Sitting of 12 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE

    Shipping Industry
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he plans next to meet representatives of the shipping industry.
    The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Smith): There are frequent contacts at both ministerial and official level with the General Council of British Shipping which represents the United Kingdom shipping industry. I next plan to meet the Council on 4 April.
    Mr. Spicer: When the Minister next meets the Council, bearing in mind the military and commercial threat posed by the heavily subsidised Soviet shipping
    2
    fleet, will he tell it what plans he intends to put in hand to effect better competition between British ships and Russian ships and, particularly, whether he is considering a quota or surcharge arrangement similar to that in the United States?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has raised this matter frequently in the context of the European Community. Partly as a result of his efforts, the Transport Council recently took a decision to monitor all liner carriers on certain trade routes serving the EEC.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: When my right hon. Friend meets the Council will he raise the question of the cost of pilotage in the Port of London, which seems to be a great deal higher than elsewhere? Will he also consider asking the Council whether it could put proposals to the Port of London Authority to rationalise the whole question of pilotage on the River Thames?
    Mr. Smith: That matter is under consideration in the context of the Merchant Shipping Bill which is in Committee. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Secretary of State find out from the General Council of British Shipping what its policy is regarding fines which are levied on master mariners who break the anti-pollution regulations? Will he see if he can obtain

    3
    from it some general agreement about its policy and then come to the House and make a statement?
    Mr. Smith: The whole question has been discussed between the Council and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Department. I understand that it will be debated in the Merchant Shipping Bill Committee, perhaps tomorrow. I shall read with great interest the contributions hon. Gentlemen make on the subject.
    Mr. Litterick: Does the Secretary of State know the current relationship between the charges levied by the shipping cartel and the actual costs of operating the ships? If he does not know, will he undertake to report this to the House as soon as possible?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is inviting me to launch myself into a complicated area between the shipping interests and the shipper interests. The question will have to be more finely defined before I can give a helpful answer.

  TRADE

    Multi-Fibre Arrangement
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received about the workings of the multi-fibre arrangement.
    Mr. John Smith: I keep closely in touch with both sides of the textiles and clothing industry about the workings of the multi-fibre arrangement and related issues.
    Mr. Arnold: Is the Secretary of State aware that the success of the MFA will have to be judged against the outcome of the Tokyo round? Does he really believe that the present proposals of the Commission, which will result in textile tariffs in the Unted States being at least 35 per cent. higher than those in the EEC, can possibly be justified?
    Mr. Smith: The multi-fibre arrangement is working well and will maintain itself in operation until 1982. I hope that it will be continued beyond that, because I think that it is necessary for the industry. I have only recently received the latest interim reports from the Commission on the multilateral trade negotiations.
    4
    Since there are over 2,000 items in the United States tariff scale alone, I am having it carefully evaluated. I do not wish to express an opinion on the worth to the Community, as opposed to the United States, of these offers until I have had a fuller opportunity to analyse them properly.
    Mr. Madden: Has the Secretary of State any further news about action being take to control textile exports from Mediterranean associates such as Portugal, Turkey and Malta especially in the context of outward processing? Can he say whether, when the time comes to negotiate the agreement, efforts will be made to include China?
    Mr. Smith: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, agreements were reached with the Mediterranean countries for different periods of time but on a basis which I think was satisfactory, particularly since much better safeguard mechanisms have been introduced into them. Discussions between the EEC and China have begun. Obviously in these negotiations the British Government will not only have regard to our commercial interests, but will wish to ensure that the outcome is consistent with the multi-fibre arrangement.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the Secretary of State accept, either wholly or in part, the complaint made by Hong Kong that although its quota has been reduced for imports into this country, ostensibly in the interests of the home producers, the shortfall has been made up, not by the home producers, but by importers from other countries?
    Mr. Smith: It is always difficult to pin down these matters completely. Our judgment is that part of the gap created by the reduction of imports from Hong Kong has been made up by the home producers. The quotas bit quite heavily on Hong Kong, as they did on some other countries. I am afraid that that was an unfortunate necessity in the achievement of the multi-fibre arrangement.
    Mr. James Lamond: Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from the British Textile Confederation about the Tokyo round? Is he aware that the BTC regards the current offer by the United States as being unfavourable to the textile industry? Will my right hon.

    5
    Friend bear that in mind when he is considering this matter?
    Mr. Smith: I have received recent representations from the British Textile Confederation. I value the opportunity of corresponding with that organisation and discussing these matters with its members. The American offer is under discussion in the Commission. Recent discussions have taken place and I am in the process of evaluating them in the context of textiles policy and of the MFA negotiations.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Has the Department of Trade seen the annual report from the Leicester and District Hosiery Manufacturers Association which I sent to the Under-Secretary and which is critical of the operation of the multi-fibre arrangement? What steps are the Department taking to improve monitoring the effectiveness of that arrangement?
    Mr. Smith: I have not seen the report, although I understand that it has been sent to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. My impression—and indeed it is more than an impression, it is a justified conclusion—is that the monitoring of the multi-fibre arrangement is working reasonably satisfactorily. But if detailed points are brought to my attention which I feel are justified I shall not hesitate to raise them with the Commission.
    Mr. Nott: What is the legal position of the quotas? Is the Secretary of State aware that many textile companies in the country foresaw that when the multi-fibre-arrangement was renegotiated the total quotas would be more or less fixed until the end of the period but now, with enlargement and the Chinese question, they see the quotas as being movable? Is there no fixed limit on the quota? There is some uncertainty about this problem.
    Mr. Smith: My understanding is that there are fixed quotas under the bilateral arrangement. Of course, the Mediterranean associates are in a different position because they are regarded as preferential countries in relation to the Community. If any other countries were to be brought within the scope of the multi-fibre arrangement, that would raise the question of whether there should be an increase in the global amounts.

    Chile (ECGD Cover)
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to restore medium-term Export Credit Guarantee Department cover for Chile, in view of the fact that only £25 million outstanding debt to the United Kingdom remains unpaid.
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the restoration of the Export Credit Guarantee Department medium-term cover for exports to Chile.
    Mr. John Smith: Some £20 million of the £50 million claims paid by ECGD in respect of defaults by successive Chilean Governments is still to be recovered. This is not an inconsiderable sum and I am not prepared to authorise the resumption of ECGD cover for new medium-term credits.
    Mr. Whitney: Is the Secretary of State aware that that reply will cause grave disappointment to British industry? Does he agree that £20 million is an insignificant sum in relation to Chile's foreign trade? As the Secretary of State knows, the delay in the overpayment is because of technical arrangements related to the"Club of Paris ". Does he agree that the expansion of the Chilean economy as a result of following policies which the Secretary of State may not find congenial to his own ideas has resulted in an increase in the industrial market? This is available to industrialised countries in the West but it is being absorbed by our economic competitors and denied to our industrialists because of the Secretary of State's policy.
    Mr. Smith: There may well have been an improvement in the external side of the Chilean economy in the last year or so. None the less, the House should remember that serious problems remain, including the high rate of inflation, unemployment, the external debt service and the possibility of an international trade union boycott. In those circumstances, there is need for some caution, given the commercial nature of ECGD's operations.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Birmingham firms are being prevented from doing any trade with Chile because of the intransigence of

    7
    the ECGD? Is a political decision involved? If it is, is the Secretary of State aware that America and Russia make these credit facilities available?
    Is the Secretary of State aware that Chile increased its gross national product by 6 per cent. in the last three years and that there was a 12 per cent. increase in purchasing power in the same period? Does he agree that those factors make for a more important market and that we should get into it?
    Mr. Smith: I gave the reasons for my decision in an earlier answer. The hon. Lady may have made a mistake. So far as I am aware the Soviet Union does not give cover, but I shall inquire into that. I remind the hon. Lady that ECGD cover is not withdrawn for business in terms not exceeding six months' credit. That cover is freely available. Some countries give cover and some do not. Amongst those which do not give medium-term cover are Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.
    Mr. Grocott: I understand the Opposition's desire not to allow morality to intrude into the money-making process, but does my right hon. Friend agree that all who love freedom and democracy hope that the present regime in Chile is temporary? Does he agree that it would be unwise for anyone to make a substantial investment in Chile?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has broadened the question. I shall confine myself to the original question.
    Mr. Nott: When I was a junior Minister at the Treasury I received formal representations from the then Labour Opposition that we should engage in trade with Chile on an entirely non-political basis, in view of the longstanding friendship between the Chilean and the British people. That was the position of the official Labour Opposition when we were in Government. What has changed, apart from the regime, to alter that attitude?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friends might think that the fact stated in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question justifies their change of attitude.

    Overseas Trade (TUC and CBI Co-operation)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress to secure agreement on co-operation between it and the Confederation of British Industry with a view to increasing Great Britain's overseas trade.
    Mr. John Smith: The TUC and CBI already co-operate in the promotion of exports through their membership of the British Overseas Trade Board and the National Economic Development Council, which is very much concerned with the achievement of higher exports and import substitution.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware of the general feeling that in the next 12 months we shall experience a more difficult time in overseas trade, that our prices will rise, and that we shall be less competitive? Should not the TUC try to do something to persuade the workers that it is important for the country to increase productivity and to achieve better delivery times overseas so that we can increase trade?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Member is absolutely right to draw the attention of everyone in industry—trade unionists and management alike—to those important factors. Together with the CBI the TUC is a sponsor of the Export United Campaign which is dedicated to increasing the awareness of everyone in the country of the export trade which will increase jobs and prosperity. I make it a practice to take a leading trade unionist on every trade mission that I attend abroad. That helps to create a wider measure of understanding.
    Mrs. Wise: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, in view of the importance placed on import substitution by the TUC and in the joint statement by the TUC and the Government, it is now time that at least one of the 7,000 people employed in his Department should spend his entire time grappling with the problem of import substitution?
    Mr. Smith: I understand that a great deal of effort is made by a number of people, but not on a full-time basis. I am always willing to look at suggestions

    9
    for the improvement of the working of the Department. I shall examine the suggestion. My hon. Friend should recognise that more than the Department of Trade is involved. All the sector working parties under the industrial strategy are under an obligation to maximise the scope for import substitution.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Has the Secretary of State had any discussions recently with representatives of small businesses, especially since small exporters, though individually small, collectively represent a significant part of our export trade?
    Mr. Smith: I think it extremely important to maximise the opportunities for small businesses in the export trade. This may be an area which has not been given sufficient attention in the past, and that is why I am happy that we now have the market entry guarantee scheme, which is specifically designed to encourage small firms to engage in exports.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: In addition to pursuing efforts on the export drive with the TUC and the CBI, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC and CBI the need to reduce imports of products which we produce equally well in this country, and to this end will he consider having a"Buy British"campaign in the near future?
    Mr. Smith: As I said to another of my hon. Friends earlier, we place high importance upon import substitution, since every exercise in import substitution is as valuable as the achievement of a further export contract. We believe that the best way to do that is to engage the attention of all the sector working parties in the industrial strategy, and there are some good examples of that—some in the footwear trade, for instance—which are having success.

    Motor Vehicles and Vehicle Equipment (Exports)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the prospects for an improvement in 1979 in the trend of United Kingdom exports of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders forecasts that in 1979 the number of cars
    10
    produced for export will increase by 5 per cent. to 520,000, and the number of commercial vehicles by 9 per cent. to 185,000. Forecasts for motor vehicle equipment are not available.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister for those figures. Can he explain the reasons behind the contrast in recent times between the relative success of vehicle equipment and accessories exported and the disappointing performance of motor vehicle exports? Does he think that the situation will be better this year? Secondly, in view of the shocking press which the motor vehicle industry has had in foreign newspapers recently over industrial unrest, and so on, is the Minister now satisfied that on delivery dates, keeping to specification and quality control, our reputation overseas will be better this year?
    Mr. Meacher: I should certainly like to give the hon. Gentleman a full assurance on all those counts. He will recognise that this is a complex matter. There are extremely detailed consultations and procedures, in particular between the Department of Industry and the four production companies in this country. But I am confident that the latest forecasts represent a significant upturn and a considerable improvement on 1978, which I agree was a disappointing year.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Under Secretary of State recall an answer which he gave a few months ago to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) about trade with the EEC in passenger motor vehicles, in respect of which in 1970 there was a crude surplus of £5·4 million and in 1977 there was a crude deficit of £750 million? Does the hon. Gentleman have the 1978 figures?
    Mr. Meacher: I do not have the 1978 figures, though I take the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I am concerned about the high level of tied imports from the EEC by the American multinationals in this country, which last year, I think, accounted for 11 per cent. to 12 per cent. of all our imports. I hope that all of them, and Ford in particular, will increase their production of cars in this country rather than in the EEC.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the Under-Secretary explain to my hon. Friend the

    11
    Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), and to hon. Members on his own side who would like to turn the EEC into a free trade area, by exactly what mechanism that would enable the British balance of trade in motor vehicles to be dramatically improved?
    Mr. Meacher: My understanding is that the European Economic Community is already a free trade area. The real issue is whether that works to our advantage or disadvantage in the medium term.

    Steel (Dumping)
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Trade what reply has been made to the representations made to the EEC by his Department on behalf of the British metal fastener industry about the dumping of steel by certain European steel producers.
    Mr. Meacher: None as yet. The Commission requires detailed prima facie evidence of price breaches. This is hard to come by, but the industry is excepted to assemble this evidence soon.
    Mr. Litterick: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is a disappointing answer. Will he take on board that it is now four months since representatives of the British metal fastener industry came to Westminster and explained in detail to hon. Members on both sides of the House what was being done by European manufacturers of metal fasteners with the aid of dumped steel manufactured by Western European—that is, Common Market—steel manufacturers?
    Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the long time lag in this matter. There is a significant issue. The real problem is that the steel used in the production of wire rod from which metal fasteners are made is not subject to the Davignon mandatory minimum prices and the wire rod itself is subject only to guidance prices which are not legally enforceable. The only provision which is possible in these circumstances is to tighten up the guidance prices for wire rod, and this means, in particular, providing more precise definition of the guidance prices for various sizes and specifications of material, whereas at present there is only one guidance price which is too crude. It is this which the industry is pressing for, and we are strongly supporting it.
    Mr. John Ellis: Does my hon. Friend realise that assurances have been given from the Dispatch Box that, all in all, the Davignon agreement was working well but that it now appears that there are whole areas of steel, special steels and other steels, to which Davignon does not apply and there do not appear to be any satisfactory arrangements at all? Will my hon. Friend arrange for a document to be circulated to interested Members or for something to be put in the Library showing the real facts and figures, showing where Davignon applies, where it does not apply, what dumping of steel is going on from the Common Market and what dumping is going on from outside the Common Market, so that we may realise where we are?
    Mr. Meacher: I shall be only too pleased to try to provide information setting out the position not only under the Treaty of Rome but under the Treaty of Paris. The problem is that Davignon measures apply only to ECSC-Treaty of Paris goods, whereas metal fasteners are covered by the Treaty of Rome, which does not allow the Commission to recommend or fix prices. That is the basic problem with which we are saddled. But I shall certainly try to give my hon. Friend and others the necessary information.

    Paper and Board (Duty-free Quotas)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning duty-free quotas for paper and carton exports from Norway to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Meacher: The quota for uncoated mechanical printing and writing paper has been increased by 2,730 tonnes to 34,705 tonnes, and the quota for miscellaneous paper and board has been increased by 670 tonnes to 2,427 tonnes.
    Mr. Marten: Does that amount to the increased maximum? Secondly, should we not be trying to exercise a rather more liberal policy towards our old EFTA friends in these matters?
    Mr. Meacher: It does not amount to the permitted maximum, which is 5 per cent. under the EEC-EFTA agreement of 1972. It amounts to about 2 per cent., which was the agreed increase for this

    13
    year, agreed at the end of last year. Taking into account the state of the British paper industry as well as the requirements of United Kingdom users and also our treaty obligations to our EFTA partners under that agreement, we believe this to be the maximum which we could afford consistent with our commitments to our own industry. I should add that Norway does better than any of the other EFTA countries, because about 84 per cent. of all its paper sendings to this country come in duty-free.

    European Community (Coastguard Service)
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the proposal for an EEC coastguard service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The European Parliament has sent forward proposals to the Commission for the establishment of a Community coastguard service further to the common policy for the conservation and management of fishing resources. The Commission has not yet put any proposals to the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Jay: Do the Government see any need for any EEC coastguard service?
    Mr. Davis: As to the specific purpose for which this is designed, that is really a matter for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sceptical about the need for search and rescue to be mounted through an EEC coastguard service. I think that the job is very well done as a national service, and I believe that this would be an excuse for added costs and unnecessary duplication.
    Mr. Watt: Can the Minister tell the House that he will be vigilant on this matter and make sure that he does not allow boats of any proposed EEC coastguard service to enter British waters? If he does, it will mean that he is finally handing over the fish stocks of Britain to our EEC partners.
    Mr. Davis: This is a matter for my right hon. Friends. I do not have responsibility in that area.
    Mr. Adley: Does not the Minister accept that the EEC provides a useful
    14
    framework, particularly on the control of pollution? Will he keep an open mind on these matters until the Government have had a chance to study the proposals fully and perhaps to seek the views of hon. Members representing coastal constituencies?
    Mr. Davis: Naturally. I will await any specific proposition that is advanced. Nevertheless, I am sceptical about whether the EEC has a role in relation to anti-pollution measures. This is a matter where the EEC certainly has a role to play through enforcing agreed international solutions.

    European Community (Council of Trade Ministers)
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects next to meet his EEC counterparts.
    Mr. John Smith: I regularly attend meetings of the EEC Foreign Affairs Council when trade matters are discussed. I expect to attend the Council on 2 and 3 April.
    Mr. Goodlad: When the Secretary of State next meets his EEC colleagues, will he discuss with them the threat posed to the paper and board industry by the demands of the United States for concessions in the last round of the GATT negotiations? Is he aware of the serious threat that would be posed to employment if the market was flooded with low-priced competition from the United States in a period of slack domestic demand?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue which has concerned us during these discussions. I regard the tariff cuts proposed by the United States as excessive. I also regard as excessive the extent to which the Commission proposes that the Community should accede to those demands. That is something upon which the British Government will make their views very clear during the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Clemitson: How does my right hon. Friend justify the fact that, whereas about 40 per cent. of our total trade is now done with the EEC, less than 1 per cent. is done with India?
    Mr. Smith: That is a very wide ranging question, and Mr. Speaker would call me to order if I attempted to answer it

    15
    at any length. Our policy is to do as much trade as we can with as many countries as we can. We bear in mind that India is now the tenth largest industrial country in the world.
    Mr. Arnold: Why are the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the EEC prepared to take a robust attitude to negotiations with the United States on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) earlier, but not in regard to textiles and the multi-fibre arrangement?
    Mr. Smith: I do not see how it is possible for the hon. Gentleman even to mount a case that the Government have not been vigilant about the textile industry. This Government have done more to create circumstances in which the textile industry is protected from low-cost imports than any other Government have ever done. That industry now has wider protection than ever before in the history of the industry.
    Mr. James Lamond: I agree with all that my right hon. Friend has said. Is he not aware that it is the impending agreement that is causing concern, and that the United States will gain considerably if they are successful in their proposals at the Tokyo round?
    Mr. Smith: As I think my hon. Friend knows, these negotiations are not yet complete. I listened very carefully to the representations made by the industry. Where cuts in tariffs might assist the textile industry, these have to be balanced against cuts in our tariffs. It is a very fine calculation, but I assure my hon. Friend that I bear the interests of the industry very much in mind.

    British Airports Authority
    Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the British Airports Authority.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Department of Trade Ministers have frequent discussions with the chairman of the British Airports Authority.
    Mr. Walters: What suggestions, if any, has the Minister made to the chairman to improve the industrial jungle at London airport, which makes life for passengers almost always inconvenient and frequently
    16
    a nightmare? It is the worst possible advertisement for Britain. Specifically, has the Minister received assurances that, should it ever snow again in this country, the farce of last January will not be repeated?
    Mr. Davis: As to industrial relations affecting the British Airports Authority, the situation has been extremely good. There have been very few strikes and little industrial relations trouble. The British Airports Authority has put forward proposals, which are currently being considered, for a greater degree of industrial democracy on the board. I welcome that. The difficulties during the winter months are not unknown, and this kind of situation has developed at other airports. However, I know that it is a matter which the British Airports Authority is urgently considering.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Has the Minister had discussions with the chairman of BAA about the Government's intention, unveiled last year in the White Paper, to bring terminal developments under general planning procedures? When may we know what the Government's final decision will be on this matter?
    Mr. Davis: Totally new terminal developments are already under planning procedures. The application for a fourth terminal at Heathrow is currently the subject of an inquiry and, indeed, an application for planning permission has been submitted by the BAA in respect of the second terminal at Gatwick. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

    Current Account Surplus
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the United Kingdom's current account surplus in the most recent month for which figures are available.
    Mr. John Smith: In January there was a current account surplus of £1 million.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the substantial and increasing benefits from North Sea oil, why was the surplus so low?
    Mr. Smith: I would always wish that the surplus was higher, although the hon. Gentleman will notice that the surplus for 1978 was £254 million. It must be

    17
    the job of everybody to increase our manufacturing performance so that we improve these figures.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that one of the reasons why the surplus is not as good as it should be is that we have a £2½ billion trade deficit with the Common Market? Are we not further bothered by the fact that it arises out of our contribution to the Common Market budget, which is roughly £20 for every man, woman and child? That is affecting the invisibles also and worsening the situation.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to this situation in regard to invisibles. With regard to the United Kingdom contribution to the Community, he knows the figures and the stance which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken and which he intends to pursue at the highest level within the Community.
    Mr. Tim Smith: What is the effect of the current exchange rate, coupled with rising unit labour costs, on industrial competitiveness? What is the Government's present policy with regard to the exchange rate? Will they seek to maintain the exchange rate at about the present level, or will they seek a gradual reduction in order to assist exporters?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman invites me to enter a very delicate area of economic policy. He really should address this question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that a spokesman of the Scottish CBI is reported today as having said that the advent of a Tory Government would do nothing to improve Britain's trade position?
    Mr. Smith: I am pleasantly surprised that such good sense comes from the Scottish CBI.
    Mr. Nott: Can the Secretary of State say how it is possible for any Government to get their forecasts of the current account surplus so hopelessly wrong? Only 18 months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer predicted a current account surplus of over £1,000 million. A year ago in the Budget the Government predicted a surplus of several hundred million pounds, but now we are just
    18
    breaking even. Now that the Secretary of State has fairly recently taken over the job from his predecessor, will he be giving better advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the future direction of our overseas trade and will the forecasts be rather better than in the past—certainly those for the coming year?
    Mr. Smith: I do not know how far my predecessor was responsible for the advice given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Obviously these are matters which are extremely difficult to forecast. I do not think that getting them right or wrong is the prerogative of any particular Government. My main concern as Secretary of State for Trade is to improve our trading prospects as best I can. I am more concerned with doing that than with getting figures correct.

    Third London Airport
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether his Department has now formed a view as to the optimum size of the third London airport; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The advisory committee on airports policy was established to advise on these matters. I understand its current view is that a new airport should have the potential to be expanded ultimately to include two runways and to handle around 50 million passengers a year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Do the Government accept the view which appears to be emerging from the advisory committee on airports which was set up by the Government? Is not the swift formation of that view by the advisory committee rather a marked contrast to the calculated vagueness of last year's White Paper?
    Mr. Davis: It would be quite wrong for me to prejudge the consideration of these matters by the advisory committee and by the study group on South-East airports. They have put forward this view, but of course it will have to be the subject of a consultation document in due course which the Government will have to approve in principle.
    Mr. Costain: The Minister's Department cancelled Maplin and the Channel tunnel, but does the Minister appreciate

    19
    that British Rail is now trying to reincarnate the Channel tunnel? Will not this have a bearing on the need for a third London airport, and when will the Government make a decision on the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Davis: I think not. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt address his question on the Channel tunnel to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Jessel: Since the Government White Paper last year was quite clear about the fact that a third London airport would be needed sooner or later, is it not better to get on with that as quickly as possible instead of planning to enlarge Heathrow and Gatwick, thereby increasing the suffering of people living round those airports?
    Mr. Davis: The extensions at Heathrow and Gatwick were spelled out in the White Paper. They are inevitable, as, indeed, is some expansion at Stansted and Luton. The fact is that we must deal with the short and medium term as well as the long term. As to long-term development, I believe that it is absolutely right to have a proper basis of consultation, so that people who have a direct interest in these matters will have an opportunity to have their say as a result of which they cannot allege that the man in Whitehall knows best.

    China
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the value of British exports to China for the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; and what are the prospects for increasing trade during the next 12 months.
    Mr. John Smith: The value of United Kingdom exports to China for the year ending December 1978 was £91,093,000. Following the signing of the economic co-operation agreement during my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry's recent visit to China, there are excellent prospects for a considerable increase in our trade with China, not only over the next 12 months, but increasingly in the longer term.
    Mr. Shersby: Is the Secretary of State aware that the announcement of increased
    20
    prospects of trade with China is welcome? Will he say exactly what orders have been placed? What is proposed in terms of the line of credit? Will that involve any buy-back arrangements?
    Mr. Smith: The agreement that was reached by my right hon. Friend was an economic co-operation agreement, which creates the framework for our future commercial relationships with China. During his visit, leading representatives of British industry made significant progress towards achieving contracts, although I do not think that any were signed. We have made arrangements for credit under ECGD. The question of buy-back arrangements is always a problem when dealing with State trading companies, and that will have to be resolved in the context of each individual contract.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: It is true that an agreement has been signed which spells out economic co-operation for the future, but will my right hon. Friend now confirm that, because not one hard contract has been signed between the two countries, the view taken by the technical representatives who were in China is that those contracts are never likely to be signed and that the co-operation agreement is not worth the paper that it is written on?
    Mr. Smith: I do not think that my hon. Friend does a great service to British industry, and to the great efforts that are being made to secure contracts in China, by statements of that kind. I refer him to the views of the publicly-owned industries, particularly the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation, which have very high hopes of increasing trade with China.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the official export credit arrangements for exports to China are at least as favourable as those in relation to exports to the Soviet Union, bearing in mind that the latter is hostile to us whereas China is not?
    Mr. Smith: I do not want to enter into arguments as to the relative merits of trade with the Soviet Union and China. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have expressed their willingness to support credit of up to £2·5 billion until 1985.

    Tourism Development Areas
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what further considerations he has given to the creation of tourism development areas, as distinct from industrial development areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Meacher: As my right hon. Friend announced in a written answer on 22 November last year, we shall be reviewing the areas eligible for tourist project assistance in two or three years time. In principle, I favour tourist development areas, but we would need additional funds to launch them.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the acceptance of the principle will be welcomed, whether or not extra funds are provided or present funds reallocated? May I take it from that that he accepts the proposition that tourism has different requirements from manufacturing industry and that one of the main problems on the British tourist scene is the decaying tourists towns around our coastline, many of which are not in development areas? Does he think that his proposals will help those areas or those who want to invest in those areas?
    Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts the proposed increase in public expenditure that is involved here, even if not in other areas. As I am sure he will know, we have extended the coverage of section 4 assistance to the intermediate areas which, for example, will take into account Blackpool, South-port, Morecambe, Colwyn Bay and Skegness. Many of them are the sort of towns that I believe the hon. Gentleman had in mind. For the rest of the country, two-thirds of all tourist disbursements by the English Tourist Board is in respect of publicity, promotion and research, none of which is territorially limited.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is extra need for tourism to be extended from London and the Home Counties to some of the remote areas, especially those areas that have pockets of unemployment? Falmouth is an example, as indeed, are many parts of Cornwall, Scotland, the North-East and elsewhere.
    Mr. Meacher: That is why in November 1974 this Government launched the tourism guidelines, precisely to concentrate the attractions of tourists to those areas which have great natural beauty and untapped tourism potential but which at the same time have the greatest economic need in terms of higher unemployment.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: I very much welcome the Government's change of attitude on this subject. But is it not quite absurd to pump public money into places where tourists simply will not go and where they will not even be seen dead in? Since the Government appoint the tourist boards, why not let the Government fix the public expenditure limit and then let the tourist boards decide how best that should be applied, because they know more about it than Ministers and civil servants?
    Mr. Meacher: There are many parts of the country, particularly in Scotland, Wales and the West Country where, far from wishing to be seen dead, people wish to spend their holidays, and be seen very much alive, for as much of the year as they can. As to fixing public expenditure and leaving the decision to the tourist boards, we make an allocation to them and it is up to them how they spend their money. We have guidelines, but we listen to the advice of the boards with regard to the construction or changes in the guidelines. That is one of the reasons why we have this modification in policy.

    Her Majesty's Coastguard
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representations he has received about the reorganisation of Her Majesty's Coastguard since the debate on 22nd January.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Representations have been received about future manning levels at three coastguard stations on the North-East coast and at two stations in Cornwall.
    Mr. Beith: Has the Minister yet had a report of the meeting at Seahouses on 3 March, which he agreed to arrange during the debate that is referred to in the question? Is he aware that, after detailed explanation from senior coastguard representatives, all those present,

    23
    representing the fishing industry and other boating interests, expressed unanimous opposition to the proposed reduction in watch keeping by regular coastguards?
    Mr. Davis: I am aware of some reluctance to accept these changes on the part of a number of people who feel that they will be adversely affected by them. But, when they are seen to be working in practice, I believe that that reluctance will disappear. What we must concentrate our minds on is a rationalisation of the coastguard service so that it can best undertake the task which it is required to perform, particularly in its expanding role dealing with the Channel navigation information service, anti-pollution, the monitoring and reporting of cargoes and so on. Unless we apply our minds to a rationalisation process, I do not believe that we shall get the best out of the coastguard.

    Motor Vehicles (Imports)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the shares of United Kingdom passenger and commercial vehicle registrations taken by imports in January and February of the current year as compared with the same two months in 1978, and with 1978 as a whole.
    Mr. Meacher: Imports accounted for 52·3 per cent. of new car registrations in February compared with 47·6 per cent. in February last year and 49·3 per cent. in 1978 as a whole. For new commercial vehicle registrations, imports accounted for 18·7 per cent. in February. This compared with 21·6 per cent. in February last year and 21·4 per cent. in 1978 as a whole. I shall give the remaining information requested in the Official Report.
    Mr. Miller: I thank the Minister for those figures. Does he agree that those increased imports show that there is now one effective European car and vehicle market? Will he therefore enter into discussions with his Common Market colleagues to discuss the future pattern of trade in those vehicles?
    Mr. Meacher: For many years, there has been a free trade area within the Community, which applies to the motor vehicle industry in the wider sense as it
    24
    does to other products. I do not think that there needs to be discussion at governmental level. We must make sure that our own companies take full advantage of the opportunities that are offered and that we get a benefit in terms of international specialisation within this wider market.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that over the past few years the import penetration of cars and commercial vehicles indicates that we need to regulate our international trade in manufacturing products over a much wider range, in the same way that we regulated our textile affairs through the multi-fibre arrangement? Will it not be necessary to extend that sort of quota coverage to retain some manufacturing development and ability in this country? Does not that mean that we must take a strong stand on this matter within the Common Market?
    Mr. Meacher: As my hon. Friend is well aware, in textiles the multi-fibre arrangement consists of about 30 bilateral arrangements between the EEC and low cost producers that are mainly in South East Asia. As for car production, he will be aware that about 70 per cent. of our imports come from the EEC. That is a completely different matter. As he knows, what he is suggesting is completely outwith the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Nott: Apart from the Treaty of Rome, is it not the case—
    Mr. Cryer: How can we ignore it?
    Mr. Nott: —that we have an enormous surplus in motor car components? Can we expect other countries to continue buying our motor car components as at present and in increasing quantities if we talk about placing import restrictions on motor vehicles from other countries?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the motor vehicle industry has a substantial surplus in its balance of trade. However, my hon. Friend would point out—I do so on his behalf—that the surplus has decreased from £900 million in 1975–76 to £400 million last year. That is a substantial drop, and it means that we must have a strategy that will not only hold the present position but restore our former position.
    Following is the information:

    NEW CAR REGISTRATIONS

    1979

    percent

    January

    53·9

    February

    52·3

    1978

    January

    50·0

    February

    47·6

    1978 (year)

    49·3

    NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

    1979

    January

    21·0

    February

    18·7

    1978

    January

    18·0

    February

    21·6

    1978 (year)

    21·4

    These figures are published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

    Patent Applications
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the number of patent applications filed by individuals in the last year before the bringing into operation of the Patents Act 1977, compared with the most recent 12-month period operating under the new Act.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The expense of collecting all the information requested would not be justified and, in any case, the new Act has not yet been in operation for 12 months. Samples indicate that the proportion of applications where the applicants were individuals was 26·8 per cent. under the old Act and is 25·4 per cent. under the new Act.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a decline in the number of registrations since the new Act came into operation? As it is the maternity award of modern British industry, is it not time that something was done to ease and encourage the registration of new inventions?
    Mr. Davis: It is far too early to make such judgments. The Act has not yet been in operation for 12 months. I believe that the Act will operate to encourage and facilitate a quicker use of the new procedures that are available. That will be to the advantage of all concerned.

    UNCTAD V (Common Fund)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the views of
    26
    his Department on the common fund which will be discussed at UNCTAD V.
    Mr. John Smith: We hope that further progress towards agreement on the structure of a fund based on international commodity agreements will be achieved before UNCTAD V, in the negotiations which resume today in Geneva.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very much in the interests of Britain to bring stability into international commodity markets? Will he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will on this occasion pursue a constructive policy with a view to achieving agreement in UNCTAD V unlike our rather dismal performance in UNCTAD IV?
    Mr. Smith: I can confirm our commitment to the establishment of a fund. I have no doubt about the political importance of securing an early agreement. Equally, we must ensure that the fund is set up on a basis that will usefully assist commodity agreements without undermining the financial responsibilities of producers and consumers and without disrupting commodity trade. I hope that we shall be able to bring the negotiations to a conclusion.
    Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his hope, but what positive and specific steps is he taking to promote it?
    Mr. Smith: I have given positive instructions to those who are representing the United Kingdom at the discussions. There are some complex matters, especially the financial magnitudes involved. If there is a willingness to reach agreement not merely on the part of the United Kingdom but on the part of other countries, I believe that it can be done.
    Mr. Spearing: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has acknowledged the need to make progress. I agree that it would not be appropriate before UNCTAD V to publish the entire negotiating posture of Her Majesty's Government, but will he be able to publish something of the difficulties that he believes have to be solved before this progressive measure may be implemented?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that might be difficult as the negotiations start today. I am

    27
    always willing to answer the questions that hon. Members table. Where financial negotiations are involved, I believe it wiser to let our negotiators have a freer hand.

    Ships (Registration)
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many ships have moved from British flag registration in the last four years.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: During the period 1975 to 1978 inclusive 760 vessels were removed from the United Kingdom register. After taking into account 314 additions, the net loss was 446.
    Mr. Dodsworth: That reflects the restriction of and contraction in world shipping trade and registrations but does the hon. Gentleman accept that a number of companies are concerned about potential restrictions on their right to transfer ships abroad? Has he had the opportunity of examining the correspondence from Sea Containers Incorporated, which has 21 ships registered in this country and which says that it will no longer register ships here if any restrictions are introduced?
    Mr. Davis: It is not right that the hon. Gentleman should use a certain line of correspondence to try to deflect the Government from what is obviously a sensible policy in clause 31 of the Merchant Shipping Bill, in respect of which the Tories were soundly defeated.

    Exports
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his latest estimate of the likely growth in United Kingdom exports from 1977 to 1980, taking into account the probable effects of the Iranian revolution.
    Mr. Meacher: No official forecasts have been published covering the period to the end of 1980.
    Mr. Price: Does the Minister agree that, in view of what happened in Iran, where we have £750 million worth of exports at risk, the majority in manufactured goods, and also in view of the fact that other OECD countries have an even bigger stake in their exports to Iran, this is bound to have a ripple effect on
    28
    world trade? Therefore, would we not be prudent to lower our estimates of what is likely to be the increase in world trade in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Meacher: That is entirely fair comment. Iran accounts for about 2 per cent. of our total exports. Other countries have deeper involvement in the Iranian market and therefore stand to lose more. It explains why the ECGD has withdrawn cover from new Iranian buyers. I am encouraged by the resumption of oil production on 5 March and also by the fact that the governor of the central bank of Iran stated that his Government intend to honour their commitments.
    Mr. Nott: What is our total accumulated ECGD commitment to Iran?
    Mr. Meacher: There are good commercial reasons in the interests of British industry why the commitment of the ECGD in any market is kept confidential.

  LAMBETH PALACE
  Mr. Arthur Lathamasked the hon. Member for Kingswood, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current value of Lambeth Palace and its grounds; what proportion of the accommodation is used for residential purposes; to what other uses it is put; and whether there is any real or book income arising therefrom.
  Mr. Terry Walker (Second Church Estates Commissioner): It is not possible to put a meaningful value on Lambeth Palace, which is a grade I listed building in a conservation area and with grounds zoned for planning purposes as"open space ". Its annual value for rating purposes is £11,638. Within the palace and its associated buildings there are 22 units of residential accommodation, including the Archbishop's own 3-bed-roomed flat. The remaining accommodation comprises offices used by the Archbishop's official staff, the chapel and State rooms, and the Lambeth Palace library which has an international reputation and is open to students. Rents are obtained from eight of the residential units.
  Mr. Latham: I am sure that the whole House was interested in my hon. Friend's revealing answer about Lambeth Palace.

  29
  May I express my disappointment to my hon. Friend about the fact that from his answer I cannot calculate the value of the residential part of the palace in terms of tax free allowance? He may be able to write to me about that. In considering alternative use, has it been considered whether the palace might be a good centre for the low paid or a refuge for those suffering from excessive rent increases in my constituency? Finally, will he confirm that the Archbishop is not remote from, innocent of and ignorant of what hard-headed businessmen at Mill-bank are doing? Is it not a fact that he is the chairman of the board of governors of the Church Commissioners and is therefore responsible for excessive rent increases? Is it not the fact that the Archbishop has personally endorsed and condoned this example of greed by the Church?
  Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Archbishop a Member of another place? Was not the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) an attack upon the Archbishop, and should it not be withdrawn?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is wrong. He suggests that it is out of order to cast any reflection upon a Member of another place or of this place. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) had to deal with the Church Commissioners.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said in the course of my supplementary question that the Archbishop was not remote and ignorant.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people believe that the Archibishop's historic residence is most suitable for him, and that most people hope that the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) will cease his vendetta against the Archbishop?
  Mr. Walker: As I have replied before to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and to others, the commissioners seek a fair rent on residential properties and have special arrangements to deal with hardship cases. The Primate is the chairman of the
  30
  Church Commissioners and, therefore, is kept fully informed, as are all Church Commissioners.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance on the matter of Question Time. It is a convention in debates that hon. Members declare any financial interest at the beginning of a debate. I wonder whether it would not be prudent for you, Mr. Speaker, to advise hon. Members on what they should do during Question Time when they have a financial interest. For example, it may well be, in relation to question No. 17 by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), that he has an interest of some kind in tourism. Where that occurs, it would only be fair to the House and, more important, to those reading the record of our proceedings to see that any financial interest is declared. I know that the Register of Members' Interests has tended to fade into some degree of desuetude as there is not the easy access of publication that there should be. That lack of a declaration does not help the reputation of this House and tends to evoke criticism. To help you defend that criticism, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to advise hon. Members to make such declarations in debates and at Question Time in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: It is a long-established custom in the House that a declaration of interest is not required from hon. Members during questions—only during debates.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, if you had not allowed a point of order during Question Time to the Church Commissioners, question No. 26 and even possibly question No. 27 to the Secretary of State for Trade would have been reached?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that I normally do not take a point of order during Question Time. However, this point of order came at the very end of it. I doubt whether we would have taken another two questions. We might have had one.
Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have referred to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), but he is not worth referring to.
What protection can you, Mr. Speaker, give to Back Benchers in the following circumstances? The Under-Secretary in answer to a question referred to increasing public expenditure, whereas in my supplementary question I made it clear that I was not asking for that. What protection do we have?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can never help any hon. Member who is dissatisfied with an answer.
Mr. Cryer: Often, Mr. Speaker, you answer points of order by saying"It has been a tradition in this House." That may well be so. I can understand your relying on that in your answer. Nevertheless there are people both outside and inside the House who recognise that improvements and adjustments need to be made. Indeed, I am sure you will recognise that Parliament, if it is to keep abreast and answer criticisms, must produce some change. How shall we effect that change if, whenever a valid point is raised about financial interests within the Chamber and the House, the answer is always"We have always done it that way, so we shall not change it "?
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman, first, that the House
32
decided by resolution that a declaration of interest is not necessary at Question Time. As the House decided that, only the House—not I—may change the rule. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am the servant of the House. It is not for me to overrule the resolutions of the House.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it must be within your recollection that last week the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) put to you a series of points about the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, who, the hon. Gentleman suggested, had some kind of personal interest as a result of his membership of the National Union of Public Employees. He suggested to the House that the Minister of State should declare his interest in a trade union—quite wrongly, because the Minister receives no private gain as a result of his membership of NUPE. However, here is another Member of Parliament who is directly employed to put a point of view on behalf of commercial interests to the House. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he receives personal profit from those interests. However, he has the brass neck to accuse the Minister of State of gaining from his membership of the union—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have explained the position to the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PRISONERS)
Mr. Neave (by private notice)Mr. Neave (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the allegations made by the official doctor of the RUC about ill treatment of prisoners by the Constabulary.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Allegations of ill treatment can be effectively dealt with only if the cases are identified. As my right hon. Friend made clear at the time that he set up the Bennett committee to inquire into police interrogation procedures, there is an established system for dealing with complaints against the police under which any allegations of ill treatment are investigated, the results of the investigation being put to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who decides whether to prosecute. The same standards of justice are applied to those suspected of crime, whether within the security forces or outside. I remind the House that the RUC is striving to protect the people of Northern Ireland from terrorists who would rob them of their most fundamental human right—the right to live, and to live in peace.
Mr. Neave: Although the allegations made are extremely serious, is the Minister aware that the"Weekend World"programme yesterday will be seen as a calculated attack on the administration of justice and the security forces in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware that in a radio interview today the editor declared that he brought forward the programme to pre-empt the Bennett report, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Is it not therefore in the best interests of the RUC to publish that report immediately, so that if there are grounds for Dr. Irwin's allegations, urgent action may be taken by the Government? Would it not have been wiser in the circumstances, with a view to giving a more balanced impression, had the Government spokesman appeared in the programme to explain the position? Whatever the outcome of the report, we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the security forces for their courageous achievements in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Concannon: I do not take the security forces for granted, and I shall certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman's comment is passed on to them.
My right hon. Friend did not refuse to appear on the programme yesterday. He was invited to take part in a programme due to be shown later this month on the general working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It was obvious from the programme that it had been hastily brought forward. That is why it lacked basic content and fair judgment.
My right hon. Friend has had the Bennett report for a few days. He intends to report on this within the next two weeks. However, having read the report I know that it contains 160 pages of closely-typed foolscap. It has over 500 paragraphs. Therefore my right hon. Friend will need a little time to study it.
Mr. Craig: Is the Minister in a position to say how many cases Dr. Robert Irwin reported to the proper authorities, and how many cases went from them to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
Mr. Concannon: Dr. Irwin has in some cases reported such findings in the proper way, but I should add that there were not as many as 150 cases, as was mentioned yesterday. In all cases where he made such reports he was interviewed about them by the police. The results of the police inquiries would have formed part of the material forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, who is independent and who alone decides whether to prosecute.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that, during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the present Solicitor-General, the present Home Secretary and various other Ministers and members of the Cabinet were all concerned about the effects that the measure would have on the quality of justice in Northern Ireland in the long term. That was why we opposed it so much. Will my right hon. Friend therefore inform the House how many people have been convicted on their own statements in the courts, under the scheduled offences, and how many of those cases have resulted in allegations of police brutality and wrongful extraction of confessions?

35
Is my right hon. Friend able to inform the House why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here to answer these questions? After the very serious allegations made yesterday about his failure to appear on the television programme, would it not have been a courtesy for him to be here to answer questions, much confidence though I have in my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to answer them?
Mr. Concannon: I think that basically the questions that my hon. Friend is asking were contained in the Gardiner report, but I will make sure that the figures are given to him.
My right hon. Friend is in Belfast at the moment, conducting a security review, which he does every Monday morning. We in the Northern Ireland Office start work very early on Monday in order to get to our office in Northern Ireland. I can assure my hon. Friend that, long before the mechanics of this House were in operation, Ministers were well on their way to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Freud: In view of the total propriety of London Weekend Television's programme yesterday, does the Minister really feel that the Secretary of State did enough in regard to the programme in question? Knowing how much attention Northern Ireland gets at the moment, surely it was the duty of the Secretary of State or the Minister to give his side of the question.
Mr. Concannon: As I said in my opening supplementary answer, the Secretary of State did not refuse to go on the programme. He was asked to appear on a programme to be shown later this month. It was obvious—as I think was obvious from the radio broadcast today—that yesterday's programme was brought forward only to pre-empt the Bennett report. That report will be out shortly and it might be better for the House to await it.
Mr. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend accept that to many of us, and to many people in the country of all shades of opinion who are very concerned about the continued operation of the emergency provisions, yesterday's television broadcast did a great service? Will he further accept that Dr. Irwin and those who were connected with the programme are to be
36
congratulated on being prepared to stand up and say what many of us have long been trying to establish, namely, the fact that all is not well with the emergency provisions Act?
As question and answer across the Chamber do not provide the best way in which to deal with the problem, Mr. Speaker, will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to initiate an early debate on the emergency provisions Act and security in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Concannon: The emergency provisions Act is discussed from time to time in this House. We have to discuss it by statute at six-monthly intervals, and on those occasions the House is able to pass judgment on it.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at Question Time on Thursday he undertook that the Bennett report would be published shortly? We were glad of that. What excuse can there possibly be for anticipating, by a form of prosecution on television, without any defence, the publication of that report and its consideration by Members of this House? Should not this total impropriety—if I may disagree with the Liberal spokesman—be considered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority?
Mr. Concanonn: I do not think that this is a question that should be directed at me or at my Department, which is not concerned with television ethics.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No matter how serious the security position in Northern Ireland, Mr. Speaker, it cannot excuse the beating up of prisoners who are under interrogation. Does not the Minister recognise that what is at issue is the question whether the complaints of Dr. Irwin have been properly investigated, and that the anodyne statement put out yesterday by the Northern Ireland Office did nothing to encourage conviction that the matter was being looked at seriously? Is not the real answer to the questions raised by Dr. Irwin to publish the Bennett report as soon as possible?
Mr. Concanonn: My right hon. Friend set up the investigation as a result of the report by Amnesty International and some of the uncertainties indicated in that report. He has had the Bennett report

37
for only a few days. As I have already said, it is 160 pages long and there are 500 paragraphs. My right hon. Friend must take some time in which to assimilate it. He will publish it as soon as he can.
Mr. Goodhart: I hope that the Bennett report will be published quickly and that it will be followed by a full debate. Is the Minister aware of the resentment that was caused by the remark on the television programme yesterday that members of the Parachute Regiment had opened fire on the civil rights march? Is the Minister aware that this is a travesty of recent history?
Mr. Concannon: I can only reiterate that the Bennett report will be brought out as soon as my right hon. Friend can get it to the House with his own remarks about it. I think that the television programme was hastily brought forward and that it suffered because of that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen.
Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend mentioned the fact that certain of these complaints have been investigated and that some are now in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. Can he say whether the DPP has finished his inquiries, or whether those inquiries are awaiting the publication of the Bennett report?
Mr. Concannon: The Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland receives a report on all complaints and decides whether to prosecute. Some of the allegations to which reference was made have already been to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he has made his decision on them.
Mr. Gow: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the very end of yesterday's television programme Mr. Brian Walden said that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State had been invited to participate in the programme? Will he clarify what he said a moment ago? Is he saying that no such invitation was extended to the Secretary of State?
Mr. Concannon: I am saying that the Secretary of State did not refuse to appear on the programme yesterday. He was invited to take part in a programme due to be shown later this month, on the working of the emergency provisions Act generally. That was the programme that we expected would be going out later this month, after the report of the Bennett inquiry. It was obvious from the remarks on the radio today that yesterday's television programme was hastily brought forward in order to pre-empt the Bennett report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have had no opportunity of appearing on that programme when he had already been asked to appear on a later programme.
Mr. Litterick: Will the Minister confirm that Dr. Irwin is a part-time police surgeon of some years' standing, and that he is a member of the council of the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain and a member of no political or denominational organisation?
Mr. Concannon: Dr. Irwin is a member of the Association of Forensic Medical Officers of Northern Ireland, whose members have contracted with the police authority to attend police stations where necessary. Most members of the association are also engaged in general practice. As I have said, procedures exist for the investigation of allegations from whatever source they may come.
Mr. Rhodes James: Is the Minister aware that it is now perfectly clear from the exchanges in the House that, in spite of the considerable length of the Bennett report, it really is a matter of urgency that it be published as soon as possible, and that the period of two weeks that he mentioned is too long? I ask the Minister to convey to his right hon. Friend the very strong feeling in all parts of the House that the report ought to be published as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Concannon: I would say that it will be within the next week or two, as a maximum. We understand the urgency of this matter, and so does the RUC, whose name is being besmirched again. Very little appreciation is being expressed of the splendid work which it has been doing in the Province.
Mr. Madden: I acknowledge that there is general opposition in this House to all forms of terrorism, but will the Minister acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations made in yesterday's programme? Will he also tell the House whether his office, the RUC or the Army was given an opportunity of previewing the programme? Will he emphatically tell the House whether or not the Secretary of State was offered an opportunity of appearing in the programme? Lastly, if he has reason to object to the content of the programme, is he contemplating submitting an official complaint to the Independent Broadcasting Authority?
Mr. Concannon: Again, I can hardly stress enough that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not refuse to appear in the programme yesterday. The whole thing was brought forward. I do not know that I can say any more, or that the matter gets any better for my reiterating this. There are no plans at present for doing anything that my hon. Friend has suggested. As we have said before in Northern Ireland, we are not against censorship of the media; we just wish that they would conduct themselves a bit more sensibly than they do.
Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that for many months those of us—and there are not many—who take part in Northern Ireland Question Time and Irish debates have been receiving letters from the relatives of imprisoned people denouncing the treatment in Long Kesh? Will he also accept from me that when Opposition Members say"Everything is perfect"and when anyone else says"Everything is wrong ", the truth probably lies somewhere between the two? It would be helpful if, without rushing to say that nothing is wrong—as a spokesman for the Northern Ireland Office did—some detailed inqury were made, even though we are waiting for the Bennett report. We have waited a long time. Until these suspicions are allayed there will be widespread worry about our reputation all over the world, and not only throughout Britain.
Mr. Concannon: That is why my right hon. Friend set up the Bennett committee. That is why I say that the House should wait for the Bennett report. This has nothing to do with imprisonment in
40
the Maze prison. This is to do with people in police custody.

OCEAN ISLAND (SECURITY)
Sir Bernard Braine (by private notice)Sir Bernard Braine (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning security on Ocean Island following the breakdown of the recent talks in Fiji on the Banaban question.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): According to the latest reports available, the security situation on Banaba is at present quiet. When I met representatives of the Banabans in Rabi and Tarawa a few days go, I expressed the hope that the expedition of 150 Banabans which was then shortly to leave for Banaba would conduct itself in the island in an orderly way. All Banabans have a right to enter Banaba whenever they wish, provided their intentions are peaceful, but I pointed out that further acts of violence would only alienate sympathy for their cause among their many well-wishers in Britain and elsewhere.
Sir B. Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer does not remove the anxieties that many of us feel in all quarters of the House that a tragic blunder has been committed? Will he confirm that he admitted to the Fijian Prime Minister last week that his meeting with the Banaban community on Fiji had left him in no doubt as to their determined opposition to being included in a Gilbertese republic, but that he had come out to the Pacific with no mandate to listen to their pleas for separation? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that, following this, the Fijian Prime Minister told his Parliament that the British Government policy over the Banabans was unfair, that it had ignored Fijian representations, that Fiji could not be insensitive to Banaban claims, and that Fiji would not be prepared to act as guarantor in future disputes between Banabans and the Gilbertese over Banaban rights on Ocean Island?
In view of the fact that the Government's manifestly clumsy and insensitive handling of this matter over a long time

41
has now resulted in 154 Banabans setting sail for their Ocean Island homeland vowing that they will die in defence of their own rights—and they may very shortly arrive—will the British Government, even at this late hour, reconsider their position with a view to preventing almost inevitable conflict and bloodshed?
Finally, since the Government have themselves provoked this situation, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what additional British security forces will be sent to Ocean Island to prevent conflict between Banabans and Gilbertese, and how quickly those forces will arrive?
Mr. Luard: I do not think that the British Government have at any time concealed the fact that there exists a major difference of views between the Government of the Gilbert Islands, on the one hand, and the people of Banaba, on the other. I have certainly never concealed the fact—I did not conceal it in my interview with Mr. Ratu Mara, the Prime Minister of Fiji—that we believe that a very large proportion of the Banabans seek separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands.
This has not been the problem. The problem has been that the Government of the Gilbert Islands have been totally opposed to that separation. That was the situation with which we were confronted, as a result of which the British Government, in November, made a decision that the Gilbert Islands would go to independence including Banaba. Therefore, as I told Mr. Ratu Mara, my own mandate was to discuss ways of safeguarding the interests of the Banabans in a united Gilbert Islands. That I attempted to do, both in my discussions with the Banabans and in my discussions with the Fijian Government and with the Gilbert Islands Government. I believe that my visit was useful in enabling me to clarify some of these points.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the danger of conflict and bloodshed. I suggest to him and to the Banabans, whom he has so strongly supported, that it would be unwise of the Banabans if they thought that they would promote their cause by deliberately seeking to promote conflict and violence in Banaba. I do not know that that is their aim. I hope that it is not their aim. That is why I told them myself, when I spoke to
42
them in Rabi and again in Tarawa, that I thought that it would be misguided of them to believe any such thing, and I expressed the hope that they would conduct themselves in an orderly way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the use of British security forces. I hope very much that such a thing will not be necessary.
Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Banabans are Fijian citizens and that the perverse and obtuse behaviour of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Banabans and Ocean Island is causing trouble not only with the Banabans but with the Government of Fiji and is souring our relations with a country with which we have long had very friendly and good relations?
Is my hon. Friend also aware that responsibility for Ocean Island is a matter not for the Gilbert Islands Government but for the British Government, who are responsible for the present situation by their arbitrary act in linking Ocean Island with the Gilberts, and that the Gilbert Islands Government do not have the final responsibility in the matter? That responsibility rests with this House.
Mr. Luard: Of course I am aware that many of the Banabans are or may be Fijian citizens, although most of them are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies at present. One of the matters that I discussed with Mr. Ratu Mara was citizenship matters of this kind.
My hon. Friend is right. We are concerned about our relations with Fiji. But I am glad to say that I can conclude from my quite long conversation with the Prime Minister of Fiji that I do not think that there is any danger at present that our long-term relationship with Fiji will be badly prejudiced by this particular issue, although Mr. Ratu Mara did not conceal his own opinions on this subject.
Of course I accept that this matter is at present the responsibility of the British Government. I spoke earlier about the decisions that the British Government have reached on the question. No one doubts for a moment that, until the Gilbert Islands become independent, the decisions are those of the British Government. That is precisely why I was sent to the region to try to

43
discuss the question. In the final resort, of course, the decisions are for this House. The House will have an opportunity in due course to express a view on the matter.
I was sent to the region particularly in order that the British Government's views should be known and so that I could discuss with the other interested parties possible compromise solutions.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does not the Minister regard it as regrettable that, on Commonwealth Day, the Government's handling of the situation should be meeting the severe censure of the Fijian Prime Minister? In view of the orginal appalling injustice done to the Banaban people, will the Minister attempt now to get nearer to meeting their wishes in this matter?
Mr. Luard: I cannot accept that in my interview with Mr. Ratu Mara he expressed severe censure of the policy of the British Government. Even the statement issued about that meeting—a one-sided statement—did not suggest that he expressed severe censure of the British Government's policy, and it certainly was not the tone of our discussion at that time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about appalling injustice to the Banabans. I am sure that the House, if it considers the matter, will realise that the British Government were faced—as any British Government would be—with a very difficult dilemma on this issue. The question was whether we should do an injustice to the Banabans or an injustice to the people of the Gilbert Islands as a whole. The fact was that the people of the Gilbert Islands and the Government of the Gilbert Islands, whom I have seen within the last few days, have at no time concealed their very strong determination that Banaba should remain part of the Gilbert Islands.
Therefore, it was on that principle, a principle which has been adopted by successive British Governments—that it should be the will of the Government and the people of the territory as a whole that is decisive—that we decided that Banaba should not be separated from the Gilbert Islands.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that it may be very difficult to get the Kiribati independence Bill through the House so long as this question remains unresolved? Is he also aware that a peaceful solution is much more important that a rapid solution and the absolute adherence to deadlines? Did he explore with Ratu Mara and the Fijian Government forms of association with Fiji or Nauru as possible alternatives to the present alternatives set out in the White Paper?
Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend said that, as the matter was unresolved, we should allow further time for looking at other solutions. One of the main purposes of my visit was to consider what compromise solutions might be possible. I proposed to the various parties with whom I discussed the matter forms of self-government for the Banabans within their own island, further assurances that could be given to them that they would continue to enjoy their rights, which we have ensured should be provided for them under the independence Bill, and even the possibility of a treaty between the Gilberts and some other country which would help to ensure that those rights were protected. Those were reasonable compromises to explore. I do not believe that my journey was in vain.
I agree that we should not be too hasty about these matters. But the House knows that the Government of the Gilbert Islands have been promised that they will enjoy their independence in July this year. That is already a postponement from the date originally suggested, so I hope that we can reach a solution before then.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of association with Fiji, Nauru or some other territory. All these ideas have been proposed in the past. They were certainly mentioned in the course of my discussions. But I must make clear that I had a mandate. That mandate was to act in accordance with the decision that had already been reached by the British Government last November, which was that Banaba itself would remain, in some form, associated with the Gilbert Islands.
Mr. Beith: Would not the best way to prevent disorder be to restore the shattered faith of the Banaban people in the

45
integrity of the British Government by saying directly to the Gilbertese that we cannot associate Ocean Island with Gilbertese independence in the way they propose? Would it not be fairer to the Gilbertese people to say that we in this House do not want to delay their independence but that it is likely to be delayed if this question is inextricably bound up with it?
Mr. Luard: The hon. Gentleman and perhaps the House as a whole seem to forget that this matter has been discussed, debated and explored over several years. There have been a number of meetings between the Banabans and the Gilbertese and between them both and the British Government. There was a long discussion of the question at the Gilbert Islands independence conference in London in November. There was about a week's discussion on the matter. All sides were listened to carefully. As a result, the Government reached a decision. There is no reason to think that by delaying the matter much further it would be any easier to reach a decision. Eventually, as Ratu Mara said to me, a decision must be reached. He urged us to reach a decision quickly on the matter.
Mr. Roper: Has my hon. Friend any evidence of external interference or aid in the disturbances which have occurred recently on Ocean Island? Will he ensure that a clear distinction is made between the question of compensation for the Ocean Islanders from the British Phosphate Commission and the question of independence for the Gilbert Islands, remembering that many Members are concerned about the Gilbert Islanders as well as the Banabans?
Mr. Luard: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question relating to external influence and aid for the Banabans—
Sir Bernard Braine: The Methodist Church?
Mr. Luard: —they have decided, in their own judgment, to engage certain public relations firms and others who have been assisting them in promoting their cause. I am willing to say—it was the first answer I gave this afternoon—that most of the Banabans are sincere in their view about this matter. We have to take account of their strongly held views. My hon. Friend rightly says that the constitu-
46
tional question with which we have been mainly concerned in the House today is distinct from the problem of compensation for the Banabans. As the House knows, the British Government have made what we believe is a fairly generous offer to try to resolve the financial question. We accept that the important matter of the constitutional future of the Banabans is something separate which the Government and I have been exploring on a separate basis in the last week or so.
Mr. Neubert: Do not these instances of frustration arise from the Banabans' conviction that the British Government's mind has been, is, and will remain closed to their genuine grievance? Will those doubts be assuaged by the Minister's unprecedented eleventh-hour visit to the Pacific?
Mr. Luard: It would be unjustified to suggest that the British Government's mind has been closed at any time on these questions. I have already mentioned that we had a long discussion of the whole problem at the Gilbert Islands independence conference. We listened to arguments on both sides. No stone has been left unturned in exploring possible ways out of this dilemma. We have listened many times to the arguments on the question.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that my visit was an attempt to go to the last limit in exploring all possible avenues and all possible means of compromise. I hope that I was putting forward some proposals that might represent a mutually acceptable compromise to try to meet positions that are almost diametrically opposed. By talking about autonomy for Banaba and about safeguards for the protection of their interests, I thought it might be possible to arrive at a solution acceptable to both parties.
Miss Joan Lestor: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is reminiscent of the Anguilla situation, when Anguilla was forced into a union that she did not want? The consequent history of that is still going on. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be far better to delay bringing forward independence for the Gilbert Islands until a solution has been found that meets the wishes of Banaba rather than putting the Government into an embarrassing position of having to

47
go back again on a Bill which is unlikely to get the assent of this Parliament?
Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend mentions a parallel with Anguilla. I agree that there are some parallels, but there is one major difference which the House ought to bear in mind. We have no knowledge of what is likely to be the future population of Banaba. Over the last few years only about 50 or 100 Banabans have lived in Banaba. The great majority of the total population of 2,400 Banabans have lived in Fiji. In considering whether Banaba should be separated or remain part of the Gilbert Islands, we have to take account of the fact that it looks as if the future population will be very small—perhaps 100 or 200—and very much smaller than the population of Anguilla.
My hon. Friend also said that it would be worth delaying the independence of the Gilbert Islands in order to explore this matter further. This view can be expressed and I will report it to my colleagues in the Government. But we have discussed this issue for three or four years in many different forms. My hon. Friend knows that herself because she was concerned with the issue at one time. We could hardly have done more to listen to many expressions of views. We have tried to explore all possible compromise solutions that we could devise. That was the reason for my recent visit.
Mr. Luce: The tense situation on Ocean Island arises from the anxiety of the Banabans about their rights on that island. I acknowledge that the Minister, I understand, has paid a fresh visit to the Pacific area in the light of strong representations from this side of the House which arose from the comprehensive and forceful case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B.
48
Braine),leading the campaign for justice for the Banabans—an all-party campaign—which reflects the genuine anxieties of the Banabans.
Will the Minister make a full and complete statement as soon as possible about the mission that he has recently made to the Pacific and before the Second Reading of the Bill in this House so that hon. Members may assess the situation carefully? While we on this side of the House genuinely wish to see the aspiration of friends in the Gilbert Islands fully succeeding, namely, that they proceed to independence, we also believe that the British Government should give the highest priority to ensuring that the genuine anxieties of the Banabans are allayed.
Mr. Luard: The hon. Member asked me about making a statement. I got back only this morning from a fairly long visit to the area and I have spent most of the morning dictating my own report to the Government about my visit. That report will have to be considered, and then no doubt a statement will be made to the House and to the other place about the Government's conclusions as a result of my visit.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that we should give the highest priority to considering the apprehensions of the Banabans. I repeat that we fully recognise their concern. It was precisely because of our recognition of their strong feelings on this subject that the Government decided to send me to the area to see whether I could explore some compromise acceptable to all parties. Because, as I have said, the views of both major parties are diametrically opposed, it is very difficult, but I hope that in my report I shall be able to suggest one or two ways which might go some way to alleviating the difficulties.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DRAFT ORDER)
Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) raised with me the matter of the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979. He suggested that the implications of the order were such as to it make its discussion and approval by another place a breach of the privileges of this House. I undertook to rule on the point that he raised.
As the House knows, the draft order seeks to give effect to a decision of the Governments and the member States of the European Coal and Steel Community allocating to that Community additional contributions for the financial year 1978. Among those contributions is one from the United Kingdom.
I have examined the matter with care since the hon. Gentleman raised it and I have two observations to make. In the first place, section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that draft orders of this type, defining certain Community treaties as treaties within the meaning of the Act, shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. Indeed, section 2(3) of that Act expressly envisages a charge arising from an obligation under a treaty approved in that way.
Secondly, in his submission to me last Thursday the hon. Member said that there was a tradition that the other House should in no circumstances grant or refuse Supply. However, I have to say that all Appropriation, Consolidated Fund or Finance Bills pass through normal statutory procedures and so are considered by another place.
As for statutory instruments, their procedures are governed by the Acts under which they are made. If, as in this case, the parent Act provides that the instrument requires approval by both Houses or is subject to annulment by either House, that is the procedure that must be followed.
In the circumstances, I do not find that this is an issue that touches on the privileges of the House. However, I congratulate the hon. Member on being so keen to guard our rights and privileges.
Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that ruling, which I must confess I somewhat expected. I think that it shows that the House must be careful about legislation. When it passes a parent Act, it must ensure that it understands exactly what the implications are. I am not sure that when we passed the European Communities Act in 1972, after the imposition of a severe guillotine, we knew exactly what the implications were.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that there were ample precedents for this and that this statutory instrument is no different from many others that grant Supply. Nevertheless, is it not the case that even though the Finance Bill is discussed by the other place, it cannot refuse Supply? Is it true that if it refuses to pass this order the Supply could not be made? The answer to that question would be interesting.
Perhaps the Lord President, who is present, would like to consider my second point. The amount involved here is £3·25 million. Are we to suppose that at some future date perhaps £30 million or £60 million will have to go through the same procedure, thus giving the House of Lords the right of refusal of Supply to a significant degree? The Lord President should consider this and perhaps make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: The point of order was addressed to me and not to the Lord President—who no doubt is counting his blessings.
The hon. Gentleman has raised two interesting questions, but they are hypothetical. By long tradition, no Speaker of the House ever rules on or answers hypothetical questions. We should get into too much trouble if we did so.
Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a point that may be for you? If it is not, I hope that the Lord President will reply to it on Friday evening, when there is an Adjournment debate touching on this issue. You said that the European Communities Act contained a section that made provision for making a charge upon the Consolidated Fund under a statutory instrument laid under section 1(3). Is it unique that a statutory instrument of itself becomes the means of paying

51
money out of the Consolidated Fund and therefore under the Appropriation Act?
Mr. Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is not a precedent—that there have been other occasions when statutory instruments involving expenditure have been subject to proceedings in both Houses. There were the Hill Farming Act 1946 and the Agriculture Act 1967, both of which made provision for statutory instruments to go before both Houses.
Mr. Hooley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take your point that Consolidated Fund and other Bills go to the other place, but I think that I am right in saying that the other place has no power to reject them. If that is correct, is it the case that although this order may have to go before the other place, the other place cannot negative it?
Mr. Speaker: All I know is that it has to go before the other place; we shall find out afterwards what happens to it. I really do not know any more than that at the moment.

" WEEKEND WORLD"TELEVISION PROGRAMME
Mr. Craig: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter, namely,
" the television programme yesterday known as ' Weekend World ', which, because of inaccuracies, distortions, biased opinions and uncorroborated and untested statements making serious allegations of dereliction of or failure in duty, in the total absence of balance as required by statute, must bring into disrepute the law in Northern Ireland and its enforcement by undermining the integrity and the authority of the judiciary, the police and the Army, as well as encouraging terrorist prisoners convicted of serious crimes to defy the prison authorities and giving aid and comfort to the terrorists of the Provisional IRA, an illegal organisation."
Those are strong words, but I propose to stand by each and every one of them. I have in my possession an advance press release from London Weekend Television. It claims, amongst other things, that the programme was the result of six months' research into the whole operation of the law in the Province, and it comes only days before the expected publication of a report by the Bennett committee. The programme was badly researched and lacked the balance required by the statute. There appears to be a belief that if there are Protestants and Catholics on a programme it is balanced, regardless of the substance of what they say.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I want him to advance his case, but I shall be grateful if he will state his reasons why these things should be discussed in an emergency debate.
Mr. Craig: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. The programme cast serious aspersions not only on the judges of Northern Ireland but on the entire legal system. It cast aspersions on the police and the Army. In the difficult situation in Northern Ireland, that can have dreadful consequences. It is important that those misleading and erroneous statements should be corrected before there are sad consequences in our Province.
There were many disastrous allegations that were inadequately researched. The centrepiece was the so-called evidence

53
given by a police surgeon, Dr. Robert Irwin, who manifestly failed to convince anyone that he was speaking with real authority. He alleged that between 150 and 160 cases that he personally examined involved brutality. But he did not indicate—nor was he asked to do so—that he had performed his statutory duty in reporting what he found. Indeed, we know from the Minister today that he did not report anything like 150 or 160 cases. We shall no doubt have more accurate information as the police investigation continues.
Dr. Irwin went on to say with remarkable carelessness, if nothing worse, that he had seen five cases of punctured eardrums. The advance press release states that ruptured eardrums are one of the most serious injuries and could not possibly be self-inflicted. Neither you nor I, Mr. Speaker, have medical qualifications, but many of us have had ear troubles and ruptured eardrums. Ruptured eardrums can be a self-inflicted injury. Anyone who has brought up children knows that there is a danger of their sticking things in their ears. Those who have served in the Royal Air Force and suffered ruptured eardrums will know that by holding the nostrils and blowing hard the rupture can recur. What the doctor was saying was manifestly not true.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Again I regret interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he must not make the speech that he would make if I had granted the application for an emergency debate. He should be making out a case for an emergency debate.
Mr. Craig: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have been over-zealous in proving the vast scope of the programme and the harm that it has done, but I have a duty to stand by what I say. There are other examples of what I can only conclude to be a deliberate bias by the producers. People were asked to give their views on confessions. One of them said that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has provided a legislative mandate to allow the police to obtain confessions at a standard lower than that in Britain. A natural effect of that is that they will apply extra pressure to obtain a confession. I gave a filmed interview for the programme on the law as I saw it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is getting restless. The right hon. Gentleman
54
is answering yesterday's television interview, which is what he would do if we had an emergency debate. He must advance arguments about the serious consequences if we do not have such a debate, if I may put words into the right hon. Gentleman's mouth.
Mr. Craig: I bow to your guidance, Mr. Speaker. But my filmed interview was excluded and it was the only evidence contrary to the weight of that programme. That alone should show the lack of balance. The producers had notice of a different view on the law as to confessions and the allegations made about the deficiencies in a trial without a jury.
When one is dealing with the difficult and dangerous situation in Northern Ireland, it is highly irresponsible to cast aspersions on Her Majesty's judges because they are jaded and tired, on the police, and on the Army, and to do so only a matter of days before a judge reports on an investigation. The House should consider the serious consequences of yesterday's programme.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the serious allegations made in the television programme ' Weekend World ' which brings into disrepute the law in Northern Ireland."
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and also to the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon. I have no doubt about the importance of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to take account of several factors set out in Standing Order No. 9 and I am required to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—Mr. Joseph Dean]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (ETHNIC GROUPS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
4.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short but, I believe, highly important Bill, and it is with great pleasure that I move its Second Reading. In the 1975 race relations White Paper the Government stated their belief that a harmonious multi-racial society, the advent of which has been one of our major objectives during the past five years, depended upon two factors. These were the elimination of racial discrimination, which I believe took statutory form in the Race Relations Act, and a comprehensive attack upon racial disadvantage. That is the disadvantage suffered over and above normal disadvantage by those who belong to ethnic minorities, and the existence of which, I believe, is to an increasing and almost universal extent now acknowledged.
The Bill is a contribution towards overcoming the latter problem. I believe that it will be a wider, a more flexible and a more direct attack upon it. Where the primitives on the Conservative Benches go wrong—and I have no doubt that unless they are elsewhere today we shall hear it again this evening—is to believe that to attack racial disadvantage is to create privilege. That is not so.
The Bill caters for two sorts of problems. There are unique needs such as language difficulties. In this Bill, most significantly for the first time in legislation on this subject, there is incorporated a general concept of equality in the provision of services. It provides neither a higher standard, which I believe would be wrong in an equal society, nor a mere notional equality which is oblivious of the divergence between principle and practice. We have to ensure that all those who are members of our society are able to benefit to the same extent from the services provided by that society.
It can be said that this is not a new concept, and it is not because the Bill
56
seeks to replace section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. Presumably those same Conservative primitives objected to that legislation, too, although at the time that Act became law the Conservative Party did not object to it.
Section 11 of that Act provided for the payment by the Government of 75 per cent. of local government expenditure on this subject, expenditure which is now running at between £30 million and £40 million. For example, in 1977–78 the eligible expenditure was £33 million, of which the Government provided £25 million. But with the passage of time weaknesses in the formulae of that statute have become apparent. The first weakness is the limitation in its application to immigrants from the Commonwealth. They are defined as immigrants who have recently arrived here or their children. Under the Act, all those who have been here more than 10 years are excluded from the grant. But with 40 per cent. at least, and rising, of those of new Commonwealth and Pakistan extraction being born here this is becoming an artifical concept.
The second point that emerges is that it should be clear to us now that it is not just immigrants and the first generation who come in with their parents who suffer from racial disadvantage. Boys and girls within the ethnic minorities who are born and bred British also suffer. Similarly, all those coming in from, for example, Pakistan after 1972 are excluded from the formula as it now stands.
The second weakness of the 1966 Act is that the problems to be tackled are wider than can be encompassed within the language and customs problems specified in the Act. The third point is that under this Act the immigrants must be in an area in substantial numbers. That creates a statistical problem and also obliges us to ignore those areas in which the communities are too small to meet that criterion but where they deserve special assistance and are unable to obtain it. In other words, we say that we should move from a quantitative to a qualitative basis for assistance.
The last weakness that I should like to highlight is that the grant is payable only towards the employment of staff. It does not cover capital expenditure or expenditure on materials.

57
That is a formidible list of weaknesses. Upon consideration of them the Government issued a consultative document in which we reviewed the weaknesses of the 1966 Act and proposed that it should be urgently replaced.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister recall that these weaknesses were the subject of strong feelings by a group of hon. Members of all parties, including the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who joined in seeking to amend the Inner Urban Areas Bill in order to take account of them? That proved to be an unsuitable vehicle for doing so, however. Does the Minister accept that there is a similar range of support within the three parties for what he is now doing?
Mr. John: I certainly do. I am not seeking to claim exclusivity on the matter. Those of us who have been active in race relations have recognised the problem for some time. I hope and expect that all parties will support the Bill this afternoon.
I must emphasise that the need for this Bill is not merely that we must improve the 1966 formula but that we must ensure that any money is payable in respect of these needs. We shall see increasingly under the 1966 Act that the ability to make payments will progressively wither because of the outdated formulae which are incorporated in the Act.
Mr. Alan Clark: Was not the 1966 Act deliberately drafted so that its provisions would become obsolete and, with the passage of time, wither, as the Minister said?
Mr. John: No, I do not think that that was so. If it were so I can say only that the problem which the Act identified has proved to be more pervasive and stubborn, and only now to have been understood more fully. Among the 4,000 recipients of the Government's consultation document, and among all those who commented upon it, almost no one wished to object to the Bill in principle. That answers the hon. Gentleman in that it is widely understood and accepted by all parties in this country that the Bill is necessary.
The question of racial disadvantage was certainly understood and accepted
58
by the Opposition during the debate on the Race Relations Bill. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), then speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, moved a new clause which specifically complained about the absence in that Bill of measures to deal with the problem of racial disadvantage. I am here describing the allocation of resources to combat that problem.
The Bill therefore repairs the deficiencies of the 1966 Act. It provides for three grounds upon which the local authorities must incur expenditure in furtherance of their function. The first is in the removal of disadvantage from which an ethnic group suffers. The second is in securing that a local authority's services are as effective in relation to ethnic groups as they are to the rest of the community. The third and final ground is the promotion of good relations between ethnic groups, and between those groups and the rest of the community.
The Bill is intended to help local authorities in the exercise of their existing functions. I believe that the specific purposes that I have described are not mutually exclusive so as to give the local authority a sort of guessing game as to the heading under which its application falls. I expect that many of the proposals in the Bill for local authority expenditure would be covered by two or possibly, three of those grounds, and I think that there would be no objection to that.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major difficulties about section 11 has been that the take-up of the fund has been so disparate throughout the country? It is unfortunate that the Bill gives a permissive power to local authorities to apply, rather than laying a burden upon them to do something about racial disadvantage and to claim money from the Government. Why was that opportunity of putting a statutory duty on local authorities missed?
Mr. John: Under the Race Relations Act, of course, there is a statutory duty upon local authorities to carry out policies to promote—
Mr. Lyon rose—
Mr. John: I have listened to my hon. Friend's intervention so I hope that he

59
will be kind enough to listen to my answer. There is a statutory duty. We need to recognise that minority groups are part of the local communities in which they live. The real attack on these problems can be made only if they and the local authorities concerned act in agreement and in concert. However many statutory duties are laid upon local authorities, it is not enough for them to respond in a half-hearted and grudging way. For that reason, we have not laid a statutory duty upon them under this Bill. But I hope that local authorities will take advantage of this Bill. One accepts that there is a patchy take-up, but it is patchy take-up and not an inadequate take-up. I say that because the amount of money expended under this section of the Act has risen dramatically since its inception, to £33 million in the past financial year.
Clause 2 makes provision for whatever the outcome of our devolution debates may be. It deals with either the remittance of the two subjects to the two Assemblies or, in default in Scotland and Wales, to the Secretaries of State. There are two subsections, therefore, which I wish to highlight further.
Subsection (3) enables the Secretary of State both to determine the rate of grant and, if necessary, to vary it. The Home Secretary proposes that the grant shall be as at present—that is, 75 per cent. Subsection (6) includes a definition of an ethnic group which does not limit it unduly by describing it in terms of minorities. Though new Commonwealth and people of Pakistani origin will be the main beneficiaries, eligibility to the grant will not be limited to them. The question of resources also plays an important part. In the eyes of the minority communities it plays a crucial part.
The present grant under section 11 has no cash limits whereas the new scheme has. As against that, however, the Government are providing, in the next three years, £50 million more of public money than is provided at present. In 1982–83 the grant will be, in constant price terms, about 70 per cent. more than it is now. This is a good measure of the importance placed by the Government upon the scheme. Of course it does not provide the whole answer to the problem. The main spending programmes of councils are best designed and equipped to do that
60
and the grant will supplement those main spending programmes and improve their delivery. I believe that the increase involved is a considerable one. The Government deserve credit for it.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman said that this was not a new concept and yet almost all that he has said since has been designed to show that it is. The original concept was to deal with people who had come into the country recently and suffered disadvantages. This concept is based simply on their ethnic background. Will the hon. Gentleman say something to justify this new concept?
Mr. John: Of course I shall, but I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was following my argument with great care. I was addressing myself to the concept of racial disadvantage itself and was saying that the concept was recognised as long ago as 1966. Our experience of the 1966 Act persuades us that we should go further to widen the concept which was then laid down. The principle is not new in the sense that originally it recognised racial disadvantage and made provision in order to overcome that.
Mr. Nick Budgen: What is the concept?
Mr. John: The concept of racial disadvantage is, I believe, the disadvantage suffered by people because of the colour of their skin or because of their racial or ethnic background, over and above that which is suffered by the community generally. There are many inhabitants of inner city areas who suffer disadvantages compared with the country as a whole. The Government's inner city policy has moved to help—
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman asks for an explanation and then immediately wants to make a speech of his own. He either wants an explanation or wishes to make an intervention. I shall not give way until I have finished this explanation.
The Government's inner city policy deals with those who live within the geographical area. Racial disadvantage is well documented in employment, housing and many other areas for those

61
who are interested in the facts. We are seeking to translate a notional equality of eligibility to local authority services into a real eligibility by making special provision so that those local authority services are equally available to all.
Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman really must try to define the concept. He keeps trying to explain where this concept has been applied or where it has been recognised. Will he please definie it, explain it and give a concrete example of racial disadvantage?
Mr. John: I despair of the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, when talking about the result of the referendum in Wales, said that if one saw an elephant on one's doorstep one would recognise it. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is probably the sole exception. If he does not know from his own experience in Wolverhampton that this is so, let me tell him about racial disadvantage.
Even at a time of high unemployment there is considerable evidence that unemployment among young West Indians is very much higher than among their white contemporaries. There is considerable evidence, even taking into account the normal educational range of children, that West Indian children under-perform in school. We believe those to be examples of the racial disadvantage of which I am speaking. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a last, however slow a a learner he is, performed at least to his limited ability.
I was dealing with the question of the present expenditure and was saying that 84 per cent. of present expenditure since the 1966 Act is on education. During consultations, anxieties have been expressed about existing posts. I accept that existing posts under the educational provisions of the 1966 Act will need to continue. Nevertheless, I hope that local authorities will keep under review those posts the need for which has disappeared or which have been left vacant because staff has left. I hope that they will judge whether this is the best way to spend the money or whether some other way now has a higher priority than a post established some time ago.
I have been greatly heartened—ironically, towards the end of the life of the
62
1966 Act—by the improved initiatives which have come from local authorities and the imagination which they have shown. I hope that the innovatory thought which local authorities have been giving in this direction will continue. Sums are available for other aspects of racial disadvantage, and I must stress that the Government are keen to move into the non-educational area. Such funds would be for home tuition, more day nursery or child-minding facilities for working parents, pamphlets in an Asian language explaining the local authority services, or youth work to bridge the gap between West Indian youth and the job-finding agencies. These are examples of what I mean. The funds for those activities will come from the 16 per cent. which is not spent on education and the new money which is to be devoted to the concept.
It will be possible for voluntary bodies to be funded by the local authorities as the local authorities already have power to act under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 when they undertake work relevant and complementary to the functions of the local authority.
The House will notice that for the first time the Health Service is involved in this grant. These schemes must be part of the general emphasis that must be laid upon the sensitivity of the main spending programmes to the needs of the ethnic minorities. This sensitivity alone can produce the long-term answer.
Many of the schemes will in time be capable of being merged in the main spending programmes. I recognise that in our consultative document we over-emphasised the short-term nature of the schemes. I recognise that in some instances longer-term funding should be provided. We shall adopt a flexible approach.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Why has section 11 been extended? Why cannot we use the excellent scheme under the urban aid programme, the responsibility for which has been moved from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment and which has been considerably increased under the urban and partnership provisions? Is the reason that the Government believe that they can recoup the money from the European social fund only by keeping the project in

63
the Home Office, or is there some other reason?
Mr. John: Last year the amount available from the European social fund was only about £500,000. Therefore, the question of expenditure is irrelevant. The concept is wider in its effect than the urban aid programme. The ethnic minorities have found that the 1966 Act is necessary in addition to the urban aid programme. They have expressed reservations about the ability of the urban aid programme by itself to meet all the problems.
The Secretary of State necessarily will have a wide discretion, especially if, as seems likely, he has to choose priorities between a comprehensive set of proposals and those chosen by a local authority in a particular area.
Fears have been expressed by both local authorities and the ethnic minority communities about consultation. Discussions have already started about a consultative body which will guide us in the administration of the legislation. Clearly this will involve local authorities, Government Departments and the Commission for Racial Equality. It will not judge individual cases. It will discuss such matters as the general criteria to be used in the administration of the scheme. I hope that it will be neither bureaucratic nor rigid in form or content.
I believe that agreement can be reached upon this within the next month. Therefore, by the time the Bill has Royal Assent we shall be ready to discuss the problems.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I have been listening carefully to Minister's remarks. Why do we need another body to administer this scheme? Surely we already have the framework in the community relations councils and elected councils which are well aware of the problem in areas where there is a high rate of immigration. Surely they should be encouraged to get on with the job without intervention and an extension of bureaucracy.
Mr. John: The purpose of the body is to discuss the general criteria to be applied by the Government when reviewing local projects. I shall return to the problem of liaison locally. I said that I hope that agreement will be reached
64
in the next month on the national framework to set general principles to guide us.
However, I echo some of the complaints made by the ethnic minorities about consultation at the local level. I agree with what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) said when referring to the majority of cases. But some local authorities, not necessarily those with small minority communities, have been abysmal in communicating with and consulting the minorities. The general principles cannot be left to the ad hoc procedures suggested by the hon. Member.
We all know that some local authorities neglect to consult the organisations which represent the ethnic minorities when they are preparing schemes which affect those minorities. This creates resentment and often results in misplaced priorities being adopted when earlier consultation might have put the matter right. The key to the future is a good relationship between the ethnic minority organisations and the local authorities. Both must recognise that the ethnic minorities are in and of the community.
I appeal to all local authorities to equate their practice with the practice of the best local authorities. I urge the minority of the local authorities which have a record of indifference to ethnic communities to think again and to act within the spirit of the duty laid upon them by the Race Relations Act.
We see the Bill as a significant step towards a harmonious multi-racial society This can be achieved only by turning notional equalities and notional entitlements into realities.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not in his place. He made one of his characteristic, episodic forays into this area last weekend. Amongst other things he asked if people cared. He should not mistake repugnance for his views as indifference. We care deeply about the nature and quality of our society. This Bill, alongside the other measures that we have introduced to achieve a better society, amply proves Government concern. Where the right hon. Member for Down, South is negative, we are positive. That also applies to some other aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to this subject.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whom I have often described as the Wolverhampton wanderer, chooses his ground outside the House, as he did originally with his sensation-mongering speech in 1968? Does he agree that that is because he fell flat on his face when he had to face the rationality of parliamentary debate?
Mr. John: I do not criticise the right hon. Member for Down, South for making speeches outside the House. If that were not allowed we should all be remarkably silent. But I criticise him for his wholly negative approach to the problem. In contrast, we are taking a positive approach in this legislation.
We see that the future of our society rests upon our being positive. Those who take the negative approach taken by the right hon. Member for Down, South know in their hearts that there is no reversal of a multi-racial society. They know that the only choice is between a disharmonious and a harmonious multi-racial society. I believe that this Bill will make a significant contribution to the creation of a harmonious multi-racial society and I hope that the House will support it overwhelmingly.
5 p.m.
Mr. Keith Speed: I am afraid that we on the Conservative Benches cannot give to the Bill the wholehearted welcome that the Minister has invited.
The principle and practice of giving special help to ethnic minority groups, and especially to recently arrived immigrants, are enshrined in section 11 of the 1966 Act, and that Act has been operated by Conservative and Labour Governments and by local authorities of all political parties over the past 13 years.
I recognise the limitations of section 11, which the Minister fairly outlined and which are well documented in last November's Green Paper. I think, in particular, of the lack of assistance for educational staff. The restriction to Commonwealth immigrants, to which the Minister referred, cut out Pakistan and has cut out, for example, refugees from Vietnam.
In so far as the present Bill avoids what are now seen to be the restrictive limitations
66
of the 1966 Act and provides the means of removing disadvantages suffered by ethnic minority groups, it represents an improvement.
Clause 1(2)(a) clearly and succinctly embodies those points, and if the Bill stopped there I, for one, should be much happier, and so, I think, would many members of the ethnic minority groups themselves and probably many of my hon. Friends, too. But there then follow subsection (2)(b) and (c), and this is where doubts arise in my mind.
Before coming to those matters, I thought that the Minister was a little coy about clause 2, since now, thanks to the ethnic minority groups in Wales and Scotland exercising their wisdom, it is clear that clause 2 will have to be removed. That will at least shorten the Bill, and it will, I believe, make it much more acceptable to most hon. Members.
I return now to the substance of the Bill. It is our strongly held view that measures to remove disadvantage and deprivation suffered uniquely by ethnic groups can and should be supported, but we have two major fears about the Bill, which the Minister's speech did not dispel.
First, there is scope for positive discrimination towards any group, and that discrimination could be on a large scale. Secondly, the Bill perpetuates, and encourages the perpetuation of, the separateness of the immigrant and the ethnic minority community.
If our fears are well founded, far from improving matters the Bill could work against the better community relations that all of us in the House want.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman justify the remark that he has just made?
Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is premature. I am coming to that. Positive discrimination, for a start—I am sure that I carry the hon. Gentleman with me here—would infringe the spirit of the Government's own Race Relations Act and probably the equal opportunities and various other legislation, and would certainly be bitterly resented by many people. It would be regarded as offensively patronising by many members of the ethnic minority groups themselves.

67
As for the perpetuation of the separate-ness of immigrants and the ethnic minority communities, I think that our whole attitude is best summed up by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said in Leicester last April, speaking about our party's immigration plans:
" Our aim now must be to introduce certainty and finality into our plans so that we can end the constant and widespread preoccupation with levels of immigration and so the anxieties of our people about them. Only in this way can we hope to remove from those who have come to our country in post-war years the label of ' immigrant ' and give them their full place as British citizens who have made and will make an important contribution to the future prosperity of this country which they have made their home."
I have had discussions with many members of the ethnic minority groups since the Green Paper was published last November. I had a particularly valuable meeting in this building with many members of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. That laughter by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) shows precisely where his real interests in this debate lie. He is determined to grind his own political axe.
Mr. Lyon rose—
Mr. Speed: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked a question earlier and I am developing the argument in my own way.
I have had discussions with many people who are genuinely concerned about the subject and who wished to let me have their views before we came to the present debate. They made the important and powerful point that we should be clear in our minds about, and should pinpoint, the disadvantages suffered by ethnic minority groups. They put first, and way ahead—I have had the same put to me in different parts of the country where there are substantial ethnic minority groups—the question of language and, particuarly among the West Indians—I accept what the Minister said here—the question of education standards.
The truth is that probably the vast majority of wives and children coming into this country have little or no English. That is deprivation enough for the children, but I believe that it is an even greater deprivation for the wives, women in the
68
age range 30 to 40, who find it very difficult to adapt and to learn a new language at that stage so as to take a full part in the social, educational, cultural and commercial life of this country. That is a matter with which we have still not entirely grappled, and in my view it represents a major deprivation.
By the same token, we have seen some of the reports and we know that there are problems of education standards among some significant groups of ethnic minority children. That may well be due to the language problems of their elders at home—that is quite possible—and I regard this also as an area in which positive steps should be made to remove disadvantage.
Secondly—the Minister touched on this and I shall expand it further—there is especially among newly arrived immigrants a lack of knowledge of the customs, the way of life and, indeed, the mechanics of living in a large, modern, sophisticated industrial society. This applies whether the immigrants have come from the Indian sub-continent or wherever it may be, as this country, with its language and the way in which its people go about affairs in their great towns and cities, is very difficult from many other countries.
Clearly, some local authorities are doing excellent work here. They have set up, so to speak, model homes. Help can be given, even with such simple things as electric washing machines, to the immigrant mother. In other areas, frankly, very little help is given. In my view, there is here deprivation for which assistance should be given and can quite properly be extended under the Bill.
The third area that has concerned me is the racial and colour prejudice which still exists. The Minister did not touch on this but I regard it as a legitimate reason for what I call the wider scope of education among the community as a whole, so that we appreciate that people have problems in various parts of the community, so that we learn to live with one another, and so that myths, superstitions and misunderstandings may be removed between one community and another. Let us not make the mistake of assuming that the prejudice is always between white and black. It is not. It is sometimes between West Indian and Asian.
I believe that that is a source of conflict that can be removed not only through

69
the education system but sometimes outside it, too. I think that this is an area of deprivation that can legitimately and reasonably be tackled on the basis proposed.
Mr. John: I took careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that he disagreed with the Bill on subsection (2) (b) and (c). Paragraph (c) is specifically designed to do exactly what he has just been advancing, and paragraph (b) is specifically designed to deal with the matter that he raised just previously. Where is the disagreement?
Mr. Speed: If the Minister will bear with me a little longer, I shall explain the matter. I still have worries. I have told him thus far where I think the Bill will be a help, but I shall soon tell him where I think that it will not be helpful.
We then come to the question of bad housing—there has already been reference to this—the problem of high unemployment, poor local facilities and inadequate health and social services. These disadvantages are suffered by all groups, whatever the colour of their skin, living in many parts of our towns and cities. It may be argued that a disproportionate number of people in the ethnic minorities in those areas are suffering, but the problem is not unique to them. That is my first worry.
The second worry is that we already have the rate support grant and the different formulae there, together with urban aid, to which reference has already been made. In addition, we shall have the present Bill, if enacted. All of these measures will channel more help into the central areas. Yet as I understand the rate support grant and urban aid, they are applied, by and large, across the board to benefit all the people living in specific areas. From some of the examples given in the Green Paper it is clear that there is a danger that this can be channelled into a very narrow and limited area.
In answer to the hon. Member for York, what does not reassure me, and what worries many of my hon. Friends, is not only the Minister's speech but some of the examples given in the Green Paper of the type of expenditure that could be undertaken under the Bill. For example, ethnic burial grounds are mentioned. With the greatest respect, I wonder whether that is a proper charge under
70
the Bill. I have found that a problem among the religious minorities is the question not of money but of planning permission for temple, chapel, or whatever it may be. This is an area where we can help more with the planning laws, and certainly with cash.
Mention is made of special Asian meals on wheels. That could almost be offensive to many Asian families, who regard it as their duty to help the elderly rather than rely on meals on wheels. That has been put to me very strongly by a number of Asian families. In my experience, Asian food is no more expensive—it is often much tastier—than that which is supplied by meals on wheels.
What worries me is that the Green Paper talks about an"ongoing programme ". Paragraph 11 refers to the needs of third and fourth-generation black people in Liverpool. This is what worries me most of all.
Five weeks ago, on a Friday morning, I spoke to the Liverpool community relations council. A black person on that council told me that he was third-generation Liverpool born and bred yet he was still treated by the indigenous population of Liverpool as if he had literally arrived, through Heathrow, the day before. If I had been a blind person and unable to see him, the tone of his voice, his manner of speaking and everything else would have indicated that he was a Merseysider, yet he felt that he was still being singled out, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, as an immigrant. Yet the Green Paper says that the Bill will give help to third-and fourth-generation Liverpool blacks. Will that meet that very legitimate fear and worry?
I suggest that that illustrates the gap between us. The Bill will ensure that we maintain the separateness of the ethnic minorities living here, rather than saying"No, let us try to eliminate the separateness that the Bill seeks to maintain ". Surely our aim should be, as quickly as possible, to remedy and eliminate, with their own help—not the Government or local authorities by themselves—the disadvantages suffered uniquely by certain groups, and to raise the standards and quality of life generally for all, particularly in our large towns and city areas. There are many white citizens, just as there are many coloured citizens, who

71
suffer a pretty miserable and poor quality of life at the moment.
As the disadvantages are removed, and as primary and secondary immigration is phased out, so we would expect both the need and commitment for assistance, as in the Bill, to go also. Indeed, I think that the Association of District Councils, in its evidence to the Home Office, emphasised what it saw as the short-term nature of such a measure.
Mr. John: I take the hon. Gentleman's Liverpool example. Since he has been there he will no doubt know that one of the complaints of minority groups in Liverpool is precisely that they are third and fourth generation, that they still suffer from disadvantage and are confined to certain parts of the area. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that because a man has a Liverpool accent he should be denied the aid that would truly make him equal, and truly make him able to play his part in that society.
Mr. Speed: The Minister has obviously misunderstood me. I am not saying that at all; I am saying that in the city of Liverpool there is considerable deprivation for all Liverpudlians. In certain areas of Liverpool the colour of a person's skin, whether he be of Irish, English or West Indian background—indeed, there is a history in Liverpool of many West Indians who came here many years ago and who are now third and fourth generation—is part of the social fabric of that city. That is something that we must take into consideration. This is not unique to the black West Indian. If we treat the third and fourth-generation black West Indian in Liverpool as unique he will go on thinking"My God, they have put me into a particular category. I have problems of high unemployment, but so has my neighbour next door, who happens to be white." There is a terrible housing situation in Liverpool, which we all know about, and it is a city that unfortunately has other areas of deprivation.
Miss Joan Lestor: I have tried to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). If what he says is logical, can he explain why, when dealing with the Liverpudlian who happened to be black, he said that his complaint was that he was still treated
72
as if he had just got off the plane at Heathrow, although he was third or fourth generation? If what he now says is true, how can he reconcile those two statements?
Mr. Speed: Because this gentleman feels that he has been treated by the indigenous white population as somebody special and not a Liverpudlian. I cannot put it more simply than that. His argument is that he may be deprived and unemployed, but so are many other people in Liverpool, and that from that point of view he is not special. He happens to be a black Liverpudlian. He is British and proud of it, and does not want to be treated differently from anyone else. But the Bill, with its emphasis upon ethnic minorities and immigrants and its reference to third and fourth generations, would mean that such a person would be treated differently. The Minister himself talked about the long-term aspects of the problem. My proposition is that although I do not question his motives, I believe that this is the wrong way to go about it.
Mr. Steen: I am a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I should like to mention the Committee's first report, which deals with the very point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). Paragraph 8—which is supported by all members of the Committee—states:
" To continue to identify second and subsequent generations by an ethnic label, where this is avoidable, is to negate the policy of integration."
That is the point that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is making.
Mr. Speed: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen). He is a Member of Parliament for Liverpool. Perhaps he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say whether I am right or wrong. Certainly I am glad to have the support of the Select Committee in this matter.
I hope that I have adduced the argument well enough and that I take the House with me when I say that we are genuinely concerned that there are aspects of clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill that could

73
make the situation worse. We certainly do not want to see that happen.
I accept that the principle to remove disadvantage is right. That has been accepted for many years. On that basis I would certainly not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. I am not happy about other aspects, and we shall certainly seek further clarification in order to make changes as the Bill works its way through the House. We believe the Bill is well intentioned, but in parts it is a woolly and unclear measure. We would not wish it to create unnecessary splits, mistrusts or misunderstandings between the various communities. I am sure that that is the intention also of the Minister.
In that spirit, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to oppose the Bill. But we cannot give it the wholehearted welcome that was asked for by the Minister.
5.19 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I intervene briefly. As Chairman of the Select Committee I should have been encouraged if either of the Front Benches had referred to our report. If we want to get all-party support, I should have thought that the first thing that they would have done would be to look at that report.
We responded to the Green Paper by publishing the report. We of course had the advantage of publication. However, I think it would be a good thing if the Minister of State listed those who have responded to his consultative document and perhaps summarised the opinions given to him. I feel that these would support the Government in the action that they are taking. If I table a question, perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity of giving the information.
The Select Committee has recognised ontinually and persistently the importance of section 11. Some time ago we called for a review. I assume that this is what the Government have now done. I strongly hold the view—in fact, all the evidence supports it—that section 11 was a short-term measure. That is not surprising. It was a short-term measure because it dealt with special disadvantage. It dealt with the disproportionate, accentuated deprivation caused by racial discrimination and disadvantage. It would have been surprising if in 1966 anyone
74
had thought that that section was a long-term measure.
The fact that it has turned out otherwise stresses the importance of the action which the Government are currently taking. It is a disgrace to this country that this measure of racial discrimination has persisted. The House should vigorously recognise that we must call upon resources, and also our determination, to solve this problem.
The Select Committee agrees that section 11 is too restrictive and that what is needed is a more flexible grant-aid power. Incidentally, this is a two-way power. We are also concerned about the white communities. This money could be used to deal with the unreasonable hostilities and fears of the white communities. I hope that it will be so used The Select Committee also agree that this money should cover capital as well as revenue purposes.
I have a special interest in this matter, because I defeated the Government on it. It also has a particular relevance in the light of section 71 of the Race Relations Act, which imposed a statutory duty on local authorities but made no provision for the funding of that responsibility. I am now encouraged by the definitions in the Bill, to which the Minister of State referred. I believe that this probbem of funding will now be substantially met. We hope that the Bill will be matched, as the Government say it will, by a significant increase in the resources made available for expenditure on ethnic minorities. I am delighted that this is confirmed in the financial memorandum. My only doubt is that we are not going far enough to meet a situation that should be met as speedily as possible.
That is the general approach of the Select Committee. I know that the Committee has disappointed some hon. Members but it has heartened the Minister of State, because we have reaffirmed that the Home Office should be the Department responsible for the administration. If this aid is to be used as effectively as possible, I accept—although at present this view is unpopular—that there should be a modest increase in Home Office staff, as proposed in the explanatory memorandum. We can do no other than that, because in the past we have scathingly criticised the Home Office for the paucity of its staff. What is needed is a staff

75
that can provide effective guidance. I agree that what is disturbing is the disparity between the various authorities.
I have some hesitation about being enthusiastic about consultation if this will delay matters, but consultation is necessary and I hope that it will be made as effective as possible. We want this aid to be as effective as possible and we want the Department to give guidance, to define priorities and to make good practice as widely known as possible. Incidentally, as we have also emphasised in previous reports, we believe that there should be a more positive approach to the voluntary bodies. I know the difficulties in this regard and I appreciate the Government's natural hesitation. However, there are the Commission for Racial Equality, the National Council for Social Services and other bodies which can advise the Government. I hope that there will be a greater reliance on the voluntary bodies.
It is for this reason that we on the Select Committee make a proposal that has not yet been mentioned. We propose that the Home Secretary should be obliged to make an annual report to Parliament. We do so because we know from experience that, by and large, this is the best discipline on a Department by which to get an effective response to legislation.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this will also prevent the absolutely disgraceful situation by which immigration has not been debated in this House for about two and a half years, presumably as a result of some form of agreement between the two Front Benches?
Mr. Willey: If there were to be a debate on immigration, I anticipate that it would take place on a Supply day. Therefore, the matter is in the hands of the Opposition. I mentioned an annual report because I believe that is an effective way of getting the sort of response that we want from the Department in order to ensure an effective use of these resources.
It is evident from its own definition that section 11 was short-term. I concede that this was being ambitious. However, we should not congratulate ourselves
76
because it has not turned out to be so. We should have had a far more stable society if section 11 had been short-term and effective.
My hon. Friend—if I may call him so, because he is a member of the Select Committee—the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has now returned to the Chamber. I should like to turn to the final paragraph of our report. Since this was referred to by extracting a sentence from it, I should like to quote it in full, because it puts fairly the argument that was raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), and I do not believe that his argument was altogether fair. The Select Committee said:
" While we strongly believe that the Government commitment to equal rights demands a significant increase in the resources made available for ethnic minorities, nevertheless it is equally important to continue to encourage their integration into society as a whole. It should be recognised that there is a danger that if and in so far as second or later generations are characterised by an ethnic label, ethnic divisions within society may be artificially perpetuated. Linking any particular problem of disadvantage to a particular ethnic group can only be justified if it can be shown that the problem is exclusive to that group or that there are clearly recognisable additional disadvantages suffered by the group. Otherwise, the consequences may be divisive and unhelpful to good race relations generally. To continue to identify second and subsequent generations by an ethnic label, where this is avoidable, is to negate the policy of integration. We therefore, consider that the legislation should provide that the new grant should be for an adequate but limited period, on the expiry of which it would be renewable. This would afford an opportunity for a review and appraisal of the operation of the grant."
That is the position taken by the Select Committee. I believe that it is the right position. We should continue to keep before the House the objective of integration. The Bill should bring a sense of urgency to what we are doing. After all the years from 1966 we should be ashamed that we are still facing the same problem and that it may even have become worse.
The Select Committee supports the Bill. It believes that the present provisions should be flexible and should be expanded. It believes that the new provisions should be matched by a significant increase in the resources made available to the ethnic communities. It hopes that these measures will be used wisely and effectively. It believes that these measures will lessen the present need. It is optimistic enough to think that when

77
the time comes for review it will then be demonstrated—unlike the review of section 11—that a measurable step has been taken towards a single undivided society.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I concur almost entirely with the words of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The right hon. Gentleman has been an excellent chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration throughout this Parliament. The good sense enshrined in the passage of the Select Committee's report from which he quoted underlines the unanimity and all-party approach of the Select Committee. I know that one or two hon. Members may be slightly dubious about that. However, I believe that there has been an all-party approach within the Select Committee throughout the Parliament in seeking to improve race relations.
There is only one issue on which I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He implied that the Bill is something of a disgrace to the community in that there is a need for it to be brought forward. He implied that the need for the Bill suggested that race relations had worsened. I do not entirely agree. I agree with so much of what the right hon. Gentleman always says on race relations, but it is not necessarily true that the introduction of the Bill is an implication that race relations have worsened.
It is my belief that race relations have improved materially since 1966. I believe that they continue to improve in a subtle, quiet but perhaps too slow a way. There are many hon. Members who, with the best of intentions, would like to hurry things along. I do not think that we shall ever get it fully right, but we are making the sort of progress that allows us to be proud as a nation. By and large we have tackled the problem realistically.
I say unashamedly that we are coping with the mistakes of successive Governments in allowing too many immigrants to come to this country. The mistakes have created a great problem for the nation. That is an issue that has been debated in the past and no doubt it will be debated in future. It is right now that better help should be extended to
78
members of the immigrant community who require assistance.
We must also recognise that too many people in our society, either wittingly or unwittingly, are working towards the detriment of good race relations. Such people form what I describe as the race relations"industry ". They put up the backs of so many fair-minded citizens by their extremist activities, especially in their demands for positive discrimination.
The race relations"industry"covers the whole spectrum from Left to Right and includes foolish and misguided people such as my constituent, Robert Relf, who is on hunger strike because he has been convicted of certain offences under the race relations legislation and who seeks to make himself a martyr. Such people, wherever they may be placed in the race relations spectrum, do not help in creating good race relations. Whatever our views about immigration and whatever our feelings about what should or should not have been done in the past, surely any honourable person would seek to make race relations far better within our society.
There is a great deal that needs to be done, especially in the urban areas. I do not represent an inner urban area of the magnitude of Birmingham or Liverpool, part of the latter being represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). However, much help is needed in less serious trouble spots such as Leamington Spa, which I represent and which has at least 6,000 immigrants. The immigrants are well behaved and well integrated, but they still need extra assistance. I know that that comment may be repeated for other areas.
I do not share the Minister's belief that the Bill will make as significant an impact as he suggests. He said that it will repair the deficiencies of the old Act. It will not take the problem away, although I hope that it will be of some assistance.
The problem will always remain where there are heavy and unequal concentrations of immigrants in certain areas. I am not suggesting that there should be compulsion; that is unthinkable in a free society. However, I hope that some of the financial assistance will be used to encourage a greater spread throughout the community of the immigrant population.

79
There is no doubt that in areas where there is not a heavy concentration of immigrants there is far better integration and far less racial discrimination than that which is practised in inner areas such as Brixton, Lambeth, parts of Birmingham and many other areas where there are large numbers of immigrants.
The label of"immigrant"is important. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). There is no doubt that, increasingly, members of the immigrant community resent being referred to as immigrants by other members of the public and, perhaps more importantly, by hon. Members, Ministers and the Opposition. I have been to India on two occasions, but I have young adult Indian constituents who have never been there and who speak with a Midlands accent. I have met young West Indians who speak with a London accent and who have not visited the West Indies.
I see that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is in his place. The hon. Gentleman and I have interviewed many young Indians and West Indians who have never been beyond our shores, because they were born here. Much effort should be made to integrate members of the immigrant community into general society so that they may lose the label of"immigrant"as soon as possible.
Money can be used in many respects to improve the situation for immigrants, but if the balance gets slightly out of kilter we shall face the danger of heading towards a form of positive discrimination that in the end will be counter-productive. There are a number of leading problems that need alleviation and on which financial help should be concentrated. I have cast doubt on the need for another advisory body. Perhaps it is necessary to establish such a committee, but I hope that local authorities and community organisations will use the money quickly and seriously, without too much bureaucratic interference.
I should like to see an effort made to overcome language difficulties. Language is a considerable bar to many immigrants who have been in Britain for a number of years and who, apart from the younger ones, cannot speak English, or can speak
80
only a very little. There is too heavy a concentration of immigrants in some areas of housing and that leads to disorientation. That in turn leads to ill feeling between ethnic groups.
There are employment problems, especially in areas where there is not scope for those who do not have the right qualifications. Extra assistance should be given to immigrants, especially the young, who are making a start where they suffer an ethnic handicap. They should be given more encouragement. We should promote the need for a better understanding among the community at large. We should not allow the many good organisations to fall into the hands of extremists or politicians. I am as much against an organisation falling totally into the hands of my own party as I am against an organisation being totally in the hands of the Socialist Party. It is right and proper that politicians should be represented, but all too often we see organisations falling into the hands of those who have a grudge and who are not bent on promoting the right type of good will.
As vice-chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, I support what was said by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North. The Select Committee got to the heart of the matter when it explained that there should be an annual report. I do not believe that Parliament can be regarded as serious unless it receives an annual report on this matter, analyses the way the money has been spent, looks at the weaknesses and makes further suggestions. It is disgraceful that there has not been a debate on immigration for two and a half years. It was suggested that this is a matter for a Supply day. I do not accuse Front Bench Members on either side of complicity. However, Front Bench Members on both sides should have promoted a debate on race relations and immigration.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North was modest. He did not refer to at least two excellent reports which the Select Committee produced and which made an impact when published. They have still not been debated. There was a crying need for that to happen. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts and in Committee include in the Bill the idea of an annual report on the subject. I assure him that if he does

81
not do so there will be pressure on this issue from both sides.
Mr. Bidwell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that the real reason why there has been no debate is the ability of the Select Committee to reach agreement? That greatly defused the situation that was current prior to our report. The report indicated that there was an area for two-party consensus, in substance, on the whole matter. We have put our faith in that. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be itching for a debate before our report but cooled off after we issued it.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman spoiled his intervention with his last few remarks. I would go a certain way with him. I do not think his point would be entirely accepted by his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) who was bitterly critical of the unanimity that we displayed. The situation was well summed up by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Home Secretary last year in Leicester. He then put the view of so many members of the Opposition. There is much fundamental good will on race relations among hon. Members on both sides. I hope that we shall be able to capitalise on that with Bills of this kind and with reports being submitted to the House every year so that we may see what progress is being made.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. John Sever: Opposition Members have referred to the welcome which they allegedly are giving the Bill. I hope that later we shall see a positive indication of that.
I speak for many of my constituents who are representative of the minority ethnic groups when I say that they offer to my right hon. Friend and his Home Office colleagues a warm welcome for the Bill, which contains an amalgam of the points of view which were put to the Home Office over months by important groups working with ethnic minorities throughout the country. Those matters have been taken up and incorporated in the Bill.
It goes without saying—although it needs to be put on the record—that the record of the Labour Administration has been first rate in the way in which they have tried to deal with the difficult problems
82
affecting the minority ethnic groups in Britain. They paved the way for a situation where we may see a movement towards a closer, harmonious community incorporating all the minority ethnic groups. This measure, which we hope will pass into law in the near future, is a further indication of the Government's determination, first, to take racial discrimination and deprivation away from the ethnic minority groups. It will be welcomed by large numbers of minority groups, especially in the big cities. In the inner urban areas of our larger towns and cities we see large concentrations of minority ethnic groups. Our colleagues in these groups believe that they have been left behind.
It is necessary to point out from time to time how large minorities may feel that they have been left behind in the general drift towards progress in our society. They can produce evidence, which I am sure that my right hon. Friend has already received, showing that too often they are at the end of the queue in job, housing and educational opportunities and in many other spheres. The Bill will place upon local authorities the means to extend the hand of friendship to the minority groups and say that they recognise the difficulties with which those groups are faced. They may say"We want to do something to help and now we have been encouraged by a Labour Administration, which will provide the funds for us to do so." I am sure that those local authorities with large concentrations of ethnic minorities in their areas will welcome this opportunity to do something further. Certainly, the progressive authorities will do so. I hope that most of the authorities in the large conurbations will be in that category.
I am concerned that references are made to the development of the communities in general matters. Fund-raising efforts are being maintained by several communities, certainly in Birmingham, for the development of religious worship premises. Reference was made by hon. Gentlemen to the difficulties which these groups often experience in obtaining planning permissions and consents. That is accepted. It is difficult to obtain planning consent for a place of religious worship. There is also the problem of funding the projects. In my constituency two Punjabi-Sikh communities are

83
attempting to raise funds to develop their places of worship. A large project costing about £⅓ million is being promoted by the West Indian community for a place of religious worship. The ethnic minority groups are working hard to establish a better way of life for themselves so that they may worship in their own way and so that their communities are held together and have a more meaningful purpose in life. I hope that in interpreting the Bill the local authorities will be able to assist them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) spoke to me about a case earlier today. He thought that several of the ethnic minority group leaders would be anxious to ask whether there would be developments, especially in education, for their communities, by way of provision of extra teachers of English, who often undertake work with minority ethnic groups' languages.
I welcome the Bill and urge that all hon. Members support it in the Lobby. It will be a mainstay and a main plank in the platform of good race relations in Britain.
5.49 p.m.
Sir George Young: Whether funds will be provided under the Bill by a Labour Administration, as was implied by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), remains to be seen.
I rise to support the broad principles of the Bill, although I have reservations about the means by which they should be implemented.
The first question to which we should address ourselves is whether the presence of ethnic minorities in an area results in extra costs for the local authority. The Minister did not address himself to that question. As a result, he was embarrassed by persistent questioning from my hon. Friends. The answer is that extra costs are involved, as I hope to show. It is clear that the social service departments are used disproportionately by coloured families.
I draw on an article entitled"Colour as a Variable"in the children's section of a local authority social services department, which appears in the winter edition of New Community. In view of the con-
84
clusions of the article, I hasten to say that it is published not by the National Front but by the Commission for Racial Equality. The concluding observations are based on conditions in Bradford. The article states:
" The findings highlight the fact that local Social Services are being used disproportionately by different categories of the population The high rate of admission of coloured children into care for grave offences would seem to reflect the magnitude of a serious problem about which much more research is required. No less serious is the presence of a significant number of Asian children in Bradford who are either living insecurely with a relative or a friend, following a return home of the father, the only guardian in this country, or with a single parent, usually the father, in all-male households. Without adequate support and supervision from the family, an increasing number of Asian children are likely to get into trouble with the law either by accident or design, and to be made the subject of Care Orders more quickly than those who come from intact families. The disproportionate number of West Indian children in care is also a matter for grave concern. More disturbing, however, is the finding that one child in every 15 born of mixed parentage is in the care of the local authority, as compared with only 1·5 per hundred of the remainder of the population. Of all the children, the half-coloured clearly constitute a special risk group and pose special care problems. They are the most deprived of all the children and have less adequate plans for their rehabilitation."
The authors then spoil what is otherwise an excellent study by lapsing into the language spoken by one sociologist to another when they want no one else to understand. The article states:
" Their personal problems seem to arise mainly from the internalised emotional disturbance resulting from the traumatic experience of being a marginal person and the lack of an adequate supportive environment. We shall need to look beyond the family and socialisation for key points of difference in their psychopathology."
I think we can forgive them that lapse, but no one who reads that full study can doubt that the presence of ethnic minorities leads to additional work for social services departments.
The other principal area of additional expenditure is education. My own borough, the London borough of Ealing, has within its boundaries Southall, and we have some experience of the additional costs incurred. The basic problem is language. The language in which subjects are taught in Ealing is English, and the language spoken in many Asian

85
homes is not. The children present themselves at the primary schools without adequate knowledge of English. It would be to the disadvantage of all the other pupils if teachers had to teach at a pace with which those children could keep up. Additional classes are needed, with additional teachers, to bring these children up to the starting post.
Other local authority services can also be rendered more expensive by an ethnic minority. The electoral register in Ealing, for example, is exceptionally difficult to produce accurately. The meals-on-wheels service has had to be changed to reflect the differing diet of Asians. The local authority is now considering setting up an ethnic diet luncheon club. The cost of the libraries in Ealing is higher than elsewhere because many basic texts are provided in languages other than English. Other local authority services are more expensive because interpreters have to be employed.
Mr. John: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that in his borough there is no thought that it is offensive to have an Asian meals-on-wheels service?
Sir G. Young: My own experience is that the different meals on wheels which are provided by the local authority meet real needs. I have never sought to criticise the borough. Indeed, under both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party the borough has continued to provide the same sorts of service.
Costs in Ealing and other boroughs are higher, therefore, because of the existence of ethnic minorities. This fact has been recognised by the parties over the past 15 years. According to information provided in a written answer on 14 December 1978, the London boroughs of Ealing and Brent received more money under section 11 than any other authorities apart from Birmingham and the Inner London Education Authority. The figure for 1977–78 was £1·7 million for Ealing, of which the council received £1·26 million under the 75 per cent. rule. That money covers expenditure in 18 different categories of staff, the basic ones being education and social services. At the moment there are the equivalent of 178 full-time teachers qualifying under section 11, and the equivalent of 203 full-time staff offering services in the careers office, mobile libraries and welfare. That expenditure is
86
attributed by the district auditor solely to ethnic minorities.
The first question I put to the Minister is whether he will guarantee that existing authorities will be no worse off under the new arrangements. An article in New Society of 30 November 1978 on"Meeting ethnic needs"states:
" The Home Office feels that there is hardly an authority in the country that could not make an application."
There is, therefore, the serious problem of some dilution of funds available if a considerable number of new authorities are brought in. What assurance can the Minister give the London borough of Ealing that it will be no worse off under the Bill than it was under section 11? The impact on the rates will be dramatic if assistance is phased out.
Having accepted the basic principle that costs are higher, I begin to part company with the Government over the means they now propose to overcome these costs. The traditional way of directing help to local authorities with special problems has been through the rate support grant, and the Department of the Environment has made heroic attempts to quantify those population characteristics which lead to higher costs. Councils with a higher percentage of elderly people, and with a higher percentage of children under 16, get extra help through the rate support grant. Are the Government able to define the problems which they hope to meet through the Bill? Should they not amend the rate support grant to take account of the various factors that I have listed?
The logic of the Bill, and the direction in which the Government are now moving, is that they will continue to pick out a number of areas of local authority expenditure and fund it direct. We might expect a"local authority (inhabitants of tower blocks)"Bill to overcome the problems of local authorities with tower blocks. This Bill represents a step in the wrong direction, if we believe in local government. We should try to redistribute through existing machinery the money that is earmarked in the Bill rather than set up the new machinery outlined by the Minister. I accept that this cannot be done straight away, because the information needed if we are to alter the rate support grant is not available

87
at the moment. I understand that after the next census it might be available. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what are his long-term objectives and whether he agrees that it might be better to subsume these within the rate support grant rather than earmarking particular funds. The chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration would, I think, go along with that solution because in accordance with paragraph 8 of his first report, distinctive groups would not be picked out for special funds, and local authorities would get the money in a way which was not characterised by an ethnic label.
The second reason why I am not happy about the means for distributing the help is the relationship between the Bill and the urban aid programme, which the Minister did not mention in his speech. It was also glossed over in the Home Secretary's speech in November when he said:
" This new form of grant-aid will be separate from, and in addition to, the urban programme."—[Official Report, 6 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 515.]
The objectives of the urban aid programme are not dissimilar from the objectives of the Bill, yet the Bill is to be administered by a different Department, with perhaps different priorities and using a different procedure. One criticism of the current procedure, made by the Government on page 5 of their consultative document, is that
" it inhibits a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the problems of ethnic minorities in particular areas ".
If that is the case and if section 11 is now broadened to bring within its embrace a wider range of projects, the position will get worse and not better. The Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 also provides assistance for ethnic minorities. The Commission for Racial Equality has its own funds. We have this Bill, too. We shall get into a terrible muddle about directing help towards ethnic minorities if we increase the channels through which the money can come. It would have been an option, in the short term, to beef up the urban aid programme and to direct a little of it towards the needs of ethnic minorities, if that is where the Government's priority lies, and use existing machinery rather than set up new machinery.
88
The problem with that solution is the NIH factor—" not invented here "—in that the Home Office has responsibility for ethnic minorities and the DOE has responsibility for the urban aid programme.
Mr. Steen Mr. Steen rose—
Mr. John Mr. John rose—
Sir G. Young: Perhaps I may give way, out of courtesy, to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Steen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration was told that the reason why the Government had not extended the urban aid programme and specified certain sums in the DOE's total funds for specific immigration or race relations work was that the arrangements with the European Social Fund—this has been denied by the Minister—were such that the Government were clawing back virtually all the money which they were spending under section 11 and, therefore, wanted to continue with an arrangement in the Home Office so that they could go on clawing back under the European Social Fund and thereby prevent themselves from losing this money by putting more money into the urban aid programme. This may be a reason why we have this Bill before us today.
Sir G. Young: I think that my hon. Friend was supporting my argument. I am grateful to him if that is, indeed, so.
Mr. John: I cannot allow a distortion of that kind to take place without correction. I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) was referring. Perhaps it is significant that he kept the contribution as anonymous. At no time in the last five years has there been a grant of more than £3 million under the European Social Fund, whereas there has been an expenditure of over £30 million, and last year's Government money alone was over £25 million.
Sir G. Young: I hope that that information will be helpful to the House. The point I was making was that I believe that it might have been an option for the Government to channel the increased resources which they have available in this Bill under the urban aid programme to reduce the number of channels through which aid is going and to reduce the risk of duplication.

89
My third reason for criticising the Bill follows from what I have already said. I dislike the discretion given to the Secretary of State in the Bill whereby he can direct funds wheresoever he wishes. By introducing the Bill in the run-up to a general election, he lays himself wide open to the accusation that this discretion will be abused in the interests of the Labour Party. I believe that the Bill should set out much more clearly than it does the criteria which will guide him in exercising this discretion, so that such evil thoughts can be set aside.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman's suave denigration does not make his views any more palatable than those of the more obvious yahoos further back on his own Back Benches. I assure him that the Home Secretary does not and would not use the Bill for any party political advantage. The hon. Member himself was asking for a system of priorities when he said that he hopes that Ealing would not be worse off under the new Bill than it was under the Act. It is just in order to give such priorities, where everyone can apply, so that the Home Secretary can apply the money where the priorities are greatest.
Sir G. Young: With respect, I quantified in some detail the reasons why Ealing should qualify. Frankly, the solution lies in the Minister's hands. If he does not wish such accusations to be made, he should set out clearly the criteria which will guide the Secretary of State in exercising discretion under the Bill. Let the Minister state what particular problems he seeks to solve in more detail than is in the Bill at present. If the funds then follow that path, I am sure that the accusation will not be made. However, the Secretary of State lays himself open to the accusation by giving himself total discretion under the Bill to spend money in whatsoever direction he likes.
My fourth reason for reservations is that the Bill interferes with the autonomy of local government if it is to get more slices of money from central Government with labels on them. If we believe in local democracy, we should let local councillors meet their own priorities in their areas, as they see them, and let them account for themselves in subsequent municipal elections. Getting more and more help with labels on it reduces local
90
councillors to the role of local administrators and not councillors.
We have already seen the problems that emerge if we go down that path with the administration of urban aid. A range of projects is submitted to the DOE, under the urban aid programme, in strict order of priority. It is the experience of the London borough of Ealing that the DOE selects them not in the order of priority of the local borough. Recently, our top two or three priorities were rejected and the DOE selected projects Nos. 9 and 10. It makes nonsense of local priorities if the central Government intervene and distort what the local administration is trying to do.
It seems that there is to be detailed Government supervision under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could explain exactly what procedure is involved. Certainly so far as Ealing is concerned, we should prefer to have a block allocation rather than have each individual project closely scrutinised.
Perhaps I may end with some further questions. Is the Bill to be seen as pump priming, as a Bill to get various projects off the ground, subsequently to be financed by local government? Or is it to be like section 11 currently is, an ongoing commitment meeting expenditure year in and year out?
Will the Minister also clarify the distinction which the Government have tried to make between main programme expenditure and general support for areas with high ethnic populations? I do not think that the distinction is particularly clear. If one is looking, for example, at the establishment of a short-stay hostel in Ealing run by the Ealing council for community relations, one asks whether this should be financed by urban aid, financed under this Bill or financed by the local authority under its main programme of expenditure.
Under section 11, the procedure is very simple indeed. The local government appoints the staff and the expenditure is certified by the district auditor. Local authorities are very worried that the procedure under the Bill will be infinitely more complicated.
Therefore, I believe that extra help should be available to those local authorities with ethnic minorities within their

91
areas. However, I am unhappy about the wide ministerial discretion. I am unhappy about the many channels through which central Government aid is channelled to these authorities. I am unhappy at the further erosion of local independence in local government. I want reassurance on a number of specific points.
It is a matter of regret that the Bill is necessary, because it is a measure of our failure over the past two decades to solve these problems. What we in this House should be trying to do is to see that the Bill is made redundant as soon as possible.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. John Tilley: The Bill is a small but welcome recognition by the Government of the need to pay attention to the special problems that are faced by black and brown British citizens. I join with all those hon. Members who have agreed that it goes a long way to put right the anomalies and anachronisms within section 11 of the earlier Act. But the Government have only themselves to blame for some of the criticism that the Bill has received.
The Bill encourages local authorities to draw up comprehensive programmes to combat racial disadvantage in their areas. That is a very worthy objective, but it is also precisely what the Government have failed to do for the country as a whole. I think that much of the confusion stems from that.
I shall try to outline what I believe such a national programme should consist of, and then I shall try to put the Bill into what I see as its proper context.
As the Minister has said, the situation has changed dramatically since 1966, when section 11 came into force. Immigration has been reduced considerably, and it is likely to come virtually to an end in the next few years. About half of the black and brown people in Britain now were born here; and that proportion will, of course, increase steadily. By the mid-1980s, as the birthrates continue to converge, there will be a stable situation in which about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of English men and English women happen to have brown or black skins.
Although there will still be cultural diversity—we should make sure that we
92
maintain that—it will no longer be mainly a question of what to do with the New Commonwealth immigrants, Pakistanis, West Indians or Kenyan Asians. We shall be talking then about Britons. That is an important point to get across and for the House to look at.
Britain will no longer be a white society with a few black immigrants who have come for a short period to find work. Britain is now, already, a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society, in which those ethnic minorities have a great deal to contribute in terms of the richness and diversity of that society.
It is very important to stress in the House that the well-being of all the people in Britain depends upon a fair deal for the ethnic minorities. We have to face the fact that, for historical and other reasons, these ethnic minority groups in the Britain of the 1980s will continue to suffer from considerable disadvantages if we do not take action now. These disadvantages have already been mentioned.
These ethnic minority groups have the right as taxpayers, ratepayers, British citizens and fellow human beings to expect us to take such action. Just as importantly, we owe it to the white citizens of this multi-ethnic society that Britain should be strengthened by realising the full potential of ethnic diversity and not weakened by racial hostility.
The principal disadvantages suffered by black and brown Britons fall into three categories. These categories have not been sufficiently distinguished in this debate. This has led to some confusion. First, there is racial discrimination. We have legislated to make that illegal, but it continues to take a variety of subtle forms, notably in housing and employment. Those forms of discrimination can be changed only by changes in attitude among those who are discriminating. There is a limit to how far legislation and extra expenditure can make people change their attitudes. I believe that this Bill can have some limited effect.
Grants could be given to authorities wishing to employ staff to measure and monitor the numbers from ethnic minority groups who get housing, jobs or promotion within those local authorities. Proof that the problem exists can often be gained only in this way. There may be cases, on the detailed information that

93
has been gained, that merit positive discrimination. But, first, the evidence is needed in detail.
The Bill could be amended to give grants for curriculum development in schools in areas where there are few, possibly no, black British. Many of the schools in inner cities have introduced the geography and history of the Caribbean into their curriculum. This enables black youngsters to understand better their own background. Just as importantly, it enables the white children to understand the heritage of their black classmates. It may be even more important for white children who do not have the advantage of meeting black children in the classrooms to appreciate the origins of their black fellow citizens elsewhere in Britain.
A second major area of disadvantage suffered by black and brown people comes under the heading of social disadvantage. A high proportion of black Britons live in the decaying parts of our big cities. They have poor housing, low paid jobs or no jobs at all, with inadequate educational, health and recreational facilities. In none of those categories is there a majority of black people. In each case, more white working class than black working class are suffering. For these main problems, the Bill is irrelevant. Just as it would be outrageous for jobs, decent housing or better schools to be provided for only the white residents of the inner cities, it would be equally unthinkable for this or any other Government to provide only for the needs of the black residents and to ignore the white. That would be not only unfair. It would lead to greater resentment and racial tensions and to an intensification of the attitudes that lead to discrimination.
The problems of bad housing, lack of jobs, low pay and inadequate health and educational services are shared problems for all the people living in inner city areas, whether black or white. A leaking roof on a block of flats leaks on to black and white tenants alike. A factory closure makes all races of workers redundant. In my constituency of Lambeth, the proportion of local black youngsters unemployed is always at least twice the proportion of white youngsters unemployed. But each of those youngsters is 100 per cent. unemployed. I do not want to see an all-white dole queue in Brixton any more
94
than I want to see an all-black dole queue. Indeed, I want to see no dole queue at all in Brixton. I want more jobs for everyone and an end to discrimination.
The majority of people in Brixton, where there has been a black section of the community for more than 20 years, realise that they will solve their problems only by united action. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who also represents Brixton, has entered the Chamber at this point. The people of Brixton look to the Government's inner city initiative which is dedicated to solving those problems comprehensively. This Bill has nothing to do with that programme and must not be used by the Government as an excuse for lack of sufficient central funding which is the main defect of the inner city programme.
The third area of disadvantage relates to what the Bill should be used for—the disadvantages which black people have to suffer but which their white neighbours do not have to face. This is a limited but desperately important set of problems which has been underestimated in the debate. It has been pointed out that those problems occur almost exclusively in education. That is another way of putting the point that black children have disadvantages which their white classmates do not face. They must be tackled at the earliest stage, so that minority groups can have a fair and equal chance when they reach adulthood.
The first problem is language. Children whose parents came from Asian cultures are being born in England but are learning another language than English in their first years at home. It is not only a first generation problem. The teaching of English as a second language so that those children do not fall behind where lessons are in English has been the major use of section 11 and will, I hope, continue to be the main use of grants under this new Bill. Children whose parents or grandparents came from the West Indies or Africa will also have language problems. There has been an increasing awareness among teachers that, although the mother tongue is English, there are subtle differences in the use of English in the West Indies which may hinder children in lessons which are conducted in what we call, with

95
residual imperial arrogance, standard English.
I have mentioned the need for curricular flexibility to reflect the diverse backgrounds of British citzens today. In literature as well as in history and geography, the concentration on the European heritage must be widened to include all the parts of the world from which people have come to form the British people of today. That costs money. I hope that the money will be provided under the Bill. There are many textbooks which have an unintentional racial bias. Not only must this be recognised, but the books must be replaced. That costs money. Teachers need greater training in the needs and possibilities of a multi-ethnic society. That will cost money in revamping the approaches of teacher training colleges, providing more in-service training for existing teachers and finding ways of getting more members of the ethnic minority groups themselves to become teachers, This last point is a clear case for positive discrimination that will require money and needs a great deal of imagination and determination from the education authorities.
I hope that the Bill will be used effectively in the ways I have suggested. I also hope that the new arrangements will not endanger what has already been achieved by progressive education authorities such as the Inner London Education Authority which covers my area. It has not been brought out in the debate that 86 per cent. of the funds under section 11 go to education authorities. In the coming year, ILEA expects to get £8·7 million, almost all of which is for teaching posts. I know that the educational part of current spending is to be safeguarded next year under the new system, mentioned in the Green Paper. But we must have an assurance that there will be a permanent safeguard and that the costs will not have to be absorbed into main programmes. Otherwise, this will mean in London that either we slowly destroy hundreds of teaching jobs or there will be a considerable rise in the rates.
The Bill will improve the work done under the 1966 Act, but will it encourage more councils to begin similar work? This is permissive legislation, a carrot not a stick, and the proportion of Government
96
grant funding—75 per cent. of expenditure—plus the fact that the projects have to be taken into the main programme within a few years is not a sufficient incentive for local authorities which have failed to do this job before.
I therefore ask the Government to review these figures. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is difficult to judge this Bill out of the missing context—the missing Government strategy for combating racial disadvantage, the missing Government strategy for grasping the opportunities of a multi-ethnic Britain. The position of brown and black people in Britain cannot be improved merely by throwing money at their problems. The racialism that exists in Britain cannot be bought off with grants. It is institutionalised racialism, often unintentional institutionalised racialism. I fear that the Government, as the biggest institution in the country, must do more to put their own house in order before preaching to others. The Tavistock report has created serious suspicions about racial discrimination in the Civil Service. The public sector industries have yet to demonstrate that they carry out effective policies of equal opportunity. The Home Office itself, presenting this Bill, presides over the most blatant institutionalised racialism of the immigration control system, which the Labour Party as a whole agrees is based on a racially biased Act. So let the Government practise as well as preach racial equality.
Mr. Alan Clark: What about the—unconscious, I am sure, but none the less evident—discrimination exercised by Labour GMCs in their reluctance to choose coloured candidates to come to this place?
Mr. Tilley: I am afraid that the hon. Member is behind the times. There are now coloured candidates. We are at the moment sitting within a constituency which is to be contested by a West Indian Labour candidate.
I support the Bill because it marks the beginning of a slow realisation by the Government that they must begin now if we are to build a Britain in which there is equal opportunity for all citizens, whatever the colour of their skin. That will be of benefit to everyone in Britain, because it means that brown and black citizens will be able to make their full

97
contribution to British life. That contribution is already becoming noticeable in sport, particularly football and athletics, but it must be made possible in all other arenas of public life, including this House.
I believe that, in the 1980s, we shall see brown and black Members of Parliament here. We must not be an all-white preserve for as long as we were an all-male preserve—
Miss Joan Lestor: And still are.
Mr. Tilley: I was waiting for that.
I support the Bill, but only on the clear understanding that the Government must realise that they have much more to do if we are to grasp the challenge and opportunities which are presented and avoid the disaster which may come if we do not take the necessary action.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Alan Clark: The House has a sympathetic characteristic of averting its gaze from, or at any rate looking only obliquely at, certain subjects about which hon. Members feel a corporate uneasiness. One thinks of the defence debates and all those night-time debates when we are meant to be scrutinising EEC documents, and so forth, when, whether from a sense of the futility of telling the truth or from a desire not to offend the agreed pattern of progressive liberalism, hon. Members do not allow themselves to say exactly what they think on certain issues—or, if they do, they combine it with saying something that they do not think.
An example was the speech of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). He made a compendious review of the whole situation. First, he praised the Bill—that could be reported by those who wished to report it—then he said that the problems of the coloured community would not be solved by throwing money at them, which, of course, is a diametrically opposed view.
This Bill is one more stage in the degenerative disease that affects the whole of British politics and has done for several decades, namely, the belief that by taking money from the taxpayer and directing it into non-productive but electorally significant sectors, one is more likely to derive advantage than by leaving it free to move in terms of the market.
98
Those who argue that section 11 of the 1966 Act gives us the precedent for approving this Bill are confusing two separate points of principle. As the Minister admitted in answer to my intervention earlier, section 11 was specially drafted to be of short duration and to cover a specific problem which, on compassionate grounds, the House recognised had to be dealt with and could best be dealt with by the provision of money.
But, the Minister now says, the time in which those problems could be solved has been underestimated. Whether that underestimate by those who drafted the Bill was deliberate or accidental, it is plain that if the Minister had said in 1966 that the Government wanted an open-ended commitment to provide public funds indefinitely to this section of the community, the House would have taken a much gloomier and more critical view of that suggestion.
At the time, the proposal was meant to be short-lived, to cover a particular crisis of hardship and distress that was subsisting at that time and was hard to resist. Now we are told that the problem has not gone away, that it is likely to be with us indefinitely, and that therefore it must be consolidated in some much more widely drawn provision, which will be of indefinite duration.
Clause 1(2)(a) is completely open-ended. Its purpose is to remove
" disadvantages from which an ethnic group suffers ".
The definition of a disadvantage is not very precise, but the Secretary of State will make these grants where"in his opinion ", the expenditure
" is attributable to the presence of ethnic groups ",
which we all know will be with us indefinitely.
If the Secretary of State is reluctant to do so, we see that under this clause the grant is to be incurred
" by a local authority in the exercise of any of their functions for any of the following purposes ",
followed by three headings under which they can call on the Secretary of State to grant approval.
Paragraph (a) is enormously wide. Paragraph (b), again, is not very precise but one assumes, to give it the benefit of the doubt, that it refers principally to

99
education. Many hon. Members have said, almost as if it were a criticism, that educational requirements had commanded up to 85 per cent. of the allocation of previous funds. But that is a recommendation for whoever made those provisions rather than a criticism.
Paragraph (c) refers to:
" promoting good relations between ethnic groups or between ethnic groups and the rest of the community ".
Leaving aside the major point that that is the very last thing that is desirable to promote good relations between the various ethnic groups—it is much more likely to exacerbate them—this is also capable of the widest interpretation.
It is believed—perhaps the hon. Member for the area, the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, will confirm or deny this—that the Moonshot club and other hotbeds of dissent received grants from the local authority on the grounds that paying money to such clubs would improve relations. Whether it did or not, it is widely believed in such communities that blacks get grants from the public purse by by various routes to propagate their own dissenting, if not subversive, associations. I see that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central does not rise, so presumably he is accepting—
Mr. Tilley: I am somewhat confused. I am afraid that the hon. Member's knowledge of the geography of London is as confused as his knowledge of community relations.
Mr. Clark: Perhaps the hon. Member in whose constituency the Moonshot club stands—I am sure that there are similar clubs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—is not in the House, or has decided not to—
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Moonshot club is in Lewisham. It is run by a lady who, for her distinguished services to the community, received the OBE and who is a noted Methodist local preacher. It is anything but a hotbed of dissent. I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind a club of a different name in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley).
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and I congratulate him on his knowledge of con-
100
stituencies that are distant from his own. I hope that he will forgive my error. Although he knows the name of the club, he did not tell the House. The principle, however, remains that it is widely believed within these communities that public funds are paid to clubs and associations that nurture subversive or disruptive associations. That is a side issue, but it is not unimportant.
The basic principle remains that a certain section of the community is being identified by its ethnic origin or colour. The word"colour"has been avoided and the definition"ethnic"has been so widely extended that it embraces practically everyone. The words
" a group of persons distinguished by colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins."
include practically every inhabitant of any large city, but we all know what is meant. The word"minority"is not even used; it is just"ethnic group "."Ethnic"is written, but we know in the House that what is meant is"coloured ". The Bill provides that certain categories of people are to receive preferential treatment by having a special allocation of funds from the public purse to alleviate the various problems from which it is believed that they may be suffering.
In many of our constituencies there are large cities with substantial pockets of deprivation. Each weekend we see constituents who have problems relating to their personal circumstances, schooling or single-parent families. In my constituency of Plymouth, in many families the breadwinner is at sea for long periods. The mother has to cope on her own with the children and schooling. How can we explain to such people that they do not deserve and are not to be allocated the public money that might relieve their plight, when others, simply because they are coloured, could apply for the money under a totally different heading? I can see that hon. Members are getting a little uneasy. But it is no good thinking that the ordinary white, working-class people who exist in all the inner cities and who feel that they are deprived are not keenly aware that there is a form of discrimination that is likely to be codified and extended in the Bill which makes special provision for people simply because they are coloured.
Mr. Sever: I think that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark)

101
may be at cross-purposes. For example, if a minority group of Poles were to ask for a subvention from the funds it would be available to them, assuming that the local authority felt that its argument was met.
Mr. Clark: That is probably true. To avoid making it overtly reverse discriminatory, the definition"ethnic"has been enlarged to include a white minority group, should it exist. Later we shall be able to ask the Secretary of State and the Minister whether such provisions have ever been made on a significant scale.
In fact, the Bill has been drafted to empower the Secretary of State to allocate funds to black people in inner city areas in preference to the needs of white people. There may be the exception, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) suggested, of, for instance, a small group of Poles. The broad mass of white people in inner cities stand on one side, and there are enclaves of coloured people to whom preferential allocation of funds will be made. That is the most dangerous principle of all in the allocation of public money.
We have seen how public money is used for the purchase of votes in certain categories such as at Linwood, British Leyland and the shipyards in the North. Although that brings with it the rotten borough element and the purchase of large tranches of votes in particular sectors, it can be excused. It can be argued that it is saving jobs, adding to productivity and sustaining industries in a temporary period of difficulty. But the House is being asked for the first time to approve an open-ended commitment of indefinite duration to provide public money to a sector of the population, living side by side and in identical circumstances with the rest, simply because they are black. That is reverse discrimination, and is the most dangerous and insidious principle of all to introduce into the distribution of public funds or public favours. I therefore intend to oppose it.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am glad that I was called so soon after the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark). I heard him on the television the other day after the meeting of the home affairs group of the Conservative party. He labours under a disadvantage
102
that is almost peculiar to the Tory Party, and it blinds to him the reality of the Bill. I do not believe that he would argue that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was a wrong application of public funds for the needs of a particular group. He can see precisely that the needs of that group differ from the needs of the majority of people, even living in the same area. He and other hon. Gentlemen should be reassured that that is what the Bill is about. It is not about providing public funds for blacks or any other ethnic minority group simply because of their colour or national origin. It is about their distinctive need, which is different from the disadvantages even of people living in the same area.
I feel most strongly about it and I hope that the House will allow me to enlarge on it further. I spent two years as Minister in the Department seeking to argue the case for that kind of provision. I failed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on succeeding in producing the Bill. It is absolutely crucial to future good race relations. Any group of immigrants who came to this country, whether Jews, Huguenots or others, initially had a problem of adjusting to the mores of our society. If they came from a wholly different cultural background, they had greater problems. If they came from Northern Ireland, there would be problems, but the basic language would be the same. If they came from Poland, they would have considerable problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) is right. One of the groups which will be helped by the Bill, and who should have been helped in 1945 but were not, are the Poles. As a result, they have a continuing cycle of deprivation. There are many Polish communities in the country which suffer noticeably in the provision of services and their general response to the demands of society, because they were not helped to overcome the difficulties of adjustment in the early years. That was not done for the Jews, Huguenots or Poles. Although the number concerned was comparatively small, nevertheless they had considerable difficulties.
I was born in Leeds, and even then, which was just before the war, there was a section of Leeds which was a Jewish ghetto. Jews did not move out of that

103
ghetto, and non-Jews did not move in. That was because the area marked a group that was different in racial and religious terms, and in its standard of living. All that has now gone because the Jews have moved out, and the area is now a West Indian area. The Jews moved out because in the interim they acquired the self-confidence in our culture and in our cultural background which allowed them to make their own choice as to how they would live.
We assumed under the 1966 Act that that process would take only a short time. That was a fatuous assumption, given the history of immigration into this country. It has taken two or three generations of Eastern European Jews to integrate in that sense—not into losing their culture, because they have not, but into being so self-confident in their cultural assumptions that they can live where they like and do what they like as individuals in our community.
There are in this country some 2 million blacks, but, by the natural aggregation of life spans by which the death rates among blacks and whites will become the same, the number will be about 3·3 million. Those people will be a permanent feature of our society. That is a larger number of immigrants than have ever lived here before. They will consist of immigrants and of the children born to immigrants. If we were not to make easier the transition from the cultural background from which they came to the cultural background here, the deprivation which comes from that cultural disadvantage would continue for generations. The position in this country would be similar to that found in Watts and in other inner city areas in the United States. The situation there arises not because the black people are different Americans from the white people but because, from the beginning, they have been treated to a cycle of discrimination and disadvantage which has led to their present unequal status in society.
I believe that we can cope with problems of discrimination through the agency of the Race Relations Act, but we have to cope with the problems of disadvantage through a direct injection of resources. In so far as the disadvantage is
104
common to whites and blacks, it can be dealt with through the agency of the inner city partnerships, by the adjustment of the rate support grant and by other means. If a person does not have a house, it does not matter whether he is black or white—his need is the same. He therefore ought to have the same agency and be subject to the same kind of policy to meet that need. But if a person has a special disadvantage it is right for our society to correct it by a special injection of public resources. I do not regard that as positive discrimination. For me, positive discrimination is giving someone more than he deserves in order, so it is alleged, to correct discrimination of the past. That may be an argument in the United States, but it is not an argument that has ever been accepted in this country. It is not accepted in the Race Relations Act, and I would not support such an approach. I say that where blacks are subjected to discrimination and disadvantage which puts them at a greater disadvantage than is suffered by whites living in a disadvantaged area they are entitled to special consideration for resources to cope with those disadvantages.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) wanted to know what those disadvantages were. I shall try to tell him. I am afraid that I do not always recognise an elephant, and I can help him in his difficulties with the Minister only by telling him that there were civil servants in the Home Office who did not recognise the elephant either. But the elephant exists, and if the hon. Member wants to read about it he will find a good deal on the subject in the book by David Smith prepared by PEP and dealing with racial disadvantage in this country.
But even there the hon. Gentleman will not get the full context of what this Bill is about, because even David Smith, when he did the PEP study, did not appreciate the difference that exists for people who come from a different cultural background as a result of the newness. It is the newness that is important, and that newness may take three generations to cure. We assumed that if all the Asian children who were born in this country were put into our schools when they were five they would be totally adjusted to our environment. Many

105
people do not realise that even now most of the Asian children who go to school at the age of five, although born in this country, start school not speaking English because in the home the mother does not speak English. Therefore, the pattern of deprivation continues. It is no use hon. Members saying that that problem should have been cured by the 1966 Act, or that a time limit should be imposed on the Bill as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and by the Select Committee.
The truth is that we do not know how long it will take to cure these problems. That will depend on how fast we get on with the job of dealing with the disadvantages. Language presents difficulties that are so obvious that they do not need arguing about. The average disadvantaged white child in the back streets of Birmingham or Lambeth does not have the problem of learning English when he goes to school at five. His mother does not have to learn English at home. There is no public provision for teaching English to women in the home, although certainly voluntary bodies are active in that area. We have started courses for men at work, but we need much greater and universal provision. At the moment all we have are experimental schemes, but we need universal provision so that men at work are able quickly to learn English.
We also need provision for apprentices. Many children who come to this country in the middle of their school lives find it difficult to get into apprenticeships at the same rate as whites because of that difficulty of adjustment. Therefore, we need to make a special allocation of resources for apprenticeships. The case for educational provision has been largely accepted by the Opposition.
It is argued that that is the only disadvantage, but I plead with hon. Members to accept that that is not so. It may not be possible to itemise every other disadvantage which arises out of newness. I shall try, however, to give some. Take for instance, the points raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). I refer to the question of meals on wheels. Unfortunately Gujaratis, who have a religious code which argues against the eating of meat, sometimes suffer from a protein deficiency which leads to a greater inci-
106
dence of rickets and, sometimes, of TB among them than among the public as a whole. These differences can always be taken up by those who oppose racial integration in an alarmist way. The incidence, although greater than in the white population, is still comparatively small among the total population. However, in order to meet it we need to make some special provision in the social services for helping with dietary problems and providing preventive medicine. That is why this grant will also go to Health Service provision. Positive Health Service provision is vital.
Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member's kindly nature has just led him to coin a new descriptive term. He has referred to"newness"which, he said, places immigrants at a disadvantage. That is a nice amiable word, but it takes us back into section 11 territory. Will the hon. Member tell us how long newness lasts, and how long he expects people to remain new?
Mr. Lyon: I have indicated that newness must be relative and can continue for several generations, but I shall return to the point because it is important in the development of this theme. I shall give two more examples which may be controversial even within the minority groups. I have met dissent when expounding them at meetings. They seem to me to be real and the House had better face reality.
The Minister of State agreed about the difficulties in school achievement for West Indian children. That is real. Why should it happen? It does not happen, as Professor Eysenck says, because their intelligence is less. It happens because they come from a family background which makes it more difficult for them to achieve at the rate even of disadvantaged Asian or white children.
One of the reasons is that, in the West Indies, the tradition of marriage is not as strongly ingrained as it is within white or even in Asian communities here. The tradition of the strong, integrated family is different from the West Indian tradition. The West Indan family unit is one which the maternal figure—often the grandmother or sometimes the aunt—looks after the children.
In West Indian families, the mother and the father frequently are not married.

107
Sometimes they have a passing relationship, and occasionally take up with someone else. Frequently one finds a single-parent family in which children are growing up. That is often because of our immigration rules, which make it difficult for the father or the mother to come here together, or for the children to join them at the same time. The result is that the incidence of single-parent families is higher among West Indians than among whites or Asians.
If we agree, as we all do, that there has to be provision within our public expenditure for single-parent families, and if among West Indians the incidence is uniquely high—very much higher than amongst Asians or whites—we have to make provision in our social services for them. I use a generalisation as the basis for our insight into the difficulties. I know that these are generalisations and that there are massive exceptions to them. The Asian family is much more integrated. There is a far greater back-up, though equally the commitments in that context are much wider.
The sense of the extended family is much greater among Asians than among any other group. This is because they are passing on their whole cultural heritage in the way in which they bring up their children, and in the way in which those children are taught their responsibilities to their elders. Much of that is magnificent, and we ought to applaud and perhaps copy it. It also means that for children growing up in that kind of family atmosphere there is often acute conflict between what they learn from the family and what they learn from the surrounding culture particularly at school. There is often difficulty for them as teenagers, and considerable social services back-up is required to help them. Any social services department will say that for such reasons they need extra help in the areas where they are dealing with Asian and West Indian families.
That help cannot be had under the rate support grant, nor can it be obtained under the general policy programmes laid down for social services. It can be provided only by a special injection of funds. I have said enough to indicate that the range of facilities required for
108
this kind of provision under section 11 is much wider than hon. Members think. Using section 11 is the wrong way of dealing with it because under it any amount of money is available. There is no limit in public expenditure terms under section 11 because it depends upon the local borough treasurer or the local county council treasurer claiming the money back. Frequently councillors do not know that it even exists. Consequently they are not geared to making a provision for blacks where they have a special need, even though they can claim back 75 per cent. of expenditure. The result is that the take-up of section 11 provision is disparate throughout the country in a marked way.
For example, Harrow has the same number of New Commonwealth immigrants—according to the 1971 census—as Derby. In the period between 1967 and 1974, Harrow claimed £18,234 under section 11, whereas Derby claimed £698,656. For a black person living in Harrow who had the same needs and the same disadvantages as the black person living in Derby, there was a manifestly unequal provision.
Similarly, in Kent there were as many New Commonwealth immigrants as there were in Bradford. In the same period, the claim for Kent was £141,792, but in Bradford the claim was £2,097,801. So it is clear that the provision under section 11 in Bradford was manifestly greater, individually, than it was in Kent. That arose because of the haphazard nature of section 11. In addition, although this was not required by the Act, the Civil Service wrote in two conditions. One was that an area had to have 2 per cent. of children of New Commonwealth origin on the school roll. The other condition was that they or their parents had to have lived there for more than 10 years.
The result of that was that many West Indian areas did not receive their full entitlement. In areas such as Liverpool—and this was referred to by the Minister of State—provision was never made for the Liverpool-born black. The Liverpool-born black could not claim within that context. Yet, if my Liverpool-born black was the same man who berated me three years ago as the one who berated the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member should have gone on to tell

109
the House that he did not only say"The trouble with these people around us is that they treat us as immigrants ". He also said that we did not make any special provision for them in Liverpool 8, and as a result, Liverpool 8 is a bigger slum than some others in that city. Blacks in such a situation claim that they need the provisions.
For the reasons I indicated to the Minister of State during our earlier altercation, the Liverpool black is the classic answer to the hon. Gentleman's case about a time limit. If one does nothing, the Liverpool black will go on being culturally disadvantaged for generations. We are not coping with his problem. The House need not take that from me. I quote the words of a former Conservative Front Bench spokesman during the Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill in 1976. If hon. Members opposite really wish to understand this problem, they should read that speech in detail. It was a powerful argument for just this kind of provision. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said:
" There is another factor in the disadvantage theme—namely, the cumulative effect. Paragraph 11 of the White Paper reads:
' If, for example, job opportunities, educational facilities, housing and environmental conditions are all poor, the next generation will grow up less well-equipped to deal with the difficulties facing them. The wheel then comes full circle, as the second generation find themselves trapped in poor jobs and poor housing.'
It was that vicious process which my right hon. Friends the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) analysed and described as the cycle of deprivation.—[Official Report, 4 March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1651.]
Surely there cannot be a better guru to whom Opposition Members can turn than the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). If he is on our side, God must be too.
In those circumstances I beg Opposition Members to agree that it is not necessary to vote against the Bill. The Bill is a logical extension of section 11 which the Opposition accepted when it was passed and in the four years when they were in Government. It is a response to the call from the Select Committee for special provision to be made for blacks where they have special needs. It is a response to the calls that have come frequently from the Opposition Front Bench.
110
Of course, there has been a little change of phrase today. But that change is a semantic argument for clause 1(2) of the Bill. It is clear that the provision will remove disadvantages from which an ethnic group suffers. I do not understand how it can be argued that that is positive discrimination in favour of blacks against whites. We are simply curing needs of blacks and not those of other groups.
We are saying that the services provided by the local authority shall be as effective in relation to the ethnic groups as they are to the rest of the community. That involves the raising of standards to bring them up to the general level. There is no positive discrimination in either subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b). Promoting good relations between ethnic groups and the rest of the community is being equal handed with both majority and minority groups.
If I were a parent living in an area where my children had to go to a school where 60 per cent. of children did not speak English I should feel the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I should feel that my kid was not getting as good a deal as he would if he went to a school where all the kids spoke English. Therefore, I should be as concerned as the mother of the black kid that that school should give everyone an equal chance by more resources being poured in.
When I was a Minister I saw a splendid school in Paddington where that happened. The results were remarkable. Everybody in the school, white and black, does far better than is achieved under a provision which is supposed to be equal but which is not.
For that reason, I believe that the Bill is not only about helping the blacks. It is about helping all our community to live together and to get rid of the problem within one generation. If we provide the resources, the Bill will not be needed in three generations' time, as some hon. Members fear.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. John Stokes: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) represents the most English of cities, but I sometimes wonder whether his strongly pronounced views reflect the feelings and views of the ordinary English man and woman. I disagree with the hon.

111
Member so much that I shall refrain from commenting on his speech, except to refer to the Poles.
I had some connection with people from that great nation after the war. Almost all of them have made a great success of their lives in this country without any help of the kind provided by the Bill.
I remember a wounded middle-aged Polish officer. He was starting again with nothing, and he made a go of it as a builder. He said"England is the easiest country in the world in which to make one's living." Therefore, do not let us look down too much on people who come here and make a success of their lives. Not all of them want handouts.
It will be no surprise to the Government or to my Front Bench that I oppose the Bill. I regard it as novel. It is an extremely dangerous development in our so-called social legislation. I am sorry that the Minister left as soon as I rose. He introduced the Bill with his customary charm and courtesy. He was good enough to refer to some of my hon. Friends—and possibly to me—as primitives. He has introduced the Bill at a time when immigration continues at a high level and when, because of that, fears of it are still widespread.
The Bill at least gives us a chance to debate this important subject, which is seldom, if ever, debated in the House. Those of us who try to raise the matter find that every obstacle is put in their way and that they are made to feel guilty for raising an issue that is of utmost importance to ordinary people. We all know that if there were a referendum now about immigration there would be an enormous vote against it.
The Bill is full of pitfalls. For example, the definition of ethnic groups is
" a group of persons distinguished by colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins."
I should have thought that that would represent all the souls in the country.
It reminds me of my first conversation with Mr. Andrew Young, the roving American ambassador. He said that he was a member of an ethnic group."So am I, Mr. Young ", I said."So what?"The conversation did not go much further.
112
Surely the definition includes pockets of Scotsmen located in England and English men in Scotland. Surely it includes people such as the Secretary of State, who is a Welshman, in the Government. I see no end to it. It seems that everybody can have a dip into this gravy dish.
There is no mention of our ancestors. Some of my family originally came here as Huguenots. Are we entitled to partake of the benefits in the Bill? What about the Germans, Frenchmen, Italians and others living here, who come from the EEC? Do the Government really mean immigrants and, in particular, coloured immigrants? If so, why on earth do they not say so?
I am opposed to handouts of Government money in general. They smack too much of trying to buy votes, particularly in a year when a general election is expected. If Government grants have to be made they should at least be made in a way that is demonstrably fair. The present proposals do not seem fair to many English people.
The Bill could benefit the disadvantaged Englishman, although"disadvantaged"is a horrible and dangerous word. In many places the English have been displaced by immigrants. The lives of some have been turned upside-down by the newcomers.
The moment that we in this sovereign legislature say that a section of the public needs to have disadvantages removed, we open the way to all kinds of grievances, real or alleged, being raised. That is highly dangerous.
The Bill is liable to incense our own countrymen who were born and bred here. They feel that they are being discriminated against. The Bill is certainly highly unpopular in the Midlands. It is also extremely unclear and full of new-speak and double talk. The Bill refers to
" securing that the services provided by the local authority are as effective in relation to ethnic groups as they are in relation to the rest of the community ".
What does that mean? Does it imply, for instance, that an ethnic community is some sort of ghetto? It would certainly seem to imply that they are very special closely defined categories, different in every respect from the rest of the inhabitants living in these islands. If I

113
were a self-respecting immigrant—say, a shopkeeper or a toolmaker—I would be inclined to scorn this somewhat patronising form of description. I believe that such handouts will be as offensive to immigrants as they would be to English people.
Then we come to the second point—
" promoting good relations between ethnic groups or between ethnic groups and the rest of the community ".
How on earth can Parliament undertake that sort of task? Is it believed that if we shovel out money, somehow everything will be all right? I believe that the Bill is another example of Parliament's trying to meddle in matters that it would do far better to keep out of, and that, far from lessening so-called racial tension, it will tend to increase it.
The Bill shows how out of touch both the Government and the Home Office are with ordinary people. Perhaps they took the advice of social scientists. If so, it is a great pity. It is always a great mistake for Parliament to try to regulate ordinary human intercourse. England is a very old country, a very kind and tolerant nation, and we do not need to be told, we English people, by busy-bodies—certainly not by the hon. Member for York—how to behave with each other. Still less do we want taxpayers' money distributed to certain vague or undefined groups by very dubious means, apparently going on for ever and ever, presumably with larger and larger payments being made available, therefore requiring more and more from the unfortunate taxpayer.
It is for these reasons that I hope that the Bill will not reach the statute book, and having discussed it with many people recently I have a feeling that they share my view. I hope that hon. Members, if they decide to vote for the Bill, will think first of all of their constituents and of the people whom we are supposed to represent. I believe that the Bill will create many more problems than it tries to solve and that it will cause a sense of burning injustice and unfairness in our own English people.
7.13 p.m.
Mr. Bruce George: I have no doubt that many people share the views of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I regret
114
that. The hon. Gentleman's humour, be it unintentional or intentional, should not blind us to the malevolence of some of his argument. He appears to be opposed to State handouts. I wonder how many people in his constituency are receiving the temporary employment subsidy, or how many youngsters are in the various STEP schemes or the youth opportunities programme. Perhaps he would like to argue his case with them. I wonder whether he is totally opposed to the billions of pounds handed out—rightly, in my view—to industry. When he and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) bemoaned handouts to minority groups to the exclusion of majority groups I thought that they had in mind State aid to political parties, because that is the classic case of a group—a minority group, in fact—that receives advantages that majorities do not. That instance should not be forgotten.
I represent a constituency that has perhaps 15,000 members of the ethnic minority communities. They are mainly Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, but there are about 3,000 Afro-Caribbeans. Although about 5 per cent. of the total population of the town of Walsall belong to ethnic minority communities, the majority of them are concentrated in the areas of Caldmore, Palfrey, Pleck, the Chuckery, and Darlaston. I can therefore speak with some authority on the problems of the ethnic minority communities.
I am thankful that race relations in Walsall are better than in some of the neighbouring areas. A race relations feature in my local newspaper the Walsall Observer, said:
" Walsall is an island in a sea of racial unrest."
That is something that I am grateful for. That is not to say that we have any grounds for complacency. In his foreword to a study entitled"Black Employment in the Black Country: A Study of Walsall ", by Dennis Brooks, Mr. Adrian Cadbury, chairman of Cadbury-Schweppes wrote
" Mr. Dennis Brooks' report on employment in the Walsall area shows that in the West Midlands we cannot shelter behind the reassuring illusion that things are different in our part of the world…If the legitimate expectations of both these groups "

115
—he was referring to early immigrants as well as to their children, the second generation—
" are not met, there are serious problems ahead. So it is in the interest of all of us to see that equality of opportunity becomes a reality."
Since entering politics, one of my major concerns has been to support those combating and trying to eliminate discrimination in whatever form it takes, and since its formation the Labour Party has been dedicated to assisting the underprivileged in their battle for human rights and equality.
I am pleased that many pieces of legislation emanating from this Government have sought to achieve that end in race relations, housing, women's rights, security for the elderly, and many other areas affecting underprivileged minorities. I am pleased to support this Bill, which is a further Government measure in combating racial discrimination and disadvantage.
The Labour Government's record is one of which they can be proud. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Race Relations Act 1976. It was the third major piece of legislation passed by the present Government, and it goes a long way towards combating the most obscene manifestations of race discrimination. But discrimination is much more than simply refusing people houses or jobs. If anyone has a lingering belief that discrimination has been eliminated, I advise him to read the PEP report"Racial Disadvantage in Britain"which again gives us every indication that discrimination is still very much with us.
Discrimination is broader than simply legal discrimination, and the Bill supplements the Race Relations Act by seeking to deal with disadvantage. When the Local Government Act 1966 was passed, the situation was very different. We were then dealing with first-generation immigrants. Now getting on for half the population of the ethnic minorities were born in this country.
I remember going to a function with my parents. After tea had been served by some delightful Hindu ladies, my mother, who comes from an area without ethnic minorities, spoke slowly to one of the girls and said"Thank you very much for providing us with the tea." The girl
116
replied in a broad Black Country accent"That's all right, luv. That's what I'm here for." That clearly indicates that many of these children have seen no more of India than I have. This is their home. But they are still suffering disadvantage and discrimination.
The Home Office has responded to pressure from a variety of organisations and Members of Parliament to reform the 1966 Act—not that my town did not do well out of the old scheme. In 1977–78, Walsall received £750,000 under section 11 of the Act. Only eight authorities got more. That is one instance where my town has received more than its fair share. Normally, when central Government funds are available, we are more lethargic in pressing for them.
However, I would like to see more evidence of the way in which this money has been spent. Perhaps better accounting procedures could be adopted to ensure that the money allocated to a variety of local authorities under section 11 has been spent on the right schemes. I hope that, despite the broadening provisions of the Bill, Walsall will continue to get goodly amounts. I shall certainly be pressing for that.
The traditional methods of funding by the Government and previous Governments were general. This is one of the major causes of discontent between the Government and the Opposition. In their concern to eliminate discrimination, the Government launched a two-pronged attack. First, they introduced strong antidiscrimination legislation combined with a policy of general provision for those who live in such areas, regardless of their racial, cultural or religious backgrounds.
That approach prevailed until very recently. One has only to look at a variety of documents published during the past few years, including the White Paper on racial discrimination and the paper entitled"Race Relations and Housing"issued by the Department of the Environment, to see that the Government believed that the problem could be dealt with on a general basis. As the White Paper on racial discrimination said:
" Beyond the problems of cultural alien-ness "
—that is a new word—
" there are the problems of low status, of material and environmental deprivation which

117
coloured immigrants and, increasingly, their children experience. To the extent that they share all or some of these problems with other groups in society, a general attack on deprivation will be relevant to their problems."
I believe that any Government are right to respond to new research and new initiatives. It is obvious that the old general approach needs to be supplemented. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that this new approach ought to prevail.
The Bill is hardly a major measure. We are not talking in terms of the amount of money given to industry—over £2 billion a year. We are not speaking of vast sums, and no one need get paranoid about this new principle.
There is no doubt that ethnic minorities share many of the disadvantages experienced by their indigenous counterparts. Perhaps one could say that what the Bill does is to elevate the ethnic minorities to the level of discrimination practised against their white neighbours. Both manifestations of discrimination must be eradicated. But, certainly, if one thinks that the ethnic minorities and the whites are in the same boat, the Asians or the Africans are on a lower deck.
We must maintain on a much larger scale such measures as the inner urban area policies, which the Government have been funding, and supplement them with the provision of additional resources to groups which clearly show that they are discriminated against and show that they have special problems over and above those experienced by the indigenous community.
That is not to say that the white working class will lose as a result of Government policy—far from it. I illustrate the case in microcosm in my own constituency, which is not defined as an inner urban area. Unfortunately, the Department of the Environment just about excluded my authority, which is neither a programme authority nor a partnership authority; nor, indeed, is it a designated area. But we have considerable problems in housing, in industrial decline and in physical unattractiveness. In fact, most of the inner urban area problems manifest themselves in my constituency.
We have, however, had considerable Government assistance, which has benefited not just the ethnic minorities but
118
the white working class. We are designated a housing stress area, which means that additional funds are pumped into our area for housing purposes. Regrettably, we underspent the housing investment programme allocation this year by just under £5 million, which makes it difficult for those such as myself to convince the central Government of the major needs of the area.
We have a 100 per cent. grant under the derelict land clearance scheme. Many firms are benefiting under the various Industry Act schemes, in foundries and machine tools. This is benefiting all, not just the ethnic minorities. I wonder how many jobs would be destroyed if the Government ceased to support British Steel or British Leyland. Five thousand jobs have been saved under the temporary employment subsidy. So all groups of people are benefiting. Over 1,000 youngsters are in receipt of money for jobs under the various youth opportunities programmes.
We are here speaking of schemes which are of benefit to all who are disadvantaged, including the ethnic minorities. One should not try to play off, as the Tories are trying to do, the ethnic minorities against the white working class, because as a result of the policy of this Government, through its inner urban area plans and legislation, all benefit. We ought not to think that this is necesssarily discriminatory against the white working class.
It is obvious that although ethnic minorities share many disadvantages, there is an added dimension to their problems. Earlier in the debate we heard what some of these disadvantages are. Certainly, there are language deficiencies, and many Asian and Afro-Caribbean youngsters are under-achieving in school. This inequality must be eradicated. It is plain to all concerned that unemployment among young blacks is even higher than it is among their white counterparts. We must ensure that when they leave school these youngsters are given much higher priority in ensuring that when they look for their first jobs they are fairly treated.
We tend to think of Asians as having stronger family ties, so that they make no demands on the social services. That is not entirely true. As has been said,

119
there is also need for additional provision because of the preponderance of one-parent families among West Indians. In this connection, perhaps one should also read Age Concern's report,"The Elderly Ethnic Minorities ", to see that there is here a problem which should not be swept under the carpet on the, in many ways, false assumption that the immigrants always look after their own, though their record is better than ours. In truth there are problems here. There is a great need for day-care facilities and certainly a need to expand welfare rights knowledge among the ethnic minorities.
Those are some of the specific problems affecting the ethnic minorities. The countering of these disadvantages depends on the local authorities. Some local authorities respond, being dynamic, progressive and attuned to the needs of deprived minorities. There are other authorities which, as a result of indifference, inertia or, in some cases, hostility will do little over or above that which they are legally obliged to do. Indeed, there are authorities which will do that which they are legally obliged to do only if they are harried.
We must, therefore, put pressure on local authorities to ensure that they comply with the existing law and that they seek to promote the interests of the disadvantaged in their area. Regrettably, that is not done in every case.
Turning again to my own constituency, I greatly regret the antipathy that prevails between the local authority and the community relations council. It is a matter of profound disappointment that not one scheme out of the various urban area circulars from the community relations council has been accepted by the local authority and implemented. Recently, the officers put forward a scheme under the urban aid circular from the community relations council and, I believe, put it as priority No. 6, but it was booted out by the controlling Tory group. In order to resolve some of the problems of the ethnic minorities, I hope that more will be done to improve relationships between the community relations council and the local authority.
I am sad to think that the grants to the community relations council are constantly being subject to attack, which
120
does little to promote harmonious relations between the local authority and the ethnic minorities.
Mr. Budgen: Attack by whom?
Mr. George: Attack by the Conservatives on the council, which I regard as profoundly regrettable.
Mr. Robin Hodgson: I accept as regrettable, as he does, attacks on the community relations council grant, but will the hon. Gentleman admit that the style and tone of the reports produced and used by the Walsall community relations council are very biased and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said, they have been used as a political stick, not as a means to improve and foster good community relations?
Mr. George: I draw attention to the composition of the community relations council, which comprises a large number of representatives from the Conservative Party, the local authority, the Liberal Party and the political organisations. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a front for the Labour Party he is quite wrong. As for its reports, perhaps some people regard the language of the reports of the community relations council as intemperate in parts, but if an organisation is constantly being subjected to attacks almost month after month by prominent Tory councillors it is not surprising that it should feel defensive. Indeed, I am sometimes surprised at the moderation which the council displays in the face of extreme provocation.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton admonished my hon. Friend for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) for inconsistency. I was waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman extend his analysis of inconsistency to his own party. If ever there was ambivalence, we see it in the attitude of the Conservative Party towards the present Bill and towards race relations. There are liberals or moderates in the Tory Party who are rather upset at the tenor of some of the arguments of their colleagues.
We are always hearing about the defectors from the Labour Party to the Conservative Party. In fact, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has written a book on the subject. I should like to add one further name to

121
the rollcall of those people who have left the Labour Party and joined the Conservative Party—Trevor Russel, who wrote the book"The Tory Party—Its Policies, Divisions and Future ".
Here is an ex-Labour man who has provided, I think, one of the most sophisticated critiques of the Conservative Party that certainly I have seen for many years. He, better than anyone, has chronicled the demise of the liberal and progressive wing of the Conservative Party and the domination of that party by its reactionary Right. There are many examples of these here in the House tonight.
I wonder what the Tory attitude to the Bill will be this evening? Will it vote against the Bill? Will it abstain? How many Conservative Members will have some kind of Back-Bench revolt against their leadership? There is a strong tradition of this. I quote from Trevor Russel:
" Even before upping the stakes on immigration, Mrs. Thatcher had made clear her lack of sympathy for the immigrants already here, and the problems they face. One example of her insensitivity was her personal opposition to the idea of having legislation to protect the coloured community against discrimination in housing, employment and elsewhere. It was only a threatened revolt by Tory left-wingers which stopped her from ordering the Conservatives to vote against the 1976 Race Relations Act."
Maybe we shall have some replication of that attitude this evening.
I remember trooping through the Division Lobby, all through the night on that legislation in 1975, against some of the most appalling reactionaries that one could ever come across in political life. Of course some of them are still alive and kicking today.
Trevor Russel goes on to say:
" The truth is that the Tory leadership is not really interested in the problems of the coloured community."
Perhaps people outside will recognise some of the things that have been said this evening.
There is a fundamental need in our society to revitalise our declining inner urban areas. I support the. Government's general policy, although regret that there is not enough funding available to provide the job revitalisation that I regard as ideal. I regret, too, that my own area will not get the additional resources that
122
I consider desirable and necessary because of its non-inclusion. But if one looks at the inner urban areas policy of the Conservative Party, one sees that there is little in that policy to encourage people living in those areas to believe that their problems will be resolved by Conservative initiatives.
The Tory policy scarcely scratches the surface. We have heard that one solution is to deal with"law and order ". It is interesting to note that recently the crime rate in the West Midlands has dropped considerably. We have heard from Tory policy makers that free enterprise will move into these inner urban areas. The hand of Friedman is obvious in almost every statement of this kind. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), called for enterprise zones in the inner urban areas, exempting entrepreneurs from rates and development land tax, and, interestingly, exemptions from the workings of price controls, pay policy and the provisions of the Employment Protection Act. If one thinks that the problems of people working in inner urban areas will be solved by so-called enterprise zones, where essential factory legislation or employment legislation is suspended, I suggest that: this is cloud-cuckooland.
I quoted Trevor Russel earlier. I shall continue. He said:
" Nor does the Conservative Party seem particularly concerned about the plight of Britain's inner cities—where, of course, the majority of the black population live and where poverty, squalor and deprivation exist on a massive scale ".
Again, looking at the critiques of the so-called Conservative Party inner urban policy, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—obviously not enamoured by the free enterprise solution—said:
" There is no way in which this problem can be solved by easy application of market forces. Mr. Milton Friedman has only to take a short cab ride from his university in Chicago to see what free market forces have done in some districts of that city."
I refer to the right hon. Member for Worcester because I am not necessarily quoting only people at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Obviously, the free enterprise solution alone will not solve the problems of the inner urban areas where the majority of

123
people we are talking about reside. Nor will those problems be solved simply by pumping in massive amounts of public money. I think that the solution is the manual injection of public funds, supplemented by private resources. But certainly I totally reject the Milton Friedman approach, which appears to be current in the Conservative Party.
I hope that my local authority, and many other authorities, will take advantage of this legislation in order to improve language teaching, provide additional and more qualified teachers, youth clubs and community centres. We have heard a great deal about the difficulties experienced over planning applications for temples and mosques. I should like to see a greater number of centres not just for ethnic minorities but for all minorities who certainly do not have the resources to plan their own projects. I also hope that organisations representing refugees from Chile and other regimes in South America will be able to take advantage of this legislation. These people came from Chile with a great deal of publicity, a few years ago, and there is a tendency to forget that they are now living here, often in poor housing and often in difficult circumstances.
I hope that the plight of the ethnic minorities as well as the underprivileged whites, will be resolved. I am very proud of the fact that this Government, despite intense provocation from some Conservative Members, are resolved to oppose discrimination. The Prime Minister has said time and again that the Government will do all in their power to ensure that all our citizens, irrespective of race and creed, will enjoy equality of opportunity and protection under the law. On that we cannot compromise.
The Bill, when it gets through—despite, no doubt, considerable opposition from Conservative Members—will go a long way to creating the kind of conditions that minorities should be enjoying but which regrettably until now they have not.
7.37 p.m.
Mr. Nick Budgen: I do not propose to join the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in his argument about the general efficacy of public expenditure. He
124
plainly wishes to argue that the present Government have spent insufficient money in dealing with problems which can be ameliorated by Government expenditure. There are many of my hon. Friends who argue exactly the reverse. I wish to keep to a narrow point, which is the point of principle raised by the Bill.
Very often in waiting for many hours to speak in this Chamber I have felt that I have lost the thrust and thread of what I hoped to say. I have spent three hours waiting to speak tonight and I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having given me that time for reflection. For had you called me immediately after the Minister of State, I should, I think, have been inclined to express my deep resentment of the way in which he had dealt with some of those who oppose this Bill. I think I should have been inclined to speak with considerable anger. It is unfortunate that those of us who take seriously the deep resentment that is felt by many of our constituents about the problems of immigration are often treated—particularly by the Government Front Bench—with a mixture of sneers and self-righteousness.
I very much hope that, when the Minister of State has also had a period in which to reflect, he will come to the conclusion that the way in which he addressed those who disagreed with him as primitives was not perhaps the most helpful way of getting all-party agreement to a highly contentious measure. As I listened to that part of his speech, I reflected on how different the way in which he dealt with the House was from that, for instance, of Mr. Roy Jenkins when he was bringing forward very similar legislation. I believe that it would be true to say that Mr. Roy Jenkins was the most intelligent and articulate exponent of that section of opinion. The way in which the Minister of State tried to brush over, in a sneering way, the real doubts that many of us have about the concept of racial disadvantage was unfortunate.
It is no good saying"The primitives on the Back Benches of the Tory Party are so stupid that they do not recognise an elephant when they see it ", because it was very clear from the, as usual, honest speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that the intelligent people in the Home Office spent a very long time

125
trying to decide this central philosophical issue of whether there is something which can be properly identified as racial disadvantage. I have no doubt that the Minister of State had important discussions within the Home Office before bringing this measure before the House. In that case, I regret the way in which he dealt with those of us who had serious doubts about the whole concept.
I should like to take the one concrete example that the hon. Gentleman eventually and reluctantly gave. He instanced the problems confronting West Indian schoolchildren in what he called"underachieving ". Here I would respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for York, and agree with those in the Home Office who argue that there is no such thing as racial disadvantage. The example given by the Minister is, in my view, an example of educational disadvantage. Or again, when discussion takes place about the problem of Asian women not speaking the language, I call that a language disadvantage. I hope that I take the hon. Member for York with me when I suggest that when we say that West Indian youths have a marginally greater propensity to use a knife—
Mr. Edward Lyons: Or the Asians.
Mr. Budgen: Or the Asians. But if that be true, and as a practising member of the Bar I believe it to be the case, I would describe that not as a racial disadvantage but rather as a criminal matter. Therefore, all these problems can be described in terms of the problem rather than in terms of race. Not one example has been brought to the attention of the House which I could properly describe as a racial disadvantage.
I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the unfortunate sneering way in which the Minister of State put his arguments forward, there is no such thing as a racial disadvantage. But perhaps I have not carried the hon. Member for York with me. Having fought this battle in the Home Office with highly intelligent officials who did not recognise an elephant either, he is now plainly convinced of his argument.
I take the hon. Gentleman on to the second leg of my argument. Let us
126
assume for a moment that there is such a thing as racial disadvantage. I contend that it is very unwise to give public money to combat racial disadvantage, bearing in mind that the symptoms to which it at least gives rise can be combated by other means. I am sure that the hon. Member for York, who on many occasions over the past two and three quarter years has joined me in asking for a debate on immigration, will agree that there is deep resentment within this country about the levels of immigration that have taken place over the 20 years or so. That resentment is not made any less because there is some tacit agreement between the two Front Benches to prevent those of us who wish to discuss this matter from discussing it in the great forum of the nation.
That rising tide of resentment is not made any better by the fact that, for the sake of argument, if one wishes to discuss immigration in a serious way outside this House one may find oneself threatened with prosecution under Section 70 of the—
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No.
Mr. Budgen: Oh, yes. The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I myself have been threatened with prosecution in respect of a careful speech that I made about the problems of special education for ethnic minorities. No doubt I shall not be prosecuted. Since the Attorney-General exists as a sieving mechanism, and because it would simply bring resentment upon the legislation, I shall not be prosecuted. But that section exists, and it is a matter for resentment.
I contend that these proposals are a third matter for resentment. I hope that in no way will I be regarded as being on the primitive wing of the Tory Party when I point to the resentment created by these measures. As I understand it, there is a certain amount of agreement, at any rate between the two Front Benches, upon this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), when referring to this proposed piece of legislation during the debate upon the Queen's Speech said:
" No doubt extra expenditure is desirable in many of the areas in which ethnic minority groups live, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made clear. Therefore, clearly, this provision could be valuable.

127
However, we must remember that such expenditure is needed for all the people, whatever their race and colour, who live in these areas. If there is the suggestion of limiting the money to any one group, there is always the danger of resentment building up, and that is a factor that we in this House have to consider."—[Official Report, 6 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 627.]
It was plain that my right hon. Friend was expressing at the very least grave concern about, which possibly might be construed as opposition to, the principle of this Bill. I hope that it will be conceded that there is a very grave risk that if this system of benefiting people on racial grounds is introduced it will add to the resentment that is already felt, although it may be quelled and not discussed in this House.
I hope that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is considered. Because of the very wide discretion that is given to the Home Secretary, it is plain that there is at least the risk of political corruption in the way in which these grants can be made. This is a very dangerous thing. But if I am right in saying that this Bill encourages the ethnic minorities to regard themselves as separate, it is also—sadly—very convenient that they should be separate so that they can be more obviously the recipients of the taxpayers' largesse that is handed out by the Government of the day.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This kind of provision came from the Birmingham city council when it went Conservative. It is inevitable that a council such as that will make a strong demand upon this fund, and it would kick up an uproar if it was discriminated against by a Labour Government.
Mr. Budgen: Let us assume that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. Local authorities are always trying to get money from the central Government, and they are probably not terribly consistent in the arguments that they put forward in order to get that money. We in this House must consider this very important issue of principle rather than simply look at the way in which various bodies have tried to collect money from the central Government.
I give the hon. Gentleman an example. I suppose that one could say that in my
128
constituency the free market traditions of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was formerly the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, are well known to all the people of Wolverhampton. However, when a motorcycle manufacturer went bust some years ago in Wolverhampton, the local chamber of commerce was as keen as any other group or individual on getting some Government money to bail it out. It wanted the money and it was prepared to be eclectic in its choice of philosophy to sustain that request. I have no doubt that Birmingham city council acted in the same way.
No doubt my right hon. and hon. Friends say"We shall win the next election whenever it comes. We shall not be using this piece of legislation in a way that will be corrupt or dishonourable. We shall be in power for 10 years or 15 years." That is the arrogance that was attached to the Industry Act 1972. It was assumed in 1972 that the Tories would be in Government for ever and that the 1972 Act would not be used for corrupt or widespread purposes. It was considered that it would never usher in a period of widespread subsidy, support and intervention because the Tories would always be in power.
I do not say that the unexpected always happens in politics, but it sometimes occurs. It would be unwise if my hon. Friends were to assume that once the Bill took its place on the statute book it would always be implemented by Tory hands.
7.52 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: I was interested when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) made an aside about the lack of black candidates for Parliament or local authorities on behalf of the Labour Party. I do not think that the Labour Party or the Conservative Party can boast very much success in attracting black candidates or women candidates. I hope that black and brown persons will not have to wait as long as women waited to achieve representation in the House of Commons. However, if there were ever a move to provide that women or certain ethnic groups should be positively discriminated for to give them seats in this place, I should be totally opposed to it.

129
There lies the misunderstanding about the Bill. It does not provide that because a person is of a certain ethnic origin he shall receive extra help. I should be opposed to such a concept. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, the Bill is no part of the positive discrimination argument. It merely provides that if people suffer certain disadvantages by virtue of their ethnic origin—for example, education disadvantages—they should receive help.
If the positive discrimination argument ever becomes valid it will be because we have failed to counter the disadvantage that exists now. If in 20 or 30 years' time we do not have adequate representation, there will be an argument for positive discrimination in many areas. It is to remove any possibility of that happening that we are considering some of the disadvantages that accrue to some in some areas because of their ethnic origin.
What can we do about language difficulties, especially when they are suffered by children born in this country? What can we do to alleviate certain housing difficulties? I should not expect Lord Pitt—in another place—who happens to be black and a doctor, Shirley Bassey, Cleo Laine, Kenny Lynch and Trevor McDonald, to receive help under the Bill. They do not need it, whatever their ethnic origins. However, there are many in Britain who suffer grave disadvantage because of their ethnic origins. If we are ever to achieve full integration, that type of disadvantage has to be considered.
It has been suggested that colour, race and ethnic or national origins are being used as blinds to deal with black people. When we were discussing race relations legislation in years gone by and were amending the Public Order Act 1936 to deal with incitement, some Opposition Members, including one or two hon. Ladies, said that we were trying to ensure the protection of blacks against whites. In fact, it was a black person who first went to prison for having infringed the incitement provisions.
It is true—it would be a fool who denied it—that in certain areas most of the gravely disadvantaged in our society happen to be black, but it is wrong to say that the Bill demonstrates that we are concerned only with black people. That is unfair and untrue.
130
In 1970, during the election campaign, I was approached in my constituency by members of the Polish community, which has made a good contribution to our society and has settled well within it. They asked me whether I would support a move to go to the Government to ask for a special grant so that they could keep in being their language, dancing and various other cultural activities. That was what they wanted, but they did not get it. Presumably they have never got it. However, if the Polish community were gravely disadvantaged, that situation would be covered by the Bill.
It is unfair to describe the Bill as part of the positive discrimination argument. If we had before us a Bill dealing with positive discrimination in employment following representation in this place, it would cause grave disquiet in the minds of many. Clearly this is not such a Bill, and it is unfair to represent it as such.
In many areas—mine is one—there are many children who suffer language difficulties only because of their ethnic origins. In my constituency there is good remedial work taking place to help such children. It is right that that should be so. In Wandsworth, where I live and where my children go to school, good remedial work is also taking place. That work takes place in schools where there are not large numbers of children of ethnic origins different from the white population. The work is taking place because of special needs in the area. It is unfair to imply that the help that would be available under the Bill, or other Bills dealing with disadvantage, would go only to certain sections of the community because those sections happen to be black.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for York about the nature of the Bill. It will seek to persuade local authorities, but it will not seek to compel them. I am not a great believer in compelling local authorities to take action, but in my constituency the Conservative local authority has seen fit to remove much of the support that it gave to the community relations council in the past and has made its existence largely dependent upon a fund-raising industry. It was argued that all local authorities would want to make provision for CRCs. It was said that they would wish to ensure good

131
race relations within their communities and that there would be no question of their not wanting to meet the requirements of the legislation. That is why I am nervous.
I understand the reasons why we are not mandating local authorities, but I am worried about what will happen if authorities say that they will have nothing to do with the Bill when it is enacted. My experience in Slough over the past two or three years has made me sad. I still hope, at this late hour, that the combined efforts of some of my hon. Friends and those on the local authority who do not share the majority view will win the day.
I give one example of the differences in difficulties for certain ethnic minorities. It was said that there was a wealth of legislation dealing with the situation where problems experienced by immigrants or the children of immigrants are shared by minorities, or a majority, of the population. This situation is catered for in a variety of ways in relation to housing and education. Some other disadvantages are not so well catered for.
Many hon. Members have referred to West Indian children and why many of them born in this country do not perform at school as well as we expected they would after the initial difficulties were over. The difficulties experienced by the West Indian parents seem to be reflected in their children born here. A variety of reasons and explanations have been given for this. One given by my hon. Friend the Member for York dealt with one-parent families and the different cultural set-up in this country.
I mention another, which I hope that the Bill will be able to meet. Common to West Indian children in this country—although the problem exists with others—is maternal deprivation at an early age, as a result of a lack of an extended family, children being placed with bad child minders, and the lack of supervision that arises from that. This deprivation in the early years has long been recognised as having a causal connection between the children's later poor performance in schools and lack of attainment. This matter has been well documented and examined by many sociologists, who are scorned by some
132
hon. Members. Nevertheless, if that is one of the most common factors affecting the West Indian babies and exists for four or five years before they go to school, and if their performance at school, in spite of their being born in this country, does not reach the heights that one might expect, this Bill will make it possible to look closely at that situation and decide what special help could be forthcoming.
Provision for many under-fives is appalling. What I believe is special is the fact that there is no extended family. That makes it especially difficult for large numbers of West Indian mothers, who often have no extended family to which they may turn in this situation. The documentation of the deprivation, the poor facilities and the lack of knowledge or availability of local authority services for this section of the community does not say"As you are a West Indian and as you are black, you will have special provision ". It should say"If you are suffering from certain deprivation as a result of your ethnic origin, in this instance we shall want to make help available to you to counter that."
If we do not counter the disadvantage now, the time will come when people will say that as we failed to spread proper representation through every walk of life we must look at positive discrimination. That would be a measure of the failure that most hon. Members who have spoken want to avoid.
I refer to what the Bill should cover in colleges of education as distinct from schools. That is important in relation to the training of teachers, but not simply in training them to deal with ethnic minorities. It is a question of training teachers to teach in a multi-racial society and to have some knowledge of the difficulties and special needs of children from the ethnic minorities, although the teachers may not come across those difficulties in their early teaching careers.
The Bill may deal with those problems. However, it is not doing what it has been suggested it should do. I am co-chairman of the Joint Committee Against Racialism. I do not speak for the committee. A member of the Conservative Party is the other co-chairman. The committee is made up of representatives of political, ethnic and religious groups.

133
If the committee discussed the Bill—aware, as the members are, of the difficulties faced by ethnic minorities—I have a feeling that it would wish it well, recognising that it avoids the dangers pointed out by one or two hon. Members, and that it sets out the contribution that needs to be made if we are to enhance race relations and ensure that the ethnic minorities are not discriminated against by virtue of their ethnic origin but are given every opportunity to play a full part in our society.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Roger Sims: I suspect that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and I would be diametrically opposed on most issues coming before the House. However, on this issue there is little between us.
I have the pleasure of being the other Member of Parliament sitting on the Joint Committee Against Racialism. The hon. Lady said that members of all parties, races, religions and groups worked together in the joint cause against racialism.
This Bill is another step in furthering the Government's policy on race relations—or possibly, after the Bill becomes law, we should refer to it as"ethnic group relations ". I was worried when I looked up the word"ethnic"in my ancient dictionary and discovered that the definition was"pagan ". Perhaps it is just as well, to clarify any misunderstandings, that a definition appears at the head of the Bill.
It makes sense that, if any community is to live peacefully, good relations should exist not simply between black and white, between the indigenous population and the immigrants, but between all sections of society, be they of different ethnic groups or of the same ethnic group but of different religions.
On this issue, some feel—I suspect this view is held by some of my hon. Friends who spoke earlier—that the Government should have no part to play in race relations. The Labour Party clearly feels that the Government should play a large part in this sphere. Indeed, it is interesting to question in passing why it is that the Labour Party favours legislation in the area of race relations but not in that of industrial relations. However, that is a different issue.
My fear is that the present Labour Party policy is in danger as a result of
134
the Government being too much involved in race relations. It is possible for the State to be too involved and for that involvement to have an adverse effect. In certain aspects of the Race Relations Act the Government went too far, especially in the incitement to racial hatred clauses. The Home Secretary is going too far in insisting on requiring contractors to sign undertakings on their race relations policy. That seems to me to be both an unreasonable and unwise step to take. It is unreasonable in that guidelines have already been issued on this matter to employers by the Council for Racial Equality. In any case, surely it is reasonable to assume that any business complies with the law and that, if it does not, the law will take its course—but not to expect an undertaking to be signed in each individual case. It is not only unreasonable but unwise, as it is likely to be counter-productive. In the past weeks, we saw reactions from responsible bodies such as the CBI. The trouble is that this will create antagonism in an area where many of us are trying to create an atmosphere conducive to good race relations.
Legislation in this area tends to take two forms which may be described as positive or negative. The positive legislation is that which helps and encourages good relations between the races and ethnic groups. The negative is that which creates offences and seeks to define discrimination and how to deal with offenders. However, it may also be negative if, by appearing to discriminate in favour of certain groups in the community, whatever their colour, race or religion, it offends the majority of the population and thereby sours rather than helps race relations. This Bill may fall into either category, because it is so general in its terms. A great deal is bound to depend on the way in which the Home Secretary operates it. I hope that, when the Minister replies, we shall have a little more clarification as to exactly how the Bill is likely to work, and how he expects to interpret the various conditions in clause 1(2). There have been several references to them. They could mean anything or nothing, and there is a need for some clarification.
It is fair to say, in response to the remarks of some of my hon. Friends who have reservations about the Bill, that this

135
is not a new principle. The principle of the grant was established in the Local Government Act 1966. The idea of taking into account immigrant communities is already enshrined in the educational priority areas scheme and in the rate support grant. Therefore it is not in itself a new idea. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) so graphically illustrated, it is obvious that some groups in certain areas will suffer disadvantages.
We do not need to talk about black and white or about Asians, Pakistanis and West Indians. Let us consider the recent arrival in this country of the groups of Vietnamese. If they come to settle in my constituency—or in the constituency of any other hon. Member—there will be problems within the community of language and of culture. The local authority concerned could quite reasonably say that extra assistance was required but that it should not necessarily be met entirely by the local ratepayers. The authority could therefore look to the central Government for some assistance. Indeed, it would be entitled to do this under clause 1(2)(a). Similarly, this sort of consideration might be dealt with under clause 1(2)(b). I wonder what services the Home Secretary has in mind under subsection (2)(b) that would not in any case fall under subsection (2)(a). If the function of paragraph (a) is to remove the disadvantages, the provision in paragraph (b) for securing the effectiveness of the services provided would appear to be superfluous. I hope that the Minister will look at this and enlighten us on it, either when he replies or when the Bill is considered in Committee.
Subsection (2)(c) is couched in such vague terms that I find it difficult to grasp exactly what sorts of grant the Government have in mind. We may find that a case can be made in an area for youth clubs for a particular ethnic group, but we must be quite sure that indigenous youth already has adequate youth club facilities. If such facilities are not available, and special facilities are granted for ethnic groups, the effect will be contrary to what we are seeking to achieve. Similarly, no doubt a case could be made for nursery and child care projects for ethnic groups,
136
but the local indigenous population also need them.
Many immigrants find themselves confused in the world of officialdom in which we live. They do not know how to fill in the forms with which they are faced. There could be an argument for a grant to provide some sort of bureau to which they could go with their problems. But, as we all know, many of the indigenous population suffer from exactly the same problem. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have spent part of the weekend helping a constituent to fill in one of these forms.
We have to be very careful, therefore, how these grants are made. We must be sure that they are not made specifically to any one group in such a way as to give it an advantage over the other. I thought that this point was extremely well covered in paragraph 8 of the Select Committee's report, dealing with section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. There is no need for me to repeat it, because the chairman of that Select Committee referred to it earlier today and quoted from his own speech, although, with typical modesty, he failed to name the author. That sums up very well the sort of attitude that we have towards the Bill. I confess to sharing his surprise that no reference was made to the Select Committee's report by the Minister when he introduced the Bill.
Has the Minister any comment to make on the Select Committee's suggestion that grants should be for a limited period, or will they be open-ended? I think he indicated in his opening speech that, whereas under section 11 grants were made only for staff, under this Bill grants can cover virtually any sort of venture. They could clearly cover capital expenditure, with quite substantial sums for the cost of buildings. Will there be any sort of limit on the size of grant for such items of capital expenditure?
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) referred earlier to the EEC social fund. I should have thought that, even if there were any doubt as to section 11, under this Bill a substantial proportion of the amounts claimed could be refundable from the social fund. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to deal with that point.

137
In operating the Bill we are on very delicate ground—that of race relations. I urge the Minister to tread it extremely delicately. But, having said that, I support the principle of the Bill. I have a good deal of reservation on matters of detail which I hope we can deal with in Committee, but meanwhile I hope that the Bill will have a safe passage this evening.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I promise to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there are one or two points that I feel that I should make, as the longest serving member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I have been on the Committee ever since it was set up in 1968 and have been involved in the process of recommending what has led to the presentation of the Bill today. I warmly welcome the Bill. I think that it is overdue.
In response to the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), may I say that I believe that the Bill, in the very nature of things, must be couched in these terms. I think that there is logic in our recommendation that there should be some kind of annual accounting because continually we shall want to know where we are going and how expenditure is being made.
I agreed with most of the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who was formerly the Minister responsible for immigration and race relations matters. However, I am unable to agree with him that this is a futuristic matter. I do not see these problems as extending into the distant future. I do not envisage the multicultural—not multi-racial—struggle as being a long-term affair.
Problems have arisen in the past, in communities such as Southall, that we no longer face today. There are some current problems which did not exist at an earlier stage. It is a sort of rolling entity, and that is why there is a great deal of logic in the arguments from each side of the House that there should be frequent accountability in Parliament and far greater facilities for discussion and debate in Parliament than there have been been in the past few years on a question which undoubtedly worries the ethnic minorities and the host community. This is
138
especially important in a climate such as the present one, with high unemployment and with a degree of uncertainty about Britain's role in the future in world affairs. I do not think we can discount the possibility of bringing ourselves into some sort of harmonious consideration of matters of this kind together with our partners in the EEC.
We are currently studying this aspect in the Select Committee. We have made several visits to other countries so that we may know and understand the difficulties and problems which they face. There is a continuous discussion—it will receive greater emphasis in the not too distant future—on migrant labour and on the family movement which flows in consequence of migrant labour. That is exactly the problem that we face also in Britain. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) has not taken it sufficiently into account. He talked in his contribution about our doing certain things under section 11 because we wanted to prevent hardship. That was not the prime reason for that measure coming into being. The prime reason for making financial arrangements to give a central Government grant of 75 per cent. of extra local authority expenditure in relation to the coming of immigrant communities, and the attendant social questions and problems that inevitably arose, had more to do with the whole substance and economic evaluation of the migration of labour.
What we were doing was meeting, in a civilised way, the social costs that arose from that. This was not done in Germany or in France which also now have an overlay of problems that arise from the fact that their migrant workers and families will not all go away, as the indigenous population psychologically seemed to think that they would go.
The essence of our discussion tonight is that our immigrant population has been made almost synonymous with the term"immigrant people with brown and black skins ", although we have many white immigrants as well. But it is the black and brown people who have been the new feature, as has been pointed out in the debate. These are relatively new experiences for us, in spite of British imperialism and of having collared one-quarter of the earth's surface, where the majority of people were black or brown. Living

139
together with them in this country is a relatively new experience. It has been a relatively painful experience.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) that we need not only multi-cultural teaching in our State school system but also—and this is needed very badly—multi-cultural teaching in our adult education system. There is a great deal of scope for expenditure in that regard through organisations such as the Workers Educational Association and the trade union movement. The trade union movement does a great deal in adult education, in which I spent a considerable chunk of my life before becoming a Member of Parliament.
I think that this matter will have to be treated gingerly. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make it quite clear that the Home Office is very sensitive about this necessity. However, it is in areas such as my constituency and other particular parts of Britain—which are not yet multi-racial in the sense of everyone in the land having had these experiences, because they are still pockets of experience—that the experiences are growing apace. The spread of the people is growing apace. There is the spread of people out of my own home town of Southall into the surrounding areas, in which the National Front fights and says"Stop Harrow ","Stop Hayes ", and stop various parts of London"from becoming another Southall." That is the ticket on which the National Front fights.
However, in the processes of equality of opportunity, inevitably there will be a measure of spread. There will also be cultural homogeneity. Just as with the Catholics, Protestants, Wesleyans, and so on, so with the Hindus and Sikhs. They cluster around the church and the culture. It is in those areas that one can give aid now towards extending equality. It has now become a qualitative pursuit and not just a quantitative pursuit in terms of money. It will be on a selective basis. It will be as a result of advice which is fed into my hon. Friend's ears and into the Home Office.
In those areas, in Southall, for example—contrary to the general trend in London as a whole, where depopulation is taking place and there is a de-industrialisation
140
process, which tells part of the story—in areas into which people of the same age groups came, people of the child-bearing age groups, in areas in which marriage and family production are cherished, one gets an unusual upturn in the child population, against the general trend in the country as a whole. But again, it comes to earth in the course of time and one finds that the sizes of the families tend to diminish as acclimatisation grows apace with experience of the British way of life.
I do not go in for the old wives' stories about all coloured people having a lot of kids, and so on. It is true that we must make distinctions between West Indian communities and Asian communities, as we have to make distinctions between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and between others. The average Britisher thinks that one can lump the lot together as"the black immigrants." One certainly cannot do that. In all these different groups there are wider divisions, perhaps, than there are between people such as myself. That is one reason why the deliberate ganging up behind a coloured candidate to get him into this place does not happen, because that is not how they think. It is not how they should think.
If such people come to this House as Members—and there is a great probability of that happening during the next 10, 20 or 30 years—they will come on the basis of their merits. So many of them are deserving of merit. They will come here on the basis of warm support from people of all colours and races as a result of their ability to represent a constituency.
I warmly welcome the Bill indeed. I have given as much detail to the House as I can, especially about Ealing, although the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has already spent some time on that subject. I think that he was quite practical in the questions that he raised. I hope that the House will not divide on Second Reading. I have soldiered on the Select Committee on the supposition that it is possible to get two-party consensus in a sensible way. That has not so far eluded us. We struggled for agreement on the last report, which was eminently practical and suitable in relation to immigration. All our verdicts have been enormously progressive. They have been

141
enhanced because they have been contained in unanimous reports. This Bill is part of the ongoing work of the Select Committee. Long may this concept of two-party understanding continue so that we can get this subject off the top of the agenda of the major party collision in the coming general election.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Robin Hodgson: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) about the dangers of lumping all immigrants together in one group. As he rightly pointed out, they are as diverse in their culture, and backgrounds as the native white community. I join my hon. Friends in giving a modified welcome to this measure. I do not see how one can really oppose a Bill whose principal aim is to promote good race relations. Although I have doubts and qualms about some points within the Bill, I am convinced that it will be a step, perhaps a small one, on the road towards a well integrated society in this country. I have in my constituency a substantial immigrant population. I know at first hand the difficulties and the problems that they face. I recognise those difficulties, but I also recognise that there are ways in which this Bill could be improved and made more appropriate to their requirements.
I would like to make four points to the Minister. The first is the structure of the Bill itself and the fact that it calls for a centralised administration of the aid system. Clause 1(1) uses the words"in his opinion ". It says
" The Secretary of State may pay to local authorities grants on account of such expenditure approved by him as, in his opinion…"
When Secretaries of State have opinions such as that, I am always nervous. I do not think that they are necessarily able to appreciate the broad range, detailed needs and sensitivity to local issues that exist The words
" The Secretary of State…in his opinion "
always seem to smack of the concept that Whitehall knows best. In race relations Whitehall rarely knows best.
Reverting to the point raised by the hon. Member for Southall, inherent in this centralised structure is a danger of immigrant groups being treated in the
142
same way with, for examples, not enough differentiation of schemes available for West Indians as opposed to those from the Indian sub-continent.
The Bill also implies an increase in bureaucratisation. The Minister mentioned the establishment of another quango. When pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) in his opening speech, the Minister did not set my fears at rest that the quango had no useful role at all except to act as a vague governing body setting down amorphous guidelines. His reply emphasised and strengthened my feeling that this would lead to another well meaning but none the less over centralised, over directed Whitehall scheme.
I also regret that the Bill fails to mention the valuable role that can be played by voluntary movements. To be fair, the Minister mentioned this in his speech. I hope I quote him correctly in recalling that he said that voluntary movements had a role to play where they were relevant to and complementary to the service of local authorities. I do not think that is good enough. Voluntary movements established town by town, district by district, or neighbourhood by neighbourhood, are the movements that are sensitive to local needs. They are flexible. They may not be able to provide the broad mass of direction, but they ameliorate, shape and change the way this legislation can be interpreted at local level. To say that they can exist only where they are relevant and complementary to the services of local authorities seems to give local government officers a chance to ignore voluntary movements. They will fall back on this phrase to develop their own full-time, fully trained approach. They will not be prepared to accept, use and follow up the work, help and assistance that will be available from members of the community.
The second point I wish to make concerns reverse discrimination. I have referred to the fact that I have a substantion immigrant population, primarily Pakistani and Indian, but also some West Indian, in my constituency. They live in conditions familiar to many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), whose constituency I visited during his by-election, knows of similar conditions in his

143
own constituency—back-to-back terrace housing, often of a fairly low standard and lacking modern conveniences like running water and inside lavatories. It is a poor quality environment. Not a mile away from where those immigrants live, in another part of my constituency called Blakenall, the cycle of deprivation is hard at work. This does not relate to a coloured or ethnic community but to to white community. The area consists of 50-year-old housing. There are council houses built after the First World War, with outside lavoratories, no damp courses, and still extremely sub-standard after 50 or 60 years. The area has poor education achievements, high unemployment, low health standards and a low level of economic wealth.
Those two communities, a mile apart, represent a great challenge to our society. I do not believe that this Bill, as presently constituted, will do anything other than arouse resentment among residents in that white area. It is easy for the Minister to say that the Government have brought forward the Inner Urban Areas Act. My constituency has been excluded. It is easy to point to some of the other schemes available. Some of them have worked. But there is a danger, unless this Act is carefully and sensitively applied, that the reaction in the areas where people native to this country live will be extremely adverse.
The third point concerns the specific results we can expect to see from this Bill. The Minister's speech on this point was rather thin. He referred to the production of leaflets and pamphlets to explain in ethnic languages various aspects of the modern State—presumably housing and social security leaflets, and so on. Leaflets are all very well, but many of the most pressing issues for the ethnic minority in my constituency will not be covered by this legislation.
For example, there has been difficulty in obtaining planning permission for the conversion of a house to a mosque. Permission has been refused, probably rightly, because the building is not suitable as a place of worship. An alternative site is therefore needed, but it is difficult to find. This has excited and worried the immigrant community—
144
rightly so: why should not people have freedom to practise their own religion?
If we are to lance this boil of potential discontent—it has so far been treated entirely constructively by the immigrant community concerned—the Bill should allow such problems to be tackled. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that this is a question of improved planning permissions. Many of the concerns of the immigrant community will not be affected constructively and quickly by the Bill.
I agree with the Minister that the Bill will be effective only if it is operated in the right spirit. But, although the Bill provides additional aid for ethnic groups, it imposes responsibilities on them to respond constructively. Too many times, hon. Members on both sides have heard of members of the immigrant population who can speak only four words of English—" I have my rights." That is where they begin to take without contributing to their community, and this is strongly resented by local people.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Rubbish.
Mr. Hodgson: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
In the immigrant area in my constituency, there is a good multi-racial primary school with a high proportion of immigrant children. But it is nigh impossible to get immigrant mothers to play a role in the parent-teacher association. I know that they have a different cultural background, but that is no excuse; they must be prepared to come forward. If the white population is to be asked to pay additional taxes to ensure that the disadvantages of the immigrant community are wiped out, we are entitled to ask them to participate in the community as well.
Mr. Sever: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why Asian mothers do not come forward is that they do not have a command of English—one of the problems that the Bill seeks to overcome?
Mr. Hodgson: That is only one of the reasons. I accept that it is a reason, but often it is because of a different cultural and religious background which perhaps places a woman in a lower role than we are used to in this country.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can I help the hon. Gentleman? This problem has arisen in many areas and partly it is because Indian women have no tradition of this kind of thing. However, one thing that gets through is the white population going out of its way to make some provision which will involve the Indian woman and the Indian family. May I suggest that, at his local school, the hon. Gentleman sets up a game of Kibabi and that the Indian kids should teach the white kids how to play? Then they will have a wonderful PTA.
Mr. Hodgson: I accept that we need to create the atmosphere in which the Indian women come forward, although in this area there has been a great effort to do so and the results have been slow in coming. The immigrant community needs to understand that they have a responsibility as well as a right, a right to special treatment that they will be afforded under the Bill.
The second point concerns deeper and more important cultural differences. The immigrant community have a great responsibility here. I quote from a letter sent to me by a local solicitor:
" I have recently engaged a young typist aged 17 who, while she was born in India, nevertheless was brought to this country by her parents approximately 14 years ago. She is domiciled in the United Kingdom.
She has now appealed to me to help her avoid a marriage arranged by her Father with a man who is still in India whom she has never seen. I have no doubt that in the event of a marriage taking place the Father will receive a substantial sum of money. If it does not take place, then the parents will lose ' face '.
I have seen the Father, who appears to have used force against his Daughter, and have informed him that according to the law of this country, a girl may not be married off without her consent. My employee informs me that she is not prepared to consent to the arranged marriage.
I understand from the Police that there is a danger that unless the lady consents to the marriage, she is likely to be bundled back to India in which country it is recognised that disobedience to a Father's wishes is a serious offence."
I have drawn that to the Minister's attention, and he has replied most constructively. It is one of a number of cases that has been brought to his attention. I am sure that I speak for many when I say that that is an extremely offensive affront to the liberty of that young girl.
146
The immigrant community has a responsibility to ensure that its behaviour and cultural traditions match the broad treatment of individual rights and liberties afforded in this country under the law.
I share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that race relations are improving, and on balance the Bill will be of assistance. Bat unless the Act is administered flexibly and with due deference to local feelings, a backlash of white opinion could follow.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: I am sorry that I was not present for the Minister's opening remarks. Unfortunately, a train broke down and I was marooned in it for some hours this afternoon. If I tread on paths already trodden, perhaps I shall be forgiven.
It would be remiss if I did not speak in a debate that is of great importance to my constituency. We have a highly diverse and cosmopolitan population in Bradford. Not only are there many Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis, but thousands of East Europeans. We have clubs for Poles, Estonians, and Latvians, and we have folk groups from all over Eastern Europe. Every year I judge a beauty competition where six Eastern European nations are represented. In my constituency we are not dealing with only a broad division between the indigenous English and Asians. There are West Indians, with their problems and aspirations. The Bill is of considerable importance to all the ethnic groups in my constituency.
Under section 11 of the Local Government Act, Bradford takes £1½ million per annum. The council is Conservative, and all the parties represented on the council would be distressed if the Government were to accede to the demands from one or two Conservative Members and withdraw that kind of support.
If a child does not speak English and no special assistance is provided to help it do so, it is nonsense to suggest that it should solemnly attend class and be able to understand the teacher. We have to ensure that such children learn some English in order to benefit from education. That provision would involve expenditure, and the Government have acknowledged that requirement under the section 11 procedure. The local council

147
in Bradford is so enamoured of section 11 that it is reluctant to see it go and has some reservations about that. I believe that the council would like the section 11 procedure extended rather than replaced. I believe, however, that its fears are ill founded because I believe that under this Bill the Goverment's policy of helping with education will not change or contract.
I am concerned at the level of contribution by the Government towards expenditure which will have to be incurred in the first place by the council. Under the Bill the local council will have to make an application to the Home Office, which will decide whether, within its own ceiling of expenditure for these purposes, an application should be granted. Most of the councils in the big urban areas in England and Wales today are Conservative-controlled. That means that it is they that will apply to the Home Office for grants. Conservative Members have criticised the Bill, and if those Conservative councils share their views there will be few applications made.
One of the worrying aspects of the Bill revolves around the area that urgently needs help where its council decides not to apply because it does not want to contribute the necessary 25 per cent. to secure the balance from the Government. The trigger is the local authority, not the Home Office. As I understand the Bill, the Home Office is powerless to do anything to help where the local authority decides not to apply for a grant.
I shall leave aside the Asian or West Indian examples, although the needs of those communities are crucial considerations under the Bill, and instead cite the example of the Polish community in Bradford which comes to me from time to time to talk about its efforts to maintain the Polish cultural heritage. These people want to teach their children to speak Polish and they want to educate them about the Polish culture. They do that on Saturdays, but they find it increasingly difficult to provide the money to pay the increasing rents for the premises they use for this purpose. Thus they ask for assistance.
I have tried writing to the local authority to obtain some help, but without
148
success. The Bill will provide such people with the possibility—if the local council agrees—of getting assistance. I believe that the cultural diversity found in places such as Bradford can be—in Bradford it is—more enriching to the community as a whole as each of the many different groups makes its cultural contribution to the life of the city. This applies particularly to the West Indians and the Asians.
There are differences between the communities and their needs. The slave trade resulted in the break-up of African family life. Husbands and wives and their children became commodities, to be bought and sold, and the resulting damage to the structure of West Indian family life is considerable. The effects can be seen in the difficulties experienced by West Indian children.
I consider that the alienation that has developed in the West Indian community is extremely dangerous for the homogeneity and welfare of our society as a whole. We should not take the view that a Bill of this kind is for Asians and West Indians alone. It is for the whole community. We want a community in which resentments do not reach the pitch—as they have in some parts of North America—where the majority community feels distinctly unhappy because of the resentments and hatreds aimed at it. A Bill such as this can make a useful contribution towards removing any growing feeling of resentment and alienation that may exist.
The Asian community in Bradford, and in Britain generally, is self-reliant. It has the advantage of the extended family, who support one another in a way that is wholly admirable and, incidentally, reduces the demands on the State for support. None the less, we have a State education system, and in that system are children whose knowledge of English is, to say the least, poor. Bradford has found it absolutely essential to take specific measures for the education in English of Asian children.
We have bussing in Bradford, because the Asian children are concentrated in areas where school facilities cannot cope with the demand. The argument about bussing is a vexed one, and there are opposing views. I hope that it will be possible under the Bill—though I doubt it—not only to provide teachers but to

149
provide extra schools in those areas which experience these pressures. The Department of Education and Science is saying that where there is overcrowding in schools no new schools shall be built if there are schools further afield which can take the overflow. Even if one could abolish bussing of Asian children in Bradford, there would still be mixed bussing of Asian and white children to schools further afield, because of the inadequate number of schools in particular areas.
I have a feeling that the Minister is going to say that this Bill will not cover that eventuality; that it will provide the teachers but not the schools. I hope that some attention can be given to this problem. A major question is whether the 75 per cent. grant is enough. I urge the Government to accept the view of Bradford council, which is Conservative-controlled but which has the support of the Labour group, that the grant should be increased to 90 per cent.
The higher the Government grant the greater likelihood of more worthwhile projects coming forward, be they for educational purposes or for youth clubs. Because of the problems of funding in Bradford, Government help is desirable and essential, and such help is looked for on a considerable scale by all parties.
I also have to bear in mind the ratepayers. The ratepayers of Bradford urge that money should come from central Government rather than from them. The ratepayers do their bit, but there is an argument for the Government's being involved in these projects.
I feel that I speak for all the parties in Bradford when I say that 90 per cent. is a more appropriate sum for the Government to contribute. The 75 per cent. figure may be an inhibiting factor, particularly when rates are rising and when councils are looking everywhere for ways of restricting expenditure. It would be a pity if the benevolence behind the Bill were foiled as a result of councils refusing to take up the money that is available under the Bill because they do not want to pay 25 per cent.
I hope that the Government will say that the figure is open and that they will consider making a higher contribution. If I thought that there were any hope of
150
succeeding I should urge a 100 per cent. Government contribution.
Will the Government consider whether pressure can be put upon a council to make an application when there is a real need? Not much pressure would be needed if there were a 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. grant, but with a 75 per cent. grant projects may not be suggested or proceeded with.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I find that the apparent aim of the Bill is attractive. It is useful and admirable. I understand that that aim is contained in the foreword of the consultative document which is signed by the Home Secretary. It describes the aim as a"racially harmonious society." My worry about the Bill involves the width that it gives to its aims.
Section 11 has been criticised. It is the reason why we now have the Bill. Section 11 was rightly regarded as too restrictive, both as to its beneficiaries and in its benefits.
The Bill is so wide that if it is not substantially amended in Committee the Government will be expected to gush out benefits over so wide an area and of such a various kind that the people who are supposed to enjoy the benefits will hardly notice them, because they will be so thin upon the ground. In support of that contention I bring to the attention of the House the two and a quarter pages in the consultative document which are devoted to setting out what are described as possible examples of the uses to which the new ethnic minority grant might be put.
I do not wish to weary the House by repeating the contents of those pages, but I can sum them up. The grant might be used for programmes to assist students of all age groups, youth, younger children, the special needs of women who belong to ethnic groups, family needs in general, the elderly, the public at large and the Health Service. As the Minister said, this is the first time that the Health Service has been involved in this way.
One of the aims of the Bill is to improve access to health services for certain ethnic minorities. I say in all anxiety, and meaning well, that it is essential that, if the health services are to be opened in

151
an improved way to the ethnic minorities, it should be explained as soon as possible exactly what improvements are to be made for ethnic minorities. In my constituency and, I am sure, in others, so many people now waiting to go into hospital—the old, the very sick and those who stand in need of medical treatment—are being told that the facilities are not available at the moment because the National Health Service will not stand the strain. It is right that the Government should make clear just what they mean by allowing a particular group of people the privilege of an improved access to the health services.
At the moment, grants to ethnic groups are available under section 11, which is to be replaced by the Bill. Grants are available also from the Home Office voluntary services scheme, from the urban programme and from the Commission for Racial Equality. Have the Government any intention of trying to unify all these services and the sources of grants, so that they can be properly and effectively directed?
As the Bill stands, it seems to me that it places a quite impossible administrative burden on the Home Secretary. It is perhaps no wonder that the Prime Minister, in April 1977, told the House that he was to transfer from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment the responsibility for administering the urban programme. My greatest anxiety about the Bill lies in the fact that inevitably it seeks to identify and to single out what it calls"ethnic groups ". The basis of my anxiety is that it will add confusion to the confusion that already exists because of our outdated laws of nationality.
In law, there are no such people as citizens of the United Kingdom as a separate category. The British Nationality Act 1948 and all subsequent legislation has meant that we are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, with the right of abode here, and living here. We have one category of people with wholly different rights. The people with whom we are dealing now, although they have no such name, are citizens of the United Kingdom. They are in the same category and they must have the same rights. My fear is that by attaching the label"ethnic minority"to a certain group we are sub-
152
dividing the citizens of the United Kingdom into different categories and giving them, as it were, different rights.
In my view, that is bad in principle. It may be unavoidable, but it should be avoided wherever it can be, and in its present form the Bill does not do all that I believe should be done to make that distinction as fine and as acceptable as possible.
It is perhaps trite to say—the White Paper of April 1978 said it, and I repeat it—that the fundamental needs of ethnic minorities are essentially the same as those of the population as a whole. I believe that to be right, and I am sure that the House will accept it as a correct understanding of the comparison of difficulties. It applies also to the youth of this country. Difficulties arising, for example, from unemployment or from sub-standard education are, unhappily, difficulties experienced by our youth as a whole. They are not confined to particular ethnic minorities. As the White Paper said in 1978, young blacks share many of their problems with the younger generation as a whole.
I believe that, in dealing with the ethnic minorities, we have to recognise that we are dealing with people who have problems shared with the remainder of the population. We must make sure—I hope that this will be the feeling of the whole House—that this legislation does not give rise to the dangers which attend the"ethnic minority"label.
We must make sure, for example, that the Bill and other legislation of this character does not give an ethnic minority privileges that are denied to the remainder of the population—
Mr. Budgen: But it does.
Mr. Gardner: We must make sure that it does not.
Mr. Budgen: How can we make sure? It gives wide discretion to the Secretary of State of the day. Plainly, unless we are in power, it will do exactly what my hon. and learned Friend fears.
Mr. Gardner: Of course, it gives advantages in the sense that it removes disadvantages—
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is tautology.
Mr. Gardner: The hon. Gentleman can call it what he likes. The fact is that disadvantages are removed. What I fear is that if we are not careful the time will come when the only people able to enjoy an improved Health Service, for example, will be people in an ethnic minority. I do not believe that that need happen.
Mr. Budgen: Why not?
Mr. Gardner: I do not believe that it need happen. I believe the Bill to be far too wide because—
Mr. Budgen: Why approve it, then?
Mr. Gardner: I have said that I approve any measure that will have the result of achieving a racially harmonious society. I believe that the Bill, when it has gone through Committee—if the Government are wise, as I hope they will be—
Mr. Budgen: Ah!
Mr. Gardner: I wish my hon. Friend would allow me just to complete my argument without an expletive interfering with every sentence that I speak.
To make the matter clear, simple and brief, let me just say that it is my hope—I hope that I shall not be hoping in vain—that the Government will accept amendments to the Bill which will allow it to focus upon essentials such as, for example, difficulties in language. Whether those difficulties arise because a person is a member of an ethnic minority or because he has had a bad education, or comes here as a foreigner—
Mr. Budgen Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The minority group is here again.
Mr. Gardner: —for the special purposes required, a Bill of this kind can achieve its purpose, but it must not go outside it.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Latham: I give this Bill a brief but cordial welcome. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that it would be very pleasant indeed if there were no divisions, sub-divisions and further divisions without our society. Much as many of us deplore it, the sad fact
154
is that those divisions undeniably exist. It would be quite unrealistic for the legislature to ignore that fact of life when dealing with a problem of this nature.
When I came into the Chamber a little earlier this evening a Conservative Member was complaining that the most insidious form of discrimination was positive discrimination. I should have thought that that was a difficult argument to sustain and that the most unpleasant discrimination of all is negative discrimination from which most ethnic groups in this country suffer.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that in many instances the only way to overcome negative discrimination is by introducing a measure of positive discrimination—which is what the Bill does. I am one of a decreasing minority which is reluctant to see local authorities encouraged to keep ethnic records of any kind. I have been worried about this as regards housing, because it might imply that some kind of negative policy of discrimination was being pursued by a local authority.
A few months ago I had the occasion to deal with a West Indian constituent who complained that a particular road in my constituency, which had sub-standard accommodation, was always allocated to people with black or brown skins. I complained to the city council on his behalf and asked whether it could confirm or deny it. It was able to argue that it was not possible to say whether this road had a disproportionate allocation of black people to sub-standard accommodation because the council did not keep records.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I intervene at this stage only because this is a crucial part of the legislation. Unless we keep records and monitor these matters, and unless we ask the ethnic question in the census, we cannot operate this Bill. It can be done only when we have the facts.
Mr. Latham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). That is the point to which I was coming. Whatever reservations many of us may still have about the keeping of ethnic records, if we are to welcome this legislation and accept clause 1(2)(b) it will be impossible to implement it without

155
keeping ethnic records. The clause sets as an objective
" securing that the services provided by the local authority are as effective in relation to ethnic groups as they are in relation to the rest of the community."
Therefore the argument that Westminster council used in the instance that I cited is valid, and it will become impossible to operate legislation—as it was impossible for that authority to answer my question—unless some form of record is kept. With considerable reluctance and reservation, I have come to the view that it is right that records of that kind should be kept.
Mr. Bidwell: This is a nerve spot affecting people who are very closely related to a great number of white people. My experience is that black or brown people do not object to such a record, and that this is objected to by people who think that they are their closest friends. What is objectionable is designation by colour in any shape or form.
Mr. Latham: I entirely agree. At one time I thought that I had no colour awareness at all. Then a few years ago I did a course at a college which was attended by many black and brown students. When travelling on the tube in the evening there was someone whom I thought I recognised as a friend. It suddenly occurred to me that this person could not be my friend because although his features were similar, he was black and my friend was white. It came as a great revelation that I still had this colour awareness, because up to that point, and having worked in a multi-racial community, I thought that it had disappeared.
In a constituency such as mine it is quite impossible to stop and think whether someone has a black or white skin, just as it is impossible to try to identify the colour of one's eyes. I deal with people as individuals. It is because so many of us feel like that that it is repugnant to find it necessary to write on a record, whether it be a colour or ethnic record, a distinction which separates an individual from the rest of the community. However, the facts of life are such, and the prejudices within our community are such, that if we are to overcome this problem we must have
156
positive discrimination. Sadly, these kind of repugnant records may be necessary.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde talked about privileges being made available to minority ethnic groups that might not be made available to other people. That is a bit like saying that someone who has paralysed legs gets a wheelchair to which someone who can walk is not entitled. That kind of difficulty does arise.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I apologise if I did not make myself clear, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to do so now. It is not that a particular group is given privileges but that it alone should have those privileges. That was the point I was seeking to make. Inevitably, if one focuses on one group to the exclusion of everyone else, one does more harm than good to racial relations.
Mr. Latham: I was about to come on to that point. I can recall another constituency case of two disabled ladies who lived next door to each other. Each was issued with an invalid car. Sadly, there was a tremendous resentment by some neighbours about the fact that two invalid cars were parked outside the homes of these two ladies, whereas others in the street had no vehicle of any kind. I agree that in trying to solve the problem one may find that there are odd causes and cases of resentment.
But one must take a balanced view, and I am sure that the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of trying to compensate for the disadvantages and under-privileges that can be applied generally to particular ethnic groups. Certain individuals among those groups may not suffer as much as the rest, but that is no reason for not proceeding with the general proposition that lies behind the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde said that he thought that the Bill was too wide and he wants it to be tightened up in Committee. I appeal to him, and implore those who serve on the Committee, not to do that. If we put this legislation in a straitjacket, we will kill it. If, in advance, one is to devise the precise set of circumstances in which the Minister has power to intervene, the whole idea of giving some general discretionary power to meet this particular

157
problem will be negated. I therefore hope that the Committee will not destroy the Bill in that way.
My concern is not that the Bill is too broad. It relates to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who referred to what I shall call"the veto"by certain local authorities. This is not just an argument about whether it is 25 per cent. and 75 per cent. or whether it is 10 per cent. or 90 per cent., although I agree that that position is to be preferred. It is the fact that under existing discretionary powers, such as urban aid, a local authority can veto any help that a Government are able and willing to provide. I should be sorry to see that principle also applied in the implementation of this legislation.
I have a tremendous problem in my constituency in the north-eastern tip of Paddington. That is an area which is deprived in many ways and in which there is an ambitious youth project called the Avenues Youth Project. It will provide an amenity that sadly has not been provided on any scale by the local authority. The parsimony of the city council in backing the urban aid scheme is highlighted by the fact that a workshop that would obviously be an asset to community provision has been deleted at the behest not of the Government but of the local authority.
Far worse is the example of the 510 Centre in my constituency of Paddington. It is a community centre that has been established for about four years. There is a wide range of community organisations playing a part in it. It has within it a complete multi-racial mix. It is a good model for overcoming the problems of such a neighbourhood and a good source of advice. A misunderstanding has occurred with Westminster city council, which originally funded the centre. The Government provided most of the money. The centre is relevant to our discussion because I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that similar difficulties do not arise with the provision that we are now debating.
Apart from the issue of the merits and demerits of a certain project, the Westminster city council has in the past few months introduced its own political test. It has done so because in the community
158
centre leaflets were distributed for the Paddington campaign against racism. In the local borough elections no preference was expressed for the Labour, Conservative or Liberal candidates, but a leaflet was issued by the multi-racial group that runs the centre and by others urging electors not to vote for the Nazi candidate who was standing in the locality where the community centre is based.
Many hon. Members will share the view that that was a reasonable and legitimate defensive action on the part of a community group. However, Westminster city council has decreed that that is an involvement in politics. It has asked for undertakings that there will be no recurrence of that activity. It has further sought to gag the active participants in that centre who deal largely with housing matters. It has attempted to gag them and to prevent them from making any criticism of local authority housing policy or anything relating to the neighbourhood which the Westminster city council can say is political.
The difficulty arises because the Conservative-controlled council regards as political anything which is critical of it. The 510 Centre regards as not political but social any vital issue that affects the neighbourhood and community that it serves. Plead as I may with Ministers, ask as I may for intervention, implore Ministers as I may to act as arbiters to regain provision for the community centre, I am told that they cannot act. That seems absurd as 75 per cent. of the money that is being taken away from the centre because of conditions imposed by a misguided politically biased local authority comes from the Government.
The race issue is tied up with the argument about the 510 Centre. Difficulties will arise if it is left to local authorities to match a proportion of expenditure and if they are given the right of veto. I hope that when the Bill emerges from Committee the Government will have found some way of giving help where it is needed, whether there are bigoted local authorities, unhelpful local authorities or authorities biased against the Bill. If the Bill is to be effective, it must not be stultified by detailed definitions or frustrated by local authorities being able to veto what could otherwise be worthwhile Government action.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Steen: At this stage, when the debate has continued for best part of five hours, I do not think that the House would welcome a detailed analysis of the Bill of the sort that it has heard from many hon. Members. I feel that it might be useful to remind the House that an enlightened society must help the under privileged, the deprived and ethnic minorities. The question always is, by how much? Is the indigenous population being prejudiced by the amount of money or time being given to it? Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 was the first that endevoured to discriminate positively for a minority group. The new Bill avoids a colour ticket and makes a new type of definition, that of ethnic groups. That is probably a new approach to the problem of colour, as opposed to that of a decade ago. The Government will deny that this is a colour policy, but more often than not the ethnic groups will be coloured groups.
I support section 11 of the 1966 Act. It is the right approach to the problem. The old section 11 gave extra money to urban areas, which were often the poorer areas. Therefore, money went to the more deprived local authorities and gave them another chance of obtaining resources which the rate support grant did not give them.
The new Bill follows a slightly different pattern from that which we saw in the 1960s. Towards the end of the 1960s the Government went into reverse. They had orginally thought of participation as good. The Skeffington report was the last report to give thought to giving people greater participation. In the late 1960s, the Government went into reverse and talked about controlling the power that they gave to local authorities. The urban aid programme was the first of a series of attempts to wrest from local authorities the power that they had gained. The Government did so in a subtle way. The urban aid programme took money away from the rate support grant.
The Government pinched money from Peter and gave it to Paul. They took money from the rural areas and gave it to the urban areas. Having given it to the urban areas, they told the local authori
160
ties that they could bid for the money taken away from the rural areas and say what they wanted. However, the Government remained the final arbiter. The Government continued that style of approach thereafter, whereby the local authorities gave 25 per cent. with the Government giving 75 per cent. That over-centralised a decision-making process that had previously been decentralised.
The Bill represents the same principle and the same programme. Instead of calling t the urban aid programme, it comes under a new ticket. In the past year, responsibility for the urban aid programme was moved from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment. I suspect that there was a wrestling match between Ministers. The Department of the Environment ended up with the urban aid programme but the Home Office held on to the race relations side. Having done that, it must fight for new funding for the ethnic groups. I suspect that behind this Bill there has been much inter-departmental warfare, which has resulted in the Home Office's winning and keeping part of the urban aid programme for itself, but moving it into a new Bill.
That is the wrong way to proceed. The formula for the urban aid programme has been moved into the new Bill so that local authorities may put up bids. The Government decided how to spend the cash.
I hope that the Minister will take seriously the lesson learned from the urban aid programme, which was that the community must be involved in the decision-making process. However, Minister after Minister avoided allowing the community to be involved in it. What has happened is that local authorities have tended to ask for money from the Government and to avoid involving the voluntary bodies in making the applications. I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake with the Bill. It looks as though the local authorities will be told"You can have your 75 per cent. if you put up your 25 per cent." But the local authorities will tend to do those things which they probably would not have the money to do without the extra Government aid, and they will not allow voluntary bodies, unless they raise their own 25 per cent., to go to the Government and take a 75 per cent. share. I hope that the Minister will consider in Committee how to

161
ensure that the voluntary sector will not be excluded.
The ethnic groups are very important in this respect. Perhaps the Minister will consider how to involve them in the decision-making process. Surely, at the local level the ethnic groups should be involved in deciding which project should be put forward to the Home Office. In the Home Office there should be some ethnic civil servants who can be involved in the decision-making process, so that a project is not decided simply by Government and local government, and ethnic groups are able to decide themselves which schemes they prefer.
The Bill should go some way towards helping the ethnic groups, provided that the money is not taken away from the urban aid programme. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the urban aid programme in the Department of the Environment will not be reduced in order to fund this piece of legislation in the Home Office.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his wild fantasy of ethnic civil servants. In the short time available to me, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I oppose the Bill because I believe it to be a bad Bill. Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), I do not believe that it can be so amended in Committee as to make it a good Bill.
I believe it to be a bad Bill because it will contribute nothing at all to race relations in this country. Indeed, it will serve only, if anything, to make race relations worse, because the indigenous population of this country will say, in relation to a particular ethnic group, whichever it may be,"Extra money is being spent on these people. Why is it not being spent on us, the people who have lived here all our lives? "
My constituency does not have the problem of a large immigrant population. Most of the speakers in the debate have been from urban constituencies with large immigrant populations. If we are to improve the Health Service for an ethnic group, it has to be remembered that there are a few people in constituencies such as mine who are deprived and who have
162
their particular problems. They are bound to ask"Why should this money be channelled towards a special ethnic group and not spread over the whole population of this country? "
In the 1970 election I had the good fortune to fight the Deptford seat. I nursed it for three and a half years and therefore know something of the problems of immigration and the problems of the indigenous population. I went to that constituency only last Tuesday to speak, and we discussed the Bill. There is no doubt that there is considerable resentment felt by many people in this country because of the underlying principle of the Bill.
I have come to the conclusion over the past few years that this country has gone race relations mad. In 1976 we passed the Race Relations Bill. I well remember the Third Reading of the Bill in this House, when at about 1 p.m. three of us voted against the Third Reading. I am glad to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in his place. By heavens, how right we have been proved to have been in voting against the Bill that afternoon.
We have set up the Commission, under Mr. David Lane. In a leading article in yesterday's edition of the Sunday Express, we read of 90,000 copies of a pamphlet produced by the police in Liverpool not being allowed to be distributed in the schools because they did not contain a picture of any black or brown person.
Which country are we living in? Where are we? Are we still in England, or have we moved to some extraordinary multiracial State in which an Englishman is not allowed, in many cases, because of the clause that we passed in 1976, to say what he thinks about a particular problem that affects him specifically?
I should like to refer briefly to the Minister of State's words when he opened the debate. He called some of us on the Opposition Benches"primitives ". If I speak as a primitive, and if he believes that I am a primitive, I shall not, in the sense that he used the word, take it as an insult. I shall take it as a compliment. I take the Minister to be referring to those of us on these Benches—whom he calls primitives—who are getting back to basics, those who understand what

163
is really going on and those who understand the feelings of the people of this country, and let me say that it is because I speak as an Englishman representing an English constituency that I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, because it will tend to make second-class citizens of our fellow countrymen in this our land.
9.36 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is hoped that the winding-up speech can begin at 9.45 p.m. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to limit my remarks to less than six minutes so that they do not appear on your record.
I am in full agreement with the speech to which we have just listened from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). When this legislation began, with the Race Relations Act originally, I foresaw, and I can claim that I said, which way it would develop. We have had these medieval distinctions—that is where the primitiveness comes in this evening—between negative and positive discrimination. I do not know what Labour Members mean by negative and positive discrimination. I have never really known what they meant by discrimination. I have said that I discriminate between all the people I meet upon every ground that I can detect, that everyone else does so also, and that everyone ought to do so.
Are we really to say, by law, that things which actually exist, which can be perceived by the senses to exist, are to be ignored because of some law? Yet that is what all discrimination legislation is about. We even send people to prison for saying that they can see that the emperor has no clothes on when in fact he plainly has not.
This Bill is the latest stage in the business of controlling people's minds. It is a money Bill. It is presented under Standing Order No. 91, which means that the voting of money is its principal purpose. The objective to be achieved is that of
" removing disadvantages suffered by ethnic groups "
164
and securing that the services provided by a local authority
" are as effective in relation to these ethnic groups as they are in relation to the rest of the community."
How is it thought that one can do that by money? When one passes these laws about negative discrimination and then one passes others about positive discrimination, what one really means is that all that one is really interested in, or one's primary concern, is equality. That is the only possible meaning to give to it. One identifies people who appear to be behind the rest of the community. One takes resources from the community generally and applies them to those people. Of course, as a matter of logic, one must disadvantage the better in the hope of advantaging the less good. One cannot escape from that dilemma.
Is it really thought that one can remove disadvantages from which an ethnic group suffers by spending money? This is the cardinal error of certain Labour Members who believe that they are environmentalists à outrance. They believe in infinite plasticity in one generation. Their argument is that if £24 million will not do it, all right, it must be £64 million; if £64 million will not do it, all right, it will have to rise to £100 million. What they will never admit is that there may be inequalities—dare I say it?—of genetic origin. Genetics is a branch of Fascism to people like the hon. Members for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and for York (Mr. Lyon). Are we to believe that all the differences inherited by people can be cured in one, two or three generations? One does not need to be a primitive. One has only to have a certain amount of common sense to look around the world and ask why, if the whole of plant and animal creation is governed primarily by genetic factors, the human race alone should have no such element in it and that all one has to do is to pass a Bill through Parliament and spend as much money as possible and everybody can be made the same.
That applies equally to the next objective, to ensure that the services provided by the local authority are of equal advantage to all groups. That is not equality of opportunity. That is equality of take-up of opportunity. Do the Government think that one can provide for that by doubling or trebling the amount of money? Let us have a little common

165
sense. The amount of money being spent in this way, including the Inner Urban Areas Act, must be £100 million or more. A sensibly funded voluntary repatriation policy would enable half a million of these people to be sent back to their own countries. That would be a much better solution for the people of this country and for the good relations which exist between various groups within it.
We are not talking of £100 million or more. We are talking of £100 million a year. I ask where this policy is leading us. That question must be answered in a debate when we have more time. The hon. Member for York spoke for 26 minutes. The rest of us need elbow room and space to develop our ideas.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. John: This debate has ranged between extreme detail and general thread. If hon. Members will forgive me, I shall not try to take up all detailed points. I shall try to answer some, but shall endeavour mainly to take up the general thread.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) made a point which has been echoed by other hon. Members in a different way. He said that problems are suffered by his constituents—problems such as unemployment—which are common to white and black. Whether they are black or white, they are equally unemployed. I accept that argument. There is nothing in this Bill that seeks to suggest that the black unemployed should get an advantage over the white unemployed.
I should like to explain where the legitimate purpose of the Bill is to be found. When a white youth is unemployed, one expects him to go to one of the statutory agencies to seek a job. Such is the disaffection between West Indian youth and official bodies that many do not claim unemployment benefit, nor could they be expected to go to a statutory body. The aim of the Bill, and one of the purposes to which it might be put, is to provide a youth worker to bridge that gap. It is a question not of creating an advantage but of ensuring that in similar conditions West Indians do not suffer a disadvantage compared to their white contemporaries.
Much of the debate, and one of the major points made by the hon. Member
166
for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and a number of his hon. Friends, could have been avoided if they had read the Bill carefully. It is a very short Bill, and it gives the lie to those who have alleged that it involves a form of positive discrimination—if by that they mean giving advantage to people who are already on equal terms.
It does nothing of the kind. Clause 1(2)(a) provides that expenditure by a local authority shall be made for purposes including
" removing disadvantages from which an ethnic group suffers ".
Paragraph (b) specifies
" securing that the services provided by the local authority are as effective in relation to ethnic groups as they are in relation to the rest of the community ".
In other words, we are not creating an advantage, except, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, in the sense that a man with a broken leg has plaster of Paris put on it as opposed to the man who has not broken his leg. It is merely bringing to a position of equality those who are disadvantaged.
The hon. and learned Member for South Flyde (Mr. Gardner) and others talked of this marvellous example of a new upgraded Health Service, but all that we are ensuring is that peripheral and ancillary services will be provided to ensure that those in ethnic minorities who are disadvantaged in their dealings with the NHS, because, for example, of language, will be given a position of equality with those who do not have such difficulties.
An example is the pregnant Asian woman who cannot fully explain her symptoms to the gynaecologist. No such language barrier exists for the English, Welsh or Irish woman whose mother tongue is English. Asian women have all too few interpreters to ensure that their points are always communicated. So it is not a position of privilege.
I say to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that I plead guilty on one count. This is a plea for equality, because I believe in equality in society. The difference between us is that I strive for it while he strives to perpetuate inequality. To the hon. and learned Gentleman the man with a broken leg would not have plaster of Paris put

167
on it, because the man without a broken leg would feel envious or would lose his privileged position of being able to crow over the limping man. That is not a doctrine to which anyone on the Government Benches would subscribe.
Then there is the argument that somehow the Bill is bad because it will worsen race relations. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) made that point in his understandably brief speech. I ask him and others to consider whether the feeling that people are at a disadvantage and that action is not being taken to give them equality with their peers and fellow citizens is likely to generate good race relations. The logic of what he says is that if one perpetuates the disadvantage one will improve race relations, but that if one tries to remove it one will make them worse. That is nonsense, and must be seen as such by the whole House.
The third general point that has been made today is that the Bill will deal with coloured people alone. I said that New Commonwealth citizens and Pakistanis would probably be the major beneficiaries. One has to accept this, but nothing in the Bill limits the scope of the benefit to people whose colour is black or brown. For example, one of the most introverted communities in Britain is probably that of the Italians of Bedford. If the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) were in his place, he would confirm that there are language and cultural problems and, although many of those people have been here for many years, severe problems of disadvantage among the Italian community. Any idea that the reservation of ethnic groups is towards coloured people only is absolutely wrong.
A problem that has been taken up on both sides of the House is the relationship of the local authority to the grant and the locality. The age of the novel is never dead while the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) can fantasise, with no evidence whatsoever, on the great power struggle between the Department of Environment and the Home Office. Urban aid has always coexisted with section 11. They have never inhibited each other. I assure him absolutely that urban aid will not be weakened to fund the Bill. The Bill and urban aid deal with different problems. Urban aid deals with
168
problems of disadvantaged geographical areas that may not have ethnic minorities, whereas the Bill deals with ethnic groups.
There is then the consideration of the question whether there should be a legal duty on local authorities and whether to fund voluntary bodies direct. Local voluntary bodies do fine work. Often, they do the job with greater dedication and economy than does the local authority. The service must be one that the local authority is empowered to provide. That does not limit it greatly. But if the money were given to a voluntary body against the advice of the local authority, the work would be inhibited by the friction and enmity caused. The future must lie in effective liaison between the elected members in a locality, the ethnic minority groups and voluntary organisations. I concede that there are bad examples of that, but it is only with the co-operation of all concerned that anything can be achieved.
On the level of expenditure, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) stopped short of suggesting that a 101 per cent. grant would be the most attractive. Since there has been a tenfold increase in local authority expenditure under section 11, the 75 per cent. limitation is not necessarily the inhibiting factor. But there are cash limits. We have secured a 70 per cent. increase in the amount of Government money. Under the Bill there is power for the Secretary of State not only to fix a limit but to vary it if possible and desirable. But the larger the contribution to the individual scheme, the fewer individual schemes there will be.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) suggested that consultation with local authorities was too centralised. But the local authorities wished to be consulted on a national level, and the centralised consideration is therefore as much due to the local authorities' request as anything else.
The House is ambivalent in its attitude to local authorties. When they do what we want, we give them all the autonomy that they want. On school milk, we thought that the Government should not dictate to local authorities what they knew best. On the other hand, when the authorities do what we do not want there are demands that we take the initiative

169
away from them. We have to make up our minds. If we favour local democracy we must accept that there is always the chance of authorities such as those described by my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George) not doing what we want, and sometimes doing what we positively do not want.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that there is so much noise going on on your right hand that hon. Members cannot hear what the Minister is saying?
Mr. Speaker: In view of those comments it will not continue any longer.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my hon. Friend the Minister of State agree that, by and large, collaboration of local authorities is right and the exercising of local judgment is right? However, where that judgment is applied for the wrong reasons, as in the example I quoted to him, could not some power be provided so that we could ensure that justice was done?
Mr. John: I shall look into the matter, but that suggestion has inherent difficulties.
I come next to the Select Committee report. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and other hon. Members who sat on the Committee for not having dealt with this earlier. I was asked about an annual report. I agree in principle that that could not be ruled out. I should like to consider the exact form of it. I do not approve of putting a time limit on the Bill. This problem has already lasted longer than our predecessors in 1966 envisaged. I should not want the same position to arise again.
I had hoped that when the hon. Member for Ashford rose he would join me
in a rousing call. Unfortunately, his call was somewhat muted. I was tremendously disappointed by the fact that his best advice to his Back Benchers was not that they ought to vote for the Bill but that they should not vote against it. The local authorities need not despair of that advice. It is the exact position adopted by the Conservative Opposition on the Race Relations Bill. With a few exceptions, they neither voted for it nor against it on Third Reading. Their action tonight is par for the course.
Many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have striven to say that the House should not divide on the Bill but should show that it is united behind this measure in seeking to remove the disadvantage suffered by ethnic minorities. Therefore, if all that the hon. Member for Ashford can do is to invite his hon. Friends not to vote against the Bill, all the advertisements in the Asian language newspapers and all the West Indian Conservative associations that he may want to set up will not hide the fundamental split in his party. They will not hide the fact that many of his hon. Friends are not willing to support the Bill.
I hope that he and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), even if they cannot carry some of their hon. Friends with them, will themselves set an example by voting for the Bill and showing that we in this House have set our course for a harmonious multi-racial society, and that we believe that the right way to go about it is by this Bill, which is a positive step for future harmony and peace in this country.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 7.

Division No. 88]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bean, R. E.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Allaun, Frank

Beith, A. J.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Anderson, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Buchan, Norman

Armstrong, Ernest

Bidwell, Sydney

Buchanan, Richard

Ashton, Joe

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Boardman, H.

Campbell, Ian

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Canavan, Dennis

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cant, R. B.

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Carmichael, Neil

Bates, Alt

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Carter, Ray

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hunter, Adam

Price, William (Rugby)

Cartwright, John

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Radice, Giles

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Clemitson, Ivor

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Richardson, Miss Jo

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Coleman, Donald

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Corbett, Robin

Judd, Frank

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Cowans, Harry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rooker, J. W.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Kerr, Russell

Roper, John

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Crawshaw, Richard

Kinnock, Neil

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Cronin, John

Lambie, David

Sandelson, Neville

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Lamborn, Harry

Sedgemore, Brian

Cryer, Bob

Lamond, James

Selby, Harry

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Sever, John

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lee, John

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Deakins, Eric

Litterick, Tom

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Lomas, Kenneth

Silverman, Julius

Dempsey, James

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Dewar, Donald

Luard, Evan

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Doig, Peter

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Snape, Peter

Dormand, J. D.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Spriggs, Leslie

Dunnett, Jack

McCartney, Hugh

Stallard, A. W.

Eadie, Alex

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Edge, Geoff

McElhone, Frank

Stoddart, David

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Stott, Roger

English, Michael

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Strang, Gavin

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Maclennan, Robert

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McNamara, Kevin

Thompson, George

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Madden, Max

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Flannery, Martin

Magee, Bryan

Tilley, John

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Tinn, James

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marks, Kenneth

Tomlinson, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Torney, Tom

Forrester, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tuck, Raphael

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.

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

Meacher, Michael

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mikardo, Ian

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

George, Bruce

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Ward, Michael

Ginsburg, David

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Watkins, David

Golding, John

Molloy, William

Watkinson, John

Gould, Bryan

Moonman, Eric

Weetch, Ken

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred

Weitzman, David

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wellbeloved, James

Grant, John (Islington C)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Grocott, Bruce

Morton, George

White, James (Pollok)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Whitlock, William

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Wigley, Dafydd

Hardy, Peter

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Newens, Stanley

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Noble, Mike

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Oakes, Gordon

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

O'Halloran, Michael

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Heifer, Eric S.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Henderson, Douglas

Ovenden, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Home Robertson, John

Palmer, Arthur

Woodall, Alec

Hooley, Frank

Park, George

Woof, Robert

Hooson, Emlyn

Parker, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Horam, John

Parry, Robert

Young, David (Bolton E)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Pavitt, Laurie

Huckfield, Les

Pendry, Tom

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Perry, Ernest

Mr. Ted Graham and

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Mr. John Evans.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

NOES

Bell, Ronald

Winterton, Nicholas

Brotherton, Michael

Molyneaux, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Mr. Alan Clark and

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Mr. Nick Budgen.

Stokes, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Local Government Finance Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (ETHNIC GROUPS) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment to local authorities in Great Britain of grants towards expenditure attributable to the presence of ethnic groups within their areas, it is expedient to authorise payment thereof to be made out of money provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
10.13 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
No one likes taxes, not even Members of Parliament who authorise them, but there can be no public services without revenues. The services of local government, which are of inestimable value to us but which we take so much for granted, could not exist without the combination of local taxation and support from national revenues. Any tax system must be kept under scrutiny and kept up to date. This Bill is designed to make a number of modest improvements to the system of rating and Exchequer aid to local authorities.
In the opening months of this Administration, Tony Crosland, then Secretary of State for the Environment, appointed the Layfield committee on local government finance. Its terms of reference were
" to review the whole system of local government finance in England, Scotland and Wales, and to make recommendations ".
The committee reported, after two years of intense work, in May 1976, and its report is one that will be actively referred to for many years. Out of this work and from parallel initiatives have come several important developments in local government finance.
After receiving the Layfield report, and following full consideration of its recommendations in the consultative council on local government finance and elsewhere, the Government published the Green Paper on local government finance. This proposed important developments in rating, central Government grants, local authority capital expenditure and audit arrangements.
The Bill is concerned mainly with the rating proposals contained in the Green Paper. It also contains some minor proposals for changes and improvements in the grant system and for relaxation of central controls over the level of various fees and charges levied by local authorities.
176
The Government recognise that rates are not a popular tax, and alternatives were examined extensively by Layfield and then in the Green Paper. Many people hoped that rates—or at least domestic rates—could be swept away. They hoped that Layfield could find the philosopher's stone—the tax that no one would mind paying—but it could not be found and the committee of inquiry advised that the rating system should continue, with some modifications.
It is interesting and instructive to compare the exhaustive analysis and recommendations of the Layfield committee with the Conservative Party's occasional forays into rating. At the time of the October 1974 election the Opposition wanted simply to abolish domestic rating. Subsequently, however, this vision seems to have receded somewhat from their pronouncements.
I was particularly interested to see reports of the speech last October by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) when he spoke of abolishing the burden of domestic rates rather than the rates themselves, though I was somewhat puzzled to see that he proposed to achieve this by abolishing domestic rate relief, thus increasing the absolute level of rates, and then setting them off against income tax. I shall be waiting with absorbed interest to see what panacea he has to offer us tonight.
Returning, however, from those visionary realms, I suggest that any serious examination of the rating system must now start from the rigorous analysis of the Layfield report. The Layfield committee found that rates have many advantages as a local tax. The tax structure is reasonably simple. The yield is predictable. Rates are easy to adminster locally, cheap to collect and difficult to evade. Because rates are levied on immovable property, they are ideally suited as a local tax; and their very perceptibility heightens the accountability of local government. We see this every year as authorities make their rates in the full glare of local publicity and debate. No other potential source of local revenue has such a combination of advantages.
On the other hand, the rating system was acknowledged to have defects. What tax system, I may ask, does not? It is the

177
duty of responsible Government to build upon the good features of rating, to identify the weak points and to work to improve the system. This Government propose to do just that. I would state our underlying objective as to make the rating system more intelligible and more fair.
I draw attention now to six main ways in which we can work to improve the rating system, and in which this Bill will help significantly. These are: first, improving the rate rebate system so as to moderate the apparent regressivity of the rating system; second, improving the instalment system, so that all ratepayers can plan for regular payments of reasonable instalments of rates instead of substantial lump sums; third, improving the valuation system so as to ensure that the basis of assessment for rates is as fair and equitable as between one ratepayer and another as we can make it; fourth, improving the accountability of the system so that all ratepayers know what their rates are being raised for and how they are being spent; fifth, improving the administration of the system so that local authorities are able to operate it as fairly and efficiently as possible; and, finally, improving the grant system, with its general objective of taking a substantial part of the burden of local services off the ratepayer's shoulders and equalising the burden of different needs and different resources in different parts of the country.
I do not propose to go through the Bill clause by clause, but I should like to say a little about how it will improve matters under each of the six main heads I have just outlined.
One of the most common criticisms of the rating system is that rates bear little relationship to the ability to pay—that they are a regressive tax. One of the chief routes by which we can help, therefore, is by the development of the rate rebate system. Some 4 million households are eligible for rate rebates in England and Wales. With this scale of provision, rebates are not just a benefit for those who are poor: in essence, rebates form a system of tax allowances.
Take-up is not complete—around three-quarters of those eligible. Among pensioners it is around 90 per cent., but
178
I am particularly anxious to improve take-up among tenants in the private rented sector, by whom evidence suggests take-up is well down. I hope to launch special publicity this year to attract applications from private tenants.
The Bill contains an important provision to extend the range of rate rebates. At present, when a wife has separated from her husband and lives alone in the matrimonial home she cannot obtain a rate rebate, even though she is paying the rates. Clause 18 will extend eligibility to separated wives in these circumstances. Incidentally, the clause is not discriminatory. It will also work the other way, so that the husband would be eligible if he were the one left living in the matrimonial home.
The second route for improving the system is by easing the payment arrangements. The rate demand is made at the beginning of the year but instalments can spread payments over 10 months or so. Domestic ratepayers already have a legal right to pay by instalments—and I recommend people who may not have been aware of this right to consider exercising it.
It is unreasonable that businesses and other non-domestic ratepayers should not have that opportunity also, and clause 4 of the Bill will therefore establish this right for all ratepayers in England and Wales. The right has already been established in Scotland. Here is a notable provision that should be of very considerable benefit especially to small businesses.
Mr. Max Madden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the arrangement made by the Tory-controlled Calderdale district council in my district whereby it has introduced a system which separates rent payments from rate payments made by council tenants? This scheme seems extremely expensive, as it is costing all ratepayers—council and private tenants—an additional sum of about £50,000 a year to administer. Will the Bill safeguard this undesirable trend, which may well be adopted by other Tory-controlled authorities?
Mr. Barnett: The Bill will not deal with the particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). He will understand if I do not make any comment on it. Whatever a Tory council may do in any part

179
of the country, I prefer to leave it to the judgment of the electors of the authority concerned rather than attempt to pass judgment on it myself.
Incidentally, I was interested to see that in his Bournemouth speech the hon. Member for Barkston Ash put forward the idea of instalments for small businesses and other non-domestic ratepayers as an important Conservative proposal, apparently oblivious of the fact that it had already been recommended by Layfield and included in the Government's Green Paper.
I turn now to valuation. We can do much to make rating fairer and more intelligible by keeping the valuation of premises up to date and realistic. Regular general revaluations are the key to this. The revaluation due in 1978 was postponed to give time to the Layfield committee to conduct its inquiry and for its recommendations to be studied. A general revaluation is now firmly pro grammed for 1982, and the valuation office of the Inland Revenue is already advanced with its preliminary work.
What we need for the future is a system that will enable us to have regular revaluations at five-yearly intervals. There are many reasons why this has proved impossible in the past, but one of the most important has been the burden of the sheer volume of appeals against valuation assessments that come in all the time and which have often made it impossible for the valuation office to prepare for the next revaluation as quickly as it and everyone else would have wished.
No one, of course, wants to prevent ratepayers from having their right to challenge the rateable value assessment that is put on their property at a revaluation or to propose changes when any significant or material changes take place in the property or its environment.
Mr. Arthur Jones: It has been a political decision on the part of Socialist Administrations that revaluations should not be made. In fact, we have not had a revaluation at any time since the war under a Socialist Administration. It was the late Richard Crossman who disclosed that it was a political decision which he took which persuaded the Government not to have a revaluation for rating purposes when he was Secretary of State.
Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman will know that some years ago legislation was passed through this House, during the lifetime of the present Administration, to delay the revaluation quite deliberately in order to make it possible, as I have just said, for the Layfield committee to report. That was done with the agreement of the House, and that was the reason why it was done on that occasion. I can make no comment on what the hon. Gentleman said. Naturally, I accept that it is unfortunate that revaluation has been delayed for so long, but I think that there was a very good reason why it was done on that occasion and why the revaluation was delayed until 1982.
The Layfield committee thought, and the Government agree, that it would be reasonable to try to reduce the number of appeals coming forward for essentially irrelevant reasons, such as rises in rate poundages, which have nothing to do with valuation but which clog up the system and themselves make it harder to achieve the five-yearly revaluations which everyone wants.
After carefully considering this problem, the Layfield committee said—and I should like to quote its exact words:
" We consider that it would be justifiable to limit the ratepayer's right to make a proposal beyond the first year following revaluation to cases where there had been a material change of circumstances affecting value, or a change of occupier. This procedure, which obtains in Scotland, should discourage appeals stimulated by rate poundages increases without depriving anyone of a legitimate opportunity to test the validity of his assessment ".
That quotation comes from page 176 of the report. The Government have accepted this advice, and clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill broadly adopt the Layfield position.
We said in our Green Paper that we believe that
" these changes strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the need to ensure the efficient operation of the rating system ",
and we had very little adverse reaction. Two related clauses—Nos. 6 and 9—also follow through on Layfield recommendations to modify the appeals system in the interests of the majority.
Naturally, the House will want to consider the implications of these proposals very carefully, but I would say that this. As a ratepayer myself, I do not feel

181
that my rights will be dimnished by these four provisions. After each revaluation I shall have a full year to consider whether the new value of my property seems fair, and to appeal against it if not. After that, I shall be time-barred. However, if any significant change happens to my property or my environment which might affect its value, I shall still be entitled to appeal. Further, I shall know that in any case, as a result of the restriction imposed on me along with every other ratepayer, it will be possible to have another revaluation in five years' time, when the whole question can be reopened.
Mr. Stephen Ross: It has not been unknown for valuation officers to make mistakes in measurements of area or in pricing. If that occurs and it is shown to have occurred after the year has expired, will there be grounds for an appeal against mistaken quantum or area of propertly that brings a value that is too high or, in some cases, too low? Will there be provision for such a challenge, or will it be up to the valuation officer or local authority to make the alteration?
Mr. Barnett: The probability is"Yes ". That is a matter that we may examine in Committee to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point, which seems perfectly fair, is covered.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the new valuation likely to be based on the old valuation, bearing in mind that inflation is likely to continue, or is the job to be as massive as I expect it could be and to involve many areas being totally revalued? There is no doubt that valuations in some areas are far too high rather than far too low. Is there to be a balance between rates increasing as a result of revaluation and perhaps rates decreasing in other areas?
Mr. Barnett: I do not think that it would be right for me even to try to make a judgment on decisions that will be reached following the revaluation exercise. Unfortunately, the system that we shall have to use is that which was used on the previous revaluation, much as we would like to go ahead with capital valuation. However, that is another matter.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will be the position if, for example, six people living in a road appeal against a valuation and the appeal takes some time to be heard, and after 12 months have elapsed the appeal is upheld? What will happen if some of their neighbours think"We, too, are entitled to a reduction "? If that happened, would the neighbours be entitled to appeal? That type of chain reaction took place on many occasions following the previous revaluation. Will the chain reaction be possible, or will everybody have to start at the beginning?
Mr. Barnett: If they are out of time, they are out of time. If they have not appealed within the year if the Bill is enacted, it will not be possible to appeal. That, again, is a matter that we shall wish to examine in Committee to ensure that my hon. Friend's point is considered. I am grateful to him for mentioning it, as it could be an important issue that we shall want to consider.
Three other clauses are intended to improve the system of valuation. Clauses 1 and 2 are about methods of valuation and will be welcome to the profession. Clause 10, on minor structural alterations, will remove an anomaly that has been resented by many householders. There are one or two other technical matters of valuation that the Government might wish to introduce in Committee.
We believe it necessary to introduce valuation on the basis of capital values rather than on the basis of historic, not to say antiquated, rental assessment, which is becoming increasingly difficult to work upon. The Government have been prevented from making this sensible reform, but it is our desire to make it.
I turn to the issue of accountability. There are two other routes of improvement in the system which I shall cover quickly. One is to strengthen the accountability of local government to its electorate. Clause 15, in a minor way, will help to make councils' rate-making more explicit by requiring them to identify and declare separately the rate needed for the county and for the district.
Secondly, we can help local authorities to administer the system more fairly and more efficiently. The Bill contains several minor provisions that have originated in consultation with local authorities for

183
improving and streamlining the rating system.
I turn now to the grant system, which itself does such a lot to redress the uneven burdens to which the rating system by itself would give rise. I draw attention, first, to the sheer size of the grant—£8½ billion in 1979–80, or 61 per cent. of total relevant expenditure, which is borne by the taxpayer rather than the ratepayer.
Secondly, I draw attention to the grant's important equalising effect in channelling Exchequer aid to areas that are poorer and where there is a greater need for local services. Thirdly, I draw attention to the important part of the grant represented by the domestic element, which goes to reduce the rates of every domestic ratepayer. Nearly £700 million next year will be used to reduce domestic rate poundages.
The Bill will extend this domestic rate relief in two ways. Clause 3 will bring domestic garages, parking spaces and storage space fully into the net. At present, if these are separate from the main hereditament, the rates paid on them will not attract domestic rate relief. Therefore, the Bill will bring a marginal benefit to some people, such as flat-dwellers with garages in a separate block, and so remove an unfairness.
More significant, however, is the extension of domestic rate relief to many mixed business and domestic premises which at present do not qualify. Domestic relief is available currently only where the domestic portion accounts for at least half the rateable value. Layfield identifies this anomaly, and clause 3 provides that where the proportion of total rateable value attributable to the private dwelling is not greater than one-half but more than one-quarter of the total rateable value, one-quarter of domestic rate relief will be given. And where the proportion is not greater than one-quarter but more than one-eighth, one-eighth of relief should be allowed. I expect this measure to be a great benefit to large numbers of small businesses, typically the shop with a flat over it, but also to some sub-post offices, private dairies, small workshops and some small businesses with an office in the home, and many others.
184
The remaining clauses largely concern grants to local authorities. They are non-contentious, technical provisions that have the full support of the local authority associations. I have no doubt that we shall want to look at these carefully in Committee.
In conclusion I should like to say a word about the general level of rates and local authority expenditure.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Before we leave the question of grants, will my hon. Friend assure us that the provisions set out in clause 19 on the resources element of the rate support grant, and the right of the Secretary of State to vary it, will not in any circumstances result in any local authority being told in mid-year that the resources element that it expected at the beginning of the year will be reduced? This is not clear at present.
Mr. Barnett: It might be a good idea if I were to ask my hon. Friend who will reply to this debate to confirm what I am about to say. My understanding of the situation is that clauses 19 and 20 will have the effect of improving the situation, rather than the other way. They will enable a local authority to be more certain than it is at present of precisely what resources element it will be entitled to in a financial year. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
I was referring to the general level of rates and local authority expenditure. In spite of the regular attacks that are made on the level of rates and the burden of the rating system, the House should note that over the years they have remained at a very steady percentage of the personal disposable income of individuals. Since the early 1960s, the percentage has remained very steady with just over 2 per cent. of personal disposable income going on rates. Local authority expenditure did, of course, grow substantially as a percentage of gross national expenditure in the 'sixties and early 'seventies, but in the past five years it has stabilised around a fairly steady 11 per cent. of GNP. We need to bear these fairly steady figures and trends very much in mind in considering the burden of rates and local authority expenditure.
I shall not be surprised if we hear something this evening about the supposed

185
scandal of enormous rate rises currently coming through for the current year and attacks on local authority expenditure run wild. Let us keep a sense of proportion about this. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is reported today as predicting average domestic rate rises of about 17·5 per cent. this year. We do not know yet whether the final figures will confirm that, but I think it may well be of that order.
That is certainly higher than the single-figure increase which we had hoped for when my right hon. Friend made the rate support grant settlement last November. It no doubt reflects the cautious view which many local authority treasurers are taking about the likely level of inflation in view of recent pay increases.
There is no evidence, however, that on a national scale there is likely to be any upsurge in the total volume of local authority expenditure this year. We certainly should not allow one or two well-publicised examples of large rate increases this year to rush us into thinking that much more radical measures are needed to transform the rating system or to subject local authority expenditure to tighter central control. Such ideas may sound attractive as off-the-cuff responses to the reports of large rate increases, but they could easily do immense harm to the freedom and autonomy of local government. The longer-term perspective which I have given shows that such measures are unnecessary and would be quite unjustified in terms of overall public expenditure control.
In conclusion, I say that this measure offers a realistic approach to rating and local government finance. The Government prefer not to waste their efforts looking for the elusive tax that no one will mind paying. They prefer not to mislead the public into thinking that this is possible but, instead, to build upon the basis that we have—that is, the well-tried and practicable system of rating. It must be significant that almost every nation in the developed world has found it sensible to include a property tax among its variety of taxes. Our aim must be steadily to improve the system and make it more intelligible and more fair. I believe that the Bill will help in that process.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. Michael Alison: The Minister, in presenting and elucidating the Bill, has not sought to persuade the House that we are here dealing exactly with an epoch-making piece of legislation and reform. He said that it contains modest improvements in the rating system, and it certainly is a mouse rather than a mountain. But it contains some controversial proposals nevertheless, as well as some features that we positively welcome.
The first comment to which the Bill gives rise is a general one. It relates to what the Minister said about the Green Paper published in May 1977. That it has taken the Government nearly two years to produce this measure, containing so little of the expectations raised by the Green Paper, is an indication of the essential hesitancy and uncertainty of the Government in their general field of policy concerned with local government.
What has happened to the brave new world of changes and innovations outlined in the Green Paper—capital values for the purposes of rateable valuation; a unitary system of grant to replace rate support grant; greater freedom for local authorities in the matter of capital expenditure; a new audit system to advise local authorities, and the fruits of a general review of charging policy? All these are in the Green Paper. Why is there nothing about them in the Bill? Why has the Minister not even referred to these fundamentally innovating proposals that were discussed and considered in the Green Paper?
As for capital valuation, perhaps the Government have recognised that the volatility and changeability of house prices would inject greater uncertainty and controversy into rating valuations than under the present system. Or perhaps the absence of these proposals from the Bill before us is evidence of a certain lack of political enthusiasm on the part of the Minister's colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party for capital valuations. At any rate, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will say in reply whether this omission betokens the long-term abandonment of the Government's support for capital values—we really need to know about this—or whether this omission is occasioned simply by the

187
difficulty of getting a majority for a change of this kind at present. It is of general public interest to know whether the Government have reneged on their support for capital valuations in the Green Paper.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that when answering an intervention of mine, the Minister appeared to imply that the Government were in favour of capital valuation, almost strongly in favour of it, but felt that they could not get it through the House? Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that this sort of rating taxation would probably be terribly damaging to the countryside and would further depopulate many areas where the Government wish to see an increase in growth rather than a decrease?
Mr. Alison: I am filled with a great many misgivings about the idea of capital valuations as the basis for valuing property, particularly domestic property, and I appreciate a great many of the points my hon. Friend makes about the impact that they are likely to have, but we are not responsible for legislating on this subject at present. It is of general public interest to know what the Government propose to do and whether they are simply dodging the issue because there is no majority for it, or whether it remains their long-term policy. After all, this is meant to be a Bill to implement the Green Paper. The Minister made some claim to merit in that direction.
There is something in the Bill concerning the rate support grant, but I was unable to find any reference to a unitary grant. Once again, will the Minister tell us whether he and his colleagues now believe that it is unworkable, or is it the case that such an innovation would again be unpalatable to some of the local government barons belonging to the Labour Party?
The Opposition very much regret that the Minister and his colleagues have been unable to include more in the Bill to increase the freedom of local authorities by relaxing detailed control on capital expenditure and by freeing local authorities from more of the irksome limitations imposed over the regulation of charges. The Under-Secretary, like his ministerial colleagues, must know of the definitive list of 1,250 separate ministerial controls
188
over local government which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), when Secretary of State, caused to be prepared in the Department before he left. Why is there nothing in the Bill to start sweeping away this jungle of irrelevant controls if the Minister really believes in strengthening local government?
We also regret that it has not been possible to work towards establishing an audit system which would assist local authorities in the improvement of efficiency. With the very necessary review of output and manning levels in local government, which we understand from the Prime Minister is to form part of the study of pay comparisons by the Clegg Commission, this efficiency audit—if the Government had done something about it in the Bill—would have been welcomed not only on the Opposition Benches but in local authorities generally, especially where Conservative-controlled councils in particular are anxious to reduce waste. But, again, there is nothing about it in the Bill, although the Green Paper featured it.
In a defensive way, the Minister anticipated some reference to the burden of rate increases, which, in spite of the help which parts of the Bill might give to some ratepayers in some circumstances in the future, is bound to fall heavily on all categories of ratepayers in 1979–80. Therefore, I rise to the bait dangled in front of me. I simply ask the Minister to answer specifically this simple question. When will DOE circular No. 6/79—the definitive 1979–80 rate support grant circular sent to all local authorities in a typescript version, dated 5 January 1979—be withdrawn and replaced by another one?
The current circular, No. 6/79, states, amongst other things, that the Government's policy in relation to this year's settlement
" is compatible with the national average domestic rate increase remaining in single figures.… It is assumed that settlements in this round will be in accordance with the Government's pay policy as set out in Cmnd. 7293."
That Command Paper is the 5 per cent. pay policy Command Paper.
That is the current official guidance given to local government. When will the Government withdraw that circular and replace it by another? The proposition that rates will be left in single

189
figures and that rate settlements will be in accordance with the 5 per cent. pay policy have been left as high and dry as Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat and just as out of date. When will Ministers face the facts on likely rate increases and give advice and guidance accordingly? This is what we want to know. It is the advice and guidance which local authorities need.
The Minister, in presenting the Bill, said that expenditure was not likely to go up except in a few highly publicised, specific and special individual cases. Let me remind the Under-Secretary, who, I hope, will comment on this matter, what the Secretary of State for the Environment said in the House on 14 December. Referring to the current settlement, he said:
" The settlement provides for local authority expenditure to grow…Certainly the period of national manpower cuts in local government is over."—[Official Report, 14 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 1053.]
That was not referring to a few individual local authorities.
The Secretary of State said that local authority expenditure would grow and that he expected manpower cuts to be reversed. Can this still represent official thinking? The Association of District Councils estimates—I am happy to go along with what the Minister said—that rate increases in 1979–80 will range from 7 per cent. to as high as 35 per cent., averaging out at about 18 per cent. That is double the highest figure envisaged by Ministers and, therefore, double the figure envisaged in the current circular guiding local authorities on their policy for the future. That circular must be withdrawn and a new one issued. I hope that the Minister will say when that is to happen. This is the guidance on which local authorities are making their rates. It contains a figure for cash limits on an entirely unrealistic basis. If local authorities are to make realistic rates this year, they must have realistic guidance from the Government.
I want to look briefly—the Minister himself was commendably brief—at one or two provisions of the Bill. I do not intend to refer to every clause. Much of the Bill is to be welcomed, but some clauses give us cause for great concern. I understand that it is the Government's intention in clause 1 to alter the basis of valuation of non-domestic property from gross to net annual value. It is not clear
190
what the effect will be on the relative incidence of the rate burdens as between domestic and non-domestic property. Can the Under-Secretary give the House some indication of the effect on household rates of this new basis of valuation? Will he also explain why the change is being made only for non-domestic property, leaving domestic rates based on gross value, subject to statutory deductions? Would it not be simpler and more equitable to base all rateable values on net rental values?
Clause 3 will be generally welcomed, not least on this side of the House, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor). We have been committed for a long time to the extension of domestic rate relief to a larger number of people living in mixed hereditaments, such as shopkeepers and others living at their places of business. The 1975 Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South even anticipated Layfield, let alone the Green Paper. He tried in that Bill to achieve exactly that.
Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman has heaped a torrent of questions on Ministers about the Bill and the continuation of the rating system. He has so far neatly avoided the questions my hon. Friend put to him in opening the debate concerning the Opposition's view of the rating system. Will he now say whether the Conservative Party has abandoned its apparent commitment at the last general election to the abolition of the rating system?
Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman really wants me, at five minutes to 11, to enter into a disquisition on the Tory Party's proposals for rating reform. I shall seriously consider it, but I do not think that my hon. Friends would be particularly pleased. There will be an election before long, and we shall be happy to put our proposals before the electors. That might be more satisfactory, so that they can evaluate what they think is worth while. This, however, is a Government Bill.
Can the Minister say whether the extensions proposed in clause 3 will cover virtually all those living in mixed hereditaments and how many people will still not benefit? Will he also deal with an alleged administrative difficulty, which is

191
that local authorities will now have to handle five, rather than three, different poundages? I take it from the explanatory and financial memorandum that the implications for local government staffing will be neutral, because there will not be any extra staffing.
We also welcome clause 4, which extends to all ratepayers the right to pay rates by instalments. This again has been Conservative policy since 1975 and featured in the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South. Labour Members will no doubt recall why those proposals failed to make progress and recognise why we have had to wait until 1979 for the Government to do anything about them. The Government are catching up slowly, and it is probably only because an election is coming that they have bothered to do anything.
Clause 6 gives the Secretary of State power to alter by order the amount of a rate increase due to a new valuation which may be withheld by the ratepayer. At present, the ratepayer can withhold half the increase pending the result of an appeal. The proposed change is open to criticism because revaluations are infrequent, particularly under Labour Governments—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) made this dramatically clear in his reference to the total absence of revaluations under Labour Governments—and cause shifts in rateable values and rates payable which can be dramatic. Without the protection of withholding half the increase, some ratepayers could be seriously embarrassed. We shall want to put the Minister through his paces on this in Committee.
I have received representations from the Rating and Valuation Association and others that clause 7 will substantially reduce the rights of ratepayers. It effectively restricts the right of appeal against rating assessments to appeals made within 12 months of the introduction of a new valuation list. This provision would, for example, deny a new tenant or purchaser of a building the right to appeal against the rating assessment of a building that he takes over where the previous occupier may not have been aware or concerned that the rating assessment was incorrect.
192
Why do the Government think that ratepayers' rights should be summarily eroded in this way? Mutuality does not apply. For example, the authorites will be able to make proposals under the relevant section—section 69, I think—of the Local Government Act 1967, long after the 12 months have expired. Only the ratepayer will lose rights here. We shall want to do something about that in Committee.
Unamended, the clause could lead to a considerable increase in the number of appeals arising in the first 12 months. Far from reducing the administrative burden of appeals, it could aggravate them by concentrating appeals in a limited period. This could lead to delays in dealing with appeals and to a backlog of cases. Indeed, we are still dealing with some of the appeals under the 1973 revaluation, even without a cut-off period. How can the Government argue that this measure will ease the work load of valuation departments if everything is crammed into 12 months?
Clause 8 is related to clause 7 in that, where an appeal is made against an assessment, the ratepayer may be required to substantiate the grounds of appeal before the case is heard by the local valuation court. That is unnecessary. Local valuation courts have power to dismiss appeals. That provision is merely an additional obstacle to the ratepayer. At first sight it appears to be yet another erosion of the position of the ratepayer, and we shall want to study that carefully in Committee.
We are also concerned about clause 9, which likewise seems to erode the rights of ratepayers. It provides for the abolition of an unrestricted right of appeal from a local valuation court to the Lands Tribunal. That is not likely to encourage ratepayers in the belief that justice at least is being seen to be done. A small degree of administrative convenience is being gained at the expense of the rights of individual ratepayers. The saving is minimal. As the Layfield committee showed, between April 1973 and August 1975 there were only 373 appeals to the Lands Tribunal, compared with over 1 million ratepapers' appeals to local valuation courts and over 20 million rating assessments. The Lands Tribunal case load is trivial, and there is nothing

193
wrong in keeping it going. Again, we shall want to look at that carefully in Committee.
We are worried by clause 10, which removes the exemption, which was granted in the Conservative Government's Local Government Act 1974, from interim increases in valuations where the ratepayer has made some improvements to his home, such as installing central heating. That provision will not reduce the work load of valuation offices and will be seen by ratepayers as a petty and spiteful attempt to penalise them for home improvements.
Clause 11 places a duty on rating authorities to recover rates from the owner rather than the tenant of a property in certain circumstance. The AMA has argued that that should be a power available to authorities rather than a duty. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why that should be mandatory on councils.
Clause 17 extends the end of the period during which a precepting authority, principally a county council, can make a supplementary precept on the rating authorities from September to December. The professionals believe that that could cause administrative difficulties for district councils. The ADC wishes to see the clause deleted from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that clause is essential. We shall certainly want to look at that in Committee.
Clauses 19 to 21 make new provisions for the adjustment of the resources element in the rate support grant. Clause 19 empowers the Secretary of State to vary the amount prescribed each year as the national standard rateable value per head, in order to adjust the distribution of resources element of RSG as an alternative to clawing back a set percentage of resources element from all authorities where there has been overpayment. The Centre for Environmental Studies has carried out a detailed study into the problem of the resources element of RSG. It argues that the position could be improved without recourse to legislation. Will the Minister explain why he requires additional powers and what administrative options might have been open to him as an alternative?
Clause 22 deals with the reimbursement to local authorities of rebates granted under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act
194
1978. The Bill proposes that 90 per cent. of rebates granted should be reimbursed by central Government. The AMA argues that the Government should meet 100 per cent. of these rebates. Will the Minister perhaps reconsider the 90 per cent. instead of the full 100 per cent., having created the precedent for gipsy camp sites? Why should rebates granted for the disabled not qualify for the 100 per cent. grant?
In addition, the ADC has pointed out that rating authorities which give charitable relief are reimbursed indirectly through the resources element of rate support grant. It argues that grant-aid for charitable relief should be paid on the same basis as that for the disabled, and it cites the example of Cambridge, which is a district with a large number of charities. It receives no resources element. The ADC argues that clause 22 should therefore be extended to give grants in respect of rating relief to charities. That is a fair argument, and I hope that the Minister will at least consider the possibility, if not now, in Committee.
We imagine that clause 25 will be deleted. Will the Minister confirm that?
Clause 26 removes the restriction on certain fees chargeable by local authorities. The issue is whether the clause goes far enough and whether, and to what extent, the Government propose to undertake the general review of charges as proposed by Layfield and accepted in the Green Paper on local government finance. The Government have so far taken only a tiny step.
The failure to relax more of the controls on charges is only one of a number of omissions from the Bill. The apparent abandonment of capital values leaves rates virtually unchanged. The Bill also lacks any comprehensive attempt to reform the grants, to relax control over capital expenditure or to prepare for an efficency audit. Although the Bill contains much that is welcome, it leaves a great deal undone, and the major reform of local government finance, presaged by Layfield and promised in the Government's Green Paper, remains largely unfulfilled.
We are seriously concerned about the proposals that erode the rights of ratepayers, and, while we do not propose to divide the House on this issue, we

195
shall certainly want to propose amendments to them in Committee.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Stan Crowther: I agree with the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and with my hon. Friend the Minister. This is an extremely modest Bill. Its proposals ought to be welcomed, but it could have gone a lot further. I greatly regret that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the basic unfairness of the way in which the rating system operates.
My hon. Friend was understating the case when he said that rates are not a popular tax. They are probably the most unpopular tax of all, even more unpopular than income tax. While a great deal of this is due to the artificial heat generated by ratepayers' associations and many newspapers, that does not hide the general resentment at the fact that rates do not reflect either the consumption of services, which would be almost impossible to achieve anyway, or the ability to pay.
I appreciate that there is a means-tested rebate system, but even that, in a sense, exacerbates the injustice by concentrating it within the band of those who do not get the rebates. It is some time since the Layfield report was published. It is even longer since the previous Conservative Government produced their Green Paper on local government finance, which came out in about 1971 or 1972. Unless my memory is at fault, both of them concluded that while there was no feasible alternative to the rating system, it nevertheless needed to be greatly refined.
I welcome the Bill in that it seeks to eliminate a number of fairly minor anomalies, but it does not refine the system as many think it should be refined. I am not suggesting that there should be a local income tax to replace the rating system, but surely it is not impossible to devise a system under which a household containing only one wage-earning adult does not pay as much in rates as a household living in similar premises but with three, four or even five wage-earning adults. That factor causes the greatest resentment against the rating system. I do not know whether we shall ever tackle this problem. We have been discussing
196
it for years. Every hon. Member knows that this is one of the most common complaints we get. Neither this Government nor the previous one—and no Government before that—have been prepared to tackle this basic problem.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he would like to see a form of rating which would reflect the use of local facilities and the number of earners in a household. In the breath before that statement, however, he said that he turned down the proposal for a local income tax. Is not a local income tax system the only system which would reflect the sort of proposals that he has put to the House?
Mr. Crowther: I did not say that I would wish to see a system which reflected the use of services, because I do not think that that is feasible. I am not in favour of a local income tax because it would not reflect the need of local authorities for resources. It would result in the authorities with the highest levels of income in their areas receiving the highest level of resources. That, in an area such as I represent in South Yorkshire, which is a low-wage area, would not solve any problems.
I am worried about the resentment among many ratepayers at the fact that a family with four or five wage-earning adults pays the same rates as the family in the house next door where there is one adult earner. That is a basic cause of resentment about the system.
I am disappointed also at another omission from the Bill. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken to abolish, or to modify, the principle of ultra vires, which makes it impossible for local authorities to engage in most forms of commercial activity. I have never understood why profit-making should be regarded as inappropriate for the ratepayers. I think that it would be very sensible if the rate fund were to gain from commercial enterprise. Long ago, the old Association of Municipal Corporations, when it was making its representations to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, recommended the abolition of ultra vires.
Nothing was done about it, unfortunately, and it seems particularly illogical nowadays that local authorities can make profits from gambling, while they

197
are not allowed to engage in responsible commercial operations such as retail trading, the provision of architectural services, building contract work or property repairing. There are many ways in which local authorities could reduce the rate burden if they were allowed to enter into commercial activities. It seems a great pity that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill—as it was not taken in all previous local government finance Bills—to allow local authorities to do this kind of work.
Having described two ommissions from the Bill which have caused me disappointment, I think that the things which are in the Bill are sensible. The Bill ties up loose ends and does away with a lot of anomalies, and, despite what the hon. Member for Barkston Ash said, I hope that it will get an easy passage through the House.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Jones: I have recognised the general purposes of the Bill, which are to tidy up a variety of questions of rating, to bring about the more effective collection of rates, to aid the recovery of rate arrears and to assist ratepayers in need. I warmly welcome these adjustments, which will, perhaps, make the rating system more effective.
I address myself to those clauses in the Bill under the heading of"Alterations of valuation lists "—that is, clauses 6 to 10. Clause 7, I regret, denies to a ratepayer the centuries-old right of appeal against an assessment. That places as unfair limitation on the rights of a ratepayer. The Minister says that the purpose is to streamline rating and to do away with the large number of appeals, but this may not be the outcome.
I understand that under clause 7(7) any appeal against the value ascribed in the valuation list must be made within 12 months. Some of the defects of that provision have been described effectively by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
The Association of District Councils states:
" The Association is not happy with the proposal to restrict the rights of ratepayers to appeal against the values in the new list. While one year may be a reasonable time
198
for the large commercial or industrial ratepayer, who usually has professional advice, there may be circumstances which prevent the small shopkeeper or private occupier from appealing. Unrestricted rights of appeal are not necessarily the answer, but we think a reasonable compromise would be a two-year period."
I am not sure that I subscribe to the latter part of that statement. I do not see any severe disadvantages in leaving the system as it is. There is to be no right of appeal similar to those which the public have enjoyed throughout the courts or the Lands Tribunal. That is unfortunate.
Press notice No. 51 from the Department of the Environment issued on 6 February stated:
" A provision of this kind…was recommended by the Layfield Committee on Local Government Finance (Cmnd. 6453, page 176) as necessary, to discourage the volume of appeals based on invalid grounds, to enable regular five-yearly revaluation to be carried out by the Valuation Office of Inland Revenue."
But those revaluations have not taken place. The Minister is paying lip service to the fact that we must make administrative economies to allow the Inland Revenue to carry out the revaluation. The Minister recognises past errors. Let us hope that lessons have been learnt.
Mr. Alison: There has been a 10-year gap.
Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. The late Richard Crossman said in his memoirs that a political decision led to his deciding to recommend to his colleagues in the Cabinet that we should not have a particular valuation. But no revaluation has taken place under a Socialist Administration in the post-war years. The Conservative Party has been in trouble about revaluation. Ministers nod about that, but if one argues that the rating system needs a revaluation it is up to the Government of the day to institute it. It is wrong for Ministers to make the plea that they have made.
I am told that there has been as long a gap as 10 years between one valuation and the next. Is it reasonable for someone not to lodge an appeal when perhaps he has to wait so long before a mistake or a misjudgment can be corrected? I am reliably informed that no less than 1 million appeals have been lodged as a result of the revaluation list. It is a fantastic

199
figure. Many were settled between valuers, but about 1,000 have gone to the Lands Tribunal, which bears only about 120 cases each year, 40 per cent. of which have been successful.
That really is not a tremendous burden for the Lands Tribunal to carry. I cannot see the validity of this recommendation. As I understand it, it is to save administrative and staff problems, perhaps, in the department. But it will deny the general public and the individual a right that they have had for very many years. I consider that to be the wrong approach. The fact that there has to be this 12-month limit will mean that more or less everyone who is in any doubt about his rateable valuation will put in protection proposals against the revaluation figure. He will say"I will put in a protection, then I can think about it or get a valuer to look into it for me later on." A significant number of protection proposals will be made when revaluation is done.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: Am I right in assuming that, by and large, big business automatically objects to the rates? A good percentage of the 1 million appeals are lodged not by the domestic ratepayer but by big business. In Birmingham a few years ago, it was discovered that millions of pounds were owed to the city simply because certain firms had decided to appeal. It was said that it was done as a matter of company policy. Have I got it wrong?
Mr. Jones: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman has got in right. This situation is a reflection on the whole method by which rating assessments are calculated.
In my experience—I am interested in rating and valuation professionally—almost invariably, if one challenges a rating valuation, whether it be a large property or, say, a shop, one can get something off it. It is a question of judging whether it is worth going to the expense of instructing a valuer to try to get a few pounds, or a few hundreds, or, in the case of a large assessment, such as that for a factory, a larger figure, especially when one realises that that concession will last until the next revaluation. It can come to a very significant sum of money. It is a judgment which individuals make as to whether it is worth lodging an appeal, having
200
the valuation done and having one's own private valuer to put his view against the Inland Revenue assessment.
We shall see these lodgments against assessments by anybody who has an assessment of any significant size, but we shall still have the situation in which the domestic ratepayer probably will not lodge an appeal. It is the domestic ratepayer with a grievance who will lose out. The big people will not lose out, because they will put in their appeals as a matter of form. That will not save work in the Inland Revenue. It is the small man with the domestic hereditament who is being penalised by the withdrawal of the right of appeal to the courts and the Lands Tribunal. That is really the burden of my complaint, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to elaborate my ideas. The penalty will lie against the individual domestic hereditament—the individual rather than the business, commercial and industrial ratepayer.
I recognise the difficulties in long-term planning of rating in view of the declared policy of the Conservative Party with regard to domestic rating. I had hoped that we would hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) what the Opposition's proposals were in this respect. We should all very much like to hear what is proposed. But not today, apparently.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is not even a candidate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is in very expansive mood. Will he give those of us on the Opposition Back Benches, and perhaps those on the Government side, too, his ideas on how he would like to see the rating system modified? Perhaps he would take up the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about a local income tax which would ensure that all earning people within a particular house made a contribution to the funding of local facilities.
Mr. Jones: I am tempted to do that. I have given a great deal of thought to the whole problem, but, as is generally known, my influence in this place is on the wane. [HON. MEMBERS:"Shame."] I shall not be here to make an effective contribution to those discussions, so I shall resist the temptation.

201
Ways and means should be found of making economies other than a denial of fair and reasonable appeal procedures. It would be interesting to hear what may be proposed as possible in this regard, particularly in the use of computer aids. I should have thought that this was a matter in which computerised aids could be effectively used for rate collection and the monitoring of rating valuations. I have no idea whether that has been considered or examined—indeed, as far as I know, it may be operative—but I should have thought that the Goverment would be addressing themselves to administrative economies there rather than to what amounts to penalising the ratepayer, and particularly the domestic ratepayer, by these four clauses in the Bill.
My submission is that the rights of the individual must not, in the circumstances to which I have referred, be sacrificed to administrative convenience.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sorry for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who is waiting for his Adjournment debate, but I wish to detain the House for about 10 minutes, and I hope that he will forgive me.
I shall state at the outset what I think the Government should have done after Layfield. They should have accepted one of the Layfield recommendations—that is, to institute a local income tax. They should not have been put off by the red herring that is always trailed across these matters by the Inland Revenue, that it would would take another 12,000 civil servants to implement it. What would happen to the various valuation departments of the Inland Revenue if the present rating system were to be taken from them? Surely, they could be transferred to implementing a local income tax. We had just the same thing over the 12,000-plus to administer the Community Land Act, which, thank goodness, has never taken up to anything like that number. I think that that was probably the paramount consideration in the Government's mind in deciding not to take up the suggestion.
I put on record straight away that my party goes along with the suggestion for a local income tax. I accept that it would probably not be sufficient to raise
202
enough revenue, and Layfield recommended also that there should be a rate based on capital values. I put it to the Goverment, as I put it to the Secretary of State when he asked me, that capital value rating is not a very good system. Although at one time when I used to practise in valuation courts I supported the idea, I changed my mind in the 1970s due to the enormous ups and downs—the yo-yo fluctuations—in capital values.
One has only to look at the rise between 1971 and 1972, and again between last year and now, when some properties rose perhaps to figures of £100,000 or so and then dropped to £40,000 or £50,000. How on earth would the Government be able to bring in a Bill of this sort, which gives one year to make an objection, and say"Because your value has dropped by £40,000 or £50,000, you cannot make any objection for another four years "? That would be ludicrous. I do not think that could happen. I accept that Layfield said that it should be done between bands and that there should be a divisor. Nevertheless, rents rise more evenly. Agricultural rents are a typical example of continuity.
I know that at present there is very little evidence with regard to unfurnished property. If only the Government had the guts to bring in a review of the Rent Acts, we might get some evidence on which to base our judgment. That would be a much more sensible basis on which to work. If the Government are not prepared to introduce a local income tax, a system based on rental values is the next best thing.
I believe that the Government should direct their attention towards some form of site value rating. I am not entirely sold on this idea, as are many members of my party, and I accept that Layfield refused to look at this because it considered this matter in the context of the Community Land Act and felt that any form of profit out of land values in the future would disappear. It was, after all, intended that development values would be taken away over a 10-year period. But that will not happen, and land transactions will still take place. A site value tax could, therefore, be introduced.
In the first instance, I would restrict this to development land. I have made this point time and time again. I do not

203
know why we need a DLT and the Community Land Act when we could put a site value tax on land which carries planning permission immediately it gets that consent, provided that it has all the facilities to go with it. That money would go straight into local government and would be a good, added source of revenue. It would also fulfil the idea of"positive planning"which was favoured by the now Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was Minister for Planning and Local Government. Of course, on the Isle of Wight we would also have a landing tax, which would just about do us.
I commend the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) on the speech that he made. About 400 of my constituents, including the former Conservative mayor of Newport, crowded into a room last Monday, wanting to know what we would do about changing the rating system. They want nothing more to do with the present system. We have had no answer from the Conservative Front Bench this evening. The hon. Member for Daventry also had the courage to make that point and said that he would be interested to know.
The public are entitled to know what the Conservative Opposition would put in place of the present system, particularly if during the next election—as happened during the last one—they issue posters stating that they will reform the rating system and do away with domestic rating. We are entitled to have some honesty on this subject.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is expecting honesty on this subject—
Mr. Ross: Yes.
Mr. Alison: —but he cannot accuse us of dishonesty if he is complaining that we have said nothing at all. I hope that he will withdraw the imputation of dishonesty. It may be that we shall be prepared to make a statement before very long, and he ought to wait and see—a good Liberal principle.
Mr. Ross: I concede that we shall be delighted to wait and see. I hope that it happens before the next election, because it is fair to say that the October 1974 election campaign was pretty unfair—I withdraw the word"dishonest "—because it gave the impression that the Conservative
204
Party would do away with the domestic rating system.
Another point that is constantly put to me is that Southern Ireland has done away with its rating system. There is a much more centralised administration in Southern Ireland, but it is noticeable that about 50,000 Southern Irish citizens recently marched through Dublin in favour of changing the taxation system. Therefore, we can move from one corner into another. We must be fair and honest with our constituents and point out that all systems have a measure of unfairness, and it is up to us to try to get it as right as we possibly can.
I welcome clause 3 of the Bill, which makes a minor increase in the relief available to small commercial premises with limited accommodation. Incidentally, it will help me because I have a garage which is separately assessed. However, I fear that this does not go far enough. It is my view that due to the present very high rates of interest on overdrafts and mortgages, coupled with the disastrous effects of the recent strikes, in particular the transport strike, many small shopkeepers and light industrial units are facing bankruptcy. Indeed, one small company in my constituency lost about £38,000 due to that strike. One went bankrupt only at the end of last week in the town where I live. I must declare an interest as a small shopkeeper. I own a china shop.
Therefore, some measure of derating—or, at the very least, an entirely separate rate rebate, be it of only limited duration, perhaps for two or three years—is urgently necessary. It could be linked to the amount of the gross or net annual value and, for argument's sake, be applied to property of, let us say, less than £1,500 net annual value—perhaps a little higher in London. With many small shopkeepers and light industrialists facing rent increases of the order of 30 per cent.—in my constituency people are facing rent increases of over 25 per cent.—more urgent help is called for.
I ask the Government to give serious attention to this point. If it is the Government's intention to assist the smaller concern—I think both sides of the House are agreed on that—on which so much of the nation's future well-being depends for the creation of wealth and for employment, in industry and in the services, this is surely one way in which we can be

205
of positive help. I should therefore like to see clause 3 substantially widened in its application.
Clause 10 is a niggle and is unacceptable to me. Why should anyone who improves his property by installing central heating or a bathroom immediately be penalised in this way? The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) will agree that this is another bone of contention for everybody concerned. If quinquennial revisions were not continually postponed, there would be no need for this provision. I would welcome a legally binding directive from the Government that the Inland Revenue should carry out the quinquennial review, if we must carry on with the present system. As the Association of Local Councils rightly points out in its brief to hon. Members, this is one of those provisions which cause greater resentment to the prudent occupier.
Clause 17, which deals with the supplementary precepts, strikes me as highly inflammable, particularly at a time when there is a growing rate revolt in many parts of the country. It is a matter which the House will have to face. It will be 1974 all over again. Indeed, I think that it will be a good deal worse. Even to talk of a possible further precept in the coming financial year is dynamite, and the Government would be wise to drop it. There is no way—I repeat"no way "—in which local authorities should be obliged to make a further demand of their ratepayers.
If the Secretary of State, who has played a leading role in the recent wage awards, intends to pass even some of the increase on to local councils, and in turn to ratepayers, it will lead to a very serious situation in the country. Most authorities have absolutely nothing left in their balances and will therefore be forced to make a further precept. The Isle of Wight county council has warned that, if any of the wage award is passed on, it will have to come back next August and make a further precept.
I ask that a statement be made as quickly as possible to allay the fears of authorities and ratepayers. Central Government, and indirectly the taxpayer, will have to pick up the bill. The necessary economies will have to be made, preferably among staffing levels in the upper
206
tiers of management. The issue will have to be faced by the House and by one Government or another.
Clauses 19 to 21 appear to be helpful and, therefore, they are to be welcomed. Clause 23 seems to avoid what is required. I have pleaded before for a national disaster fund. Many authorities will not spend up to the product of a penny rate when there is a local disaster, while others have to spend sums vastly in excess of such a rate. I hope that in Committee questions will be asked about EEC funds for this purpose. Why is it that we can never get any of that for local authorities when disasters occur such as those at Torcross and Portland, to name but two of recent memory?
I regret the omission from the Bill of two important matters that have been highlighted in the brief from the Association of Local Councils. The brief states that the Bill
" makes no attempt to deal at all with those two financial issues which concern all 8,000 parish, town and community councils…and which were the principal subjects of the Association's written and oral evidence to the Lay-field Inquiry into Local Government Finance and of the Association's discussions with…the Under-Secretary of State, during the consultations on the Layfield Report.
These issues were (a) the payment over to local councils of that portion of the rate support grant which is received by districts councils because of the precepts issued to the districts by the local council; (b) the need to ensure that when a district council is carrying out in part of its area a function which elsewhere in the area is discharged by any local council, the cost should be specially charged by the district council on the area for which the function is being discharged and should not be charged equally throughout the district "
I am referring to cemeteries, for example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have supported the association's contention. In a note to me, my hon. Friend says:
" What this means in practice can be seen in my constituency. One district pays over the rate support grant amount to the parishes, but the other does not."
He takes the example of Wooler in his constituency. He states:
" If we levy a 2p rate, they raise £3,000 and should in theory get rate support grant ".
He observes that that would be an addition of about £1,800. He says that in fact the district council
" pockets the lot "

207
and
" uses it to maintain the same facilities—eg., cemeteries and public halls—in the town of Berwick, which does not have a parish council and in which no local precept is raised! In fact, the district council would prefer all the parish councils to pack up and go home and leave them to run the district undisturbed."
I am firmly in agreement with my hon. Friend when he writes:
" I am strongly opposed to this attitude, as are many people in the villages, but the present RSG arrangements offer a financial inducement to the parishes to hand over all their duties to the district! "
A similar situation applies in the parish of Bembridge in my constituency, and no doubt it applies elsewhere. I made representations to the Under-Secretary of State only a month ago. I regret that the opportunity has not been taken to put the matter beyond doubt. The present permissiveness is unsatisfactory and should be dealt with by the Bill.
If we really mean to give power to those at local level—I hope that we do, and, by God, we should—we should give them the chance, for example, to decide where to place their double yellow lines in the smaller towns and to make decisions on many other purely local matters. I hope that the Government will think again. If some suitable amendments are tabled in Committee to correct the injustice, I hope that the Government will consider them favourably.
Finally, could not the Bill be used to change the law that applies to vacant listed buildings, which for some reason are specifically exempted from discretion under the 1967 Act? That provision may have been well meant when it was drafted, but in my view it is wrongly conceived and allows the owners of such buildings to avoid paying rates and to leave the properties until they are on the point of falling down. I should love to take the Minister to a property in my constituency that has been empty for 25 years. These listed buildings are part of our priceless heritage. Let us rate them and get them repaired before it is too late.
11.44 p.m.
Mr. R. B. Cant: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for delaying his Adjournment debate. There are one or two aspects of
208
the Bill on which I should comment. I do not know to what extent I am qualified to do so. This is my twenty-sixth year as a member of a local authority, but I have always taken the precaution of being on spending committees and not on the finance committee. Therefore, that is somewhat of a closed book to me.
I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) concerning valuation, especially in relation to valuation courts and the possible threat to democracy. In my early local government days I was a member of a valuation panel. I came to view this as the grass roots of the local government democratic system. There were four or five councillors or others on the panel. People would come to the panel. If we were in any doubt about whether a cottage or other property was overvalued or undervalued, we would go into the country and have a look at it. It used to take a lot of time, but we felt that we were performing a democratic service. That opportunity may be lost if the clause in question is passed. I do not think that drawing parallels between these valuation panels and the Lands Tribunal is valuable. We shall have to see what happens.
Contributions have been made by hon. Members on both sides about the rating system. I am an absolutely unrepentant supporter of the rating system. I know, as the Minister said when eloquently introducing the Bill, that many people have tried to follow the will-o'-the-wisp of an alternative and painless system of local government finance. I do not want to develop that theme. One of the great virtues of the rating system is that it makes local government local in the sense that it keeps councillors on their toes. If we were to take refuge in income tax or any other system in which revenue was lost in the general maw of public finance, I am sure that the local councillors would look to future elections and consider councils' expenditure in perhaps a slightly more light-hearted fashion. There is nothing in local government which so concentrates the minds of local councillors as fixing the rates. This democratic system should remain. As a practical man, I have always believed that it would be difficult to find an alternative tax that would raise the large sums involved.

209
Although this is a Second Reading debate, I do not wish to make a Second Reading contribution by discussing the matter in terms of general principle. I support the rate support grant. The Government's contribution to the reform of local government has been limited. However, they might have tried to do a little more than they are doing in the Bill.
It is wholly delightful that whenever the humblest member of a council nowadays talks about grants and the rate support grant, he refers to multiple analysis, clawback, the damping effect and other highly technical terms which he uses on public platforms and at the hustings. Most people will agree that the end product of this esoteric exercise is not wholly satisfactory.
I cannot help but feel that in the county council of which I am a member—Staffordshire—one cannot get a satisfactory basis for rate support grant distribution which does not take into account the number of schoolchildren. It is remarkable that where there is a shire county—they are very outmoded in these days and no one believes in them, apart from the reactionary people on the Opposition Benches—which has proportionately the second largest school population, it should do so badly when it comes to rate support grant. This is just one facet of the problem.
Another important matter which will have to be considered more seriously in the future is the way in which so many claims on local government funds at the disposal of the Department of the Environment are now being made that they are distorting the whole nature of the grant, both directly and indirectly. There is a new policy relating to the re-vitalisation of inner city centres, areas of deprivation and so on. However indirect the effect of the financing of this policy, the impact on local government grants and finance can be quite serious, especially if one lives in an area which, although it includes cities, which are in many cases deprived, finds that there is nothing doing for it in financial terms because it does not fit anywhere into the fancy terminology or nomenclature of partnerships and so on.
210
There is another quite serious problem of deprivation which is related, in a sense, to land reclamation. I refer to land which is made derelict because of industrial development, coupled with mining subsidence. Whereas one might be able to change part of the Shelton steelworks site, which is being closed down, into a very nice landscape with a 100 per cent. grant, it is quite impossible to persuade the Department of the Environment, because of all the other pressures, to give any special grant to help with the reclamation of the area for industrial purposes, because this does not come within the definition of dereliction. Life is becoming more complicated for the DOE, and I am not sure how far the rate support grant fits into this.
In times such as these, the rate support grant suffers very greatly from the problem of uncertainty. It is quite incredible, serving on a local council and watching those who have the job of fixing the rate—as distinct from the people who sit on the education committee or deal with planning and development—to see the difficulties with which they are faced in knowing exactly what sort of rate to levy. In normal times it is bad enough, but currently, with cash limits—which might or might not be exploded, depending on how one interprets the Chief Secretary's remarks at various dinners—one has to make some sort of judgment on these issues.
I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) say that there is not one solution to this problem, in Tory terms. The solution is that one builds up what I would regard as quite irresponsible balances to meet every possible contingency, and one does this cynically two years prior to the next county council election. However, I shall not pursue that point.
It is very difficult to try to be realistic in fixing a rate and saying"We shall do what the Government ask us and allow 8 per cent. for inflation and 1 per cent. for growth ", knowing all the time that all these good intentions that are being eroded by the movements taking place in prices and, for some reason, increased staff and so on.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): Does my hon. Friend agree that last year,

211
when inflation was at 8 per cent., a great many treasurers calculated beforehand that it would be a lot more than 8 per cent.?
Mr. Cant: Yes. There is no doubt that what one might be losing on the swings this year one gained on the roundabouts last year. To a very large extent, the source of the balances held now by councils finds its origin in those circumstances.
I support the Bill. Like many hon. Members, I have my complaints. I do not think that the Bill goes far enough. However, as a general philosophical principle, I support it, because I am getting tired of politicians who come to the Dispatch Box and want to change the world and turn it upside down. A few moderate changes and some improvements, such as those outlined in the Bill, are what people want. It is time that we got a bit more settled down and stopped talking about wholesale reform of one kind or another.
I was saying to a senior official only the other day that what we need is not the reform of local government, and not what is taking place in many authorities in the way of new management schemes and heaven knows what, but merely a simple capacity on the part of local government staff to be courteous and to answer letters in less than two months.
11.58 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), because on many occasions I find myself in considerable agreement with much of what he says. His understanding of economics is to be respected. I know how much his service to Stoke-on-Trent and to Staffordshire is respected in the West Midlands.
My constituency is not very far from that which the hon. Gentleman serves. In coming to London every week, I pass the Shelton iron and steelworks, which is off the new Potteries D road. I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that it is extraordinary that the city of Stoke-on-Trent could get a huge grant from the Government to lay out the land for a recreation area now that the works has, sadly, come to the end of its useful life but that it can get little or no assistance
212
to provide alternative employment, which is what is required in the north of Staffordshire and the Potteries in particular.
The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate was valuable, perhaps particularly when he said that we want not dynamic or dramatic change but a touch on the tiller, perhaps, and a little moderate change here and there. I agree with him about that in most cases—but not quite so much tonight, because I believe that slightly more than a touch on the tiller is required for the rating system.
I go along with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) when he says that it should not be beyond the wit of politicians, of those who run local government and of those who run the Treasury to institute a system whereby all those who earn within a local authority area make some contribution to the funding of the facilities in the area. I do not know whether that means a combination of local income tax and the present rating system modified to suit a local income tax. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the Government to devise a system which is more fair than the present one. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) is nodding his head.
If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had received, as I did in 1974, nearly 2,000 individual representations from constituents—my constituency, with 85,000 or 86,000 electors, is larger than his—he would know that the importance of rates to people was well established with me, not just as a ratepayer but as a Member of Parliament seeking to represent the best interests of those in the area I serve. I believe that within a month or two hon. Members will be receiving very hot and numerous representations from their constituents, as I did in 1974.
It is unfortunate that this important debate is taking place so late at night. It is a pity that the Bill we were debating prior to this one is not being debated now and that this Second Reading debate did not come on in the major part of the day when the majority of hon. Members could have been present.
I fully endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on behalf of the Association of Local

213
Councils. I happen to be a vice-president of that body. The representations which it has made are very sound. It is a pity that the position of parish, town and local councils has not been more carefully regularised and established in the Bill. I know the injustice that they feel, and particularly the injustice felt by parish councils which are raising money from their areas, whereas money is not being raised in other areas which do not have a council. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight stated, the parish areas which are represented often pay twice for a service. This is a grave injustice. It undermines the whole purpose of parish and local councils. I hope that the Government will make some comment on this matter.
We have talked about the system of rating. I hope that the Minister will deal constructively with this matter in his speech in reply. The Minister's opening speech was spoilt by his snide remarks aimed at my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). At this moment, we are not in Government. The Socialist Party is. This debate is about the content of the Bill. It does not deal with what we propose when we take office shortly. I shall press my party to introduce reform of the domestic rating system. I believe that it is long overdue.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central referred to the allocation of the rate support grant. He drew attention, rightly, to some of the problems that the area he represents so well is experiencing under the present allocation. He denigrated slightly the shire counties. For about six years I was a county councillor in a shire county, although it was not the county in which I now have the honour to represent a constituency. The hon. Gentleman was a little unfair.
The hon. Gentleman spoke particularly about education and numbers of children, and the consequent problems of organising the needs of an area. Cheshire is one of the few areas that is actually growing, yet, under the rate support grant allocation of this Socialist Government, we have lost many millions of pounds, although we have to provide more school places and all the infrastructure associated with a new town. Part of the latter is separately funded, but part also has to be found by the county council. Perhaps the Minister will consider how Cheshire has suffered.
214
I admit that we have suffered this year less than several areas in Inner London, for example, where rates are due to rise—this applies to the area in London where I rent accommodation—by up to 50 per cent. How the Government will explain such a rise I do not know.
Mr. Cant Mr. Cant Why is it that Cheshire, which is one of the richest counties, nevertheless enjoys intermediate area status? Was there some political reason for that?
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right. The whole of Cheshire is an intermediate area, but that benefits the county only slightly.
Mr. Rooker: Would Cheshire give it up?
Mr. Winterton Mr. Winterton The amount of grant available to business to set up in an intermediate area is limited—much less than is available for full development area status such as applies to Merseyside and elsewhere. I agree that parts of Cheshire have low levels of unemployment. My own area has perhaps the lowest unemployment in the whole North-West, but that is because it is very progressive and relies heavily on smaller business. I have told the Government many times that the encouragement of smaller business could go a long way solving our unemployment problems. We also have efficient Conservative councils which spend the ratepayers' money—that which they have-very well.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked whether we would do without intermediate area assistance. If regional policy were changed, and if other areas gave up such assistance as well, so that we encouraged efficient industry rather than seeking to prop up inefficient industry, I should be prepared to see the system change. I am much more keen on long-term employment prospects than on short-term measures to sustain industries which, because of changes in demand, should gradually wind down and be replaced by others.
I also fully agree with what has been said about the disincentive of the Bill and present rating legislation when it comes to improving one's home. It seems stupid to give grants for home improvements and then to raise the valuation and thus the rates. If one installs central

215
heating or modern sanitary facilities, the rates should not rise. The valuation of property should be altered to allow such things to be done without detriment. We want to save property and not provide a disincentive.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the hon. Member agree that all that is happening is the restoration of the position that existed until the 1974 Act? Is he suggesting that there was a tremendous disincentive to people to improve their homes until 1974 and that the incentive has existed for only the past five years?
Mr. Winterton: No, I am not making that point at all. There is a disincentive in this, and there has been a disincentive for people to improve their homes. When they improve them, the valuation goes up and inevitably their rates go up. It has been said that people pay taxes in sorrow and rates in anger.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash has said, there are good points in the legislation. However, bearing in mind the promise that has been made in many reviews of local government and local government finance, it is extraordinary that more positive measures have not been brought forward to change the major injustice. I am confident that parts of the legislation will be heftily amended in Committee or struck out altogether. The Committee stage will be interesting, and I hope that representations made to its members will be more numerous than those this evening. It is an important debate which has been badly attended. It has come at too late an hour, and I hope that in future the Government will improve the order of their business.
12.11 a.m.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: If we accepted the Bill in the way that it was presented by the Under-Secretary, as domestic ratepayers we should all be rushing to declare interests, as the benefits would seem to be many and substantial. I am a director and shareholder of companies that will derive minor benefits, but the Bill does not seem to have found many friends since it was presented in such glowing terms. Clauses 3 and 4 have been well received, but many doubts have been expressed on others. It is perhaps the omissions from the Bill that have commanded the greatest attention. The
216
presentation is late for a Bill which is of great importance to every ratepayer. It would have commanded more attention earlier, and I hope that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be noted.
The hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) have commented on the omissions from the Bill. We seem to be promised an interesting Committee stage, and if new clauses are moved to cover all the points of omission it will also be lengthy.
It would be helpful if we could have the notes on clauses that the Department of the Environment normally produces in good time instead of at the last moment. Indeed, it would have been helpful if the notes on clauses had been available in the Library before Second Reading. I go further. The Bill inevitably refers to amendments to existing legislation. It could well have been more sensible and helpful to have had an amended text. That might have expedited our proceedings at this stage.
Clauses 7 and 8 place a restriction on the right to make a proposal to alter a valuation. They have found no friends and have been severely criticised from both sides of the House. They represent the contra-argument to the advantages of the rating system which were described by the Minister. If we have a tax which, as he says, is so easy to collect because it goes with the property, it follows that the only way to object to such a tax is to object to the assessment on the property. That means that any new owner must feel that he has the right to make such an objection. He does not know the circumstances which led the previous owner not to make such an objection, when it might seem to him an obvious one to make.
To take away that right seems totally unjustified. Every ratepayer expects to have it and would bitterly resent not being able to exercise it merely because he bought the property more than a year after a new assessment came into force. In any case, the proposal is fairly weak. It is said that it would still be possible to make an objection if there were significant changes in the environment of the hereditament. How is one to determine, other than by an appeal to a valuation court, whether there has been a significant

217
change in the environment? One might well find in practice that the proposal did not create a saving in the work of the valuation court and of the district valuers, as the Government seem to expect.
To remove this right of appeal without providing a cast-iron guarantee that there would be a revaluation every five years seems to be totally unreasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) has pointed out the unhappy circumstance that there has never been a revaluation when a Socialist Government have been in power. One might say that that is another good reason for not having Socialist Governments. Perhaps there is the slight risk of one being returned again before the century is out. We therefore run the risk as ratepayers of once more, for political reasons, having a revaluation deferred.
Mr. Stan Crowther: If the owner of a property fails within the 12 months allowed to apply for revaluation and he sells it, is he not asking for trouble? Is he not devaluing the property by permitting the rateable value to remain at a higher level than that which should obtain? The purchaser knows what the rateable value is when he decides whether to buy the property.
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has a reasonable point, but he entirely overlooks the individual circumstances of the ratepayers. In my constituency there are many elderly ratepayers. Many of them, because they will want to avoid the trouble and expense of getting professional advice, or because they may not be in a position to get it, will not challenge their assessment. In those circumstances, it would be totally unreasonable if an elderly or dying ratepayer, by his own omission at the end of ownership, devalued the property which he was passing on to his successors or which was to be sold.
What happens if there is a successful challenge to an assessment which results in a significant reduction in the valuation of a hereditament and the neighbours living in substantially the same sort of property, with almost exactly the same valuation find that because they have not put in an appeal they are not able to change their valuation? There will be a row of identical properties, one with one valuation and the others with another.
218
that will give rise to a great deal of resentment and bitterness.
Enough time has been spent on clauses 7 and 8 about which we shall have much to say in Committee. Clause 10 concerns the variations of rating assessment as a result of minor alterations and improvements. I find this clause worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, in his commendably blunt way, said that it was stupid. The more moderate view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was that it was a niggle which would be resented by many householders.
The Government have presented clauses 7 and 8, which take away from ratepayers the right of appeal, because of the need to save manpower and because we must allow district valuers and the valuation courts to get on with the business of five-yearly revaluations. Socialist Governments in the past have been reluctant to bring this about. It is surprising that they should promptly put into clause 10 a lot of extra work for the district valuer who has to make minor adjustments to assessments as a result of modest improvements by ratepayers.
It is even more surprising when we look at the Local Government Act 1974, which the Bill proposes to alter, and see that on Report the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is now the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, far from disagreeing with this proposal, wanted to take it further. He said:
" The Government have accepted that argument—I am with them; I do not quarrel with them about it ".—[Official Report, 22 January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1602.]
He went on to move a new clause which would have taken the exemption further.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say whether his Minister of State is with him about clause 10 or whether he has had a remarkable change of heart. Perhaps he will be on the Committee, and perhaps we could hear what evidence the Department has which has not been revealed to us which has made him change his mind.
We welcome clause 18, and I welcome the campaign to encourage the take-up of rent rebates in the private rented sector. This would be valuable, particularly in areas such as the one that I represent, where there are large numbers of tenants in the private rented sector,

219
many of whom, for a variety of reasons, fail to take advantage of the rebate scheme. The Under-Secretary referred to it as a tax allowance. If it is a tax allowance, why does the cost of giving it fall upon the local authorities? Why does any part of the cost of administering it fall upon local authorities instead of being borne by the central Government, as with any tax allowance given in response to the circumstances of an individual taxpayer? That seems to be self-evident.
Clause 22, which appears to be helpful to local authorities, is directly contrary to an undertaking given to me by the Under-Secretary in last year's debate. He said that this was a non-contentious, technical clause which had the full support of the local authority assocations. I fear that in Committee he may find that it is not non-contentious and that it does not command as much support as he suggests.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will recall that he gave me an unqualified assurance about the Rating (Disabled Persons) Bill. He said:
" On the general issue, however, I give the House again the absolute assurance that the Bill does not involve a significant Exchequer contribution and, further, that local authorities such as Hove, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, have no reason to fear that there will be an increased burden on other ratepayers as a consequence of the relief in so far as it is mandatory."—[Official Report, 12 May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 1640.]
That was an unqualified assurance that mandatory rate relief which has to be given by local authorities to premises being used by disabled persons would not be an additional burden upon local authorities.
We had a long debate on that matter on Report. The argument was—and it must be accepted—that most of the areas that have concentrations of premises which qualify for the rate relief also have concentrations of ratepayers who are least able to bear the additional burden. Therefore, it is illogical to require them to carry an extra burden because Parliament has decreed that certain premises qualify for mandatory rate relief.
Why do the Government have to change their mind? The Under-Secretary of State has used the Layfield report as a justification for many items in the Bill.
220
The report was unequivocal. On page 168 it stated:
" In respect of mandatory relief over which local authorities have no influence, we consider that local authorities should be compensated through the grant arrangements."
But they are not so compensated. Local authorities—such as Cambridge—which have a substantial volume of mandatory rate relief do not receive any resources element and, therefore, receive no relief. The situation is unsatisfactory. It highlights the unsatisfactory nature of the resources element of the rate support grant. This is stated each time that we debate the matter in the House. The Government have still done nothing about it.
A resources element which is based on the deficit from the rateable resources per head, times the rate poundage, is a formula which encourages extravagance. The more a local authority spends, the more resources grant it receives. That is unsatisfactory. It is one of the reasons why this is an unhappy timing for the Second Reading of a Bill which deals with rates. It comes just before most ratepayers will have a nasty shock. Hon. Members will receive many letters about this.
We recognise that the Bill does some good in other ways, but it raises some problems in so far as it diminishes the rights of ratepayers and places some of the burden of providing statutory rate relief on local authorities rather than on the central Government. The Bill deserves a Second Reading, but a lot of work must be done on it in Committee. I hope we shall be able to improve it there, and also that we shall now get some answers to the many questions that we have raised in this debate.
12.30 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): This has been an interesting and useful debate. I am sure that if I attempted to answer now all the questions that have been put to me I should be here until after 10.30 tomorrow morning, and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and I are needed then for a debate in the Standing Committee on the Countryside Bill. I was thinking of that when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that

221
he had a china shop. Tomorrow morning we shall be debating in Standing Committee the question of bulls on footpaths, among many other things.
The debate has ranged widely over the issue of rating and local government finance. Perhaps sometimes it has been concerned less with the subject matter of the Bill than with its context. But we acknowledge that such debates will be somewhat peripheral. However, the debate has been important in giving hon. Members the opportunity to air their concern, and giving parliamentary time to review some of the fundamental principles of local government finance, even though it has taken place at a late hour.
My hon. Friend said that the Bill was a key part of the Government's response to the work of the Layfield committee. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight thought that we should have gone beyond Lay-field and gone for local income tax. I was one of those Members who suggested just that to the Layfield committee, but it did not accept the case and gave many arguments as to why it could not be done.
My hon. Friend also said that some of the provisions arose from discussions in the consultative council on local government finance. The Bill is presented to the House in the belief that it will help to make rating more intelligible and fairer, and after this debate I think that many of us agree that it will do just that, although no doubt it will be debated at great length in Committee.
Rates are an unpopular tax. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-bottom) quoted the saying that taxes are paid in sorrow and rates in anger. Let us ask ourselves why. Is it the amount of rates? Or is it that on our doormats in early April there arrives the total figure of what we shall have to pay for all local government services during the next 12 months? Sometimes I wonder whether, if everybody got a bill at the beginning of the year saying how much tax he would have to pay on the cigarettes he smoked or the alcohol he consumed during the year, or what we were all to pay towards defence, some of those taxes would not be even more unpopular than they are now.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash did not take the opportunity to talk about whether domestic rates should be
222
abolished or fundamentally changed. We had a glimpse of the Conservative Party wriggling on the hook that its leader made for it at the last general election. It was not in the manifesto; it was not one of those things that go into pamphlets issued long before. It was something that the right hon. Lady said in the heat of the campaign. It was designed to switch votes to the Conservative Party, and I wonder how many other similar promises will be made during the few days before polling day next time.
The Government's position is straightforward. Our policy is based on an acceptance by Layfield of rates as a workable tax well suited to local needs, and our approach is to build on what we have, as the Bill does. It is worth repeating that income taxpayers and other contributors to national taxes already meet about two-thirds of local government revenues through the rate support grant and that rate rebates are available to about 4 million domestic ratepayers, in addition to the domestic rate relief that is automatically given. Instalment arrangements can ease the problems of payment, and the Bill provides opportunities to expand the facilities for instalment paying beyond the domestic rate. As the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, some of the firms in which he is interested may well benefit.
Those are sensible ways of relieving the burden of rates, and the Bill extends all three of them. Therefore, because of the Opposition's failure to propose the abolition of domestic rates, which their leader once promised us, I look forward to the amendments which they will put forward in Committee.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash asked what had happened about various matters discussed in the Green Paper. As regards capital valuation for rating, the Government remain committed to this change for domestic property, but, as the hon. Gentleman surmised, there is no majority for it and, as a Government working in a minority position, we have to accept that the official Opposition and the Liberal Party, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, would not support us. We should not get support for that in a Bill, and there is not much point in bringing in a Bill if one does not think one can get it through. I may say that

223
there would have been a water Bill making some fairly radical changes from the 1973 Act which is now so frowned on by the Opposition if we had had some incentive to that end from some of the minority parties.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that Layfield did not recommend a local income tax. That is not quite correct. I accept that Lay-field did not recommend a local income tax as the sole source of revenue, but it certainly recomended it as one source of revenue. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Layfield report.
Mr. Marks: I stand corrected. Layfield reported to that effect, but it pointed to the considerable expense of collecting what would have been a minor part of the present rate revenue if that suggestion had been adopted.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash spoke about value for money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would be setting up a new advisory committee on local government audit to receive reports from the chief inspector of audit and to set up value for money studies. I feel that we should say frankly to the country that what local government spends is an extremely important part of spending. We are too often afraid to admit that what the community spends through local government is a vital part of our whole life.
I turn next to central controls. Clause 26 and schedule 1 will relax some of the controls in a useful way. Some of them have already gone in earlier legislation, but the Government are very ready to consider going further, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last week, we shall be co-operating with the local authority associations in further studies to identify whether there is scope for relaxing some of the controls listed in the report recently published by the combined associations.
Perhaps I have said enough to show that all the Green Paper proposals are alive and well and that the hon. Gentleman should look beyond the Bill to see how they are being advanced.
I come now to the question of rate rises, though, to be fair, it was not referred to much by the Opposition except in the opening part of the debate. This
224
year's rises, of course, have no direct bearing on the Bill, though the issue is topical. It is important to look at the movement of rate levels in a broad context and not be misled by some of the alarmist newspaper reporting that we had a couple of weeks ago. It is clear that in this year, as in all years, there will be a wide variation in rates, from large increases to rate freezes or cuts in some cases. But the long-term relationship between rate payments and disposable domestic incomes, as my hon. Friend said, has remained remarkably stable over many years, and total local authority expenditure has been stabilised in real terms for the same time.
There was some alarm because some of the county authorities gave notice of big increases in their precepts at a time when some of the needs element of the rate support grant was being transferred to the district councils. Before going on about the fact that we shall not get rate increases below 10 per cent. this year, the Opposition should have thought of that before they defeated us in the debate on private income and wages. If they seriously thought that local government employees would stand by and see a free-for-all in private industry, encouraged by the Opposition, they were quite wrong. The Opposition's action is probably one of the causes, if not the main cause, of the escalation of rate increases to more than 10 per cent. this year.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister cannot get away with that.
Mr. Sainsbury: The Minister, like other hon. Members, referred to the fact that rates as a proportion of disposable income have remained remarkably constant. Will he admit that this year at least there can be no doubt that rates will form an additional burden because they are going up very much faster than disposable income?
Mr. Marks: We do not know how disposable income will increase this year. Had the Opposition had their way, it would have been much more than the 9 per cent. which is going to local government employees.
Several hon. Members talked about the restriction on the rights of appeal. I understand their concern. As a ratepayer who once appealed, I can appreciate it. It is important that a Second Reading

225
debate should raise questions of principle, as has happened tonight. I hope that the clauses will be looked at very carefully in detail in Committee, but there are a few important points to remember at this stage. First, what is the justification for this restriction? It is not for a frivolous reason. The intention is to reduce the work load of appeals on professional staff of the valuation office so that the work of conducting a general revaluation can proceed.
Secondly, the restriction is only partial. For a year after each general revaluation there will be an unrestricted right, followed by a right after that, to challenge the assessment if there has been a change in the circumstances of the property. There are other safeguards.
The Department has received many leters from constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House complaining about the present system—complaining that the man who had his central heating installed in 1973 had his rates put up whereas the man who had it installed in 1974 had not. This will at least achieve some reasonable agreement between neighbours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) referred to a time limit on appeals. Although the ratepayer will not be able to make an appeal after the first year, the valuation officer will still be able to make a proposal, and will expect to make proposals to deal with any mistakes which come to light as a result of appeals. He will also expect to make proposals to deal with the chain reaction, so as not to allow unfair advantage over their neighbours to those who successfully appeal. In my view, the valuation officer will have a duty to examine such matters.
I remind the House that in paragraph 88 of its report the Layfield committee said:
" We consider that it would be justifiable to limit the ratepayer's right to make a proposal beyond the first year following revaluation to cases where there had been a material change in circumstancs affecting value, or a change of occupier. This procedure, which obtains in Scotland, should discourage appeals stimulated by rate poundage increases "—
which is why many appeals are lodged, not on the basis of the valuation being wrong but because the rates have gone up—
226
" without depriving anyone of a legitimate opportunity to test the validity of his assessment ".
The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Layfield committee and clauses 7 and 8 seek to implement that recommendation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) made the type of speech that I often made as a Back Bencher about the need for radical change. He asked why households with more than one adult wage cannot be assessed to more rates than households which have just one wage. This is a difficult question which is posed weekly to all hon. Members. The Layfield committee discovered that there are some good counter arguments. The main objection is the extreme difficulty of devising a system which could be workable, other than by going over to local income tax, and which would not be open to widespread evasion. Another objection is the fact that wage earners contribute substantially to local government through the rate support grant, 60 per cent. of which represents taxation.
It is a fact that in many cases those in multi-occupation of a house enjoy a lower standard than someone occupying a house on his own. Only at the weekend a pensioner complained to me that just down the road there were three pensioners sharing a house whilst he lived in a house on his own and had to bear the full burden of the rates. He is at liberty to invite two other pensioners to join him.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) welcomed many features of the Bill, though he did not make enough of the considerable value of the Bill to small businesses. There is the extension of domestic relief to those who literally live over the shop. I do not have the figures, but I should not think that there are many cases where the proportion of the premises used for domestic purposes is less than one-eighth of the total hereditaments. Virtually all those in that position will enjoy this benefit. I hope that this will be of considerable value to shops in rural areas. I hope that village shops, which have been closing down at a rather rapid rate, will gain some benefit from this provision.
The provision for non-domestic ratepayers to pay by instalments will be of

227
considerable advantage to small businesses.
On the question of home improvements, concern has been expressed about the repeal of section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974, which prohibited between general revaluations any change in the rateable value of a house arising from the installation of central heating or from minor improvements. Some ratepayers will lose a concession which might have brought them a temporary gain. However, this provision will not take effect until after the next revaluation, when all hereditaments will have been revalued, anyway. It will apply only to new installations after that.
Many ratepayers have felt a keen sense of grievance at the fact that they have had to pay increased rates following the installation of central heating, while the man next door was getting away with it. If there is to be a tax, which is what rates are, based on the value of property, whether it is the rentable value or the capital value, an improvement of that kind creates an increase in value—whether rentable or capital. An extension on the kitchen or the installation of central heating increases the value of the property.
I suppose one advantage of capital value would be that people would recognise that their rateable value reflected the value of their house if they sold it. It would be a useful guide to the price people would expect to get for their house.
Mr. Arthur Jones: Why have the Government changed their mind?
Mr. Marks: To be frank, I cannot say. I shall look into that. Changes of mind are useful. Much information has been received bearing on the Layfield report, and no doubt that will come to light.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that the majority of local authorities have hardly any balances. It will be interesting to witness the balances that appear at the end of the year. It is my impression that many local authorities expected that during the current financial year inflation would be running at a much higher level.
The hon. Gentleman referred to emergency and disaster funds. The Con-
228
servative Government gave local authorities powers to spend money it there were an emergency or disaster in their areas, but it has been left to the Government to allocate a figure and to say that when there is an emergency the Government will make a substantial contribution. The Government have been paying already. The Bill gives legislative powers to the payment that we have been making. It will be 75 per cent. on everything over a penny rate. We suggest that if spending reaches more than five times a penny rate there shall be an additional grant.
The grant to parish councils was referred to by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The Government's view remains that the present powers of local authorities to pass on the benefit of the resources element are adequate. Local circumstances may vary greatly. It would be wrong for central Government to try to impose a central view, as apparently some Opposition Members wish, on the diverse circumstances of parishes. Many of the parishes are in better-off areas of the districts, and perhaps district councils would like to take into consideration some of their poor authorities.
Mr. A. J. Beith: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly defend an arrangement under which expenditure earned by the decision of ratepayers in a parish to pay an additional rate should incur grant-aid on a general basis to the district council that does not need to be passed on to the parish? Does he recognise that a few district councils—fortunately, only a few—are actively opposed to the concept of parish councils and would much prefer parish councils to entrust all their functions to them and enable them, the district councils, to control all the grant-aid and for the parish councils to disappear? Will he recognise that the parish council is in a weak position in the argument and that it should receive more support from the Government than the hon. Gentleman implies?
Mr. Marks: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants us to dictate more to district councils about what they should and should not do. I shall consider his argument. He says that the district councils receive more resources grant because local councils are spending money. Resources grant is based on the penny rate

229
rather than on what is spent by local councils.
Mr. Beith: In many districts a parish may decide, for example, to raise, a 3p rate at the expense of the inhabitants of that parish alone, and that incurs 3p worth of rate support grant for the district council. Within the same district there may be another area—perhaps an old borough that was taken into the district—in which no additional rate is imposed. That area will have its cemeteries, public halls and public conveniences financed from the very revenue that has been created by the inhabitants of the village that decided to go for the full 3p rate.
Mr. Marks: I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's argument. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will be taking the Bill through Committee, has agreed to examine his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) referred to derelict land. Under this Government there has been a considerable increase in the reclamation of areas, including land in his constituency, for the purpose of the industrial grant.
Some years ago, under Mr. Crosland, the then Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, the whole Civic Trust programme was launched in Stoke. Since then there has been considerable support by the Government to the tune of about £18 million a year. I shall examine the argument that, having cleared the land for industrial purposes, those involved will need help, presumably from the Department of Industry, to set the scheme on its feet. Stoke has had substantial help from my Department. I have visited and opened some of the sites.
The problem of the rural areas needs to be examined carefully. I do not know whether the answer is merely to give more rate support grant to the shire counties. What is needed is an examination, as we have carried out in the inner cities, in partnership with the county councils, to see what is needed, where the deprivation is and where the needs are. We shall then perhaps consider some specific grants such as those given to our inner cities. I am considering the possibilities rather than making any statement of Government policy.
230
When I was chairman of the local finance committee some years ago, the ratepayers' and residents' associations were concerned only with keeping the rates down. Nowadays I do not get that. I hear from them about the services that are being provided and whether they are good enough. There is a demand for better services, whether roads, education or housing, or the many environmental aspects of life. A great many more people are now concerned with the proper spending of the rates and the proper raising of the right amount. I am sure that there is an improvement generally in what is being done.
This Bill concentrates on information about rates, payment by instalments, rebates and the other factors. It will be a considerable help in making rates a less unpopular tax. The Government can say that this is a measure to make improvements in the system of rating and local government finance. In the long term, improvements of this kind will do most to give local government a secure and acceptable means of raising revenue. My hon. Friends and I will look carefully at the reservations which have been expressed about the Bill. I hope that the House will recognise that there are some strong attractions in the Bill, especially for the poorer ratepayers, small businesses, and those who have separated and have financial problems as a result.
I ask the House to agree that the Bill should be read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in respect of rates and in respect of grants to local authorities or to bodies providing services for local authorities, and to amend certain enactments relating to fees charged by local authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of

231

(1) any sums required for the payment of grants—

(a) to local authorities in respect of rebates under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978;

(b) to local authorities in respect of expenditure under section 138(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or under section 84(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973;

(c) to the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee or to other organisations having similar functions;

(2) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums pay able out of money so provided under the Local Government Act 1974.—[Mr. Tinn.]

RETIREMENT PENSIONS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Codman Irvine): Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), may I say that I understand that both he and the Minister have consented to certain brief interventions during the debate.
12.58 a.m.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: In this brief Adjournment debate I wish to raise the subject of the uprating of retirement pensions, and especially the uprating that took place last November. I want to call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to consider paying a bonus of an extra week's pension for Britain's 8 million pensioners. I believe that this is urgently required to make up for what I consider to be a sleight of hand or conjuring trick which occurred last November. At that time pensioners received 1·8 per cent. less than the law required that they should receive. When we consider that one week's pension is worth 2 per cent. of the total pension, it may be seen that the 1·8 per cent. that we are talking about is a substantial sum.
Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975 provides in respect of the pensions uprating that
" the Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings and prices in such manner as he thinks fit and shall have regard either to earnings or prices according to which he considers more advantageous."
232
That seems to be quite clear and is fully understood by all those inside and outside the House. This promise, which exists in law, is something to which the Tories have never agreed, and it was a real advance at that time in Parliament's treatment of our pensioners or senior citizens.
I do not think that Parliament should allow the pensioners to be double-crossed in the way they have been over the latest pensions uprating. The fact that pensions have been increased in real terms, well above the cost of living measured by the retail price index, is not in dispute. I hope that my hon. Friend will not spend the time that he has in the debate in arguing that case, because it is not relevant, because it is not what Parliament promised the pensioners. They were promised an increase in line with prices or earnings, whichever was the most advantageous.
In the year from November 1977 to November 1978, prices increased by 8·4 per cent. earnings increased by 13·2 per cent., and the pension uprating was only 11·4 per cent. This shortfall against earnings amounts to £16·12 for a single person, or 31p a week. It amounts to £25 a year, or 50p a week, for a couple. On those figures it can be clearly seen that the pensioners' own money was hi-jacked by the Government to pay their Christmas bonuses at Christmas 1978.
I do not wish to cast around to allocate the blame for the problem. It is difficult and real. One of the causes is that the pension announcement has to be made about 20 weeks in advance of the date of the payment. November is the date of payment, but the earnings figures from November to November are not known until the following January. When an announcement is made in May 1978, as it was in this case, we cannot challenge the figures until mid-January 1979. It is for that reason that it took so long before I and my hon. Friends were able effectively to challenge the Government on what we always thought would be an undervalue in the uprating. That is why I and my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) wish to tackle the Government on this issue tonight.

233
When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was questioned on the uprating he said:
" The important factor is what the annual increase in earnings will be in November."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 21 June 1978; c. 30.]
The fact remains that we know that it was 1·8 per cent. more than the increase that the pensioners received, and therefore if the matter is not put right it will be a breach of trust on the part of the Government with Parliament and the pensioners.
I realise that the 1977 uprating was slightly in excess of both prices and earnings. The figures that I have worked out show that, even when that is taken into account, there is still a substantial shortfall when we take into account the 1978 uprating. In his letter to me of 13 November 1978 my right hon. Friend said that
" no corrective action is taken if a forecast has been too generous."
The letter was also set out in a written answer to me of 17 January 1979, at col. 771 of the Official Report. When we look at the figures now, we find that that is a wholly inaccurate statement if we take together the November 1977 uprating and the 1978 uprating, because the Government have pulled back the excess of 1977, so that the pensioners are left with a real shortfall over the two years, even taken together. Therefore, it is not true.
I am not saying that someone said"Let us get it all back ", but the effect has been the same as though that decision had actually been taken. It is something that cannot be left undone. We have to take action about the matter. It is no good arguing that we shall have to put the matter right this coming November.
It is a tragedy and a sad fact that, even so far as the matter was a scandal, not one trade union leader has raised this issue publicly. It is left to Labour Members. When Jack Jones retired from the leadership of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the pensioners of this country lost the most effective champion that they had had in recent years. It is a sad fact that no one is big enough to put his boots on—not even any of the Ministers at the DHSS. At present, pensioners are paying for the fact that there is not a Jack Jones who will tackle
234
the Government for what is clearly a buccaneering attitude concerning the up-rating of November 1978.
The shortfall does not sound very much, but to a pensioner couple 50p a week is a very substantial sum. To put the matter right would cost only £165 million, which is less than the taxpayers had to use to bail out the Crown Agents. That is the scale of figures with which we are dealing.
To say, as the Government have said so far in answer to the questions tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, that the Government will take account of the shortfall at the next uprating is not good enough. To start with, the base is wrong, and the single pensioner will still have lost £16 for this year and the pensioner couple will still have lost £25, which they cannot get back. That will not be made up. The Government will not say "We shall raise the base from which we calculate the next uprating, and we shall also throw in for good measure the extra money that was lost for that year." I cannot see that happening.
Nevertheless, the matter must be put right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in Government will not be able to get away with leaving the matter as it is, because my hon. Friends and I will keep coming back to it. It is right that Labour Members should do this. The Labour Government put this promise into law. It will be a charade if we do not cary it out.
It is no good saying that the courts have looked at the matter. They have not looked at the issue I am raising tonight. They looked at the issue only when the Government changed the base of the calculation. That was a different matter in 1976. On this question there is now a substantial shortfall in the guesstimate of the prices and earnings figures, and 1·8 per cent. is so substantial an amount that it is almost a week's pension over the year.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will make a positive statement tonight that will give hope to Britain's 8 million pensioners and let them know that they have not been forgotten, that this issue has not been overlooked and that there are some hon. Members who are aware of the matter and are watching the small print and working on their behalf. I hope that tonight my hon. Friend will be able

235
to give some assurance to millions of pensioners.
1.8 a.m.
Mr. George Rodgers: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for being very generous in allowing time for other hon. Members to intervene in the debate. He has put the case very lucidly and constructively.
I should like also to pay tribute to the Government, who have increased pensions in real terms. We are aware that that is a considerable achievement.
I think that we appreciate the difficulty in having to anticipate what will be the rise in prices and wages over a sustained period. None the less, many of us are seriously disturbed by the fact that a firm pledge, about which we have frequently publicly and proudly boasted, is apparently not to be honoured. The pledge was to increase pensions in line with rises in prices or wages, whichever was most beneficial to pensioners.
I am rather wary about the strangely worded replies to parliamentary questions that have been given by the Minister for Social Security. He has suggested that the current shortfall would be taken into account together with the general fiscal and monetary prospects. That strikes me as a commitment that contains considerable escape clauses. It is not a fair commitment at all. I hope that that matter will be clarified.
I recognise that if the main Opposition party ever achieved power, a Conservative Minister would not be subjected to an inquisition of this nature. I think that it is healthy and democratic that the challenge now should come from the Government side of the House. The sum involved is indeed trivial. When compared with the revenue lost in tax evasion, which is estimated at some £1,000 million per annum, it is insignificant. It is small in comparison with the bounty that this benevolent Government hand over to private industry during the course of a year, but it is vital and tremendously important to our pensioners.
The solution that has been proposed is simple and straightforward. We suggest that an Easter bonus should be paid to
236
pensioners to recompense them for this deficit in what they were entitled to expect. A case has been put honestly, fairly and well. I look for an equally helpful and constructive reply from the Minister.
1.10 a.m.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: It is a great pity that the Government have to engage in what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) called guesstimates. This difficulty is of their own choosing.
In April 1976, when the changed basis of calculation was announced, it was clear that the change was brought into being because it was advantageous to the Government at that stage and saved £500 million compared with what would have been required for that pension uprating to keep in line with the historic costs of inflation. The escape by the Government on that occasion has left a legacy of continual misunderstanding and difficulty, which I greatly regret. It is unfortunate that the Government who brought in such a great advance in the method of calculating upratings, acknowledging that pensioners either had to be kept in line with inflation or had to receive the same sort of benefit of increased earnings received by the average worker, have been partially undermining their own policy because of the change to forward forecasting.
It has been partially undermined because people are left with an uneasy feeling that they do not understand what is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has made it clear that this is bound to be the case because one cannot know whether the estimate has been correct until long after the announcement and until three months following the up-rating itself. If this matter is not corrected on this occasion, this precedent will serve as a positive incentive to Governments in future to ensure that any error in their estimate is on the side of underestimating rather than overestimating. It is bad and dangerous to work like that. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make clear that the Government accept that it is not fair and not possible to continue on this basis without correcting this error.

237
We acknowledge that the Tories are not committed to this concept. We acknowledge also that the increase which the pensioners have received is a real one. That very fact makes it even more imperative that no feeling should be left among pensioners that they have not received as fair treatment as they expected. It is not sensible for the Government to undermine their own policy in this way. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that the matter is corrected.
1.15 a.m.
Mr. Max Madden: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on initiating this debate and thank him for allowing me an opportunity of pressing the Government to think again about this matter.
Everybody recognises that the pension increase last November was nearly 2 per cent. less than it should have been on the basis on which we all understood it was being reckoned, namely, that it would keep pace with prices or earnings, whichever was the greater, on a November-to-November basis. The present gap between what pensioners are getting and what they should be getting is 31p a week for single people and 50p a week for a married couple.
The reasons have been outlined by my hon. Friends, and the Government's difficulties are understood. We have paid tribute to the Government's fine record on retirement pensions, which have increased by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1974. The new basis for calculating pensions was a great advance. Sadly, the Tories have never supported it and are unlikely to support it in future. When we initiate such an advance, it is important for the Government to keep faith with it. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to provide an additional payment, a bonus to all pensioners, to bring them up to the full benefit that they should have had last year.
We have had a rigorous winter. Heating bills will be very large for pensioners and everybody else in the next few weeks. There has been a large increase in the television licence fee. The cost of living for pensioners has, sadly, increased significantly over the last year and an additional payment is needed as early as possible. If the Government do
238
not give all pensioners more as soon as possible, it will be a major blemish on an otherwise fine record.
I hope the minister will say that the Government intend quickly and honourably not only to protect their own fine record but to do justice to the machinery that we introduced in the belief that it would protect pensioners' interests.
1.18 a.m.
The Under-secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and my other hon. Friends who have spoken are familiar with some of the background to the provisions for uprating social security benefits, but it may be as well if I outline them briefly so that we have them on the record.
The Social Security Act 1975 requires the Secretary of State to review the level of benefits each year to see whether they have retained their value. For this purpose pensions and long-term benefits have to be compared with the general level of earnings or prices, whichever is the more advantageous, and short-term benefits with prices. If benefits have not retained their value the Secretary of State must increase them
" at least to such extent as he thinks necessary to restore their value ".
As to the mechanics of the increase, we have established a pattern of annual uprating benefits each November. This is an appropriate time for the upratings to take place as it assures pensioners and other beneficiaries of their additional money before the onset of winter with its increased expenses. Hon. Members will appreciate that the task of increasing the benefits of millions of people is a massive one, involving a minimum period of five or six months, depending on the complexity of the uprating proposals. Of course, computers can do much of this for us but the main problem arises in relation to the 3 million or so supplementary beneficiaries whose benefit has to be recalculated individually by clerical staff. That work cannot begin until the new rates have been announced. There is no easy way out of this problem.
All this means that the new rates of benefit to be increased in November have to be determined and announced months beforehand. For this purpose a forecast

239
has to be made of the increase in earnings and prices which are likely to occur up to the date when the new benefit rates are to come into force.
This method of uprating on the basis of forecasts was challenged in the courts in 1977, but both the High Court and the Court of Appeal confirmed that the forecasting method of uprating was correct in law and that the Secretary of State should base each year's uprating on the best available forecast of what the movement of earnings or prices was likely to be over the relevant period.
That is the background against which we have to consider the uprating of benefits that took effect last November. The Secretary of State carried out his review in April 1978, and the forecast that he made about the likely rise in prices and average earnings between November 1977 and November 1978 was based on the most reliable estimates available at that time. Based on these estimates, short-term benefits went up by some 7·1 per cent. from November and pensions and other long-term benefits went up by some 11·4 per cent.
We now know that over the year from November 1977 to November 1978 prices rose by 8·1 per cent. That means that there was a shortfall of 1 per cent. in the uprating of short-term benefits. Over that period earnings rose by 13·3 per cent., so that there was a shortfall of 1·9 per cent. in the uprating of pensions and other long-term benefits.
The current pension rates of £19·50 for a single person and £31·20 for a married couple are still greater in purchasing power than those which took effect in November 1978. In fact, they represent the highest levels of pension ever in real terms. After allowing for price rises, their purchasing power in November 1978 was 3 per cent. higher than in November 1977, and about 20 per cent. higher than the rates introduced in October 1973, shortly before this Government took office.
Nevertheless, I accept that pensioners have received less than they would have received if the earnings forecast had been precisely correct. However, as the courts pointed out, forecasts, by their very nature, are unlikely to be accurate. The forecasts made at the time of the Secretary of State's review will therefore some-
240
times turn out to have been too high or too low when measured against the actual movement of the indices.
If the increase in benefits is higher than would have been justified by the actual increase in prices or earnings, the result is pure gain for the beneficiaries concerned. In the first place, they get a higher rate of benefit than if the estimate had been precisely correct. But then the new rate also provides a higher base as a starting point for calculating the new uprating. For example, in 1977 we put up pensions by 14·4 per cent., whereas the actual increase in prices between November 1976 and November 1977 was 13 per cent. Pensions therefore went up more than prices, and the new higher rate was the one that fell to be increased again in November 1978.
In answer to the point about comparison between 1977 and 1978, taking the two years together, between November 1976 and November 1978 pensions rose by 27·5 per cent. Over the same period prises rose by 22·1 per cent. and earnings by 23 per cent. Pensions therefore increased in purchasing power over that two-year period by 4·4 per cent. and went up more than earnings.
The courts considered the question of the accuracy of forecasts when they considered the forecasting method of uprating. They confirmed that the Secretary of State was not failing in his statutory duty if the forecasts he used proved in the event to be not entirely accurate. There is therefore no statutory requirement to make good the shortfall in last November's uprating.
However, as we have already made clear, the shortfall will be one of the factors that we shall take into account, along with the general economic prospects, when we are considering the amount of this year's uprating.
I cannot say more than that at this stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Bar will be aware, social security provisions, including the new rates of benefits to be introduced in November, are included in the general review of the economic situation carried out as part of the formulation of the Budget proposals. Until that review has been completed, my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible to give any indication of the Government's proposals.

241
What I can say is that we fully appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. Friends in this debate—and I am sure that they are echoing a concern felt by the whole Labour movement—about the shortfall in last year's uprating. We shall take into account all that has been said in deciding our course of action, and I must ask my hon. Friends to await the announcement of the Government's proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has suggested that the pensioners' money was hi-jacked to pay for the Christmas bonus. If by that he means that the pension rates introduced last November were deliberately set low in order to provide resources for the payment of the bonus, I strongly refute it.
Mr. Rooker: I am not saying"deliberately." The Tory Party suggested a 53-week year in order to take the money off the pensioners to pay the bonus. I am not saying that it was deliberate, but that was the effect of what happened.
Mr. Deakins: That certainly was not our intention, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that. The forecasts of earnings and prices movements on which we based the new benefit rates were the best available to us, and benefits were uprated in line with those forecasts. The Christmas bonus was a separate operation, decided later in the year, for which resources had to be found separately.
These matters ought to be considered in the light of our record in relation to pensions and other social security benefits. Our record is second to none and one of which we can be justly proud. In spite
242
of the difficult economic situations that we have faced—perhaps the worst since the 1930s—we have increased the rates of pensions and other long-term benefits by much more than prices have increased, so that the rates introduced last November represented an increase in real value—after taking account of price rises—of some 20 per cent. over those introduced in October 1973 by the previous Administration.
We have also introduced a range of new benefits. These include non-contributory pensions, mobility allowance and invalid care allowance—all of which are related to disablement without a test as to means. By next month, the phasing in of the new child benefit scheme will be complete.
For the future, the new pension scheme, the first benefits of which begin to be paid next month, is designed to solve the problems of low incomes in retirement. It will ensure that every contributor to the scheme receives, either from the State or from an occupational scheme, an additional pension relating to his other past earnings, on top of the basic State pension. The levels of the new State pension will build up gradually over 20 years so that a married man on average earnings will retire on pensions for himself and his wife of more than half average earnings.
With this record, pensioners and other beneficiaries can be confident that we are fully aware of their problems and will have them in mind in determining our course of action.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Former Colonial Residents (Parliamentary Assemblies)
  Former Colonial Residents (Parliamentary Assemblies)
  Surrey County Police
  Surrey County Police
  Interpol (British Office)
  Interpol (British Office)
  Magistrates' Courts (Folkestone)
  Magistrates' Courts (Folkestone)
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
  Privacy (Younger Committee Report)
  Privacy (Younger Committee Report)
  Courts (Industrial Disruption)
  Courts (Industrial Disruption)
  Election Boxes
  Election Boxes
  SELF-EMPLOYMENT (DEFINITION)
  SELF-EMPLOYMENT (DEFINITION)
  COURT OFFICIALS (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
  COURT OFFICIALS (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  PUBLIC BODIES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES)
  PUBLIC BODIES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  LORD ADVOCATE'S DEPARTMENT
  LORD ADVOCATE'S DEPARTMENT
  EMPLOYMENT
    Rossendale
    Rossendale
    Jobcentre, Rossendale
    Jobcentre, Rossendale
    Church Dignitaries (Salaries)
    Church Dignitaries (Salaries)
    High Technology
    High Technology
    School Leavers
    School Leavers
    Microprocessors
    Microprocessors
    Hours of Work (European Community Regulations)
    Hours of Work (European Community Regulations)
    Standing Commission on Pay Comparability
    Standing Commission on Pay Comparability
    Equal Opportunities
    Equal Opportunities
    Bolsover Coalite and Chemicals Limited
    Bolsover Coalite and Chemicals Limited
    Health and Safety
    Health and Safety
    Computers
    Computers
    Health and Safety Executive and Commission (Publications)
    Health and Safety Executive and Commission (Publications)
    Health and Safety Regulations
    Health and Safety Regulations
    Secretarial Training
    Secretarial Training
    Ethylene Dichloride and Ethylene Dibromide
    Ethylene Dichloride and Ethylene Dibromide
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  TRANSPORT
    Sleeping Policemen
    Sleeping Policemen
    Cycling
    Cycling
    London Docks
    London Docks
    Tachograph
    Tachograph
    Concessionary Fares (Schoolchildren)
    Concessionary Fares (Schoolchildren)
    Railway Station Closures (Alternative Transport)
    Railway Station Closures (Alternative Transport)
    South-West Regional Traffic Commissioners
    South-West Regional Traffic Commissioners
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    National Freight Corporation (Pay Increase)
    National Freight Corporation (Pay Increase)
    Channel Tunnel
    Channel Tunnel
    Safety Belts (Coaches)
    Safety Belts (Coaches)
    Front Seat Passengers (Infants and Young Children)
    Front Seat Passengers (Infants and Young Children)
    M20-A20 (Folkestone-Dover)
    M20-A20 (Folkestone-Dover)
    British Railways (Staff Directives)
    British Railways (Staff Directives)
    1973 Noise Insulation Regulations
    1973 Noise Insulation Regulations
    Government Expenditure
    Government Expenditure
  ENVIRONMENT
    Nature Conservation
    Nature Conservation
    Public Bodies (Member's Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Member's Expenses)
    Quangos (Expenditure)
    Quangos (Expenditure)
    Canals (Maintenance)
    Canals (Maintenance)
    Public Sector Workers (Pay)
    Public Sector Workers (Pay)
    Refuse
    Refuse
    British Waterways Board (Industrial Dispute)
    British Waterways Board (Industrial Dispute)
    Trussed Rafter Roofs
    Trussed Rafter Roofs
    North-West Water Authority
    North-West Water Authority
    Community Land
    Community Land
    Community Land Act
    Community Land Act
    Location of Offices Bureau
    Location of Offices Bureau
    Liverpool (Housing Investment Allocation)
    Liverpool (Housing Investment Allocation)
    London Pavilion Theatre
    London Pavilion Theatre
    Houses (Insulation)
    Houses (Insulation)
    Needs Element (London, Avon and Gloucestershire)
    Needs Element (London, Avon and Gloucestershire)
    Regional Water Authorities (Subsistence Rates)
    Regional Water Authorities (Subsistence Rates)
    Home Owners (Repossession of Property)
    Home Owners (Repossession of Property)
    Factory Building (Nottinghamshire)
    Factory Building (Nottinghamshire)
  TRADE
    International Air Transport Association
    International Air Transport Association
    Peachey Property Corporation Ltd.
    Peachey Property Corporation Ltd.
    Noxious Cargo Carriers (Collisions)
    Noxious Cargo Carriers (Collisions)
    Cutlery Industry (Cheap Imports)
    Cutlery Industry (Cheap Imports)
    Agricultural Machinery
    Agricultural Machinery
    Air Travel Industry
    Air Travel Industry
    Airports (Passengers and Air Transport)
    Airports (Passengers and Air Transport)
    Tankers (Ballast Discharge)
    Tankers (Ballast Discharge)
    Export Credit Guarantees (Iranian Contracts)
    Export Credit Guarantees (Iranian Contracts)
    European Community (Liner Shipping)
    European Community (Liner Shipping)
    Worsted Yarns
    Worsted Yarns
    Shetland Isles (Tanker Navigation)
    Shetland Isles (Tanker Navigation)
    European Community (Steel)
    European Community (Steel)
    Paper and Board Industry
    Paper and Board Industry
    Tanker Accidents
    Tanker Accidents
    Domestic Appliances (Imports)
    Domestic Appliances (Imports)
    Textiles
    Textiles
    European Community (Commission Discussions)
    European Community (Commission Discussions)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
  ENERGY
    North Sea Oil (Exports)
    North Sea Oil (Exports)
    Tricentrol (Thistle Field Loans)
    Tricentrol (Thistle Field Loans)
    Ionisation
    Ionisation
  INDUSTRY
  INDUSTRY
    Sector Working Parties
    Sector Working Parties
    Departmental Statistics
    Departmental Statistics
    Assisted Areas (Expenditure)
    Assisted Areas (Expenditure)
    Paper and Board Industry
    Paper and Board Industry
    Electronics Industry (Japanese Investment)
    Electronics Industry (Japanese Investment)
    Aveling Barford Limited
    Aveling Barford Limited
    Titanium
    Titanium
    Public Bodies and Nationalised Industries (Guarantees and Letters of Comfort)
    Public Bodies and Nationalised Industries (Guarantees and Letters of Comfort)
  SOCIAL SERVICES
    Hospitals (Staffing Ratios)
    Hospitals (Staffing Ratios)
    Lead Pollution
    Lead Pollution
    Aided Countries (Medical Information)
    Aided Countries (Medical Information)
    Drug Exports
    Drug Exports
    Chiropodists
    Chiropodists
    Geriatric Care (Rossendale)
    Geriatric Care (Rossendale)
    St. Nicholas Hospital Nurses' Home, Plumstead
    St. Nicholas Hospital Nurses' Home, Plumstead
    Mentally Handicapped Persons
    Mentally Handicapped Persons
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Self-employed Persons
    Self-employed Persons
    Community Nurses (Mileage Allowance)
    Community Nurses (Mileage Allowance)
    Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
    Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mentally Handicapped Persons
    Mentally Handicapped Persons
    Retirement Pensions (Canada)
    Retirement Pensions (Canada)
    Out-patients (Gloucester)
    Out-patients (Gloucester)
    Family Practitioner Committees
    Family Practitioner Committees
    Health Service Reorganisation (Gloucestershire)
    Health Service Reorganisation (Gloucestershire)
    Blind Persons (Electronic Aids)
    Blind Persons (Electronic Aids)
    Family Practitioner Committees
    Family Practitioner Committees
  DEFENCE
    Defence Codification
    Defence Codification
    Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
    Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
    Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich
    Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich
    Kenya
    Kenya
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Service Personnel (Resignations)
    Service Personnel (Resignations)
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    Microprocessors
    Microprocessors
    Clinical Academic Staff (Salaries)
    Clinical Academic Staff (Salaries)
    Universities (Medical Departments)
    Universities (Medical Departments)
    Mark Lilley
    Mark Lilley
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
    Project Aid
    Project Aid
    Eritrea (Medical Supplies)
    Eritrea (Medical Supplies)
    Drugs
    Drugs
  WALES
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Civil Servants
    Civil Servants
    Local Authorities (Pension Funds)
    Local Authorities (Pension Funds)
    Railways
    Railways
    Free School Meals
    Free School Meals
    Unemployment (School Leavers)
    Unemployment (School Leavers)
    Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport
    Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport
    Welsh Language
    Welsh Language
    Coal Exchange, Cardiff
    Coal Exchange, Cardiff
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    Local Government Expenditure
    Local Government Expenditure
    Schedule E Taxpayers (Allowances)
    Schedule E Taxpayers (Allowances)
    Company Profits
    Company Profits
    Stock Appreciation
    Stock Appreciation
    Public Sector (Basic Wages)
    Public Sector (Basic Wages)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Public Bodies (Members' Expenses)
    Domestic Credit Expansion
    Domestic Credit Expansion
    Pensions, Benefits and Allowances
    Pensions, Benefits and Allowances
    Comparability Awards
    Comparability Awards
    Devolution
    Devolution
    Public Sector Pensions
    Public Sector Pensions
    Stamp Duty
    Stamp Duty
    National Savings Certificates
    National Savings Certificates
    Value Added Tax
    Value Added Tax
    Companies (Stock Relief)
    Companies (Stock Relief)
    Republic of Ireland Currency (Circulation)
    Republic of Ireland Currency (Circulation)
    Poultrymeat
    Poultrymeat
    Balance of Payments (North Sea Oil and Gas)
    Balance of Payments (North Sea Oil and Gas)
    Foreign Debt
    Foreign Debt
    Cash Limits
    Cash Limits
    Tax Returns (Errors)
    Tax Returns (Errors)
    Corporation Tax
    Corporation Tax
    North Sea Oil Companies (Taxation)
    North Sea Oil Companies (Taxation)
    Taxation (Discretionary Waiver)
    Taxation (Discretionary Waiver)
    Government Debt
    Government Debt
    Public Expenditure
    Public Expenditure
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
    Council of Foreign Ministers
    Council of Foreign Ministers
    European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
    European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
    Business Statements
    Business Statements
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Immigrants (Indian Sub-continent)
    Immigrants (Indian Sub-continent)
    Argentina
    Argentina
    Spandau Prison, West Berlin
    Spandau Prison, West Berlin
    Liberia
    Liberia
    Commonwealth Day
    Commonwealth Day
    Rhodesia
    Rhodesia
    Council of Europe (Agreements)
    Council of Europe (Agreements)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
    Public Order Act
    Public Order Act
    Fair Employment Agency
    Fair Employment Agency
    De Lorean Company
    De Lorean Company
    Employers' Premises (Training Scheme)
    Employers' Premises (Training Scheme)
    Terrorism
    Terrorism
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Cauliflowers
    Cauliflowers
    Ministry Inspectors (Veal Units and Poultry)
    Ministry Inspectors (Veal Units and Poultry)
    Hill Livestock
    Hill Livestock
  SCOTLAND
    Scottish Assembly
    Scottish Assembly
    Lothian Health Board
    Lothian Health Board
    Local Government (Pension Funds)
    Local Government (Pension Funds)
    Local Government (Manpower)
    Local Government (Manpower)
    Rate Fund Services (Expenditure)
    Rate Fund Services (Expenditure)
    Courts (Closure)
    Courts (Closure)
    Local Authority Employees
    Local Authority Employees
    Court Cases (Industrial Dispute)
    Court Cases (Industrial Dispute)
    Building (Scotland) Act 1959
    Building (Scotland) Act 1959
    Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations
    Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations
    Referendum
    Referendum
    Royal High School, Edinburgh
    Royal High School, Edinburgh
    Ministerial Appointments
    Ministerial Appointments
    Fishing Vessel"Aquirla "
    Fishing Vessel"Aquirla "
    Mr. Brendan Gallagher
    Mr. Brendan Gallagher
    Under-Secretary of State (Glasgow Meeting)
    Under-Secretary of State (Glasgow Meeting)
    Writs and Summonses
    Writs and Summonses
    Legal Aid
    Legal Aid
    Procurator Fiscal Service and Legal Aid
    Procurator Fiscal Service and Legal Aid

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

ARUSHA MINISTERIAL MEETING
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken note of the deliberations of the "77 Club" in Arusha and what attitude they propose to take to them.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are carefully studying the Programme adopted by the developing countries at their ministerial meeting last month in Arusha. We hope that it will contribute to a constructive discussion at the Fifth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which will be held in May.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that a meeting of this kind, at which was represented well over half of mankind, warrants much more attention than has been paid to it in this country? Will he further agree with the opening address of the President of Tanzania, to the effect that this matter involves the prosperity not merely of the Third World but of the whole world? Were the British Government represented in Arusha, and what is their policy towards the UNCTAD meeting for which this was a preparation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, further international work will be needed on most of the specific proposals in the Arusha Programme in order to assess the case for action on the lines which have been envisaged, but like other developed countries, we foresee a number of difficulties. However, we certainly share two of the assumptions underlying the Programme:
356
that developed and developing countries must work together to seek better ways of managing the world economy, and that effective international action is needed to tackle the problems of development. I do not know whether the British Government were represented at Arusha.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for my ignorance, but can the Minister tell me where Arusha is, and what is the "77 Club"?
Lord JACQUES: That is an easy one for me, my Lords, because I have looked it up. Arusha is in Tanzania.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not the real problem here that of Government contributions to the Common Fund? In view of the fact that the non-aligned nations at Arusha decided to make their own substantial contributions, and bearing in mind that five European countries have agreed to do so, and that the Soviet Union and its allies have also agreed, is there not a danger that the United States of America, West Germany, and Britain may be ruled out of this great effort? Will the Government turn their mind very seriously to this problem, before Manila?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can give an undertaking that the Government are devoting, and will continue to devote, their minds very seriously to the problem.

UN TREATY AGAINST HOSTAGE-TAKING
2.39 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made by the United Nations committee at Geneva in preparing an international treaty against hostage-taking.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, considerable progress has been made. The text of a draft Convention will be submitted to the

357
next United Nations General Assembly where it is hoped those points still outstanding will be settled. The text has been placed in the Library. We await the committee's report.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply. Can he make clear whether endorsement by the General Assembly will be sufficient? Will it have to go to the Security Council? Will it have to be ratified by the separate Governments afterwards, and, if so, will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to speed up the process?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords; the normal process of ratification by the requisite number of Governments will, I presume, be a requirement of the General Assembly when it finalises the Convention. I can now give every assurance to my noble friend and to your Lordships that, as during the negotiations leading to this very useful draft Convention, the United Kingdom will, I hope, be in the van of those who will adopt and ratify the Convention.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is daily becoming more important that hostage-taking and political offences of all kinds should be incorporated within the multilateral laws regarding extradition, and that nothing short of that is likely to prove effective?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I certainly agree entirely, my Lords. This is a new dimension of offences which have been growing for some time, and they are presenting increasing problems not merely to some countries, but to all. With regard to the point about extradition, the aim of the draft Convention and of the finalised Convention will be to make extradition or home prosecution the only two alternatives for signatory Governments.

SAUDI ARABIA: STATE VISIT
2.42 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: 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 Her Majesty's Government why, in view of their concern for human rights, they advised Her Majesty the Queen to accord a State visit to Saudi Arabia.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Saudi Arabia is an important country with which we have long enjoyed friendly relations, to our mutual benefit. There is a large British community in the Kingdom, which is our largest market in Asia. Her Majesty's visit, as part of Her tour of Eastern Arabia, was entirely appropriate.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, while appreciating the necessity to balance the economic interests of royal visits with the characters of the régimes visited, may I ask my noble friend whether it did not put Her Majesty in an invidious position to arrive in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, the very day after there had been a public amputation in the centre of that city?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have myself had the privilege and high duty of accompanying Her Majesty as Minister in attendance on her visits to more than one country—countries which vary very much in their internal policies. I know of no country to which I have been with Her Majesty, and to which other Ministers have accompanied her, where the internal policies could be described as entirely congenial to public opinion in this country. I think we should be careful not to apply to any country our own well-founded traditional as well as subjective repugnancies to certain practices. These things may be applied to us by other countries, who sometimes find in our usages aspects which deeply offend them. In any case, the way to achieve a higher common factor of humanitarian practice in all countries is for contacts, especially contacts of this kind, to be amplified and multiplied.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, rather than carping at a friendly Government which has made great progress in recent years, would it not have been more appropriate if the noble Lord had also paid some tribute to the wonderful job of work which Her Majesty did on this most successful tour?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I believe it is to my noble friend that the noble Lord opposite is referring. I am quite certain that my noble friend, like me and the noble Lord who has just spoken, would be among the first to pay the highest tribute to the devotion to duty and the sheer expertise of Her Majesty in everything she undertakes.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me, and perhaps with other Members of your Lordships' House, that if Prince Philip can go to Moscow then surely his wife is entitled to go to Saudi Arabia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would also agree, I think with the entire House, that it is high time my noble friend Lord Shinwell took his place once more at this Box.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider sending a copy of his most admirable Answer to President Carter?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, as I have been referred to on the other side, I would ask your Lordships to accept that there was not the slightest intention of casting any slur on the work which, I agree with my noble friend, Her Majesty has done in an excellent manner on her trips; but that is not the point I was raising. Would my noble friend not agree that there does come a time when one has to balance organised, institutionalised terrorism along with the economic and strategic interests of this country when advising Her Majesty as to which countries she should visit?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point, I think I made it absolutely clear in my response to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I assumed that my noble friend Lord Hatch joined us all in paying tribute to Her Majesty. On the second point, I gave my view—and I think it is widely held—that in a world where countries' practices, philosophies and even religions vary so much, the best way to strive for a working congeniality of practice is by frequent visits and getting to know each other better, so that we move closer to a basic consensus of humanity. I am sure that it is not by
360
keeping away from each other, however obnoxious from time to time they or we may find certain practices in each other's policy. It is not in that way that we can aim at the essential unity of the various peoples of the world. It is a matter of opinion, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Hatch will give his attention to my opinion as well as I have to his.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the BBC coverage of Her Majesty's visit was very poor, and would it not be a good idea to encourage the BBC to provide us with a full-scale coverage of what took place so that we could all be better educated as to what happens in Saudi Arabia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not entirely for me to answer that one, I think, but I am always in favour of encouraging the BBC.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, in the present situation in which the BBC finds itself in regard to its licence fee, it is very difficult indeed for the BBC to cover so many activities abroad?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that is a very fair statement indeed, to which the entire House will pay proper attention.

SHIPPING: AID AND SALES TO VIETNAM
2.49 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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 upon what principles they relate the proposed sale of subsidised ships to Vietnam with previous sales to other countries; and what has been the total cost to the taxpayer of these subsidies in respect of sales to each country over the past five years.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Government are providing £4·5 million to the Government of Vietnam from our aid programme to assist it with

361
the purchase of these vessels. There is no subsidy to the shipbuilders. Over the past five years the Ministry of Overseas Development has provided £65·5 million to enable 12 countries to buy new and second-hand British ships for developmentally sound projects, but this is again not a form of subsidy. The Department of Industry has offered from the Ship-building Intervention Fund grants totalling £37·9 million to enable British shipyards to secure export orders.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he considers that the granting of these sums of money to the Communist-dominated State of Vietnam is justified in view of the invasion of Cambodia, or Kampuchea, by Vietnam itself? May I ask him another question? Is not the whole purpose of aid to assist territories who might be financially embarrassed in order to prevent those territories from falling under Communist domination?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I would put it this way. Aid is primarily intended to help impoverished countries and the impoverished people who live in them. We pay very careful attention to other criteria; among them, very importantly, a country's practice in regard to human rights and the way it is moving in that sense. This particular programme to assist with the purchase of vessels in this country for the service of Vietnam was committed some time ago, since when the development, the movement of affairs and policies in Vietnam (as the noble Lord quite rightly reminded us) has been extremely discouraging, to say the least, to those of us who are keen to see an expansion of human rights. For that reason, the Minister of State for Overseas Development announced in another place on 13th February that, apart from any disaster and humanitarian aid, the Government proposed to provide no further bilateral aid to Vietnam in the present circumstances of human rights there. It would have been contractually difficult and counter-productive to this country if we had ceased the aid project to which the noble Lord drew attention. We decided it was best to observe the contract, but to say at the same time that there will be no further aid except in response to the
362
High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian agencies of that kind.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while recognising, of course, the cogency of what the noble Lord has said both as regards the original decision and as regards what has supervened, in retrospect can one not say with certainty that the cause of humanity would have been more advanced if the money had been spent on the helpless Vietnamese who are drifting about the world on other people's ships without a haven of refuge?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not sure that in retrospect I would not agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said. Retrospection is at the same time tempting and daunting. However, we are in a contractual position which affects firms and workpeople in this country as well as the Vietnamese authorities. I think that on balance we have taken the right decision as regards that project. I agree entirely with him and I am glad that he has drawn attention once more in his own way to the tragedy of the massive exodus from Vietnam by helpless refugees, an exodus connived at and promoted by the authorities of the Vietnamese State.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify this matter, for it is rather confusing to me and probably to others? Is it not the case that these ships have been built in this country and the whole purpose was to provide work for people in this country, most of whom were unemployed or likely to be unemployed? Is that not the position?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, indeed. My noble friend has put with admirable clarity that the purpose of aid is to aid impoverished countries and the impoverished elements within them, while at the same time it has this acceptable advantage that the work is carried on and the goods are produced in this country, in this case in an industry which is in very great need of every support we can give it.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that to provide cheap ships to foreign countries of this sort who will run those ships with cheap crews will provide unfair competition to the European, and particularly

363
the British, merchant marine and exacerbate the present slump which has driven so many ships off the waters and delay the time when shipowners will be able to put genuine orders to the shipbuilders? Is the noble Lord aware that in the last two years the British merchant marine has reduced itself by 7 per cent? If ships are to be built by the Government to keep people employed, would it not be better that they should be chartered to British shipowners at prices which can be afforded in this slump, so that when the upturn comes, or when there is a strategic problem of war, these ships are in British hands and British sailors can benefit by employment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of important points; I hope I can remember all of them. As to the support for British shipbuilding firms, there is, of course, the intervention fund from which grants, not loans, can be made to them. As I showed in my Answer, a great deal has been done in that respect. As to competition, I think that this is arguable. However, aid, at the time, looked a very good thing, perhaps to encourage certain tendencies away from the past in favour of a better future, however we may think about it today. As to competition, if we had not done this I hardly think it would not have been done by others and possibly in the European Community; so that the question of competition is to be studied a little more carefully as to its implications, if I take a position of non possumus.
As to the international question of conditions, I agree with the noble Lord. There is still room for major improvement in the international agreements relating to conditions and standards, which include standards of payment. We have the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 which I put through another place, as the noble Lord will remember, which went a long way to do this with certain countries; but there are others coming up now on the shipping and shipbuilding scene and, speaking personally, I think it may be time to have another look at the internationalisation of standards and conditions and payment, and therefore of costs.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us how we are to reconcile this aid to Vietnam with our supposed
364
increasing contact with and friendship towards the people of the Republic of China?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would hope that we will turn this operation to advantage in the new situation created by the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Vietnamese territory. As the noble Lord knows, we are very active in the United Nations and in the Security Council, and we have taken something of a lead in an endeavour to get a decision, indeed a mandate, that all those concerned shall withdraw their troops and forces from all the countries concerned in Indo-China; and that applies to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia as well as to the Chinese operation in Vietnam.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL
2.59 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that before allowing the Bill to proceed they should consider whether in connection with the works authorised by the Bill, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land will have adequate redress under the Bill against the Board in respect of loss or damage occasioned by contractors or other persons let into the land by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the British Railways (Selby) Bill promoted by the British Railways Board is to get statutory authority for the construction of about 14 miles of new railway track and all the works connected with it. It is essential that part of the new Selby coal field which lies under the existing main line—and it would be a substantial part—shall not be sterilised. Everyone now agrees that this new stretch of rail is necessary and the petitioners are now convinced that the Bill is satisfactorily drafted and, therefore, it is no longer an opposed Bill.
As I explained when your Lordships gave this Bill a Second Reading, the interests of those whose land or buildings will be affected by the works will be well looked after by the various statutes under which British Rail will have to operate,

365
and also by the code of practice which has been agreed by the Board with the interested bodies, except in one respect. The British Railways Board do not agree that they should be responsible in any way for loss or damage that may be done to those whose land or premises are affected by the works and which is done by the contractors whom the Board employ and bring on to the land. Damage by contractors operating for the Department of Transport unfortunately occurs all too frequently during road building. It is one of the commonest grievances of occupiers affected by roadworks that damage is done and there is no redress, either because the contractor simply refuses to make good the loss and the wronged person chooses not to pursue him through the courts as this would leave him worse off even if he succeeds or the contractor or sub-contractor cannot be identified, or else the contractor goes bankrupt and cannot pay anyway. This happens so often when roads are built that it is not reasonable to suppose that this new railway line will be built without similar cases. It is therefore hoped that British Rail will agree, in the code of practice to which I have referred, that they will be responsible for damage caused through the negligence of their contractors.
I know that British Rail have not built a new line for some time, but there is another public body which is actively acquiring land for laying pipelines and carrying out construction works, and this is the British Gas Corporation. This body takes a more enlightened view and undertakes in its code of practice to be responsible for the damage caused by its contractors. I quoted the relevant passage from their code of practice on Second Reading. I also quoted from a National Coal Board publication on compensation which demonstrates a rather more helpful attitude than that of British Rail. British Gas admit that their undertaking was made wholly in their own interests rather than from solicitude towards the owners and occupiers concerned. So clearly they find the task of acquisition, compensation and agreeing terms for reinstatement and so on is made much easier by eliminating this cause of grievance. It must be cheaper in the long run for British Gas to act in this way—so why not for British Rail?
366
The argument advanced by the British Railways Board is that such a concession would open the flood-gates of claims upon the taxpayer and set dangerous precedents. I cannot see that there is any merit whatever in this argument. First, I do not suppose that anyone believes that there is going to be a flood or avalanche of new railway lines being built in this country. We are still heavily engaged in digging up miles and miles of disused track. Secondly, there is no suggestion that British Rail should be responsible for contractors' damage after a new stretch—in this case the 14 miles of Selby—is completed. Thirdly, if damage is done to land, buildings or crops, there are three ways of paying for it: first, by the employer—in this case, British Rail—secondly, by the contractor who perpetrates the damage. Thirdly, by the owner or occupier who suffers the loss. British Rail are, in effect, saying that, if the contractor who should pay will not pay, then the occupier must do so since British Rail will have no part in the matter.
It is hard to see how any additional burden can be placed upon the taxpayer through British Rail assuming responsibility. When they enter into a contract with a firm to do work for them, they will presumably use or be guided by the Institution of Civil Engineers' conditions of contract; that is, the conditions of contract in connection with works of civil engineering construction which, suitably amended and brought up to date, have been widely used since 1945. One of those recommended conditions—No. 22—is that a contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the employer against all claims, demands, damages, et cetera, in respect of the works. Condition No. 23 sets out how this should be done by insurance.
We can be sure that British Rail will exact rigorous conditions from their contractors with regard to damage through faulty construction, and they could, I should have thought, also insist on the kind of recommended conditions with regard to damage to third parties' property to which I have just referred. I think it right that the British Railways Board should be required to consider once more why they should not follow the excellent example of British Gas. The amount of the claims in such cases is usually small. It is reasonable that a claimant should not

367
be put to the considerable expense of pursuing a contractor brought on to his land by British Rail, but should be able to go direct to the Board, subject, of course, to a fair assessment of damage. I believe that a more reasonable attitude by British Rail in this particular case, and perhaps in due course by the Department of Transport in the case of road building, would build up a fund of goodwill that would in the end result in cheaper acquisition rather than create an additional burden upon the taxpayer. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that before allowing the Bill to proceed they should consider whether in connection with the works authorised by the Bill, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land will have adequate redress under the Bill against the Board in respect of loss or damage occasioned by contractors or other persons let into the land by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. —(Lord Middleton.)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said, this Bill is an unopposed one and will in the normal way be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. If the House accepts the noble Lord's Instruction, I intend to follow the new procedure which was recently agreed by your Lordships. Your Lordships will recall that, on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, Private Bill Standing Orders were recently amended to give me discretion to invite members of the panel of deputy chairmen to assist me on an Unopposed Bill Committee. In the event of this Instruction being accepted, that is the procedure I intend to follow. The committee will then consider carefully the matters raised in the noble Lord's Instruction together with the words that he has uttered this afternoon, and will of course also hear submissions from the promoters. Then, as is usual when an Instruction is sent to a committee, that committee will make a special report to this House.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND (No.2) BILL [H.L.]

  formerly NATIONAL LAND FUND BILL [H.L.]
  3.8 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 1 [Trustees of the National Heritage Fund]:
  The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, there may be a misprint in the copy of the Marshalled List which some of your Lordships have. Amendment No. 1 should read: "Page 1, line 6", and then as printed.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 6, after ("1946") insert ("shall henceforth be known as the National Heritage Fund and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I ask leave to discuss Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 at the same time, as they are consequential on the first Amendment. It is very simple: having at an earlier stage altered the name of the fund and the name of the Bill, it now apparently becomes possible to alter the name of the fund to the National Heritage Fund and therefore be consistent throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Administration of the Fund]:
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 7, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Heritage").
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I should point out that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
  Lord GIBSON Lord GIBSON moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment would deprive the Treasury of the power to order the trustees of the Heritage Fund to compensate the Inland

  369
  Revenue for capital tax lost when what are known as the "in lieu" provisions are used—in other words, when land, buildings and works of art are taken by the Government in lieu of tax. The Treasury, of course, has possessed the power to use, and has used, the Land Fund in this way since the Finance Act 1946. We are discussing this Bill in the knowledge that it may very well not become law and that it is the Government's proposals in the White Paper which are perhaps more likely to reach the Statute Book. One of the main differences between this Bill and the White Paper is that the latter envisages the abolition of the "in lieu" provisions, but I am moving this Amendment on the basis that this Bill becomes law and that the "in lieu" provisions continue in force.
  My proposition is simply this: if we are dealing with a Bill to set up an independent body of trustees to administer a fund hitherto administered by the Treasury, we ought to take this opportunity to establish a better and different principle to the one we have followed hitherto. We should establish that, from now on, when the owner of a so-called heritage asset offers it to the State and when the Government, properly advised, are ready to accept it, it should be regarded as a tax-exempt gift to the State and the tax should simply be written off. Of course, it is true that physical assets have to be paid for with resources which could have been spent on something else, but there is a clear distinction between those assets which are consumable or which have to be depreciated and those which do not. In the case of land, historic buildings and works of art, the State is acquiring a non-expendable and non-depreciating asset—except, of course, that buildings require maintenance, but that is another matter—and there should be no need in such cases to compensate the Inland Revenue.
  I believe this is an accepted principle in France, where it is recognised that the tax yield from such objects is so small in relation to the total yield from capital taxation that an exception to the general rule can be made: the tax foregone is accordingly written off. If we, too, adopt this principle we shall enable the trustees of the Heritage Fund to concentrate all their relatively scarce resources on the acquisition and, where necessary,
  370
  the endowment of buildings, land and works of art not offered in satisfaction of tax. If this Heritage Fund is to make any real impact on the problem it is set up to deal with, it will have to be many times larger than the Land Fund if it is to meet even the most essential calls upon it and at the same time compensate for the tax foregone. Let us instead adopt a more civilised approach; write off the tax and be done with it.
  I hope that this Amendment may be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, but if, instead of this Bill, the Government's proposals become law the "in lieu" system will be replaced by private treaty sales, in which case no question of compensating the Revenue will arise. I should not like it to be thought, simply because I move this Amendment, that I favour the abolition of the "in lieu" system. In fact, quite the contrary is the case, and I fear that the disappearance of the "in lieu" system may throw even greater burdens on the Heritage Fund. Here I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the National Trust, which warmly welcomes the White Paper as a step in the right direction and wholeheartedly approves the concept of a genuine contingency fund. It is true that the National Trust has benefited greatly from the old Land Fund and I want to acknowledge this debt with gratitude. Much of the most beautiful countryside in the possession of the Trust has come to it from the fund and so have six or seven of the most famous houses in the country. Moreover, I would emphasise that, far from having found the Treasury unhelpful, we have been much assisted by the way in which it has dealt with us in all cases where the Land Fund has been used. So the National Trust is grateful to the Land Fund; nevertheless, we wholly approve the change to an independently managed fund.
  Having said that, however, the consequential proposal to abolish the "in lieu" system does give us cause for concern, and I want to ask the Government to consult us and others before they frame their legislation. At present, bodies like museums, the National Trust, the National Art Collections Fund and so on—there are many such bodies—acquire heritage assets in lieu of tax at little or no cost to themselves. If in the future all those bodies have to apply to the Heritage

  371
  Fund for grants to pay for these things, the competition for the fund's resources will be extremely heavy. I am told, for example, that the indemnity value of privately-owned works of art now on loan to the national collections alone is about £75 million. I appreciate there are assurances in the White Paper that the fund is not expected to do everything and that the Government will sometimes give direct aid, but the present "in lieu" system would, on the face of it, seem far more predictable and, for myself, I should prefer to see it left in being when the new fund is established. As an instrument it has served us well, and if the difficulties of saving priceless assets for the nation are to be overcome it seems a pity to discard any weapon of proved efficacy. It is much better to keep it and write off the tax.
  One last point, my Lords: it is a widely agreed objective that historic houses should retain their historic contents, but the National Trust has no purchase grants to help finance the acquisition of pictures or furniture by private treaty; and, if museums are asked to help us, will they want to leave pictures partly acquired with their precious purchase grants on the walls of National Trust houses? There are other worries with which I shall not detain your Lordships, such as the cost for the acquiring bodies of the negotiations now carried out by the Treasury Solicitor, and difficulties of that kind. Some of the acquiring bodies are quite unsuited to undertake negotiations at all, but I shall not detain your Lordships over these points. I hope the Trust, with other acquiring bodies and all concerned, will have the opportunity of discussing these matters with Ministers and officials before their proposals harden. In the meantime, I move this Amendment to call attention to the opportunity now before us to ensure that the relatively small resources now in the Land Fund and in the proposed Heritage Fund are not overburdened either by having to compensate the Revenue or by the removal of the "in-lieu" system which has served us so well. I beg to move.
  Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I wish very warmly to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Gibson. I hope that the noble
  372
  Lord, Lord Reigate, will accept it. The subsection that it is sought to delete assumes that, contrary to the proposals in the Government's White Paper, the "in lieu" system by which the Treasury may accept items for the national heritage in lieu of tax will be continued.
  I am most anxious that the "in lieu" system should be continued. It was first introduced in 1910 and over the years has played a valuable part in the preservation of the heritage. I will only instance the splendid works of art such as the Rembrandt portrait of an old man now in the National Gallery, the great Holbein cartoon of Henry VIII and other things from Chatsworth which were acquired by the nation for £1 million in the 1950s, and the Wellington papers currently being acquired for the nation for, I believe, a sum of £750,000 through the operation of the "in lieu" system.
  The fact is that while the operation of the system, with the provisions that it incorporates for the douceur which is referred to in the White paper, may indeed put the Treasury to some little trouble on some occasions, it does provide the owners of important heritage items and their executors with the simplest and most effective way of enabling those items to become the property of the nation and to be kept, on the advice of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, in the most appropriate locations.
  The expanded system of private treaty sales proposed in the White Paper will not be so simple or so attractive from the point of view of owners, and it will not therefore be so effective in preserving the national heritage. It is one thing for an owner to be advised to surrender something rather than to pay an equivalent amount of tax. It is quite another to tell him that he ought to choose a gallery that may or may not have the funds available and to open negotiations with them; and he may, anyway, wish to hand over his property to the National Trust and to ask them to continue to house in it an item that is historically associated with it, which he wishes to surrender to the nation.
  Is the Minister able to tell the House whether the Government consulted the Standing Commission on this matter and, if so, what the Standing Commission advised? If they did not consult the

  373
  Standing Commission, why did they not do so? Perhaps he would tell us, also, whether the National Gallery was asked to express a view, or has expressed a view, and, if so, what it was. While, therefore, I ardently hope that the "in lieu" system will be continued as being in the best interest of the preservation of our national heritage, I support this Amendment because I believe that the operation of the "in lieu" system, the acceptance by the Treasury of items of the heritage in lieu of tax, should fall entirely outside the operations of the National Heritage Fund, whereas the subsection which the Amendment seeks to delete would perpetuate the system of reimbursement to the Treasury for items accepted.
  The fact is that such reimbursement by the National Land Fund, which was provided for in the Act of 1946, was, of course, no part of the "in lieu" system that was introduced in 1910, more than 35 years before the National Land Fund existed. And while it was perhaps possible, though doubtfully, I think, to justify the Treasury, having accepted an item in lieu of tax, reimbursing itself out of another pocket, so to speak, from the National Land Fund which they then controlled, now that the National Heritage Fund is to be in the hands of independent trustees, such reimbursement would be quite indefensible. It would mean that the Treasury, having accepted the item—land, historic house, picture or whatever it may be—would not only have the item, but would also require to be paid for it. They would have their cake and eat it, too, and that, in ordinary parlance, would be tantamount to fraud.
  I hold, therefore, that while the "in lieu" system should be continued, it should be continued independently of the National Heritage Fund and that there should be no question of reimbursement. If it be said that this would be an open-ended commitment to the Treasury, the answer is that they are always in a position to refuse to accept an item offered under the "in lieu" system; to refuse it not on any ground of their assessment of its national importance on which they would no doubt have, and would no doubt accept, the advice of experts, but to refuse it simply on the ground of not being able to find the money to pay for it. And if it also be said that the continuance
  374
  of the system would involve an additional Treasury expenditure of the £2 million or so a year, which the "in lieu" system has hitherto involved, the answer to that is that the White Paper tells us that more than £120 million a year is already provided for the national heritage, and to say in the light of that figure that some £2 million cannot be found to continue the "in lieu" system is manifest nonsense.
  For these reasons, I warmly support the Amendment and I hope that my noble friend will accept it. I hope also, profoundly, that if the Amendment is not accepted the "in lieu" system will nevertheless be continued, for its continuance would quite certainly be in the interest of the preservation of our heritage.
  3.25 p.m.
  Lord ANNAN: My Lords, may I follow the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, for moving this Amendment. I shall not add anything to what they have already said about the continuance of the "in lieu" system, though here I must declare an interest as a trustee of the British Museum and of the National Gallery. But one of the factors which it is very important to take into account if there is any question of abolishing the "in lieu" system, is that the situation can very well arise where the trustees of whatever body is set up to administer the funds of the National Heritage Fund may well find that, in asking a museum or a gallery to accept a work of art, they will have to demand that that museum or gallery pays something towards the purchase of the work of art concerned. They would then find that, through no fault of the trustees of that museum or gallery, the trustees would have spent their purchase fund for that year and that work of art would then be lost to the nation. This is one of the things which anybody who administers a fund during the year for purchasing works of art knows can happen very easily. It is impossible to predict when works of art will come upon the market. That is the real value of the "in lieu" system.
  May I also reinforce one point which noble Lords have already made on the principle of consultation. It seems to me very unfortunate that this proposal to abolish the "in lieu" system came about without, so far as I can ascertain.

  375
  adequate consultation. Indeed, directors of museums and galleries were in constant touch with the Treasury and had their regular meetings every month or so in the Treasury, but never a word was said about the abolition of the "in lieu" system. Of course, I am not suggesting that there was any deception on the part of anyone concerned. I am not for one moment suggesting such a thing. But it seems to me as if this proposal to abolish the "in lieu" system somehow got inserted into the White Paper at a rather late stage in the writing of it. I would have been much happier if museums and galleries had been asked for their opinion before the White Paper was written.
  I say this, because I remember that it was only 10 years or so ago that some of us heard in your Lordships' House one of the most sustained polemics which has been delivered in recent times in this House. It was delivered by Lord Radcliffe at the time when the Government of the day decided, without consultation, to sell the site to which the British Library was to have been moved. Here, again, that was done without any consultation with the trustees of the British Museum. I wish that the Departments concerned in Whitehall would consult the trustees of these bodies before publishing something which is enshrined not in a Green Paper but in a White Paper, and therefore making it all the more difficult to get the Government to alter their opinion. May I just add my voice to those who wish to vote for this Amendment, and ask the Government whether they would very carefully consider the points which have been made in this debate before they introduce legislation in another place on this topic?
  3.29 p.m.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am the last person in the world to disagree with the noble Lord when he suggests that there should be ample consultation before proposals are brought forward in the form of a White Paper or legislation. It probably would have been helpful if the Government had embarked on some discussion with the museums and galleries before the drafting of the White Paper, and I am surprised to hear, from what the noble Lord and others have said, that they have not done so. However, I do not altogether
  376
  understand the opposition which has been expressed on all sides to the replacement of the "in lieu" provisions by the private treaty arrangements which are envisaged in the White Paper.
  If there was any disincentive in the change for private owners to transfer their property to museums and galleries, or if it was made more difficult for museums and galleries to acquire private property, then I could understand the anxieties which have been expressed. However, to take the White Paper at its face value, it says that the identical tax and douceur arrangements apply in the case of private treaty sales to national and local museums and galleries, the National Trust and other institutions concerned with the preservation of our heritage. Therefore the individual owner is left in the same financial position, whether property is accepted in lieu of tax or is the subject of a private treaty sale.
  That takes care of the position where a person transfers his property to a public institution, whereas if one looks at it from the point of view of the gallery or other acquiring body I read lower down on page 4 of the White Paper that the Government intend to make special arrangements to ensure that in cases where the acceptance in lieu provision would have applied, the acquiring body will not have to contribute more to the acquisition than at present. Provided, therefore, that the Government can satisfy your Lordships, first, that the person transferring the assets is in no worse financial position than he would have been otherwise and, secondly, that the museum, gallery or other acquiring institution does not have to find more money than otherwise it would have had to do, then surely nobody at all is disadvantaged by the change. We have a common system of acquisition by private treaty, which I should have thought was a simplification of the existing procedures.
  However, this is the first time that I had realised that there was any strong objection to these proposals, and since the White Paper was published only a short time ago I think that it would be very helpful to hear what the Minister has to say this afternoon.
  3.32 p.m.
  The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My

  377
  Lords, before the noble Lord replies to the Amendment, I feel that I must say a word, but I am not going to be drawn at this stage into a full discussion of the proposals in the White Paper. The position is that my officials and the officials of the Department of the Environment, of the Treasury and of Scotland and Wales are at the moment meeting more than once a week in order to draw up a Bill which will eventually be presented to Parliament. That will be the right moment to discuss the details. However, my right honourable friend Mr. Joel Barnett, when he announced the White Paper to the Press, said that he thought that there would be a great deal to discuss, because there were a number of details which had not been settled, and he hoped that all interested parties would join in the discussion. In point of fact, one of my senior officials will be talking tomorrow to, I think, six heads of museums.
  We in the Government are quite determined that the change in the "in lieu" procedure, which is roughed out in the White Paper, should not work to the disadvantage either of people who wish to submit things in lieu or of institutions which wish to acquire them. I am not going to take it any further than that today because the details are still being discussed. If we find that there are insuperable difficulties, we can even go back on things. The intention of the Government in the White Paper is perfectly clear. This is not an appropriate Bill on which to discuss the matter. Therefore, I shall not vote either way on this Amendment.
  Today, I do not want to take the matter any further, beyond making two points. First, this is the first time for some time that my colleagues in the Treasury have been publicly congratulated by anybody, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gibson for having said what he did. During the last 25 years that Department of State has done something very remarkable for this country, and it gets absolutely no credit whatever for it from the lobby. I resent this very much. But that is all right; that is what we are here for. Secondly, we are going to have complete consultation now. It might have been better to have had consultation first, but we must remember that there was a parliamentary committee which received evidence, that we were able to read, from
  378
  all the available bodies. It would not be true to say that it was consulted, but the matter was very closely discussed with the Standing Commission.
  Having said that, that is all that I want to say at this stage. In due course, after full consultation, we shall have the opportunity to see what the Bill produces.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, first may I say that it would be with great pleasure that I should accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and supported by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe and by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I do not know whether your Lordships will think that the Minister's reply to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe is adequate. I do not propose to comment upon it.
  My Bill has been before your Lordships' House in one form or another for over a year, and I cannot but feel that if the Government were at any stage moved to act in any of these directions they might have started their consultations with the authorities concerned; namely, the Museums Association or anybody else. It is all very well for the noble Lord to come along at this stage and to say, "I'm not going to bother with your little Bill. It will all be put right in our Bill". That Bill is not yet even drafted. When can the noble Lord promise us that it will be put before the House; and who, can he promise us, will introduce it?
  I am not one to take umbrage, but I do not think that my efforts in this direction have been taken as seriously as it would have been sensible to take them. My Bill could have been taken at the Second Reading stage and have had incorporated in it all the recommendations of the Select Committee. I shall leave the point there. My Bill will have a Third Reading quite soon, I hope, if your Lordships approve it today, and in due course it will be presented in another place. If, however, the attitude of the noble Lord is repeated in the other place, the Bill will be stopped; that will be their decision and that is all there is to it. In the meanwhile, I am delighted to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, if for no other reason than that Amendment No. 4 is no longer in order, which means that I do not have to

  379
  draw attention to the fact that I forgot to insert the words "of Inland Revenue".
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.37 p.m.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 2, line 16, leave out ("one-sixth") and insert ("one-quarter").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this alters the amount of the capital of the Fund upon which the trustees can draw without query from one-sixth to one-quarter. At an earlier stage of this Bill and, indeed, in the previous Bill, I was anxious to placate Treasury opinion, and I described this as a sop to Cerberus. I was unsuccessful. Since then we have had the White Paper.
  At this stage I totally disagree with the intent of the White Paper to fetter the trustees as much as is proposed. It is the intention of the White Paper and, apparently, of the Bill, whenever it appears, to limit the expenditure on items of land and buildings to not more than —1 million, and on other items to not more than one-quarter of a million pounds at any one time without the permission of the Government. The phrasing of the White Paper is very vague. It appears that the total limit is to be £5 million. I find this to be quite unsatisfactory. I wish the trustees to have unfettered freedom where the income of the fund is concerned; I think that they are unsuitable to be trustees if they cannot be trusted. As to the capital, I think that the trustees should have the power to spend up to one-quarter of the capital of the fund. I accept that some restraint is necessary, if for no other reason than to provide some defence for the trustees against excessive and extravagant demands from other quarters. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 25, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Heritage").
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Appointment and dismissal of Trustees]:
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 30, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Heritage").
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 9;
  Page 2, line 31, leave out ("five") and insert ("six").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is quite simple. It increases the total number of trustees from six to seven; that is, including the chairman. I am sure from experience all your Lordships will agree that on any committee or board it is better not to have an even number. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.42 p.m.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In selecting suitable persons for appointment as Trustees, the Prime Minister shall give preference to those who appear to him to have knowledge of finance and administration, or knowledge of architecture and the fine arts or such other aspects of the National Heritage as he deems appropriate.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the appointment of trustees. Since I launched this Bill some long time ago, I have received a great many suggestions from various quarters as to the qualifications which should be demanded of whoever appoints the trustees. There have been a great many suggestions which would enlarge the scope of the choice, which I have so far resisted. However, in this particular Amendment I have amended the Bill to include such other aspects as might occur to the Prime Minister from time to time. The problem here is that no one really can define "national heritage". I was challenged on this by one of my correspondents and I sat down and tried to define it, but I did not get very far. The fact is that we all in our own hearts understand perfectly well what is meant by the phrase, "national heritage", and if we were all to put down

  381
  our definitions I should think 90 per cent. of them would overlap, but it becomes a little difficult round the edges of the definition. When I was talking to a friend of mine I listed the obvious matters which would come within the province of the national heritage and when I had given a very long list he said "You have forgotten Cruft's Dog Show". There are many people in this country who would look on that as part of the national heritage, but I doubt whether it would be very popular as an object of expenditure for the fund. However, it gives some idea of the difficulties encountered.
  In this Bill I have stressed architecture and works of art. The original purpose of the Bill was, in Dr. Dalton's view, to secure land; but I think most of us realise that in the 30 years since Dr. Dalton made that proposition there have been considerable changes. Legislation has done more to secure our heritage as regards land than has probably been done by the National Land Fund itself. Circumstances have changed and I think most of us realise now that it is works of art and buildings which are most at risk. None the less there are other spheres of interest and the threat may change. The fact is as regards land preservation or conservation —or whatever the phrase is—it has one advantage, in that it cannot be pulled down like a building and it cannot be sold abroad like a work of art. So it has a stronger chance of remaining part of the national heritage than works of art or architecture. I am not averse to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his Amendment, but I am anxious not to open the door any wider than that or the next thing I shall get will be a demand for wildlife conservation and possibly even Cruft's Dog Show. I hope your Lordships will agree with this Amendment and that it will solve the problem. I beg to move.
  The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, we will now take Amendment No. 11 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 10.
  Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 11 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 10:
  Line 4, after first ("of") insert ("land conservation, or knowledge of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say first that it was with some consternation that I heard the
  382
  remarks of the noble Lord the Minister in reply to an earlier Amendment, because we seem to be wasting the time of the House in discussing this Bill at all if the attitude of the Government is going to be that, notwithstanding anything your Lordships may decide, this Bill must be swept under the carpet and we shall have to wait until the White Paper has been fully considered and the Government have brought forward their own legislation.
  This is a rather cavalier attitude to take to your Lordships' House. The Government come forward with a casual remark of this kind when we are in the middle of the Report stage, having carefully gone through—as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said—something like a year of very thorough consideration of these matters and arrived at the Bill which is now before your Lordships and which is capable of being modified as it continues its stages, both in this House and in another place, so as to fit in not only with the proposals in the White Paper but with anything which may arise from the consultations about which the Minister has just told us. Before we leave this afternoon, I hope that we can persuade the Minister at least to modify that attitude and to say that it is possible that if the consultations make good progress, as we hope they will—and the Minister has said that they are already under way—it is not too late for the results of those consultations to be embodied in this Bill when it gets to another place.
  I certainly do not want to make the appointment of the trustees as complicated as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has envisaged. I can quite imagine the situation, because I know in other Bills people have suggested all sorts of other bodies which ought to be consulted and I would not wish to embody the trustees of Cruft's Dog Show among those who should be included in the list. To open the door to a multitude of other interests who think that they are entitled to special consideration when it comes to making decisions of this kind would be a great mistake; but I want to restore the central importance of land and to recognise it in the appointment of trustees, as it was originally envisaged by Dr. Dalton when he set up the fund in 1946. As my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington pointed out when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, the fund was originally conceived as being mainly for the purchase

  383
  of land, although in point of fact I understand that something like 75 per cent. of the money which has been spent since then has gone on works of art and buildings, and only something of the order of 25 per cent. has been used to acquire land.
  That is partly because other mechanisms have been developed and the Treasury point out to the Select Committee on expenditure (Cmnd. 280, paragraph 12) that Dr. Dalton's ideas for creating national parks and for the acquisition for the public of stretches of coast and open country has seen fruition in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and presumably in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Nature Conservancy Council Act of 1973. But the Select Committee went on to remark that the development of these alternative mechanisms has not allayed the fears for the future by organisations concerned with the land aspect of the national heritage. If one looks, for example, at the evidence given by the CPRE in paragraph 21 of the appendices to the minutes of evidence, one sees that in the CPRE's submission to the environment subcommittee inquiring into national parks and countryside it says:
  "We drew attention to the serious financial constraints which continue to prevent National Park authorities and the Countryside Commission from fulfilling the full potential of national parks"—
  and it goes on in that vein.
  That is why it is so important, I think, to ensure that in applying this fund, which will according to the White Paper have initially something like £5 million a year more than the National Land Fund has in its pocket at the moment—£15 million will be handed over and there will be another £5 million on top of that—the preservation of the countryside for the benefit of the people should be one of the main objectives kept in mind. It is for that reason that in this Amendment I am proposing that the wording of the noble Lord's clause on the appointment of trustees be slightly modified so as to include, in particular, land conservation. To allay his fears on the opening of the floodgates to the many other interests which might think that they had an entitlement to be represented, may I refer the noble Lord to the second paragraph of the White Paper where the Government state as their aim:
  384
  "To maintain and enhance all aspects of our heritage, including"—
  and they mention this first—
  "our countryside, historic buildings and their contents, and major works of art".
  So if we have a difficulty in defining what we mean by heritage, the simplest solution, I would suggest to your Lordships, is that we merely accept those items which are mentioned in the White Paper as being the ones what we are talking about in this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I listened very sympathetically to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. I must say I am still very reluctant to open the floodgates, all the same. He referred to the White Paper which refers to the countryside. His Amendment refers to "land conservation". I do not want to be pedantic, but what does he mean exactly by "land conservation"? If you take it as meaning someone who has knowledge of the countryside, it would be very hard to find somebody who has not any knowledge of the countryside, whereas when you are dealing with historic buildings and works of art you have experts and an expertise which is not demanded in the case of knowledge of land preservation or land conservation. We are not talking about soil conservation but land conservation. I honestly do not quite know what the phrase means, and I frankly would prefer not to accept it.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if one was thinking of a name out of thin air, one could not do better than refer to our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who, as chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, is a person who has detailed knowledge of the countryside.
  Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, preservation of the countryside in the sense of the prevention of despoilment by building and development is one thing, but I doubt whether the words "land conservation" are apt to cover that kind of expertise. As I understand the expression "land conservation", it mainly conveys to most people's minds the protection of land from erosion by flood, protection by erection of sea defences and that kind of thing, which I would have

  385
  thought was not particularly appropriate in this case. Both for that narrow reason and for the wider one, that once you start specifying specialities of this kind there is no end to the process, I very much hope that my noble friend will not accept the Amendment.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, there seem to be two points here. There is the question of whether the exact phrase I have used in the Amendment meets the requirement which I am trying to outline, and I think there can be differences of opinion about that. I certainly differ from the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If they can think of a better way of describing what I am trying to do, I am certainly prepared to take the wording away and bring back something better at Third Reading, if the principle can be accepted. I think the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is sympathetic towards what I am trying to do. He is only concerned, as I understand him, to ensure that, notwithstanding the concern of your Lordships' House with the protection of beautiful countryside, we do not give the opportunity to all the other interests the noble Lord has mentioned to come forward and demand to be included among those nominated as trustees. Provided that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, can assure me that he is not in any way opposed to the principle, I am perfectly prepared to go away and consult with my noble friend Lady Robson, and of course with the noble Lord himself, and come back at Third Reading with wording that I hope will be acceptable to him.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am most anxious to placate the noble Lord so far as I can, but I did consider the matter between Committee stage and this stage
  and that is why I included the words "other aspects", which includes land conservation, soil conservation and almost anything else you like. I really would much prefer to leave it at that. If I may amplify the difficulty I am in, and which the Government will find themselves to be in if they ever get around to having a Bill at all, it is that it is a great mistake to tie the hands of the appointer of trustees with restrictions of this kind. And, blow me down!, the Government have done it already: they say Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be represented—out of a small number of trustees. Supposing they have seven, as I am suggesting in my Bill; three of those would be one Scot, one Welshman and one Northern Irishman; that is only four to represent little England and land conservation and everything else. It is a mistake at this stage. Perhaps I might in passing, although it is quite irrelevant to the Amendment I am discussing, draw your Lordships' attention to the sentence;
  "Scottish and Welsh bodies would continue to be eligible for assistance from the fund after Devolution".
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I did go as far as I thought I possibly could in trying to meet the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. If he does not feel able to accept the Amendment or to give an undertaking that after consultation he would be prepared to accept something on similar lines at Third Reading, I have no alternative but to test the feeling of your Lordships' House.
  3.57 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 102.

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Banks, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Brockway, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Avebury, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Alport, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Annan, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  de Clifford, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Avon, E.

  Collison, L.

  Denham, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Cromartie, E.

  Dulverton, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Kinross, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Long, V.

  Sligo, M.

  Emmet of Amberley, B.

  Lothian, V.

  Snow, L.

  Evans of Hungershall, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Somers, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Lyell, L.

  Spens, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Stamp, L.

  Fisher of Camden, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

  Gibson, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Stone, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Molson, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Morris, L.

  Gordon-Walker, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Sudeley, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Thomas, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Northchurch, B.

  Thurlow, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Hale, L.

  Plant, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Hanworth, V.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Vickers, B. [Teller.]

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Porritt, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Ward of North Tyneside, B.

  Henderson, L.

  Reigate, L. [Teller.]

  Westbury, L.

  Hood, V.

  Robbins, L.

  Willis, L.

  Hornsby-Smith, B.

  Roberthall, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Wilson of Langside, L.

  Janner, L.

  Segal, L.

  Wootton of Abinger, B.

  Killearn, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [Short Title Commencement and Repeals]:
  4.6 p.m.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 3, leave out line 3 and insert—
  ("(2) Section 48 of the Finance Act 1946 is hereby").

  HOVERCRAFT (CIVIL LIABILITY) ORDER 1979
  4.7 p.m.
  Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1979, laid before the House on 19th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 1(1) of the Hovercraft Act 1968. It replaces a similar order made in 1971. It is necessary partly because of inflation and partly because there have been
  388
  changes in legislation in the meantime. In effect, it updates the 1971 order.
  In 1971 a modified version of the Carriage by Air Act 1961 and the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1962 was applied in respect of liability in carriage of passengers and luggage on hovercraft. It fixed the limit in respect of death or personal injury to passengers at £12,000. The order which is before the House will increase that limit to £30,000. I shall give two comparisons, one as regards shipping and the other as regards air.
  In the case of shipping, the limit of liability is just over £30,000 under the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In the case of travel by air, there is at present a Bill before the House —the Carriage by Air and Road Bill—which proposes a limit of £66,000 per passenger, plus costs.
  In 1971, the limit of liability for luggage was fixed at £138 for the luggage in the passenger's charge, and at £7 per kilo for other luggage. Since 1971, those limits have been increased in respect of air passengers. The £138 for luggage in the passenger's control has been increased to £216. The £7 per kilo for other luggage has been increased to £10·78 per kilo. Those higher figures already apply to aircraft passengers. However, experience has shown that in the case of hovercraft the luggage is seldom weighed, and that

  389
  the limit which was related to weight is not suitable. The order before the House raises the limits for luggage in the control of the passenger from £138 to £216, so that is the same as it is for air passengers. However, in the case of other luggage, instead of adopting a rate per kilo, it fixes an additional and separate limit of £216. So there is a maximum claim of £216 for luggage in the passenger's control and a further £216 in respect of other luggage.
  In 1971, the liability rules for cargo were based upon the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924. However, in June 1977 that Act was superseded by bringing into force the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971. The order now before the House applies this change in maritime law to hovercraft.
  I turn now to the vexed question of global limit. In maritime law, shipowners have a global limitation of liability. The 1971 order applied the law to hovercraft, but expressed the limits per kilo instead of per tonne. Those limits applying to shipping have since been increased by approximately 50 per cent. This order gives a similar increase in the limits for hovercraft. However, in 1971 and in the order which is before the House, in the case of hovercraft there was and is excluded from the global liability the liability to passengers for death, personal injury and luggage. Shipowners can include passenger claims in the global limitation, but they will be limited in so doing when the 1976 London Convention comes into force. Provision for the United Kingdom implementation of that convention is included in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is at present under consideration in another place.
  I should explain what the London Convention will do in regard to shipping. It will not allow the shipowner to include his liability to the passenger in the global liability, but it will fix a separate global liability of £16 million for any one incident, regardless of the size of the ship, for liability to passengers for death or personal injury. To apply this global liability of £16 million to hovercraft would, in practice, have no effect because the largest hovercraft has a capacity of just over 400 passengers and if that hovercraft were fully laden and every passenger was able to claim the maximum
  390
  of £30,000, it would still fall short of the global limitation for shipping of £16 million.
  It is intended that the order before the House will come into operation on 1st April. We have had all the necessary consultations and we are satisfied that it will not cause inconvenience. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1979, laid before the House on 19th February, be approved. —(Lord Jacques.)
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, there is really not too much to say about this order. Of course the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the order. We on this side of the House have no wish to hold it up or to oppose it. Indeed, as it is an order, despite its long and detailed provisions, we would not be able to amend it even if we wanted to. Therefore, all we could do would be to reject it, which clearly is not desirable.
  However, briefly, I should like to sound one note of warning. In recent months and years we have considered a number of orders relating to hovercraft, and in general we seem to be applying to them the full panoply of civil aviation legislation. As the noble Lord has explained, that is not strictly true in the case of this order because here we are introducing some of the principles of maritime legislation. But I hope that we shall avoid the pitfall of so ensnaring these new, revolutionary craft in a tangle of complicated legislation that their effective operation becomes difficult or impossible. Already there are some doubts about what I shall call the "airworthiness" code—if that is the right word—which is applied to hovercraft. Some say that these craft are now so wrapped around in regulation that their exploitation will prove difficult. I have the impression that we shall do that in this other area of civil liability also.
  Of course passengers and shippers who use these craft are entitled to proper protection. Certainly this order provides for that. But I am concerned that we are making the whole fabric of the legislation surrounding these craft so complicated

  391
  that there may at least be a disincentive to operators to introduce them on a wider scale. However, having said that, I do not think that this is the time or the place to oppose the order. Indeed, I hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, briefly, I should like to thank the Minister for the clear and lucid way in which as always, he presents the matter from the Front Bench. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in wondering whether the fabric of legislation relating to hovercraft is not being tied up too much with civil liability and liabilities in relation to maritime law and civil aviation. Therefore, after again thanking the noble Lord for his presentation, I simply want to raise the matter whether the Government would have in mind more flexibility and perhaps more originality as regards the liabilities and arrangements associated with this revolutionary kind of transport.
  Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the area of civil liability the hovercraft is not being subjected to more regulation than shipping or air flight. What happened in 1971—which I think was very sensible—was that we applied to passengers and their luggage, not the law regarding air travel or shipping, but a modified version of the law relating to air travel. For example, the maximum liability was not that which applied to a passenger travelling by air, and under the new order it is not that which applies to a passenger travelling by air; it is less than half what the figure will be when we get the effect of the Carriage by Air and Road Bill, which puts the figure at £66,000 maximum.
  On cargo, both the 1971 order and the present order simply apply the maritime law, with suitable modifications. From my study of it, I am convinced that on this particular aspect of civil liability we are not subjecting the hovercraft transport industry to any great nuisance and that it is treated very fairly and in line with shipping and civil aviation.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that information.

  THE COMMONWEALTH
  4.20 p.m.
  The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale)The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale) rose to call attention to the role of the Commonwealth and its continuing value; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the flags of 40 Commonwealth countries flying today in Parliament Square in celebration of Commonwealth Day, I think it would be right that my first words today should be words of thanks to Her Majesty for the very wise Commonwealth Day statement that Her Majesty has issued. I should like, too, to thank two noble Baronesses in this House. The first is my noble friend the Government Chief Whip who found time for this debate. I know her devotion to the Commonwealth, and I know that when she led our delegation from the British Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at Kingston her speeches made a great contribution to the debates there.
  I must also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. She and I, as members of the Executive of the CPA, heard at the same time that it would not be possible for another place to find time to discuss Commonwealth Day. Quite independently the noble Baroness and I thought that it might be possible to obtain time here. With what I know is characteristic generosity the noble Baroness was kind enough to entrust to me the privilege of moving this Motion this afternoon. I am truly appreciative of her kindness, although the responsibility of doing justice to a subject as great as this is a very heavy one indeed. I believe very strongly that next year and for many years to come this should be a great parliamentary occasion, with the Leaders of the parties reaffirming their belief in the ideals of the Commonwealth. It really is not good enough for Governments, or Oppositions, or anybody else to leave it to what one might call freelance work by Members of your Lordships' House. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take that message very seriously indeed.
  I have in my hand a poster which was issued for Commonwealth Day by the Commonwealth Secretariat. It portrays tellingly and attractively the diversity of religions, languages, colours, legal systems

  393
  within the Commonwealth and, above all, it shows dramatically the youth and the youthfulness of the Commonwealth. In the vast Commonwealth, with its 950 million people, more than half of them are under the age of 25. They constitute a possible breeding ground for the evils of extremism and violence, but they also offer the most fertile soil for the ideals of tolerance, interdependence and coexistence which bind the Commonwealth together.
  It is a poster directed particularly at young people. I am told that when the Department of Education and Science were asked how many copies they would like they said 30,000. On being told that only 500 could be provided free they decided that 500 was the number that they wanted to use. Altogether in this country, which is still the heart of this great Commonwealth, whatever its titular position, no more than 3,000 of these posters were distributed; 52,000 went to overseas countries, and Canada itself produced 65,000. Really, my Lords, we must do much better than that on future occasions.
  May I now touch for a moment on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to which so many of us in this House and another place are tremendously indebted. It is an organisation which enjoys my confidence and affection, and looking at it I think objectively I have no hesitation in saying that it is well run, efficient, vigilant, and quite invaluable in preserving links between the Commonwealth countries. At this very moment, for example, at the 28th seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on Practice and Procedure there are 25 Commonwealth Parliamentarians; and I believe that Sir Robin Vanderfelt and Mr. Peter Molloy are doing a great service to the Commonwealth.
  Having been for a moment critical of the Department of Education and Science, I feel that I must praise the Government for having made a donation of £100,000 to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's working capital fund. It now stands at £350,000. The largest and the smallest countries were among the first contributors, India and Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man was the first to put its money on the table.
  It has been a privilege for me to serve the Commonwealth in the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development, and on the Board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It has been a privilege, and it has been equally a privilege to know and work with men like Mr. Nehru, whom I first met a few days after he had come out of a British prison when I was in Allahabad in 1933, and whom I last saw only a few weeks before his death. It has also been a privilege to be a disciple of my noble friend Lord Brockway. When I spoke twice at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences I was proud to see how many of the leaders there I had met in the course of their campaign for independence, so that my feeling of privilege is indeed one which is extensive. I do not think I need remind your Lordships that the history of the Empire and the Commonwealth is a tangled story. It is not wholly good, but there is very little of which we need be ashamed and there is a very great deal of which we should be proud. With very few exceptions those who have moved into independence have done so on terms of friendship, and I hope that that friendship will endure for all time.
  I remember when I was Minister of Overseas Development returning from lunch with Colonel Ojukwu and driving through a Nigerian forest when I saw that we were flying the flag on the bonnet of the car. I asked the driver whether it should not be Lord Thurlow, as he now is, who should be riding in a car which was carrying the flag, and were we not infringing protocol by doing so. The Nigerian driver said, "Don't make me turn it down, Sir, the people love it. It reminds them of the good old colonial days". When a few minutes later we broke down in a village there was ample demonstration of the pleasure on the part of the local inhabitants.
  Apart from the links, and apart from the friendship, there is not very much wrong with a system which has produced from very small countries indeed men of the stature of Seewoosagur Ramgoolam of Mauritius, Joshua Hassan in Gibraltar, John Compton in St. Lucia, Seretse Khama in Botswana, George Price in Belize, Harry Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, Ratu Mara in Fiji—and so one could go on almost indefinitely. But there must

  395
  have been something to enable those dependent territories to produce men of the statesmanlike stature of those to whom I have referred.
  I sometimes wonder whether perhaps we have gone a little too far. I am not absolutely convinced that it is in their own interest or wise in the wider interest to give independence to countries which are too small and too poor to sustain it; they can become dangerously unstable. Even in the 'sixties there is reason to believe the United States and Soviet Union were getting a little anxious about the speed of decolonisation by Great Britain. That was why, at the Colonial Office, I pioneered a new form of associated statehood in December 1965. I hoped it would facilitate federation and the forging of special relationships between tiny countries and their larger friends. I also called a conference to discuss the problems of the smaller territories; it came to be known as the "What shall we do with Pitcairn?" conference, and we never had a wholly satisfactory answer to our question.
  However, inside the Colonial Office I enunciated what I called the "piano stool principle of colonial policy", having taken the title from an occasion when a man arriving at a party saw a friend of his sitting at the piano. He went to his friend and asked, "What are you doing sitting at the piano? You can't play", and his friend replied, "I can't, but as long as I sit here nobody else can play either". There is of course a moral in that story because so long as we are in control of various parts of the world they will not fall into the hands of those who may not be the best friends of this country—and my goodness how much we owe to the peoples of the Commonwealth and the Colonies during the two world wars we have undergone—though it is not for me to remind your Lordships that nature abhors a vacuum.
  I wish to pay tribute to the men and women of the Colonial Service. I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated how very different they were from the diplomats in the Foreign Office and in the Commonwealth Relations Office, as it then was. In the Colonial Service they were not diplomats; they were the practical men who dammed rivers, built bridges, ad-
  396
  ministered law, protected health, looked after security and did all the things to make the territories to which they were sent viable, tolerant and civilised. Today especially we must salute them, just as we do the civil servants in India and Burma of earlier years.
  I have concluded after a great deal of thought that the impact of membership of the European Community has been less damaging to the interests of the Commonwealth than I feared at one time would be the case. It has had some detrimental effects, but I hope that perhaps the noise many of us made at the time may have been partly responsible for the fact that both Mr. Heath and the Labour Government went out of their way to protect the interests of the Commonwealth in their negotiations. I know that the present Prime Minister is utterly devoted to the cause of the Commonwealth and I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that my right honourable friend Mrs. Hart has been an absolutely first-class Minister of Overseas Development, and that the protection that has come to the developing countries has come in large measure through her efforts.
  I am always a little afraid that we may get rather self-righteous when we read lessons to other Commonwealth countries on how they should conduct their affairs, because what is appropriate to us is certainly not in every case appropriate to them. Democracy can taken many forms. But I am encouraged by the fact that Parliaments seem to be coming back into favour. After an interval of six years, Swaziland has a new Parliament; Bangladesh had elections last year; Ghana returns to the parliamentary fold in July; Nigeria, with 20 Parliaments, will become a parliamentary democracy by 1st October; and I know your Lordships will share my pleasure that the Clerk Designate of Ghana's National Assembly, Mr. Aggrey-Orleans, is here on attachment in the Palace of Westminster.
  I am more grateful than I can say to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for having at some inconvenience come here this afternoon. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts replies to the debate he will reaffirm in the most robust manner that there will be no change in the status of Gibraltar, Belize or the

  397
  Falkland Islands without the genuinely full-hearted support of those people who want to remain British and who do not want to become Spanish, Argentinian or Guatemalan. I can see no point in the rounds of talk with Guatemala and Spain and the Argentine which, every time they take place and however altruistic the purpose of my honourable and right honourable friends in the Government, only go to cause anxiety and to unsettle the people of the territories whose future is inevitably going to be discussed.
  On one occasion, I went to a social occasion linked with the United Nations in New York and I found myself pinned in a corner by the Spanish Ambassador. It was a terribly noisy party and I could not hear a word he was saying, so every minute or so I would say very loudly and firmly, "We do not regard Gibraltar as negotiable." I hope Lord Goronwy-Roberts will say that our Government still do not regard Belize, the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar as negotiable. I beg to move for Papers.
  House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
  4.38 p.m.
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for having introduced this debate today. As a former Secretary of State for the Colonies and as a former Minister of Overseas Development, no one can be more qualified than he to open such a debate and, as one would have expected, he spoke with great knowledge and was immensely stimulating. It was no coincidence, as he explained, that this debate should have been introduced on Commonwealth Day, but even if it had not been introduced on Commonwealth Day it remains a highly important subject, one to which too often people give nodding approval but for which in their hearts of heart they would like to see a clearly defined future.
  Of course that is never possible. When a young man asks his superior, "What is my future?", the only real answer is, "Be yourself,' work hard and contribute your best in whatever circumstances you may find yourself, and then you will have a future". I believe that advice applies equally to the Commonwealth, but with a
  398
  much more pungent line; it has, in my view, a hugely important part to play not just in self-interest or self-advancement, although they may play a part too, but as a force of stability, maturity and collective judgment in a turbulent world.
  Those who see the Commonwealth standing merely as an obelisk to past glories fail totally to comprehend the substantial latent talent for good and for world understanding which is contained within its curiously undefined limits. The Commonwealth, like your Lordships' House, is unique; there is nothing like it in the world. It has rightly been described as a microcosm of the world; a voluntary union of countries which has neither rules nor obligations, and yet of which one person in four throughout the world is a member, the common cohesive factor of which is a shared history, a common language, and a natural and genuine friendship. Into this history has moulded and developed an attitude of common approach and sensitivity to world affairs, and when this essence (as one might call it) is distributed throughout the globe—through Europe, Africa, the Americas, the Caribbean and the Pacific—no one can really doubt that that holds great potential for the influence, for better or for worse, of world events.
  Throughout the world there is a common tendency developing within countries and between countries; and it is that of size. The village school gives way to the comprehensive; the small firm becomes a member of a group; and so countries in their turn flocculate together in various groupings throughout the world. One may wonder what is the cause of this. I suggest that there are two reasons, and they are both connected. The first is power; not necessarily, but sometimes, the overt clamouring to dominate. Frequently, though not always, the inverse applies when, as in a run on the bank, if you do not get in quickly, too, you will be left out in the cold with nothing. The second reason is the fear of the unknown, and the consequent desire to feel the hand of friendship. No one can stand by and witness the extraordinary sophisticated capacity which man has developed for himself to blow to pieces not only his enemies but also himself and his environment without being terrified for the future, and frightened of the unknown. Of course,

  399
  there is nothing new in the fear of the unknown; it affects each generation in turn. It is only when the unknown becomes known, and the future becomes the past, that history almost seems obvious. In the same way, no one in the free West can view the march of Communism across the countries of the world without asking, "Is it going to stop, and if so, where, and what can I do to prevent it? "No one can watch the development of world economics, the scales of size which ensue, without asking, "Ought we to be part of this or part of that?"
  So we have seen the understandable grouping together of countries for whatever purpose—military, economic or ethnic—sometimes to dominate, but mostly, at least in the Free World, to protect and to preserve. The danger is that these organisations may stand like huge chrysanthemums, all broadly based, but inward-looking; and if they become inward-looking, they stand the danger of creating for themselves, and for others, a whole series of new and additional problems.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said that he was apprehensive at the time the United Kingdom joined the European Community, and he was glad that it had not worked out as badly as he had thought. There were some who then said that we were turning our backs on the Commonwealth. I never believed that that was so, nor that the option ever was the Community or the Commonwealth. Britain can be of greatest value to the Commonwealth if Britain is strong, and if Britain's membership of the Community will help to make Britain strong, her membership of the Community can be only of benefit to the Commonwealth. Equally, if Britain can help to contribute not only economically but, more importantly, by influence and by judgment, to a strong Europe, that will benefit not only Europe but the Commonwealth, too, provided that Europe is not permitted to become self-orientated; and this is where the influence of the Commonwealth can be substantial.
  If Britain by virtue of her Commonwealth association with countries all round the world can import into the Community a realisation of the inter-
  400
  dependence, and the dependence, of other countries, possibly right at the other side of the world, on the actions of the Community and of Europe, that will help Europe to be, as it must be determined to be, outward-looking, not inward-looking. In the same way, in other parts of the world the meetings with which members of the Commonwealth may find themselves involved—for example, the Organisation of African Unity, or the Association of South-East Asian Nations—can only be enriched and be less self-orientated if the Commonwealth members can bring to those organisations the knowledge and experience of the problems of other parts of the world which they will have gained by their membership of the Commonwealth. Of course the intimate, friendly, family meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences, with their lack of rigidity, add greatly to the fullness of genuine understanding.
  Meritorious as these groupings may be, the world cannot be separated into watertight containers whose occupants are each beavering away for their own ends. We all depend upon the actions of our own organisations of which we are members, but we are all affected by the actions of those organisations of which we are not members, and the Commonwealth, by being a harmonious extract of the nations, the creeds, and the races which cover the world can bring, I venture to suggest, a maturity, and indeed a serenity, of judgment to those organisations which will enable them to become less introspective and more outgiving for the benefit of each other and of the world. In an age which requires to quantify the value of a person or an organisation by means of statistical facts or figures, or units of output, it is as well to remember that the most significant factors which tend to alter events are the unquantifiable: confidence, judgment, understanding, experience, loyalty, and trust; and it is these in which the Commonwealth is both rich and unique.
  I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, pay a tribute to the colonial officers of years gone by who gave so much to the developing countries of their generation. Nowadays we tend to apologise for the Empire and the past as if it were something of which to be ashamed; but it is not. The Empire was the precursor of the Commonwealth; the United Kingdom disseminated across the

  401
  world the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, and the technology of the day, and it thereby helped those countries to grow. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. It is true that what may have been done, or the way in which it was done years ago, might be unacceptable were it to be done in that fashion today, but it is a cardinal error to criticise the past with the standards of the present. In falling into that error people sometimes fail to acknowledge, or to accord approval of, and even worse, they register disapproval of, the work which was done by the people of the Colonial Service and the leadership which the United Kingdom gave, and still gives, and from which other countries materially and significantly benefited.
  But as times change, so do methods and attitudes change. The Commonwealth itself changes, and therein lies its strength. The qualities and requirements of leadership change; and it is leadership which the world and the Commonwealth require. I was impressed by a definition of the qualities of leadership which I think refers as aptly to the Commonwealth as it does to the individual. It was given by the late Keith Erskine of Securicor. I have inverted a sentence, but he said that,
  "Leadership is not by driving, by compulsion and enforcement, by carping criticism or by reluctance to make allowances. Leadership is by example, by quiet authority, by warm understanding, by timely appreciation and by patience".
  What a motto for the United Kingdom, and what a motto for the Commonwealth!
  It is far easier to criticise and to condemn, with all the rectitude which such condemnation implies, rather than to understand—and, having understood, to solve. Take Rhodesia, and the fearful problems which surround that country. I have never been there, and I therefore feel it almost an impertinence to comment other than to say that it is easy for those who are miles away from the scene, and who, mercifully for them, do not have to live with the problems and the tensions with which that country bristles, to criticise and condemn, separated as they are by miles both physically and emotionally from the contact point of reality. I wonder whether there is not here an opportunity for the Commonwealth to bring to bear its understanding, humanity and corporate wisdom to help a colleague in distress. Such action would help the
  402
  United Kingdom from getting into a position of isolation and exposure in the councils of the world; and if the immediate solution to the Rhodesian problem, whatever it turns out to be, results in the long-term in the infiltration of Russian influence and Communism to that country, then that will have a disastrous effect on the future of Africa, the freedom of the West and the Commonwealth. So the Commonwealth has a direct interest in ensuring the stability of Rhodesia.
  My Lords, the diversity and the corporateness of the Commonwealth can be a stabilising influence in the world; and if such influence is needed now, how much more will it be needed in the future? When we see a country like Iran, a short while ago the stabilising influence of the Middle East, suddenly blow up as it has in the last few weeks, one cannot but say, "Where next?" It exemplifies the difficulties of sudden wealth, of over-rapid economic development and of expectations stimulated but unfulfilled—expectations which can be neither curtailed nor contained; the perfect entree for Communism. This creeping mycelium of Communism can be seen at work throughout the world, whether it is in the build-up in the Russian naval fleet or her activities in Africa and elsewhere. The West must not be asleep, and nor must the Commonwealth be asleep, to the vulnerability of the Free World to the supply of materials such as chrome, manganese, vanadium plutonium and uranium. These are basic supplies which we all take for granted but over which Russia and Southern Africa—South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia—have a virtual cartel; and if Russian influence were to take over, overtly or covertly, in Southern Africa, that could deny to the West, and especially to us in Europe, these basic raw materials. Russia does not have to acquire; to deny is sufficient.
  That is why, in our search to protect the freedom of the world from Communism, the Commonwealth has such a unique part to play, where all members are united, from their various origins and from their different corners of the globe, to stay free. They can together act as a buffer against Communism. By their conduct they can be an answer to Communism; and by their interlocking support they can protect each other from Communism from within.

  403
  My Lords, members do need mutual support, and I should like to give your Lordships an example of what I mean. Some two years ago I happened to be in New Zealand, and I learned how that country wanted to develop the techniques of deep-water fishing, which they had never done before. They did not have the boats, the knowledge or the expertise. They particularly wanted partners and advice; and, above all, they wanted, for obvious and historical reasons, the United Kingdom to help them. Although some people did go out from the United Kingdom to investigate the situation, the fact is that, whatever the reasons were—and I have no doubt they were very good reasons—out of 40 approaches from companies and Governments to help New Zealand develop its deep-water fishing industry, not one came from the United Kingdom despite New Zealand's predilection for United Kingdom help. New Zealand is therefore now getting her help and her know-how elsewhere—from the Japanese, from the Koreans, from the Germans and from the Russians.
  I have no doubt that the New Zealanders are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and of dealing with the Russians; they are pretty old hands at the game. But what of the other members of the Commonwealth in the Pacific? There are some 12 independent States there. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, there are countries like Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and so forth. Some of them are tiny States: Nauru has only 4,000 square miles. They are highly vulnerable to pressures and to influences. Now that they are independent they are, quite naturally, taking a pretty close look at their traditional friends, to see what they make of them, and also at those who, for whatever reason, would wish to become their new friends. As their traditional friends it is imperative that we make sure that we measure up to this scrutiny.
  The Russians and the Chinese have both been active in this area in the last two years, establishing a political relationship with some of these States and offering aid for development—ports, airports, fisheries development and so forth. They are all apparently harmless projects in themselves, but we know the Russian
  404
  pattern. First they undercut mercantile freight rates, then they get fishing facilities, then anchorages, then port facilities and then sometimes bases; and what initially starts by being a harmless entry of a fishing vessel eventually becomes an intrusion by a naval vessel. It is no quirk of accident which has permitted Russia's navy to develop from being a mere coastal navy 20 years ago to being a full ocean-going navy today. So, my Lords, as the United Kingdom pulls out its physical presence from the Pacific by granting independence to these Commonwealth States, we must not negate the responsibility, which still firmly adheres to us, of ensuring that there remains behind a credible and reliable political and aid presence. There cannot be left a vacuum for others to fill. The influence of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth is vital to the stability of the Pacific, and we must not expect Australia and New Zealand to provide that on their own.
  Some of what I have said makes one feel that the future is alarming; but the power and indeed the influence which the Commonwealth can exert for the benefit of the world, has, in my modest judgment, never been greater—and, of the two, influence and not power is far the more effective and far the more acceptable. As the United Kingdom is encouraging more members of the Commonwealth to become independent, and to be responsible for their own affairs, there is a tendency to feel that, as with children who have grown up and come of age, the parents must not interfere and the younger generation must be free to do as they will. That is right; but, my Lords, the influence of the parents and the home continues, is substantial and is vital.
  So it is with the Commonwealth. The influence of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth must continue, it is substantial and it is vital. In case we feel obliged, for wholly meritorious reasons, to be over-hasty in relinquishing our influence over newly-emerging independent members of the Commonwealth, I can do no better, in conclusion, than borrow some words from the autobiography of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, The Way the Wind Blows. In a few succinct but telling words he encompassed the whole cross-current of forces which are exerted on a growing

  405
  family and which, I venture to suggest, apply with equal justification to the growing family of the Commonwealth as they do to the growing family of an individual. He said:
  "The home must not be possessive. It is enough that it should be there".
  I would merely add that it is up to us to see that it is there.
  5 p.m.
  Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for initiating this debate appropriately enough on Commonwealth Day. I would agree with him absolutely in saying that it should be an annual occasion both in this House and in another place to have, as near as possible to the date of Commonwealth Day, a debate on the Commonwealth itself. As a former Secretary of State for the Commonwealth, albeit only for a short period, I had probably less than 12 months' experience in that Department. Having started off as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and finishing up as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, I had within the short period of 12 months lost my "relations" and simply finished up with "affairs". But the experience was well worth having. I was, in fact, the last but one, I think, of the Ministers before the merger with the Foreign Office. At that time there were rumours throughout the Commonwealth of the possible merger which was to take place, and the idea was not thought to be entirely acceptable to the Commonwealth countries. Certainly the older Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand felt it a little unwise, to say the least, that they should be linked with foreign countries within one Ministry and within one Department. Some of the new, emerging, independent countries, too, who had elected to become part of the Commonwealth on attaining independence felt that this merger would be unwise for they certainly did not regard themselves in any way as foreign countries. However, all those fears seem to have been unfounded and the present arrangement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would now appear to be quite acceptable to both the old and the new Commonwealth countries; perhaps for the very simple reason that the title of the Depart-
  406
  ment includes the word "Commonwealth" —something quite as simple as that.
  I am sure that the world history of the past century will be marked by the fascinating fact that what was originally the British Commonwealth of Nations should have evolved into a Commonwealth of Nations independent of the United Kingdom, into an association of nations equal in stature and no longer subordinate to any other. Perhaps another interesting, and to some extent anomalous, fact is that within the Commonwealth something like 20 countries are republican; and yet are perfectly happy to accept Her Majesty the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth. It is an excellent thought. In one sense the word "Commonwealth" is a little wrong; it is a bit of a misnomer, because the wealth, or, for that matter, the poverty, of the individual Commonwealth countries is certainly not common to all. There is a considerable diversity economically within them. But I like to feel that there is much that is common to the 36 or 40 countries. As one example, most of the parliamentary systems and procedures are based on our own, itself the result of centuries of parliamentary government. Most of the new Parliaments which have resulted from countries gaining independence and retaining Commonwealth membership have had very willing help from our own Clerks at the Table with their vast experience of Parliament. And that help has been greatly appreciated.
  It is not always easy to install exactly one's own parliamentary system on a new emerging and developing country. I recall one story of such a country being anxious to follow us in every possible way and to emulate our institutions, and they were asking questions about what happened in the British Parliament. One such question was, "What do you do to persuade party supporters to vote together in Parliament? "Of course, the short reply was, "We use Whips." I wonder if that reply was ever really understood in some of the new developing countries.
  When moving round the Commonwealth one cannot fail to be impressed by the work and activity (which has already been mentioned) of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Their seminars, conferences, exchange visits of Parliamentarians between one Commonwealth

  407
  country and another are invaluable. One cannot overestimate the value of such visits. There is no surer way of Commonwealth Parliamentarians getting to know each other better than to meet in that way in each other's country. Equally, I think the biennial Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences held in different Commonwealth cities are extremely important. They arc certainly not always the easiest or quietest of meetings of Commonwealth heads. Nevertheless, they provide wonderful opportunities for the Prime Ministers of both the very large and the very smallest of Commonwealth countries to meet together on a basis of absolute equality.
  Following the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia, most of the Commonwealth countries were not only incensed at what had happened in that country but many of them blamed the British Government. I had the pleasure—the doubtful pleasure at that time, in 1966—of attending the Prime Ministers' Conference in London with the Prime Minister. During the time of that conference, which lasted just over a fortnight, the Prime Ministers not only got very annoyed and truly let off steam, but at one time even talked of expelling Great Britain from the Commonwealth. So one can see how free discussion was on an occasion such as that. Looking back and reflecting, I do not think that any of it does any harm at all; in fact, to the contrary, it does a great deal of good. But on that occasion, thanks to the Prime Minister's calm and careful handling, assisted by some of the heads of the older Commonwealth countries, the conference closed as usual with an agreed statement. I am sure that most of the Prime Ministers' conferences are a little more restrained than that one was, but whatever heat is engendered these conferences are well worth while.
  On a rather different aspect of Commonwealth affairs, I can recall that in the early days, in the formative days of the Commonwealth, there was a feeling that the Commonwealth Secretariat, separate from the departmental ministries of the countries, was quite unnecessary. I once heard it described as a luxury. That view could not have been more wrong, as time has proved. With the increasing number of countries gaining their independence and
  408
  electing to remain within the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Secretariat has proved not only necessary but essential. I personally should like to pay tribute to its work.
  As the countries for which we in the British Parliament have some responsibility become fewer and more and more countries gain independence, I feel that the future role of the Commonwealth should remain very much as we know it now without many changes. It is my hope that with each independence we shall see a new member of our Commonwealth club, if we may call it that, sharing some common bonds but always retaining their own national characteristics and cultures.
  I have no desire to be in any way controversial in a debate of this sort, but I would add as regards the difficult problem of Rhodesia, which will finally be settled when this Parliament grants Rhodesia independence as the new State of Zimbabwe, that I hope it will be within the Commonwealth of Nations. 1 should like to see that before next Commonwealth Day.
  5.1 p.m.
  The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, everyone is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for initiating this debate on this particular day and for the opportunity to hear another noble Lord who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs speaking so fully from his experience. The problem of the Commonwealth is that you suffer on the one hand from over-enthusiasm, which may be highly emotive, and on the other hand from almost total indifference and hostility. It is difficult because it is rather evanescent to ask what are the facts today? What really is the situation as it exists?
  I have had the honour of attending the service held this afternoon in Westminster Abbey along with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I think that it is right that there should be formal expression of concord from time to time. This is an annual service, well organised by the Dean and in the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth. There you can see a common affirmation by those representing every big religious body throughout the world, not only in English,

  409
  but in our old languages: Arabic, Pali, Sanskrit, Hebrew and Punjabi; and, beside those religions, also four branches of the Christian Church. To me this represents a common respect for standards and institutions. Just like us, members of the Commonwealth do not live up to their standards. Nobody ever does. If you lived wholly up to your standards, they would probably be hardly worth living up to. That does represent standards which we are recognising, and it seems to me of outstanding importance that all should know they are recognised throughout the Commonwealth.
  Our association has grown up in an odd way. The only rule is the recognition of the Head of the Commonwealth. There is no obligation in politics, in economics or on the military sphere. The Commonwealth is governed by the standards which whoever is currently leading sets for himself. That is the only standard that we have. That is the basis on which this organisation will continue. I happen to believe in what Sir Robert Menzies said—that this is primarily an association of people and not an association of governments. In point of fact, we do not very much mind if governments change from time to time in different Commonwealth countries. They may change here, they may change elsewhere. What we are interested in are the lives of other people who live there.
  In many ways, the political sphere is the most difficult one; and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said, the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is of extreme importance. But this does not bring it down to the people in this country or indeed to the people living in the Commonwealth, and there we can all do something. Not enough is done, not enough is recognised. The most obvious aspect is professional training, seeing that the experience which we have is being more widely diffused. This is most notable in the legal profession. The Inns of Court take a great deal of trouble with students who come here. The expertise of medicine, engineering, music and accountancy have to be learned and understood in the complicated structure of a modern state. We have the advantage of years of experience in running organisations and building them up. New countries are suddenly thrown into this difficult and technical world, a world
  410
  riven with every form of violence, and they have to face it and build up their structure. It is in that that we can make a big contribution.
  There is another contribution, and I put it in the simplest terms. I have been associated with the Victoria League, among other organisations, for a number of years. The purpose of the league is to ask visitors into people's houses. In my own experience in various countries nothing is more revealing, interesting and human than to see how other people live. We can all do that in different ways and it is worth a great deal of trouble. It cannot be done simply and it is not always economic, it is an expensive business; but it makes an immensely human contribution to what I say is a gathering of people. May I also say, going back a little on the professional side, that the top members of our professions in this country can do a tremendous job by visiting various members of the Commonwealth. Their presence is immensely welcome. There is a certain pride in showing how they do it. I was delighted to hear three comments on how possibly it can be done better. Here is a service that is open to everybody.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said perhaps we were a little self-righteous. I think we are. We are far too ready to criticise what happens in other countries; things to criticise happen here, too. It is not so often that the media get hold of things happening elsewhere which are infinitely worthwhile. It is generally recognised that this heritage in which we find ourselves has come to us by chance. There was never much theory behind it; but what one can say is that if it was not here we should give our eyes to have it. Not only that; it is the object of envy of many other countries who ask, "How did you do it?". Frankly, there is no simple explanation. I am afraid that one must ask the question whether we are going to be up to the unique tasks which come to us. That is what will be the test of whether or not this will continue.
  It is unfortunate that we are still the hub of the wheel. I should like to see many more spokes between the other parts of the wheel. They are growing, but growing slowly. There still rests with us a very heavy burden, and the growth of the cross-spokes is taking place. There was

  411
  a time when Winston Churchill spoke of our finest hour. A Swiss commentator said today that it was not very likely anyone would say that of us today. None the less, it would be foolish for us to write off the Commonwealth. It has not developed as anyone thought it would; and, with great respect, I think it will go on changing in a great many different ways. There is something in my experience strangely different in going into a Commonwealth country compared with any other country, however agreeable, pleasant and good they are.
  There was a time when the Commonwealth essentially stood for law and order. We do not stand for that today: some people may say we stand for the permissive society. I think it is a pity that we should not distinguish more sharply where liberty is related to permissiveness. There can be no liberty without a standard of organisation and law. I think we should welcome this debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should hold a debate of this kind, or something like it, and it may be that among the 40 other members of the Commonwealth some similar debate is taking place. We shall learn about that in due course. What we do know today is that man has invented the ability to destroy himself completely, and the only way we shall stop that is if we have mutual respect and understanding of people who live in other countries.
  5.31 p.m.
  Lord THURLOW: My Lords, I share the gratitude that has been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, for introducing this motion. I am glad that some years ago he had the opportunity to share the heartwarming experience of the reaction to the British flag in Nigeria. I may say that even when I was widely believed personally to have lit the fire of the first large-scale assassinations of Ibos in Northern Nigeria—I believe many still believe this—there was nevertheless no disposition to be other than courteous to the British flag when I circulated in what later became known as Biafra. I hasten to explain that I had this dastardly reputation because I had flown a thousand miles into the heart of the anti-Ibo North in order to play in a polo match!
  I think this is an appropriate occasion for a stocktaking, not only because it is
  412
  Commonwealth Day but because it is five years since we acceded to the EEC Treaty, it is over 15 years since the Commonwealth Secretariat was established and it is more than 10 years since the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices. We can now get a certain perspective. In the debate in your Lordships' House after the referendum three years ago, I think we nailed to the mast the illusion that there was some kind of dichotomy between entering Europe and being a member of the Commonwealth, and that these were in some way alternatives. I hope this cry will not be raised again by those atavistic forces which are venturing to try to resurrect the issue of entry into Europe. It is completely fallacious.
  There are two factors which in retrospect, I think, can be held to have a special responsibility for the continuing strength of the Commonwealth. The first one, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, reminded us, is the importance, which we cannot exaggerate, of personal links. Here, I venture to ask those responsible for staffing and for the training of our own officials who handle relations with foreign and Commonwealth countries to try to ensure that in the future, as in the past, there will be a maximum amount of continuity and personal acquaintance among those who conduct relations with the Commonwealth and their opposite numbers.
  The second factor to which attention has already been drawn is the continuing extremely valuable work of the Commonwealth Secretariat. As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, commented, when the Secretariat was established some people suggested that perhaps it was a bit of a frill. That certainly was not the feeling in the Commonwealth office. In the Commonwealth Office there was unrelieved joy that at long last the Office was being relieved of the function of general co-ordination of matters of common concern in the Commonwealth—a function which had for long confused opinion and led to a good deal of misunderstanding.
  The Secretariat has gone from strength to strength. I should like to refer to one or two illustrations of initiatives that it has taken and of new ventures which are achieving most valuable results. The

  413
  first is the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. Every Commonwealth country has its own instrument for administering aid to other Commonwealth countries, but the Commonwealth Secretariat has started this new concept of each Commonwealth country being able to receive financial help from central Commonwealth funds, to enable the poorer countries to send personnel with experience relevant to the needs of other countries in the Commonwealth and to help them when they themselves could not afford to pay for it. I think that is useful, and certainly a great number of visits by experts are being financed in this way. Last year there were 300 attachments of such experts of over six months' duration, and that is very useful. Again, in the field of education and training this new fund has 500 projects, some of them involving considerable numbers; and it is being further developed.
  Thirdly, the Commonwealth Secretariat, through this fund, is able to help the weaker members of the Commonwealth to get on with the difficult and complicated business of export promotion. We ourselves in this country know that it is no easy matter to export: it is very hard, complicated and sophisticated work. Through the Fund for Technical Cooperation, the weaker and less experienced countries receive the kind of guidance and professional help that this difficult export promotion requires.
  Another illustration of a new initiative is the youth programme. It is increasingly realised—and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, I think, referred to the fact that over half the 1,000 million population of the Commonwealth is under 25—that there is a youth dimension to every social, economic and indeed political problem. We tend to think that youth will somehow grope its own way towards playing its part in the different specialised fields. This youth programme, set up by a former Heads of Government meeting, takes a much more sophisticated approach than that. It recognises that within each Commonwealth country there must be leadership and there must be the development of a form of profession to give guidance as to how the younger bracket can in fact be led to play a positive, active and constructive part in as many as possible of the spheres of national life.
  414
  The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to the undoubted fact that the Commonwealth is essentially an association of peoples rather than an association of Governments alone, and to the importance of professional contacts in this. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the work that has been done, so unobtrusively and so effectively for the last 10 years or more, by the Commonwealth Foundation. We do not see very much in the headlines about the Commonwealth Foundation, partly because its extremely able Director-General, Mr. Chadwick, is a most unassuming person who does not seek headlines, but the Foundation needs all the help that it can get. We cannot exaggerate the value over the years of more and more professional contacts being built up and cherished by continuous meetings and interchange of visits, and the Commonwealth Foundation has, by its efforts, enormously increased the number of interchanges and conferences of this kind.
  I should like to ask the Government one question in the field of aid. A couple of years ago I raised the question of what seems to me to be an unnecessary and tiresome lacuna in our arrangements for giving aid to some of the very small territories that want aid most. Those like the noble Lord, Lord Grey, behind me, and myself also, who know the particular circumstances of very small islands, realise that it is very difficult to get viable commercial projects going in these little places where everything costs so much to start. It goes without saying that in small islands almost everything that is needed for a new project has to be brought in from outside. It is immensely costly, compared to building a hotel in this country, to build one in a small island in the Caribbean. Everything has to be carted in from outside, and across customs barriers, too. Is this not a field where it is clear that the aid-giving countries, such as ourselves, should seek to prime the pump? I think it is perfectly clear. We are told that it cannot be done. Why cannot it be done?
  Direct aid is given by the Ministry of Overseas Development, but it is not given to private concerns. Private enterprises, where they are to be helped from Commonwealth sources and aid sources, are helped by our instrumentality of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. But

  415
  the Commonwealth Development Corporation can help only projects which can be seen by reasonable estimates to be commercially viable. So we have the lacuna that direct Government assistance cannot be given to a project, however worthwhile, because it is in private hands, and the CDC cannot prime the pump because the capital costs are too high for viability. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the extremely able men in Whitehall and the CDC to bridge this gap, and to allow direct Government money to move towards the CDC to enable them to administer projects which can help in starting up what will eventually be viable enterprises in these small countries, especially in the field of tourism. After all, we do it ourselves in the hotel field. We subsidise our private enterprise hotels. Why can we not do it for the dependencies that need it so much?
  Thirty years ago, at the time of the great debate about India and Pakistan joining the Commonwealth, I was rather a heretic about expanding the Commonwealth. I was very conscious of the value that we derived from the very close-knit ties that we had with our Commonwealth partners, which were so very clear in the post-war reconstruction period as well as during the war. Was it wise to inflate the Commonwealth? I was wrong. History has shown that this entirely new kind of Commonwealth, now with 40 members, has a part of the utmost value to play in the wider international community. Here is a nexus of people who can work together, who can trust each other and who can devise means of taking initiatives in the wider international stage of a kind that it is extremely difficult to generate in the pandemonium of 140 Governments, all exercising their muscle power. I was wrong, and I have no doubt whatever that the Commonwealth in its present form will go from strength to strength.
  5.37 p.m.
  Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, out of his very great practical experience of the Commonwealth, has given noble Lords very valuable and fresh information about the Commonwealth and has made very important suggestions. I am sure that we are all very grateful to him for letting us know what he thinks, out of his great
  416
  experience. I should like to join all other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Greenwood both for introducing this subject and for the manner in which he did so.
  I was for a time Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, as the position was then called, and I spent a lot of time studying what I thought held the Commonwealth together and constituted the glue and kept the whole thing going. I came to the conclusion that the heart of Commonwealth unity is a shared history. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is not in his place, that the whole thing was not planned in any way. It was brought about by history which affected us, as well as all the other members of the Commonwealth. From the beginning, the Commonwealth has continually changed and developed, often to the dismay of traditionalists, but if it had not developed continuously the Commonwealth could not exist today.
  The Commonwealth started as a completely Anglocentric Empire and then became an Anglocentric British Commonwealth. Canada always opposed the concept of a British Commonwealth, because this concept could not accommodate the French-speaking Canadians or, indeed, any other non-British element in the Commonwealth. But, at the same time, Canada was fearful of absorption into the United States and wanted the Commonwealth as a counterweight. Therefore, Canada wanted to see a Commonwealth continuing that had room for non-British elements, and Canada played a very important part in shaping the Commonwealth in such a way that it has survived till today. Only because the existing members had become sovereign, independent nations did Nehru, at the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1946, change his decision, already taken, to leave the Commonwealth. He saw with his own eyes that these existing members were so sovereign and so independent that India would not lose a jot of independence by continuing to remain in the Commonwealth. The same applied to the other Asian members. Because the Asian nations were in the Commonwealth, the African nations decided to stay in—and so on as each new wave of independence took place.
  The Commonwealth is the only international organisation that cannot be

  417
  joined. Nations can only grow into membership by evolving from colonial status to sovereign independence. One can say, indeed, that if there had been no Empire there would be no Commonwealth today. The form is that when a country attains independence it signifies its desire to remain in the Commonwealth. Then the existing members unanimously agree to accept it. A nation therefore does not join the Commonwealth; it continues in the Commonwealth and merely changes its status within it. Today this is standard and common practice, but the original establishment of this procedure was not so easy. I played a certain part in evolving the present formula in the complex arguments that took place in the case of India.
  At the same time as India continued in the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth became simply "the Commonwealth". There were two main reasons for this. One was that more and more members had no British clement in their population. Secondly, the United Kingdom appropriated to itself the term "British", as in "British Rail" or "British Airways". It would, in any case, have been impossible to continue with the term "British Commonwealth", because that would imply that the Commonwealth belongs to Britain, in the same way as its railways do.
  Many factors arising out of the history of the Commonwealth helped to hold the Commonwealth together, and a good many of them have been mentioned by previous speakers. The recognition by every single member of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and the unrivalled esteem in which she is held throughout the Commonwealth is a vital unifying factor. And because the Commonwealth has a personal symbol of unity, it can have a total variety of flags and national anthems without losing unity. As some speakers have said, the Commonwealth is also held together by a network of official and unofficial economic, scientific, educational, medical, legal and cultural links. These are manifested, in the main, in Commonwealth-wide organisations, and they are based on a similarity of standards and ways of doing things throughout the Commonwealth.
  A point which I do not think has been mentioned so far but which seems to me to
  418
  be of considerable importance is that every member gains, through membership of the Commonwealth, in importance and status in the world. The smaller members would hardly be known at all if they did not attend Heads of State meetings. Even the larger members—Australia, Canada, India and the United Kingdom itself—gain in prestige and influence because of their membership of a Commonwealth that is spread over every ocean and every continent of the world.
  As my noble friend Lord Aylestone said—and I agree with him—the relatively recent and important factor of unity is the Commonwealth Secretary and Secretariat. When, at the beginning of the Commonwealth, Australia pressed for a Commonwealth Secretariat at almost every meeting of Prime Ministers in order to consolidate the position of the British in the Commonwealth, this was always blocked by Canada, for the reasons which I have given. Only when a large number of smaller members arose in the Commonwealth did they revive the idea of a Commonwealth Secretariat, but for the opposite reason from that which had inspired Australia in the beginning. They did not want the United Kingdom to go on organising Prime Ministers' meetings and the like. They wished this to be done by a body responsible to all members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that this has turned out to be a most valuable factor of unity in the Commonwealth. One result of the Commonwealth Secretariat is that Commonwealth meetings are no longer held automatically in London but in various Commonwealth capitals and that the local Prime Minister or Head of State presides.
  Another vital factor is that English is the language spoken by all leaders of Commonwealth countries. The English spoken in England is no longer "standard English". There is no "standard English"; every variety of vocabulary, pronunciation and even spelling is equally valid throughout not only the Commonwealth but all the English-speaking world. A continuing and visible proof of the unity of the Commonwealth is that so many Prime Ministers and Heads of Government regularly come from the ends of the earth to attend Heads of Government meetings. They show that they attach great importance to them. They give up time and

  419
  travel enormous distances to attend these regular meetings.
  The Commonwealth has practically reached its finite size and form. In no sense is it Anglocentric any more. One can no longer properly speak of Britain and the Commonwealth but of Britain as a member of the Commonwealth. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Commonwealth will certainly develop further. I think that as it develops it may come closer together, because now no single country dominates it. That is what has held the Commonwealth, so to speak, apart. I think that it may well come together as it develops in the future. At the moment we can affirm with assurance that a Commonwealth that has developed and grown so far and that has shown its continuing value to its members will endure as a permanent, important and beneficent part of the world order.
  5.47 p.m.
  Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and thank him for initiating this debate. When he and I realised that the Leader of the House of Commons had written on 8th March, 1978 that he was unable to find time for a debate this year, we were both very disturbed. Therefore, I am very grateful to him for taking on this task. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, for permitting us to hold this debate on 12th March when, we hope, other countries are holding similar debates. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for what he has said. Having stayed with the noble Earl in the Far East, I know all about the splendid work that he did there.
  I feel very humble, because I think I am the first person to speak who has never held the post of Minister or administrator. On the other hand, I am a "grass roots" person, because I have worked in the Civil Service in Malaysia and have slept in long houses in Sarawak. I have also worked in India and have lived in a Basha building, eating rice with my fingers out of a quale. Therefore, I know about what I call the "grass roots" end of it, and I probably had to obey some of the orders of the noble Lords who have already spoken.
  I wish to mention the International Friendship League, of which I am the
  420
  President. This does exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, wants. The League is completely voluntary, it has 30 branches, it runs three hostels, and it helps to bring people from overseas into English homes. The noble Earl ventured to suggest that this might he expensive, but my answer is that if we invite people into our homes for a cup of tea and a biscuit and make them feel welcome that is all that they want. They want to be invited into English homes to meet English people. I do not think that the type of hospitality that is extended to them matters.
  Turning to the problem of the English language, I believe that for the first time pidgin English was today read in Westminster Abbey. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, can confirm that pidgin English was read today in the Abbey? The noble Earl says that he does not remember. I want to concentrate on the question of the Commonwealth Secretariat. I should like to pay a tribute to the marvellous Guyanese who is now the Secretary, Mr. Shridath Ramphal. I have read his report of the activities from April 1975 to 1977 and the progress in getting new members to come in and the money they have subscribed—£1,810,420 and, marvellously, a contribution of £1,000 from Nauru—are very good indeed.
  There is one difficulty in connection with which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be able to assist. At the moment the officers work in five different places. There are 300 in staff of 20 different nationalities. Surely somewhere can be found for them and I am going to suggest Richmond Terrace. That has been empty for a long time; it is near the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I believe the various countries would be quite pleased to contribute to the necessary alterations, if only they could get the whole organisation working together.
  I should like to quote a short poem which the Secretary-General of the Royal Commonwealth Society mentioned when he was talking about a changing world order. He said,
  "Not in this land alone,
  But be God's mercies known;
  From shore to shore,
  Lord Make the nations see;
  That men should brothers be,
  And form one family
  The wide world o'er.".

  421
  I think that really expresses what we feel today. He added that to form that family might well be the precondition of human survival on any tolerable basis. In my opinion one of the greatest things for which the Commonwealth stands is peace in this world, and, in my view, so long as the Commonwealth keeps together there is less chance of there being a world war. Also, I hope that English remains the working language because it is very useful in communications. Having been in the Council of Europe, I know only too well the difficulties one encounters when one has to put on earphones to hear the representatives of the different countries speaking. However good the interpretations are, it is not the same. I have been to four Commonwealth conferences of the parliamentarians and it has never been necessary to have any translations at all.
  Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, one cannot make a joke when people are interpreting and others are listening through earphones.
  Baroness VICKERS: Yes, my Lords, it is particularly awkward when it is in German because they laugh about 10 minutes afterwards! I should also like to mention a very interesting little booklet entitled, From Governments to Grassroots which is the report of the advisory committee of the Commonwealth Secretariat which has done a wonderful job. It is on the relationships between the official and the unofficial Commonwealth and the references they were given were to study and report the scope for the greater role of the NGOs in the information and the education fields. There are two types of NGOs: the Commonwealth Institute, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Royal Commonwealth Society and there are others which I think could be made more use of. For instance, the Commonwealth Press Union. Surely they could help by including a leaflet with their CPV quarterly. This would be sent to many countries and would be very valuable. I think there should be discussions with the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association on how to exploit the interest which was promoted and which we all remember, by the wide television coverage of the Commonwealth Games and also of course the cultural festival which accompanied it.
  422
  The CBA and the Secretariat should study the feasibility of producing radio cassettes. It is easy to put material on to cassettes and they are easy to send away, and I think we should put on to cassettes the various aspects of life in Commonwealth countries, which could be used in schools. Some of the Governments have foreign exchange problems and I think some consideration should be given to easing the travel restrictions particularly, as has been mentioned, for young people because I think that hinders a lot of the conferences. Furthermore, the customs regulations should be reviewed. It is very aggravating that when one sends books to these various countries one has to pay a considerable duty upon them.
  In the excellent report of the Commonwealth Secretariat there is a list of the number of seminars. I tried to count them, but there are too many. I was interested that the multilateral trade negotiations were discussed, senior medical officers, education administration—and those were only a few, which I think were beneficial. Of course they have a tremendous number of publications, which I regret to say do not seem to find their way very far out of some of the offices. There is a splendid list—on economics, on education, on rural development (which has not been mentioned so far); on law, on science and technology and youth. This is not an original idea of mine because it is suggested in the report, but I should like to see the appointment of a co-ordinator who could co-ordinate the unofficial with the official Commonwealth. I believe that would be a great advantage. There are many NGOs, as we know and I have already mentioned two, but I should like to mention some that are definitely voluntary organisations. The Council for Education in the Commonwealth has three MPs as chairmen, one from each Party; it was formed in 1960 and I was one of the first chairmen. It has been carried on very well ever since. They should really be co-ordinated because they have a great many good ideas and I believe it would be an advantage. Then we had a debate with regard to overseas students affairs and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, kindly answered it. When she was replying for Her Majesty's Government she said that no decision had been made, but time has passed since then and perhaps this evening the noble Lord may have a little more information.

  423
  Then there is the Women's Corona Society—and I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, is here because his wife is the present president. That is run entirely by women and has 29 branches in different countries. Interestingly enough, Nigeria has a big association with eight branches; the Gilbert Islands has two branches and Malawi has three, just to mention one large country and two smaller ones.
  Before people go overseas, and particularly business people and their wives, there are courses telling them about the money, about the language and giving them an insight into any country to which they are going. We also provide women speakers for the Commonwealth. So I should like to suggest that, in view of the fact that during the last 12 years it has been found that there are 20 Commonwealth professional associations, 15 national professional centres, all more or less working on their own, if this little booklet, From Governments to Grassroots, has done a worthwhile job we might find them putting some very useful ideas in front of the Government, and we could get co-ordination between the different organisations which are working in water-tight compartments.
  It has been said by one noble Lord that the Canadian Government in 1977 requested the Secretary-General to establish this actual committee. It has been established and, so far as I know, nothing has happened since. So I think it has done a worthwhile job and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us something about it. In particular, I should like to know whether it is possible to co-ordinate the five different offices in some building where they can work more efficiently together.
  5.59 p.m.
  Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I must begin with an apology to my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale and to the Minister that I may not be here at the end of the debate. I am going to a Commonwealth occasion—the celebration of the anniversary of the independence of Mauritius. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his kind reference to myself, but still more the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I am pleased, as often
  424
  occurs, that I am following the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and I shall be making some reference to what she has said later in my speech.
  My Lords, during 70 years of political activity I have seen four revolutions. The first is not often recognised—the political and social revolution in our own country. When I first became active in politics large numbers of working men had no vote; we had no manhood suffrage; of course we had no women's suffrage. There was literally starvation in our land, and a political and social revolution has taken place in this country in changing those conditions. The second revolution I have seen is the Soviet revolution, the third the Chinese revolution, the fourth the colonial revolution. It is possible that we are now witnessing two further revolutions: the change in the whole of industry by the technological revolution, and an Islamic revolution in Asia. But tonight we are considering the colonial revolution and the Commonwealth which has followed it.
  I think the first thing to mention about the colonial revolution is the short time in which it occurred. For over three centuries territories had been occupied in Asia, Africa and South America by the great Powers. But in 20 years that old system was almost completely overthrown. I think it was largely due to the effect of the Second World War, a war against Fascism and for democracy, but not only in its ideological aspect; the experience which those thousands of Asians and Africans had in travelling about the world made them conscious of the self-government which other peoples enjoyed.
  The colonial revolution began by the recognition of the independence of India, for which Clem Attlee, the Prime Minister, Stafford Cripps, and, if I mention him in influential background, my brother-in-law, Reginald Sorensen, had so much responsibility, But I want to recognise this tonight, that the very power of events there meant that not only the Labour movement, which accepted in principle the right of peoples to govern themselves, but also the Conservative Party, which had been the Party of the Empire, took a great part in bringing about the change. I want to pay my tribute to Mr. Iain Macleod for the service which he rendered

  425
  when he was a Conservative Colonial Secretary. A little ironically, Iain Macleod used to ask me to have discussions with him more than any Labour Colonial Secretary had ever done. He saw that unless self-government was given to the continent of Africa there would be Maumau all over in Africa and not only in Kenya.
  That colonial revolution is now almost complete. There remains Rhodesia, about which I will speak a little later, Hong Kong in its difficult position, and the small islands. I want to endorse what my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale said about the small islands. It is impossible that small islands with a population of perhaps even less than 1,000 should be independent and self-governing. I would like to see them federated under a new Commission which would be established by the United Nations. I believe that is the solution to their problem.
  My Lords, I want to confess at once that, though I have taken considerable part in the struggle for the independence of nations in Africa and Asia, I am very often disappointed by the results—military coups, violence, denials of human rights. But there are two things that should be said about that. The first is this: they have happened less within the British Commonwealth than they have in territories which were under other colonial administrations. I want to recognise this. Though I spent a large part of my life in challenging British Imperialism, the British colonial system was preferable to other colonial systems in Africa, preferable to the French system of amalgamation with Paris, preferable to the Belgian system which denied any place to the indigenous people, any authority in their administration. The British colonial system did at least, with all its atrocities, evolve so that the African and Asian people could move to membership of their Legislatures. I believe it is that difference which is responsible for the fact that there have been fewer military coups, less denial of human rights, less violence within Commonwealth territories than in the territories of other colonial administrations.
  There is a second comment to be made on this. When we deplore what has happened within the new independent nations, let us remember that there has
  426
  been less violence in Africa and Asia than there was in Europe in the parallel situation when the old empires in Europe were disintegrating into nations. The revolutions, the violence, the inquisitions, the persecutions in Europe were much greater than anything that has happened in Africa or Asia.
  My Lords, I want to say a word in comment upon the speech which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has delivered from the Opposition Front Bench. He saw the Commonwealth as an instrument of the Free World against the Communist world. Most of the Commonwealth nations are not Communist: like us they hate the totalitarianism of Communism. However, they also remember the imperialism of the West and that in their struggles aid has been given, however cynical it may have been, from the Communist countries.
  The majority of Commonwealth countries are not aligned with the Western group: they are unaligned. Because they are unaligned I believe that the Commonwealth has a great contribution to make to peace which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has said it will fulfil. It is the unalignment of the majority of Commonwealth countries which will contribute to that end—indeed, it was those countries that called the United Nations Disarmament Conference. That is the contribution which they are making to world peace.
  I have said that I have often been disappointed by what has happened. I have also been encouraged. As regards democracy we have the magnificent example of India. For a period there was Indira Gandhi and her régime, which was overwhelmingly defeated. We have the example of the democracy which India has maintained over the years. I admit that there is a challenge. Communist China appears to have advanced so much more rapidly than India. I tell my Indian friends that they must be more radical and drastic in dealing with the problem of their villages and village poverty if they are to make their democracy a success.
  There is also the question of human rights. I have recently been to East and Central Africa. Before I went, Amnesty gave me a long list of prisoners of conscience—men and women who have been

  427
  held in prison without being charged or without a trial. There is not a single detainee in Kenya, Zambia or Tanzania who is now on that list. The first action of the new President of Kenya, President Moi, was to release every prisoner who had been jailed without being charged or tried. In Zambia, the only detainees in prison who have not been charged or tried are the SWAPO dissidents and even as regards them a solution is in sight. Half of them are rejoining SWAPO and the other half have been placed under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees to be sent to other countries if they cannot go back to Namibia. When I was in Tanzania, the last 14 prisoners who had been held without being charged or tried were released. Over that vast area of Africa—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Paget will read what I am saying—human rights are being recognised as they have never been recognised before.
  I am encouraged by the dedication which Commonwealth countries have to the service of other peoples who are under repression. Zambia, so loyal to the decision of the United Nations to apply sanctions, has probably suffered in consequence more than Zimbabwe itself has suffered. I have met Kenneth Kaunda. I shall not say that he is bitter because he has a character which is rarely bitter. However, he is hurt by the fact that, while his people suffered for their loyalty to carrying out sanctions, British oil companies, with the knowledge of some of our Cabinet Ministers, were breaking those sanctions and sending their oil to Rhodesia.
  I am encouraged by the experiments which have been made in Africa as regards democratic socialism. They are often denounced as Communist, but that is ridiculous. As regards Tanzania, which is one of our Commonwealth countries—I have met Julius Nyerere and he has said, "It will take 30 years to establish socialism here". He tells me that there is not a single person in Tanzania today who is living on unearned income. All industry has been taken over as a public service. The great plantations which were privately owned are now co-operatives and heroic, although rather pathetic, village communities are being established. Anyone who has seen that is inspired by what the Tanzanian people are doing.
  428
  The Commonweatlth, despite its diversity—for example, its democratic States, its theocratic States, its scientific Socialist States, its democratic Socialist States and its capitalist States—is progressive in the world today. There has been a series of Commonwealth conferences. All of them have contributed to progress. They are attacks upon the remnants of colonialism, racism, and apartheid. However, a new issue has now arisen. At the last Conference of the Commonwealth nations at Kingston the issue of a new international economic order was raised. I am glad that our Prime Minister made a contribution, because it is now the issue which our Commonwealth must face—namely, the fact of the rich and poor worlds; the millions within our Commonwealth who are hungry. Commonwealth statesmen are leading that campaign—Manley and Burnham at Kingston and now Julius Nyerere at the great Arusha conference which has just been held. Our British Government, if they are to retain the solidarity and sympathy of other nations in the Commonwealth must endorse the demands for a new world order which will end the disparities between North and South. My Lords, this is Commonwealth Day. I salute the Commonwealth for its achievements in the past. I salute it still more for my hopes for its future.
  6.20 p.m.
  Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, when following a speaker in your Lordships' House, it is customary to comment on the statements that he has made. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but I disagree fundamentally with the statement he made that there has ever been what he has termed a colonial revolution. For some 30 years I served as a colonial overseas officer. I went out from this country about 50 years ago, not in the belief that I and those who served with me were the most superior beings on this earth, but in the belief that we had a duty to serve. When I travelled over that long distance this was borne in upon me by the fact that we had a British Navy in the Mediterranean, in the Far East and in the Atlantic Ocean, and when I arrived it seemed to me that that Navy was keeping the peace of the world, which all peoples of the world enjoyed.
  Following on from that, I remember meeting Mr. Ormsby-Gore, as he then was

  429
  —a Secretary of State some 50 years ago—when I, as a young man of 20 years of age, had a conversation with him. He turned to me and said "Do you know why you are here?" Young as I was, I was completely overcome by his words to me. However, he went on to say "You are here to lead these people to self-government". That was 50 years ago; and that was what we were involved in.
  In following up my reasoning behind all this, I know from my personal experience that it is always an anxious time for Her Majesty's Government when deciding at any one moment when a particular country is ready for self-government. We had a responsibility for those people whom we were endeavouring to serve. This country had a responsibility to ensure that when it was handing over government to independent nations, they were fully equipped and able to carry out that task to the benefit of their own people in those territories. That is my answer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
  This evening, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for introducing this debate. It is most timely. When we consider that our former colonial empire—now devolved to independent nationhood—extends to over one quarter of the earth's surface, it is of immense importance—and this underlines the remarks that I have just made—that what independent nations believe of us and we of them should be accurate and true. It is because I value the continuance of the Commonwealth that it is most important to underline that precept: accurate and true—for, in the years following victory in the last war, we have come to doubt some of the principles which governed our colonies and to place tradition under the microscope. This tearing up of the roots for minute examination and scrutiny of the fundamental beliefs of our forefathers which gave us a stable society has extended over the whole of our political spectrum, and has not escaped the distortions spoken and written about our colonial policy.
  If we want the concept of the Commonwealth to succeed—and I want it to succeed—let those in this country who must one day (when we are no longer alive) by the natural progress of affairs succeed to the positions that we hold,
  430
  know the truth of our past. Otherwise, our young people will lose any interest in the Commonwealth and it will die. Let me quote an example of what I mean. In our British schools where African and British boys study together, among many of the emotive statements in a book on Africa there is this—and what conceivable good can it do to the fostering of good Commonwealth relations for African boys and British boys to read this about Africa in our schools?—
  "European interests always came before the interests of those people overseas".
  That is entirely false, and that I know from my experience.
  I can say to your Lordships that remarks of the kind that I have depicted appear in the books written by some of our academics, whose grey matter is vastly superior to mine, and that in isolated cases statements of this kind fall from the lips of some of our politicians. I cannot believe that in either category these gentlemen have had my experience as a colonial officer in Malaysia for some 30 years when it was my duty to give effect to your colonial policies. That applied to all territories under the administration of the Colonial Office. Therefore, I am in a position categorically to deny that it was ever the policy of the Colonial Office to place the interests of this country before those of any overseas territories, or to carry out a policy to their detriment.
  Let me face squarely the charge of exploitation. Yes, this country benefited by its association with our overseas territories, and so did they. That is a fact. Let me illustrate that statement from my own experience. As a former Commissioner of Customs and Excise in Malaysia, I am in a position to state that every dollar and cent of the huge revenues that we collected from the export of rubber and tin, the import duties and the Excise duties was ploughed back into the construction of roads, ports, electrical installations, hospitals, schools, et cetera. All those were handed over by Britain as going concerns at the time of independence and, under an independent government—I have taken the trouble to research this—they have, to their eternal credit, greatly extended those facilities. That is the position today.
  I believe that there is a dire need for an international public relations officer

  431
  for the Commonwealth, or a need for an historian, to comment on the Commonwealth's affairs. The part played by Britain in the past has been entirely honourable. In this country our children should know that. So should the children in the independent nations of the Commonwealth. Only then can they look each other straight in the face. We are now removed from close contact with our overseas friends for, by virtue of their independence, we no longer live among them. That makes it more important than ever for us and for future generations, accurately and faithfully to record these overseas people who helped us. I believe that the future of the Commonwealth depends upon this. Given that our record is faithfully kept, the Commonwealth can be strengthened by its young people, for boundaries are coming down and the isolation of distance will be removed by the speed of travel. The truth about our past will fortify them and us in the years ahead in a Commonwealth association with one another which I hope will continue.
  It has been my privilege to be a colonial officer in Malaysia when Colonial Secretaries of some standing visited that country. To mention only a few whom one remembers with affection, there were the late Jim Griffiths and Oliver Lyttleton. I remember the visit of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I remember too on this Commonwealth Day the joy of the Malaysian people at the appointment of Sir Hugh Clifford as Governor and High Commissioner for the Malay States. That was many years ago when I was a young cadet in Malaya. At that time, the Malays were thrilled because when Sir Hugh was appointed he had, some years prior to that date, endeared himself to the peoples of Pahang as a young cadet and district officer. There are many books about Sir Hugh, and many books about Malaya which are worth reading and which could possibly be studied in our schools and certainly by the young people of this country.
  I remember too Sir Frank Swettenham and also Sir Shenton Thomas, Governor and High Commissioner in 1940, who, when it was obvious that the Japanese attack on Malaysia in December 1941 and February 1942 would succeed, stated that it was the duty of every colonial
  432
  officer to remain and share the sufferings of the Malaysian people—those people whom we had endeavoured to serve. So far as I am aware, every colonial officer followed the Governor's advice. This was in the highest traditions of the Service. I am most grateful for the tributes which have been paid to the Colonial Service this evening by noble Lords and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, who introduced this debate.
  It is not my purpose to mention what happened afterwards during imprisonment in Changi Jail, but it is appropriate to remember with gratitude and even affection on this Commonwealth Day those Malayan people who died so that some of us in Changi might live. They were discovered sending in to the jail food and drugs to help us when we were desperately short of both. For this many of them suffered torture; some of them suffered execution. But does not this act underwrite the strong bonds which existed between us and those people who were the recipients of our service?
  It is nonsense to say that we were not wanted anywhere. At the granting of independence some of these people expressed regret to me personally at our impending departure. In conclusion, I remember one incident which I think is appropriate to what we are thinking about tonight. As a young officer many years ago when wireless communication first became possible, it was a great thrill for us to listen to England some 12,000 miles away, and I remember the occasion when Her Majesty's grandfather, who seemed to be very tired at that time, went down to receive the congratulations of both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall at the end of a long reign. As we were listening to this many miles from anywhere a young Malay turned to me and said, "You know, having heard him speak, I feel it makes me want to do something better with my own life".
  My Lords, that is my feeling about the Commonwealth. I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate. It is most timely. I believe in the Commonwealth's future. I am most grateful for some of the speeches I have heard this evening. They give me hope, and I hope that they will be of assistance to Her Majesty's Government.
  6.35 p.m.
  Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, it has become a platitude in talking about the Commonwealth to speak of it as an unique institution. It is unique, and many speakers have said this afternoon that it has arisen out of the British Empire. I would say rather that it has arisen despite the British Empire. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who preceded me, set the precedent for answering, or following, the previous speaker, and I am happy to do so, if only briefly.
  I plead guilty to being one of the writers that he spoke of who, in writing history of the British Empire and of other empires has said that at the height of empire the interests of the Europeans were always paramount. That was what colonialism was about. What I should like to suggest to him is that he considers, Yes, the colonial Powers built hospitals, roads, schools, and provided water. Yes, there was a positive side. I would entirely agree with him and pay my own personal tribute to many of the devoted colonial officers, with many of whom I have stayed and enjoyed their hospitality and seen their devotion to the local people. But in its essence the colonial ethic, the imperial ethic, is that of domination by the great Powers, and in this case we are talking about the European great Powers.
  I would suggest to him that he considers that although many speakers have talked about the coming of independence to the Colonial States during our lifetime, it would be more accurate to talk about them regaining independence. All these people have known independence long before the Europeans came. There were States; there were empires; there were whole structures of political institutions that had been devised in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and South America when Europeans were living on a very low political standard. Of course, we have not time to debate this tonight, and it is not the main thrust of the debate, but I should like to undermine a little of the complacency that has been heard in this Chamber this afternoon.
  The Commonwealth is a political institution. As a political institution it will live and grow provided that it has things to do; that it is not just accepted. Yes, we all speak English; most of us play cricket; we know each other; we come
  434
  to London and we have meetings with each other. No, as a political institution this institution depends on its action, on its activity. I suggest that it has two principal activities that are challenging it in the near future. Before I do so I should like to ask noble Lords to consider whether they are not, either consciously or unconsciously, forces undermining the continued existence of the Commonwealth.
  I shall give two examples. My noble friend Lord Brockway has already referred to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, speaking second in the debate. I agreed entirely with the first part of his speech and admired the language in which he spoke. With the second part I disagreed entirely, and I would ask him to reconsider his approach. He spoke of the Commonwealth being a buffer against Communism. It is not, and those who would like to make it into such an institution are doing it an ill service. It will not become a buffer against Communism, and if we try to make it so we shall destroy it because from the Commonwealth countries themselves the world looks a very different place than it does from within this Chamber.
  If the Chinese come and show you how to grow rice or build a railway from Dar-es-Salaam to the Copper Belt, you do not ask them what their political philosophy is, and I can assure noble Lords that, from my experience, knowledge and observation, their political philosophy has never interfered with the kind of aid they have been giving. I do not want to pursue this too far and I would only add that the Russians have not been as sensible as the Chinese and never as constructive. If you try to make the Commonwealth into something which is an extension of what you consider to be the national interest of this country or Western Europe, you will destroy it precisely because the majority of the people of the Commonwealth do not look on the world as divided in the way you in this Chamber look upon it.
  The second factor which is undermining the continued existence of the Commonwealth is the kind of speech we heard last week which takes aside what are called the new Commonwealth mothers in this country, which separates them from the mass of our British community, although

  435
  many of them may have been here for 20 years, and which identifies—quite incorrectly, as any scientist here will support me in saying—skin colour with ethnicity or culture. If one wants to see an example of British Victorian culture, ask my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead to give some instances of the roast beef and Yorkshire pudding one must eat at 100 degrees in the Caribbean.
  When that sort of speech is made, when we start talking about new Commonwealth immigrants, when we are frightened that new cultures coming into this country may diminish the development of a British culture—which, after all, has always been a mongrel culture and has alsways had a mixture of cultural ingredients—we are not just insulting the members of the British community, we are also antagonising every Commonwealth country outside these islands. The speeches that are made on those lines—unscientific and appealing to the lowest emotions—are reported in the Press of our Commonwealth fellow-members and they are a threat to the continued existence of the Commonwealth.
  The speaker to whom I am referring said the British people would no longer argue. We will argue all right and we have always been prepared to argue. What we will not argue is on the false premise that you identify a person's character, worth or culture according to the colour of his or her skin and classify them as new Commonwealth immigrants. That brings me to the first of the important challenges which I believe the Commonwealth now faces, and that is in the whole field of race relations.
  Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am listening intently to my noble friend's remarks. He referred to Commonwealth mothers being mentioned in some speech, but we have not learned to whom he has been referring, and that is a little confusing.
  Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I was referring to a speech made last week in which a percentage was given of new Commonwealth mothers in this country and I was attacking the concept that you divide the people of Britain according to the colour of their skin, because that is only what "new Commonwealth" is used
  436
  for; it is a euphemism for colour and I am sure the speaker would agree that when he is talking about new Commonwealth mothers and births to new Commonwealth mothers he is in fact talking about coloured mothers and coloured babies.
  I was saying that the whole issue of race relations is the first challenge to the Commonwealth. It has been said on a number of occasions by speakers in both Houses that the Commonwealth is an organisation, an institution, which has no rules and no bounds. That is not so. I was present at the Singapore Commonwealth Conference in 1971 when the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles was approved unanimously by every Prime Minister and Head of State at that meeting. That declaration is worth reading; it is up in lights in the Commonwealth Institute and many schoolchildren read it every day. It is worth reading because it lays down that the Commonwealth does not recognise racial, colour or ethnic differences as factors for separating mankind.
  In laying down those principles, the Commonwealth was reflecting its own history. It is not a coincidence that the only two members of the Commonwealth to be expelled—or, to be absolutely and technically accurate, asked to withdraw—have been South Africa and Rhodesia, in both cases because of the racial policies and attitudes that were institutionalised in both those countries. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate he will be able to tell us how the Government are preparing for the next Commonwealth Conference to be held in August in Lusaka, and what contribution they intend to make to what has been this long-standing race relations issue, the issue of the continuation of white supremacy, a relic of the Commonwealth and a relic of colonial days in Southern Africa. It is not unrelated to the racial tensions in this country.
  Let us recognise that this Commonwealth of ours is present on all the six continents of the world. It embraces peoples of every major religion and of every major ethnic community, but perhaps, above all, it is populated by three-quarters of the world's poor, and that is the second central issue that our Commonwealth has to face. As my noble friend Lord Brockway pointed out, a start was

  437
  made in Kingston, but we have been disappointed that in the last four years there has not been more follow-up. We have two-thirds of the world's population commanding no more than 12 per cent. of the world's products and only 7 per cent. of its industry. Here in the Commonwealth we have the opportunity, a better opportunity perhaps than in any other international institution, to discuss face to face and calmly, in an atmosphere of negotiation, this real problem which faces both the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government are preparing for this. I believe that at the Lusaka Conference our Government can make an even greater contribution than was made by the Government in the Kingston meeting of 1975, but only if it is identified with the needs of the vast majority of Commonwealth citizens.
  If we use the great skill in this country, in other Commonwealth countries, and in the Commonwealth Secretariat—to which I also pay the highest possible tribute—to face the central issue of our generation, I believe that the Commonwealth itself can play a vital international role, the effects of which will be much wider than those simply within the Commonwealth itself. Let us remember that the members of the Commonwealth have already played a great role in world history, not least in this country. Let us also remember that it is not a one-way traffic. We learn much from our Commonwealth members, if we listen and look. The Americans have learned much. It was the slaves who took the techniques of tropical farming to Central and Latin America. Today it is members of our Commonwealth coming into this country —not just the Canadians, the Australians, and the New Zealanders, but also the Africans, those from the Caribbean, and the Asians—who are making a new contribution to an enriched culture in this world and in this country. That, I believe, is the opportunity and the challenge which faces our Commonwealth, and we must be active within it if it is to continue to exist.
  6.53 p.m.
  Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I wish to add to the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, not only for having most fortuitously initiated this extremely important debate
  438
  on Commonwealth Day, but also for making a very convincing and characteristically knowledgeable speech. Unlike many noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I have never served in Government, and my visits to the Commonwealth have been fairly limited, being confined to New Zealand, Fiji, and the Caribbean. It is true that today mention of the word "Commonwealth", especially among young people, evokes a certain amount of cynicism, and I should like to suggest one or two reasons why this is the case. I believe that a certain amount of the "us" and "them" attitude is taken. The White Commonwealth is not infrequently played off against the coloured Commonwealth; Canada, Australia, and New Zealand against the newer members. I have never personally agreed with this; I do not think that many people have. One question which we must ask ourselves—and I believe that history will show this
  —is whether in some cases independence has not come just a little too soon. It was bound to come, as we have been reminded. Fifty years ago a distinguished person mentioned the fact that a great nation was preparing for independence.
  I went to St. Martin-in-the-Fields for the Independence Day service for Dominica. The first High Commissioner there, Arden Shillingford, happens to be a very good friend of mine. I have never been to Dominica, but I know some of its people over here, and I would be among the first to wish that country well. However, bearing in mind its 55,000 people—equivalent to the population of a town such as Eastbourne—one must be a little apprehensive about how they are likely to manage, though one hopes that the apprehension is misplaced.
  In 1974 I paid a business visit to St. Lucia, which I believe is known as the jewel of the Caribbean, and anyone who has been there knows why. It is a country of great beauty, with wonderfully friendly people, a thriving tourist industry, a fast-developing harbour, and a large quantity of mineral resources, particularly in the northern part of the island. I received a personal invitation from Mr. Compton, the Premier of St. Lucia, to attend the recent independence celebrations. Unfortunately, due to business and personal commitments which I could not cancel I was, most reluctantly, unable to accept. However, I went to Westminster Cathedral

  439
  on a very cold, bleak day to attend the service of independence, and a very beautiful and moving service it was. It was interesting to note that in the choir there were, I think I am right in saying, one or two young St. Lucian boys. The flag of independence was carried up to the altar by three charming St. Lucian girls, two of whom were nurses. I wish to say a few words about that later. I personally regret, in a sense, that an island such as St. Lucia is breaking away from the Commonwealth. However, at the same time I do not think there is any prospect that we shall lose contact with the island because though I say that it is breaking away from the Commonwealth, I feel that perhaps through this move we might more firmly cement relations with it.
  Last September I had the great privilege of being one of the 10 United Kingdom delegates to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Jamaica. Incidentally, I believe that the next conference is to be in New Zealand, and I think that it is the following year that it is to be held in Zambia. I should like to pay a tribute to our hosts in Jamaica, who ran this conference with great efficiency and courtesy. I would also join the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, in his tributes to Sir Robin Vanderfelt and to Mr. Molloy, and certainly to their counterparts in Jamaica. Here was a real opportunity to meet representatives from about 20 Commonwealth countries. With many of the views of those countries one might have disagreed; but, after all, my Lords, the idea of a conference is to share opinions, to expound views and to try to find some common ground.
  My own impression of this conference, particularly in the case of the plenary sessions, is that much was done there. I may say that the conference was held at a very difficult time, because it coincided with the publication of the Bingham Report. I should also like to pay a personal tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who led the United Kingdom delegation with the utmost tact and distinction at that especially difficult time. I will not say that all my views and the views of some of my noble friends accorded chapter and verse with hers, or indeed with others at the conference, but the way she handled a potentially difficult situation was, I thought, masterly; and,
  440
  although this conference took place last September, I make no apology for putting that tribute on the record now.
  My Lords, looking at the matter of race relations, I think New Zealand gives a lead here. I was there in 1971, as many of your Lordships know, with my wife and with Princess Alexandra and her husband, for the centennial celebrations of the City of Auckland. We attended many functions and I had to make many speeches. I had two Maori welcomes, which were fascinating; and I visited a number of Maori people. One I met was a particularly fine wood-craftsman and a justice of the peace; and, of course, over here we have that outstandingly fine singer, Kiri Tekanawa. One of the first VCs of the war was won posthumously by a Maori. When one talks about the role of the Commonwealth one has only to go to the Domain in Auckland and see the Roll of Honour. As I think I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House, there, on a wall, there are some 4,000 New Zealand names of those who fell in the last war, largely in Crete. That, out of a population of about 3 million, is a very large percentage; and, of course, these New Zealanders included a substantial number of the Maori population.
  I think one of the most moving experiences I have ever had was to go to the dawn Anzac Day Service in 1971. It was held at 5 o'clock in the morning, and one looked over Auckland Harbour as the dawn was breaking. There was created an extraordinary feeling, because although Auckland is 13,000 miles from the Isle of Wight, one almost had the feeling that across the water was the Isle of Wight, so close are the contacts which still remain between our two countries.
  My Lords, the role of the Commonwealth at the present time is a difficult one, because we have 40 countries all of different sizes and different populations which now have indepencence, and the question really is as to how we can best assimilate those differences. I think one most encouraging aspect—and this really gives the answer to the continued value of the Commonwealth—is the number of Commonwealth nurses and doctors in this country, particularly in our hospitals, who do such outstandingly fine work. The six mental hospitals in the area of

  441
  Surrey where I live have a very large number of nurses from the Commonwealth—from the Caribbean, from India, from Malaysia, from Mauritius in particular, and from many other countries—and the integration among the various races and our own British staff is very much to be praised.
  My Lords, it is a great pity that this debate has taken place in a House which is less than full. It has merited a much larger attendance, mainly because of the vital importance of the subject. I would say only this in conclusion, that whatever may be the future of the Commonwealth, there is certainly no need to apologise for it. There will be scepticism shown in some quarters, and the question will be raised as to how some of the problems are to be resolved in these countries; but I think it is fair to say that we in this country and those in many of the larger European countries have faced the same problems and have not yet quite solved them all. So I believe there is much hope for the future of the Commonwealth, and that it is more and more necessary for an even closer partnership between this country and all the Commonwealth countries, the old ones and the newest of the new. It is absolutely essential for the sake of mankind that this partnership should continue.
  7.9 p.m.
  Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale on having selected Commonwealth Day for this debate. Few Members of your Lordships' House are better qualified than he, with his long record of years of devoted service to the Commonwealth, to initiate our discussion. I believe the Commonwealth has a greater role than ever to play in world affairs, and never was it more badly needed than it is today. But I want to confine my remarks to the youngest independent member of the Commonwealth, St. Lucia. Two weeks ago I was privileged to attend (I was much more fortunate than the noble Lord, Lord Auckland) her independence celebrations, and most impressive they were.
  The one discordant note was struck by the BBC reporter, Mr. Martin Bell. Many of us who heard him were really left wondering whether he was indeed referring to St. Lucia at all, or to some
  442
  other island of his own imagination. His was a half-baked, slanted piece of reporting, totally unworthy of a great nationalised medium such as our own BBC. The whole British Press, in contrast to the BBC, acquitted themselves very creditably. The Guardian came out with the headline: "Islanders cheer a free St. Lucia". The Daily Telegraph stated: "Outlook bright as St. Lucia wins full independence". The Financial Times lead with: "St. Lucia becomes independent: favourable omens for self-rule". Only the BBC, that great untouchable quasi-Quango now beyond the reach of Parliament—I had always imagined that Parliament was the supreme court of the realm until it whittled away one of its greatest privileges only recently—did St. Lucia and the cause of Britain irreparable harm.
  When one thinks of the magnificent role played by the BBC during the Second World War and of the millions of people oppressed by Nazi terror sitting glued to their radio sets, listening to the BBC broadcasts as the only source available of honest, factual reporting, one can realise how the BBC has sunk over the years. Then, it was a source of hope and comfort in Europe's darkest days. Now, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has had a great deal to say about the BBC's slanted approach in dealing with the problems facing our police, but, in reporting the St. Lucia independence celebrations, the BBC representative, Mr. Martin Bell, would appear to have plumbed even lower depths still.
  The BBC report reminded me very forcefully of an account of the reporter's role that I had recently read in a cheap American paperback:
  "Reporters are not supposed to care what their victims think of an article after it has been published. A good reporter must find means, any means, to make people reveal what they should never reveal. I have watched crack reporters bullying, stalking out their prey, kicking on doors and refusing to relent after the source has cracked. I was warm and seemed so ingenuous that people talked to me as if I was a friend. But I was not a friend. I wrote what I thought regardless of the consequences".
  That almost fits in with the BBC's reporting of these happy, spontaneous celebrations that I witnessed at first hand on the island of St. Lucia.
  I would ask a question of my noble friend who is to reply for the Government—and I apologise for not giving him prior

  443
  notice; for I heard of this debate only last night. Has any protest been received by Her Majesty's Government at the BBC's reporting of these proceedings? I readily understand that he cannot answer it in today's debate, but could he not obtain a transcript of the BBC's reports? If there is any way my noble friend can make amends to the Government and people of St. Lucia for the BBC's deplorable lapse of good taste and objective reporting on an otherwise supremely happy occasion, I hope it is not already too late for him to do so.
  I ask because this is a matter of extreme importance. The island of St. Vincent is to attain its independence later this year. Antigua may well follow suit in the near future. I submit that it is no business of ours to interfere in the internal politics of these Caribbean islands; but I am jealous of Britain's good name. It is of the utmost importance that, when we cede independence to these islands, we bow out with honour and dignity and with a good grace that will leave no unpleasant taste behind. Here, I must pay tribute to the representative of Her Majesty at the independence celebrations of St. Lucia. Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra and Mr. Angus Ogilvy won the hearts of everyone throughout the proceedings. The Princess presided over them with a dignity and charm which was superb. She went out of her way on numerous occasions to mix freely with the people of the island, especially the children; and carried out an exhausting programme of activities with a warm kindliness and sweetness that left behind an excellent impression. No one could have fulfilled these heavy duties or carried them out, often in intense heat, with greater devotion and more striking success. She proved herself in every way an admirable representative of the Head of the Commonwealth.
  I should also like to add a tribute to the Government representative, Mr. Ted Rowlands, who had a very important role to play in the proceedings. He played it with grace and good humour that did credit both to the Government and to Britain. As I have said, the one discordant note came unfortunately from the BBC's representative, Mr. Martin Bell; and I would ask my noble friend to see that in due course full amends are somehow made to the people of St. Lucia and active
  444
  steps are taken to prevent a future repetition of this deplorable episode.
  Listeners to the BBC programme may well have asked: who is Mr. George Odlum? He is the deputy leader of the Opposition, a handsome but frustrated firebrand who, if I have got my facts aright—and I speak subject to correction—was engaged in a street brawl at the time of the last election and was subsequently involved in police court proceedings. He is rather like a limbo dancer on the island, one who swallows a flaming torch and breathes out flames afterwards. His engaging personality seems to have buttonholed every delegation that visits the island. He was the main source of Mr. Martin Bell's information. In Mr. Martin Bell's own words:
  "he wears his politics on his sleeve, the sleeve of a Castro-style uniform".
  How Mr. George Odlum must now be laughing up his sleeve and how foolish has our own BBC been made to look after incalculable damage has already been done!
  In contrast, how generous and liberal-minded was the attitude of the Prime Minister of St. Lucia, Mr. John Compton, throughout the proceedings. Among the 51 nations represented, Cuba sent five delegates who were the honoured guests during these celebrations. I had the privilege of sitting with them during one of the official lunches and I know how much they valued the invitation extended to them and how pleased they were to be present. Yet Mr. Martin Bell reported, apparently through his contact with Mr. George Odlum—and I can only paraphrase—that, in a country whose politics were as sulphurous as its hot springs, what should be one of the smoothest transitions to independence was threatening to be one of the most acrimonious. Mr. Martin Bell quoted Mr. Odlum as saying:
  "The Opposition of St. Lucia warn that they cannot guarantee the safety of people attending the independence celebrations".
  But who is Mr. George Odlum to guarantee their safety? I never sought his protection; and, indeed, felt much safer without it. Could not Mr. Martin Bell get his information from the official leader of the opposition, Mr. Josie, or was it because the Guardian has described the leader

  445
  of the opposition as "the quieter Mr. Peter Josie"? The Guardian of 21st February went on to say, very properly:
  "On the last occasion that visiting VIPs"—
  As I said, they attended from 51 countries—
  "were threatened with a riot, only a few bits of banana were thrown".
  On the next day, Independence Day, 22nd February, the Guardian reported:
  "Princess Alexandra arrived with the Foreign Office Minister of State, Mr. Ted Rowlands, amid the apparent collapse of the Opposition's efforts to disrupt the celebrations of the island's independence from Britain".
  But the damage by the BBC had by then already been done.
  I can vouch, after attending nearly all the official Government celebrations on the island, that I saw no sign of any disturbance and no untoward incident of any kind. But to sensation-hungry reporters that is not news. On the contrary, I have rarely seen such spontaneous rejoicings on all sides. The St. Lucians are a gay, happy and very friendly people, and they revelled in the carnival atmosphere of their independence celebrations. The carnival on 26th February began at five in the morning and went on till after mid-night. The streets were packed with wildly enthusiastic crowds, some six or more deep, lining the pavements, and the long procession of decorated floats, steel bands, laughing, singing children, all in their gay fancy costumes was a real joy to behold. So much for Mr. Martin Bell of the BBC, who by then had left the island, and his mentor Mr. George Odlum.
  My Lords, why do I stress these matters in this evening's debate? It is simply because, as I have said on previous occasions, I believe profoundly in the Commonwealth. I believe that this unique, free association of 40 independent States can be a power for untold good in this sorely distracted world of today. I believe that Britain, the mother-country, should still remain a trustee for their welfare and good relations long after their independence has been achieved. As a benevolent midwife, we have presided over their birth. I hope we shall long continue to preside over their growth and prosperity, and play a role worthy of our great past as the noblest, and yet the most maligned, colonial power in the whole of human history.
  7.24 p.m.
  The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I too should like to open my remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for originating this debate. My theme is on the changes which have taken place in the Commonwealth since the war and the need for the attitude of this country to change too. I thought that I might be rather out of step with the rest of the debate today, but in point of fact many noble Lords have spoken on the same topic. As the noble Lord has stressed, Britain is now just an equal member of the Commonwealth. I have some very small doubts about the relationship between our Government—and successive Governments—and the Commonwealth. These doubts stem from the many changes that have occurred over the past 30 years.
  Since the war there has been the NATO Alliance which, although shared with Canada, has made our friendship with the United States of America of a special importance to us. An example of this would be our appointed Ambassador in Washington at the moment or an Ambassador which Mr. Macmillan sent to Washington some years ago. Both of these were personal appointments, but they were to Washington, not to Canberra or Ottawa. This is the obvious special importance which perhaps we overstress when we are thinking of our relationship with America. Then, over the past two decades, there has been our preoccupation with entry into Europe, putting a severe strain at times on some of our Commonwealth relationships. Here we might perhaps turn to the Benches on my right and their preoccupation with Europe, yet there is not one of that Party here tonight. Also, to be a member of three clubs—and I am sure some noble Lords are members of many more than three—puts a strain on the amount of time one can spend with each club. I feel that we have now put a slight strain on the Commonwealth by the addition of these two clubs.
  There has been the most welcome step of the formation of the Commonwealth Secretariat; and may noble Lords have already paid tribute to the Secretariat and I should like to add my own tribute to them as well. They have done tremendous work. Their work is mainly administrative and cohesive at the moment.

  447
  But because they work in London this should not lessen this Government's responsibilities with the Commonwealth abroad. I feel that having the Commonwealth Secretariat here is, on the one hand, an advantage, but on the other hand a disadvantage. Another small point is that Governor-Generals now tend to be nationals of their own country. This is an excellent step but it means that one more small link with this country has been severed. In the past there has been an India Office, a Commonwealth Office, a Dominions Office and a Colonial Office. Now it is all under one roof.
  Still talking of the changes of the moment, we have had a tremendous preoccupation with Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway is constant in his attention to this detail in this House. This is a Commonwealth issue of tantamount importance but it should not overshadow the other Commonwealth relationships. All this adds up in my mind to two trends: first, the Government of Britain has been, and is, mainly occupied with its alliances closer at hand and the African problem. Secondly, the responsibility of upholding the Commonwealth is slipping from the hands of Whitehall. This may be no bad thing, but there must be no vacuum left. I believe, because of these trends, Government needs a new initiative and a more positive approach to the Commonwealth today. "New initiative" and "a more positive approach" are easy to say but are difficult to put into practice. I suggest that the aims could be to ensure the continuing strength of the Commonwealth; to nurture present members; to look for new members; to harness the goodwill both for trade and mutual benefit; and to maintain an alliance which is a positive help to world peace. In answer to some noble Lords opposite, the very mix of the Commonwealth geographically, from a religious point of view, and politically—and it does not matter what politics—is one of the major factors for world peace for tomorrow.
  Perhaps this is going backwards a little, but I should like to see one of the Ministers of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office called the Minister of State for the Commonwealth. We
  448
  know their duties are parcelled out to some degree, but would it not be nice to have a Minister whom we could all see? Most people in this House would welcome the noble Lord who is going to reply to this debate in that position. Also I should like to see this Minister of State for the Commonwealth so rarely in the Foreign Office that when he is greeted there it is always, "Hullo, stranger", because he is contantly visiting the Commonwealth.
  I may be treading on dangerous ground in suggesting this because it might already have happened, but I should like there to be a study of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether its constitution might not be changed once more, perhaps into Overseas Affairs, one Minister of State being responsible for the Commonwealth and being so titled, one for Europe and being so titled and one for Foreign Affairs. Another idea might be to have a combined programme of visits done at Cabinet level not only for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State but for other Ministers such as the Ministers for Trade and for Defence. I should like to see this co-ordinated so as to cover not only the 40 existing countries of the Commonwealth, but also to go to the Provinces: perhaps to Perth and British Colombia. The Minister may perhaps tell me that that already takes place. There is so much goodwill in these countries that it seems to me to be absolute folly not to make the best use of it.
  For some of the reasons I stated earlier, I believe there is a real danger that the Commonwealth could drift into becoming a less meaningful family, and I believe that the Government in this country should take a positive step in order to ensure that that does not happen. The Government should also take the initiative in enhancing our country's standing within the Commonwealth, for the benefit of the peoples in this country and in order to increase the trade between our country and Commonwealth countries, both now and in the unpredictable future. I am pleased to support this Motion.
  7.31 p.m.
  Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I begin by joining in thanking my noble friend Lord Greenwood for giving us the opportunity of marking Commonwealth Day with this debate. I

  449
  am sorry that I was not in my place to hear the first few minutes of his speech, but I heard most of it and I can assure him that I shall study Hansard very carefully. I am glad to have the opportunity of following the noble Earl, Lord Avon. His father was a man for whom I had great admiration, and I find that what he has had to say is very thoughtful and very thought provoking.
  I speak today as one who grew up in a small colony, practised medicine in three colonies, led a nationalist movement in one of those colonies and, while practising medicine in this metropolis, have taken an active interest in Third World politics. In fact it is no secret that the Committee of African Organisations and the anti-apartheid movement were both started in the basement beneath my surgery. I have, however, always been a Commonwealth man and was a member of a group in the Royal Commonwealth Society called Nudge. It was formed to keep nudging people in authority in this country into keeping the Commonwealth and Commonwealth interests in the forefront of policy-making.
  I have seen the Commonwealth grow from its immediate post-war membership of seven to the 40 members of today. In my student days the struggle was for the independence of India, and though I cannot speak Hindi I am well accustomed to shouting "Jai Hind". But, although India became independent in 1947, it was not until 1957 that the Commonwealth had its first African member, when Ghana became independent on 5th March. Today the Commonwealth has strong representation in Africa, South-East Asia and the Caribbean. As these territories are part of the regional groupings, the Commonwealth is well represented in the Organisation of African Unity and is steadily increasing its representation in the Organisation of American States and the Latin American Group of the United Nations. The Commonwealth represents a large proportion of the United Nations and is well represented among the non-aligned States and the Group of 77. So the Commonwealth has its tentacles far and wide in the various organisations that exist today.
  There is no set pattern to the political composition of its members. Although they all recognise the Queen as Head of
  450
  the Commonwealth and many Commonwealth countries are monarchies with the Queen as Head of State and the Governor-General appointed by her on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, many of the territories are republics with their own presidents. Moreover, they are not all democratic. Some are democracies on the Westminster model, some are one-Party States, many are dictatorships, and I think it is fair to say that the Commonwealth even contains a tyrant. Commonwealth countries have broken off diplomatic relations with each other and Commonwealth countries have been at war with each other. Therefore, there is no one pattern that pervades the Commonwealth. Although the members are all former British colonies or protectorates, not all the former British colonies have joined the Commonwealth, and one of those who originally joined has recently left.
  In 1965, as has already been mentioned, the Commonwealth established a Secretariat and appointed a Secretary-General. This particular innovation has enabled the Commonwealth voice to grow and to be heard more clearly as the years went by. I think it is fair to say that the Commonwealth voice is being heard more clearly today than it was 10 years ago. The Commonwealth has been well served by its two Secretaries-General. Arnold Smith had the job of laying the foundation, and he did it well. Shridath Ramphal has built on that foundation and is doing an extremely good job.
  In two of the major problems concerning the world today, the Commonwealth is well placed to make a substantial contribution to their solution, and it is imperative that it should be seen to be making that contribution. It is odd—not so odd really—that both my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lord Hatch of Lusby have touched on the points I am now about to touch on, because the two problems I am referring to are the bridging of the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" and the making if possible for people of different races to live together in equality and friendship. For the Commonwealth consists of industrialised nations, mainly agricultural nations, developing nations, some rich nations, some poor nations, some predominantly white nations and some predominantly black nations. It is

  451
  therefore well placed to make contributions in these two fields.
  Although the efforts to solve these problems provide opportunities for the Commonwealth to show its worth, they carry dangers for the Commonwealth. The present North/South dialogue, to which my noble friend Lord Brockway referred, and the move to try to establish a new international economic order provide the Commonwealth with a splendid opportunity for influencing the negotiations and helping to create the requisite climate for the leap forward which this can bring. Britain's agreement to the Common Fund can be regarded as an example of the value of Commonwealth discussion and this has led to some progress being made, even though rather slowly. Through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation, the Commonwealth Youth Programme, the Commonwealth Foundation, the proposed attempt at co-operation for accelerating industrialisation, the conferences and seminars on national development and the help it provides in export promotion and trade fairs, the Commonwealth Secretariat makes a contribution in this field.
  Britain's entry into the Common Market and the consequent Lomé agreement has provided additional avenues for aid to the poorer countries of the Commonwealth. But I think it is only fair to say that Lomé has not proved as helpful as was hoped, and that the EEC is still not as co-operative or outward-looking as was expected. The EEC countries have such differing national interests and Britain is in so much disagreement with her EEC partners, that it is doubtful to what extent we shall be able to open the doors, which must be opened if Lomé II is to be a success. But in terms of the Commonwealth it is essential that it should be successful, and that Britain should be seen to be pulling out all the stops to make it so.
  Economic divisions lie at the root of most national disagreements. It is essential that a way should be found of creating the kind of partnership between developed and developing nations which the Lomé Convention seemed to have begun. We must build on the strengths of Lomé I and remedy its defects during the present negotiations. This country
  452
  has a very important part to play in seeing that this is done.
  The race issue is more complex, but poses a more immediate danger. It is seen in its crudest and most dangerous form in Southern Africa, but that is exactly where it is likely to cause most difficulties and, what is more, that is where the danger is most imminent. The failure of successive British Governments to deal with the Rhodesian rebellion has allowed an abscess to fester in that region which, when it bursts, will have very serious consequences. Moreover, there is the obvious danger—and I see it more and more every day when I listen to some of the speeches—that a British Government will misread the situation and allow themselves to be drawn into supporting the white minorities in that area, in the mistaken idea that they are protecting Western interests. That would be a terrible mistake, for it is those very interests which would be jeopardised by such an act.
  All Members of your Lordships' House know that the Russian influence in that area is now very much greater than it was in 1965. Please ask yourselves, my Lords, why, and then proceed to use whatever influences you have to prevent policies from being pursued which would inevitably lead to greater Russian influence in the area. I am not speaking only about Rhodesia. I am speaking also about South Africa. Had Mr. Smith accepted the deals that were offered him on the "Tiger" and the "Fearless", things would have developed differently in Rhodesia. There is still time for South Africa to adopt policies that could prevent the kind of damage that Rhodesia now suffers. I know that she has many friends in your Lordships' House. I hope that she will have her attention drawn to this fact.
  But the danger to the Commonwealth inherent in the race issue is not confined to Southern Africa. It is even more important in this country. The world is too small for us to think that we can live in separate compartments. We must live together or perish. This point is one which needs to be made more and more, because there are still a lot of people who have not realised that the conquest of the air, which had the effect of bringing countries closer together, also brought

  453
  people closer together and made their separation from each other more difficult. It has also made us more interdependent. People's ideas and horizons must expand to meet this fact. We in this country have a splendid opportunity of showing the world how people of different races can live together in equality and friendship. Please let us grasp it with both hands.
  There is one last matter, on which I wish to comment, which has been commented upon by more than one speaker; that is, the question of the small territories. This is an issue which the Commonwealth must face, as there are more and more small countries becoming independent and becoming members of the Commonwealth. I am sorry I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Greenwood that you can at this stage stop the process—you cannot. What you have to work out now is a way of dealing with it. I think that a system of common services, particularly overseas representation, will have to be evolved. In the St. Lucia debate, I mentioned that some of the small islands in the Caribbean were exploring this possibility. I believe that they should be encouraged and, perhaps, given some help at a Commonwealth level. This is a matter which calls for deep and careful thought, and for urgent action. I conclude as I began by declaring my faith in the Commonwealth, and my hope that it will prove itself the great and enduring institution for which it has all potentialities.
  7.49 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Greenwood for opening this debate, and for doing so in a speech of such distinction, knowledge and sincerity. He brings to these discussions a unique record of service to the Commonwealth and, indeed, in international affairs, and it is always a pleasure and an instruction to listen to him.
  It is, indeed, most appropriate that we talk of the Commonwealth on this day, the second Monday in March, when all around the world other Parliaments and a great many other non-governmental organisations, as the noble Baroness reminded us, will be doing the same and
  454
  marking this unique occasion. Her Majesty, in her Commonwealth Day message, has emphasised that the association of nations, involved as it is in political, social and economic problems, is above all concerned with the lives of people. Indeed, she went further and highlighted, as two special Commonwealth successes, the Commonwealth Games held in Edmonton last year and the accompanying Festival of Arts, noting that both of them brought together in friendship young people from all over the world. We were reminded that the Commonwealth is a very young affair. I have here a few figures of my own: two-thirds, or 66 per cent. of the Commonwealth's vast population, which is not far short now of 1,000 million people, is under the age of 30, while 42 per cent. is under the age of 15. Here indeed is the wave of the future.
  Moreover, the notable manifestation this afternoon of Commonwealth celebration—the special religious observance—should, I think, be particularly noted, because it was a gathering of representatives of all faiths. This is the ecumenical principle carried beyond even the efforts of the Churches themselves in the fact of the Commonwealth. We were delighted that the representative of Papua New Guinea should have read a portion of the Christian scripture in his own language, in pidgin. The religious observance attended by Her Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth and by a wide variety of distinguished representatives of the Commonwealth itself shows us that while the Commonwealth is diverse—and its diversity, as we have heard, is one of its strengths—it also has a persistent cohesion.
  One noble Lord was almost on the point of properly misquoting Voltaire. If I have got his intention, although perhaps not his words, right, it is that if the Commonwealth did not exist it would need to be invented, like Voltaire's God—and it would, I suspect, be as impossible to invent the one as the other. The Commonwealth has been given to us. It has emerged as an organic, growing, cohesive association of free peoples and we should make much of it. I take particular note of what my noble friend has said about it: that there may be deficiencies in the way in which we in this country celebrate this great fact of our life.

  455
  Although it is diverse and also at the same time cohesive, the Commonwealth is so adaptable. It keeps abreast of the demands of an increasingly complex and troubled world. It has expanded and grown; the one does not always mean the other. We now have 40 members, four new members having joined since 1977, with a little assistance from myself and the enthusiastic agreement of your Lordships' House. In every case, these newly independent countries have said at the end of the constitutional conference, "Yes, we want to join the Commonwealth." In most cases, they also want to have Her Majesty not only as the Head of the Commonwealth but also as their own Royal Head of Government.
  The fact is that the expansion and the co-operation are happening today more than ever before. They are indications of the value that the members of the Commonwealth place upon membership. As an increasing number of smaller countries join its ranks, so the Commonwealth takes a special interest in the particular problems of such small countries, and very useful and practical ideas about these problems have been and are at present the subject of study and discussion in Commonwealth agencies. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for a most thoughtful and constructive speech. I have made a special note of the suggestions which he made about looking at possibly better ways of assisting the developing and, indeed, the smaller members of the Commonwealth.
  It is absolutely right and proper that the British Parliament should stress in this debate the continuing value of the Commonwealth. I should like on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, if it is necessary, to emphasise that the United Kingdom's commitment to the Commonwealth remains wholehearted and as strong as ever. We value our membership most highly. Perhaps we do not stress it sufficiently strongly in public. We are a little shy of asserting our enthusiasm in case we are suspected, perhaps, of somehow trying to reintroduce into the new Commonwealth our predominance in the old Empire. But that time is past. It is time for Britain, as one of the 40, as an equal, sovereign, independent member of an association of other equal, sovereign, independent countries, to come forward a
  456
  little more, to shed the inhibitions of the past and to declare its enthusiasm, its affection and its dedication to what the Commonwealth stands for.
  I should like to refer to an extremely cogent point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He put it so well. I am paraphrasing, and I hope that I do no disservice to the noble Earl. He said that our membership of the Commonwealth in no way conflicts with our commitments to any other international or regional body to which we belong—for instance, the United Nations and the European Community, a point which indeed my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale emphasised with great clarity in the first part of his speech.
  The Commonwealth has no constitution or rules. It therefore adds to rather than subtracts from the sum of our international relations. As an example, I think it is true to say that our commitment to our Commonwealth friends has helped in recent years to create a more outward looking attitude within the European Economic Community, and I believe that this will grow. I am not looking too far ahead, I hope, when I say that I hope that the two communities, if I may put it like that, will grow ever closer together, because the bonds within the Commonwealth are also the bonds which ultimately may well link it with the community of Western democratic nations in Europe.
  May I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the valuable contribution which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association makes to the Commonwealth relationship, because a commitment to elective democracy remains a major strand of the Commonwealth purpose. And speaking of democracy, perhaps I may here refer to my noble friend's specific question to me. He mentioned the future of Gibraltar, the Falklands and Belize. I can only say once more what I have said many a time at this Box in the last few months and, indeed, few years. Her Majesty's Government will propose no change in the constitutional position of those countries which is not clearly and democratically endorsed by their peoples.
  I shall now turn to the role of the Commonwealth today and the practical benefits which it brings to its members.

  457
  Here, it is important to stress that we cannot expect or ask the Commonwealth to do more than it is able to do. Nor can we expect unanimity on every issue. We have here representatives of a quarter of the world's population. There is bound to be diversity and indeed a variety of practical interests and occasionally a conflict of interests. Its members come from every continent. The various countries represented in the Commonwealth are in various stages of development; they are of varying size, both in population and in area; they include people of almost every religion and race. So the first benefit it brings to all its members and ultimately to the wider circle of the nations of the world is not unanimity, still less uniformity, but understanding; the attempt at understanding, the will to understanding—and for this it is uniquely fitted. Indeed, that will to understanding leads to concrete examples of practical co-operation.
  The first benefit that comes to us is the meeting of the Heads of Governments. In five months' time, the heads of Governments of 40 countries will be sitting, informally but in dignity and equality, around one table in Lusaka—not in London this time but in Lusaka — learning from each other how each one sees the world's problems, speaking strongly and frankly to each other in the way my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead has been speaking to this House once more tonight. I am sure that we all listened with particular respect and attention to what he had to say. So will they be speaking in Lusaka, but for all this strong and frank talking it will be in a friendly and informal spirit and I am equally sure that the meeting will contribute not only to a greater understanding of Commonwealth problems but to an understanding and a practical solution of major international issues which perplex the whole world.
  My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby asked me what we were doing as a Government and as a member of the Commonwealth to prepare for the next Heads of Governments conference in Lusaka and what contribution Britain was making to what is likely to be a major discussion there of Southern African and North-South issues. Of course the preparations for the Heads of Government meetings in Lusaka or elsewhere are in
  458
  the hands of the Commonwealth Secretariat in consultation and co-operation with a host government—in this case, Zambia. The agenda is a matter for the Commonwealth Secretary-General in consultation with Commonwealth Governments, including that of Britain, but I think we can expect the usual wide-ranging discussion of world political and economic trends, including the problems of Southern Africa and North-South issues, and we in this country shall certainly play a full and constructive part in discussing those issues.
  The Heads of Government meeting of course is only one part of the total Commonwealth relationship which is nowadays practical and down to earth. For example, a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers to discuss co-operation in promoting increased industrialisation in the developing countries of the Commonwealth has just taken place at Bangalore in India. The British delegation was ably led by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. I have already had reports that Ministers found that meeting valuable, not only in discussing an action programme on industrial co-operation but also in exchanging views on their industrial experience and on the potential for promoting joint ventures and other collaborative action. This is entirely in the spirit of that historic meeting a few years ago in Kingston, and my noble friend Lord Brockway referred to the importance of the continuing North-South dialogue. Kingston was a breakthrough. One is in parts disappointed with the results of these movements forward but nevertheless movements forward they are, and Kingston in particular showed how the Commonwealth could show even the United Nations how to make progress on this vital question. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for having reminded us of this fundamental aspect of the Commonwealth effort. Much of the best and much of the most practical work in preparing for what he called a new economic order and what I would call a better international economic order owes a good deal to its Commonwealth origin.
  Here the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, went into some detail as to practical suggestions—and I repeat, full note will be taken of what he had to say. Before I leave that particular point I should like to refer also to another specific point made

  459
  by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He quite rightly referred—and I am glad he made this point—to a certain disappointment in New Zealand, a Commonwealth country, because the United Kingdom had perhaps not responded to the opportunities of co-operating with that country in the matter of deep sea fishery development. I can assure him that we shall continue to encourage the British fishing industry to help to develop New Zealand's deep sea fisheries, although this is of course essentially a matter for industry to decide. It is not only a question of Governments, it is also a question of industrial enterprise and we shall do everything we can to help as a Government.
  As to Russian participation, so far as we know New Zealand has not sought Soviet help. There would be nothing wrong in that of course. New Zealand does permit Soviet vessels to continue to fish in her 200-mile zone under an agreement signed on 4th April 1978, and similar agreements have been reached with Japan and the Republic of Korea. It is not for me to comment on the way in which the Government of New Zealand organise these participating arrangements. They are entirely within their rights and I am glad that they are doing it in an international way. But I am quite sure that in coming to these agreements the New Zealand Government and people keep a very firm grip on their own essential interests and that there is nothing to fear in any strategic sense from these developments and much to welcome in an economic sense.
  An example of the Commonwealth at work at a practical level is of course the assistance given to member countries by the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. It is not all a matter of flags. A tremendous amount of hard, practical work, yielding practical results, goes on through many agencies, and I am only giving one or two examples this evening. The CFTC has provided for the training of people from five member countries in rural development, schools broadcasting, family planning and the like. It is arranging a course for the training of diplomats in the Eastern Caribbean. It is advising the Government of Tanzania on a wide range of mineral policy issues. These are but a few of the many activities of the fund.
  460
  Certainly, I need not go into detail about all the Commonwealth does, except to emphasise that it does a good deal, and a good deal that is practical. There is very effective co-operation across the board in the fields of education, finance, health, law, food production and rural development, youth matters and technical co-operation. There is the Commonwealth Institute, which fosters knowledge and understanding of the modern Commonwealth by information and education, and the Commonwealth Foundation, with its task of furthering professional links, a point specifically raised during the debate. Of course, there are many more Government and non-Government organisations in the Commonwealth. They do much of the detailed and constructive work, and I should like here and now to pay a tribute to their admirable efforts. And at the centre, providing focus and continuity, there is the Commonwealth Secretariat, now in its second decade at the service of all member Governments. Mr. Ramphal, the Secretary General, and his staff work tirelessly and, if I may say so, with imagination and intelligence to coordinate the manifold areas of Commonwealth activity, and I join with those noble Lords and the noble Baroness who expressed appreciation of the splendid work rendered to the Commonwealth by Mr. Ramphal and his assistants.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in this connection referred to the need, as she and the rest of us see it, for housing the Commonwealth Secretariat in one building. We are well aware of the Secretariat's difficulties over accommodation and have undertaken to see what we can do to help. We are at present awaiting details of their needs, into which they have been ca0rrying out their own special study. The will is there. There is at least one member of the 40-strong Commonwealth—that is the United Kingdom—that fully understands the difficulties that the Commonwealth Secretariat is faced with, and is anxious to help.
  May I close by referring to two other speeches. I have referred already to the speech of my noble friend Lord Pitt. If I may say so, it is particularly inspiring to hear him on the subject of the Commonwealth; nobody can speak with more convincing eloquence about this love of the Commonwealth and his devotion to it

  461
  than Lord Pitt. We are grateful to him for both calling our attention to the grave and dangerous difficulties that confront us in the heart of the Commonwealth itself, especially in Africa, and warning us once more about the need to place the highest priority on the solution of the problems of disillusion and of conflict that beset the modern world, not least in the Commonwealth.
  My noble friend Lord Segal spoke eloquently about a part of the Commonwealth he knows well and in which he has served well: he spoke of St. Lucia. Certainly, I note what he said about presentation of this occasion in the media, and I am quite sure that the BBC will read with great attention what my noble friend has had to say; in particular I think Mr. Martin Bell, who has a deservedly high reputation as an analyst and commentator on international affairs, will wish to examine very carefully what my noble friend said about his performance. I should like to he there when Mr. Bell and my noble friend get together to discuss the matter.
  May I close, however, by quoting from the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles approved by the Heads of Government at Singapore in 1971:
  "The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace".
  It goes on to say this:
  "We believe in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or belief".
  I say to the House that an association of free nations founded on such principles cannot but survive and succeed.
  8.17 p.m.
  Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I am sure that the most effective way of expressing my appreciation to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate would be straight away to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. That I will do in one minute, but before that I should like to say how greatly I have appreciated the many courtesies that have been extended today and the very wide range of knowledge that has been brought to bear on this debate. I want, too, to thank my noble friend the Minister of
  462
  State, not only for the reassurances he gave—and I knew he would give—about the three territories on which I questioned him, but also for the way that he treats your Lordships' House. There is no one who makes himself more thoroughly master of the facts; his research combined with his sense of history and his long experience make him a most acceptable spokesman for Her Majesty's Government.
  The last thing I want to say, my Lords, is how strongly I endorse the praise which has been lavished on Mr. Arnold Smith and Mr. Ramphal. Mr. Arnold Smith I have known for very many years. I came to know Mr. Ramphal pretty well when we had the Guyana constitutional conference. Day after day I sat opposite Mr. Burnham and Mr. Ramphal, and as Mr. Jagan at that stage had decided not to come to the discussions I felt it was my duty to see that his point of view was not ignored. Therefore, day after day I put Mr. Jagan's point of view, and Mr. Burnham or Mr. Ramphal replied. I had already lost the friendship of Mr. Jagan, and I came very close to losing the friendship of Mr. Burnham and Mr. Ramphal as well. But nevertheless it survived, and I am full of admiration for the way that Mr. Ramphal is fulfilling his duties. If anyone would like proof of that, may I once again refer them to the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Kingston. With those few words and with many thanks, my Lords, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (ECSC DECISION ON SUPPLEMENTARY REVENUES) ORDER 1979
  8.20 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move, That the draft order, laid before the House on 31st January, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to make a comment on the reason why this item on the Order Paper is being taken now and not, as previously indicated, before the

  463
  debate which we have just held. Noble Lords will be aware that last week a question was raised in another place about the powers of this House as regards Orders-in-Council made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The question was referred for a decision to the authorities of the other place and, as noble Lords will know, a ruling was given this afternoon that the financial implications of the order are not such as to make its discussion and approval by this House a breach of the privileges of the other place.
  I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that, in the circumstances, it was well that we should take the Commonwealth debate first so that the results of proceedings and rulings in another place could have time to mature and reach us in this place. I think that it was necessary, out of respect to the Speaker of the other place, that that should be so, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that I took the correct procedure even though it meant, at very short notice indeed, reversing the position of two items on the Order Paper.
  With that word of procedural explanation, I now beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979 which was laid before the House on 31st January 1979, be approved. The order specifies as a Community Treaty the decision taken at the Council of Ministers on 30th October 1978 to allocate supplementary revenues to the 1978 budget for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
  If the House approves, the order will formally define the decision as a Community Treaty. I know that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is well versed in this matter, but he will agree with me that I should take one or two minutes to place formally on record what we are doing. The order will formally define the decision as a Community Treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972—the enabling Act which we passed when we joined. I believe that noble Lords are familiar with this procedure—I know that the noble Lord who is to speak for the Opposition is very familiar with it—which
  464
  we have considered on a number of occasions in the past.
  The purpose of the Council decision specified in the order is to provide the European Coal and Steel Community with the additional revenue needed to make good a deficiency in its 1978 budget as a result of increased expenditure arising from the steel recession. As the House knows, the steel industry has been hit by a sharp fall in demand, at a time when world steel production capacity had been greatly increased in anticipation of a high level of demand which failed to materialise. The steel industry has suffered accordingly.
  In human terms, the main brunt has fallen on the steel workers themselves, a distressing number of whom have been made redundant throughout the Community. The deficiency in the 1978 budget has arisen largely as a result of Community policies designed to soften the impact of the crisis on these men. As the House may know, they qualify for resettlement aid. That takes the form of making up for a period the earnings of re-employed workers to the level they received before they were made redundant, providing additional unemployment benefits, and making grants towards re-training. The 1978 budget provides for an increase of 35 million EUA (European Units of Account) on expenditure in this area. Noble Lords will wish to know that Community reimbursement to the United Kingdom of aids for resettlement is expected to be £7·7 million in 1978 compared with £2·1 million in the preceding year, 1977.
  The Community of course provides not only resettlement aid. As noble Lords know, it has agreed policies for encouraging the creation of alternative employment for redundant workers. Interest rebates, generally of 3 per cent. over five years, are given on ECSC loans for projects providing employment for redundant coal and steel workers. A recent example is the interest rebate given on an ECSC loan of £78 million towards the cost of the Ford motor company's projected new engine plant in South Wales. The 1978 budget increased expenditure in this field by 7·7 million EUA.
  In addition, interest rebates are available on ECSC loans for coal projects and

  465
  aid for those steel projects which are considered to be of particular value in restructuring the industry. The Community's objective here is to bring the steel industry's capacity into line with the level of demand forecast in the 1980s, and to improve its efficiency so that it can meet world competition. An increase of 12·5 million EUA is included in the 1978 Budget under this heading. The total of expenditure provided for in this way in the ECSC operation budget amounts to 152 million EUA for 1978. This is some 38 million EUA more than for 1977. This figure takes account of the reduction from 18 to 5 million EUA in the ECSC's contribution to the general EEC budget towards the administrative expenses of the Commission.
  Given these plans for increased expenditure, the Community was faced with the problem of deciding how to raise the necessary funds. In view of the difficulties currently facing the steel industry, the Community decided against raising the production levy above its existing level of 0·29 per cent., that is, the production levy on the coal and steel industries by which Community expenditure is financed under the terms of Articles 49 and 50 of the ECSC Treaty. The Council agreed instead, in December 1977, to make up the anticipated 1978 deficit by means of exceptional contributions from member States totalling 32 million EUA, a figure which was subsequently reduced to 28 million EUA. In the event the sum raised by the production levy had increased as a result of a slight improvement in production levels in 1978. So the figure was subsequently reduced to 28 million EUA. The Council subsequently agreed on the contributions that individual member States should make. The United Kingdom will contribute 17·4 per cent. as compared with 21·3 per cent. contributed by France and 33·1 per cent. by the Federal Republic of Germany. Accordingly, I seek approval for the necessary Order-in-Council, and I shall seek to answer as well as I can any points of clarification or detail which the noble Lord. Lord O'Hagan, or any other noble Lord may care to raise.
  Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 31st January, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for changing gear with his customary facility and drawing the attention of the House to this important, though minor, Definition of Treaties Order. This is, of course, part of the continuing constitutional protection secured by the European Communities Act, 1972. We are grateful that another place has made up its mind as to the standing of your Lordships in this matter and, of course, understand the reason why this order's place was change in today's business.
  I listened with interest to what the noble Lord had to say. The only question that has arisen in my mind when studying, the order he did not answer. In the memorandum of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of 3rd January it was stated, as he repeated, that our own contribution would be about £3·3 million. It was also stated that:
  "Each Member State will pay a specified sum on 1 December 1978, or soon after".
  The question I should like to ask the noble Lord is: Has our sum been paid, has that of other Member States been paid, and are we all paying on the same date or not?
  I do not want to delay your Lordships and I hope the House will understand that I am trying to help the noble Lord by giving him a little time if I say something on a personal note. This is the last occasion on which I shall be speaking from this Box and from the Conservative Front Bench, perhaps for many years. I am resigning from the Front Bench and returning to the Back-Benches in your Lordships' House in order to have more time to work to return to the Back-Benches of the European Parliament following the elections on 7th June to that Assembly or Parliament, as your Lordships may choose to call it. It is, of course, peculiarly indicative of the way in which this House works that we have spent an afternoon talking about one worldwide relationship in general, that we return to a particular aspect of today's most powerful link of Britain with the wider world in discussing this order and that we end with an Unstarred Question on the Constitution of our country and its evolution.

  467
  I do not want to say anything about the activities to which I shall primarily be devoting myself in the coming months, but, should I be successful in reaching the Back-Benches of another Parliament, I should wish to disappoint my noble friends on this side of the House and my noble friend on the other side of the House if they think that they have heard the last of me. I believe that those of us from this House and from another place who may have the opportunity of serving in the European Parliament have a special duty to help to ensure that this new and squalling baby in the long line of Parliaments has some sort of link with our own and most ancient and primary Parliament. That I shall seek to carry out in my own limited and Back-Bench way.
  Quite properly, this order is the subject of scrutiny by this House. Direct elections make no difference to the need for this House to examine this sort of order. I am glad that we are still allowed to inquire into it and that the other place has permitted us to do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—my noble friend—will be able to tell us about the position regarding the contributions of the different member States.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, before I answer the specific point put to me by the noble Lord—if I may say so, in turn, my noble friend—I should like to add to the words of explanation which I made to the House about the order of business. The Motion which I then moved and which I now conclusively move—if I may put it like that—was originally to be taken before the debate which has just been concluded; that is, the debate on the Commonwealth. Last Friday it was decided to take the order after the Motion, and a Notice was accordingly circulated to that effect. It was brought to my attention that a Business of the House Motion should have been moved to dispense with Standing Order No.37(4).Unfortunately, that preliminary was overlooked, but I am quite sure the House will agree that, despite this technical breach, we were quite right to proceed with the order and that it should now be approved.
  Before I conclude, I should like to say something about the noble Lord, Lord
  468
  O'Hagan. I wish that he had announced his intention of moving—howsoever temporarily—to the Back-Benches without asking, as is his unfortunate wont, a very difficult question. However, the resources of the British Civil Service are not exhausted, and while I was puzzling over this procedural problem I was able to find the answer for him. It is like trying to solve both the Guardian and The Times' crosswords at the same time. Our sum has not been paid and will not be paid until the procedure in which we are engaged tonight is completed. Other member States will pay when their procedures are carried out. I think that, financially and procedurally, that is fair enough.
  Before I sit down, may I say that I listened to the noble Lord's statement of his intentions with mixed feelings: with a certain sense of relief, which is understandable, that his very pointed and effective attentions from that side of the House will not, at least in the foreseeable future, be my lot. For that relief, much thanks. On the other hand, we all feel disappointed that he should be removed, however temporarily, from that Bench and only hope that his retirement—his retreat—to the Back Benches is not only temporary but strategic, and that he will re-emerge like a lion refreshed, primed with experience in the European scene, which is quite a good apprenticeship for the larger task of coping with this House.

  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY: REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN
  8.39 p.m.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that an inordinate amount of misinformation was circulating in Scotland during the campaign period preceding the referendum on 1st March; and whether they accepted or repudiated the statement used in some Yes campaigns advertising: "If you don't vote, you vote No". The noble Lord said: My Lords,in tabling this Question, I intend to concentrate on the

  469
  referendum held in Scotland on 1st March, and not on what should be done about the Scotland Act 1978. There will doubtless be opportunities to debate that later, and last Thursday the Prime Minister stated in another place that he needed time and also that repeal orders would, in due course, be tabled.
  The referendum, with the simultaneous one in Wales, was the first of its kind to be held in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we, in your Lordships' House, should consider, while it is fresh in our minds, some of the extraordinary statements that were made during the preceding period. In this House we considered beforehand arrangements for holding the referendum. We now have the time in this House to consider what happened. The Government said beforehand last year that they were modelling the referendum so far as possible on the 1975 referendum on Europe, but there were fundamental differences, as was pointed out in our debate on the referendum order on 5th December. The details are contained in the record of that debate. I shall simply sum them up now.
  On this occasion in 1979, the Government were officially supporting one side in the referendum. In the 1975 referendum on Europe, Ministers were allowed to campaign on both sides. There was no financial assistance, free printing, or post provided by the Government on this occasion in 1979. There was no accounting by each side afterwards. On the other hand, in the Europe referendum, individual's expenditure of over £100 had to be included in the accounts, and five senior Ministers' expenses were in the White Paper, four on one side and one Cabinet Minister on the other. These were examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most of the money accounted for on that occasion had not been contributed by the Government. Most of it had come from other sources, but it still had to be declared and the expenditure reported.
  Another important difference, because it involves a major constitutional change to the present system—the greatest since 1707—was that the Commons inserted the 40 per cent. provision. The Government made no attempt to change that in this House. That provision in itself
  470
  made the referendum not strictly comparable with the 1975 one. I have reminded your Lordships of these principal differences because I have been aware that there has been little sign South of the Border that the referendum campaign was taking place. I was myself in Scotland for about two-thirds of the time between mid-December and 1st March. This was because there were two recesses and because of my usual habit of flying to London for the days when I am needed here. Of course I was mostly in the area of my home in Nairnshire, near Inverness, but I was also in other parts of Scotland.
  I think it is only right to point out the background to the referendum; namely, that in January and February most people in Scotland were very vague about what the Question was. The Press and the media did not help. I know that headlines and shorthand have to be used, but they led to expressions such as "referendum on devolution", or "referendum on whether to have an Assembly in Edinburgh". But of course the referendum was on neither of those two questions. The Question was, and I spell it out again:
  "Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?"
  That Question did gradually emerge for those who were determined to find out what it was. It was not a referendum on devolution in general, and it was not a referendum on having any kind of Assembly. But the problem for the conscientious elector then was to see a copy of the Scotland Act. It cost £1.75, and many would not have thought it worth making a purchase for that single referendum. Indeed, I am sure that very few of them were sold in Aberdeen! In my Question in this House on 23rd January, I therefore asked about copies in libraries.
  But, even if the elector achieved the sight of a copy, it was not easy reading, as we in this House know only too well. Schedule 10 on the subjects devolved was difficult to follow and was 25 pages long. That is just one Schedule. So I start by saying that mistakes about interpretations of the Act were made publicly by both the "Yes" and the "No" campaign groups. Some of the "No" campaign statements, in particular at the beginning, had to be admitted to be

  471
  mistakes by the "No" campaigners who had made them. Similarly, broadcast discussions and letters and articles from prominent people contained wrong assumptions. For example, it was said that agriculture was to be devolved, when we who dealt with it in this House knew that it was not.
  These were to be expected. Even the Government Front Bench here made mistakes in interpretation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I think never let us down and gave us full explanations, but there were cases when Members of the Government had to correct what they had said on a later day and apologise. I am thinking in particular of the special grants for museums and galleries where we were told one thing and later exactly the opposite. So the complexity of the Bill did make errors understandable.
  The Government had taken a deliberate decision not to produce a short, simple summary of the Act for cheap or free circulation. The reason given was that they felt they would be accused of slanting it however much they tried to make it neutral. So the result was that the electorate in Scotland was almost entirely dependent on the media and on hearsay. There were meetings, and of course those who attended them were better informed, but they could only be attended by a small fraction of the electorate. Anyone who attended meetings addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would I am sure have received accurate information. But the television and radio interviews that I saw and heard were sketchy, often wrong, and very seldom upon the Scotland Act, the subject of the referendum.
  Before I give examples of misinformation of a dangerous and divisive kind, the House might be entertained by the following example of just one incident of a kind which could happen only in a referendum and not at a General Election. In one Scottish newspaper, a journalist suggested that of former Moderators of the Church of Scotland six were "Yes" and only one "No". This immediately caused a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, to telephone as many of the 16 other living ex-Moderators as he could, and he produced an opposite
  472
  result: at least 11 "No's". His letter recording this was published with a gracious apology from the journalist.
  Now I come to the most serious of the mis-statements, and I have included it in the Question on the Order Paper. Some of the "Yes" campaigners used the 40 per cent. provision as a pretext for saying and printing:
  "If you don't vote, you vote No",
  and words to that effect. That is the one I have with me. That was palpably untrue. We in Parliament knew that the final decision on the Act was to be taken by Parliament, the referendum being advisory, and that a comparison of the strengths of the "Yes" and "No" totals would be one of the crucial considerations. I hope that the Government will confirm in reply this evening what I assume to be their attitude to this slogan. It is important that everyone should know what the Government's view is. I assume that the noble and learned Lord will tell us that where several groups are on one side in a referendum campaign and one is the Government, the Government do not and cannot subscribe to all the slogans propagated by fraternal groups.
  But did the Government do anything to stop this slogan once it had started? For it was entirely incorrect and misleading. The Government must be the first to admit that. If it were true, then it means that 67 per cent. of the Scottish electorate—the sum of the "Noes" and the abstentions—have declared themselves opposed to the Scotland Act, and that is absurd, and it would not be giving the Prime Minister any trouble to decide what to do. I myself know of cases of people who could not vote on the day because of sudden illness, or unforeseen and essential absence. Some might have voted "Yes", and some might have voted "No". But this misleading slogan did undoubtedly in addition affect some who intended to vote "No" but could have done so only with some difficulty or with great difficulty. They knew about the 40 per cent. threshold. They should not have been misled by this propaganda into thinking that the comparison between the totals of "Yesses" and "Noes" would not also be important and matter.
  I was aware of such electors—for example, some who were indisposed on

  473
  the day but who could have gone to the polling booths, others who had transport difficulties and would have had to ask a neighbour for a lift in a car and others who were at work all day and were without a baby-sitter in the evening. If this had been repeated over Scotland, there are many who would say that the 2 per cent. gap between the "Yesses" and "Noes" might have been bridged and that there might have been more "Noes" than "Yesses".
  I have with me the version of the slogan which the Scottish National Party put out. I have taken it from a weekly newspaper in my part of the country, the north of Scotland, called the Northern Scot and presumably it had the approval of the SNP MPs in the area. It said:
  "Yes, yes, yes. If you don't vote, you vote No."
  If the story in yesterday's Sunday Express in the Cross-Bencher column is correct, one of those SNP Members failed to vote because she made a muddle about her postal voting. According to that report, it could only have been Mrs. Ewing's own fault that she did not vote. If her Party's slogan in the newspapers in that area had any validity, she became a "No" voter by not voting, and I am sure that is not what she intended. In fact, it is a case of being hoist with her own canard.
  A referendum of this kind is a novelty in this country and the threshold is also a novelty. If we are to have more referenda and if they are to be on constitutional questions, again with a threshold, then the lessons from this referendum should be learned If there is a percentage threshold in any future referendum, any mis-statements of this kind about the effect of not voting must be shot down publicly at the beginning. While I am sure that the Government's intention was to encourage as many electors as possible of all views to exercise their vote—I am sure that is what the Government Front Bench opposite intended—I trust the noble and learned Lord will agree that this was the wrong way to do it.
  Some other mis-statements which were made during the period must be corrected, otherwise a false mythology will be created; divisive, anti-English and untrue. It is easy to work up grievances in Scotland
  474
  if you feel a neglected poor relation. It is tragic if such grievances are founded on fallacies. There was the mis-statement in the leading article of the Scotmsan on 23rd February which I corrected by a published letter. The editor was good enough later, in the correspondence columns, himself in an editorial note to agree that his newspaper was wrong. The mis-statement was the only comment made on the worrying and intractable problem known as the West Lothian question. It was:
  "Parliament for years has loaded Scottish Committees with English MPs so that they reflect the composition of the whole House".
  That statement was totally wrong and likely, if not shot down forever, to cause damage. It also showed an unfortunate unfamiliarity with the present system. I am not a defender of the present system but at least more should be known about how it works. Misunderstandings of this kind would then be less likely to occur.
  This particular misunderstanding arises out of the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee. Since 1907, over 70 years ago, the Scottish Grand Committee has consisted of all the 71 Members representing Scottish constituencies, plus at least 10 non-Scottish Members—I say that because they are Welsh and Irish as well as English—but not more than 15, so the Committee has always had to consist of 81 but not more than 86. That is under Standing Order 68, if anybody cares to look it up, and I am glad to see the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his place tonight because he was Leader in another place and will be familiar with these matters.
  Originally the purpose in 1907 must have been to have a watching brief over United Kingdom interests in that Grand Committee when it was first set up; in my opinion it is now anomalous and unnecessary. Those non-Scottish Members do not need to attend, though nominated, and one reason for that is that there is no voting in the Scottish Grand Committee on any of the subjects discussed. The only motion that can be voted on is the equivalent to "That the Committee do adjourn" and the average votes on that work out at about one Division every five years.
  Second Reading of Scottish Bills and six days in the year on Scottish Estimates

  475
  are taken, plus two general subjects in the Scottish Grand Committee. If a Bill is opposed and there is likely to be a Division, or even the possibility of a Division, then the Second Reading is taken on the Floor of the House and the voting happens there. Thus, it does not matter at all whether or not the Government have a majority and there is no question of loading the Committee with non-Scottish Members.
  For seven years—for part of them I was a Scottish Government Whip, so I am familiar with this—about half the time of Conservative Governments since 1945, the Government did not have a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee, even when the maximum of 15 non-Scottish Conservative Members were added. But it did not matter; the non-Scottish Members very seldom spoke and there was no voting. The 71 Scottish MPs did the talking. As for the Scottish Standing Committees which take the Committee stages of Bills, they are much smaller, and manned only by Members for Scottish constituencies. They are selected in proportion to the strengths of the parties, and Governments do have majorities there. I have explained that because it must be put on the record.
  Now we come to the West Lothian problem with which this was compared. It is illustrated in this way: on a sensitive domestic subject—for example, comprehensive education in England only—a majority of the MPs representing English constituencies might be against a Bill. With the 71 Scottish MPs voting too, the majority—and the decision—might be the opposite. But the Scottish MPs who had caused that result, voting on this English subject, would not have any say in Scottish education, which would be decided by other people in Edinburgh. That is the problem and without a solution it is most unsatisfactory, to say the least.
  But the vital point was voting and because there is no voting in the Scottish Grand Committee it could not be described as loaded with non-Scottish MPs without misleading the public. It is all the more important that this fallacy be killed off because, four days after that leading article appeared, the Prime Minister made the same mistake in the Panorama programme on 26th February. In reply to
  476
  Mr. Robin Day, the Prime Minister dismissed the West Lothian question by saying that we have had the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees packed by English Members. He went on to say that English Conservatives have been added to the Welsh Grand Committee to make up numbers. It is in fact a Scottish question but naturally, as a Member for Cardiff, he is more familiar with the Welsh scene. I must point out in the case of the Welsh Grand Committee that it consists of the 35 Welsh Members together with a maximum of five non-Welsh Members, which is not very much, and the additions are optional—not like the Scottish Grand Committee where there have to be at least 10 additional Members. Again, there is no voting. That is the main point, and the Welsh Committee meets only three or four times a year because there are no Estimates and there is hardly ever a Welsh Bill for Second Reading. There can be no real comparison with the existing Scottish system and the West Lothian problem. Mr. Robin Day could not be expected to pursue this question about the Committee system, so discussion of this most serious problem ended there.
  I now appeal to all who aspire to prescribe or work out constitutional changes—and for myself I hope that they will begin with modest improvements of wide acceptability—at least to do their homework about the present machinery for dealing with Scottish Parliamentary business, and not to mislead the public. I add straight away that, in the cases I have mentioned regarding the newspaper and the broadcast, what occurred was clearly and certainly unintentional. It was simply a mistake. Yet no matter how such statements are made, damage can be done to amity between Scots and English when there are aroused false grievances based on fallacies of this kind.
  To keep within reasonable time I shall select only one other misconception which must be corrected before it becomes bogus modern history. Like my noble friend Lord Cromartie (who I am glad to see is here, and due to speak), I am, as many know. unhappy about the way in which the new form of local government has been operating in some parts of Scotland. As I have said in previous debates, I believe that this is largely because some councils were allowed to

  477
  build empires and appoint grandiose staffs of unnecessary size. My noble friend served in local government for many years and was a successful Convener of the Ross and Cromarty County Council. He certainly has not made any mis-statements on the subject, but, with his knowledge, he has been critical of the present system. Anyone reading the Scottish Press over the last two months would have formed the impression that the local government scheme for Scotland was hatched in London and imposed by England. Whether or not one likes the present organisation, the fact is that the two-tier system on the present lines—which included Strathclyde—was recommended unanimously by the Wheatley Royal Commission in 1969. The Commission was entirely composed of Scots. It included Members of Parliament from the principal political Parties in Scotland and it was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who had been Lord Advocate in a Labour Government. It was equivalent to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission in England and Wales.
  At that time, in 1969·70, the system proposed was generally accepted in Scotland. I cannot remember any significant voices being raised against it. Some changes were made, but they were generally welcomed. There was, for example, the introduction of the Islands groups and a border region. There were two or three important controversies and differences of opinion about them within Scotland. But it must be recorded plainly and without any ambiguity that the structure was the product of a completely Scottish Commission with which there appeared to be general agreement when its recommendations were published. If such facts are not registered in order to correct mis-statements, now that the referendum dust has settled, agitators and demagogues will be provided with bogus grievances with which to cause mischief and discord within Britain. I for one am determined to do all I can to prevent that happening.
  9.4 p.m.
  The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, as a "Yes" voter, and having over a number of years given my views on the desirability of some devolution of Government to Scotland, I shall be very brief.
  478
  There were three main reasons why the number of the abstentions was so large. The first was that those—perhaps not a great number—who had read the Bill realised that it was not a good Bill and that it gave the proposed Assembly too little power. It might have been better if more of the Amendments proposed by your Lordships had been accepted in another place. Secondly, there was the very valid fear of gross over-government, and if the Government had had the courage to ensure that the disaster of regionalisation was abolished and that Scotland could return to some form of single-tier local government—which, incidentally, is working well in the Outer Isles—many prospective voters would have been reassured on this matter. Not only would local government have become again more truly local and far less expensive to both the ratepayer and the taxpayer, but the staffing of the Assembly could have been found from among the late regions.
  Thirdly, there was the fear that the greatest area of Scotland would, because of its smaller population, have been dominated by Glasgow and Strathclyde, whose way of life and ideas are often at variance with those of the people of Scotland outwith this heavily populated area. Personally I think that this fear was overstressed; nevertheless, it was there. Would not proportional representation, as so clearly recommended by your Lordships' House, have gone a long way to mitigate this danger? As we all know, this was turned down in another place where many people think that this reform is long overdue. However, the fear of losing seats makes the idea unpopular. Finally, my Lords, let us not delude ourselves that the issue of self-government within the framework of the Kingdom is dead; it is not.
  9.7 p.m.
  Lord TORPHICHEN: My Lords, I wish to confirm the main point on which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy started this short debate. There was indeed a very persistent campaign to persuade doubtful "No" voters that they did not need to go out to the polls on the day. If they abstained, the Act, or devolution, or whatever it was that the electorate thought was being offered, would fall if the 40 per cent. target was not met. From asking around among the people

  479
  with whom I live and work in Scotland I am certain that a substantial number of people—even right up to the day—did not really believe that they had to vote "No" in order to register their opinion. Certainly, I persuaded those whom I know and whom I was able to reach that they should, but I could reach only people around me, and there must have been others elsewhere.
  I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, whether, in the light of the way in which this referendum campaign was conducted, the Government will give some attention to laying down the principles under which referendums should be held, or will be held, in future. I would say here that I would prefer that there were no further referendums held in this country, but I am sure there will be; now that the practice has been started it is likely to continue. I would ask whether they would debate the laying down of some framework within which referendums should be held in future, in order that, before another referendum takes place, the electorate are aware of the ground rules and know that they will not be changed after the event, and know that when the referendum has taken place the result will be accepted.
  The rules of this referendum were made up after the question had been put on the Table, as the Bill progressed through Parliament. That is obviously unsatisfactory, because it enables the two sides, not only to debate the referendum but to pull the rules apart as they go, and argue about them after the referendum. If the rules are understood before the referendum and are made to stick after the referendum, it makes it more likely that those whose views do not prevail at the ballot box will accept the referendum and not cause trouble and violence thereafter.
  9.10 p.m.
  Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for asking this Question, and I am concerned only to express the hope that the Government will give due and proper regard to everything that he has said, and will answer the questions which have been put to them. I hope they will have regard to what he has said in relation to
  480
  their consideration of what future action they are going to take as a result of this referendum, and also with regard to any future referendums which it may be considered appropriate to hold.
  Beyond that, I would say only this. I suppose that in political warfare, as in other forms of warfare, truth is a not infrequent casualty; and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to a mis-statement by the "No" campaign, with which I was closely involved during the course of the referendum. There was, of course, a small mistake in one of our pamphlets, which we readily admitted; and we said we would withdraw all the other copies of the pamphlet if those involved on the other side of the battle would stop saying that an abstention was equal to a "No". This offer was not taken up. I myself gave this pamphlet 99 per cent. Discount 5 per cent. for my prejudices, and it was still substantially accurate. But this assertion throughout the campaign, repeated to a mounting crescendo until the eve of the poll, was the really big untruth of the campaign.
  Indeed, an argument could be presented for the proposition that the result of the referendum was very largely vitiated by the way in which this assertion was repeated and officially endorsed, not just by people like the National Union of Students but by the Labour Party in Scotland itself. I have a very full and lengthy brief which would support such a case, though it might not carry such a case. I am happy to inform your Lordships that at this hour on this particular night I have no intention of using that brief. I shall keep it and, in the unlikely event of Her Majesty's Government seeking to persuade your Lordships not to repeal the Scotland Act, I shall use it then.
  9.13 p.m.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can, but I must make a proper reply to the speeches which have been made, and particularly to that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. If I may take a small point first of all, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the fact that this particular referendum—I refer to the Scottish referendum—was different from the referendum on the EEC, and he pointed

  481
  to some particular differences, specifying that in the campaign in Scotland the Ministers campaigned on only one side, whereas in the EEC referendum they campaigned on both sides. That is true. But as the noble Lord and the House will be aware, in the manifesto prepared for the 1974 October election, in the case of the EEC, the commitment of the Labour Party in that manifesto was to the holding of a referendum. It was not a commitment to asking for a "Yes" or "No" in relation to the terms which were to be renegotiated. The commitment was only to the holding of a referendum. In relation to devolution the Party was committed to the establishment of a legislative Assembly, an elected Assembly, for Scotland and no mention was made of a referendum.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord so early in his speech but I want to make this clear. I was merely stating the differences, which I accept. I was not being critical. I stated that this was a novelty because it is different in many respects. But that was not a criticism.
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I did not intend to sound defensive. I was trying to explain why this difference had arisen in case those noble Lords who do not know the history of this as well as does the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might misunderstand the position. In relation to another matter he mentioned, the question of people's understanding in Scotland, he drew our attention particularly to the fact that many people, he said, were vague about what the question was but gradually it emerged. Of course, the question was advertised; it appeared on the ballot paper; and those who were able to read newspapers and were able to read advertisements in newspapers, and, I think, on television, would know what the question was. I accept that the Scotland Act is not bedtime reading although it often put Members of this House to sleep. But the Government did plan to issue a leaflet, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has rightly said.
  The Government took the view, based on what the opponents of devolution were saying, that they would certainly come to assert that any leaflet or even White
  482
  Paper produced by the Government was biased and that, whatever was said in such a leaflet, the opponents of devolution would say that it was biased in favour of a "Yes" vote. If I may refer to the proceedings in another place on 18th July 1978, when the Minister of State, as he then was, Mr. John Smith, was speaking in the presence of Mr. Edward Taylor about this matter, he commented on something that apparently Mr. Taylor had said, and the passage reads:
  "The honourable Member for Glasgow (Cathcart) says, 'We do not trust you.' I think that that argument is without any foundation."
  But that was the attitude at the time. And when Mr. Brittan, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, came to reply to what Mr. Smith had said, he indicated that Mr. Smith had been right to say that the Government were not to issue an independent leaflet or an authoritative objective leaflet and said that Mr. Smith was wise to eschew that course.
  Of course, a lucid, unbiased account of the provisions of the Act could have been produced; and we were in the course of preparing such a document before the Government were forced into this position by the critics of devolution. Undoubtedly, it would have been characterised as tendentious whatever it said. It would have been accused of significant omissions and of misleading emphasis and of optimistic tone and so on. The Government wanted to avoid any such accusations and, accordingly, no such document appeared.
  If, as was certainly the case, in the course of the campaign there were misleading statements about what was devolved and what was not and what the powers were and so on, there was then no official guidance to which anyone could turn to resolve his uncertainties unless he could read and understand the Act. We must simply draw our own conclusions from the fact that it was the opponents of the Scotland Act who opposed the provision of an official guide to its contents.
  The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, is this not one of the occasions when it would have been for the benefit of the country as a whole, and of Scotland in

  483
  particular, if the two parties or the three parties—there is no representative of the other one present at the moment—had been able to get together and discuss this instead of keeping it divided by these party lines?
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not know. That was a long time ago. No one suggested that. I cannot see how Mr. Teddy Taylor, on the one hand, and Mr. Smith, on the other, could have sat down and emerged at the end of a meeting with an agreed statement of what the Scotland Act said and meant. If the noble Earl can imagine that happening then he can imagine anything.
  Let me turn to the other point on which I want to comment; the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made about committees. Of course, the position is exactly as he stated it to be in relation to his long-running battle with the Scotsman newspaper. He was right and the Scotsman was wrong. I have this recommendation to make to the editor of the Scotsman: that he buy an up-to-date edition of Erskine May. He is working on the 18th edition published in 1971 and the rule that we are concerned with was changed in November 1971. If he were to buy the 19th edition, an expensive document but worth purchasing in that office, he would find the up-to-date position made clear. It is as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said it to be in relation to both the Standing Committees and indeed the Scottish Grand Committee as well.
  The substantial point is this—and I do not think there is any contradiction between what I say and what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has been saying—Scottish legislation is from time to time passed at Westminster, contrary to the wishes of the majority of Scottish Members. But that result is achieved because of the composition of the House of Commons itself, not because the Committees are packed with English Members. So I think that we are in agreement about that.
  There is one point of detail I might just pick up, and that is in relation to local government reform in 1973. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,
  484
  connected that with his general matter in relation to the West Lothian question and these allegations about packed Scottish Standing Committees or packed Scottish Grand Committees. He is quite right in saying that the Wheatley recommendations were widely greeted with approval when they first appeared. Indeed, that approval continued until one saw what the result was. When one comes to the particular detail, the noble Lord will recall that my noble friend Lord Hughes in this House proposed that the Strathclyde Region, which is the biggest monster in the current machinery of Government mythology in Scotland, should be split into four separate Regions: Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde, Ayr and Arran. That proposal was carried. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, agreed with that proposal and I can see her nodding. That proposal was carried in this House and taken back to the other place. In the other place, the Lords' Amendment was defeated by a substantial majority; but if one counted the Scottish Members' votes they would have been in favour of retaining that Amendment. So the substantial point on which there is no disagreement is that it is the composition of the House of Commons that counts. If the House of Commons has a different political complexion from that which would be given if one looks solely at the Scottish Members, then one finds imposed upon Scotland legislation of a kind the majority of Scottish Members would not want.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord because I am well aware of that. The Bill had gone through the Commons. The Standing Committee in the Commons had agreed to Strathclyde which was one of the exceedingly controversial subjects. It was difficult to know how to deal with that area. My recollection is that of the Scottish Members who voted on the Lords' Amendment, there was a majority of one or two in favour of Strathclyde. That was an example of the whole House operating as it has before in another place, and all Members being the same and being able to vote on all the Bills, whereas the West Lothian question raised this very difficult point which I outlined and I shall not repeat now.
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, on a point of information, the voting was 28 votes to 24 in relation to the acceptance or rejection of the Lords' Amendment—that is to say, 28 of the Scottish Members were in favour of the Lords' Amendment and 24 were against. So had it been left to the Scots, they would have split Strathclyde into four Regions. The fact that Strathclyde survived as one region derived from the circumstances that the Scots were not able to determine their own affairs in relation to that matter of local government.
  May I go on to deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, thought was the most serious of the misstatements: that is, the statements in relation to the 40 per cent. I agree with him that the 40 per cent. provision was novel. He will recall that it was introduced into the Act by the opponents of devolution. It was, in my view, bound to introduce misunderstanding, and it did; it was bound to divert attention from the real issues, and it did. Let me remind your Lordships of what it said. I read the relevant parts of Section 85(2) of the Scotland Act:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes".… he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act".
  The only legal effect of that is to impose upon the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of the Scotland Act, provided that less than 40 per cent. of persons entitled to vote have voted "Yes". It sets a target for the "Yes" vote. The number voting "No" is irrelevant, as is the number not voting at all. If 60·5 per cent. of those entitled to vote either abstained or voted "No" the result upon the Secretary of State's statutory duty would have been the same. Even if 1,495,000 Scots had voted "Yes", the same statutory duty would have arisen, even if the other 2,252,112 had abstained. In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that those who did not want such a draft order to be placed before Parliament stressed that a favourable majority was not enough. To put it another way, the legal effect upon that particular provision of an abstention was the same as the legal effect of a "No" vote. Either an
  486
  abstention or a "No" would contribute, in other words, towards a failure to reach the 40 per cent.
  Apart from the purely legal effect that I have described, it was also obvious that the opponents of devolution would claim the support of those who did not vote "Yes", just as politicians all over the world are wont to claim the support of the so-called "silent majority"—in this case simply those who were silent. One aspect of that is this: Those who support the repeal draft order when it is brought before the House would undoubtedly point with satisfaction to the non-voters as well as to the "No" voters. That is already happening. The opponents of devolution are already doing just that in order to justify the non-implementation of an Act which a clear majority of Scottish voters supported.
  In that context, predictions by some "Yes" campaigners of how abstentions would be regarded and prayed in aid for repealing the Act are understandable, even if the wording of some of their warnings and utterances lack the precision and fullness that would be looked for from a lawyer or a Parliamentary draftsman. It is not for me to comment upon individual utterances, particularly those which came from the Scottish National Party or other bodies which happened to range themselves on the side of the "Yes" voters. In any event, each of the utterances has to be looked at in its own context and in the context of this regrettable and unprecedented 40 per cent. rule.
  It is regrettable for many reasons, but one of them certainly was this: It was likely to produce and indeed did produce confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding. I am not in the least surprised to hear it said that it did, in fact, produce confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding. So it is not for me to condemn out of context asserted or assorted statements which were designed to explain in simple—perhaps over-simple—terms the effects of a very complicated subsection, being the one to which I have referred.
  I have also been asked whether the Government would make some general comment about the principles upon which referenda should be held in the future. That is not a matter arising out of this Question, and I do not propose to make any such comment at all. In fact, of

  487
  course, if the instrument of a referendum is to be considered again in the future, no doubt the circumstances in which it is proposed to be used will have some bearing upon the form a particular referendum will take. No doubt this is a matter which ought to be discussed, but it is certainly not a matter to be discussed in the context of this particular Question which has been put before the House tonight.
  There has been reference both in the Question and in the debate to mis-statements and misinformation. There were a good many, and I am happy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has acknowledged that his particular organisation was responsible for at least one error. I think that he is being unduly modest about the number of errors to which one could point.
  Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord cares to let me have a note of others, I shall be very glad to consider them. But I think that is very disingenuous of him—will he not admit it?—to make this assertion about relatively minor errors, which were admitted to be errors as opposed to outright mis-statements and falsehoods, which is what the assertion that an abstention is the same as a "No" vote was. That was a mis-statement and a falsehood and all his ingenious advocacy does not alter that.
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord can point to one word of error in anything I have said, I shall be delighted that he should do so. What I find astonishing is that the noble and learned Lord should, when addressing the House say, "We made a mistake and we were willing to withdraw it, provided that they withdrew their mistake" and to say that truth must be a casualty in a particular campaign in this country. I find this an astonishing assertion to come from a former Lord Advocate, and one who played a substantial part in this campaign.
  488
  However, it certainly serves no great purpose to hash over the entrails of this campaign, and I shall not waste time doing it now. But the noble and learned Lord is well aware that his folding pamphlet contained a number of errors, and indeed his campaign tried to mislead the Scots into thinking that devolution was tantamount to separation. The campaign conducted in these terms was certainly not edifying. There were far too many errors and far too many half truths, and perhaps far too many personal attacks in the course of the campaign. One regrets that, and one hopes that the next time, if there is to be a next time, people will be more responsible.
  I do not believe that the Government could have done any more than they did, or that Ministers who took part in the campaign could have done any more than they did, in order to try to bring the issues before the country, given the limitation that they had to accept in relation to the publication of a leaflet, and the limitation that was placed upon the Government in relation to expending public money in any way in relation to the campaign. There is no doubt bound to be some misinformation and misunderstanding in relation to a difficult constitutional matter, but I feel, at the end of the day, that the substantial character of the Scotland Act and the substantial nature of the opposition to it were well understood by those who took the trouble to vote. Indeed, when one looks at the figures of those who voted, one sees that the turn-out in Scotland was certainly larger than the turn-out at the EEC referendum, and also was respectable in relation to the turn-out at a General Election. I do not believe that the result has been substantially, if at all, influenced by this misinformation, but, none the less, one regrets that there has been misinformation on both sides.
  House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.