service that it gives. The same applies to the proposal regarding a fixed percentage of liquid sales. To tie a future board down to a specific figure would be dangerous, since it obviously cannot be guaranteed.
  I want to leave this message with our Agriculture Ministers. They have the full support of all parties on the Opposition Benches—I know that I can speak on behalf of all on my side—in any steps that they take to maintain the Milk Marketing Board with its present structure, its present objective and its present powers. It is vital to the British consumer and British producer. When the interests of producer and consumer run together, which does not happen all that often, there is a damned good case for ensuring that our position is accepted and adopted within the European Community. Having studied both sides of the case. I see no need whatever to change the Milk Marketing Board and damage the achievements that it has rendered for the benefit of the British nation.
  I shall now say a word about the pig sector, because I have in my constituency a number of people who are very active in this branch of agriculture. It is important to ensure that at an early date the MCAs are recalculated to give our pig industry a fairer deal.
  It was interesting that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) stated that he felt that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should become the headquarters of the dairy and milk sector of the EEC, but that it was likely—I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has just returned to his seat—that Denmark would be likely to form the headquarters of the pig industry of the EEC.
  The hon. Member went on to say that the Danes had achieved a dangerous proportion of our market in pigmeat. How right he was to say that. But would that
  1432
  have been the case if our pig industry had received more justice from the EEC, and if our Government had been successful in achieving a recalculation of the MCAs, which even the Minister and the Minister of State have admitted time and again is vital if the industry is to survive?
  In addition, this crisis is carried through into the food processing industry, which needs a very stable home-based pig industry. With the size of the pig herd in this country dramatically decreasing, I believe that urgent action is required.
  This is an important debate, because it enables hon. Members with constituency interests to range very widely over many subjects, because the documents, as was stated earlier, are very prolific and cover, I believe, most subjects in the agriculture arena. We need to ensure that we continue to have a successful and flourishing agriculture industry.
  I repeat that if there were many sectors of our manufacturing scene which had achieved success comparable to the increased productivity and efficiency of our agricultural industry, this country would be in a very healthy position today.
  We do not seek bias in favour of our farming industry. We are not seeking any special privilege for our farming community. We are seeking justice, so that this very valuable sector of our community can continue to play a vital part in our economy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) was quite right to refer to the Government's failure to grasp the fact that the industry needs a stable future and a fair return if it is to pay its work force the sort of wages about which the hon. Member for Sheffield. Brightside (Miss Maynard) is for ever talking in the House. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has returned to his seat, because earlier I was going to apologise to him for not being present to hear the beginning of his speech. I always listen with very great interest to his contributions. But Members of Parliament need to eat, and I had retired to the Members' Dining Room in order to help the British farmer by having a couple of slices of excellent beef.
  I was joined at the same table by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who made a very positive and forceful

  1433
  contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West and I do not always agree. We have the same objective, which is to ensure that agriculture prospers in the future and that it can carry out the work that it necessarily needs to do. We do not necessarily go along the same path to reach that objective. However, I believe that we found ourselves in considerable agreement today, particularly about the future of the Milk Marketing Board. This agreement has been reflected in every speech that has been made from the Opposition Benches.
  The Minister of State has shown considerable sympathy for farmers and, if I may say so, some genuine understanding. In saying that, I am not being patronising. Apparently, the Parliamentary Secretary will be replying to the debate. Although the Parliamentary Secretary has shown some misguided moments and, unfortunately, some misguided policies, he is genuinely concerned that agriculture should play its full part in our economy.
  However, our agriculture cannot do that within the European context unless we stand up for our own interests. In terms of our pig interests and the Milk Marketing Boards, we must win our way, and we must also do that in regard to the promotion of liquid milk sales in Europe.
  These other countries in the EEC have made mistakes. If all the boasting that has been carried on by ardent pro-Marketeers is to carry any weight, we must show our people that we mean to get our way. It is up to the present Government, in the immediate future, to ensure that we do that. In a few months' time it will be up to the present Conservative Opposition, by then in Government, to show the way to successful agriculture in this country.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), it seems that I have nothing to add. He has underlined the two points that have been underlined by Member after Member. They concern the strength of feeling throughout the House and agriculture that the Milk Marketing Board must continue and must function broadly in the way in which it is functioning now.
  1434
  In the West Country, representing large numbers of dairy farmers, we find it essential that the Minister goes back to Brussels to negotiate with the Council of Ministers to ensure that the Milk Marketing Board continues with its present powers. The most dangerous proposal is that about producer-retailers and the size of the producer-retailer that is suggested. We have seen the way that the Egg Marketing Board went in very similar circumstances. We must not allow the Milk Marketing Board, which has done so much positive good for the dairy industry and the consumer in this country, to go in that way.
  The strength of feeling that has been shown in the House this afternoon should encourage the Minister to go to Brussels and fight, and fight hard, for the future of the Milk Marketing Board, the dairy industry generally and the British consumer.
  The only other point to which I briefly turn has been made many times. That is the position of pig producers and our bacon industry generally. We all know of the difficult times that pig producers have had over the last 18 months. What is worse is that not only is the level of production dropping but pig producers are becoming fewer and fewer and larger and larger. If the present position continues for much longer, there could be a danger of our whole pig industry being driven out of business. But that, perhaps, is what our competitors really want—to destroy the British pig producing industry. They would then really have us by the throats.
  This is a great danger. I urge the Minister to redouble his efforts to try to achieve a recalculation of the MCAs. Whatever else he achieves, he must go for that. He knows the dangers to our pig industry as well as we all do. He knows how our smaller pig producers have been falling by the wayside recently and how the big producers have also been squeezed. He must get a return from the Council of Ministers on the MCAs. We shall really be very dissatisfied if he-fails to achieve this. We shall back the Minister in whatever measures he can bring to bear in his fight.
  The Minister has enormous responsibility in the coming year to bring back the goods for the British farmer and the

  1435
  British consumer. We wish him well in this, and we hope above all that he will achieve the main things for which we have been asking.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It is always a little depressing to rise to wind up a debate and find that all the Labour Members who have taken part have left the Chamber. Some of them have pressed the Minister, and some have attacked my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is a little difficult to make a coherent winding-up speech if they are not here. But I am very grateful to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have remained in the Chamber for the end of the debate.
  As is usually the case at this time of the year, it has been a most important debate, although slightly diffused, as there are so many documents to consider. But, even though we have a mass of documents from the Commission, it is possible to pick out three or four of the most important strands which have been running through the debate.
  Many Labour Members, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), have attacked the whole system of the common agriculture policy and asserted that it would be much better to go back to the system of deficiency payments. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will refute this proposition, as I do.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said, there would be an additional cost in going back to the system of deficiency payments. There are all the various restrictions which have had to be imposed by the Treasury because of the open-ended nature of the deficiency payments system. We recall the difficulties and problems with the farming community at the time. I do not think that there is any hope of going back to that system. Indeed, I am convinced that it would be wrong to do so.
  Of course, the CAP has its mistakes, its problems and its deficiencies, but, as my lion. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, basically it is the right system for the Community's agriculture, and, despite all those deficiencies and mistakes, the one thing that
  1436
  the CAP has managed to achieve over the years is stability of supply. That is one of its great achievements. Although at times there have been surpluses in various commodities, there have never been deficiencies throughout the Community. People have never gone short of the basic foodstuffs that they require. That in itself is of vital importance.
  I was rather surprised when the Minister—I am glad that he is now present—spent so much of his speech in referring to Mr. Wynne Godley and the Cambridge review. As I am sure the Minister knows, the review will not be published until next week—
  Mr. John Silkin: I was quoting only the summary, which is all that is available at the moment.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that the Minister has had more than that available to him.
  Mr. Silkin Mr. Silkin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I still think that it was a little discourteous to use it as the centre of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because it happened to bear out one of his old anti-Market attitudes. I think that we shall have to come back to this subject when we have the full text, so that we can study it in more detail.
  I turn to the problems arising from the debate. Many of my hon. Friends, particularly my lion. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) referred to the Milk Marketing Boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made our attitude quite clear: we give the Minister full support in the Council of Ministers when he negotiates the Commission's proposals.
  By far the most difficult of the conditions proposed by the Commission is that concerning the limit of 150 cows for producer-retailers. I find it difficult to draw a line at all. If one draws a line and says that it is all right for small producers—those with 30, 20 or even 10 cows—to opt out, one runs into difficulties immediately. People would start splitting their herds—10 cows for the wife, 10 for the son, and 10 for the grandfather. This would lead to most appalling difficulties. I hope that the Minister will resist this proposal. This is the key to the whole problem, because the

  1437
  Milk Marketing Boards are of the greatest importance to this country.
  I was surprised that the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and Londonderry should say that the Commission's proposals might mean the end of the pooling ability of the boards. This is untrue. Pooling has been accepted by the Commission in their proposals. The Milk Marketing Boards will be able to pool all prices.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: I am afraid that the hon. Member is mistaken. I was drawing attention to the fact that pooling arrangements for the United Kingdom as a whole have already gone.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I take the hon. Member's point. In the Commission's proposals pooling is accepted for the separate boards.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: May I put it on record that I never mentioned anything about pooling arrangements?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry; I thought that the hon. Member did.
  There are two other conditions that are unacceptable or difficult. Obviously, it will be extremely difficult if, to justify its continuation, the board has to hold a poll of producers every five years and get 80 per cent. in favour. I hope that the Minister will put forward the point that if there are a certain number of producers requiring a poll on the continuance of the Milk Marketing Board, such a poll may be held. I am certain, listening to Mr. Gundelach and others in the European Parliament, that they will insist on some form of democratic control of the board, of a voluntary nature. I imagine that it would be acceptable if a certain number of producers—say 5 per cent.—after a certain period of time wanted a poll on the acceptability of the board. This would be an acceptable solution.
  The other unacceptable condition is that sales of liquid milk of 52 per cent. are a necessary requirement for the board to continue. I hope that the Minister can negotiate a much lower figure than that. Some area boards in Scotland, for example, will have great difficulty in reaching that figure. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said that if we
  1438
  did increase our sales of manufactured milk products in the future it could present a problem.
  Before I turn to the main burden of the proposals, I wish to comment on the green pound and MCAs. It is right to say that if the Minister had been more acceptable in the European Council, we might not have had to wait until the beginning of every crop year to obtain 7½ per cent. rather than 5 per cent. This is all "old hat", and I shall not go over the same ground again because the Minister knows the situation. However, there is no doubt that in the coming years we must devalue the green pound—whether one argues on the basis of seven years as the Commission proposes, or two years. These are matters to be debated. Our view is that the shorter the period the better, because the effect on cost of living and the food index will not be so great as to cause any difficulty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston made great play of the fact that less food was being eaten in this country and instanced numbers of calories. The problem is that because of the Labour Government's policies in the past three and a half years our cost of living has risen greatly and there has been a lower standard of living in this country compared with that of other European countries. It is grossly unfair that our business men should be penalised for the inadequacies of the Government not only in agriculture but in economic matters.
  The Minister smiles at that statement. He must recall the drop in the value of sterling and the inflationary spiral, both of which are the fault of the Government. We must accept that the farmer has to bear the brunt of the increased costs that accrue from the spiral of inflation which has occurred since Labour took office.
  Mr. Newens: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument in which he lays the blame at the door of the Labour Government. I think that the problem can be laid at the door of world conditions. Surely, in circumstances in which we recognise that there has been an increase in the cost of living, it would be totally wrong for us to devalue the green pound, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because it would further increase the cost of living. Certainly for ordinary

  1439
  people Conservative policies would make the situation worse.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If we devalued the green pound over a period of three years, it would mean a 0·35 per cent. increase per year on the retail price index. That is not an insufferable burden. When we consider how the pound in our pocket has gone down in value during the time of the Labour Government, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's argument stands up to scrutiny. As for our Irish friends, the situation has been particularly detrimental in terms of the differential between the two figures.
  Another aspect of the debate related to the subject of MCAs, which are linked with the green pound. We were given some information on this matter by Commissioner Gundelach last week in relation to renegotiation of the MCAs. I hope that at the next meeting the right hon. Gentleman will be able to achieve the desire on both sides of the House to renegotiate the basis of the MCA calculation.
  It seems clear from what was said in the European Parliament by the Commissioner that he was not merely looking for a renegotiation of pigmeat MCAs; he wanted the renegotiation to range over a much wider area. This would be acceptable if we—"we" being the United Kingdom—could get what we wanted at the end of the day, and I think we shall get what we want, judging by what Mr. Gundelach said. There would be a considerable diminution in the amount of MCAs payable on pigmeat coming into this country.
  There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, that the bacon industry is in the gravest difficulty. It is not merely a matter of recalculating the basis of the MCAs; it is also a matter of recalculating the different bases for the coefficients for the different parts of the carcase.
  I am certain that the Minister has been approached by the many interests concerned. It is clear that they are in a difficult position. There has been no change in the coefficients since 1973. The coefficients comprise, for example, the Wiltshire side, the back, middle, shoulder, gammon, streaky and canned ham. They must be renegotiated down rather than up. I shall not go into detail,
  1440
  as it would be boring for the House if I were to do so. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I have said when the negotiations take place. I see that he is shaking his head. That is very bad if he means what I take him to mean. That is if he knows what I am talking about.
  Mr. John Silkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman perfectly well. He seems to be living in some curious sort of cloud-cuckoo-land. He is dealing, first, with the Commissioner's proposals, secondly with what the Commissioner has not yet proposed and, thirdly, with what he thinks the Commissioner might propose in certain circumstances. He does not speak of the fact that we are one of nine nations in the Council of Ministers, each one of which has its own axe to grind.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am aware that he has to do a great deal of horse trading and negotiating. Who could do that better than the right hon. Gentleman? However, I do not think that he has followed the argument with his usual assiduity.
  Do the proposals represent what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to renegotiate? It seems that Commissioner Gundelach is agreed that there should be proposals and, therefore, negotiations in the Council of Ministers for the renegotiations of the method of calculating the MCAs. We know that the right hon. Gentleman's follow Ministers from France and Italy—fortunately, there will not be any change in the French representation—are especially keen. The right hon. Gentleman will have their support. I understand from Danish colleagues in the European Parliament that the Danish Minister is not opposed to examination and renegotiation of this type of MCA as long as that process is not confined solely to pigmeat.
  The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and implies that I am wrong. However, it seems that he is on the same formula. It seems that he is understanding at last.
  The coefficients raise an entirely separate issue, and that is something that has been worrying the trade. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account as well when he gets down to considering these matters at a later stage.

  1441
  In turning to the question of surpluses and the milk sector we come to the Commission's main proposal for 2 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am one who believes that the Commission made the right proposal. At last there is harmony between my right hon. and hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman, in that it is accepted that the Commission's proposals are right in the circumstances of this year. His hand has been strengthened to the extent that the European Parliament supported him.
  The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who is unfortunately not present, was the rapporteur. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech and put forward a good report. It was received with approval in respect of the proposals that the Commission put forward, but that still leaves us with the need for increases in the areas in which there is a structural surplus. That applies especially to the milk sector. Many hon. Members have talked about how that should be done. There is a proposal from the Commission that there should be an increase.
  Of course, the effects will be different in each country. The rise will be minimal in Germany. I hope that hon. Members will read the recent speech by Commissioner Tugendhat, who said that Germany holds most of the surplus production in this sector. Let me give the House some astonishing figures to indicate this fact. The Federal Republic has 73 per cent. of the Community's butter stocks and 61 per cent. of its skimmed milk powder. In addition, 22 per cent. of the intervention purchases of beef have taken place in Germany. That is where the Commission's proposals will have the maximum impact this time, and I believe that to be right. I hope that the Minister will not weaken in his negotiations with fellow Ministers at the end of the month.
  It is always difficult, when we have a 7½ per cent. rise above what is proposed by the Commission, to hold other countries down to a lower rate than that which we are to get, but it is important that we should do so. The Commission's proposals for scaling down the subsidy for butter—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, who said in his interesting speech that we were bumping against the top level of prices—should be resisted by the Minister. I cannot
  1442
  believe that there is the elasticity of demand to allow this to happen. When a small increase in price results in a large drop in consumption, it would be a great pity if we allowed the subsidy to be scaled down.
  There has been little mention of the proposals to change the structure of the Community's agricultural policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) talked about the need to put more money into the guidance section rather than the guarantee section. This is essential if we are to make progress along the lines of what was said by Commissioner Tugendhat. Through various measures proposed by the Commission, we need to take the smaller farmers in Germany out of their present production. I have thought for some time that the way we are going about the essential structural reformation is not right. It is also wrong to blame agriculture for all the difficulties and to put a whole load of expenditure on the agricultural vote. There should be a combination of the guidance section, the Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund, under a new heading, to develop rural areas.
  I am sure that the Minister will accept that it is outrageous for the isoglucose industry to be clobbered as soon as it has started. We have a surplus of 3½ million tonnes of sugar in the Community, but this young industry is producing only 80,000 tonnes a year throughout the Community and it is wholly wrong that, after it has made an investment, without knowing that action was to be taken, it should be penalised restrospectively.
  I hope that the solution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland will commend itself to the Minister as a negotiating position. It is intolerable that as a result of these machinations this industry should be put into grave financial difficulties.
  One of the leading exponents of the sugar beet lobby, Dr. Orth has been saying around the world that in 10 years' time there will be a grave shortage of sugar—about 2 million tons in Europe. Who am I to doubt this eminent gentleman? I am sure that he is right. If there is to be a shortfall between production and consumption because, as he maintains, cane producers cannot expand to fill the gap, and if there is not much option for the European beet producers.

  1443
  that presents an opportunity for isoglucose production partly to step in, and that is the right way to look at these matters.
  The Commission's proposals in these documents for the price review are correct. The Minister can go to the negotiations confident of our support. I hope that he can secure renegotiation of the MCAs across the board. That would be the right approach.
  In the past the Minister has had his problems. His hon. Friends and other Ministers have often doubted whether what he was doing was in the interests of agriculture. He has pursued a purely sectional selfish interest. That has led to the difficulties that he is experiencing now. We hope, therefore, that there will be understanding and respect for the reasons for supporting the Commission's proposals, and we hope that the Minister will be successful.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Hon. Members who took part in the corresponding debate last year will recall that on that occasion it was more heated. They may reflect that this debate has been striking because of the low key of its contributions. Conservatives might suggest that the low key is because there was recently a heated de-debate on the green pound, but I do not believe that that is so. I believe that it reflects growing acceptance throughout the House of the rectitude of the Government's stance on this issue.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Strang: If the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) is in any doubt about the change of attitude on the Opposition Front Bench, he would do well to read last year's speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and compare it with the speech that his hon. Friend made tonight. He will then understand my point. The Opposition Front Bench has made a substantial shift in its position and is supporting the Government in their stance in seeking restraint in the proposed increases in common prices.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister indicated earlier that I would cover some of the more detailed issues, and I propose
  1444
  to do that by working through the various commodities and picking up points as I go.
  First, let me make a brief reference to sheepmeat. There is no proposal before us, but the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), whose speech I unfortunately missed, refered, I am told, to the Commission's forthcoming proposals for a sheepmeat regime. Our primary concern is to ensure a fair return to producers but to avoid abrupt and unnecessary price rises for consumers. We wish also to ensure adequate access for imported imported supplies from New Zealand.
  The United Kingdom is the largest producer of sheepmeat in the Community. In fact, we produce more sheep-meat than the rest of the Community put together. We import more sheepmeat than the rest of the Community. We export more sheepmeat than the rest of the Community and we consume more sheepmeat than the rest of the Community. I can assure lion. Members that we are determined to see that any sheep-meat regime adequately reflects the dominant position of the United Kingdom in this sector.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that case, why is it necessary to have a sheepmeat regime at all?
  Mr. Strang: Because we are members of the European Community. If we get this regime right, it could be in our national interest. We have the potential substantially to expand our exports of sheepmeat, particularly to the French market. The French market has been shutting out these exports through its levy system and, indeed, has only recently increased the magnitude of those levies. Provided we get it right and protect the interests of our consumers and the New Zealanders, we can end up with a regime which is in the interests of our industry.
  In passing, I should like to refer to horticulture. No one raised this issue today. That largely reflects the fact that these price proposals are not very important with regard to horticulture. The returns to our horticulture industry are determined largely by other factors.
  A number of hon. Members touched on the question of cereals. Here again is an area where we need to recognise the importance of achieving a, balance in the

  1445
  market. On the proposal for an average 2 per cent. price increase we have presented a tough approach, because this reference price for bread-making wheat would give too much encouragement to the production of poorer quality bread wheat. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to this in his speech.
  We believe that the Commission is right to make a new proposal with regard to the price for bread-making wheat of minimum quality. However, the United Kingdom position has concentrated on the proposed increase of the wheat target price, which would directly affect the cost of our North American imports. Although we have a reasonable degree of restraint in relation to the proposed increases, there are a number of important elements in the support arrangements which we want to see modified in order to reflect the needs of the United Kingdom.
  I now turn to the question of starch. A number of hon. Members raised this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) has made strenuous representations on this issue and is in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), as well as the hon. Member for Westmorland, mentioned the regulation relating to cereals. It is the case that document R/1969/77 recommended ending starch refunds in the food sector. They were very unwelcome to the United Kingdom. We do not have an industrial starch sector, and we took a leading part in the opposition to these proposals. We believe that as a result the Commission is having second thoughts. Indeed, the new proposals contained in volume III of the price proposals provide only a limited form of assistance to the potato starch industry. We intend to ensure that no further proposals will derive from the Commission's earlier report.
  I now turn to sugar. This is an area of structural surplus. The serious situation is well documented in the Commission's proposals. If anything, the economic prospect is worse than expected. In 1977–78 the Community had a sugar surplus of about 3·5 million tonnes. That is about 30 per cent. of the expected Community consumption in that year. Approximately
  1446
  four years ago, one of the great crises facing the United Kingdom, and to some extent the Community, was the acute shortage of sugar in the world. Indeed, in 1973 the price of sugar was £100 a tonne. By 1974 it had shot up to £650 a tonne.
  Mr. Body: But how many tonnes of sugar were sold at that price?
  Mr. Strang: I agree that that was the peak price. I do not think that I am making a point to which the hon. Gentleman would object.
  There has been a complete turn-round in the position regarding sugar over the last four years. There was a serious sugar crisis. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the representations made in the House for sugar rationing in 1974. There has been a complete transformation. There is a structural surplus in the Community. There is no question but that the Community is right to propose a restrictive price increase of just over 1 per cent. We are supported in that decision by the Scrutiny Committee. We do not believe that there is any justification for a price increase on any commodity when there is a clear structural surplus.
  Last year there was a proposal by the Commission to reduce the sugar B quota. The United Kingdom argued forcibly that that proposal should remain in the package. Finally, largely in response to pressure by the French, it was withdrawn, and that exacerbated the position. The Commission has again proposed a reduction in the B quota. We are determined this time to see that the reduction goes through.
  I turn now to the livestock sector—first, pigmeat.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What about isoglucose?
  Mr. Strang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman should draw my attention to that subject. A number of hon. Members referred to isoglucose. Last year we resisted the proposal for a levy on isoglucose. We had the proposed levy halved and we got agreement that the Commission would look at the whole balance of costs between sugar and isoglucose. We are waiting for that report. We want to study it before we agree to or consider any proposed extension of that levy. The hon. Member for Westmorland suggested

  1447
  that perhaps we should get agreement on a quota-free quantity for the companies which have already made an investment. That suggestion obviously has some merit. At this stage, however, we are not reconciled to any levy on isoglucose for the forthcoming marketing year.
  I do not want to spend a lot of time going over the points which have been made on pigmeat. The Opposition are quite wrong in what they have said. I believe that they have failed to convince the country of their essential thesis—that we have not tried hard enough or done anything about the pigmeat sector. No one could have tried harder than my right hon. Friend to achieve an improvement in the position. According to the Opposition, one would think that nothing had been achieved. One would think that the pigmeat MCAs had remained unchanged since we raised the question in 1976.
  In November 1976 we achieved a reduction of about 8½ per cent. in the pigmeat MCAs and we introduced a pig subsidy. The Opposition may have forgotten about that by now. We managed to get the ACAs abolished six months early. We also implemented the 7½ per cent. devaluation in the green pound in a way which has reduced the pigmeat MCAs but has not as yet affected the cereal price.
  We are not for a moment suggesting that there is not a problem in the pigmeat sector. My right hon. Friend, like myself on occasions, has time and again emphasised in the Council the magnitude of the problem facing our industry but—this is in the nature of the Community, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West ought to appreciate this—we cannot change this on our own. We must win acceptance in the Council of the situation facing us.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the acid test is the number of pigs in the herds in this country, plus the effect that this has had on the processing industry. That is the real test.
  Mr. Strang: I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening to what I was saying. I am not disputing the seriousness of the situation. I am not suggesting that the changes that we have achieved over the
  1448
  years have been adequate to meet the depth of the crisis. What I am doing is rebuting the nonsensical charge thrown across the Chamber by Conservative Members that the Government have not been taking the situation sufficiently seriously. They know in their hearts that that is wrong. They know that if anyone can get the pigmeat MCA calculated on the basis of cereal costs and not in the present way, it is my right hon. Friend who can do that, and we are determined to take this opportunity to achieve a reduction in the pigmeat MCAs.
  Mr. Hardy: I ask my hon. Friend to comment on the situation which applied in March 1974 when the pig farmers of Britain faced a great crisis. The Government then took action, which it was allowed to do by the Community, and a few months into 1975 I remember meeting the Yorkshire pig producers' association in the very week that pig prices reached £6·42 a score. Unfortunately, as the cycle moved on and problems arose the second time around, the Community would not allow my right hon. Friend to take the very action that had saved the industry from the position that it had inherited from the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right. We have to accept that if we are members of the Community, and that if there is a common regime for a particular commodity, we are no longer masters in our own house, as it were, and that to secure changes in the MCA we have to get agreement within the institutions of the Community. I hope that I have said enough to emphasise the seriousness with which we view the situation It is not just a question of producers. Perhaps even more critical is the position of the processors, where important jobs are being lost.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This sector is probably in as great a crisis as any in agriculture. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome that would enable us to take unilateral action? If, as he said, this sector of the industry is in grave crisis, as is the processing industry, surely we are entitled to take unilateral action.
  Mr. Strang: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last couple of years. We introduced a pig-meat subsidy precisely because of the crisis, and we were required to end that subsidy. I should have thought that the position was understood by all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  I turn to the subject of beef. We welcome the Commission's report on the whole operation of the beef market, the variable premium and the intervention arrangements. The report supported the variable premium that we achieved as part of our renegotiation of the CAP. It is clear that that premium will not be applied throughout the other member States for some time. What is important is that it has been included by the Commission in its proposals for this year. The fact that the report comes out in favour of our premium means that we can regard it as a permanent element of our agricultural support arrangements in the United Kingdom.
  It is necessary to have a cautious approach on prices in the beef sector. We welcome the fact that the Commission proposes an increase of 1·25 per cent., which we regard as cautious and sensible.
  I turn to the major commodity, major in that it accounts for the largest part of our agricultural gross domestic product but also the major product in these debates. It dominated the debate, because the milk sector is the dominant area of crisis in the Community. About 20 hon. Members took part in the debate, and almost all spoke in support of the milk boards.
  We are determined to retain the boards. Without them it would be impossible to sustain the complex machinery of collection and distribution which moves milk from the farm to the doorstep to meet all demands, at all times of the year and in all weather. Without this level of service, consumption would be bound to fall, as would producers' returns and the number of jobs in the industry as a whole, especially on the delivery side. What would increase would be the mountains of butter and skimmed milk powder, the cost of the CAP and ultimately end prices, reflecting a less rational and more costly system of support.
  Despite a total lack of evidence to the contrary, many EEC countries have so
  1450
  far been reluctant to accept these arguments, the main objections being dislike of the so-called monopolistic and compulsory powers of the boards and a basic belief that the boards somehow distort trade by pooling returns to producers. It is a case of principles being preferred to common sense. The important thing is that we have a system that works and we intend to keep it.
  My right hon. Friend and many hon. Members referred to the three prime areas of concern in relation to the regulations put forward by the Commission to ensure the maintenance of the boards. I refer to the requirement that they should send at least 50 per cent. of their milk to the liquid market, that producer-retailers with up to 150 cows can opt out, and the proposal for a five-year poll, where 80 per cent. of those voting would have to vote in favour. My right hon. Friend has made clear that we recognise that these requirements give cause for concern, and we intend to seek improvements in the regulations.
  However, let us not forget that it is the Government's stance that has got us to this point. The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) seems to think that this proposal does not exist. He hoped that the boards would not be lost in the early hours of the morning when Ministers were not paying much attention. Hon. Members do not seem to appreciate the enormous amount of work that has been done to get us to this position, where we have these proposals from the Commission.
  All my hon. Friends spoke very forcefully on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) drew attention to the particular importance of milk delivery in country areas. The hon. Member for Westmorland, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to Mr. Gundelach's letter of 22nd December, which raised a number of points. The first thing we must do is to secure the continuation of the boards and achieve so far as we can an improvement in the regulations. We can consider these points later.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend spoke about obtaining improvements in the conditions, if possible. Surely the condition about opting

  1451
  out for those with fewer than 150 head of cattle is sufficient gravely to undermine the marketing boards as we know them.
  Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. I should not like to leave the impression that we lack determination here. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that we accept the amendment which has been tabled relating to this issue and the need for maximum restraint of common prices.
  I turn now to the crisis area in milk, namely, the surplus. That surplus is now colossal. It is encouraging that even Tory Members now recognise the seriousness of the position. Last year the Commission put forward a number of proposals in what was called an action programme.
  In addition, we accepted a co-responsibility levy. We do not particularly like that levy, but it is clear that it will continue. We are determined to ensure that we can use the money raised to finance the important publicity work carried out by the boards. If there has been some delay in getting the money, it is because we are determined to achieve that end. As for the application of the levy—a point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans)—the Commission has assured us that the levy will be applied throughout the Community, subject to minor derogations which have been agreed. We intend to see that the Commission stands by that.
  Mr. Corbett: May I encourage my hon. Friend to say that, rather than using the co-responsibility levy for the purpose of publicity, he will use it to bring about the consumption of milk through the supply of free milk to schoolchildren?
  Mr. Strang: I was coming to that point. It is clear that on all sides there is a strong feeling that we should take maximum advantage of this proposal to subsidise school milk.
  On the subject of butter, the Commission has not been as forthcoming as we should like. The butter subsidy has been a success in this country, holding down the price and bringing about higher consumption. We are determined to ensure that the subsidy is extended. I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West that he was not as enthusiastic about
  1452
  the butter subsidy last year as were the Government. Here again, we welcome the support of the Opposition Front Bench.
  We have not changed our position with regard to aid to dairy investment. The non-marketing and conversion premiums have not been a success. On the basis of the take-up figures, it is plain that they have not had the impact predicted by the Commission.
  That brings me to my central point, namely, that we must clearly have maximum restraint on the common price of milk. It is nonsense to suggest, with this enormous surplus, that there should be an increase in the common price.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No one is suggesting it.
  Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but the Commission is proposing an increase in the price of milk. In the Opposition's eyes it may be a small increase, but our view is that in the present situation no increase can be justified since any increase can only add to the enormous cost of the milk sector.
  Let me remind hon. Members of the sort of costs we are considering here. It is estimated that in 1977 the support arrangements for milk will cost 2,485 million units of account. That is 35 per cent. of the guarantee section of FEOGA, and it is 26 per cent. of the total European Community budget. Is that not a staggering statistic? At a time when there are 6 million people unemployed throughout the Community, over one-quarter of the whole Community budget is going into coping with this enormous milk surplus, whether it be in the massive intervention buying of skimmed milk powder, in butter intervention buying or in the massive subsidising of exports to third countries.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Minister must keep things in proportion and not over-dramatise. He is right in his figures, but the significant figure is that it is 35 per cent. on the milk side of the CAP budget, and when he talks about the whole of the Community he must remember that the whole of the Community budget is only 2·4 per cent. of the total national budgets. That is all it is, so we are talking about a very small sum in relation to Community expenditure as

  1453
  a whole. The Minister should not exaggerate the issue.
  Mr. Strang: Yes, but we are talking about the Community. This is a debate about the Community, and all I am saying is that not only has the Community got its priorities wrong in that about three-quarters of its total budget goes on agriculture, but it has them drastically wrong when over one-quarter of that total budget can be spent on the milk sector. Clearly, therefore, the Government are absolutely right in taking the toughest stance in relation to holding down the common price for milk.
  I have covered the commodities and I have touched on the main points raised by hon. Members. I shall now say a few words on one or two general attitudes expressed in the debate. As I have said, I welcome the Opposition's conversion on the question of common prices. Undoubtedly that is the key. I shall not elaborate on Godley, because my right hon. Friend spoke about that, but the central point of Godley was the transfer across the exchange not as a result of higher-priced imports of food, though that was a factor, but, above all, because of our large net contribution to the large CAP budget. Clearly, it is overwhelmingly in our national interest to hold down common prices, because that is the most effective way of reducing the size of the budget in the agriculture sector.
  We are in agreement on the common prices issue, but there is still fundamental disagreement between Government and Opposition on the green pound question. I am glad that the position has at least been clarified, because, after the debate on the green pound, when both the Conservative Opposition spokesmen and the spokesmen for other Opposition parties committed themselves to parity, there was some suggestion that at least some members of the Shadow Cabinet were a little unhappy about the endorsement of a dear food policy by the official Opposition. Indeed, the tenor of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) at the Farmers' Club provoked the headline in the Farmers Weekly
  "Tories water down Green Pound promise".
  Perhaps that was a little unfair, and certainly the hon. Member for Westmor-
  1454
  land has put it on the line, and his hon. Friend for Derbyshire, West went even further, saying not only that it should be totally devalued in two to three years but—this was his phrase—the sooner the better.
  I hope that hon. Members fully understand the Government's position on this issue. We have explained why we are in favour of restraint in common prices. We believe that those who work in British agriculture, whether farmers or farm workers, deserve a fair return on their investment and a fair return for their labour. We can achieve that by making the necessary adjustments to the green pound. In other words, we can use the green pound as other member States do to try to achieve the right balance between the interests of the consumers and of the producers.
  Conservative Members tend to forget that it is this Labour Government who have devalued the green pound at regular intervals. When the Conservative Party was in power, it did not devalue the green pound. The hon. Member for Westmorland suggested that there was not much of a discrepancy. I have news for him. When the Conservative Party was in power, our discrepancy reached 19 per cent. I am looking at a whole range of figures—16 per cent., 13 per cent. and 11 per cent. So there was a discrepancy when the Conservative Party was in power.
  The central point that I want to make is this. Is the Conservative Party saying that there is not much of a discrepancy although the French use this system to reflect their national interests and the French MCA at the moment is 23 per cent. and ours—after we have completed the 7½ per cent. devaluation—will be 25 per cent.? Do Opposition Members say this even though Ireland has an MCA of 7 per cent., Italy has an MCA of 20 per cent. and the Germans find it necessary to operate a positive MCA of 7·5 per cent.?
  Is it the contention of the Opposition Front Bench that Britain, and almost Britain alone, ought to move to parity? If the position is that everyone should move to parity and that the policy of Conservative Members is that every country should move to parity, I hope they appreciate what that means. It

  1455
  means a rise in the average price of agricultural products throughout the Community of around 10 per cent. It is somewhat contradictory to say that we want to hold down the common prices but want everyone to average up.
  The only point of holding down the common price is to hold down the actual prices and try to minimise an increase in the budget. Conservative Members are in an absurd position. There is no case for adopting the policy to which they are now clearly committed. It is a dear food policy. It would mean higher cereal prices. That would not help the livestock producers. It would mean that less food was eaten.
  Mr. Jopling: I am astonished to listen to this hyprocrisy coming across the Chamber in this way. I am astonished to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary trying to criticise Conservative Members for arriving at a policy which implies that in each of three years the cost of living index would rise by about two-fifths of a penny in the pound. I am amazed to hear such criticism from a Government who have presided over probably the biggest fall in the real value of the pound that any Government have ever presided over. This Government have presided over an increase in the retail price index of 85p in the pound.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman intervening?
  Mr. Jopling: I shall now come to the end of my intervention, Mr. Speaker. Since the last General Election, during the period of office of the present Government, the pound in one's pocket is worth only 54p.
  Mr. Strang: I am not surprised that Conservative Members should be so touchy on this issue. There is no way that they can avoid it. Of course there will be increases in prices in forthcoming
  1456
  years, just as there have been increases in prices over the last three years—although, thanks to the Government's counter-inflation policy, we can look forward to the hope of a smaller increase in the cost-of-living index in the next two or three years than there has been in the past two or three years.
  However, the question is whether, in view of all these increases in prices, we should impose on ourselves the additional increase involved in going towards parity when it is totally unnecessary. It is in the interests of neither the agriculture industry nor the country.
  In conclusion, I make it quite clear that restraint of common prices is the central thrust of the Government's policy in this area. That restraint is in the interests of the United Kingdom consumers, of the industry, of the European Community and of Britain.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents R/3200/77, R/3200/77 Addendum 1 and R/545/78 on agricultural prices, and document R/27/78 on the Milk Marketing Boards; calls upon the Government to insist upon the maximum restraint on all Common Agricultural Policy prices and especially on the prices for milk products, cereals, sugar and other products in structural surplus as a result of the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy and to press for an agreement which fully safeguards the milk marketing boards and the discharge of their essential functions.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the consideration of a Lords Amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEDITERRANEAN AGRICULTURE AND WINE)
  10.0 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Once hon. Members have gathered their thoughts, perhaps we can move on to another area of the common agricultural policy—the documents on the Mediterranean sector that are before us.
  I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents R/3197/77, R/3197/77 Addendum 1, R/3270/77 and R/402/78 on Mediterranean agriculture and the wine sector.
  The principal documents, R/3197/77 and its addendum, contain a set of Commission proposals for developing the Mediterranean regions of the Community. Such regions are of importance in the existing Community and will take on an increasing significance with the progress of enlargement. I therefore welcome the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to recommend the documents for debate. Related to the main documents are R/ 3270/77, which deals with the financial consequences, and R/402/78, which contains the Commission's short-term proposals on wine referred to in the principal text.
  The first volume of R/3197/77 defines the problems to be solved and outlines the general principles which the Commission believes should be followed in tackling them. The basic problem in the Mediterranean regions is how to encourage economic growth and raise standards of living in areas which are heavily dependent on agriculture, have large agricultural work forces and possess weak industrial sectors. The Commission recognises that solutions cannot be found in agriculture alone and that an overall economic plan for these regions will be required. But, because of the importance of agriculture, it has made a start by putting forward the firm proposals for action in the agriculture sector which we are to debate tonight.
  I should sketch in briefly some history to these proposals. Farmers in the south of the Community have complained for several years about the relative weakness in the price support arrangements for some Mediterranean products, notably
  1458
  wine and fresh fruit, and about an alleged lack of effective Community preference for such commodities. Moreover, the Community has concluded preferential trade agreements with most Mediterranean third countries which contain tariff concessions for Mediterranean agricultural products. Southern farmers have claimed that these agreements have further eroded their degree of Community preference.
  In these circumstances, it is perhaps natural that there should be a school of thought which believes that the problems of Mediterranean agriculture could be solved by granting Mediterranean products "equality of treatment" with temperate ones. This would mean more price support, including more extensive intervention facilities, for these products and increased restrictions on imports from third countries. The result would be higher prices for Mediterranean products throughout the Community; production would increase, consumption would fall and structural surpluses would be created or worsened. Such an approach would be completely unacceptable to the United Kingdom Government.
  I am glad, therefore, that the Commission has rejected this simple policy of more support and protection for Mediterranean products. Instead, it has emphasised that the measures adopted must not conflict with the Community's existing policy of reducing structural surpluses and avoiding the creation of new ones. Nor must they lead to increases in protection which would damage relations with third countries and lead to higher prices to consumers.
  The Commission's analysis shows conclusively that the weaknesses of Mediterranean agriculture principally arise from structural deficiencies in production and marketing. Farms are small and often fragmented, communications are inadequate, marketing organisation is poor, investment is low and much of the soil is poor and arid. The large agricultural work force is under-employed. High prices would not help to solve these fundamental problems.
  Instead, the Community has two broad options. The first would be to take drastic action to increase farm sizes and cut the agricultural work force. This would be extremely expensive and would have

  1459
  unacceptable social consequences, as it would force out of agriculture large numbers of workers who could not be absorbed into the industrial and service sectors. Instead, the Commission has decided to preserve employment and to seek gradually to improve farm efficiency, marketing and incomes. Such a policy will not provide a magic solution to the problems of Mediterranean agriculture. It will be expensive, but it will give the Community a long-term plan on which to work and one that will not involve either greatly inflated prices or greatly increased levels of unemployment.
  I shall deal briefly with the implications of enlargement. In our view, the Commission's proposals should be judged on the basis of whether they provide a realistic attempt to tackle the problems of the Mediterranean regions of the existing Community.
  But there are two points which need to be borne in mind. The first is that the prospect of enlargement strengthens the need to avoid raising the levels of support and protection for Mediterranean products. Support prices in the Community for these products are in general higher than those in the applicant States, and the extension to any new member State of these higher prices could well encourage increased production and lower consumption. In turn, this could mean new or worse surpluses of some products. Any additional increases in common price levels would make matters worse.
  The second point is that the agricultural sectors of the applicant States share many of the structural characteristics of the Mediterranean regions of the existing Community. Many of the proposals which we have from the Commission at the moment are limited to certain strictly defined areas of the existing Community. They would not be extended automatically to the new member States. If, however, the Community accepts the new members, we shall also accept a degree of responsibility for their agricultural industries, and it would be difficult to refuse to extend to them measures which had been adopted in the existing Community to deal with problems which were similar to theirs. This, I believe, argues for great caution in selecting structural measures at the present time, since any programme of reform for Mediterranean agriculture would, in an enlarged Com-
  1460
  munity, become that much more expensive.
  The addendum to R/3197/77 and document R/402/78 give the legal texts of the Commission's proposals.
  On the marketing side, the proposals for olive oil are designed to increase consumption of olive oil by reducing the price to consumers. Initially the new arrangements would cost about 15 per cent. more but in the long term the risks of expensive surpluses should be reduced. At present, we see no justification for altering the present system of calculating reference and entry prices for fresh fruit and vegetables so as to strengthen Community preference, but other proposals in this sector may with some adjustments provide an acceptable basis for tackling current problems.
  The proposed aids for processed fruit and vegetables are designed to make Community products competitive with third country products by lowering Community prices. This approach is an expensive one and will need to be looked at carefully to ensure that it is cost-effective. But it could well be more acceptable than alternative measures which would raise prices or interfere with supplies. We see no major problem with the modest scheme for aid for field beans and peas.
  The marketing measures for wine are designed to provide interim marketing improvements in the period before the measures for longer-term structural reform can begin to take effect. We share the Commission's belief that the main need in the wine sector is to attack the current surplus by taking structural measures to reduce wine production. We note the Commission's undertaking to submit proposals shortly over and above those already submitted for Languedoc-Roussillon. It is clear that any interim marketing measures should be compatible with the longer-term structural aims. Therefore, the link which the Commission sees between the two sets of measures is very important.
  The structural proposals that the Commission has tabled include proposals for 50 per cent. FEOGA aid towards the cost of improving infrastructure, speeding up irrigation, restructuring and reconverting vineyards and improving marketing and processing. It is a sobering

  1461
  thought that these relatively modest proposals are expected to cost some billion units of account over a five-year period. This illustrates how expensive structural reform can be and how necessary it is to scrutinise these proposals in depth to ensure that they are necessary and cost-effective.
  It is fair to say that the principal implication for the United Kingdom of the marketing and structural proposals is the cost of implementing them. The Commission's estimate of the financial implications of all of the proposals, save for those on wine market management, are set out in R/3270/77. They are expensive, and if these proposals were accepted as they stand, the burden on the United Kingdom Exchequer would be about £30 million per annum.
  The cost of the interim market measures for wine would vary from year to year with the size of the harvest. Our share of the cost might be £2 million in a normal year. Clearly it is necessary to take a very tough approach to expenditure of this magnitude. Of course, we cannot simply refuse to assist the Mediterranean regions of the Community.
  It would be illogical to welcome the prospect of the accession of three more Mediterranean States and at the same time to deny aid to the Mediterranean regions when it is clear that they have severe problems to overcome. But I should like to emphasise that we must maintain close control over Community expenditure in this sector and ensure that it is relevant to the real needs of the Mediterranean regions.
  The Government's reaction to the Commission's package has therefore been to accept it as a working basis for tackling the problems of the Mediterranean regions, to support the Commission's conclusion that the problems of these regions arise from poor structures and marketing and should be tackled by measures designed specifically to alleviate these weaknesses, but to stress that the individual proposals must be carefully examined to ensure that they are necessary and cost-effective. This examination needs to be thorough. Decisions must not be rushed.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: After the relative heat of the end of the last debate we are now slipping into more somnolent thoughts of the Mediterranean climate, which is reasonably acceptable after a long day.
  I do not know whether I should declare an interest but perhaps I should do to be on the safe side. I think that my interest as a farmer is extremely vague. We are grateful to the Minister for explaining the implications of the document at greater length than we might have expected. He was right to point out that they have very little application to this country and deal mainly with the South Mediterranean and are particular to these parts of the Community.
  However, there are one or two points in which we have an interest. The Minister explained that the structural improvements which are proposed are likely to be very expensive. They are likely to cost 1,026 million units of account over a five-year period, and the cost to the United Kingdom will be about £30 million.
  This is the first time we have debated major improvements of this kind affecting other parts of the Community. Perhaps the Minister would tell us how he acquaints himself with the details of the needs of areas such as those we are discussing in Italy and France. Does he rely utterly on reports from the individual national Governments or from the Commission? Or do the British Government send staff to these areas to see what is happening? It is important for the Minister to explain the background to his acquisition of knowledge in deciding whether he should support or oppose schemes of this kind in the Council of Ministers. This is relevant and helpful information which we hope that the Minister will give the House.
  We must approve of worthy schemes to improve the structure of marketing and the provision of other facilities in areas such as these in which conditions are extremely difficult and the standard of living low. Farmers in southern areas of the Community have complained that price guarantees do not work through to them. The Minister will be aware that farmers in certain parts of the United Kingdom say that that is true of this country. I remember that when I was

  1463
  on the NFU Council these comments were made about potatoes, lambs and other matters. It is a familiar problem and it is a complaint regularly voiced by farmers in these parts of the Community.
  It is right in principle that we should support schemes of this type to improve facilities in these areas. We obtain considerable help from the Community in a wide sphere of activity, agricultural and industrial. It is right that this should be a two-way movement. It is also right that if money is available from the Community to support schemes in this country it should be provided if the British Government are prepared to prime the pump with money in the first instance. We are now seeing that process working the other way round.
  It is important in these schemes that the national Government should be prepared to prime the pump with some cash. We cannot be sure whether it is necessary for Community money to be put into vast irrigation schemes in Southern Italy, but if the Italian Government are prepared to put in cash, it makes it easier to reach a decision.
  It is vital that we as a nation ensure that if production is to be stimulated in these Mediterranean areas, or even if production is to be shifted from one enterprise to another, it will not add to existing structural surpluses.
  A good deal of the material in these documents refers to the problem of the provision of olive oil. It is a product in which there is a surplus. I draw attention to this point in an earlier debate, but I was surprised to see that one of the proposals in the Commission's price package is that there should be an increase of 8·7 per cent. in the intervention price for olive oil. That seems to fly in the face of everything we were discussing earlier. It is strange that for a commodity that is in surplus there should be such a tremendous increase in intervention price at that level. It would be helpful to be told why that is so.
  When we hear about the conversion from olives to other crops it would be helpful to know what other crops the Minister has in mind. I hope that the Minister will not say that vines are included, because they would simply add to an existing surplus.
  1464
  Finally, I wish to ask the Minister a question on structure. What will be the next step? Are we likely to see a flow of schemes of this sort each year to provide structural aid to various parts of the Community? I imagine that after the accession of Spain, Portugal and Greece we shall be likely to find many more regions similar to those we are discussing in this debate.
  If we are to see a stream of documents and proposals of this sort, some of the northern States in the Community may become a little restive and may try to put in schemes of their own. I can think of some parts of the United Kingdom—some parts of Northern Ireland might come into this category—that might take the view that schemes of this sort should be enlarged to cover them. We believe that there is a large job to be done on these lines in many areas, including the United Kingdom uplands.
  In these proposals we find many familiar features. For example, there is the need for rural improvement policies that embrace matters other than agriculture. We need schemes to bring forestry, tourism and light industry into some of the deprived areas, especially in the United Kingdom uplands. We find both the problems and the solutions reasonably familiar.
  We have been told about the formation of the European joint trade table wine organisation. When we consider the objectives and possible jobs that it is proposed that the orderisation might under-take, it seems that we are setting up another Home Grown Cereals Authority or a Meat and Livestock Commission. It has always seemed familiar ground. I can remember covering the same ground many years ago in the House.
  We would accept the organisation on the lines of the Meat and Livestock Commission or the Home, Grown Cereals Authority. If that is a fair analogy, which I think it is, it is something that we would accept. We would consider it a wise provision to make for the wine sector. However, we realise that we are dealing with an interim document. We agree that the Government should press for the early appearance of a long-term structural measure to deal with these problems. We shall look forward to seeing that document when it is eventually published.

  1465
  These are not contentious matters. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the few points that I have raised.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Evans: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr Jopling) has said that these are not contentious matters. That may be true. But they are extremely important. It is not my intention to detain the House for long. I merely wish to make one or two comments in respect of the regional policy implications of the documents before us.
  From time to time we discuss the ramifications that flow from European policy as regards regional policy. All too often we lose sight of the fact that compared with the regions that we are discussing tonight the majority of regions in the United Kingdom are prosperous. That is the position of most of our regions as opposed to the serious poverty and hardship that exists, for example, in Southern Italy. There is no doubt that the European Assembly and the European institutions are far more aware of the problem than the House.
  When we refer to the fact that the prosperous regions of the Community have grown more prosperous than the least prosperous regions to the order of six to one as opposed to five to one in 1970, we lose sight of the fact that we are referring to Southern Italy as opposed to regions of the United Kingdom. This means that the benefit that flows from Community membership will be concentrated in those regions rather than regions in the United Kingdom. All too often that is forgotten.
  When we refer to the serious and even dreadful problems that arise in Southern Italy in the many agricultural areas, we are talking about problems that are endemic and problems that will ensue from enlargement of the Community. Undoubtedly there is great fear in the southern regions of Italy and France about what will happen to them when the Community is enlarged to include Greece, Portugal and Spain, countries that have many similar problems and much similar produce.
  The House must recognise that the arguments concerning enlargement of the Community, which I presume are sup-
  1466
  ported on both sides of the House, are not supported in other parts of the Community. Obviously they will affect the economic problems from which some countries are suffering.
  The Community's proposals concentrate entirely on improving the agricultural structure and productivity in those regions and I feel that we are losing sight of the human problems that will ensue. Most hon. Members agree that we need to improve productivity and the structure, but we must realise that we shall be adding to an existing high level of unemployment in the Community and it is open to doubt whether the rest of the EEC will be able to absorb the people who will be released from the land in Southern Italy and France—especially when we consider the various problems associated with immigrant labour.
  This subject cannot be passed over lightly. The prosperity and future of the EEC will depend not only on improving the wealth of prosperous regions but, more important, on improving the wealth, environment and lifestyle in the less prosperous areas.
  The southern regions of the Community suffer serious excesses of labour in agriculture, with low rates of productivity and significant underemployment of labour. The proposals to improve productivity will reduce the amount of labour and the size of holdings. That will mean a reduction in the amount of surplus labour and, while I accept that it is right for us to seek an efficient agricultural industry throughout the Community, we cannot look at Southern Italy and France in these terms without considering the need for a new Community economic programme to deal with industrialisation as well as agriculture.
  If we deal with the problem only in agricultural terms, we shall take a tremendous number of peasants away from the land and all the talk about increased productivity in monocultures will do us no good. I hope that the Under-Secretary will draw to the attention of the Minister the need for a Marshall plan for the Mediterranean.
  I believe fervently in the expansion of the Community to include the new applicants, but I know that there will be great difficulty in persuading countries such as Italy and France to accept enlargement if

  1467
  we are just to bring in other countries with problems similar to those confronting Italy and France.
  We shall probably conclude negotiations with Greece in the next few months, but there is great danger of some countries, particularly Italy and France, blocking the applications of Portugal and Spain. I recognise their right to veto the applications if the Community is not prepared to look at the totality of Spain and Portugal's applications.
  We desperately need the Community to look into all aspects of enlargement and we certainly need to look at the regional aspects of these policies. I ask the Minister not to believe that this is a simple matter that can be hurried through the House. We shall have to return to it time and again.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Strang: I shall reply briefly to the debate. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) asked how we acquired information on these issues. I regret to have to tell him that British Ministers are unable to spend a great deal of time visiting the vineyards of Southern France and Italy. We have to rely on the Commission and the other member Governments for information.
  Every six months Ministers visit a different member State in the Community which provides the opportunity for them to learn something at first hand about agriculture there and to see how it operates in practice. In addition, British officials visit various parts of the Community. Ultimately, however, responsibility for providing information rests with the Commission.
  I was asked about olive oil. There is to be an increase, but this involves a new regime and that represents a potential step forward. We shall have to look closely at the 15 per cent. cost increase. It involves new arrangements which will more effectively recompense producers and reduce the price to consumers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) raised some important points. Let me comment briefly on the relationship of this proposal to the Regional Fund. The Regional Fund can contribute to investments in rural infrastructure, provided the area in question is covered both by the fund and by
  1468
  the less favoured areas directive. It provides for Community aid towards the supply of drinking water, electricity, and rural public roads, together with water purification. In practice, aid under the Regional Fund has normally been restricted to facilities not primarily serving agriculture.
  The proposed regulation would provide Community aid for infrastructure throughout the Mezzogiorno and areas of Southern France, so there would be a wider geographic coverage than under the Regional Fund. Aid would be concentrated on small-scale projects serving agriculture which are not normally aided by the Regional Fund. There arc, therefore, differences of emphasis between the Regional Fund and the proposed regulation. Nevertheless, we are examining closely the relationship between the proposed new regulation and the Regional Fund.
  My hon. Friend touched on the important issue of enlargement and the relationship of these proposed regulations to the enlargement issue. The prospect of enlargement has focused attention on the problems of the Mediterranean areas in the existing Community, and this has led to the Commission bringing forward this series of proposals. Of course, there is more to come. We cannot adopt a reactionary approach to these issues. If we are in favour of helping people in less developed parts of the world, we should equally be in favour of helping people in less developed parts of the Community. But we cannot ignore the net cost to the United Kingdom. Given a substantial net deficit for the United Kingdom in its contribution to the agriculture budget, we cannot ignore the cost of the proposals. My hon. Friend will recognise that we are right to look very closely to ensure that they are cost effective. He mentioned the need to ensure that they achieve a proper development and improvement in the quality of life in those areas of the Community.
  We are not prepared to accept that we have, so to speak, to bribe the French and Italian Governments in order to secure their agreement on enlargement. We recognise that there is a problem to be tackled, and, as my hon. Friend wishes, we shall adopt a constructive attitude.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Cockcroft: I have been most struck by these discussions about the enlargement of the Community which I believe is possibly the greatest issue before the institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
  At the time of the original signing of the treaties of Messina and Rome it was envisaged that the Community would embrace the whole of Europe, including possibly Eastern Europe. Now we have got bogged down to some extent in discussions of the wider issues such as Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean countries. There has also been an agreement that Greece would become a member within 20 years.
  But there is a dilemma which is not sufficiently discussed in this country. The original Community of the Six was tightly drawn because we were not at the negotiations at Messina. Perhaps there were several advantages from that, because, as Churchill said, it may have been seen as a stepping stone to the formation of a United States of Europe.
  Now we are faced with a situation whereby several Mediterranean countries, and the countries of the Iberian Peninsula, are applying to join, which I welcome in principle. But I remind the House that there could be a problem, particularly if we lost momentum and became bogged down.
  There are technical difficulties about enlarging the size of the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Civil Service, and so on. It is only five years since the Community of the Six became the Community of the Nine. These are not just procedural difficulties. They concern the whole question of the concept of what is Europe and what the whole organisation is about. We have been talking tonight about vegetables and fruit and about the Southern Mediterranean. But there is this problem of what the original founders of the Community considered it to be about.
  I believe that we should proceed fairly cautiously on this issue, even though I have always been a European. There is a great hankering in this country for the original idea of a European free trade area or even a North American free trade area with America. But one is now seeing that the idea of the Community is a
  1470
  political idea as well as an economic one. It will therefore take time to absorb new countries. There are considerable problems in absorbing countries which are much poorer than most of the areas of Western Europe including ourselves. There are also obligations to the nations of the Third world. This is a complex equation.
  We in the Community have considerable obligations to the poor and wealthy regions. But at the same time we must not lose the momentum of this great idea of Europe which, in my opinion, was from the beginning designed to supersede the old idea of the nation State and to produce something new in this part of the world.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of Commission documents R/3197/77, R/3197/77 Addendum 1, R/3270/77 and R/402/78 on Mediterranean agriculture and the wine sector.

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL
  Lords amendment considered.
Clause 2

  CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND
  Lords amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  "(b) the regulations first so made may, if not made before 1st April 1978, be retrospective to that date so that the first period prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) above shall begin on or after that date;".—[Mr. Clinton Davis] [Special Entry.]

  PLAYGROUNDS (FACILITIES AND SAFETY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Black-ley): In past debates and at Question Time I have frequently expressed a concern, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, on the subject of industrial safety and, indeed, road safety. More recently there has been an upsurge of interest in the dangers associated with the rather over-publicised pastime of skateboarding and the need to provide proper

  1471
  facilities away from traffic and other hazards.
  It is a curious fact, however, that the House has spent very little time considering the provision of leisure facilities in general and, more particularly, for the very young and even less time—if any time at all—upon the hazards associated with existing playgrounds provided for young people.
  I express my appreciation at the reversal by the Minister of State, Home Office of his original decision to end the grant to the organisation Fair Play for Children, which has done much valuable work in this area.
  Similarly, I welcome the initiative of the Minister with responsibility for sport and the Sports Council in promoting suitable recreational projects in inner city areas. I also endorse the Government's view that grant aid ought to be given by the Sports Council to such projects with the emphasis upon priority for these deprived areas. I hope that the series of conferences in the regions being held by the Minister with responsibility for sport, and indeed other Ministers in the Department of the Environment, will bear fruit in alleviating the lack of facilities in these deprived areas. What troubles me, as a former chairman of the North-West Sports Council, is that in the past we have neglected the needs of the very young and that there is a paucity of research into the dangers associated with the equipment that is at present provided.
  In February the Department of the Environment announced to me, in reply to a Written Question, that the British Standards Institution is now proposing a new standard for play equipment as well as including advice on its maintenance, construction and installation. These are welcome advances, but they highlight the lack of attention previously accorded to the problems which afflict our concrete jungles and waste lands and the 150,000 accidents annually which require medical attention, which take place in the playgrounds which we currently provide in our towns, cities and rural areas.
  Large areas of waste space exist in our cities, not least in the central areas. Some are privately owned, some are publicly owned, and others belong to local authorities. Many can be converted into temporary or permanent play
  1472
  spaces. Dual use of school facilities has long been advocated by sports councils all over the country—this is a delicate topic—but there are still many recalcitrant local authorities.
  There is scope under the job creation programme—a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—for play leaders and supervisors. There is the advantage to the whole community of creating within those areas a sense of community, an easing of some of the racial and inter ethnic tensions which exist, and permitting an outlet for the energies of youngsters in a society where nearly half the crime today is committed by juveniles.
  Criminal statistics are published annually. Yet the Department of Health and Social Security does not consider it practicable to keep statistics on the numbers or, indeed, the types of injuries caused to children who suffer accidents in these playgrounds.
  There are no mandatory provisions for local authorities. The furthest the Government have gone is to issue guidance to local authorities on the provision of play equipment on housing estates, as well as advice about accident prevention. There is no means of enforcing any of this guidance, any more than there is any real Government initiative in using waste lands in towns and cities for projects involving playgrounds, or projects involving gardening, or for some of the more adventurous projects such as introducing farm animals into inner city play areas, or helping local groups or individuals to find and secure waste land for such projects. Many of these projects have proved to be self-financing.
  Adventure playgrounds very often have an entirely new concept of creative play, and they do not require the expensive equipment that is often provided in the older type of playground. They avoid many of the hazards associated with swings, slides, roundabouts and rocking horses. They need play leaders and participation by the community in the most advanced projects, but tonight I should like to concern myself primarily in the latter part of what I have to say with the question of safety. RoSPA and the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs have provided much of the useful data in an area where so little research

  1473
  has been carried out. Indeed, it is astonishing how little attention has been paid to this subject among researchers and by this House.
  Clearly, the maintenance of playgrounds leaves a great deal to be desired. One has so many examples of playground surfaces littered with rusty metal, broken glass—only tonight I heard of one such arca—old bricks, splintered wood on swings and see-saws, wobbly climbing frames and ladders, missing handrails, jagged metal and missing bolts on slides. Those are just a few things. One could go on and catalogue hundreds of the results of failure to maintain and supervise many of our conventional playgrounds.
  I know, for example, that in my own native Manchester supervision is left to the parkkeepers. They do an excellent job, but they have so many other duties that they cannot possibly pay attention to this matter in the way that is necessary. Supervision is one of the most important factors in cutting down risk—and this is one area in which I do not believe it is right to cut back on public expenditure—not least from vandalism and from the misuse of equipment.
  The greatest single cause of accidents, from the available studies that one can lay one's hands on—and there are not many—is swings. The most serious accidents arise from falls on to hard surfaces from climbing frames or ladders, and it was always a matter of amazement to me, I think ever since I was a youngster playing on a playground myself, that if I fell I would fall on concrete and not on to a softer surface. Roundabouts and rocking horses with exposed mechanisms can lead to trapped limbs. Nevertheless, three-quarters of the serious accidents today involve head and face injuries, fractured skulls and concussion, and a recent study at University College Hospital shows that three-quarters of the youngsters admitted there fell on to hard surfaces, most commonly from a climbing frame.
  The British Medical Association Journal of 8th November 1975 did a remarkable study of 200 accidents. The mean average age of the youngsters who were involved was 6·3. Swings accounted for 61 of those 200 injuries, and 13 of
  1474
  them were fractures. Climbing frames accounted for 54, including 14 fractures. These were the most serious accidents. Slides accounted for 39 accidents, including 14 fractures. Roundabouts accounted for 15 injuries, including six fractures. All the researches I have been able to do bear out this general pattern in relation to the type of accident.
  Above all, therefore, softer surfaces around equipment would eliminate a high proportion of that type of accident. Grass and sand are difficult to maintain, perhaps, but there are now many synthetic surfaces on the market. Rubber tiles, for example, can be fitted beneath climbing frames. They do not need to cover the whole playground. Impact-absorbing swing seats, rubber cushioning around the edges or simply rubber tyres can cut down a whole number of accidents where children run close behind a moving swing. The siting of the swing is particularly important. All that may sound obvious, but it is not done. Slides often involve the risk of a youngster falling to his death from 20ft. Yet all that needs to be done is to build them on mounds following the contours of the ground or on artificial embankments to ensure that there can be no serious falls.
  Moving equipment should be designed and installed so that fingers, arms or legs cannot be trapped between the stationary and the moving parts or between the moving parts and the ground.
  I was particularly interested in the graphic and horrific examples, which any factory inspector would be more familiar with in the industrial context, in the magazine Design. If the law lays down mandatory safeguards in respect of factories, it should do so in respect of children.
  One example was the six-year-old boy in Fife killed falling from a 20 ft.-high playground slide—about the height of the one I take my youngest child on. I nearly have a heart attack every time, but he seems to enjoy it.
  A girl was scarred for life by a piece of metal on a slide penetrating her leg from the knee to the top of her thigh. Another girl was scarred for life and knocked unconscious by a swing in Walthamstow.
  However, it is right to say that the GLC playgrounds are probably the

  1475
  safest in the country, as there is permanent supervision and regular inspection. Elsewhere, however, too often the pattern is of ancient, rickety equipment, protruding, rusty nails, inadequate supervision, bad siting away from first aid equipment or a telephone, and virtually no inspection. The separation of equipment for older children from that provided for younger children, intelligent siting, barriers by swings and the exclusion of bicycles are all obvious safety factors which are too often ignored.
  Design concluded that the most important contribution to playground safety would be to raise the level of selection and overall supervision of playground equipment within local authorities. Too often this is just one more task for an overworked parkkeeper or grounds-man.
  Government guidance is necessary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what has been done in recent times. But I should like to see mandatory standards in design, manufacture, installation, maintenance and supervision of playground equipment. Children no longer work in factories or in mines, but they are entitled to the sort of protection afforded to those who do. They have no protection at all. It is time to attack obsolete equipment, to produce official statistics, and to take immediate action to remedy the dangers I have outlined, by the comparatively simple methods which I have sought to suggest.
  Of course, playgrounds prevent more serious dangers than the alternative of playing on the roads, railways or canals and other dangerous spots. I accept that there are dangers wherever children play. But there is a growing awareness of the problems I have raised. I believe that voluntary and official bodies must press for greater and safer provision.
  Children do not have votes, but their parents do. I hope that this debate will stimulate more parents, local authorities and voluntary organisations into taking a long, hard look at what I believe to be a neglected topic. I hope that they will try to instil some greater sense of urgency into Government action.
  We cannot leave safety to voluntary bodies or uneven patterns of concern. We
  1476
  need positive, mandatory standards, and they should be linked to a more generous approach to the provision of new and more exciting facilities to provide broader horizons and space to breathe and develop for those children confined to an environment of tawdry tower blocks or, as is so often the case in the North of England, crumbling Coronation Streets in twilight areas of our cities and towns.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give a positive response to this appeal.
  10.56 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr Rose) has raised an important subject tonight, one which I know has concerned him for some time. I for my part welcome this opportunity to discuss a subject which closely affects families throughout the country, particularly those with younger children. I want to set out the steps the Government are taking to deal with the question of children's playgrounds. I assure my hon. Friend that I will read carefully the report of what he has said tonight. We are both on the same wavelength. I take on board what he has said and will discuss his proposals with him.
  There is no doubt that children have a deep and strong motivation for play. Play is one of the essential elements in growing up. We must therefore, ensure that opportunities for play, suitable and safe for each stage of development, are available as far as possible to all children.
  There are certainly dangers, as my hon. Friend has said. The great majority of accidents to children in playgrounds are not of the same severity as those that occur daily on the roads. Fortunately, few playground accidents give rise to more than slight injury. But, as my hon. Friend has made perfectly clear, in some cases the damage from accidents in playgrounds can be very serious. For the child and the family any accident, wherever it occurs, which maims, perhaps for life, represents a terrible tragedy which we want to avoid.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything we can to ensure that the risks from injury in children's playgrounds are minimised. Being realistic, I do not suppose that it will be possible to prevent children from finding

  1477
  new ways of using—or abusing—equipment. If we close playgrounds they may well find more dangerous things to do. But I am sure that a lot can be done to keep the risks within reasonable bounds.
  My hon. Friend has suggested a number of improvements. Many of these have been recommended by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs as a result of research which was funded, in part, by my Department. When we contributed to the research project, we were expressing our concern to find out more about accidents and we are anxious that the RICA recommendations should generally be carried into effect. They are of course, largely a matter for implementation by local authorities, and it was with this in mind that we reprinted the report and sent copies of it to authorities to ensure that they were aware of its findings and could take the necessary action.
  We do not know with any accuracy how many accidents there are each year. At the time the RICA report was made, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was launching the new accident surveillance system. That is concerned with collecting information about accidents in the home. The RICA suggested that the scheme be widened to embrace playground accidents. To have done this then would have delayed the existing scheme, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it was perhaps better to get on and get the scheme established. I am, however, pleased to be able to tell him that the new scheme has now settled down and that there are to be discussions between Departments about bringing other types of accidents, including play accidents, into the scheme. The scheme is already providing information about play accidents in private gardens.
  Perhaps, however, the most important aspects for us to consider in seeking to reduce the toll of accidents are those of the design and maintenance of the equipment itself, as my hon. Friend said. A major step here lies in the work now being carried out by the British Standards Institution. It is reviewing the current British standard relating to the design of play equipment. My Department is represented on the appropriate technical
  1478
  committee and has taken an active part in promoting safety as an aspect of the standard.
  The standard will take account of new evidence on safety and the results of work in other countries. It will, therefore, cover such matters as the height of equipment, and ground clearance, so that limbs are not trapped. It will also include guidance on the construction, siting, installation inspection and maintenance of equipment, and the nature of the surrounding surfaces. The new standard will, therefore, represent a major step forward.
  The timetable for the production of the new standard tends, however, unfortunately to be fairly long. The BSI, under its charter, must have regard to all the views put to it as a result of its public consultation as well as the views of its technical committee. I hope, however, that the new standard can be published later this year. Indeed, in order to help matters along, my Department is now making accommodation available for additional meetings of the BSI technical committee.
  We shall certainly set in hand a review of the existing advice about safety given by my Department and other Departments so that we can consider the question of new advice following publication of the new standard.
  But, in the meantime, with much in the way of safe equipment already on the market, authorities should clearly have close regard to safety in providing new equipment or in replacing existing pieces of equipment. All the help that my Department can give is, and will continue to be, available to them. We have for some time advised that slides should be built in to natural or artifical mounds so that, if a child does fall, it does not fall too far. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's comment on that. There is also some expertise about the use of impact-absorbing surfaces surrounding equipment and of the siting of such equipment as swings away from other equipment to minimise the risk of children being hit.
  There is, too, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, scope, for imaginative creative work by manufacturers. Many pieces of equipment now available are likely to meet the requirements of the

  1479
  new British Standard. I hope that manufacturers will continue to rise to the challenge of designing for safety and will not wait for a new British standard before considering the wider implications of the new approach that the BSI is showing.
  Perhaps a bit more difficult for some authorities are questions about maintenance and supervision. The RICA rightly attached some importance to this, though it also made clear that there was little evidence to suggest that anything but a small proportion of accidents in a survey had actually been caused by poor maintenance or by vandalism.
  I hope that authorities will consider whether they have adequate arrangements in this respect, although I fully appreciate that there are staffing and resource implications which may make the full implementation of the recommendations very difficult. The RICA did, for example, find evidence of neglect of some equipment, and, while this may not have made it unsafe when it was seen, it could quite quickly have become unsafe. At best, therefore, I hope that authorities will aim for some arrangements for regular supervision of inspection of equipment.
  Let us not forget that parents have a part to play. They can help authorities by drawing attention to equipment which is in need of repair, and they can also help to prevent accidents by going with young children to playgrounds or by making sure that children are accompanied by a responsible adult. If equipment is really unsafe, parents will, surely, want to stop their children from using it.
  My hon. Friend made a forceful plea for legislation requiring minimum standards. Frankly, I doubt that we need to go that far. Most equipment is provided by local authorities. They are responsible bodies, and I have no doubt that many of them are already heeding the advice given in Government circulars and more recently in the RICA report.
  We shall soon have, too, the new British standard which has specific regard to safety. I am confident that that will mark the beginning of a new determination, on the part of manufacturers and local authorities, to remove the anxieties of parents wherever their children go off to playgrounds. Risks cannot be removed overnight, but there is, I believe, much
  1480
  that can be done to bring early improvement.
  I have concentrated on the question of safety, as this was uppermost in my hon. Friend's speech this evening. But I do not wish to overlook another aspect of the subject—that of ensuring that there is adequate provision of acceptable play and recreation facilities for our children.
  In this decade, for example, there has been a marked improvement in the level of provision for children at play in new council housing developments, and there is no doubt that the subsidy that my Department gives for this purpose has made a major contribution to this end. We are also making significant progress in relation to the proper landscaping and layout for playgrounds.
  However, in many areas there are still insufficient facilities for children to play safely and happily. This problem is particularly acute in some of our inner city areas, where all too often the only spaces for children to play are derelict houses, vacant sites, streets and pavements—places which can expose a child to more horrifying dangers than a playground ever can.
  The advice given in DOE Design Bulletin 27, issued to local authorities in 1973, is particularly relevant here. It emphasised the importance of providing supervision for children's play, particularly for the young and the deprived. Supervision can extend the range of play activities, help to compensate physically and socially deprived children, and for some provide opportunities for acquiring language and social skills. Skilled play leaders can enable the resources of built-up inner areas to be used to better and fuller effect by children.
  This is one of the reasons why supervised play schemes have always been a major beneficiary of the urban programme, and projects concerned with children in inner city areas will continue to form an important part of the programmes being prepared by the partnership areas and the programme authorities, and grant-aided by my Department.
  I hope that I have indicated this evening that the Government share my hon. Friend's concern that there should be sufficient opportunities for children to play safely and happily. Next year, 1979,

  1481
  has been declared by the United Nations as International Year of the Child. I hope that this will provide an opportunity not only for the Government but for all bodies concerned with the welfare of children to make a special effort on their behalf, and particularly on behalf of those children most in need. If we can see in 1979 a reduction in the number of children hurt at play, a significant con-
  1482
  tribution will have been made to making IYC a success.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this matter. I assure him of my concern. We shall continue to monitor very carefully the progress that is being made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  Probation Service (Coloured Persons)
  Probation Service (Coloured Persons)
  Convicted Terrorists
  Convicted Terrorists
  Remanded Women
  Remanded Women
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Electoral Law (Litigation)
  Electoral Law (Litigation)
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. (Court Cases)
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. (Court Cases)
  Young Persons (Detention)
  Young Persons (Detention)
  West Mercia Police
  West Mercia Police
  Kerb Crawling
  Kerb Crawling
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  NEW YORK
  NEW YORK
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  JAPAN
  JAPAN
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
  ESSEX
  ESSEX
  LAW AND ORDER (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LAW AND ORDER (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  RAIL FARES
  RAIL FARES
  PRESIDENT CARTER (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT CARTER (TALKS)
  UTKINTON
  UTKINTON
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS AND SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS AND SPEECHES)
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  Exmoor
  Exmoor
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Local Councillors (Allowances)
  Town Centre Plan, Ealing
  Town Centre Plan, Ealing
  Local Authority Revenue
  Local Authority Revenue
  Kyoto Conference (Water Authority Representation)
  Kyoto Conference (Water Authority Representation)
  Community Land Scheme
  Community Land Scheme
  Coastal Erosion Work
  Coastal Erosion Work
  River Lee (Haringey)
  River Lee (Haringey)
  Ferry Lane Estate, Haringey
  Ferry Lane Estate, Haringey
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Housing
  Housing
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Contributions (Married Women)
  National Insurance Contributions (Married Women)
  Occupational Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Occupational Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Students
  Students
  Acute Medical Beds, Cornwall
  Acute Medical Beds, Cornwall
  Administrators
  Administrators
  Prescription Pricing
  Prescription Pricing
  Disabled Persons (Road Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Road Vehicles)
  Occupational Therapy
  Occupational Therapy
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Tobacco Companies (Advertising)
  Tobacco Companies (Advertising)
  Tomography
  Tomography
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Human Organs (Transplants)
  Human Organs (Transplants)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Assaulted Girl (Brixton)
  Assaulted Girl (Brixton)
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
  Breast Cancer Research
  Breast Cancer Research
  Spina Bifida Children
  Spina Bifida Children
  Arm Prosthesis
  Arm Prosthesis
  Mobility Allowance (Mental Disablement)
  Mobility Allowance (Mental Disablement)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  New Zealand Dairy Products
  New Zealand Dairy Products
  New Zealand Lamb
  New Zealand Lamb
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Thames Flood Barrier
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Further Education Colleges (Staff)
  Further Education Colleges (Staff)
  School Summer Holidays
  School Summer Holidays
EMPLOYMENT
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Rolls-Royce Motors Limited
  Rolls-Royce Motors Limited
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Disabled Persons (Walsall)
  Disabled Persons (Walsall)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Engineering Industry (Pay)
  Engineering Industry (Pay)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
SCOTLAND
  Council Housing (Costs)
  Council Housing (Costs)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Human Organs (Removal)
  Human Organs (Removal)
  Children (Employment)
  Children (Employment)
TRANSPORT
  A59
  A59
  Archway Road Improvement Scheme
  Archway Road Improvement Scheme
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badge Scheme)
  Advanced Ground Transport
  Advanced Ground Transport
  Haulage Permits (France)
  Haulage Permits (France)
  Haringey (Realignment Scheme)
  Haringey (Realignment Scheme)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Budget
  Budget
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Tobacco Companies (Advertising)
  Tobacco Companies (Advertising)
  P45 Tax Forms
  P45 Tax Forms
  Income Tax Relief
  Income Tax Relief
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Canaletto Paintings
  Canaletto Paintings
  Gross Domestic Products
  Gross Domestic Products
  Overseas Debts
  Overseas Debts
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Income Tax Allowances
  Income Tax Allowances
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Refugees (Higher Education)
  Refugees (Higher Education)
  ACP-EEC Council
  ACP-EEC Council
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
  Developing Countries (Debts)
  Developing Countries (Debts)
  Student Fees
  Student Fees
  Somalia
  Somalia
ENERGY
  Natural Gas (Price)
  Natural Gas (Price)
  Hostels (Gas Credit Tariff)
  Hostels (Gas Credit Tariff)
  Fuel Supplement Payments
  Fuel Supplement Payments
  Smokeless Coal (Research)
  Smokeless Coal (Research)
WALES
  Health and Local Authorities (Finance)
  Health and Local Authorities (Finance)
  Housing
  Housing
  Royal National Eisteddfod
  Royal National Eisteddfod
  Health Services
  Health Services
  CONTEMPT OF COURT
  CONTEMPT OF COURT
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
  Clubs
  Clubs
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Egypt (Blocked Bank Accounts)
  Egypt (Blocked Bank Accounts)
  Hong Kong British Passport Holders
  Hong Kong British Passport Holders
INDUSTRY
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Telephone Kiosks
  Telephone Kiosks
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
DEFENCE
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
  NATO (Defence Ministers)
  NATO (Defence Ministers)
  Army Officers (Resignation)
  Army Officers (Resignation)
  NATO (Secretary-General)
  NATO (Secretary-General)
  Osprey Offshore Protection Vessel
  Osprey Offshore Protection Vessel
  Hydrographic Strategic Review Body
  Hydrographic Strategic Review Body
  Blizzards (Relief Work)
  Blizzards (Relief Work)
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  Bases (Reactivation)
  Bases (Reactivation)
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  United States Secretary of Defence
  United States Secretary of Defence
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Defence Sales Organisation (Exhibition)
  Defence Sales Organisation (Exhibition)
  Armed Forces (Trade Unionism)
  Armed Forces (Trade Unionism)
  Neutron Bomb
  Neutron Bomb
  Service Quarters (Purchase)
  Service Quarters (Purchase)
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  RAF Personnel
  RAF Personnel
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
TRADE
  Company Accounts (Lobbying and Entertaining)
  Company Accounts (Lobbying and Entertaining)
  Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials (Imports)
  Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials (Imports)
  Tanker "Amoco Cadiz"
  Tanker "Amoco Cadiz"

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

EASTER ACT 1928
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: 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 by what date it is intended to bring into force the Easter Act 1928.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government continue to hold the view that the Easter Act 1928 should not be implemented without the full concurrence of the Churches. We understand that for the present there is unlikely to be such concurrence.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for making the same reply as was made to the late Lord Merthyr on, I believe, no less than 11 occasions. As Lord Merthyr died on the Tuesday before Easter last year, may I, in memory of his patient persistence, ask the Minister whether he does not think that 50 years is long enough to wait for the declared will of Parliament to be implemented, especially as there is now virtually the fullest concurrence of all the Churches that keep the Western calendar?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think it is unreasonable. The Act does not require that opinion expressed be favourable to the order before it is made, but it would, I feel, be quite undesirable to make an order with which some of the Christian Churches would disagree. We accept that Easter is a very important event and festival in the life of the Christian Churches; and, therefore, there would be, if I may say so with very great respect, a good deal of hostility
1678
to a Government acting in a matter of this kind unless they did so knowing full well that they had the wholehearted support of the Christian Churches—and that is not the case. The right reverend Prelate knows that the British Council of Churches took the matter up with the World Council of Churches and that they prepared a questionnaire and then finally decided to set up a joint working party, which included the Roman Catholic Church, to consider it. Of the 232 members who were asked to express an opinion, only 130 of them did so; and not the whole of the 130 were in agreement. I think my right honourable friend is quite right in taking the view that was taken by the Home Secretary in 1928, when he made it abundantly clear that he would not act unless there was unanimity among the Churches. This is really now a matter on which it is for the Churches to come to some agreement.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, if the Government are in fact going to support what I understand is now the desire of the Churches in the East and the West to seek a common Easter rather than a fixed Easter, would it not really be better to repeal the 1928 Act, even if it robs Lord Merthyr's successors of an annual excuse for asking a Question?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords. We live in hope that there will be a consensus of opinion.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, reverting to the noble Lord's original reply and despite the right reverend Prelate's episcopal benediction, does the noble Lord realise that there are some of us who, on perfectly secular grounds, do not wish for a fixed Easter? We say vive la difference! We like to have our holiday with spring progressing at different levels in different years. Would it not be better if we reverted to the Moslem practice of Ramadan, which follows the lunar year and sometimes takes place in the winter and sometimes in July?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand that if we were to act in this matter, I was going to say unilaterally, but I am not sure whether that is the right

1679
word, we could have Easter being celebrated on three different dates. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the present Government—and I am trying to answer the question asked by the right reverend Prelate as to whether it would not be desirable to repeal this Act—propose to maintain the status quo.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me for asking at this point if it is too late for a Pembrokeshire voice to pay tribute to Lord Merthyr for the great service that he gave, not just to his county but to his country, in this House, while asking such questions as are now teasing my noble friend?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend would not be the first Member of your Lordships' House to stretch Question Time in this way.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, having regard to the fact that Good Friday is increasingly being regarded as a working day—most large shops now keep open in any case, and in some industries it is regarded as a working day—we could not treat Easter the same as we do Whitsuntide, and fix the Bank Holiday on a day different from the day after Easter Sunday?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this has exercised the minds of my right honourable friend and the Government generally. If we did that—and, in spite of what my noble friend has just pointed out, Good Friday is generally accepted as a holiday—it would mean curtailing what is now a four-day holiday to a three-day holiday, and we do not think that that would be acceptable.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the impact on the whole of the educational world of a variable Easter when all other national holidays are fixed, and of the impact of there being a variable term every year? It has virtually ruled out the possibility of organising the schools on the basis of a four-term year for the last 30 years.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that we are unmindful of the fact that there are difficulties in a number
1680
of ways, but I would say to the noble Lord that we feel that this is a matter on which it is for the Churches to come to an agreement. It really is for them to do so.

ARMED FORCES PAY REVIEW
2.42 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, before I ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, may I, with leave, point out the inaccuracy of a reference in it. The reference should be to the "Armed Forces Pay Review Body" and not "Board". I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question, as corrected, was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the Government expects the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to be published.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is expected to report to the Prime Minister very shortly. The Government will then have to consider the recommendations and, in accordance with the usual practice, it is expected that the report will be published simultaneously with the announcement of Her Majesty's Government's decision on it.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that somewhat Delphic reply, may I ask her to deny categorically a report which is circulating at the moment in the Armed Forces at very high level, that a public report upon the deliberations of the Armed Services Pay Review Body has been postponed indefinitely?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I can immediately reassure the noble Lord on this. Since the timing of the report has always been a matter for the Review Body, there has never been any definite date for submission. This remains the case. However, I understand, as I said in my original Answer, that the report is likely to be submitted very soon, and the Government will then press forward with their consideration of it so that the announcement of the pay award can be made as soon as possible.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does the noble Baroness remember that this Government were elected on an "open-government" policy? Would it not, perhaps, be realistic to publish this report, so that the country as a whole could have the chance of considering it before the Government come to their conclusion?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have no doubt that the findings of the Review Body will be published when the Government have made their pronouncement on it. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body is an independent body. The Government cannot dictate when it shall make its report or whether it will be published; but we are as concerned as any Member of this House in getting a satisfactory result from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's report, and we hope to be able to make an announcement about an increase very shortly.

IMMIGRATION AND ARRANGED MARRIAGES
2.45 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and point out that there is a misprint in the Question on the Order Paper. The word "fiancées" is not spelt in exactly the way in which I handed it in. I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question, as corrected, was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the cases in 1977 in which 2,710 men in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh applied to join their fiancées in Britain were cases of arranged marriages.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, applications are not recorded in such a way as to show whether or not the intended marriage is an arranged one.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I suggest that in future he does take action in this regard? Surely, these women in this country, who are either brought here as young people or are born
1682
here, have human rights; and I thought that Her Majesty's Government were keen on supporting human rights. Surely, it is up to them to see that these rights are safeguarded in respect of these women who are often married against their will.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I did say that they are not recorded. It is not an indication that the Government are indifferent to this kind of situation. The Government recognise that in many cases male fiancés are applying to come here to enter into marriages which have been arranged for them, usually by their parents or relatives. This is not prohibited under the immigration rules and therefore no separate statistics for such applications are being kept. It might be very difficult to keep accurate statistics on every aspect of immigration.
The immigration rules, as the noble Baroness knows, were amended in 1977 to prevent men from achieving settlement by marriage of convenience, whether the marriage is arranged or not. Fiancés coming here to marry are permitted to enter the United Kingdom for three months. If a marriage takes place within that time they may have their permits extended for a further 12 months. After that time they may be permitted to remain permanently provided there is no reason to believe that the marriage is one of convenience entered into primarily to obtain settlement with no intention of living together permanently as man and wife. If it is found to be just a ruse to enter here and stay, action is taken to see that the person does not remain in this country.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said about their being genuine marriages not undertaken for the sake of getting into this country, can he give the approximate numbers of people who go from this country to India to join their fiancés there? It must be, presumably, similar to the number coming here.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no information of those who go from the United Kingdom either to Pakistan or to the Indian sub-continent. I have only the numbers of those who come the other way.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, are the Government aware that in the Indian sub-continent the marriage of a daughter is a very expensive performance, but that where the girl is resident in this country she becomes a great asset—the young man is prepared to pay heavily to be chosen as her fiancé to come to this country—and that the arranged marriage is the normal method of marriage in the Indian sub-continent?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we accept that. The only point I am trying to make is that, notwithstanding that, if the male partner comes over on that basis we are at some pains to see that the marriage is really functioning as we understand marriage here; that is, that the couple are living together and consorting. If it is found that they come merely as a matter of convenience and are not living together as husband and wife and are not setting up home, as we understand it, then a very different situation arises.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, ought not statistics to be kept on this subject? It may be that we have taken steps to deal with the fraudulent cases; but is it not a fact that the honest cases are really attempts to avoid joining our community, to prevent girls from finding English boys to marry and to prevent them from becoming part of our community? Is this something which ought to be acceptable to us?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I said earlier on, there is always a case for trying to keep accurate statistics. One has to hear in mind that it is a very difficult, time-consuming and expensive business. We try so far as possible, but it is very difficult to say that one can provide accurate statistics regarding every aspect of life.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, assuming the question by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is a serious one, how on earth can one find out whether a given marriage was originally arranged by the parents if it was afterwards celebrated and celebrated voluntarily?
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it constitutes
1684
an offence to go through a formal marriage without the slightest intention of ever fulfilling the purposes of marriage?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like notice of that question. It has certain legal as well as moral implications. I should not like to answer that off the cuff.

MINISTERIAL REPLIES TO MEMBERS
2.51 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether he will ensure that Ministers and Government spokesmen reply more promptly to letters and to points raised in, but not answered at the time of, debate.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that Ministers and Government spokesmen are already aware of the need to reply promptly to letters and the points raised but not answered in debate. On occasion, however, some research and consultation are necessary before an answer can be given.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he realises that following a debate in December I received no reply? On 14th February I wrote a letter asking for a reply and I did not even get an acknowledgment of my letter. I received no reply for three months. Surely that is far too long. The answer I received then was totally unsatisfactory.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am not worried about the answer so long as the noble Baroness gets one. I have sympathy with the noble Baroness. I can assure her that I am extremely anxious as the Leader of the House to keep the courtesies of the House in relation to debates; and, when a Minister says that he will take note and write, he should do so. Even I may have made mistakes in the past; but I am relatively new and I am learning. I am anxious to help the noble Baroness.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, even though his reply may reflect the general rule and the general intention, there are too many exceptions, as most noble Lords will bear out? Is he aware that I wrote to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 28th December and, after about five weeks, wrote a reminder? Following a further two weeks, I telephoned a reminder but I have not had a word in reply since.
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is another matter. The Prime Minister is anxious that his collegues should answer promptly. There are problems of research; it depends on the question. I am sorry that that has happened; but, in view of the Question, I hope we will take note of the feelings of this House.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that this is particularly important where points are raised on a Committee stage? It is very important to have the answer available in time to make up one's mind as to what one will do on Report stage. Where the interval between Committee and Report is less than the recommended minimum, the answers should be correspondingly quicker.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I accept that. I do not dissent.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Minister who speaks for the Home Office in this House answers questions—certainly any that I have put to him—extremely promptly? I think other noble Lords find the same. I am extremely grateful for that.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for that. All Ministers are anxious to do their best for Members of both Houses, but difficulties do occur.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's conciliatory attitude to this matter. But I hope that it does not mean that, when questions are asked in debate and the questioner is not in his place when the reply is given, he will receive a reply by letter. I think that would be a great mistake.

NORTH SEA OIL REVENUES
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey will, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., repeat a Statement on North Sea oil revenues.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask a question. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that we were considering something on Report. As I understand it, your Lordships agreed to consider a Bill on Report, but now we seem to be moving to discuss something quite different.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it was considered on Report. We are now moving on to other business.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1978
2.56 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) rose to move, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 23rd February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in operation, for a further period of 12 months, the Prevention of Terrorism

1687
(Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Act is due to lapse, unless renewed, on 24th March.
Ever since these temporary powers were first enacted in 1974, Parliament has rightly expected that the renewal debate should include an "annual report" of the extent to which the Act has been used. For the convenience of the House, I shall therefore follow this practice, and describe the use made of the Act in the year up to 1st March, giving figures since 1974. Under Part II of the 1976 Act, my right honourable friend may sign an exclusion order where he is satisfied that someone is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting, or may attempt, to enter the country for that purpose. In total, 120 exclusion orders have now been made, and 25 of these were made in the year since I last reported on these matters.
These are executive, non-judicial powers, and the Act therefore provides the safeguard of a right to make representations to an independent adviser. When a person is served with an exclusion order, his right to make these representations, and to have an interview with an adviser, is fully explained to him. Altogether, 22 people against whom exclusion orders have been made (including three in the last year) have taken up their right to make representations against the order. Six of the 22 orders were revoked by my right honourable friend or his predecessor, following reconsideration of the case as the Act requires. Three people made representations this year, and one order was enforced and one revoked. The third order is still under consideration.
Next, I shall deal with the numbers of people removed under exclusion orders. A total of 105 people (24 in the last year) have been removed—of these, 81 in total (23 in the last year) to Northern Ireland, and 24 in total (one in the last year) to the Republic of Ireland.
I mentioned the advisers under the Act and my right honourable friend made clear in another place how grateful he was to them for the work which they have done. Since 1974, the two advisers have been the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC. Mr. Waterhouse has
1688
recently stood down on his appointment as a High Court Judge. It is only right to take the opportunity on this occasion to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for the very considerable amount of work that he has done in this exceptionally difficult area.
The powers which the police have under this Act include powers of arrest and detention both inland and at the ports. Section 12 of the Act enables the police to detain a person who is reasonably suspected either of having committed an offence under the Act, or of being concerned in terrorism. They can detain a person under their own authority for up to 48 hours, but if they believe that they will need more time for their inquiries, they can ask my right honourable friend to extend the period of detention for up to another five days. The police have detained a total of 939 people (143 during the last year) under Section 12. In 277 cases (27 during the last year) my right honourable friend and his predecessor have authorised extensions of detention.
Apart from the power to detain under Section 12, the police also have the powers given to them at ports. All passengers travelling through ports are liable to examination, but we should recognise how few people are detained for further examination. A total of 2,191 people (554 in the last year) have been so detained. This is only a tiny fraction of the total travelling public. The number of passengers passing through the major ports dealing with traffic to and from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in 1977 was nearly 4 million. Of these, only 308 were detained.
I turn now to charges for offences under the Acts—this means offences created specifically in the legislation itself. Twenty-one people in total (8 in the past year) have been charged with offences under the Acts, such as soliciting or giving money in connection with acts of terrorism, failing to disclose information relating to acts of terrorism, or seeking to enter part of the United Kingdom from which a person had been excluded. A total of 118 people (20 in the past year) have been charged with substantive offences in Great Britain after they had been detained under the Acts. These charges include murder, attempted murder,

1689
conspiracy to cause explosions, the unlawful possession of explosives and offences under the Firearms Act.
That is my report on the year's activity. I should now like to move to our reasons for asking Parliament to renew the operation of the Act for a further period of 12 months. My right honourable friend has the responsibility for deciding whether the threat to the mainland of Great Britain from Irish terrorism is likely to continue throughout that period. These matters are kept under constant scrutiny, and my right honourable friend and I consider with the greatest care all the information available. The House will appreciate that I cannot go into a great deal of detail here, but, as my right honourable friend mentioned in another place, three factors have been taken into account in these matters.
The first is the understanding which my right honourable friend has formed, in close touch with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, of events in Northern Ireland. We are quite clear that we shall need legislation in Great Britain as long as there is IRA violence. The second is the advice we receive from senior levels in the police with whom we stay in the closest touch on these matters.
Thirdly, there is the evidence we have of the efforts the Provisional IRA have made in the last year to bring arms and explosives into Great Britain. I have reported to the House before on the events of last August but it may be helpful to remind noble Lords of their significance. A discovery in Dublin revealed a comprehensive set of equipment for an IRA terrorist group. It was established beyond doubt that this equipment was ready for shipment to Great Britain. The police know the exact area in the Home Counties where the consignment was to have been collected. The contents make very sombre reading. There were some 230 lbs. of explosives. A skilled terrorist can, with only two or three lbs. of explosives, kill several people and injure many scores. There were also 96 cassette incendiary devices, bomb-making materials, and a number of firearms with ammunition. It was a formidable collection of material, sufficient for an IRA group of four or five people to create untold havoc in this country. I do not think we can contemplate dropping preventive and deterrent
1690
measures of this kind as long as there is evidence that the IRA threat continues.
A review of the Act is now being carried out by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. Before announcing the review, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered carefully a number of ways in which he could give reassurance and information about the operation of the Act. He wanted to invoke the advice of an independent person of high standing. He decided on a review with these terms of reference:
"Accepting the continuing need for legislation, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976, with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report."
The review, which started last December, extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. I am sure the whole House will agree how fortunate we are that my noble friend Lord Shackleton has agreed to carry out this difficult and challenging task. As my right honourable friend has made clear, the way in which my noble friend carries out this review is a matter entirely for him. It is at this stage difficult to say when his report is likely to be published, but certainly we look forward to receiving it in due course. The 12-month renewal period need not delay the implementation of any administrative changes my noble friend may recommend which seem to him appropriate. So there is a great deal of flexibility here, which I hope will reassure any noble Lords who may have misgivings about supporting a renewal now for a period of 12 months.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to consider carefully what I have said about the extent of the current IRA threat. We are in no doubt about the value of the Act, and I believe that the public would rightly condemn us if we allowed the Act to lapse before it was safe to do so, even if we did not have, as we do have, the deadly proof I have described that the IRA have not given up their plans for violence here. In these circumstances, renewal seems to the Government to be a regrettable necessity, and I ask the House to support the Government in this view.
Moved, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act

1691
1976 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 23rd February, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his account of the way in which the Act has operated, particularly over the last 12 months, and of the reasons behind the draft order which is now before your Lordships. One is always apprehensive about a law which may be said to affect our civil liberties, and there is no doubt that this Act does just that. It is right, I think, that the Government should have to come to Parliament from time to time to justify these exceptional powers which they have been granted under the terms of the Act.
I suppose that, until the New Year, one might have been forgiven for assuming that violence might have been on the wane, certainly in Northern Ireland, or at any rate that the number of attacks on innocent and defenceless members of the public seemed to be on the decrease. But recent events in Northern Ireland cannot give one any room for optimism, and they have certainly refuted any idea that the terrorists had become either a spent force or that they may have turned their activities to more peaceful methods of expressing their point of view. Equally, I suggest it would be dangerous to be complacent about the situation in England so far as terrorism is concerned.
In the circumstances, I have no doubt that noble Lords, at any rate from these Benches, will agree that the Government are right to be vigilant to prevent acts of terrorism and that this Act, in effect, is a means of doing just what it says, that is, to prevent acts of terrorism. In the circumstances, the liberties of the subject will have to be sublimated to the overriding need for preventing these wicked acts of senseless violence from taking place.
One is interested in the figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, related them, and is happy to note that the number of people who are affected by this Act is comparatively small. I was equally interested to learn of the setting-up of the inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord
1692
Shackleton. But I think that one is entitled to inquire purely because the Government are asking for 12 months' extension, whether in the circumstances it is necessary to ask for that period. Presumably the Home Secretary must have some doubt in his mind—I shall not say that he is uneasy—as to the workings of the Act; otherwise, he would not have set up the inquiry. It cannot, I suggest, be done merely to have a cosmetic effect on those who have civil liberties dear to their hearts. In the circumstances, is the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, being assisted, or is it a one-man committee, if a committee can ever be one man? Secondly, how long has the inquiry been going, and can the noble Lord give any indication as to when this report is likely to be ready for consideration by the House; if, indeed, the Government intend to publish it in time for the House to debate it, which, hopefully, will happen before the long Recess.
Thirdly, if Section 14 allows considerable amendment to the powers under the Act to be made by Affirmative Resolution, why is it necessary to have a 12 months' provision at this moment of time? These questions do not come out of any sense of carping criticism of the Government. I am quite sure that all noble Lords will support the Government in what they are trying to do. But one has to acknowledge the fact that this Act represents a fairly draconian measure, which affects people in their ordinary, everyday lives and particularly their legal rights, if they happen to fall foul of the police. We must be certain that the Government have their priorities right, and are looking at this matter in the proper manner.
3.13 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to support this Motion, although we do so with considerable reluctance. It is, I hope and expect, a reluctance which is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The reason is that these measures constitute a very serious diminution of civil liberties, and they could be justified only if there were a real threat to the safety of the Realm. We accept what is said, that that threat still exists, and we are therefore prepared to support this Motion on this occasion. The noble Lord, Lord

1693
Harris, will not be surprised if I indicate that, on the next occasion when renewal is sought, we shall of course wish to examine the detailed provisions of this measure, in the light of the recommendations that will be made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
The only other observation I would make is this. There is no more beastly method of indiscriminately maiming innocent civilians than the kind of delayed action explosive which is the common weapon used by the IRA in this country. It is not only beastly; it is also a thoroughly cowardly weapon, because it is easy to manufacture and is easy to put into place, and all that the terrorist then has to do is to run away and await the consequences. It appears, on the face of it, that detection would be improbable. But I ought perhaps to say that, having appeared in a number of cases where these people have been involved, I am lost in admiration of the painstaking, careful and, very often, brilliant detection by our police force which has enabled so many of these terrorists, against all the odds, to be brought to justice. On this occasion, we support the Motion.
3.15 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening at this stage. I do not think that anyone at all in the House, who realises what is happening nowadays so far as terrorism—not only in Ireland, but throughout the world—is concerned, will deny that such measures as can be taken to prevent terrorism, in spite of all our feelings about civil liberties, are essential at the present time. I just want to ask my noble friend whether, in pursuing this method of dealing with terrorism, investigations are made with regard to other international terrorist organisations, it being believed—and I think correctly believed—that there are contacts between the IRA and other terrorist organisations. It is very important that there are such investigations, so that if there happen to come into this country people who are in contact with the IRA and like organisations, they can be dealt with under the Act or in some similar manner.
I make this point, because I think that unless we cope with the question of terrorism throughout the world, and the
1694
various contacts between terrorist organisations in one place and another, we shall find ourselves in a world of chaos, which will undoubtedly result in terrorism becoming the main factor in deciding certain issues. I hope that I am not in any way deviating from the purpose of this order if I ask my noble friend to take that matter into consideration; and perhaps my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who will be dealing with the position in his report, might give some consideration to this point.
3.18 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, may I just add a few words? Naturally we all regret the necessity for these measures, but I hope noble Lords will appreciate that the only alternative—and a very poor alternative it would be—would be to have massive security, such as we have to put up with in Northern Ireland. That would mean that anybody going into a shop would be searched from head to foot, and that it would be quite impossible to leave a bag at a railway station, or anything of that kind; and anybody who has qualms must appreciate that, in a sense, that would be an interference with civil liberties. Therefore, so long as this problem exists, I fear that these measures are necessary, and I am only too delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is looking into the details of this matter.
3.19 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to all four noble Lords who have welcomed this Motion today. I begin by saying that I very much agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. It is absolutely right to have this annual renewal debate. As he said, these are exceptional powers. This was recognised when Parliament enacted this legislation in 1974, and on that occasion we came forward with the proposal that this legislation should be reviewed by both Houses of Parliament at 12 months' intervals, which has been our practice since then. There are these two fairly substantial powers: first, the power to make an exclusion order; and, secondly, the power to have a period of detention at a port, or, indeed, a person can be arrested and detained inland.

1695
I have given some indication to the House of the scale on which these powers are used.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, asked whether it was necessary to renew these powers for a full period of 12 months, given the fact that my noble friend is conducting his inquiry at the moment. The Government considered the matter but came to the conclusion that such was the scale of the continued threat that it was absolutely right to maintain these powers for the full period of 12 months. The noble Earl also asked when my noble friend began his inquiry. He began his work last December. I was also asked by the noble Earl whether my noble friend is receiving any assistance. He is indeed receiving assistance from both Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales and Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Scotland, so my noble friend has a very substantial amount of police advice at his disposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, also welcomed the extension of these powers for the full period of 12 months. I take entirely the noble Lord's point. The House will want to look at the matter with some care when it receives the report of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. This can be done either when we discuss the matter in 12 months' time or at some time between now and then.
My noble friend Lord Janner raised the question of other terrorist organisations. As we know from very recent experience, there has been a formidable growth in international terrorism. These powers were sought by the Government to deal with the particular problem of IRA terrorism, and the exclusion order powers relate entirely to the Irish situation. My noble friend is quite right when he says that it would be the height of folly to ignore the other terrorist threats to which we could be subjected, and I can certainly assure him that the police devote a very substantial amount of time and resources to dealing with this particular problem.
I repeat that I am very grateful for the general support which the House has given to these powers. I remember asking the House to agree to these exceptional powers in the aftermath of the Birmingham
1696
bombings at the end of 1974. I do not believe that there has been any clear evidence that these powers have been seriously misused, but I think that we shall all be relieved to have the view of my noble friend, who brings to this matter a clear, a forceful and an independent judgment, when he has concluded his review.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I say that I do not want him to think that I was asking that this Act should deal with all acts of terrorism. I was speaking about this Act being utilised for the purpose of accomplices who are collaborating with the IRA. That was the point which I was trying to make. However, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the question of terrorism has to be dealt with and is being dealt with in other directions.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, all I would say to my noble friend is that if accomplices are directly involved with members of the IRA, they will be caught by the Statute.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES BILL
3.25 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, which I am delighted to be able to introduce this afternoon, is a very important measure which is designed to enable the Government to take swift and effective measures to tackle unemployment. The Bill will provide the Government with powers to set up schemes to enable employers to retain or recruit employees and generally to maintain or enlarge their labour force. Specifically, the Bill is needed for some of the additional special measures to counteract unemployment which were announced last week by my right honourable friend.
Noble Lords are well aware of the economic situation which has produced the need for this Bill and these measures. We have experienced the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s. Every Government in the industrial world has found it necessary to take steps to counter the unemployment effects of this recession.

1697
As a result of the measures we have taken since 1975, we can justly claim to have made a significant impact in reducing the overall level of unemployment. The various measures we have introduced—the temporary employment subsidy, the job release scheme, the youth employment subsidy, the small firms subsidy, the job creation programme and the work experience programme—are now providing some 320,000 jobs or training places. When the new youth opportunities programme, the special temporary employment programme and the further measures announced on 5th March come into effect, that figure should rise to more than 400,000 by March 1979.
We must face the fact that high unemployment is going to be with us for some time yet. We all regret that, but I do not think there can be any disagreement about it. In the long run, we are only going to reduce unemployment through economic growth. The Government's industrial strategy aims to raise the efficiency and competitiveness of industry in this country and to create more jobs, but we know that this is going to take time. Hence the need for the further special measures announced last week. As I have said, the purpose of the Employment Subsidies Bill is to provide a power to run some existing schemes and to introduce new ones. Specifically, the power is needed to cover the following measures.
It will provide cover for the small firms employment subsidy which, as was announced last week, is to be extended in scope from 1st July to manufacturing firms with fewer than 200 employees in all the assisted areas and in the inner city partnership areas outside the assisted areas. For the last few months the subsidy has been financed under the Appropriations Act. The Bill will also cover the temporary employment subsidy which will be modified in a limited way. The Bill will cover the new arrangements to be introduced to support short-time working in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. All these measures were announced on 15th March. Finally, the existing youth employment subsidy and also the job introduction and capital grants schemes for disabled people in Northern Ireland will be covered by the Bill. The Bill is an enabling measure,
1698
like the powers of the Employment and Training Act 1973 which it replaces. It will give us the flexibility necessary to plan ahead and introduce or modify particular measures to meet different or changing needs.
I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for the repeal of Section 5(1)(b) and (c) of the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended by the Employment Protection Act 1975. These sections of the 1973 Act are narrowly framed and deal only with schemes designed to postpone or avoid redundancy and schemes which encourage employers to recruit from those who are particularly affected by rising unemployment. The temporary employment subsidy and the youth employment subsidy are at present operated under these sections of the 1973 Act.
The remainder of Section 5(1) of the 1973 Act is left in its original form. The intention is that in future it should be used to cover job creation schemes which are outside the normal run of industrial and commercial employment. The Employment Subsidies Bill deals with all schemes which are intended to assist, by various means, the creation or maintenance of normal employment. The Bill is not concerned with the youth opportunities programme or the various training programmes operated by the Manpower Services Commission. Nor, indeed, is it concerned with the job release scheme which is covered by the Job Release Act 1977.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill substitutes a broader power for the provisions of the 1973 Act. This wide power allows the setting up of schemes for making payments to employers which will enable them to retain employees who might become unemployed, to take on new employees and generally to maintain or enlarge their labour force. This broad approach should provide the flexibility that we believe to be necessary in tackling unemployment.
Although the powers in the Bill are wide there is—as is usual—a requirement for Treasury approval of schemes set up under the Bill. There are also, as I shall explain a little later, provisions for seeking Parliamentary approval for setting up schemes costing more than £10 million

1699
a year. Noble Lords will appreciate that the Bill authorises payments to employers rather than to employees because this is the most direct and practical means of alleviating unemployment. Payments to employers bring an immediate improvement in their cash flow and hence enable them to maintain or expand jobs.
By virtue of Clause 1(2), the Bill covers Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain. The principle of applying Great Britain Bills to Northern Ireland has been accepted for some time now. The Northern Ireland measures to combat unemployment are similar to those for Great Britain. This Bill would establish the same powers with similar limitations. The Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill are so worded that their powers can be used not only during the present period of direct rule but also under any subsequent system of devolved Government.
Clause 1(3) requires consultation with organisations representing employers and workers before any schemes are introduced. This is, of course, normal practice, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible provision, given the nature and impact of such schemes.
The Bill contains two clauses dealing with transitional problems. Clause 3(1) provides for the continuation of schemes previously set up under those parts of the 1973 Act which this Bill would repeal. Otherwise, such schemes would have to be cut off abruptly the day the Bill gained Royal Assent only to be immediately re-established under the new Act. Such a procedure would produce unnecessary complications for both employers and the Government. The second transitional provision is Clause 3(5) which provides for the payment of allowances in individual cases where a commitment has been made to pay allowances for a certain period but the Bill's powers lapse before payments have been completed. In these circumstances individual payments may continue for up to 18 months after the powers have lapsed.
Finally, the Bill makes twofold provision for Parliamentary control. First, the powers under the Bill extend only until the end of 1979. Beyond that, they will lapse unless renewed by statutory order.
1700
The Bill's powers may be renewed for up to 18 months at a time. This means that Parliament will have the opportunity at regular intervals to discuss the need for and the use of powers under the Bill.
It may be thought that the time limits on the operation of the powers of the Bill will create uncertainties for employers who will not be able to plan ahead in the knowledge that a particular scheme will still be in operation in a couple of years' time. That is true but, I think, inevitable if we are to maintain proper Parliamentary control. We have tried to strike a balance and I believe that 18 months is a reasonable period for renewal. We have done what we can to remove the dangers of abrupt changes by the transitional provisions of Clause 3(5) which I explained earlier.
Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to seek the approval of the House of Commons via a resolution, for the introduction of any scheme whose cost is expected to exceed £10 million a year or to alter or extend any scheme in such a way that the cost is expected to exceed £10 million. What this means is that Parliament must be consulted on any major new initiatives or changes in existing schemes. However, Clause 2(3) allows the Secretary of State to take emergency action without a resolution of the House of Commons where he is satisfied that urgency is required and a resolution would involve an unacceptable delay. In such cases, the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons a statement of the action he has taken and his reasons for it. This provision is intended simply to allow essential action to be taken in emergency situations. Noble Lords will appreciate that large-scale redundancies may suddenly threaten an industry or locality. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State may need the additional flexibility afforded by Clause 2(3). It could mean the difference between success or failure in saving hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of jobs.
The Bill requires that schemes may be set up under the Bill only if unemployment remains high. It is, of course, a matter of judgment as to what constitutes a high level of unemployment. I do not think that it would be sensible or practical to specify a particular level in the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is

1701
essential to allow the Secretary of State discretion in this matter. I have explained the provisions of the Bill to noble Lords. It is a short Bill but I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that it is an important one. It does not of itself provide instant solutions to the problems of unemployment. However, the powers which this Bill will provide can play a vital part in allowing the Government to respond quickly and flexibly both to preserve existing jobs when they are threatened and to encourage the growth of new jobs.
The schemes which the Government intend to introduce in the near future under the powers which this Bill will confer were announced last week. The contribution that these schemes can make can be gauged by the success of the temporary employment subsidy, which has preserved some 389,000 jobs since it was introduced in 1975. Again, the small firms employment subsidy, which, so far, has been run on a small and necessarily experimental scale, has led to the creation of over 5,700 extra jobs in the special development areas. The Bill will enable the extension of the small firms employment subsidy and the continuation of a modified temporary employment subsidy, together with new arrangements for the support of short-time working. All these schemes have their part to play in reducing unemployment and aiding economic recovery. Therefore, I commend the Bill to this House as an essential measure to counteract unemployment and enable us to create the jobs which are essential for our economic recovery. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)

NORTH SEA OIL REVENUES
3.38 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the White Paper on North Sea Oil being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the White Paper, The Challenge of North Sea Oil,
1702
presented to Parliament this afternoon. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office.
"First, I thank all those whose research work, technology, skill and enterprise, often carried out in hazardous conditions, have made this great new resource available to our country.
"The purpose of the White Paper is to give Parliament and the country an account of this new resource, its consequences for the economy and how the Government believe that it should be used.
"The development of North Sea Oil has given us a new industry—the offshore oil industry—which has brought over 100,000 new jobs, including some 60,000 to Scotland. This industry is now beginning to build on the success of British technology in the North Sea by pursuing similar outlets in other parts of the world, where there is evidence that countries are interested in buying the technology and expertise that this new British industry can offer.
"North Sea Oil will make Britain independent of imported energy for the next decade or more. The rate at which it is pumped ashore will help determine the time the oil will last. Agreements already made govern this policy for the next few years, but there will be important decisions to be taken to determine the depletion policies of the 1980s and 1990s.
"The oil will increase Britain's resources in three ways. It will increase our national income by about £6 billion a year by the mid-1980s. Second, it will help our balance of payments by about £8 billion to £9 billion a year by the mid-1980s. Third, thanks to the action taken by the present Government to offset the effect of the policy we found on coming into office under which a high proportion of oil is in the hands of overseas owned companies, it will in future add substantially to the national revenues. The estimate is that total revenue yield from the North Sea, including gas, will approach £4 billion a year by the mid-1980s.
"In considering how best these benefits should be used, the Government have been conscious, above all, that the

1703
oil is a valuable but temporary bonus. It will last for many years but not indefinitely. Our objective is that when the yield begins to decline the British economy and British society will have been strengthened by its use and not weakened.
"The Government's conclusion is that the benefits should be concentrated in four main areas.
"First, there will be more resources for industrial investment to re-equip our industries, so that they can meet the competition of the next two decades and create new jobs. The full value of such new investment will only be realised if it is coupled with higher productivity to enable us to compete successfully in the world.
"The Government have an important rôle to play through the system of investment incentives, selective assistance, and the work of the National Enterprise Board and Development Agencies.
"Most of the new investment will be financed by industry itself through the renewed confidence that will result from greater economic stability, so maintaining a steady and consistent growth in the economy.
"Second, we shall increase the funds devoted to energy conservation and to new energy investment—our immensely valuable coal reserves, nuclear and other energy sources—to be ready for the time when the flow of oil diminishes.
"Third, the Government will reduce the level of personal taxation so as to increase take-home pay and work incentives.
"Fourth, we will improve the standard of certain essential services; rebuild the inner cities; train and retrain more people to equip them with the necessary industrial skills and improve our social services.
"The Government very carefully considered a proposal to create a separate fund for North Sea oil revenues and expenditure. On the surface it is an attractive idea, but for the reasons explained in the White Paper we conclude that there is no satisfactory way of separating and identifying the public spending or the tax reliefs specifically made possible by North Sea oil.
1704
"The Government will, however, present to Parliament an annual progress report showing how the priorities set out in the White Paper are being observed, and setting out the revenues received.
"To sum up, the Government's purpose is to use the proceeds of North Sea oil to strengthen the country's industrial and social base, and to bring to fulfilment the national recovery that has already begun".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating this Statement, but I feel bound to say that I find it disappointingly imprecise after all the buildup we have had and what we had been led to expect. I am also intrigued to see that the White Paper is to be called The Challenge of North Sea Oil, whereas in fact I would have thought that the challenge had already taken place and been met by, as the White Paper says, the research work, technology, skill and enterprise of those who have carried out these works. I do not think any of us, private or public, find it a great challenge to know how to spend our money; it is not usually one of the problems we find very difficult.
However, I think we can welcome one statement in the White Paper, where the Government refer to their decision not to treat North Sea Oil in a special fund; this in itself makes one wonder whether the White Paper was really all that necessary if this was the decision they were finally going to come to. I must say that I am dismayed at the attempt on the part of the Government to claim the credit for the benefits which are going to accrue to this country, which they appear to do. I think this is basically a phoney Statement, and in so far as it is not a phoney Statement it is basically referring to something to which I have so often referred, their dishonest attempt to go in for retrospective legislation and talk about this so-called voluntary participation. So I am not very impressed by that claim. However, I think we can also welcome their statement:
"Our objective is that … the British economy and British society will have been strengthened by its use and not weakened."

1705
Certainly we can welcome their continued lip-service, at least, to energy conservation, though I would have been happier if we could have had some reported action rather than a continuation of the outpouring of words.
Naturally we welcome reductions in personal taxation, but, then again, when we come to talking of improving the standard of certain essential services I wonder whether this means that the Government intend to return to a policy of increasing public spending, in which case one would have some doubts about it. The Statement leaves me in considerable doubts when I have a quick glance at the White Paper, which I have only seen in the last five minutes. The conclusion of the White Paper says:
"This means setting clear priorities for the use of North Sea benefits"
So far as I can make out, the White Paper does not in fact set out these priorities. How then can the Government talk about presenting to Parliament how the priorities being set out in the White Paper are being observed when, so far as I can see, they are not set out at all?
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to add our thanks to the noble and learned Lord for this Statement. I believe, too, that it is a general Statement which gives us certain hopes for the future, although they are perhaps limited in scope. I am very pleased to note that the noble Lord made a distinction between the new jobs created by oil in Scotland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am not quite sure why this distinction was made. Perhaps he is thinking in terms of allocation of part of these funds specifically for a Scottish fund or Scottish purposes. Perhaps he might like to mention something about this. I also welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have recognised that the oil we have at our disposal is limited. I wonder if the noble Lord could say whether there are any new areas as yet unexplored, or have we really come to the bottom of the barrel, as he rather implies in this Statement?
We, too, welcome the four beneficiaries the noble and learned Lord has given in this Statement, and particularly energy conservation. When the White Paper comes up for debate we intend to inquire
1706
more fully into it. I would conclude with one final question, which I think Her Majesty's Government had some difficulty in asking themselves. It is a moral question. With regard to these oil revenues, are they going to act as trustee or as executor? In my view, if they had created a separate fund they would have recognised that all these revenues do not really belong to us in this generation; they are separate, in my mind at least, being put aside for future generations to help them in this energy gap the noble Lord has mentioned. In the penultimate paragraph the Government imply that they wish to act as an executor, not quite carving up the revenues but at least showing an account of how these funds are being spent. I, for one, am disappointed about this, because I regard these revenues, if we are to generalise, as belonging not entirely to this generation but also to those of the future. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will put my mind at rest about his particular views on this subject.
3.50 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for his welcome and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, for his more muted welcome of the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, thought that it was not a challenge to know how to spend one's own money. I should have thought that the whole challenge of politics in a civilised society was to know how to distribute the income that the Government derive.
As regards the special oil fund, we all appear to be at one and I am glad to acknowledge that the spokesmen for noble Lords opposite, and for the Liberal Party, take the same view as the Government. With regard to the suggestion that on the matter of conservation it is words only, I should simply like to remind your Lordships that there is another report which is receiving consideration from the Government at present and that is the Third Report from the Select Committee which contains 22 recommendations on the development of alternative sources of energy for the United Kingdom. The Government are considering the report and will reply to it when the work has been completed

1707
Of course, in so far as positive recommendations which are worth following emerge from that—and one hopes that they will—then the revenue from North Sea oil will be able to be applied towards developing those alternative sources.
It is also suggested that the White Paper does not set out the priorities. I think that one has to read it and form One's own judgment. I would suggest that when noble Lords read the White Paper they will see that the priorities are very clearly selected and set out.
As regards the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, Scotland was specifically mentioned. I think that the reasons for that must be judged by your Lordships. The one that I would offer to your Lordships is as follows. There are many misguided people in Scotland who say: "When are we going to get some benefit from the oil?" The simple point is that Scotland, in terms of job opportunities, actual jobs and, indeed, infrastructure which is reflected in the rate support grant, has already benefited immensely from the oil and that is why I say that these people are essentially misguided. I think that it is proper to mention Scotland if only to show that the Scots have already done extremely well. I was asked a question about unexplored areas. In the context of this White Paper I am not really prepared or ready to answer that particular matter which arises in relation to energy rather than in relation to revenue and expenditure.
I take on board the final point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. The White Paper endeavours to make it plain that the Government are against some short-term spending spree, but are concerned with the long-term improvement, development and strengthening of the economy for the benefit of all now and later.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, the Statement that has just been made is very welcome. As the objectives which the noble and learned Lord has outlined have important implications for the future of the economy of this country, I wonder whether it is intended that this White Paper be the subject of an early debate?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Taylor
1708
of Gryfe will appreciate that that is a question that may be looked at by the usual channels.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord speaks of the great benefit deriving to Scotland from the discovery of oil and the creation of 60,000 jobs, will he remember that Scotland derived similar benefit from the Industrial Revolution and we are now paying for the mess that was left behind in central Scotland? Perhaps that aspect should be considered?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, of course one hopes that we shall learn something from the lessons of history.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House I suggest that now we should return to the Employment Subsidies Bill.

EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
3.56 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I return to this rather drier subject. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for so fully and so clearly describing this short but important Bill. As the noble Lord has explained, we are discussing continuing, modified and additional schemes to provice jobs for or to maintain in employment very many people. As the noble Lord has told us, about 320,000 people are benefiting from current employment schemes, and if the Bill passes, as I hope it will, that figure will rise to over 400,000 by March next year. Nobody believes that temporary employment subsidies, early retirement schemes to make way for others, or arrangements to support short-time working are in any way comparable to permanent jobs; however, that is no reason to decry them. Something had to be done about our desperately high level of unemployment, and I have no quarrel with the various schemes in operation or proposed.
The Bill extends or modifies schemes that were set up in the Employment and Training Act 1973 and also provides statutory backing for the small firms employment subsidy and the short-time

1709
working scheme. The costs of these schemes will be very high although they will, of course, be offset by savings in unemployment pay and social benefits; therefore, it is vital that they are as cost-effective as possible. Care will be needed to avoid what is known as the "substitution effect"—that is where an employer takes on an employee and attracts the subsidy when he had already planned to make an addition to his labour force.
We must also consider the displacement effect. It has been suggested that 30 per cent. of the jobs saved by the temporary employment subsidy have resulted in other workers' redundancies. Therefore, it will be no easy matter to run these schemes effectively and economically, and I think it would be interesting to your Lordships if, when winding up this debate, the noble Lord would tell us the estimated gross cost of the different schemes.
The Bill has already been improved in another place in two important respects: First, by the addition of subsection (3) to Clause 1 which requires consultation by a Secretary of State with appropriate organisations before setting up any schemes; secondly, by a new Clause 2 requiring authorisation by the House of Commons before either setting up, after the 30th June this year, any new scheme that is expected to cost over £10 million, or altering or extending any existing scheme after that date so that the cost would exceed £10 million. Those are obvious improvements. Appropriate consultations would, presumably, have been held in any event, but it just as well to have this written into the Bill. It is clearly prudent to ensure that these schemes should not be allowed to grow like Topsy without proper Parliamentary control. I would, however, be grateful if the noble Lord, when he comes to wind up, would explain why authorisation for setting up new schemes or altering those in existence is not also required from your Lordships' House. Is it not normal that authority should be required from both Houses of Parliament?
I do not wish to make Party points. I am, by no stretch of the imagination, a dyed-in-the-wool politician and the making of Party points bores me to the same degree of distraction that it bores, at a guess, nine out of 10 of the population. However, the unemployment problem is so serious not only in our own country,
1710
but throughout the countries of the OECD, that, however much one supports the necessary stop-gap measures that we are debating today, it behoves us to take any opportunity to put forward suggestions that one believes may lead towards a solution in the future, however distant, even if criticism of Government policies is unavoidably implicit. Despite past actions by this Government, I know that they are fundamentally worried about the recent levels of unemployment. If by waving a wand they could halve that level, wave it they would. However, sadly it is not as easy as that.
My suggestion to the Government is exceedingly simple. It is, to use the evidence of their own eyes. Why is it that the economy of this country is now in so much better trim than it was before the IMF exerted their influence over Government policy? Why is it that some other countries have succeeded in overcoming the huge rise in the price of oil? The answer is for the Government to stick to the advice of the IMF and not to listen to the siren voices of their Left-Wing which seek to influence them to inflate the economy in order to provide jobs. They must remember, having seen that done by the last Conservative Administration. It was done for the same best of motives, but it was mistaken and we must not do it again. I wonder what sort of consultancy fee the IMF would charge on a permanent basis? They might do it for nothing.
Having supported the Bill, I think that we should try to identify any positive steps that we can take to improve the position over the longer-term. The Government have been following the advice of the IMF in tackling the rate of inflation and have shown more awareness that employers are disinclined to recruit labour if profits are restricted by Government actions. So far so good. But the Government seem quite unable to realise the damage that has been done by the unfair dismissal aspects of the Employment Protection Act.
Now that that Act has been in force for some time, I have no doubt that large companies are aware that it is possible to dismiss an employee if the proper procedure is carried out. But that is just not the case with respect to small businesses. If the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of

1711
Coslany, spent a few hours visiting the shops in his area I am sure—unless he lives in a very unusual area—that he would receive overwhelming confirmation of what I have said. I rather expect that the noble Lord will tell the House that it is all quite simple, and that, if employers behave in a sensible and reasonable way they have nothing to fear from industrial tribunals. To that I would reply that the proprietor of, say, a chemist shop is hard put to it to cope with all that is involved in running his business and the filling up of forms, such as his VAT returns, and simply does not have the time to keep up to date with legislation about industrial relations.
It is obvious that the Government now accept that the best hope for increasing employment lies in small firms. These are the employers who are scared stiff of recruiting new employees because they think that, however unsatisfactory these employees turn out to be, they will either be unable to dismiss them or, if they do, will be liable not only for a very large sum in compensation but also for hours of work in preparing for the case as well as in attending the court. I suggest to the Government that they should either amend this legislation so that it does not apply to firms with fewer than, say, 50 employees, or that they make arrangements with the media for some sort of child's guide to be made available; otherwise the hopes of the Government that small firms will be their salvation have no hope of being realised.
Finally, the Budget is not far distant. I hope and pray for the country that it will be a Budget of incentives, so that people will want to work to create wealth, to make large and small enterprises flourish. If not, there will be little point in temporary employment schemes and the like as there will be no permanent jobs to replace them.
4.4 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for the clear way in which he has presented this Bill to us. I should like to thank him for an additional courtesy in meeting my request for a copy of the Statement made in another place last week, which for some reason was not
1712
repeated here and which, as he has said, is closely related to this Bill. That was, of course, before it was known that the Official Report of the proceedings in another place on the day in question would be available to us this afternoon.
Our attitude is one of qualified support both for the Bill and for the schemes to which the noble Lord referred. Specifically, we welcome one matter which I do not think he mentioned—that is, the extension to the country as a whole of the Job Release Scheme and also the intention to add to the number of training places available under the Youth Opportunities Scheme. Perhaps when he replies the noble Lord will be kind enough to confirm that that proposal is quite distinct from the document, Programme for Action; Training for Skills, which was recently published by the Manpower Services Commission and which has al ready been endorsed by the Government. As the noble Lord knows, we on these Benches place great emphasis on the need for additional training, particularly for skilled engineering workers, which was identified last year by, among others, the National Economic Development Office, as a serious potential constraint on the further growth of output.
We would also applaud the extension of the scope of the small firms employment subsidy to cover assisted areas and in particular inner city areas where the increase in unemployment, especially among the coloured population, has been relatively high. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord why this particular subsidy cannot be extended to the country as a whole, as is the Job Release Scheme.
As good Europeans, we on these Benches accept that there was a need for the Temporary Employment Subsidy to be modified so as to make it compatible with the Treaty of Rome. The particular means adopted to do this fills me with no great enthusiasm—that is, the short-time employment scheme for the textile, clothing and footwear industries. I say that because, in my view, the problems in those industries are of a structural kind which call for longer-term solutions, which may be painful but which are nevertheless highly necessary.
The trouble with the Temporary Employment Subsidy is that it does nothing to solve our basic economic and industrial

1713
problems as a nation. Indeed, by selectively protecting jobs in declining industries, it may sometimes be the means of displacing people—and the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, made some reference to this—from other jobs in areas of potential growth. In addition, it can act as a disincentive to that improved productivity which alone, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, reminded us just now in his Statement on North Sea Oil, can in the long-run give us the edge over our international trading competitors.
In Cheshire, where I live, I have the honour to be the chairman of one of the district manpower committees which has been set up by the Manpower Services Commission to advise on employment and training problems. The district in which I live is not an inner city or an assisted area. In it, there is one very large employer and it is plain that, if and when there is an upturn in the economy, that employer will not take on further labour. This is because there is altogether too much spare capacity in that organisation. The employer, trade union, local authority and other representatives on the local manpower committee of which I speak are agreed that the only hope of adding to employment in that area is to encourage the expansion of existing small businesses and to develop new ventures in both the manufacturing and the service sectors. One particularly enterprising attempt is being made to do that in the area of which I speak, but it will get no help from this Bill.
This is not the occasion to anticipate the Chancellor's forthcoming Budget, but I should like to concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, was saying just now, and indeed to take it a little further and say that, in my view, the single most important step that the Government could now take to encourage the development of the kind of new enterprise about which I have been speaking would be substantially to reduce the rates of both personal income tax and corporation tax on profits up to a certain level.
There is also need in this same connection to provide a better channel of communication between these small firms and the Government. This applies particularly—and again I agree with the
1714
noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne—to the operation of the Employment Protection Act, which, at least where I live, is viewed very differently by the local authority from the way in which it appears to be regarded by central Government. The Act may serve to protect existing employment. It seems to me to be a deterrent to new employment.
Then there is training. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will know that under the Employment and Training Act 1973 small firms are exempt from payment of the training levy because of difficulties in dealing with them through the Industrial Training Boards. In winding up the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place the Under-Secretary of State recognised this as a special problem, and he said that it would be looked at very carefully indeed. May I ask the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, if on that point there has as yet been any progress.
Finally, I should like to refer to the question of Parliamentary control of expenditure and, in view of the detailed statement which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, on this point, simply to endorse what he had to say. That is to say, where there is urgent need, as is recognised in Clause 2(3) of the Bill, for the Secretary of State to take measures to provide additional employment, and he is obliged in those circumstances to explain to the House of Commons what action he has taken and the reasons for that action, I too should be glad to know why it is that the Government should not also be required to make a similar explanation in this House.
We recognise the need quickly to give legislative cover to some of the schemes to which reference has been made, particularly the extension of the small firms employment subsidy, and that is why, subject to our receiving satisfactory answers to the questions I have this afternoon asked on behalf of my noble friends, we shall do what we can to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House this week.
4.15 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the two noble Lords, Lord Cullen and Lord Rochester, for their contributions to this

1715
debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, tactfully avoided direct political issues and indicated that Government and Opposition, when they were in power, were sinners in certain respects. I have reservations on that, but I accept the point he has made.
Of course it is true that these measures are temporary measures; some measures of alleviation. But there is a tremendous problem for us to tackle. An indication of that problem is that of course there are other countries in even a far worse position than ourselves. For instance, Canada has a far higher rate of unemployment than Britain. That is an indication of the international nature of the problem. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is well aware of this. He has also stressed the fact to the EEC, and he is undertaking a visit to the United States, and is bringing as much pressure to bear as possible to obtain recognition that countries of the world affected by these problems must unite to find some common solution. We can do our best to solve our own problems but, as noble Lords will appreciate, we are very much subject to the winds of change emanating from other countries and the fluctuation in currency values.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, raised a number of points. First of all he asked me for the gross cost. As a result of the decisions about the future of the temporary employment subsidy and other measures announced on 15th March, it is now possible for us to provide some more detailed and up-to-date estimates. It is estimated that during the next financial year, 1978–79, existing commitments under the temporary employment subsidy, the small firms' employment subsidy, and the youth employment subsidy will cost £135 million in Great Britain and £7·5 million in Northern Ireland. The cost of operating the new short time working scheme, the modified temporary employment subsidy, and the extended small firms' employment subsidy, is expected to be a total of £260 million spread over the two financial years 1978–79 and 1979–80. The comparable figure for Northern Ireland, including the cost of the job introduction and capital grants scheme for disabled people, is expected to be about £14 million. I would be happy of course to write to the noble Lord with a more
1716
detailed breakdown of these figures if that would be helpful to him. Incidentally, I make the total, if my arithmetic is still up to standard, £416·5 million. That is the total gross cost.
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there are savings in unemployment benefit, tax, and so on, and it is difficult indeed to give an accurate estimate of figures because one does not know exactly what the take-up in any of the respective schemes would be; but there will be deductions giving a net cost of an "X" figure, which I cannot give the House at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, also referred to the authorisation by the House of Commons in a Resolution. Naturally, as a House of Lords' Member, when I saw this I said, "What is this here?" But in point of fact the issue arose by the Opposition raising certain points about Parliamentary control, an Amendment was tabled by the Government to meet the Opposition's point, and that was accepted. Of course it is normal practice, when the Government decide to introduce any significant new measures to combat unemployment, for parallel statements to be made to both Houses. Unfortunately the Statement made last week was not repeated in this House, I believe, at the request of the official Opposition because they felt the House was under pressure in relation to the Scotland Bill. I believe I am correct in saying that that was the reason why last week's Statement was not repeated here.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen referred to the employment protection legislation, which is not strictly related to this Bill but to which I will refer because he was kind enough to advise me in advance of the points he intended to raise. I readily agree with him that there is a degree of unemployment involved here and I have a great deal of sympathy for the point he made. He advised me to visit shops in my area. He may care to know—I do not know whether or not I am a good husband—that I do the family shopping every week, including shopping mid-week. I do that for various reasons, some of which are personal, and I have done so for a long time. In fact, I once challenged the then Prime Minister—of the Party opposite, I might add—who was the MP for the constituency, in which I lived, to come shopping with me because I felt that, as a bachelor,

1717
he did not know much about it. However, that is history and suffice to say that I take Lord Cullen's point on this issue.
The Government are well aware of the concern that is being expressed about the effects of the employment protection legislation on small firms, in particular the claim that it discourages small firms from employing more staff. Much of the problem is due to the fact that many small firms have had difficulty in familiarising themselves with all the legislation in this field that has come into force in recent years, and so causing them to be wary. The Department issues free guidance leaflets about all the legislation, and free advice is available on request from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In addition, I understand that ACAS is making copies of its Code of Practice on Disciplinary Practice and Procedures available to organisations representative of small businesses for distribution to their members.
I would only add that there is a danger of this problem being over-emphasised. The likelihood of a small employer being faced with a complaint of unfair dismissal is generally exaggerated; the chances of this happening in any one year are about one in 100 and the probability of a small employer being faced with a tribunal decision requiring him to pay compensation is even smaller, about one in 1,000. However, as I said, the Government are well aware of the problem. If anything further can be done to ease the problems facing small businessmen—knowing, as we do, that with a small business one man has greater responsibilities for the running of his business and the filling in of forms and so on, compared with a larger business where experts are employed—then, if noble Lords have any suitable suggestions, we shall be only too pleased to consider them and do what we can to meet the cases that are raised.
I have already referred to the question of House of Commons Resolutions and the fact that it is normal practice for Statements to be made to both Houses. If noble Lords have any objection to this procedure, I hope they will get in touch with me and we can discuss the matter; but we cannot alter the Bill for a number
1718
of specific reasons, the main one being because a Resolution coming forward would mean payments to employers, and of course that would involve money. I am certain a Statement will be made when a Resolution is being moved, and I will certainly convey the feelings of the House to my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the temporary employment subsidy and the EEC. As a member of the EEC we are subject to certain regulations, codes of practice and so on I believe it is true that the EEC raised a problem about this particular subsidy and the effect on competition. However, we have had discussions and the matter has been settled amicably; but of course we could have been taken very seriously to task had we defied the EEC. As it so happens, nobody has won a victory and nobody has suffered a defeat; we have come to a reasonable solution.
Lord Rochester also referred to training skills. The proposals in Training for Skills are separate from the schemes which will be operated under this Bill; training programmes are run by the Manpower Services Commission under the Employment Training Act 1973. If the noble Lord requires any further information on this point, I can arrange for him to be supplied with it. I think I have covered all the main points that were raised; if I have missed any, perhaps noble Lords will advise me and we can go into the details later.
As I said at the outset of my reply, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I recommend the Bill to the House; it is not a little Bill but a vitally important one. Let us hope that, with the joint effort of the workers and management in this country and the goodwill and co-operation of international statesmen, we shall get away from the necessity of introducing measures like this and get down to giving a man a chance to work for his living and enjoy doing so without having the spectre of unemployment, a spectre which I have personally experienced.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS (HOME RESPONSIBILITIES AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS 1978
4.28 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 28th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations which I am asking your Lordships to approve prescribe the categories of persons who are to have their pension rights protected under Section 19 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. As your Lordships may know, Section 19 of the Act enables people for the first time to have their pension rights protected in respect of years during which they are prevented from working because of responsibilities at home.
Let me say first that the broad intention of the home responsibilities provision is to protect a person's pension record over substantial periods of home responsibilities. It is not intended to cater for short periods; for example, a few weeks or a few months. The regulations will therefore apply to complete tax years during which a person satisfies conditions in the regulations.
We are prescribing broad categories of people who can be readily identified and whose circumstances are such that, if they stay at home rather than go to work, it would generally be accepted as reasonable that they should not on that account be penalised by a reduction of the basic pension which they earned when they were able to work. The first category of persons to be covered are people who are bringing up a family. The regulations will allow protection for any complete tax year for which a person has been the main payee for child benefit for a child under the age of 16.
Protection will depend entirely on receipt of child benefit and will be available regardless of whether a person does manage to do some work during the year. However, a married woman or widow, who has retained the right to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions, will be excluded from the provisions until she decides to have full contribution liability again. Recipients of child benefit
1720
will represent over 90 per cent. of the people who will be able to benefit from the new home responsibilities provisions. A woman will, for example, be able to spend as long as 20 years at home bringing up her family, and still qualify for a full basic pension, provided she has 20 years' contributions or credits during the time when she did not have any home responsibilities.
The second category of persons to be covered are people looking after severely disabled persons; that is, those entitled to attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance. This will protect the pension rights of those very deserving women, and in some cases men, who are not already receiving an invalid care allowance (to which a credit entitlement is already at present attached). The regulations require that a person must have been caring regularly throughout the year for at least 35 hours a week, which is the same number of hours as that required in relation to invalid care allowance. The word "regularly" will allow the Secretary of State to disregard short breaks in caring; for example, during a short spell in hospital. The provisions will not be limited to relatives. People who are eligible under this category will need to apply for protection because, while the Department already has details of the person needing attendance, insufficient details are held about the care, the person who is in attendance. We will ensure that everything possible will be done to publicise this in the Department's leaflets and communications with contributors.
The third and final category of persons are those who are in receipt of supplementary benefit and who, because they are looking after an elderly and incapacitated person, have been excused the requirement to register for employment as a condition for receiving supplementary benefit. These are cases where the Supplementary Benefits Commission is at present helping to protect the pension rights by including the cost of a Class 3 voluntary contribution in the assessment made. With the introduction of home responsibilities protection, it will become more appropriate and administratively easier to protect the pension rights of these people in this new and different way. As with the child benefit recipients, this particular protection will be available automatically without application, since the Department

1721
already has the necessary details. I do not think there is any need for me to say anything more. This is a very valuable measure; it is also a simple measure. I commend the regulations to your Lordships, and I hope that you will adopt them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 28th February, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
4.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining the regulations. He told your Lordships that he considered them to be simple. I think we will grant to the noble Lord that they are in themselves simple, but when they are added to the full weight of complication they will need very careful explanation, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord refer to the publicity his Department is to give. I believe that there are problems here, particularly relating to eligibility. The order says, on page 2, that
"a person shall … be precluded from regular employment by responsibilities at home, within the meaning of these regulations …".
It goes on to cite particular circumstances. I think that the problem with which a number of people will be concerned is that of the situation regarding married women. Your Lordships will be aware that, of married women who are in employment, over 75 per cent. pay the reduced rate of contribution, 2 per cent. This would disentitle them automatically to eligibility. The noble Lord in effect said this in what he has told your Lordships. So what a married woman must do to make herself eligible, if she is paying the reduced rate of contributions, is to go over to the full contribution of 5·75 per cent.
She may have forgotten to tell her local social security office of this fact. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, in replying, can say that this point has been noted by the Department. Perhaps a little leaflet, or a slip of paper, could be included with publicity material to make sure that someone who is claiming the first child benefit, in a situation of this kind, could have a reminder. That is the only point I wish to mention. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the details of these regulations.
4.37 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the very clear explanation he gave us of the main import of the regulations. The regulations are not controversial, but there are two points I should like to raise. As the noble Lord explained to us, the regulations define the expression,
"precluded from regular employment by responsibilities at home";
and anyone is so precluded if he satisfies any one of a number of stated conditions. As the noble Lord made clear, in some instances it is necessary for the individual to apply and in other instances it is not necessary; protection is automatic.
We read at the bottom of page 2 of the order, in paragraph (4)(b), that preclusion shall not apply in relation to any year
"if the person in question does not furnish such information relevant to the question whether in that year he was, within the meaning of these regulations, precluded from regular employment by responsibilities at home as the Secretary of State may from time to time require".
Would the noble Lord not agree that it will necessitate some intensive publicity to see that people who are entitled to apply in fact realise that they must apply, and to ensure that they apply in time. For example, people looking after someone who is receiving an attendance allowance, or a constant attendance allowance, to which the noble Lord referred, are involved in this, and it is important that these people should know that if they wish to receive this protection they must apply.
Secondly, receipt of child benefit is one of the conditions which entitles an individual to this protection. A husband may have the child benefit paid to him if he secures his wife's written consent; but let us suppose that his wife, when she was in work, was paying reduced contributions. Receipt of child benefit would not entitle her to home responsibilities protection. So she transfers the payment of the child benefit to her husband; she gives her written consent. He subsequently becomes unemployed, and goes on unemployment benefit, and possibly eventually on to supplementary benefit. Am I right in thinking that he would, while in receipt of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit, receive home responsibilities protection so far as his

1723
pension contributions are concerned, as the recipient of child benefits, although, in fact, his wife was at home looking after the child!—he was not the person looking after the child. Had the child benefit not been transferred to him, neither parent would have had their pension contributions protected. Am I right in thinking that that is the position? If I am right, is there an anomaly? I raise these two points; but, in general terms, we on these Benches are certainly content that the House should approve these regulations.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their comments and observations. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised the question of women who may want to go to work. As I understand the situation, a woman who is staying at home looking after the children, because she is entitled to child benefit for one or more children is, as I said earlier, protected because of her home responsibilities; but that means she is not going to benefit in the same way as a married woman working, because she will not get, for example, an earnings-related pension for the particular year or years.
I said when introducing this regulation that we recognise that a good many of the women will want to go out to work. If their income is over £910 per annum (which is £17·50 a week for the 52 weeks) then, as I understand the situation, they will be liable for National Insurance contributions, including an earnings-related amount. This will be stored to the woman's credit when the time comes for her to apply for a pension in her own right. In that sense, she will be better off—and it depends on how much she earns whether she will be considerably better off—than the wife who has stayed at home. While the wife who stays at home may be at a disadvantage in the final amount of basic pension, the fact is—and this is the all-important consideration: that many of them will want to stay at home and look after their children and discharge their home responsibilities—nevertheless, for every year they stay at home it will count towards their pension.
I think the question was raised about the married woman or widow who at
1724
present has reduced liability for contributions. She must notify her local security officer on or before 6th April this year if she wants to be fully covered by the new scheme. Any such woman who is not at present working and does not intend to go back to work until after, say, 6th April 1980 should make her choice now. She ought to make her choice now covering the next two years; because if she notifies after 6th April it can only take place from 6th April of the following year. It does not take effect immediately. If she makes a note of it or gives notice of that in June or July, it does not take effect until 5th April of the following year. Anyone who wishes to go back to work after the present period ought to notify her intention by 6th April this year; otherwise she may lose some benefit from these provisions.
A married woman or widow who has a reduced contribution liability will automatically lose that right if she has two consecutive tax years after the 6th April this year during which she has not been to work. Regulation 24B, the requirement to supply information, applies only to the second category of cases. May I say that we in the Department are concerned—and noble Lords will accept from me there has been a good deal of discussion of the matter—about how one can reach people. There is always the problem with benefits of how to reach people; how to ensure that they know their rights and that they know how to take them up. Everything possible is being done to publicise the need for a woman to make clear her choice.
A person who is unemployed will usually be entitled to have contributions credited to him because he is unemployed; any such credit will override the need for home responsibilities protection. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Banks, feels that that is an adequate answer to his question. I think that it is. I think I have answered whatever questions have been put to me. If I have not made those answers clear, I hope that this will be drawn to my attention so that I may have the opportunity of clarification, if necessary by correspondence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRAYER BOOK (BALLOT OF LAITY) BILL [H.L.]
4.46 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When the Church of England introduced its Worship and Doctrine Measure in 1974, it was to be much congratulated on its sense of timing. Success in politics, as in business, depends on timing. The 1974 Measure was introduced to coincide with the Archbishop of Canterbury's 70th birthday and retirement. Such is the way our public life is conducted that noble Lords were so much engaged on congratulating the Archbishop on these happy events that they were not so critical as they might otherwise have been of the Measure itself. The noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, went so far as to say he was sorry; and the Measure went through this House without a Division. Then it went to the other place where there are no Bishops to promote it. Because I think it is not the custom of this House to dwell at great length on what happens in another place, I will merely observe how widely it is thought that the success of the Church of England in the Division Lobby there was partly due to the Tribune Group of the Labour Party who did not attend the debate.
All this was four years ago and so I think that the time has come now for a review of whether the safeguards for the Book of Common Prayer laid down in the 1974 Measure are adequate, or whether, on the contrary, if they are not adequate, they need to be reinforced or even replaced by other safeguards. I think that the time has also come to review whether the safeguards for the Book of Common Prayer are adequate or otherwise in the light of the desirability or otherwise of the new services, the alternative services, themselves.
During the debate in both Chambers of Parliament in 1974 speeches were concerned largely with the constitutional question of whether the Church of England should be able to govern its own worship and doctrine, and not so much with the new services themselves. On my own modest understanding from this point of view the debates both Chambers in 1974 seemed to be a trifle deficient. As I have no doubt that I shall be reminded
1726
later on in this debate, the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974 provides that decisions over whether any services to be used are those of the Book of Common Prayer or the alternative services are to be made jointly by the incumbent and the parochial church council. Where the two parties disagree, then either the Book of Common Prayer will be used or the form of service which has been in regular use for two out of the four years preceding the disagreement, the parochial church council having resolved that such services shall be used either in addition to or to the exclusion of the Book of Common Prayer. These safeguards, adequate though they may appear on the surface, beg the question of whether the parochial church council is the proper instrument through which to decide whether we want the Book of Common Prayer or the alternative services. The reason for this Bill is that it is not.
By the Act of 1921, which brought them into being, parochial church councils are required to co-operate with the incumbent. This must disable them to some extent from opposing the incumbent over forms of worship which he may wish to introduce. Members of the parochial church council therefore who disagree with the incumbent on matters of liturgy are inclined to "vote" by resigning from the parochial church council and ceasing to come to church. I am hoping that later on in this debate noble Lords may be mentioning particular instances in their own parishes where very much this kind of thing has happened. Alternatively, where the incumbent is simply told by the bishop or the archdeacon that Series 3 must be used, and the parochial church council is not consulted, the church gets rather more empty than it used to be.
Meanwhile, I will cite the testimonies of three bishops. One bishop has written to me that something certainly needs to be done to prevent alternative services from being pressed on unwilling congregations. Another bishop has written to me with regard to the introduction of the new services that there are instances in which the parochial church councils have not been properly consulted. Such is the inadequacy of the machinery in the 1974 Measure in that regard, this bishop has felt obliged to send out a pastoral letter requiring to know from all the parishes in his diocese the date and minute when the

1727
decision was taken whether to use the old or new forms of service and what result ensued. This bishop has no objection to the use of the alternative services but he requires to know that the decision to use them has been reached in a democratic fashion.
A third bishop has written to me that lay people are sometimes pusillanimous and allow their incumbents to get away with all sorts of things which they ought not to do. This seems a round-about way of saying that lay people allow themselves to be trodden down by their vicars. Now I have outlined the evil, the question is what to do about it. During the debate on the 1974 Measure in your Lordships' House the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the desire for the self-government of the Church had long been vitiated by the failure of the laity to be represented in a traditionally episcopal church. But now all this is changed because the laity is represented in the Church's government through the Church's synodical constitution. The Church of England therefore is fully entitled to its self-government much as the Church of Scotland says with regard to spiritual matters that it must have the Crown rights of the Redeemer.
So I anticipate that a right reverend Prelate, a bishop, will inform your Lordships that legislation on Church matters should always come from the Synod to Parliament. If, on the other hand—as I here envisaged in this Bill—legislation on Church matters should come the other way round, from Parliament to the Synod, for the first time in 60 years since the enabling Act was passed in 1919, then the Church must seek its disestablishment. The idea that under provocation no more significant than this Bill the Church should seek its disestablishment must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Disestablishment would be a step of the magnitude of the reform of your Lordships' House itself, and the Government would have to find time for such a thing, as a result of which no bishops would be able to sit in your Lordships' House and the Church of England would not be able to attend the Coronation. But in case the threat of disestablishment is taken at all seriously—I know it has been contemplated in Church House—
1728
I must emphasise that it is not the object of the Bill to disestablish the Church. The Church should never be disestablished for the good reason that Parliament should always concern itself in the Church's affairs. The twin forces which bind society are law and religion. Too often it is thought that Parliament should concern itself exclusively with the law whereby a citizen can protect his rights against the rights of other citizens. But to maintain the cohesion of society, which is the essential function of any Government, the law is not enough. The Government must also concern themselves with the duties we owe to one another, even though this may happen also to be the province of the Church and religion.
Furthermore, I would question the basis of lay representation in the Synod in the government of the Church whose function is to make sure that we should observe our duties. Synodical Government is so complicated that there is little contact between the man in the pew and his representative in the Synod. During the debate on the Diocese Measure just before Christmas the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that he had no idea who his representative in the Synod was, and, what was much more to the point, the man in the Synod had no idea what was being thought by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, or the thousands of others whom he represents.
The parish elects a representative to the Deanery Synod; the Deanery Synod elects a representative to the diocesan synod; and the diocesan synod elects a representative to the General Synod. It is I believe all this gearing, and the consequent remoteness of the General Synod from the man in the pew, which helps to account for how the desire for the new services has come down from the Synod. A challenge must be laid down to anyone who says any of this has come up from the pews.
Such are the considerations I would adduce for submitting that no harm can come from initiating the subject of this Bill from Parliament. Coming now at last to the subject of the Bill itself, which I have initiated as a Parliamentary gesture, I am hoping that noble Lords on the Government side may be pleased with its strongly democratic character. There

1729
is no doubt that the Book of Common Prayer carries reactionary connotations which it does not deserve. One noble Lord—the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in point of fact—once remarked to me that there were three subjects in better days gone by which were bound to draw a good attendance of noble Lords to your Lordships' House: deerstalking, capital punishment, and the Book of Common Prayer. I am most indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for consulting with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as a lay reader, for furnishing me with a list of about a dozen Labour Peers who, I have hoped, may help to remove from the Book of Common Prayer for the purposes of this debate something of its reactionary image. Whether the Bill will be pleasing to the bishops is I anticipate going to be another matter.
But I am afraid that if the bishops oppose the Bill during the Second Reading, then they will be depriving themselves during the Committee stage of turning the Bill into one very much to their own liking. During the Committee stage any bishop could put down an Amendment whereby the results of the ballot would cease to be mandatory and the ballot would be turned into a consultative referendum. Thereafter, the Bill would no longer oppose the 1974 Measure but actually reinforce it. The Bill would then have to be welcomed by every bishop for giving to parochial church councils access to important information which they might not otherwise possess. Any bishop who, in these circumstances, wishes to continue to oppose the Bill would be denying democracy can function better by an extension of knowledge.
There are three further more particular observations that I should like to make on the Bill. The first is that I have not insisted that the Book of Common Prayer services should be given in their entirety. All that is required is that, if the ballot so decides, services should be wholly drawn upon the Book of Common Prayer. Some of the services in the Book of Common Prayer are very long. The service of Holy Communion, for example, requires the recitation of each of the Ten Commandments at every service, the long exhortation, and so on, and I thought it was most important to allow some shortening in order to prevent malicious incumbents from inflicting the full length on
1730
unwilling congregations just in order to alienate them from the Book of Common Prayer. My attention was drawn recently to a malicious incumbent who did exactly this.
My second observation concerns the objection which has been put to me that entitlement of all members of the electoral roll to vote must split the parish between those who worship regularly every Sunday and carry the weight of the local church on their shoulders, and those who worship infrequently or at whim but would still be entitled to vote under the ballot because the qualifications for membership of the church electoral roll relate only to baptism and residence.
I circumvented this difficulty as far as possible by providing that the ballot should not be a postal one but that parishioners should actually have to go to church on a Sunday in order to cast their votes. I thought I should go as far as this, and no further, because it seemed to me that to do otherwise would be to exclude infrequent worshippers from the Church of England, and infrequent worshippers should never be excluded in such a way, because then the Church of England would be reduced to a mere sect and would lose its traditional role as the Established Church whereby all parishioners can claim ministrations and have rights of worship.
The third observation I should like to make concerns enforcement. After their humiliation in 1928, the bishops carried on with their alternative services in defiance of the law, and Parliament did nothing to see that the law was obeyed. All that Parliament did, many years later, was to sanction retrospectively what had been the illegal practice of the Church. It is possible that if the Bill became law it would be similarly disregarded. Because this is a liberal society, I have avoided putting in any penalty clause and have merely required that the Bill should be enforced by the archdeacon, knowing that an archdeacon has extensive executive powers ex-officio and is well able to apply appropriate pressures. However, if the clergy are to develop a strong and independent character and wish to run counter to the archdeacon, then it may be necessary to alter the Bill, having regard to the Act of Parliament of the last

1731
century on church vestments, where the parishioners could rely for enforcement on the civil courts.
In conclusion, I should like to say how important it is to follow the purpose of the Bill in never allowing the old services to go under when, against the wishes of the incumbent, parishioners would like to carry on with them. I shall not dwell on the question of language: suffice it to say that while claiming to be more comprehensible to the ordinary person, the new services allow the Kyrie to be given in Greek, and the Book of Common Prayer is actually much easier to understand than Shakespeare. Everyone goes to Shakespeare, even though his vocabulary is much richer than that of the Book of Common Prayer and, as Dr. Johnson said:
"The language of Shakespeare is much too tight a case for the poet's thought".
It seems to me that much more serious issues are involved than language. It is sometimes said that the new services serve much better than the old in the drive towards ecumenism, but that argument ignores the skill with which the Book of Common Prayer is written and its quality of comprehension in accommodating every shade of theological opinion with a nicety which has been the wonder of scholars down the centuries. Furthermore, the argument inverts the more likely truth that, so far from taking us towards ecumenism, the new services will take us in the opposite direction, towards schism. Already, in the United States the abandonment of the old doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer as well, confessedly, as the issue of the ordination of women, has led to the formation of a breakaway Anglican Church; and congregations which have dissociated themselves in this way have a bone to pick with their bishops over the possesion of Church buildings and the matter often ends up in a law court. Schism of such a kind is much more likely to arise where the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer is affected.
Until very recently, even though we are an episcopal Church, the doctrine of the Church of England, in so far as this is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, was enshrined in a series of Parliamentary Statutes. I know that the Canon A 5
1732
and the 1974 Measure do not permit any departure from the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer, but it is worthy of remark that, historically, doctrine has been achieved by liturgical change and, in point of fact, the new services have already departed from the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer. The authors of the new services always were in this danger, partly through being spellbound by Gregory Dix—as wrong on theology as Keynes was on economics—and asserting that Cramner was a Zwinglian, and partly through their desire to revert to early patristic practices which may vary from the orthodoxy of Cramner.
Now, two practical examples have emerged where the alternative services have departed from the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer, and I should like to cite them. The first is that the sacraments can no longer be regarded in their fullest sense as an efficacious sign. In Series 3, Holy Communion no longer conveys forgiveness of sins. Our Lord said:
"Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood … which is shed for you … for the remission of sins".
Yet Series 3 omits the words:
"that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body, and our souls washed through His most precious blood".
The second example I should like to give concerns the Deity of Christ, the asseveration of which is the cardinal object of our Creed. In Series 3 the phrase,
"being of one substance with the Father",
has been replaced by the phrase,
"one in being with the Father".
The latter phrase, "one in being", indicates merely a generic unity among the persons of the Trinity, when we know from Athanasius that the Nicene Council did not intend to give that interpretation to the word "homoousian".
To readers of Gibbon, this may seem to be a matter of absurd and esoteric significance, but in fact it is nothing of the sort. The Deity of Christ, which is undoubtedly weakened by the alteration of the phrase which I have just indicated, is the lynch-pin of all Christianity if it is not to be subverted into a world religion. Whether it should be so subverted is a highly pertinent contemporary issue. The Deity of Christ has already been questioned by Professor Maurice Wiles, who has

1733
been chairman of the Synodical Commission on Christian Doctrine, and where ever the Divinity of our Lord is assailed by those doubts the reality of his atonement is put at risk and the door opened to the politicians who wish to achieve the secular Nirvana of the Marxists.
I have concluded on the rather-too-high note of the Christian-Marxist dialogue. To revert to the practicalities with which I began, I am hoping that this Bill may, at the very least, provide a useful discussion on whether the 1974 Measure has provided the best machinery for deciding whether we want the old or the new services. Even if the Bill is not carried in a Division, I hope that the mere fact that it has been introduced will oblige the Synod to look at the whole matter again and enact a new Measure providing better safeguards for the Book of Common Prayer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sudeley.)
5.8 p.m.
The Lord BISHOP of LONDON The Lord BISHOP of LONDON rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion ("that the Bill be now read a Second Time"), to leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because (1) the safeguards contained in Clause 1(3)(a) and (b) of the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974 are sufficient; (2) the Bill would override the functions and powers of Parochial Church Councils contained in the Synodical Government Measure 1969; and (3) the Bill would, without consultation with the General Synod, alter the provisions for the Synodical Government of the Church of England, approved by Parliament and contained in the Synodical Government Measure 1969".). The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, was good enough to correspond with me and others about his intention of introducing this Bill and to give us an opportunity to express an opinion on its purpose and content.
It is a matter of regret to me that he did not feel able to accept the advice that I offered to him, as did others, not to introduce this Bill. I am therefore forced to have to ask your Lordships to refuse a
1734
Second Reading to it. I must add that I am sorry it should be introduced in Holy Week, since this prevents many of my colleagues on these Benches from being present, as they are engaged on duties in their dioceses.
I must also express a note of great regret that the noble Lord vitiated his speech by a totally erroneous and offensive suggestion that the presentation of the Worship and Doctrine Measure in this House was rigged purposely to coincide with the retirement of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, to invoke sympathy for him and therefore to get the Affirmative Resolution without a proper debate and vote. That has no truth whatsoever. So far as I can remember, the Measure went through all its stages in the General Synod and came to this place as soon as possible. But it was thought desirable that it should come before the late Archbishop of Canterbury retired, so that he could speak to what was one of the most important Measures in the Church and State relationship. So far as my memory goes, that was the only reason. That particular date was the only occasion when it could be brought and Archbishop Michael Ramsey could speak to it.
My regret in having to oppose this Bill is all the more sincere, since the noble Lord and those who support him, and I myself and many others who sit on these Benches and elsewhere, do not differ in our fundamental convictions. We love and are loyal to the Church of England. We believe in its mission to the people of this country. We want it to be strong. We want to rid it of internal dissension, so that it may concentrate on the primary purpose of service to the people. We recognise that at the heart of the Church's life is its common worship. We acknowledge the splendour of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. We love its superb language and find satisfaction in its liturgical craftsmanship.
But—and here I hope that we also agree—we recognise that the Church of England cannot stand aside from the liturgical revival which is operating throughout the whole of Christendom, and to which, with its long experience, the Church of England has a particular contribution to make. I hope, also, that we appreciate that there are many whom the Church is striving to serve,

1735
for whom the language of Cranmer and the 16th century reformers is meaningless, and for whom new services must be provided if worship is to be relevant.
Why, then, since there is so broad a field of agreement, should there be disagreement about the noble Lord's Bill? What could be more reasonable than that, when there is a proposal for a change in the form of services in a parish, there should be a ballot of the parishioners? The answer lies in the fact that this Bill, superficially so innocent, contains the seeds of strife at the parish level, and of constitutional crisis at the national level. I can claim some experience in these matters, since I have served as a parish priest, in ecclesiastical administration and as a bishop for 43 years. I can assure your Lordships that, far from bringing peace, this Bill is a recipe for bitterness and controversy in our parishes, and should it become law it will immediately reopen the controversy concerning the relationships of Church and State.
This has rumbled on for over a century and has, so we all hope, been laid to rest by the enabling Act of 1919, the Synodical Government Measure of 1949, the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974 and the agreement between Church and State over the method by which bishops shall be appointed. At long last, these issues have been settled, we hope once and for all. The State has given to the Church the authority to order its own affairs, subject only to the machinery of the Affirmative Resolution. If this Bill were to become law, all these controversies would be reopened and the Church's attention would again be directed to administrative problems and away from its proper functions of evangelism and pastoral care.
The noble Lord has said that we must take threats of disestablishment with a pinch of salt. My Lords, let there be no doubt about the basic issue which is raised by the introduction of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has said that his reason for doing so is that the legal safeguards in the Book of Common Prayer are such that he is of the opinion that, more often than not, new forms of service are imposed on a reluctant laity, either because of the moral authority of the Parochial church council, or because
1736
of its lack of it. He says that his Bill would overturn this present state of affairs by giving a parish just the form of service that it wants. That may be the superficial purpose of this Bill, but basically it is an attack upon the whole system of Church government. That system has been approved by your Lordships' House, and the passing of this Bill would be interpreted by the Church as a grave breach of faith on the part of Parliament. I hope that there will be no room for doubt in your Lordships' minds on that issue.
In my reasoned Amendment to the Bill, I have set out the three main objections to it. First, it disregards and overrides the careful safeguards written into the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. It was to the issue of the protection of the 1662 rite that the General Synod gave special and prolonged scrutiny in formulating the Measure.
First, the Measure states that, until Parliament decides otherwise, the 1662 rite shall remain a lawful alternative service and it can cease to be only by permission of Parliament. I shall be saying a word in a moment or two about the questions of doctrine, which the noble Lord has raised. I would remind the House that, so long as the 1662 Book remains part of the law of the land, it is the major source of information and guidance as to what is, or is not, the doctrine of the Church of England.
Secondly, that Worship and Doctrine Measure specifically lays down in Section 1(3)(a):
"that decisions as to which of the forms of service authorised by or approved under Canon are to be used in any church in a parish or in any guild church shall be taken jointly by the incumbent and the parochial church council or … by the vicar of the guild church and the guild church council".
In earlier drafts of the Measure, this requirement of consensus between the incumbent and the parochial church council was considered to be adequate. But further consideration suggested the need for some form of conciliatory machinery, and so, in the second draft of the Measure, it was provided that in cases of disagreement the bishop should be consulted and his decision should be final.
This requirement was approved by the General Synod, but it came under considerable fire, both from members of the Synod and from outside. If I may quote from a speech that I made in the General Synod on 6th November 1973 I remarked that these misgivings arose in the minds of those who chief concern was
"to ensure that, when a parish desires to use the 1662 Prayer Book, there can be no question but that they shall have it".
The Standing Committee, and the legal advisers to the Synod, wrestled with this problem and as a result, in order to bend over backwards to meet the desire of those who wanted a cast-iron protection of the use of the 1662 rite where the parish wanted it, the Synod took the very unusual step of suspending standing orders and introducing a second revision stage.
At this second revision, on amendment, the discretionary power of the Bishop was removed, and in its place the following section was inserted into the Measure and became law. I do not want to burden the House with detail, but this is so important to our debate that I must quote it in full. This is Section 1(3)(b):
"in case of disagreement"—
that is, between the incumbent and the parochial church council—
"and so long as the disagreement continues, the forms of service to be used in that church shall be those contained in the Book of Common Prayer unless other forms of service so approved were in regular use therein during at least two of the four years immediately preceding the date when the disagreement arose and the said council resolves that those other forms of service shall be used either to the exclusion of, or in addition to, the forms of service contained in the said Book.".
I personally introduced this Amendment into the Synod on 6th November 1973. In explanation I stated that the way it would work would be that where there is disagreement in a parish, so long as it lasts the Book of Common Prayer shall be used, except that the parochial church council may require that if there has been a pattern of worship existing for two years—and it seemed that four years overall was a reasonable time to go back—it could require that the practice shall return to that pattern until the disagreement has been solved. This solution satisfied the objectors and was written into the Measure. The Measure was accepted by this House. Its provisions are available to all who want to avail themselves of it.
The noble Lord is, however, of the opinion that there is a body of reluctant laity upon whom new services are being imposed, or who are being deprived of the 1662 rite, and who are not protected because the parochial church council is too shy to argue with the vicar; and he is of the opinion that a referendum of the members of the parish whose names are on the electoral roll would redress this grievance. I do not know what experience the noble Lord has of parochial church councils. I have had a great deal of experience of them. My difficulty has always been to persuade them to do what I want, rather than having obsequious parochial church councils who do everything that I bid them to do. I am sure that is the experience of most of the clergy with their parochial church councils, as it is of bishops who have to deal with them—as, for instance, over the Rights of Presentation Measure when a patron is exercising his authority.
I have no evidence to suggest that the safeguards which have been so carefully inserted into the Measure are proving ineffective. I have consulted a number of bishops. The noble Lord did not tell us who were the three he has consulted. I should have no hesitation in telling the House who I have consulted. Bishops hear from time to time from aggrieved individuals and we do our best to put these matters right pastorally. Of course we know of clergy who are over-enthusiastic, and perhaps lacking in tact, and we do our best to try to smooth over those difficulties. However, I have consulted my fellow bishops in the London diocese, which is the largest diocese in the country. Together we care for some 600 parishes. We are aware of trouble in only one parish. I have made inquiries of other bishops and their experience is very much the same. For instance, I have consulted the Bishop of Chichester, a diocese in which there is a very large number of retired people who, one would have thought, would be the most aggrieved if they did not have the opportunity to worship according to the 1662 rite. The Bishop of Chichester told me that he would consult his staff, and he wrote:
"There was complete agreement among the staff about what I had said"—
which was that he had found no trouble—
"and none of those present had any evidence of any trouble over the working of the Worship and Doctrine Measure."

1739
I consulted the Bishop of Guildford—
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate would allow me to make one observation. I am in the See of Chichester, where there has been trouble. The people who disagree with the changes just do not go to Church. Their protest is mute.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am afraid that I can answer the noble Baroness only by saying that those people have every opportunity to make their feelings known. Why do they not write to the Bishop and give him the opportunity to inquire into the matter and, if necessary, put it right? The Bishop of Guildford told me that his liturgical secretary in the diocese had recently attended a conference of diocesan liturgical secretaries, and that he took the opportunity to ask in general terms how the Worship and Doctrine Measure was working. About 30 dioceses were represented, and the Bishop of Guildford tells me that in none of them had a formal complaint been made and that the safeguards embodied in the Measure were regarded as entirely sufficient and satisfactory.
Finally, I consulted the Bishop of Sheffield, a very different kind of diocese. He waited until he had been able to consult his rural deans and then he told me:
"I have deliberately delayed writing until now as I happened to have a meeting of rural deans arranged for today and I have been able to consult them about the matter. They endorse my own clear impression that there has been no trouble in parishes here as a result of the introduction of new services. I am satisfied that proper consultation has taken place, that the laity are not being ignored and that the safeguards in the Worship and Doctrine Measure are not being overridden. My clear impression, now fortified by consultation with the rural deans today, is that the procedure in the Worship and Doctrine Measure is being followed and the situation seems quite satisfactory to me."
Of one thing I am quite sure. If it is the desire of the noble Lord to bring peace and goodwill to the Church, then I can imagine few expedients less likely to achieve this laudable end than the Bill that he has introduced. I and my brother bishops know the life of our parishes from the inside. We know the problems that the Bill would create.
1740
I mention in passing the considerable practical difficulties contained in the Bill. The secretary of the parochial church council, a voluntary officer, is to be required to circularise all those on the electoral roll—in many of our London parishes we have 500 or more names on the electoral rolls—and to conduct a ballot over seven successive Sundays. Archdeacons have more than enough to do without having to chase up parishes to see whether they are conforming.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of enforcement. I have taken legal advice about this. The noble Lord gave a hint—I think I am right in interpreting it that way—that he would like something along the lines of the Public Worship Regulation Act to be introduced. I would only remind the noble Lord that as a result of that Act, certain clergymen had to go to prison, simply because of the way in which they conducted worship. I do not believe that in these days anybody would wish to repeat that experience.
I am told that this is not a Bill which would be passed for the benefit of the public and which would therefore be enforced. It would be a voluntary Act for the benefit of parishioners. If they did not wish to operate it, nobody outside the parish would have any interest in compelling them to do so. Therefore it is very difficult to see how the provisions of this Bill could be enforced against the will of a parish. But what would more seriously disrupt the life of a parish would be for power to be given to a disaffected minority, who did not like the decisions of the incumbent and the parochial church council, to be able to appeal over the heads of their elected representatives, over the heads of the statutory annual general meeting of the parish, to parishioners who were not prepared to come out into the open and state, and if necessary fight for, their rights but who would hide behind the anonymity of a secret ballot. I can conceive of nothing that would harm the peace and happiness of a parish more than that.
But the implications of the Bill go far beyond the confines of any individual parish. They strike at the very heart of the relationship of Church and State in this country. That relationship has often been under severe strain, and never more

1741
so than during the past 100 years. As a result of painstaking negotiation, a way has been forged whereby Church and State may work peacefully and profitably together. The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, known as the Enabling Act, gave to the Church of England a body which could legislate for its life, subject only to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The Synodical Government Measure 1969 extended the scope of the Enabling Act by including among the powers of the new Synod those of the old clerical Convocations. Thus it gave to the laity equal authority alongside the bishops and the clergy for the government of the Church of England. The Worship and Doctrine Measure, among other things, gave the power to order worship and to decide upon the doctrine of the Church of England.
The noble Lord has mentioned that in his opinion the Church of England is departing from the doctrine of the Church of England. I must remind him, first, that it is the General Synod that has the power to decide what is the doctrine of the Church of England. The final approval by the General Synod—I read from the Measure—
"of such canon or regulation or form of service or amendment thereof shall conclusively determine that the Synod is of such an opinion as aforesaid with respect to the matter so approved".
He did not give me notice of the particular instances he was going to give, and therefore I must speak from memory; but my impression is that the word "incarnate" is excluded in the Creed in what are known as the ICET texts, which are texts approved by all Christian communions including the Roman Catholic. But even so my latest information is that probably the Church of England will put back the word, "incarnate", though I cannot be absolutely sure because I cannot consult my authorities. What was the other point he raised?
Lord SUDELEY: That Holy Communion conveys forgiveness of sin.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, it may not be in at that particular point, but I think, if the noble Lord reads the service carefully, he will find that the whole question of forgiveness and penitence is included in different ways in the service. At any rate I would remind him
1742
that the Book of Common Prayer remains one of the standards of the doctrines of the Church of England and the General Synod contains a great many learned and experienced theologians, a great many of whom are not radicals such as the noble Lord has quoted.
I am afraid I must also remind the House of the structure which the Church of England has been given by these various Measures that have been approved by Parliament. The Church of England has a carefully constructed chain of responsibility in its government and it is highly democratic. Every baptised member of the Church of England over 17 may enter his or her name on the electoral roll of a parish. All such persons are entitled to be present at the statutory annual parish meeting, to stand for election if so minded and to elect representatives to the Deanery Synod and to the parochial church council. They are moreover entitled to:
"… ask any question about parochial church matters, or bring about a discussion of any matter of parochial or general church interest, by moving a general resolution or by moving to give any particular recommendation to the council in relation to its duties".
There is a highly democratic system whereby all those who are sufficiently interested in the life of the Church to put their name on the electoral roll may turn up at the annual general meeting and may move resolutions and make speeches of that nature.
The Deanery Synods, which are drawn from the parochial church councils, elect their clerical and lay representatives to the Diocesan Synod. In the General Synod, the governing body of the Church of England, which normally meets in London three times a year, the House of Clergy is elected by the licensed clergy of the whole Church, and the House of Laity by the lay members of the Deanery Synods. Therefore, there is a clear and carefully defined chain of representation in the governing assemblies of the Church. It is a democratic system, for all Church people are entitled to place their names on the electoral roll of the parish, to seek election to its assemblies, to make their views known and to seek to persuade others, if need be, to their point of view. This is a system approved by Parliament; it is working well and it is to be trusted. If, therefore, at this juncture we were to

1743
insert into the system a new element of a ballot on certain issues, designed to throw into question the competence and the wisdom of the clergy and of the parochial church councils, such action would disrupt the pattern of church government and cause deep resentment among those, clerical and lay, who give so much time and care to the running of church affairs.
Moreover, the passing of this Bill would call into question the genuineness of the agreement between Church and State. By the passing of the Enabling Act, the Synodical Government Measure and the Worship and Doctrine Measure, Parliament acknowledged the right of the Church to govern itself and agreed to the setting up of constitutional bodies at every level, reserving to itself only the minimal control of the Affirmative Resolution. In consequence, since the Enabling Act in 1919, as the noble Lord has reminded us, there has not been a single Act of Parliament controlling Church affairs other than those which have emanated from the initiative of the Church and which for technical reasons, or because they related to other Churches, needed an Act of Parliament rather than a Church Assembly or a General Synod Measure.
The Bill before us is the first attempt since the Enabling Act to try to persuade Parliament to legislate for the Church ab extra, from outside, and I may add without any form of consultation with the assemblies of the Church which this House helped to establish. If it were to become law, the Church would regard it as a breach of faith on the part of Parliament and a grave discourtesy to those entrusted by Parliament with Church government. It would undoubtedly raise the whole question of the Church and State nexus and would give ammunition to those who favour disestablishment, and at the very time when by recent legislation and agreement we have moved into a relationship satisfactory to both sides.
I indicated at the beginning of my speech that I have some sympathy with the basic concerns with which this Bill attempts to deal. In closing, I would make one observation and ask one question. The observation is that you cannot, except in the broadest terms,
1744
legislate for a lack of sensitivity, tactlessness or an absence of wisdom. We all—laiety, clergy and bishops—are guilty of these faults from time to time, and only Christian love and pastoral care can overcome them.
Secondly, I ask the question that I have asked before in this House. It is this: if the noble Lord and those who sympathise with his point of view are so dissatisfied with the practice of Church government why do they not employ the means which Parliament has provided for just such an eventuality, so that they may try to get the Church to change its practice?
In other words, why does not the noble Lord and those who think like him seek election to the parochial church council, to the Deanery or Diocesan Synod or to the General Synod and there plead their cause and seek to change the law through the legislative assemblies provided by Parliament for the purpose? Why do they not appear at the annual meeting and there invoke their right to question and to initiate debates? Why do they not bring their complaint before the bishops? Why do they not make the speeches which they make in this House to those in the councils of the Church most concerned with what they have to say? Why do they not persuade friends who are in the General Synod to table a Private Member's Motion so that the matter can be debated in the General Synod? It is there and not here where these matters should be resolved.
I very much hope that, after debate, the noble Lord will be able to tell the House that he does not intend to press his Bill to a Division. If he does that, I shall be ready to withdraw my Amendment. If not, I am afraid I shall have to press it.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion ("that the Bill be now read a Second Time"), to leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("this House decline to give the Bill a Second Reading because (1) the safeguards contained in Clause 1(3)(a) and (b) of the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974 are sufficient; (2) the Bill would override the functions and powers of Parochial Church Councils contained in the Synodical Government Measure 1969; and (3) the Bill would, without consultation with the General Synod,

1745
alter the provisions for the Synodical Government of the Church of England, approved by Parliament and contained in the Synodical Government Measure 1969.").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
5.40 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, although the subject matter of this Bill lies outside the sphere of secular and temporal concerns in which Her Majesty's Ministers are normally immersed, the Government have given some thought to the contents of this Bill and to the advice which they could properly—I say "properly"—offer to the House upon it. Therefore for that reason it may be helpful if I now intervene and put before your Lordships some reflections on the Bill, which I hope your Lordships will take into account along with the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and those views to be expressed by a number of distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who are taking part in this debate, when you decide whether the proposals in the Bill should receive the approval of your Lordships' House. I must confess that I find this a time when I regret that I am not occupying another Bench in your Lordships' House rather than being here at the Dispatch Box, but that is one of the penalties which one accepts.
My Lords, the purpose of the Bill has been described to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and his intention, as stated in Clause I of the Bill, is to ensure that the adoption or continued use of a form of service not wholly drawn from the Book of Common Prayer should require the approval not merely of the incumbent and the parochial church council, but of a majority of the people whose names appear on the parish electoral roll. Let me say that I am not quite sure how Clause 1 is to be reconciled with subsection (1) of Clause 3, which seems to envisage—and I may be wrong about this—that an alternative form of service may be used on one Sunday in three, even though it has not been approved by the majority of the parishioners, if the number voting in favour of retaining the Book of Common Prayer is less than two-thirds of the number of people on the electoral roll. Indeed, still greater problems could arise over reconciling Clause 1 and Clause 3 if, as I fear would
1746
be all too likely, the number of parishioners who actually voted was substantially less than the number entitled to vote. However, I think the general intention of the noble Lord's Bill is fairly clear, though I have some doubt whether the noble Lord has fully considered the amount of trouble and expense to which hard-working and impecunious parochial church councils would be put in giving effect to the Bill, and especially the requirements of Clause 2.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has put the case against the Bill, which is in his Amendment, in a very cogent speech. His Amendment sets before us three separate reasons for refusing the Bill a Second Reading, but in his speech I felt he laid most emphasis on the point that, as he put it, this Bill is not about the merits or otherwise of the Book of Common Prayer and of the alternative services; as he drew to your Lordships' attention, the fact is that it is about the government of the Church of England, and this is an important and, if I may say so, a crucial point, to which I will return later.
First, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that I differ in no way from him in admiring the value of the Book of Common Prayer. I will not say anything more, because I think it is a remarkable book. It has always played a central part in the spiritual life of the Church of England, and is now, I believe, recognised by all Christian Churches in this country as a unique and, I would say, precious element in the English national heritage. I would like to think that is so. I also understand the concern felt by the noble Lord and probably by many others within your Lordships' House, and certainly outside the House, over the extent to which that Book is being superseded in the daily life of worship of the Church by forms of service of a much more recent origin.
But, as the House well knows, it is not only in the Church of England that a need for change and development in forms of worship has been felt. Over the last 20 years Western Christendom as a whole has in many ways been seeking, and I think achieving, renewal, not least in the forms and language of worship. In particular the Churches have each been attempting to draw lay people more fully into active

1747
participation in public worship, and for that reason, among others, have sought to bring the language of worship closer to that which people would naturally and spontaneously use to convey the thoughts and feelings that their worship is meant to express. It is in no way surprising that the Church of England, which with other Churches in the reformed tradition prides itself on speaking a language "understanded of the people", should also move in this direction, though with probably a good deal of deliberate speed.
My Lords, sadly, the move towards modernising the language of Christian liturgy in the English speaking world has come at a time which spiritually may be the right moment, but which linguistically has, I think, been ill-chosen. Four centuries ago the genius of the English language, allied to that of Cranmer and his collaborators, was well suited to the framing of prayers to be used in public worship which were at once plain, terse and vigorous in wording, and yet with a certain formality of structure and rhythm that one instinctively feels to be appropriate to an occasion set somewhat apart from the daily mundane routine of life. But most attempts to achieve similar results in contemporary English seem to have fallen short of that standard.
To say that is not to endorse all the sweeping criticisms which have been made of the modern alternative forms of service, and of those who have worked hard on drafting them. It no doubt has been a serious attempt to try to meet what people think is a need these days. It is merely to acknowledge that the material with which they have had to work, the English language as we know it in the second half of the 20th century, is very poor material for such a purpose, and much of the end product is disappointingly stodgy. It is unsatisfying to some, it is uninspiring, remote alike from some of the ordinary language of daily life and from that which people feel is suitable on religious occasions.
This sense of disappointment with the results of employing modern English as the language of the liturgy is, I know, felt not only in the Church of England but also among members of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. It results from limitations imposed by the
1748
language itself as a medium of prayer, not by the failings of those who have tried to use it for that purpose. We have none the less to remind ourselves that providence does not seem generally to have attached as much importance by providing Christendom with a suitable language in which to express itself as some Christians would have wished. The New Testament was written in a rather different kind of Greek from that of 5th century Athens, falling—at least so I am told—far short of the clarity, precision and elegance which one would have liked. The early Fathers of the Church for the most part disdained all sophistication of language. Perhaps, after all, the qualities which make the English Prayer Book so great a literacy as well as a religious achievement should be seen as no more than a happy accident which we cannot hope to preserve for all future time. There is, indeed, a dilemma here for the Church of England and, perhaps, for Christian Churches all over the world.
As so many of your Lordships have an interest in this matter as members of the Church of England, it is fitting that we should have an opportunity to discuss the problem especially when we are able to have the benefit of a contribution to our discussion from the right reverend Prelates on the episcopal Bench. Whatever is the outcome of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, I cannot think that it can serve anything other than a useful purpose to have had this discussion. However, it is one thing for this House to discuss the question; it would be quite another thing, and in my view a bad thing, if your Lordships' House or Parliament collectively were now to seek to impose on the Church of England new arrangements of the kind set out in the noble Lord's Bill.
I wish to remind your Lordships that four years ago Parliament approved the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure which gave the General Synod power to make provision, without further reference to Parliament, for the introduction of new forms of service as alternatives to those contained in the Book of Common Prayer. I may have misunderstood the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, but I thought he said that Synod had the right to determine doctrine. I should want to look that up. I am not sure whether the Measure does, in fact, give the Synod right to determine

1749
doctrine, but that is a personal point of view and, as I say, I may be quite wrong about it.
The Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure not only passed the General Synod by an overwhelming majority of 340 votes to 10, but was approved by both Houses of Parliament only after a very full debate and after a Division in another place, but no Division in your Lordships' House. It would be quite wrong of Parliament, having given the representative body of the Church considerable powers of self-government in matters of liturgy which lie at the very heart of the Church's corporate life, now to try to resume the initiative and to legislate for the Church in liturgical matters.
It is often said that the General Synod is not truly representative of the mind of the Church on this issue, that it is quite out of touch with the ordinary churchgoer and his preferences. I feel that we, in this Chamber, are the last people who should claim to be judges of what is or is not a representative body. We can be sure—and should take as our guiding principle in this matter—that neither of the two Houses of Parliament, as they exist today, is fitted to intervene in the worship of the Church of England and to substitute our own judgment for that of the General Synod.
The Synod—I am aware of what I am saying in this respect—like other bodies, no doubt has its imperfections. Some of us who are in the Church of England certainly think so. However, it is the best representative body that the Church of England has at present. It is for that reason that I hope that this full and interesting debate which we have only just started—I want to repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, what I said a little time ago—will serve a very useful purpose in bringing home not only to the right reverend Prelates, but to the wider field of authority, the Synod itself, the disquiet which perhaps some people feel. Indeed, that would be some achievement.
It is not often that I have seen as many of your Lordships present in this Chamber to discuss a matter of this kind, and it is art indication of how strongly people feel. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able at the end of this debate to
1750
say that it has served a useful purpose and will be willing to seek leave to withdraw the Bill. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord takes the view—and it would be quite right and proper for him to do so—that he wants a decision on the part of your Lordships with regard to his proposals, I think that I must say on behalf of the Government (because Her Majesty's Government have given a good deal of thought to this matter) that we feel that the Bill should be rejected as it seeks to deal with matters of worship, and we feel that those are matters in which Parliament should no longer interfere.
It is only four years ago that both Houses passed the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure. It is not a long time ago and it would seem, if I may say so with the greatest respect to your Lordships, too soon to upset a decision which was reached only after a good deal of time, thought and consideration.
5.56 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I speak for myself, but not, I think, against the general feeling in my Party of those who are interested in this Bill. I shall say only briefly why, though respecting the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, in bringing forward this Bill, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has opposed it with such distinction and force.
First, although Parliament still retains the power to enact such a Bill as this, I agree with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that such matters are better now left in the hands of the Church itself, subject to the authority of the General Synod. Secondly, I also feel strongly, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that it is right that responsibility should be delegated to Parochial Church Councils to sort out for themselves such matters as we are concerned with.
PCCs are elected from the most active, the most concerned and the most regular attenders at church services. They know best the feelings and inclinations of the parishioners. As is well known, it is possible to have one's name added to the electoral roll with the minimum commitment and little awareness of parochial feelings, since very often the trouble is

1751
not taken to attend the annual church meeting. Thirdly, I do not agree with the implication behind the Bill that services, other than those drawn wholly from the Book of Common Prayer, are imposed on an unenthusiastic laity by somewhat unfair methods. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that point.
My experience is drawn from my own parish in Worcestershire and is very much contrary to the idea either that the majority have a service order imposed on them against their will or that it is not an entirely satisfactory form of worship. In fact, we often draw on the beauty and inspiration of the Prayer Book, but we very seldom follow strictly the order laid down there.
We allow our Rector some latitude on certain agreed lines. We have considerable variety in our orders of service which I find very refreshing. I now find in other churches that I visit that a full Prayer Book service can be somewhat heavy going and uninspiring if worked through precisely as laid down from beginning to end. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, supported that point of view. I realise that others will strongly disagree with me on this point, but I can only repeat that I am not happy at the implications of the Bill.
Visitors to our church react differently. Some find themselves somewhat at a loss at the form of service. However, regular churchgoers like it and visitors, even at first attendance, often comment that they find our church stimulating and alive—a combination of comfortable words and food for fresh thought. Nor, without the need for a ballot, do we forget the views of those who may be critical. An open meeting was held recently and constructive suggestions were certainly not ignored.
I think that the lot of a parish priest can be a hard one, as it is unfortunately impossible to do what everyone wants. But I can only repeat that I am in no way convinced that the introduction of the statutory necessity to hold a ballot of all on the electoral roll would really help, particularly as, as I understand it, it seems that parishioners could ignore the law. Therefore, as I said earlier, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in his Amendment.
6.1 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the House that due to a long-standing engagement later this evening I may have to leave the House before the end of the debate. I would very sincerely ask your Lordships and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, to excuse me on this ground.
I have great sympathy with anyone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, presents with such clarity and fluency a case for preserving a place in our liturgy for the 1662 Prayer Book. On grounds of both doctrine and language it seems to me to be unique as a means of worship. That is not to say, however, that it can serve at all places, at all times and for all people. The issue, as it has been put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, concerns not merely the merits of the various services but rather the fact that, as it stands, the Bill would be an attack on—and, indeed, I believe an interference with—the leadership and government of the Church as so recently set up by Parliament. I believe that it would be particularly unhelpful at this time if we were to do this, especially because the present circumstances are ones of such challenge to and opportunity for the Church.
It is on those circumstances that I should like to dwell for a few minutes. Throughout the world, the Church is under attack. There are countries where merely to be a Christian is to deny oneself the normal rights of being a citizen of that country. In other countries, the Church has to fight such evils as apartheid. In our own country, there is the widespread abandonment of Christian values, and those who try to stand by those values are accused of arrogance and prejudice. One also often hears that cruellest of lies, that there are no such things as right and wrong. As has been mentioned, even within the Church the fundamentals of Christian belief—even such basic points as the Deity of Christ and the validity of his resurrection—are subject to scepticism. That is perhaps the dark side. But there is a bright side.
Throughout the world, the Holy Spirit is on the move in action and, in certain areas, the Christian Church is growing at a

1753
rate which we have perhaps not seen since the days of Saint Augustine. I shall quote a few examples. In Africa, in the 20 years between 1950 and 1970, the number of Christians rose from 20 million to no fewer than 90 million. In Indonesia, this century, the number of Christians has increased 12 times. In South Korea—of all countries you may say—amazing things are happening. Mr. Billy Graham held a crusade there and ended up with a meeting on one of the airfields; the lower estimate of the attendance was 750,000. I am told that there are estimates that in the South Korean armed forces one in three is a "Born Again" Christian. In South America, the number of Christians is increasing at an annual compound rate of 10 per cent., and has been for many years. I heard of a church in America, which was started only 12 years ago, which now has a membership of 12,000 and at the half-yearly baptism last year there were no less than 1,080 to be baptised. Because of the size of their font, it was lucky that they were near the sea and a ready supply of water.
Even in our country it is my belief that the fall in nominal membership masks a growth in important areas—for example, among the student population and young married couples, and in the House Church movement. Now that there are fewer social pressures which lead us to go to church from convention—indeed, the reverse perhaps applies—the proportion of committed Christians among our congregations must surely be increasing. If we in this country are not to miss out on what is happening elsewhere and if the Churches are to carry out our basic mission to bring men and women to Christ in this situation of tremendous challenge and opportunity, we need leadership at all levels showing vision, daring and adaptability—adaptability, of course, within the eternal truths of the Gospel; in other words, we need the sort of leadership that was shown last week by the bishops in their statement on the future of the clergy.
Surely it was the intention of the measures of 1969 and 1974 that this leadership should be freely exercised at the top by the bishops and the General Synod and at the other end by the parochial clergy and their PCCs. The proposed Bill would be a limited vote of no confidence in the leadership at both ends. The
1754
General Synod would be placed in the most invidious position while at parish level the leadership would be restricted in one vital area. It is my belief that there is ample scope within the system of synodical government for dealing with the problem—if indeed there is one—which is mentioned in the Bill. I believe that there is no reason for us to go against the decisions of 1969 and 1974 and to take this Bill any further.
6.7 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am delighted—though I do not think it is quite relevant to what I have to say—to hear the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, refer to the splendid advance of Christianity in South Korea. It was my very great privilege, when in the Royal Navy some 12 or 13 years ago, to be visiting South Korea when the last British bishop was in charge of that area. If there is anyone who could be said to have inspired the development of Christianity among the Koreans, it was that spendid bishop. I regret to say that his name does not come hastily to me, but almost my last vision of him was of him arriving on my flight deck in a helicopter clad in a large "bone-dome" to come and take Holy Communion for us—happily, in those days Series 2 and not the dreaded Series 3.
Perhaps that gives noble Lords a clue as to why I am taking part in this debate. Maybe it is not pure chance—but it does so happen—that during the past two months' dissension, of a kind that I have never experienced in a Church of England Parish in this country, has descended upon us because there has been the overemphasis (I would not put it more strongly than that) of Series 3 being forced upon us. It seems to us—and it is just pure chance, so far as I am concerned—that my noble friend Lord Sudeley has introduced his Bill at a time when the dissension is still with us and when we are having great difficulty in dealing with it. The situation is very much as my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley indicated when she intervened in the speech of the right reverend Prelate and raised the situation in the diocese of Chichester, in that a great number of the parishioners are voting with their feet. Luckily in our little parish we have two churches and one set of parishioners has been firmer than the other. So we all tend to go to the other church and not

1755
to the one which, if I may so call it, is our native one—certainly, with my name, my native one. So there is a problem.
I am sure that my right reverend friend—if I may so describe the Bishop of London, having had the great privilege of living in his diocese when we were both further North than we are now—must appreciate that it is not a simple problem, and that it will not go away. The problem is that the inspiration seems to come from the representatives on the Synod. It is a difficult thing. Here are we in Parliament with perhaps a rather wider coverage of interests and attitudes than the Synod has, relatively speaking. Perhaps another place has a wider coverage of interests. Therefore, there are more people going to throw up contrary ideas on any subject which comes up. Perhaps it is that the Synod is a bit narrower in its thinking and that they all think together, more like a Party conference than a Parliamentary conference. Perhaps this is where the trouble lies.
When my noble friend moved the First Reading of his Bill I was right behind him because I thought that this subject ought to be aired, although I must confess that I was totally persuaded by the opening words of my right reverend friend that we want to rid the Church of England of internal dissension. Whatever is happening at the moment is creating, rather than getting rid of, internal dissension. If I could be sure that what is being said today in this House warns the Synod that they are playing their hand too fast, I should be happy to back the Amendment rather than the Second Reading of the Bill. But I should have to be assured—if I could be—by the right reverend Prelate that a firm and positive direction, or indication, may be given to the Synod not to go so fast; not to convince its members that it is necessary for them to go so fast.
It so happens, as I indicated in my opening remarks, that I think that Series 2 is simply splendid. It gets round a lot of the problems. Splendid though the wording is of the Prayer Book, it is in some passages a bit obscure, and indeed one has to hunt a bit to follow an ordinary service from it. So Series 2, to my mind, is excellent, and it has been brought in gently and skilfully, if I might say so to the right reverend Prelates. What has
1756
been done over the past 20 or 25 years has been excellent, in that we have had a gentle influx of Series 2 coupled with a continuing use of the Book of Common Prayer, and we have gradually moved ourselves in the space of half a generation—taking, for the moment, a generation to be 30 years—towards this point.
It is my experience, needing, in a job I had not so long ago, to persuade people to change their attitudes, that fundamental changes of attitude cannot be achieved in the short term, and indeed most matters of importance take at least a generation to get through. What I believe is happening is that the Church is endeavouring to go too fast in forcing Series 3 upon us. If the same pace of advance was taken with it as has been taken with Series 2, with a deadline of the year 2000 for the kind of things which are being said today, this would be a better pace and easier for people to assimilate and to live with.
Mind you, there are things about Series 3 that I fundamentally dislike. First, it seeks to put in new words where they are not really necessary. Why muck about with the Lord's Prayer? Anybody who is going to worship will quite quickly learn to interpret the King James' Bible version of the Lord's Prayer in which Series 2, in its wisdom, with the minor change of "which" to "who", effectively keeps the old language, and it does so with the Creed. That is why that is such a splendid balance. Why muck about with extra words?
The other more fundamental matter—and forgive me if I touch slightly on what you might call the theology of the thing—is that to me always (and perhaps this is peculiar to my generation and maybe in the next century people will think differently) the essential feature of the Communion service is that it is a private service. The morning service and the evening service are public services which you obviously share with your fellow parishioners, and you have this splendid opportunity to hear what the vicar has to tell you to give you good guidance; but the Communion service is essentially one which is private to you. It is between you and your God, with the vicar helping. That may be purely a "generation gap" viewpoint, but it is the way I have always seen it.

1757
I, and those people who have told me why they object so much to it, feel that it is not the right service for us because within it is this encouragement to go back to be an early Christian and shake everybody. Indeed, in one church I was invited to kiss my neighbour, which I thought was rather forward and not quite proper. That is not emphasised quite so much now as it has been in some parishes. There is this fundamental change, in that the Communion service is being made a public service instead of a private one. A lot of people will find that hard to get used to. Therefore, let us play it more slowly.
It has been said, and was said in our parish when this was put across, that it is the young who want the change, and that it is better ecumenically. Maybe it is, but it is not my experience that it is the young who are for it: it is, without wishing to be too unkind, the trendy middle-aged who are for it. I am a little suspicious of them. I believe that the Church perhaps listens a bit too much to them. I think that, if only we could be given an assurance that the pressure is off, the bishops are not going to pass the word round that it is a good thing to go for Series 3, and neither is the Synod, then we would not want to be incited to produce Bills of this nature to try to persuade the narrow Synod to view the world in a wider way.
We have a lot of speakers, but one of my noble friends has told me that we should have had even more if this debate did not in fact coincide with an important social occasion affecting several of my noble friends. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable for it to be assumed that the view I have been putting across is even more widely held than the number of speakers taking part in this debate might indicate. I repeat that I hope that the right reverend Prelate can give us some assurance that there will be directions to the Synod in this respect, because it would help immensely in deciding how to vote at the end of this debate.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, on a point of information, may I ask the noble Lord a question following his statement that Series 3, a service which I happen not to like—and I hope he will answer my question kindly because I was one of those who wrote
1758
Series 2 some 15 or 20 years ago, for which I hope he will give me a mdeal—was forced on his church? Am I to suppose that despite the decision of the parochial church council—I presume the noble Lord may be on it or, if he is not on it, he would certainly have exercised his democratic right to vote for it—a tyrannical parson overrode their declared wishes and therefore this service was celebrated ultra vires and against the democratically elected wish of the people?
Lord MOTTISTONE: I thank the right reverend Prelate deeply for raising that point, my Lords, apart from wishing to thank him for Series 2, because I had meant to mention it but was carried away on another side of my theme. It is absolutely true to say that in the first instance our representative on the diocesan council, who also happens to sit on the Synod, and the parson, said, "We will do this". At this there was an uprising—aided by a few parishioners who thought it was a good thing—and there followed a meeting and discussion, as a result of which the whole thing was considerably modified. In that particular case the matter went wider than the parochial church council because a wider meeting was called to which everybody could come. But the trouble has been that the end result was a compromise and we have more Series 3 than we had before this all began, and people find it convenient to go to the other church or perhaps not even to go to church at all on the days when Series 3 is followed.
6.22 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I happen to be one of those who hopes that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I hope I am not a lone voice, and even if the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, decides not to press it at the end of the day, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that we shall have done a great deal of good by having this debate and by having brought this matter before the notice of those who perhaps were not aware of it.
I confess that at first I was in two minds about the Bill, since the thought occurred to me that the person who should be the guide in all spiritual matters was of course the incumbent; and that is absolutely true. But this Bill is not dealing with spiritual matters; it is not seeking any change of

1759
doctrine, and it is not seeking to authorise anything that has not already been authorised by the Synod. I must emphasise that point in view of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment. The Synod has already authorised all three services, the 1662 Prayer Book and the two modern versions. What it has not authorised of course is what is contained in the Bill: namely, the ballot.
I confess that I have a great love for the Prayer Book as it stands and, I must say frankly, no very great love at all for either of the two modern versions. But it must not be thought that those of us who feel like that are only small in numbers. Far from it. Practically everybody I have spoken to on the subject, both young and old, said how much they dislike the new services and prefer the Prayer Book. But that is neither here nor there, because the Bill is not seeking to impose any of the services on the congregation; it is merely giving them a chance to voice their opinion.
Is it right that congregations should have a say as to what form of service they are given? To my mind it is, and for more than one reason. For instance, a person who attends a certain service every Sunday and is suddenly confronted with something entirely different finds it very confusing and distracting to the mind and prevents him from concentrating on what he should be thinking about. But there is another point. To those of us who love the Prayer Book very deeply, the English which it contains is lovely and generates within us a feeling of reverence that neither of the other two versions can ever give, and it is a great loss when we have to do without it.
One may say that it is still there and is still authorised, but unfortunately we cannot say whether we like it or not. Indeed, just before the House sat this afternoon I was handed a letter from a distant cousin of mine who now lives in the North saying how much she loved the Book of Common Prayer. She wrote that she had written to her vicar and asked, "Could we possibly go back to it?" —they had been having the modern services—and she got no reply. She wrote to the bishop, and the bishop wrote back saying that it was a matter for the incumbent and the parish church council. So where are you? It seems that the
1760
only hope lies in a ballot or something of that sort. I agree there are difficulties in administering such a ballot, but I believe they could be overcome and we could consider such difficulties in Committee. I am not trying to imply that I am either for or against the old services or the new ones; the Bill is not trying to force opinion either way but is merely giving an opportunity to express opinion.
The right reverend Prelate said the Bill would be a recipe for bitterness within the Church. I assure him that the bitterness is there already; there is great bitterness among those who feel they would like to have the old services back but cannot get them. He also said there was every opportunity for people to make their opinions known. I have just quoted an example of that given by my cousin, so it is clear that while people can make their opinions known, doing so does not seem to have much result. I recognise that the leadership of the Church must come from the Synod, but they would be well advised to consider the feelings of parishioners in such a matter as this.
6.29 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I must say at the outset how much I appreciated, as I am sure did your Lordships, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, because his experience and point of view expressed exactly the impression that many of us have of the resurgence of Christianity, not only in this country but throughout the world.
I came to this debate intending to take part, rather nervous of doing so in some ways but looking forward very much to hearing the arguments put forward in favour of his Bill by my noble friend Lord Sudeley. I must tell him, and I must be frank with him, that having listened to his speech I came to the conclusion that the introduction of this Bill was in the nature of a joke, produced as a result of an irresistible urge to bait the Bench of Bishops, and a contempt for the clergy and the members of parochial church councils. I confess that I have been a member of a parochial church council for a good many years, and I therefore speak from that point of view.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and others who have spoken, I love the form of service in the Book of Common Prayer—

1761
the rich cadences and noble imagery, the familiarity of its phraseology from childhood, its association, also, with one of the great periods of English history. I remember walking out of a City church with my father in protest against the use at matins of the 1928 version. I can still hear the ring of my steel-tipped schoolboy shoes on the flagstones of the aisle amid the surprised silence of the rest of the congregation. But, my Lords, that was a very long time ago. Since 1945, the Church of England has, with infinite difficulty, sought and succeeded in providing itself with a means whereby its members—clergy and laity together—can determine the forms of its services and the character of its organisation. Parliament has approved this by passing a series of Measures which have been presented to it after long discussion and debate within the body of the Church of England itself.
Not long ago, I was chairman of a Select Committee of this House on the Methodist Bill, now an Act, which sought to give to the Methodist Church the same rights over its doctrine, organisation, and property as the established Church now enjoys. In my view, the Bill which my noble friend has presented is contrary to the spirit of what Parliament has given not only to the Church of England, but has now recently extended to one of its sister Churches.
Of course, my noble friend has the right as a Member of this House to introduce such a Bill as the one before us. We have the right, under the Constitution, to pass through all its stages any piece of legislation which, within the limits of our powers, commends itself to a majority of our Members. But it is inconceivable to me that we should exercise our right in relation to a matter of such importance as this, which is contrary to the whole trend of ecclesiastical legislation during the last 20 years, and which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, would effectively negative, so far as the Church of England is concerned, the independence in deciding its own doctrine, liturgy and organisation which we have so recently given to a sister Church.
Specifically, the Bill seeks to replace by referendum, parish by parish, the powers and responsibilities of the democratically elected parochial church councils, established by the Measures of 1969.
1762
Its acceptance by this House, even on Second Reading, would cause, and rightly cause, grave offence to the devoted men and women who serve on the parochial church councils, and who are—let us be frank—able to provide so much of the strength and the vitality upon which the Church depends.
It will go further than that; it will undermine the influence of the parish priest. Today the parish priest has one of the most difficult roles in the life of any community in England. I never cease to admire the way in which the younger clergy in particular tackle the vocation to which the Holy Spirit has directed them amid the apathy and materialism of the temporal world. I have watched in my own growing parish of Layer de la Haye how the wise and traditional latitude of the Church of England, in the ordering of services under the leadership of men of different generations, and supported by an active parochial church council, has led to what, in the case of our parish, as in parishes all over the country, amounts to a significant revival in both belief and observance.
That is brought out, too, by the recent statement by the bishops with regard to the future of recruitment to the clergy. There is no doubt that the Church of England is now coming back out of the shadows of the past years, and as a result will make a continuing and indeed more effective contribution to the spiritual and social life of our country. This Bill, in my view, would derogate from that.
I was chairman of the Bishop of Chelmsford's Commission for Colchester, and I had occasion to look carefully into the affairs of some 20 parishes. As a result of that experience, I came to conclusions on two points. The first was that the powers of decision available to those who shoulder responsibility for the progress and welfare of the Church of England were sadly insufficient for the proper conduct of its affairs. This Bill would reduce those powers still further.
The second conclusion was that any member of the Church can have access to the form of service which he, or she, finds most congenial to the worship of God. If it is not available in the parish in which the individual lives, he, or she, has only to take the trouble to find it in a

1763
church in the vicinity. This brings me exactly to the point that my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, has made. The individual is not deprived of worshipping in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer. He has only to take the trouble of going a very short distance, no doubt—or perhaps a long distance, for all I know—to another church in the vicinity, and there he can get the service which appeals to him. But there is no reason why, because he does not like the particular service in his own parish church, those who do like it should be deprived of it for the sake of his convenience in not having to go a few miles elsewhere.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I should like to say that the problem is that in country parishes where we are, happily, at last getting more and more people to come to each and every church, it is tragic, when, having worked up to about 15, the congregation suddenly goes back to five because of this kind of situation. Admittedly, the people concerned can go down the road and perhaps the numbers there will go up 20, but somehow this does not seem right, and people resent it.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I am sure that some people resent it, but the fact is that the whole health of the Church is not in any way altered by that. This Bill is therefore unnecessary if its object is to ensure that anyone who, as a matter of conscience, wishes to participate in the forms of service of the Book of Common Prayer is able to do so.
I have no doubt that those noble Lords who support the Bill in the interests of ensuring the continuation of the use of the Book of Common Prayer for matins, Holy Communion, and Evensong are entirely sincere in their objectives. But I think they should realise that the image which this presents to a vast majority of the younger members of the Church of England, on whom the future strength of the Established Church depends, is of a small group using its privileges to subvert the rights of the constituted ecclesiastical authorities, as established by Parliament, in the interests of an arid traditionalism, of some literary preciousness, and of a superficial deference to democratic ideals.
1764
I frankly hope that my noble friend will withdraw his Bill. As the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, this will not preclude him from pursuing his objective. As a confirmed member of the Church of England, obtaining the support of his PCC, and working through the machinery of synodical government, he can persuade those who carry democratic responsibility for Church affairs to present a Measure for Parliamentary approval along the lines which he has in mind.
That is the right way to do it. This Bill is the wrong way, and it appears to me to be contrary to the interests of the Church of England and to the spirit, if not the letter, of the rights and constitutional rôle of Members of your Lordships' House. If my noble friend persists, I shall vote for the right reverend Prelate's Amendment and against a Second Reading, and I very sincerely hope that the majority of your Lordships will do likewise.
6.39 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who preceded me, I put my name down with some hesitation on the list of speakers for this debate, not knowing what I was going to say, and not feeling that Church government was my strong subject. But after reading the literature sent me by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and talking to my right reverend friend, I came here this afternoon with a dichotomy in my mind. I knew that if I reacted with my heart I would follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, but if I reacted with my head I should probably follow the lead of my right reverend friend.
In the result, my views have been expressed for me so perfectly by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I think I can make a very short speech. The noble Lord has said nearly all that I would have said. However, there are just one or two matters that I want to take up, because if I follow the lead given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, my bishop, I do not want him to be under any illusion as to why my heart is very much with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley.
We live in a very uncomfortable period of history. The episcopate and a substantial body of laity do not seem able to

1765
communicate with one another very clearly. This substantial body of the laity is characterised by moderation, non-militancy, a somewhat latitudinarian attitude to doctrine but a very marked conservatism in matters of ritual. I think that when one is engaged in an act of worship one does not want one's attention distracted by the unfamiliar; so that to repeat the familiar prayers in a familiar way is of very great importance to people.
My Lords, in this uncomfortable age in which we live we are accustomed to minorities getting control of organisations. The body of the laity of which I have spoken feels, I think, that something of the kind happens on parochial church councils and that what results is not really representative of the feeling of the moderates. We are not the only people in trouble. The Roman Church is in very severe trouble over the embargo it has placed in the hands of bishops on the performance of the old Tridentine Mass. They are interpreting their rights in this matter in a rigid way, which has offended many of the faithful.
We live not only in an uncomfortable, but a gimmicky age. We go for innovation for its own sake. Something new, however untested, must be better than something old, however well tried. Having spent my life as a professional innovator in contexts where innovation is creative, I of course have no quarrel with innovation so long as it serves a purpose; but not just innovation for its own sake. That is the gimmickry in which we, I think very wrongly, indulge in the context of worship: because there is something timeless about worship, where an actual contribution is made by feeling that you are doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way as your longfathers of old.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl would be critical of the Reformation?
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, it is one of the besetting sins of Christ's Church that it embarks on quarrels between Christian and Christian, and I regard the Protestant Reformation as perhaps one of the biggest tragedies that ever happend to Christianity: through an accident, because I think that if Cardinal Nikolas of Cusa had lived he would have reformed the Roman Church
1766
from within, whereas it had to be reformed from without—possibly both Churches better as a result.
My Lords, there are many matters in which I would treat the right reverend Prelate as an authority and be guided by him, but I would regard his views on theology as possibly sounder than his views on sampling errors, which is a branch of mathematics. I wonder how far his sincerely-held beliefs on the views that have been expressed to him are affected by sampling errors. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, talked about answering with one's feet; and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who I think used the adjective "trendy" for this minority which gets in control, also made the point. But there is another part of the sample which has never been counted, and I do not think it is known to the right reverend Prelate at all. That is simply those who suffer in silence. I go to worship in church to get away from the quarrels of the world. I do not want to have quarrels with my fellow Christians over matters of ritual. If they do something I do not particularly like, let them have it their way. I would sooner just sit down and get accustomed to their way of doing things. One can manage it if one really intends to do so.
So I feel that I must associate myself with the views of those who thank the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for having brought this matter forward. I hope that if we make our act of faith in the constitution we gave the Church in 1974 the Synod will react by studying Hansard and taking seriously everything that has been said, because it must be obvious to the Bishops' Bench that there is disquiet among the laity; and possibly these sampling errors which are influencing episcopal thought could be ironed out and eliminated.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, after the eloquent and magisterial speech from the right reverend and right honourable Prelate the Bishop of London it may seem presumptuous for there to be another speech from these Benches. I want to speak from the point of view of a bishop in Synod; a workaday bishop who is a glad partner with his elected clergy and his elected laity in an ordinary diocese—a quiet haven

1767
between the splendours of Canterbury and the excitements of Southwark; a diocese for which Parliament has approved the manner of its government and leadership for the 1970s. My diocesan Synod, after widespread discussion in the parishes and deaneries, gave its support in 1972, by 138 votes to nil, to the promotion of a worship and doctrine Measure. It went on to express its opinion, by 109 votes to 18, that such a Measure should include provision for amending or superseding the forms of worship contained in the Book of Common Prayer. We did not get what we asked for, any more than, more recently, we got what we asked for, along with the bishops, elected clergy and elected laity of the dioceses of London, Southwark and St. Albans, with regard to an alternative pattern for the ordering of baptism, confirmation and admission to Holy Communion. So my first point is to remind your Lordships that some dioceses and parishes are accepting a situation in 1978 which gives them less radical alternatives than they wish for, and that they are doing this in loyalty to the more cautious and conservative approach of the General Synod and of Parliament.
The second point I want to emphasise is that the alternative services (which, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, we have had in use for only 10 or 11 years: no more than that, and in several instances much less) have brought about, in my judgment, a revival of common prayer for the common people of England on a scale that has united Anglican parishes of all traditions of churchmanship in the same way as they are united by the Holy Bible, the Creeds and the pastoral oversight of their Fathers in God. If I may be forgiven a personal reference, on Sunday I ministered to upwards of 1,000 people in three very different parishes, in suburb, village and country town. I gave Holy Communion to 450 of them, and I administered baptism and confirmation. In the course of the day I was myself both penny plain and tuppence coloured amidst varying candlepower. At all three churches I was asked to use the alternative services, and we used the same rite in parishes of differing traditions. This would not have happened when I was first ordained—when, anyway, the alternative services in use at that time were unauthorised by Parliament.
1768
I know I speak for many of the clergy and laity in my diocese—especially, if I may say so, for those in the suburbs, the housing areas and the development areas—when I say that the right to use services in the language of the second Elizabeth rather than of the first Elizabeth came only just in time. If the Provinces of Canterbury and York, which were the last Provinces of the world-wide Anglican Communion to revise their Prayer Book, had dallied any longer than they did, the consequences for the Church in this country, especially in industrial areas, would have been serious indeed.
I do not want to suggest that we have not very real and unresolved problems in the ordering of our worship. As those of your Lordships with church-going children or grandchildren will know, the growing points of the Church today are what are called family services. In some parishes this is the one really well-attended service of the week or the month. They are in many cases prepared and conducted with great skill and imagination, but all too often they have little association with the Prayer Book, old or new, and some do all too little to prepare young and old for the liturgical worship of the Church.
Many parishes are confronted with a real dilemma at this point and those of us who care deeply about the ordered worship of the Church of England are anxious to help them find their way forward to a share in the common prayer of the Church. We should not be helped in this evangelistic and educational task if the Bill before the House were to become law, because clergy and the worshipping laity, who might be frustrated from using the alternative services that they wish to use because of the votes of non-worshipping, unconfirmed backwoodsmen, would resort inevitably to unofficial, unauthorised services of the family-service type in even larger numbers, and we should be on our way back to the anarchy from which we hoped that the Worship and Doctrine Measure had delivered us.
I can confirm from my own experience what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said about the almost complete absence of disturbance of parishes by the inauguration of alternative services. No formal requests from clergy or parishes have reached me.

1769
On numerous occasions, my colleagues and I have been asked to help in the explanation of the alternative services and in their inauguration. One of my rural deans told me that, if anything, clergy err on the side of excessive caution. Another of my incumbents has said that in his experience the only evidence of aggravation in a parish is where a priest is holding back liturgical reform and certainly not inflicting it upon an unwilling congregation.
In view of some of the charges that have been made about the clergy exercising undue influence over their church councils, I must say that, in my experience in both town and country parishes, the laity really are not so dumb or so supine as has been suggested. Those of your Lordships who are patrons of livings know, as bishops certainly do, that church councils these days know their rights and do not hesitate to use them.
Finally, I must refer to the charges that have been made that people who want a certain kind of service are being denied it over wide areas. Before I knew that this Bill was to be introduced, I decided to ask all my parishes what services were currently in use in the parish churches on Sundays. In 251 places of worship in West Kent—an area extending from below Crystal Palace to the Sussex border—the 1662 Prayer Book service of Holy Communion is used in 177 churches; Series 3 is used in 199 churches; the alternative service Series 2 is used in 44 churches; and other alternative services are used in 13 churches. There are only 73 churches in the diocese where the 1662 service is never used; but there are only six churches where nothing but the Book of Common Prayer is used. So far as Morning and Evening Prayer are concerned, 81 churches use Series 3 or Series 2 and the remainder use the 1662 service.
So, despite the fact that the Series 3 Holy Communion service is used in 79 per cent. of the churches of my diocese, the Prayer Book service continues to be found in 70 per cent. of the churches as well. In no deanery do less than six parishes use the 1662 Book and in half of the deaneries it is in use in more than 10 parishes. Indeed, in Royal Tunbridge Wells, the number is 19; so that letters to the bishop signed "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells" are on other topics!
1770
I have spoken, as I only can do, for one diocese. I shall not argue generally from the figures produced from what is, after all, only half a county. But I know that, in the parishes to which I have referred, the clergy and laity, in using these services on the scale that I have suggested, are not embarking upon a gimmick. They are services that have been carefully introduced, experimented with and debated. In a highly mobile society, it is just not true to say that people are being denied the Prayer Book.
Much more important is the clear evidence that I have given of the extent to which the alternative services are now in use. This is the real world of the Church of England which I dare to speak for. The Vicar of Rochester tells me that all the couples that he has prepared for marriage since the alternative marriage service was authorised for use five months ago, have of their own free choice elected to use that new service.
I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the clergy and laity of my diocese eagerly await the publication of the Alternative Prayer Book in 1980. Its use will be safeguarded by the Worship and Doctrine Measure and those who exercise their rights under that Measure (which this House concurred in) will be doing so within a Synodically-governed Church where bishops, clergy and laity who believe themselves called of God to worship and mission are partners together to the great enrichment of each other. Those of us on these Benches do not mind what any noble Lord may say to us or about us; but we shall mind very much indeed if you insult the elected laity of the parishes and dioceses of England by supporting this Bill.
6.58 p.m.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, with the approval of the House, I should like to say one or two words although my name is not on the list of speakers. I also apologise for missing some of the earlier speeches; but I promised the noble Lord that I would support him if I could get here. On 4th December 1974, the other place discussed the Worship and Doctrine Measure. I intervened as Leader of the House, although not to put a point of view on behalf of the Government, as my noble friend has suggested he is doing today. It must be many years since a

1771
Government had a point of view, as a Government, on a Church matter. If that is the case on this Bill, then it is wholly deplorable.
I intervened then—I hate to quote from my own speeches—and this is how I ended my speech:
"Finally, I say hesitantly—as a member of the Church myself—that in ending the role of Parliament in this matter we are placing a new responsibility on the Church to ensure that the feelings and the wishes of ordinary churchgoers are reflected in the decisions of the Synod—namely, decisions concerning worship and doctrine. If Parliament is to withdraw its surveillance and custodianship over the established Church's worship and doctrine, the eminent and articulate theologians in the Synod must listen to the rather quieter voice of the majority in the Church".— [Official Report, Commons, col. 1582; 4/12/74.]
With respect to the right reverend Prelates, I, as a member of the Church of England, have detected no change whatever since that time in this respect. I do not know whether any noble Lords who are active in the Church have detected any change, but I have detected none. There has been no improvement whatever since Parliament gave its surveillance and custodianship over doctrine and worship matters to the Synod itself.
I am sorry to disagree with the right reverend Prelate and my very good friend the Bishop of London, but I do not think the safeguards in the Worship and Doctrine Measure are sufficient. They are not nearly sufficient. Right reverend Prelates can quote of course that "X" hundreds of people up and down the country have discussed this or that order. But at parish level it really is not sufficient to leave it to the parochial church council, and that is not to denigrate the parochial church council in any way. Almost the only point with which I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was what he said about the church councils. They are doing an excellent job; but, let us face it, the church council in most parishes is an "in" group of people, and necessarily so. I do not say that in any derogatory sense.
Of course the great majority of worshippers in any parish church are not members of the parochial church council, and they are excluded from any discussion on any change in the form of worship in their church. But they are intensely concerned with something as intimate and personal as how they worship. Too
1772
often incumbents up and down the country change or rearrange the order of services without consulting the parochial church council, much less with the approval of their congregation. Many bishops and incumbents lose sight of this point: the worship in a parish church is the worship of all the people there; it is not merely a matter for the priest. It is the worship of the whole body, the priest and the people. It is their act of worship, not the incumbent's act of worship.
Last week we had a debate on devolution and I made a speech. The central point in my speech was to defend the right of people to assert their differentness and that there was a great need for that in this age in which we are living. We are all different and there is a tremendous need to assert our differentness. There is no way in which people are more different than the way in which they worship.
Some people—I greatly respect them—can worship best in the simplicity, and, indeed, in the improvisation, of a Nonconformist church or chapel. Other people—and I greatly respect them—prefer the highly ritualised Roman Catholic service. Yet others prefer the approach of the Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican Church, where there is a degree of certainty about what is going to happen. There used to be that degree of certainty in the Anglican Church. One could go into the Anglican Church anywhere in the United Kingdom and have a fairly good idea of what was going to happen. But one has no idea what is going to happen now if one goes into an Anglican Church. Anything can happen anywhere. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to say, "Walk along to the next church". The next church from where I worship is many miles away. How can I walk along the road to the next church?
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I intervene? I realise this, particularly in the country areas. But to be quite frank, this is the era of the car, and there is no reason why anybody who strongly and sincerely desires to have a particular form of service cannot have access to it in almost any part of the country.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, it is a bit much when people have to leave their

1773
parish churches and go many miles away to worship somewhere else because the Book of Common Prayer is not being followed. Another point is not sufficiently appreciated: it is the comfort that certainty gives people in any human activity. Where any human activity is undertaken in a context of routine, ritual and certainty, much more of our consciousness is released to undertake the activity. This is true much more of the act of worship than almost any other activity. Many people can worship best in that kind of context. A great many bishops and incumbents do not realise that. I am not opposed to experiment in worship. I am not opposed to innovation at all. All this Bill is suggesting is that these should be introduced with the consent of the whole congregation; that is, it should be a corporate decision of the whole worshipping community in that parish.
I warmly support the noble Lord. As somebody who is intensely concerned with the Worship and Doctrine order, may I say that I can see no conflict whatever between this Bill and the Worship and Doctrine order. I do not know whether noble Lords have read the Long Title of the Bill. It says:
"An Act to provide for a ballot to be taken of the parishioners of any parish in which it is proposed to introduce an alternative form of service in accordance with the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974.".
It is complementary to the Worship and Doctrine order, not in conflict with it. It simply extends the mechanism of consultation laid down in that Measure a little further, so that the good sense of all the worshipping members of a church can be brought to bear on decisions about how they worship.
I am astounded that right reverend Prelates are opposing this. I do not understand their opposition to consulting the people on the roll about how they are going to worship. I cannot see anything wrong with that. It is highly, entirely commendable and praiseworthy. The early Church was a community where decisions were made by the whole worshipping community. Let us return to the spirit of the early Church in this one respect. I implore the noble Lord to stick to his guns and carry this to a Division. I and, I suspect, many other noble Lords will support him.
7.8 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly intervene to make two points. As I was sitting on the Woolsack my interest became more and more deeply involved in this debate. I should like to make two points as to why I think my noble friend Lord Sudeley's Bill is not appropriate. First, the existing machinery of the parochial church council fully provides for what he asks. I come hot-foot today, for a week ago we had the annual meeting of our parish at which the whole village could be present if they wished to do so. It was not just the parochial church council; it was the public meeting to which the whole village were invited.
I have also been involved in the past couple of months in making up the new electoral roll. This we are required to do every six years. For that I, my wife and others, have canvassed the whole village. We cannot, of course, enrol everybody because they do not all want to be enrolled. But we have enrolled a couple of hundred people. They are the members of the community who wish to be associated with the church. Every one of those was entitled to come and vote for the members of the parochial church council. I may say they were not all there, but there was a fairish gathering, of 40 or 50.
So there is the first point, that the whole worshipping community have their chance every year at the annual meeting to elect their parochial church council. In their hands, together with the incumbent, is put the business of deciding what service they have. Indeed, this has been happening in my parish for the past seven or eight years. We have been trying to make up our minds which form of service to have. We have retained the 1663 version occasionally. We went to Series 2 and then we changed to Series 3. Now we are exchanging back again to Series 1 and 2 together. We are trying to reach a conclusion. The existing machinery is there, in every parish community, for all who are interested in the church, to elect their own PCC and they will speak for them.
The second point I want to make is this: Why is it that old people like myself are willing to see a change from the 1662 service we have known all our lives?— simply because we are aware that today

1775
there are many youngsters growing up in universities and schools who do not have a Christian background, who feel attracted to the Christian religion but undoubtedly find the language of Elizabeth I mysterious, unattractive and difficult to understand. That is why the leaders of the Church have drafted these new forms of service, to try to make our services as meaningful, attractive and inspiring to them as the old 1662 service was to us.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? We all, when we were young, had to learn the English in the 1662 Prayer Book, and it was just as "old" to us then as it is to young people today. Why did we find it easy?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: The noble Lord probably had the advantage of having a mother and father who were Christians, and he was therefore taught from his mother's knee. Today, that does not happen and young people must learn for themselves. There is no doubt about it: it is a handicap today to use the language that we may love but which to them is difficult to understand. That is why many of us felt that it was right to turn to the new forms of service. I still believe that if we want to see—as certainly I do—young people who have not had the advantage of a Christian mother and father to bring them up in Christianity, being given a chance to approach our wonderful Christianity, we must ensure that it is as available and as welcoming to them as we can possibly make it.
These are the two major points that I should like to leave in your Lordships' minds. We have here a perfectly democratic machinery which has its full influence on deciding what sort of service is to be used in every church. Secondly, we are giving up something in the service that we have been brought up in so that we can make the Christian religion available to everybody.
7.12 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think that your Lordships will acknowledge the
1776
emotions, the erudition and the sincerity with which my noble friend Lord Sudeley has introduced his interesting, small but contentious Bill. I was greatly impressed by the way in which he handled most of his arguments, but must say that my recollection of the debate on the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974 differs somewhat sharply from his own. It was not, I think, given over to panegyrics about our late and beloved Primate. For example, I added eight and a half lines of Hansard to that, and four and a half columns to what I confess was a somewhat passionate discursus in defence of the old forms of language and service. However, although I found echoes of sympathy in this from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whose intervention I greatly welcomed, like him, I have to recall that I am now sitting on another Bench and therefore have to take a wider view. If one wears a uniform, it is true that one's shape shows through, but I have to do no violence to my own views to achieve this.
The fabric of our society is interwoven with that of the Church of England; indeed, the Church of England has been almost too often described in history books as "the Tory Party at prayer". In that Church, liturgy and song have played a very important part, but that fabric of society under the Church has endured for a very long time, and it has not done so by rigid resistance to change in either the State or the Church. The change has been gradual, and I sympathise very much with a great deal of what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said. It is, after all, steel and not cast iron which has strength, because it can bend. The most recent change was the introduction of synodical government. It was a decision taken by Parliament—taken in part in this Chamber, during a debate in which my noble friend Lord Sudeley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and many, many others, including myself, took part. It was not a superficial debate and I do not think we begged any questions.
I believe that the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for a most illuminating and penetrating explanation of the settled balance arrived at between the Church and the State and of the functions of Synod,

1777
clergy and laity. There has been a counterpoint to this of great value from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who put the matter in what might be called practical terms.
I do not take this Bill to be a deliberate attempt to rescind part of the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974; if it were, I would take a different view. But as it may unintentionally do so, one must review it with great care. It is my function here to say that one cannot, I think, place a Party line on how my noble friends are to vote; but I think it is fair to draw their attention to a number of facts.
The first is that a useful function, which my noble friend Lord Sudeley has set out to achieve, has already been discharged: to give rise to a discussion as to whether or not the 1974 Measure has introduced satisfactory machinery. The debate has also given an opportunity for many of my noble friends and Members on other Benches to make speeches to which the Synod would be very well advised to pay attention, though I accept, as I am sure the right reverend Prelates will also, that the Synod is not a body subject to direction and it cannot be expected that it will be directed.
My personal hope is that this Bill will be withdrawn. More fervently, I hope that the clergy and the Synod will take note of what has been said, and that my noble friend's supporters in this cause will recall that they are part of the same body as those who disagreed with them and that it is for them and those who disagree with them to find a compromise and a reconciliation. It is upon compromise and reconciliation that the Church is built, and if they are not sought then this exercise will have been wholly damaging.
If the noble Lord does not withdraw his Bill and if, as I suppose, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has said, it proves to be a recension of part of the Worship and Doctrine Measure when it is examined in more detail, if it reaches a further stage—because, my Lords, merely to put in the words "in accordance with" in the Long Title does not alter the nature of the Bill any more than to say "in contradiction of" —it would not be possible for me to give such a neutral and anodyne speech from this Box, because we should then be
1778
touching on matters of great constitutional significance. I believe they have been trespassed upon unintentionally by my noble friend, and I hope that, hearing the cracking of the ice, he may feel that he has gone far enough.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, rises, may I say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made one remark which I did not entirely understand—it may have been accidental. He said, I think,
"It is upon compromise and reconciliation that the Church is built."
Those of us who do believe in Christianity in all its forms—Methodism, Quakerism, Catholicism, and so on—certainly believe that the Church is built upon reconciliation. That is one of the things which Our Lord represented; but I am not so happy about "compromise". I do not know whether I have misunderstood the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if the noble Viscount wishes me to reply, I will change that. The Church, of course, is built upon love; but we are talking politics, and love shows its face in politics in many forms. Two important forms are compromise and reconciliation.
7.19 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, I think this has been a most fruitful debate and I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have been so kind as to take part in it. I am especially grateful for the sympathy that I got for the cause of the Bill from the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Somers, from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and from the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. The noble Earl wrote to me before the debate and said that, with regard to Christian mysteries, it was better that men should be free to exercise their imaginations; the voice was silver and silence was gold. From the point of view of this debate, it has been quite the other way around. The noble Earl's voice was gold and his silence would have been less than silver. I was most indebted, also, to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the very sympathetic point of view which he took towards my Bill. All his remarks about language in the Book of Common Prayer and the alternative services were

1779
really bullets which he might very well have prepared and which I should have very much liked to fire.
Then there was the point of view expressed by the bishops. I did not know before this debate whether I ought to mention in summing-up that my ancestor murdered Thomas à Becket, so that this is not the first occasion on which my family has met with episcopal opposition. I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who spoke about the great achievements of the alternative services, that I am sure that they exist, but that it is not the object of the Bill to prevent anyone from having the alternative services if they want them. A great many other points have emerged in the debate, and it is difficult to know in which order to take them. But I thought, for better or worse, that I might hang my remarks on the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and mention the speeches of other noble Lords by the way, where they interacted with the points made by him.
The right reverend Prelate asked me why I did not participate in Church government. I speak as a hereditary Peer, and I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Alport, would think that I was a specious democrat or a real one. But, if I may be allowed by the noble Lord to put myself forward as a real democrat, I would say that I should be rather bothered by the inadequate basis of lay representation in the Synod, because of all the gearing which takes place between the parish representative and the Deanery Synod, the Deanery Synod and the Diocesan Synod, the Diocesan Synod and the General Synod. This is not real representation at all and it would bother me, from a democratic point of view, to participate in that kind of government.
A small point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was that, when I spoke about enforcement, I mentioned the Act of Parliament of the last century requiring that a certain Church vestment should be worn, which could be enforced in the civil courts. The right reverend Prelate pointed out that this had led to parsons being sent to gaol. My rejoiner is that the fact that they were sent to gaol created an unnecessary degree of sympathy for those parsons, and that it
1780
would have been much more satisfactory if they had merely been deprived.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that he did not know of any cases where parochial church councils were overridden, or not consulted. Certain instances have, in fact, been produced in the debate and I have had correspondence from various parties entrusting to me information of this kind about cases where parochial church councils were not properly consulted, or were overridden by their vicars. My difficulty is that the information was entrusted to me in confidence, but if I can get the consent of those who have given me the information I shall be very glad to send it on to the right reverend Prelate, if he would like me to do so.
He also said that I did not name my bishops, but he named his. I could go so far as to name my bishops. It was the Bishop of Truro who said that something should be done to prevent alternative services from being forced on unwilling congregations. It was the Bishop of Chester who said, with regard to the introduction of the new services, that parochial church councils were not properly consulted. It was the Bishop of Peterborough who said that lay people are sometimes pusillanimous, and allowed their incumbents to get away with all kinds of things which they ought not to do.
Another point which the right reverend Prelate made, and which was made in several parts of the debate, was that the Bill would introduce strife into the Church of England at the parish level when it does not already exist. But the strife has already been introduced by the alternative services. The Bishop of Peterborough wrote to me saying that he did not want the Church of England to be turned into—to use his own vivid phrase—"a Yorkshire coalfield". But it is a Yorkshire coalfield that the Church of England has already been made into, by these new services.
A certain amount was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London about what a pity it would be to disturb the relationship between Parliament and the Synod, when this has been fixed ever since the enabling Act. But the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned as a rejoinder that the hand of the Synod was moving too fast. It is worth mentioning

1781
in this connection that the Synod has lost a little of its air of self-assurance and has become a trifle nervous. The Synod was formerly apt to assume that all its legislation would go through with a mere nod of Parliamentary approval, despite the fact that Parliament still retains a certain amount of residual authority on Church matters.
Now, all that has changed. There was the Endowment and Glebe Measure, which alienated the benefactions of our ancestors, and thereby destroyed much of the incentive for future giving—and giving usually takes place on a strictly local basis. This Measure also enabled the centralised authority of the Church of England to destroy the parochial system and the idea of the benefice, which is as old as the history of the Church of this country. There was very sharp criticism in Parliament of this Measure, especially from the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown.
Then there was the very strong speech made before Christmas by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on the Diocese Measure, in which the noble Lord was extremely critical of the quantity of ill-digested legislation which has come from the Synod to Parliament during the past 10 years or so. The noble Lord said that the moment might come when Parliament will have to say no.
Then there was the argument put forward by the right reverend Prelate that one cannot legislate against human folly. As one noble Lord put it to me in correspondence before this debate, what my Bill was seeking to do was to get between fools and their folly, and this is something which one should not do. But this argument might be summarised by saying that people have their rights under parochial church councils and, if they cannot stick up for them, then it is their fault. They really ought to do so. But this argument—which I suppose one might call the argument of the tough capitalist ethic, and which, for all I know, dates from when the Liberals joined us in 1886—is a secular ethic, and what we are dealing with is a non-secular situation. Then I think that the ethic also begs the question: what is the Church? Is it the clergy, or is it the laity? If it is the laity, then we should do well to remember the passage from the Didache in where
1782
reference is made to how the clergy were elected to their congregations.
One parallel to this argument of the tough capitalist ethic is the argument that the Church is not a democracy. This is a theme touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who said that what the Church needed under the present Christian revival was a great deal of leadership. But if one says that the Church is not a democracy, then why have a house of laity as well as a house of clergy in a Synod, with equal voting powers?
My last point concerns the matter of doctrine. The right reverend Prelate was a little critical in his speech of my remarks on doctrine. Doctrine is a difficult matter to raise in a Parliamentary debate. To put together two theologians is rather like putting together two economists; they are bound to disagree. Certainly it is the case that if many ordinary men in the pew were able to vote for the Bill they would vote with their hearts, not with their heads. They will not know what is meant by the epiclesis and the ananiesis. However, I was rather anxious when the right reverend Prelate remarked that the Worship and Doctrine Measure provides that decisions on doctrine ultimately have to be made by the Synod under the Measure.
That is not my reading of that Measure. In Clause 5(1) of the Measure, which is headed "Interpretation", the following words appear:
"References in this Measure to the doctrine of the Church of England shall be construed in accordance with the statement concerning that doctrine contained in the Canons of the Church of England, which statement is in the following terms."
The quotation is taken from Canon AS of the Canons of the Church of England, as given in the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974:
"The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeble to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer"—
that is the phrase which I have under-lined—
"and the Ordinal."
Having read that out, I emphasise once again to your Lordships how important

1783
it is that people should be able, if they want to do so, to continue with the old services. May I repeat that the old services have already departed from the Book of Common Prayer, not only in the instances which I gave at the beginning of the debate but in further instances, of which I will give one or two examples.
In Holy Communion, Series 3, for example, there is no consecration. High Churchmen say that from this point of view Holy Communion has ceased to be a valid rite. In this connection, may I mention Michael Morton's pamphlet, Consecrating, Remembering and Offering. The deity of Christ has been weakened in one or two ways, apart from those which I indicated at the opening of the debate.
Before the debate I thought I would say at the end of it that there is the omission of the word "incarnate" from the Creed. I am extremely glad that the right reverend Prelate thinks that the word "incarnate" will be removed. Then the phrase "God of God" has been changed to "God from God".
I do not regret having initiated this debate, not in the form of an Unstarred Question but in the form of a Bill which has provided a better framework for the debate. Nevertheless, it has emerged from the debate that while many noble Lords are sympathetic towards the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to provide better safeguards for the Book of Common Prayer, they have a reservation about the secondary consideration relating to the constitutional issue; namely, the Bill going as legislation from Parliament to the Synod rather than the other way round.
I am anxious that no harm should be done in the Division Lobbies to the primary purpose of the Bill, on account of which such good speeches have been made. Owing to the constitutional issue, if noble Lords will allow me to do so I prefer to bow out gracefully.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, may I take it from the noble Lord's last words that he is withdrawing his Bill?
Lord SUDELEY: Yes, my Lords.
7.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for doing so, thus not requiring me to press my Amendment. I do not think that there is any need for me to answer at length the speeches which have been made in the debate. Certainly I do not want to go in detail into the last speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, except to say that he is speaking about a Church which I do not recognise. It is quite different from anything in my own experience.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, he must know that I cannot possibly give any assurance as to what the General Synod will do. The General Synod is very well aware of the kind of opinions which have been expressed in this House, because very often I am in sympathy with them and make these points, although I do not always carry them in the Synod. However, I hope that I am a sufficiently good Synod man to take the view which is expressed by the majority of my fellow Churchmen. Those points of view are undoubtedly expressed there, although they do not always carry the day.
I found it very difficult to understand the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. I am sorry that he was not here for my opening speech, as it would have answered a great many of the points which he made. He began by saying that he saw no improvement in the Church of England since the passing of the Worship and Doctrine Measure. I found that to be a rather condescending remark. What does the noble Lord mean by "improvement"? I have seen an enormous amount of improvement since the Worship and Doctrine Measure was passed and I would in no way accept his derogation of the work that it has done.
The noble Lord says that the result of the new services is that he does not know where he is. If he had been Bishop of Willesden, as I was from 1950 to 1955, he would have known not at all where he was when he went around, with people using different services which were all illegal. Now they are all using the legal services. Series 2 has been one of the great irenic influences in the Church of England.
I believe that the basis of this debate was touched on by the noble Lord when he said that there is a "majority" of

1785
people whose wishes are not being observed by the decisions of the General Synod. This, I think, is the difficulty. A great many people who call themselves members of the Church of England go occasionally to Church and then do not find that with which they are familiar. Now that Parliament has given to the Church of England a clearly defined system of synodical government, surely it must accept that that system is the one which controls and orders the life of the Church of England.
It is open to any Member of this House to take his part in the work and administration of the Church of England. I wish, with all my heart, that noble Lords would do so. We on these Benches have got pretty tough skins; that is one of the essential requirements of anybody who is called to be a bishop. Therefore we can take the kind of speeches which have been made today and the kind of speeches which were made on the Dioceses Measure, on the Endowment and Glebe Measure and on the Worship and Doctrine Measure, but it is not possible for us to carry all of those messages back to the place where those speeches really ought to be made; namely, in the General Synod. I wish that noble Lords who feel strongly about these matters would seek election through the democratic processes of the Church in order that the points which the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has so cogently made are expressed among Church people, who equally can tell him what they think. In that way we may come to a common mind.
The Church is not the bishops; it is not the clergy; it is not the laity. It is the whole body of Christ working together for the benefit and extension of Christ's Kingdom. That is what has been given to us in synodical government, and we who are part of it are profoundly grate-full for it.
In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has asked permission to withdraw the Bill, it is not necessary for me to do other than ask for leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

ABINGDON MARKET PLACE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee (on re-commitment) with Amendments.
UNION THEOLOGICAL (COLLEGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  "SCHOOL STUDENTS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!"
  "SCHOOL STUDENTS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!"
  REMAND FACILITIES IN SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND
  REMAND FACILITIES IN SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND
  ARMED FORCES IN NORTHERN IRELAND: ESTATE DUTY
  ARMED FORCES IN NORTHERN IRELAND: ESTATE DUTY
  AID TO MADAGASCAR
  AID TO MADAGASCAR
  TUVALU ISLANDS: DEFENCE AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
  TUVALU ISLANDS: DEFENCE AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS