Sitting of 6 March 1980

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL. (By Order.)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 13 March.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL. (By Order.)
LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL. (By Order.)
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL. (By Order.)
DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 March.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Constitutional Conference
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the progress of the constitutional conference on Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his constitutional discussions with political parties in the Province.
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the constitutional conference currently being held at Stormont.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the talks on the future administration of Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): Since I last reported to the House the conference has met on 11 occasions, making a total of 28 half-day sessions to date. The conference has been engaged in detailed discussion of matters central to its task. It has completed a careful examination of how a devolved administration might operate and has discussed the crucial question of the role of minorities within a new system. There remains a substantial amount of ground to cover and it is too early to indicate when the conference will conclude its work or what level of agreement will materialise. I have gained a deeper understanding of the viewpoints of the parties at the conference and they have similarly gained a better understanding of each other's point of view. All the participants have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the task of the conference, and I remain convinced that it will contribute to political advance in Northern Ireland.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Canavan: Despite the non cooperation of the Official Unionist Party and the die-hard weekend speeches of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will the Secretary of State give a categoric assurance that any form of devolved assembly for Northern Ireland will not simply be a resurrection of the old Stormont system which helped to cause many of the injustices in Northern Ireland, which in turn helped to bring about the emergence of violence in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: Without commenting on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's observation I can give the categoric assurance he asks for. It is clearly spelt out in paragraph (4) of the Government's working paper which the conference is discussing that the Government are not contemplating a return to the arrangements which prevailed before 1972.
    Mr. Latham: While nobody would expect particularly rapid progress on a matter that has been going on since the reign of King Henry II—let alone more controversial monarchs of the seventeenth century—will my right hon. Friend say that sooner or later this matter will have to be brought to a conclusion and that a full statement will be made to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. We are engaged in the process of seeking agreement about how to proceed. It is the firm belief of the Government that we ought to proceed and that the existing arrangements are not satisfactory. We wish to advance. Of course the House of Commons will be brought into the consideration of these matters at every stage because in the end it is Parliament that will decide the future arrangements in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: A number of people who are not part of the constitutional conference have made suggestions about the future of Northern Ireland. What would be the attitude of the Secretary of State should any of the parties to the conference wish to invite someone to come along and speak to a proposal that had been made?
    Mr. Atkins: Among the people who have produced ideas for the considera-
    636
    tion of the conference is my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and I and the other parties to the conference are grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken and for the paper that he has submitted. As he requested, his paper has been placed before the conference but the conference has not so far thought it necessary or right to invite people to come and speak to their papers. This is something that the conference will be considering during the next few weeks.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that he still has the good will of Liberal Members who hope that the talks will be a success? Is he further aware that I agree with the article on qualified majority by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) which appeared in The Guardian? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government do not intend to continue with direct rule for longer than necessary?
    Mr. Atkins: The answer to the last question is "Yes, Sir." I am grateful for the continued support of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I agree that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is valuable.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: During the Secretary of State's long periods of boredom and frustration as he presides over the time-wasting conference will he find time to reflect that for the protection of minorities and for the securing of powersharing no instrument has been devised which compares with the House of Commons?
    Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the conference is time-wasting. It is far from time-wasting. It is addressing itself seriously to difficult questions. I note the right hon. Gentleman's view about the way in which we operate here. I hope that he will come to the conference table and argue that view.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has given an assurance to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about paragraph (4) of the working paper. Will he assure the House that a revival of the system which obtained in the first five months of 1974 is

    637
    not under consideration by the Government nor being discussed at the conference?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. Paragraph (4) of the paper contains that assurance. I remind the hon. Gentleman of paragraph (5) of the working paper which states that arrangements must be acceptable to both sides of the community.
    Mr. Fitt: While I totally reject the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may I ask the Secretary of State to accept that many people of good will in Northern Ireland and in the House of Commons have deliberately refrained from making any comment on the conference on the ground that that might jeopardise the result? Does he agree that everyone in Northern Ireland recognises that to continue the conference is nothing more than a charade? Is it not evident that no agreement will be reached at the conference? Does he agree that the sooner the House has an opportunity to debate what has or what has not happened the better so that we can inform the people of the United Kingdom what a charade the conference is?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot agree that the conference is a charade. It is nothing of the kind. I note the request for a debate in the House. I shall ensure that the attention of the Leader of the House is drawn to it. There is still a certain amount to do in the conference. We have not yet completed our agenda. Many important matters have still to be considered. It would not be right to bring the conference to an end now.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern and anger in Northern Ireland because the promised security initiative is being deliberately held up by the Government as a result of the constitutional conference, which has been dead for a considerable time? Does he agree that it is time that the Government did something to destroy the Provisional IRA, which the Prime Minister promised to do on her two visits to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: There is a question about security later on the Order Paper and I shall answer that question then. The conference is not dead. Those who attend it are very much alive.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member from either side to ask a supplementary question before calling the Front Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Flannery: Although the vast majority of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland want peace and an agreement of some kind that will make their lives bearable, is it not the case that the conference has been rendered useless by the Official Unionist Party, which has openly mocked the conference, and by the DUP's intransigent attitude? May we have a debate in the House because we all know that the conference will produce no useful results?
    Mr. Atkins: I shall draw the request for a debate to the attention of the Leader of the House. The conference discussions on Northern Ireland, are not easy. Nobody ever expected them to be. I did not expect a solution to be found quickly or for the problems to be solved in the twinkling of an eye. That is no reason not to explore possible ways of advancing politically with the political leaders in the Province.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: What other important matters has the conference not yet discussed? What timetable does the Secretary of State have in mind for the extent of the conference and for the Government's deliberations on what may or may not come out of it?
    Mr. Atkins: We have yet to discuss how we determine the acceptability of arrangements which may be agreed. We must also discuss a number of financial arrangements. One newspaper thought that that involved how much members of a new assembly would be paid. That is not correct. That item covers how the financial arrangements of the Province might be dealt with by a new assembly. A number of other items of importance remain to be discussed.
    We have never been definite about a timetable. I am not definite now. In January I said that by Easter it might be appropriate to reflect on everything that has happened. I am not sure that we shall meet that target. However, since there is no fixed timetable, that does not matter. We want to discuss among ourselves the important matters as long as it is useful to do so—but no longer.
    Mr. John: Will the Secretary of State use the opportunity to consult more widely in the Province on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland in order to involve some bodies which are not participating in the talks? Will he report to the House before the Government's hard proposals are known and when the proposals still have green edges? Will he report to the House on the basis of maximum information about what has happened at the conference?
    Mr. Atkins: It is important for the House to be brought into the discussion. I am not sure that the phrase "green edges" will go down well with everybody. However, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says in a parliamentary sense. I am anxious to take the House with us on this issue. The hon. Member asked about wider consultation. I have already held meetings with people who were not invited to the conference. It is important to include more than the four invited parties.

    Elderly Persons
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has future plans to increase the number of geriatric beds and places in old people's homes in Belfast.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): Yes, Sir. Plans are in hand to increase the number both of hospital beds and of residential places for the care of the elderly in Belfast.
    Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging answer. Does he accept that, whatever other section of the Northern Ireland community is affected by the Government's financial cuts, those who are geriatric or disoriented and who cannot advance their own cause should not be affected? Will the Minister consider using Malone Place hospital—which used to be a gynaecological unit—for geriatric patients?
    Mr. Alison: In the next year or two we plan to increase substantially the number of beds available to that category of patient. I shall reflect upon what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister accept that the problem involves not only
    640
    the number of beds but adequate staff and facilities? While I congratulate the Minister on his small announcement, may I ask him to explain to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) that the consequence of supporting the Government on the vote of confidence recently has been precisely to limit the amount of help that can be given to the elderly in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was very wise to support the Government in the vote the other night. The Government's intentions and plans do not incorporate any cuts in the provisions of health services in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the Minister is aware that many people will be grateful to him for his answer. Could he be a little more specific and give us an indication of the number of extra beds he has planned and say whether there are any planned for East Belfast?
    Mr. Alison: I have quite a collection of figures here. I believe that it would be more convenient if I were to set them out either in a written answer, if the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question, or write to him about this. However, two 72-bed geriatric units of the Ulster hospital will be completed this year.
    Mr. Haynes: I feel that I have been here before. The statement made by the Minister has been made regularly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be so. I know that the hon. Gentleman is about to come to the question, but we are in a hurry.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that statements of that kind on provision for the elderly have been made regularly in the House by successive Conservative Governments? Is the Minister being truthful in what he is saying, bearing in mind what has been said and what has happened?
    Mr. Alison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer I have given is very truthful. If he will come to the House again I shall be able to inform him of the actual completion of the units that we are talking about.

    De Lorean Company
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose and amount of additional financial assistance currently sought by the De Lorean Company from public funds; and if he will take steps to ensure that no such request is approved without the prior approval of Parliament.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): Under the terms of the agreement between the Department of Commerce and the company, entered into by the previous Administration in August 1978, the company is required to approach the Department about any additional funding needed for reasons outside the company's control. Accordingly, the De Lorean company has approached the Government and, although for reasons of commercial confidentiality I cannot disclose details of the request, I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall examine this application most rigorously and critically before a decision is taken.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there are many Government Members and, I suspect, one or two Opposition Members, who had lived in hope that one of the first actions of the Secretary of State would have been to demolish this piece of masonry from the foundations upwards? Before we lay on any extra saunas, sun-parlours, or anythink else, for this extraordinary affair, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that up to now responsibility has rested soley with the Labour Party? We should not contemplate landing ourselves with some measure of responsibility for it. May the House have an opportunity to discuss this matter before any further funds are committed?
    Mr. Shaw: As my hon. Friend knows, and as I have told the House on several occasions, the Government inherited an agreement and an arrangement which they now have a duty to honour. There can be no other way of proceeding with an industrial development policy, which is of such critical importance to Northern Ireland, than on the basis of the truthful acceptance of the situation as laid down in a binding agreement. I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but we have no intention of, as he puts it, dem-
    642
    olishing this enterprise. It is our firm conviction that with effort and good will on all sides, we shall make the operation successful.
    Mr. Concannon: Could the Minister add just one sentence? What is the rate of unemployment in the area where this factory will be situated?
    Mr. Shaw: As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will know, the rate of unemployment in the Belfast area is now about 11·6 per cent. If this project is completed we hope that about 2,000 jobs will be created.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister take it from me that, no matter what criticisms have been made of this project, it would be in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland for it to succeed? Will he confirm that this application is not for any advance in the project but is prompted by inflation rates? Is the amount in question in the region of £5·6 million, which is the amount to which I drew the Minister's attention at our last Question Time?
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and the support that he gives to this project. As he will understand, I am not prepared to disclose the amount for which application has been made. However, I can affirm that under the terms of the agreement, matters of costs outside the Company's control include both inflation and currency fluctuations.
    Mr. Fitt: Will the Minister accept that one of the main reasons why the previous Government undertook to involve themselves with this company was the terrible scourge of unemployment in the immediate area surrounding West Belfast? Undertakings were given that the Government would set up training procedures so that people who had suffered longterm unemployment could acquire the necessary skills to enable them to find employment in this establishment. Is he further aware that there is a great deal of disquiet about the fact—this is confirmed in a letter I received last week from the Minister—that it is to be the policy of this company to employ people who already have skills, which means that the long-term unemployed will have no chance of obtaining employment?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the unemployment problems in that area. I wish only to confirm that the policy of the company is to seek workers who are fitted for the employment that is offered. There are substantial training facilities available and everybody from the West Belfast area, or any other area, should apply as jobs are being advertised currently.
    Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister go further and join me in congratulating De Lorean on overcoming many of its initial problems and obtaining 42,000 advance orders? Nevertheless, and following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, will the Minister reaffirm the commitment of successive Governments that one of the prime objectives of the project is to mitigate the high level of unemployment in West Belfast? Will the Minister declare that there will be no backsliding on this issue and so inform the House now? Will the Minister also join me in requesting that the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) should take a holiday from his characteristically unhelpful criticism of this project? Thirdly, will the Minister agree that when the Prime Minister described the hon. Member for Knutsford as potential Cabinet material she was merely making one more serious miscalculation?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that supplementary questions are getting longer and longer. There were three or four supplementary questions there.
    Mr. Shaw: I obviously applaud the efforts made by the De Lorean company to make this project succeed. I recognise that the company will draw substantially on labour from West Belfast. We have been as good as our word by bringing to West Belfast several important new investment projects in recent months, including 450 potential jobs in a trim company with which De Lorean will be associated. As regards my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), the hon. Member for Pudsey is willing to take very fast rising balls outside the off stump any day of the week.
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of my hon. Friend's replies, I shall raise this matter again on every possible opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) wants to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Cryer indicated assent.

    Taoiseach (Meeting)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when next he expects to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I welcome that answer from the Secretary of State. Despite Mr. Haughey's decision to postpone his threat to use his diplomatic services to blackmail Her Majesty's Government, will the Secretary of State assert that the internal affairs of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government alone and are subject to no external influence?
    Mr. Atkins: I repeat what I have said many times before. The affairs of Northern Ireland are for Her Majesty's Government, the House and the people of Northern Ireland alone.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is it correct that Mr. Haughey informed the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister of the contents of the speech that he delivered recently to his party conference before he made that speech? Do the Government intend to counter the rabid publicity and propaganda campaign that Mr. Haughey has announced and ensure that British embassies throughout the world expose the hypocrisy of the Republic, which refuses to extradite wanted men to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: I do not know about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but Mr. Haughey did not tell me about his speech. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a publicity effort. It is the business of embassies and our representation abroad

    645
    to do their best to present the true facts about the United Kingdom, including the Province of Northern Ireland, and this they do, I hope, successfully.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his plans and seek an early meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic to discuss a possible extension of the areas of common interest that exist between the two parts of the island of Ireland—I have in mind interests such as transport, water supply, electricity, tourism, sport, agriculture and culture—and perhaps move some way towards reconciliation between the two parts?
    Mr. Atkins: I do not need to involve the Taoiseach in that. There is well established machinery for dealing with such matters. There are consultative committees and groups that meet to discuss matters of common interest that have a cross-border connotation. That work has been going on for many years and it continues. If it is necessary to invoke the assistance of the Government of the Republic to make it go better and faster, I shall do so.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the welcome that was given in Northern Ireland to her retort to Mr. Haughey's claim of jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and her assertion that that would not be changed without the consent of the majority of the people of Ulster?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to convey that personally in about 15 minutes.

    Extradition
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions during the last five years the Royal Ulster Constabulary has sought the extradition of persons from the Irish Republic in connection with explosions, murders and attempted murders in Northern Ireland: and on how many occasions these extradition requests have been granted.
    Mr. Alison: Between 1 January 1975 and 31 December 1979 the RUC sent a total of 17 warrants to the Garda seeking the extradition of persons for the offences in question. Two of these persons have been extradited.
    Mr. Ross: Are there not many more persons now resident in the Republic whom the RUC would like to interview? Is it a fact that the RUC has not made extradition requests in all cases where it was possible to do so? Why has it not done so, since the failure of the South to extradite murderers would expose it to public ridicule, which it richly deserves?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of reasons why extradition might not be sought. One reason is uncertainty about where the wanted man might be. It is not always certain that he is to be found in the Republic. There are occasions when the known practice of the Government in the Republic, in the light of their own High Court procedures, makes it obviously pointless even to try to secure extradition.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Although it is second-best to extradition, will my hon. Friend tell the House what progress is being made with cases brought under the criminal jurisdiction legislation?
    Mr. Alison: We have successfully brought two prosecutions under the so-called extra-territorial legislation. My hon. Friend will know that that can apply only to cases relating to offences committed after 1 June 1976.
    Mr. John: The Secretary of State recently said that three more cases were being taken under that legislation. What is the position in those cases? When are the prosecutions likely to be brought?
    Mr. Alison: All the facts and papers have been sent to the authorities in the Republic. I cannot say when the cases will come forward. We have no reason to believe that there will be any untoward delay in the cases being brought to trial.

    Unemployment
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland on 1 March 1980.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The level of unemployment in Northern Ireland on 14 February 1980, the latest date for which information is available, was 11·6 per cent.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Minister confirm that the unemployment level is the worst since 1930? Does he agree that if a Unionist Administration at Stormont were presiding over these figures it would be the butt of ridicule from both sides of the Chamber? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do over the next few months to rectify the situation?
    Mr. Rossi: They are not the worst figures since 1930, but they are still unacceptably high. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a gradual and consistent increase in unemployment since 1974—when there were about 27,000 unemployed—to 64,000 in 1978. Unemployment was stabilised in 1979. Since then there has been an increase which we find unacceptable. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been working hard in inducing considerable new investment to come into the Province. Some 14 new firms have come to the Province in the past year or so, providing about 4,600 new manufacturing jobs in 1979. Recently 2,825 jobs were announced for this year. LEDU has established 1,330 jobs in small firms.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister recognise that, according to figures quoted to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Stallard) in early February, during the previous Question Time devoted to Northern Ireland, the statistics have risen in some areas to 23 to 26 per cent? In view of the high and growing rate of unemployment in the Province, does he agree that there is an even greater need to embark upon the functional co-operation on economic matters to which attention has already been drawn? Does he accept that there is a need to get together with the Republic to ascertain what investment may be jointly undertaken in terms of development projects between the two countries?
    Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There are some small pockets of extremely high unemployment. In Cookstown, for example, the level is 24·1 per cent. That is the highest level at present. It is a level that we find unacceptable. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that discussions on economic matters are proceeding the whole time with the Government of the Republic of
    648
    Ireland to ascertain what joint effort can do to improve the unemployment figures. However, we are being successful in bringing in new industry by consistently employing in Northern Ireland the highest incentives that exist in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John: The Minister has quoted the job attraction figures, but he has not said that 4,600 redundancies have occurred within the past two months. Job attraction spreads over a much longer period. What does he intend to do to counter that loss? Is he aware that it is said by one economic analyst in the Province that if the loss is extrapolated it will lead to a minimum unemployment rate of 14 per cent. within the next year?
    Mr. Rossi: The redundancy figures have remained constant annually for the past three years. However, there was an increase in total jobs of 10,000 from June 1978 until June 1979. The problem is the increase in the size of the labour force. Bearing in mind the security problem in Northern Ireland, it becomes more and more difficult, even with great financial incentives, to attract new investments into the Province.

    Terrorism (Propaganda)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to control Irish Republican Army propaganda; and what estimate he has made of the value of propaganda by terrorist organisations.
    Mr. Alison: In a democratic society the free expression of views by individuals or groups is a fundamental freedom. The Government do not believe in censorship and we shall continue to rely on the responsibility and sensitivity of the media in the reporting of events.
    The value of propaganda by terrorist or other organisations is very difficult if not impossible to assess. But deeds speak louder than words, and the vast majority of Northern Ireland citizens, whatever their background, reject and abhor the methods of murder and violence which the terrorists use and seek to justify by means of propaganda.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that when the IRA claims responsibility for a particularly barbarous and brutal act, it likes to hear it reported

    649
    over the radio that it has claimed responsibility because it gives it almost a legitimacy and respectability as an organisation, as opposed to the band of murderers and thugs that it is?
    Mr. Alison: I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. To be identified publicly with an event such as the La Mon massacre is to be identified with the worst possible type of rejection of humanity and the worst possible type of bestial brutality. It does that group far more harm than good.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister take seriously the suggestion that terrorist organisations have infiltrated certain elements of the press and broadcasting services? Is it not reflected in the recording?
    Mr. Alison: I cannot answer such a question without more solid evidence than can be adduced in a question and answer period in the House. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes privately to give me some factual evidence which can be added to the routine investigations that the security forces undertake in all areas of sensitivity we shall consider it carefully.

    Security
    Mr. Peter Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he considers that there has been any improvement since 3 May of last year.
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since I last addressed the House on 7 February, 38 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including nine with murder and three with attempted murder. Of these, four persons have been charged in connection with the attempt to bomb a Belfast bank on 15 February, and three persons have been charged with the murder of a man in Belfast last Friday. During that period the security forces also seized 2,508 rounds of ammunition and 14 weapons. Two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were killed in Rosslea on 11 February. Three
    650
    civilians have been shot dead since 7 February, one of them following a cold-blooded kidnapping; and a young boy has died after being struck by a missile during the stoning of an Army vehicle by a crowd of youths. During last weekend 44 buses were destroyed or damaged in terrorist attacks on bus depots in Belfast and Newry, and on Monday, 8 explosive devices exploded outside business premises in the main street of Maghera, causing extensive damage to two premises. In addition, I regret to tell the House that about two hours ago the body of a man was found in County Armagh, near the border. Full details are not yet available. I am waiting for a detailed report.
    As for the second part of the question put by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) the number of deaths sustained as a result of terrorist activity in the period from last May to February this year has increased. On the other hand, there has been a substantial reduction in the level of injuries, and in the number of explosions. But statistics give a very partial picture. The IRA is more isolated than ever from the sympathy, let alone the support, of ordinary people. I do not pretend that the end of terrorism is in sight, but I believe that we are making progress.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the Secretary of State not agree that those details are totally unacceptable? Does he further agree that, if anything, they point solely to the fact that his whole security policy must be reviewed? Does he remember that when he spoke to the House on 7 February, he gave an undertaking that he was reviewing security policy in relation to public transport? In his statement he said that considerable damage has been done in that sphere. Will he review the security arrangements for public transport once again?
    Mr. Atkins: The Government's security policy was the subject of debate just before Christmas. It was supported by the House. It is, of course, under continual review. We are constantly seeking ways of making it more effective. A review takes place not once a month, but all the time.
    As regards public transport, at that time we were discussing three deaths that had occurred on a train. Although I very

    651
    much regret, as we all do, that buses have been damaged and destroyed in a bus depot, it is some comfort that no one was killed.
    Mr. Trippier: I have read with interest the recent speeches of the GOC and the Chief Constable. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of cooperation between the Army and the RUC?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. The Chief Constable and the GOC work closely together. As my hon. Friend has said, each of them made a speech about a fortnight ago. I think that the GOC used the phrase:
    "the Chief Constable's and my mind work as one".
    That can be only beneficial.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State accept that the body lying at the border today is that of Mr. Harry Livingstone? He was a decent, hardworking young man. He was a pillar of the local community and a former member of the UDR. No doubt he was murdered by the IRA. His murderer is probably now celebrating in a pub in the Republic. Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that Mr. Livingstone was a personal friend of mine? It is typical of the situation in which he lived, that when I last talked to him he was attending the funeral of one of his colleagues who had been murdered in similar circumstances. How can political progress, or any other progress, be made in Northern Ireland if those people have to live in such circumstances, and have to meet their deaths whenever the IRA so chooses?
    Mr. Atkins: I am very sad that the man who has been killed was a friend of the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has more information than me at his disposal. He knows more about the identity and history of the man. He knows more also about his killers. I do not have that information at the moment. Naturally, we shall follow up the incident with the greatest care. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
    Any death by terrorist activity is one too many. We continually strive to reduce the number of deaths. I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is impossible to provide round-the-clock protection for everyone in Northern Ireland. I know that the efforts that we are making
    652
    will bring about a gradual decrease in terrorist activity. I hope that one day those activities will be reduced to such a level that they will no longer be a menace to anyone.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall give a reception for representatives of British industry.
    Mr. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend find time to comment on the dismal performance of Sir Denis Follows yesterday before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? Will she consider in particular his comment to the effect that he could better judge the interests of the British people than their Parliament? On the day when Afghanistan faces further savage repression will my right hon. Friend remind us of how many other countries have agreed to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow this summer?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I read the reports in the press. I was astonished at what Sir Denis Follows is reported to have said. As regards his remark about Parliament, I think that we are the best judges of that. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will find time for a debate so that our views may be made known.
    Secondly, I expressed my views to Sir Denis Follows in no uncertain way in a letter that I wrote to him. That letter has been published. I told him that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan meant that:
    "for British athletes to take part in the Games in Moscow this summer would be for them to seem to condone an international crime."— [Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, col. 274.]
    Thirdly, an increasing number of countries think that it would be totally inappropriate for their athletes to attend the Moscow Games.
    Mr. Race: During the day will the Prime Minister have a word with her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning his forthcoming Budget? Will she remind him that, unless he takes serious action to assist the plight of the lowly-paid, her Government may face a winter of discontent that will make the last one look like a vicarage tea-party?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever problems we may have had this winter, they have been but a pale shadow of those that were faced last winter. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend is closely considering the Budget. He is receiving many representations and no doubt he will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into account.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to reflect on the present sad state of Anglo-French relations? Does she accept that whatever difficulties individual departmental Ministers may have in resolving their problems with the French, she has responsibility for maintaining and asserting the fundamental identity of interest between this country and France in all those things that really matter, such as foreign affairs and defence?
    The Prime Minister: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that I would fully accept the premise that underlies his question. Relations between us are good. There is a disagreement about budget contributions. We think that we should not pay as much to the European budget as the French pay. Certainly we are paying a lot more at present. There is also disagreement over the sheepmeat issue. However, apart from those two matters, we still work in close co-operation within the European framework and bilateral relations.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Lady reflect further on the progressive developments in Zimbabwe? Is she aware of the press reports that there may be up to 60,000 white people leaving Rhodesia to come to this country in consequence of developments? Will she prevail on the Governor, Lord Soames, to persuade the white population to stay put and give a chance to a multi-racial society in that part of the world to make progress?
    The Prime Minister: With respect, it is far too soon to make any further comments on what is happening in Zimbabwe. As far as I can see, reports coming out about the formation of a Government, which would include the other wing of the Patriotic Front and representatives of the white community, are good. I have every hope and reason to believe that the arrangements will go ahead in a spirit of reconciliation and hope for the future.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a small but significant harbinger of industrial spring? Is she aware that a firm in my constituency, Lewmar Marine, operating in one of the world's most competitive environments, has achieved the unique distinction of supplying its winches to both the British and American contender for the America Cup? Does she agree that that presents a refreshing contrast to the administrative disruption threatened by the Society of Civil and Public Servants this morning?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the success of the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. Had I known of it, I would have invited members of that firm to join us for a drink this evening.
    Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if she list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.
    Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Lady have time today to see her Fisheries Ministers? Is she aware that the industry has been led by them to expect that the Government will act soon over the crisis that the industry faces through subsidised competition, high oil prices and the Common Market fisheries policy? Will she take the opportunity soon to make an announcement, for the industrys benefit.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and hon. Friends are constantly in touch with the fishing industry. They are doing their best to reach agreement both in Europe and with the fishing industry on the best way forward. We have every sympathy with the fishermen in the difficulties that they face.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the addition of 850,000

    655
    employees to local government payrolls over the past 20 years has not resulted in a proportionate increase in the quality or quantity of services to the general public? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take time to consider how to reduce public expenditure in that sector without a disproportionate effect on front-line services?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The improvement in services has nothing like matched the increase in the number of staff. In many cases equally good services could be achieved with substantially fewer staff. I hope that local authorities will take full note of what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister take time to recall the piece in the Conservative manifesto that talked of restoring to every child, regardless of background, the right to progress as far as his or her capabilities would allow? In view of that objective, how does she explain the philistine destruction of education in Scotland, with the removal of school meals and transport, and the 25 per cent. cut in the BBC education broadcasts, which will be 100 per cent. next year?
    The Prime Minister: I fully reaffirm that objective. If I may respectfully say so, there is someone standing at this Dispatch Box who is an example of it.
    When we consulted local authorities about the future of education, they made it clear that they would prefer to make economies in school meals and transport services rather than in the classroom. We have followed that principle. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the BBC, it will of course, have to live within its budget. I believe that the new television licence is £34, which seems quite high to some of us. It is for the BBC to decide where it makes economies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be pretty robust in what he says to the BBC about that matter.
    Mr. Watson: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to notice that the clearing banks have announced a level of profits that is really very high? Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are essentially windfall profits and should be taxed accordingly?
    The Prime Minister: I have noticed what is happening to bank profits. Indeed, I have previously commented on them from this Dispatch Box. I pointed out that the tendency is for bank profits to be high when times are bad for others and a good deal lower when times are good for others.
    I must leave aside any question of taxation. We shall be giving our minds to that on 26 March.
    Mr. James Callaghan: If the problem is that times are bad, as the Prime Minister says, will she in her message of encouragement to the Conservative candidate for Southend, East, explain why company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies are increasing so rapidly?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may wish me to communicate certain matters to my candidate, but may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever times may be like this year, the figures published indicate that car production this February exceeds that for last February?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that we are all happy to hear that car production is increasing rapidly, but will the right hon. Lady accept that if there is a rapidly increasing number of company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies people will not be able to buy those cars? Will the right hon. Lady answer my question whether she proposes to explain that to her candidate?
    The Prime Minister: I propose to explain to my candidate what he very well knows—that there is only one way to try to bring inflation down, and that is the policy that we are pursuing. We should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman encouraged people not to ask for very high wages without extra production, which the right hon. Gentleman knows will only increase inflation and prices.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is there any chance that the right hon. Lady will now answer my question?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered it. Is there any chance that the right hon. Gentleman will ask for wages to be kept in line with productivity?
    Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the latest available figures for the number of crimes committed in the United Kingdom last year? Will she accept that 896,000 robberies and muggings took place at a time when 1½ million people were prosecuted for traffic offences? When will the Conservative Party promise in its manifesto to switch the emphasis from traffic offences to real crime be put into effect?
    The Prime Minister: The police have a duty to see that the law is observed in both instances. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is endorsing the Conservative policy to increase pay to the police and do everything possible to increase recruitment.
    Mr. Best: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the survey into expenditure by local authorities commissioned by Sir Frank Marshall on behalf of the Conservative Party? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the knowledge that has been manifest through that survey that, while local authorities have been cutting services, they have not been cutting manpower to the same degree? Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on local authorities that it is essential that services are maintained and bureaucracy cut wherever possible?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen that survey and I agree that it reveals a disappointing state of affairs. It is all too easy for some local authorities to cut sensitive services, when they should be cutting the numbers employed in the administrative bureaucracy. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Prime Minister tell the mill workers of Lancashire, who do not earn high wages, who are not militant and who do not make excessive wage demands, why hundreds and hundreds of them are losing their jobs, month after month?
    The Prime Minister: May I say respectfully that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of those workers in that industry. Labour relations have been excellent and the workers have gladly accepted new technology and new machinery. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who, as he knows, when faced with a difficult decision on carpet yarn, took action through Europe.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend agree that when the TUC tears up its guidelines on picketing in a fit of pique against the Employment Bill, it is only playing party politics? That is not the proper role of trade unions.
    The Prime Minister: I had always thought that those guidelines on picketing properly reflected the criminal law as it stands. The criminal law is not being changed, so I trust that those guidelines will not be changed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the growing burden of owning or renting a house, and afterwards a debate on immigration. Both will arise on Opposition motions.
The Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.
Motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Protection of Trading Interests Bill and to the Bees Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MARCH—Second Reading of the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill.
Motions on the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits on Candidates' Election Expenses) Order and on the Deaconesses and Lay Workers (Pensions) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 MARCH—Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order and on the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 14 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for putting down the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill for two days next week in order to relieve the Minister of his unlawful actions, but is that not typical of the growing confusion of the Govern-
660
ment's legislative programme? Is he aware that apart from the current protests from another place, the Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill was adjourned half an hour early this morning by the Minister, who was unable to answer a straightforward question? It is a No. 2 Bill. As I understand it, it has been rewritten. The Minister was asked the simple question whether part VI of the Bill, which deals with the rate support grant, was to be proceeded with. He was unable to give an answer, and the Committee was adjourned.
I do not ever recall a Minister adjourning a Committee half an hour before time because of his inability to answer a question of that sort. I know that negotiations are under way, but will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to tell the House whether the Government intend to amend the, No. 2 Bi11 again, or whether the Committee can proceed with its discussions on part VI of the Bill in the knowledge that it will go ahead?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was acting perfectly correctly. It is encouraging that if a Minister is asked an important question he should ensure that an accurate answer is given. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that with regard to our legislative timetable the Bill is on schedule, and I trust that unless the Leader of the Opposition succeeds in adopting wrecking tactics Members will be able to rise for the Summer Recess at the normal time.
Mr. Callaghan: With regard to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, a week ago the Committee was discussing clauses 11 and 12, and it has now reached clause 29. There have been no wrecking tactics and no filibustering on the Bill.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the question that was put to the Minister. He was asked whether he could state whether part VI of the Bill was still Government policy. He should not have to go far in order to find that out.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can answer that question. The Bill is Government policy,

661
and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will reach the statute book on schedule.
Mr. Callaghan: In that case, why was the Minister not able to give that answer this morning? The Committee could then have proceeded.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Because he did not have the benefit of consulting with me.
Mr. David Steel: May I seek the benefit of consulting with the right hon. Gentleman? On Monday he has put down, to be debated after 10 o'clock, the prayer that stands in my name against the immigration rules. The Opposition have given up half a Supply day for a debate on the same subject. Would it not be for the benefit of the House to have one coherent debate lasting from 7 o'clock through to 11.30 pm? If that requires a technical motion on his part, will he take the necessary steps?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion. It is a matter for the official Opposition. If discussions were opened between the right hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition I would be happy to support a joint prayer.
Mr. Rippon: In view of the undoubted pressure on parliamentary time, will my right hon. Friend consider further the question of withdrawing the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill? The financial provisions as they are now drafted are unworkable, and are the subject of further discussion with the local authorities. The planning provisions are inadequate, and they should be in a separate Bill, and the provisions relating to the Urban Development Corporation manifestly should he in a Hybrid Bill, and are an example of what the Lord Chancellor described once as "elective dictatorship."—[Interruption.]
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to Labour Members for that enthusiastic reception. My right hon. and learned Friend is his normal, independent and robust self, but I assure him that it is the Government's intention to proceed with the Bill and to ensure that it is placed on the statute book.
Mr. Ennals: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when there is such a heavy burden of legislation, and when
662
there are so many subjects that the House wishes and needs to debate, it is sad commentary on the competence of the Government that next week we have to spend two days in order to invalidate—or validate—an illegal action taken by one of his colleagues?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. We are spending one and a half days on the subject, at the express request of the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Cormack: In view of the fairly high-level representations that have been made about the Olympic Games, could we have a debate on this matter during the week after next?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Prime Minister, in a gracious reference to me, has said that, subject to my permission, she thought that it would be a good idea to have a debate on the Olympic Games. I am happy to give that permission.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time we had a debate on the problems of unemployment on Merseyside, particularly in the light of recent revelations that the Government have been fiddling the figures? Is he aware that calculations of the rate of unemployment on Merseyside are based on the assessment of the work force that existed in 1966, and therefore, instead of being 12 per cent. the figures are likely to be 14 per cent. or even 15 per cent? Is there not a need for a major debate on this serious issue?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I recognise the extremely serious unemployment problem of Merseyside and Liverpool. The Government have recognised that by concentrating their assisted area policy on the most needy areas, and they have offered Merseyside most enhanced benefits in the retention of special development area status. That is the best way to ensure that the problems of Merseyside are ameliorated.
On the question of a debate, I must point out that we had a debate yesterday, which was not particularly well attended. The problems of Merseyside are relevant to a general economic discussion.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: With reference to Monday's business, will my right hon.

663
Friend confirm that the House will be invited to approve the spring Supplementary Estimates? In view of the fact that these Estimates involve £850 million extra public expenditure, including £70 million to compensate two Departments for overspending their current year's cash limits, and in view of the importance that cash limits play in the restraint of public expenditure, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that it will be possible to debate these Supplementary Estimates before we are asked to approve them?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: These Supplementary Estimates, which will be taken on Monday, are always taken on a Supply day. It will be possible to debate them if the Opposition are prepared to devote time to them. Perhaps my hon. Friend could suggest that to the Opposition. If that is not feasible, it is possible to raise a number of these subjects on Wednesday, when the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill is before the House.
Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the fact that the steel strike is now in its third month and that there are reports that canning factories that can fruit and vegetables are no longer in production and that the public industries are losing hundreds of millions of pounds, is it not time that the Government came to the House and made a statement that they intend to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not Government policy to intervene in industrial disputes, which should be settled by the two sides involved. It is the Government's hope that the two sides will come to an agreement.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the Leader of the House has had the opportunity to familiarise himself with the importance of information technology since he opened the microelectronics exhibition at the Science Museum by proxy, may I ask him whether a debate on that subject is any nearer the end of his telescope?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise an early debate on that matter. I am much better informed on this subject, thanks to the reading that I did for the microchip exhibition, which I was not able to open. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the
664
seminar that he gave me on this subject and I shall do my best to avoid receiving another one.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Leader of the House aware that he seems to have missed a point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in relation to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, in so far as it affects rates in Newcastle upon Tyne? Since the Secretary of State for the Environment is more notoriously known for threatening this House with the symbol of its authority—the Mace—many of my constituents are very disturbed that they are now being threatened on the issue of the level of rates in Newcastle by that same Secretary of State.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That matter can be discussed during the various stages of the Bill. It is not strictly a business question.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend consider a short debate to decide whether the present system of Division bells could be improved by the addition of a system of individual bleepers?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That has been considered by the relevant Committee of the House, which recommended that such a course should not be followed. Obviously there would be considerable inconvenience if the bleepers went off in the Chamber.
Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the genuine concern felt on both sides of the House about the proposed BBC cuts involving the staffing of five orchestras, including the Scottish Symphony Orchestra, and the scrapping of education programmes north of the border? Will he arrange to discuss this vitally important topic?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted with anxiety the reports of decisions of the BBC, particularly those affecting the orchestras. I recognise that because of financial stringency the BBC must make a redistribution of its resources but the way in which it plans its programmes and spends its resources is a matter for the corporation itself.
Mr. Neubert: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will not give any time at all next week to the discussion of

665
early-day motion 490, since the reckless and ill-informed assertions in that motion could cause needless anxiety to millions of holidaymakers whose interests are amply safeguarded by £80 million worth of tour operators' bonds and a further £15 million in the Air Travel Reserve Fund?
[That this House is seriously concerned for the stability of the package-tour holiday industry, and the consequent effect upon British holiday-makers, because of the commitment of package tour operators to charter flight companies which will result in the bankruptcy of many package-tour operators; and urges the Secretary of State for Trade to take immediate action to avoid another disaster of the kind which overtook Court Line Ltd.]
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my intention to have an early debate on that motion on package tours. The Civil Aviation Authority has no reason to believe that tour operators will not be able to cover increased charges made by charter airlines from the limited surcharges that they can impose on their customers. One or two operators may have given a guarantee of no surcharges—
Mr. Michael Cocks: This is a plant.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not a plant.
Mr. English: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that an hon. Member should declare his interest?
Mr. Neubert: It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it was the convenience and convention of the House that interests should not be declared in asking questions. In any case, my travel industry background is well known both in the House and outside.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite correct. At Question Time it is not our convention to declare an interest.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I was saying, no doubt those operators will have included in their brochure prices some condition to cover potential increases in costs.
The Opposition are wrong in saying that it is an abuse of the House to answer a question. This is certainly not
666
a planted question. I had no idea that my hon. Friend was to raise this important matter. He was perfectly entitled to do so, and I have given a full answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a plant."] It is not a plant, it is a tree.
Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment gave a firm commitment to the House, and also to the local authority associations, that he would consider the alternative proposals of the local authority associations to part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill? It is important to do that, but because of the good progress made by the Committee on the Bill it is impossible to consider the Government's proposals, because they are not firm. We cannot consider hypothetical proposals as part of Government legislation.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly exaggerated the point. He is correct in saying that my right hon. Friend told the local authorities that he would reflect on their proposals. I shall be in communication with him in response to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman to make sure that any ambiguity is cleared up.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to reserve this point of order to the end of questions, but the last question came back to the subject. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made three consecutive references to work in progress in a Standing Committee upstairs, would you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to refresh the memory of the House and give it the benefit of your guidance on the question how far, if at all, it is in order to refer in detail to the proceedings of a Standing Committee before it has reported?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The House is aware that until a Committee reports to us we do not discuss its activities upstairs. Passing references are entirely different, and I therefore allowed the extra latitude to the Leader of the Opposition that is traditional. It is not a matter that we can pursue at length on the Floor of the House.
Mr. James Callaghan: What we are questioning, and what I was questioning, is the progress of business. I have never understood this to be ruled out of order. The convention, I understand, is that discussion on the nature of the business upstairs has always been ruled out of order. I was questioning, and still question, the fact that a Minister adjourned a Committee early in rather exceptional circumstances. I want only to ask the Leader of the House, in view of the question that has been asked, whether we can now take it that the Bill can be proceeded with on the assumption that it is firm Government policy and that there is to be no response to the local authority associations, which have been putting up an alternative scheme.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Leader of the Opposition must not seek to lead me into pre-empting the rights and prerogatives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Bill, as I have said, is Government policy. Because of the important point that has been raised, clearly, if I may say so, by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, I shall approach the Secretary of State to see whether any clarification is needed.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), may we take it that your ruling, Mr Speaker, applies also to the proceedings of Select Committees and would therefore be inconsistent with the detailed comment, earlier this afternoon, upon evidence tendered to a Select Committee?
Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the case of the Select Committee, it is on Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, published today, that the minutes of the evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee have been reported to the House. The House might as well know that it would not have been in order to discuss what happened in the Committee until it had reported to us.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I raised the subject of the plight of the textile industry with him in business questions last week?
668
Was he also present a few minutes ago, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question from the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson)? My right hon. Friend admitted the tremendous problems facing this industry through no fault of its own. Will my right hon. Friend therefore announce to the House at an early date that he intends to find time for the House to debate one of our biggest and most strategically important industries and so enable hon. Members representing textile constituencies to advise the Government on what policy they believe the Government should follow, particularly in the implementation of selective import controls?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's opening question is "Yes." I heard what the Prime Minister said. I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate on what I recognise is an extremely important subject, but, together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I shall once again draw the views of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for an early statement on the near-miss between two jet aircraft and the Leeds-Glasgow passenger flight last Monday? The Ministry of Defence has apparently so far been unable to identify the two aircraft concerned. This has aroused a great deal of consternation. The question that arises is whether the aircraft should have been in that air space at all, and whether they were armed with ordinary or nuclear weapons. This is a serious matter. I ask for an early statement.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know that I can promise the hon. Gentleman an early statement. I shall certainly raise this important matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him to communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate in the near future on the European monetary system, particularly bearing in mind reports in today's newspapers that the Government are reconsidering the possibility that we shall enter that system? Does my right

669
hon. Friend agree that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to express their distaste, first, for a system of fixed exchange rates and, secondly, for a system that might lead to a single European economy, which would be a denial of the sovereignty of the British people?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that there are a variety of views on those important and technically interesting questions. I cannot promise a separate debate on the EMS as such. No doubt my hon. Friend's views will be relevant to the debate on financial matters involving the Community in general, which I hope we shall have before long.
Mr. Shore: Further to that question, if the right hon. Gentleman consults the records he will find that he is already pledged to have a full debate in the House before any question of decision is reached on this important matter. If my memory is at fault—I hope it is not—I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give this pledge to the House. It is in the interests of all of us.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot remember myself, any more than the right hon. Gentleman can, the exact words. I shall certainly look at it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, in principle, that we must have a debate on these important matters.
Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is about to set up a second Standing Committee to deal with Private Members' Bills during the Session? What has been the result of his reflections over the last seven days in relation to the interesting possibility that another place might send back the Education (No. 2) Bill with clause 23 omitted?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The setting up of a second Standing Committee on Private Members' Bills was not at the forefront of my mind. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's suggestion. With regard to the Education (No. 2) Bill in the House of Lords, it is the Government's intention to table an amendment there setting a limit to the number of children who might be charged for school transport, limiting it to the first two children.
Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some time to considering how the House might debate the Finniston report on engineering? The other place has already had an opportunity to give its views on the report prior to the Government finalising consultations.
In view of the fact that the Minister directly responsible is sitting on the Front Bench at the present time, and in view of the critical state of the shipbuilding industry, displayed today by reports in the press, and the attitude particularly of the civil servants in charge of that industry, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give some time in the House to debate the future of that industry?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree entirely that the Finniston report is of major importance to our industrial future. It is true that we have to revalue the place of engineering in our economy if we are to compete successfully in the industrial world. A whole series of discussions are now going on between my hon. Friend and representatives of industry and engineering. As soon as those discussions are completed, that would be the moment to consider a debate.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm what I believe I heard him say a few minutes ago, namely, that there will be a debate on our financial arrangements with the European Community? If he is unable to arrange for a debate purely on the problem of textiles, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will he arrange for a debate on the wider issue of textiles and footwear, which are suffering from unfair competition from overseas? Can he say whether there will be a debate in Government time to ensure that decisions of the House that have already been taken on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill can proceed in order that the Bill can be passed?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was a wide range of questions. I can confirm what I said in my reply to the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), that we should have a debate on the financial aspects of the Community. The question of footwear is important as part of the general textile debate. I shall also draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. As to the Abortion

671
(Amendment) Bill, I understand that it has again been put down for 14 March and I think that we must wait and see what progress it makes.
Mr. Straw: While the Leader of the House may be reluctant to pre-empt decisions of the Secretary of State for the Environment with regard to part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill—and one can perhaps understand why—does he agree that if there are to be changes in Government policy they should be announced in this House and not at Conservative conferences at the weekend?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have made it quite clear that provided the House is sitting, major statements on Government policy should be made to this House.
Mr. Latham: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the last few months he has twice said from the Dispatch Box that there is no change in Government policy towards the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Will he confirm that that is still so, because if there is to be any change some of us will give it implacable opposition?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am happy to say that the basis of the Government's policy on the Middle East is unchanged. It is to effect as speedily as possible peace and reconciliation, based on justice.
Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm his answer to the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? Is it clear that the Government have no intention of giving any time whatever to debate the breaking of cash limits by one of the four biggest spending Departments of State?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that was what I said. I said that there would be an opportunity, either on the Supply day on Monday or during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday, to raise a variety of matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is rightly concerned.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 454, which has been signed by myself and a growing number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, re-
672
garding the prohibition of right-hand mounted side-cars?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 140), dated 4th February 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be annulled.]
Can he say whether the House or the Committee on Statutory Instruments will be able to discuss that regulation before it becomes effective?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen both the regulation and my hon. Friend's early-day motion. I shall see whether it is possible to find time for a debate.
Mr. John Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that concern about the plight of the textile industry enjoys widespread support among all parties in the House? Does he accept that one of the reasons for an early debate is that hon. Members who represent textile constituencies can call for the sacking of the Chairman of the Services Committee, who we understand has authorised the issue of white shirts made in Hong Kong to House of Commons staff?
Mr. St. John-Stevas I have already said that I would like to have a debate on the textile industry, but I am afraid that I cannot offer an early prospect of it. As to the issue of white shirts to members of the staff by the Chairman of the Services Commit: "The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman."]—I am the Chairman, I quite agree, but I was not aware of that proposal. I shall certainly look into the matter to see what has happened.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising.
Mr. Crouch: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to debate reports that have not emanated from the House or from any Government Department, namely, the Flowers report and the report of the London Health Planning Consortium, both of which raise matters of fundamental concern to the administration of the Health Service in London,

673
with an effect across the whole country? It has not been possible to debate those reports in the Committee on the Health Services Bill—to which I must not refer—but they are important. Shall we have a chance of debating this matter in the Chamber?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with my hon. Friend that both those reports are of extreme importance, but in the first place they are primarily the concern of the London area health authority and the University of London. When they have concluded their discussions, that will be the appropriate time for a discussion in this House.
Mr. Cohen: I should like to refer back to a reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave with regard to the Education (No. 2) Bill, which is at present being considered in another place. Is he aware that both sides of the House will be delighted that amendments relating to transport charges are being considered? However, will the right hon. Gentleman approach his colleagues to see whether they can revise their attitude, because it will be the parents of larger families rather than the parents of two-children families who will face a problem if those charges are imposed? I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will discuss this matter again with those who are responsible for that policy.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am extremely concerned about that aspect of policy and that I am not unsympathetic to the various representations that have been made. Hence, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already tabled one amendment about flat fares, and I have just announced a second alteration in the policy to limit possible charges—because they are only possible charges—to two children. Let us see what happens to that amendment before raising further matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in response to representations the Government have made two very substantial modifications in the policy.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply in relation to the steel industry dispute, in the light of the fact that there is a hardening
674
of attitude outside the House, in that the wives of steel workers are now backing their menfolk to the hilt in order to achieve a just settlement? May I remind him that small businesses may go out of business? He has graciously allowed for a discussion on the Olympic Games. Should not we be discussing the games of the Government as a result of their non-intervention policy instead of the effective role that they should be playing in order to settle this dispute?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Along with the hon. Gentleman, I and all members of the Government are most concerned about that strike, and that it should be settled on a reasonable basis at the earliest possible opportunity. It is harming the country as a whole, as well as those who work in the industry and their families.
Mr. Dubs: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a statement on, and a chance to debate, the practice of jury vetting, given that one judge has recently declared the practice unconstitutional, that at least one police force in the country has been disobeying instructions from the Home Office, and that the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for the Home Department are obviously embarrassed by the subject, as shown by recent answers to parliamentary questions?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that anyone is embarrassed by questions on that subject. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the future of the jury and the working of the jury system are of paramount importance to everyone who is concerned about our liberties and constitution. The attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, with whom I have been in constant communication about the matter, is that as soon as the courts have disposed of the subject he will be in a position to make a statement about it.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As the House has already been promised a statement on telephone tapping, does the Leader of the House agree that there ought to be a debate on that subject as soon as that statement has been made? If he cannot facilitate that request, does not he agree that there is a whole series of areas in which civil liberties seem to be encroached upon, and that there ought to

675
be a full debate on that matter before Easter?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry, but I do not think that there is time for a debate on that subject before Easter. However, I can meet the hon. Gentleman's request to some extent, in that I can guarantee that there will be a full statement by the Home Secretary before Easter on the important subject of telephone tapping.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL (DEBATE)
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement. For the debate on Wednesday 12 March on the Second Reading of the Consolidated (No. 2) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9 am on Tuesday 11 March their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his or her own name and one topic.
The Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill includes certain Defence Supplementary Estimates for the current year, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 436, certain Civil Supplementary Estimates for the current year, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 437 and 438, and excesses in Defence and Civil Estimates for 1978–79, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 435. It will be in order on Second Reading of the Bill to raise topics falling within the ambit of the expenditure proposed in these papers.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on 11 March.

SECOND ADJOURNMENT DEBATES
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The business for the rest of the day is not exactly massive. At 12.10 pm today I gave notice to the Department of Trade on behalf of a colleague—the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Radice), who is detained on other business—that should the business collapse I should want to raise a subject relating to small businesses and hotels. Four hours have now elapsed. I have had two contradictory messages—
676
one from the Department of Trade saying that the matter related to the Department of Industry and one from the Department of Industry saying that it related to the Department of Trade. Up to now, after four hours' notice both Departments failed to confirm that they would be willing to supply a Minister should the occasion occur.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In the past you ruled that adequate notice should be given to Ministers in cases of this kind. The business may last until 10 o'clock but I should like you to rule that four hours is adequate notice and that buck-passing by the Government is no excuse.
Mr. Speaker: From time to time I have indicated that after 8 pm it is unreasonable to accept notice of a second Adjournment debate. It is unfair to the Ministers and Departments, and everyone else concerned. I have always thought it reasonable to accept an application for a second Adjournment debate up until 8 o'clock. Although I have no wish to make an enemy of the Leader of the House, I advise the hon. Gentleman to pursue the matter with him. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to know which Minister answers to the House on the subject.

BUSINESS QUESTIONS (MEMBERS' INTERESTS)
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that a little earlier, in business questions, there arose an issue of an hon. Member not declaring an interest in travel when he asked a business question about travel. You said, quite rightly, that no resolution of the House required a declaration of interest during Question Time. However, I do not think that that matter has been specifically considered in relation to business questions.
I know that the matter will depend on a specific resolution. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to encourage hon. Members to declare an interest whenever possible, rather than allow an erosion of the existing requirements. It would be preferable, for the good of the House, the understanding of the people outside, and to avoid confusion or ambiguity, that interests were declared whenever possible.

677
It is not up to Back Benchers to table motions that will find time on the Floor of the House. It is up to the Leader of the House. By his indication today, that prospect is somewhat remote, to say the least. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker to use your office, whch is enormously influential, to improve the situation, with more declarations rather than fewer.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The House resolved that during debates hon. Members should declare any interests that they had. Business questions fall under a different heading, as they are supplementary questions to the main issue. "Erskine May" is definite that it is not necessary to declare them. I am sure that the House will have taken note of what the hon. Member said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, if the Police Negotiating Board Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Police Negotiating Board [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Waddington.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NEW HEBRIDES BILL
  [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.15 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The essential purpose of the Bill, in the words of the long title, is
  "to make provision in connection with the attainment by the New Hebrides of independence within the Commonwealth."
  Before I describe the content of the Bill, I should like to trace briefly the history of the New Hebrides and the constitutional developments within the territory leading up to the introduction of the Bill.
  The condominium of the New Hebrides is unique. It is administered jointly by Britain and France under a series of international agreements beginning with the protocol of 1914 which established the condominium. An archipelago of some 70 islands, the New Hebrides is situated in the South Pacific roughly halfway between Australia and Fiji. The total population is in the order of 120,000, of whom 112,000 are of Melanesian origin.
  The process of decolonisation began in July 1977 when British and French Ministers announced a joint programme leading to independence for the New Hebrides in 1980. The first major step in the direction of independence was made in December 1978 when a Government of national unity was formed. Both sides of the long-standing political divide were equally represented in that Government, whose primary role was to draw up an independence constitution. Assisted by a broadly based constitutional committee, the new Government had, by mid-1979, made considerable progress with this task.
  In September 1979 a constitutional conference was held in Vila, the capital, under the joint chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), and M. Dijoud, the French Secretary of State for Overseas Departments

  679
  and Territories. My hon. Friend, who has been handling this matter for Her Majesty's Government, much regrets that he is unable to be here today.
  The conference unanimously agreed an independence constitution and it was decided that the New Hebrides should achieve independence in 1980. The conference also fixed a date for fresh elections to both the Representative Assembly and to regional councils on the islands of Santo and Tanna.
  The constitution was formally adopted, and the decision to grant independence in 1980 confirmed, by an exchange of Notes between the British and French Governments signed in Paris on 23 October 1979. This exchange of Notes, to which the independence constitution is annexed, was laid before the House on 29 January as Cmnd 7808.
  Elections to the Representative Assembly and the two regional councils on Santo and Tanna were held on 14 November 1979. The victors in both the central and the regional elections proved to be the predominantly anglophone Vanuaaku Pati, and they formed a Government led by Fr. Walter Lini. At the first meeting of the newly elected Assembly, Fr. Lini and his Cabinet were empowered to propose a date for independence during the period May to July 1980. We are planning for a date in May. The Representative Assembly has decided that the new republic should apply for membership of both the Commonwealth and the francophone Association for Cultural and Technical Co-operation.
  Despite the fact that the rules for the elections of 14 November had been agreed by all parties, it rapidly became clear that certain minority groups on the islands of Santo and Tanna were not prepared to accept the outcome. The root of the problem is that the traditional so-called "custom movements" on these islands do not accept that power should be concentrated in the hands of a central Government. Their discontent has manifested itself in the form of a refusal to accept the legitimate authority of the lawfully elected Government.
  Clearly this state of affairs is unacceptable, but we and our French partners have all along recognised that it would
  680
  be counter-productive for us to attempt to impose a solution which did not recognise the strongly held views of those concerned. Consequently, we have resolved to encourage the protagonists to work out their problems among themselves in the Melanesian way.
  In January this year Fr. Lini led delegation from his Government to Europe for preliminary aid talks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and his French counterpart took the opportunity of that visit to reaffirm their wholehearted support for Fr. Lini's Government. In a communiqué issued after a joint meeting in Paris on 8 January, the two Ministers undertook to do everything they could to smooth the path to independence and to counter all threats to the unity of the country. For his part, Fr. Lini undertook to enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the custom movements to ensure that ways might be found to safeguard and develop local traditions while preserving the essential unity of the country.
  Despite his sincere efforts, Fr. Lini has so far been unsuccessful in his attempts to start negotiations, and custom movements in Santo and Tanna have continued to flout the authority of his Government, although so far no blood has been shed. In an effort to stimulate negotiations, British and French Ministers agreed to receive in Europe a delegation of opposition politicians and leaders of the various custom movements, but it is clear that progress in negotiations within the territory could be promoted by some outside stimulus, and to this end New Hebrides leaders are being invited to hold their talks in London later this month under auspices of the British and French Governments. Experience has shown that such problems are best solved on what might be described as neutral territory away from the daily round of political pressures.
  Mr. Christopher Price: When the hon. Gentleman says that New Hebrides leaders are being encouraged to hold these talks, which leaders is he referring to?
  Mr. Luce: Invitations have gone out, naturally, to the two main parties, and that incorporates those who are involved on the island of Santo. So all those who are concerned with these outstanding

  681
  difficulties will have the opportunity, if they wish to take it, to join in the discussions.
  I should like to make it clear to the House that we and our French colleagues have no intention of imposing a solution. As I have already said, we would regard this as wrong and impractical. It is imperative that the people of the New Hebrides negotiate among themselves a solution acceptable to all parties which is compatible with both the provisions of the constitution and local tradition.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: May I get this quite clear? The Minister has indicated that there will be this meeting in London within the next two months. We are now passing the Bill. Is the passing of the Bill to precede the discussions, and, if so, how will that work?
  Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to explain that we have every intention, as have the French Government, of going ahead with the agreement that has been reached. What I was trying to explain to the House—and I thought it right to give a full explanation since there have been reports of difficulties on the island of Santo in particular—was the background to this. Since there are certain misunderstandings, we thought that we could help to smooth the path to independence, which we plan should be in May, subject to the agreement of the Chief Minister, by offering the opportunity to all the leaders to take part in talks in London if they so wish. We have yet to hear whether they will take this opportunity.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he say what safeguards exist to lessen the possibility of some of the difficulties which have occurred so far erupting at a later stage into events which lead to bloodshed and loss of life? What steps are we taking to avoid that state of affairs?
  Mr. Luce: As I have said, so far there has been no bloodshed at all. The only problem has been that the local office of the central Government was closed for a short time. It has now been opened.
  The hon. Gentleman asks what will happen if there is further difficulty. At the moment, there is a police contribution
  682
  on the island which is keeping order. I do not believe it will be necessary, but, should it prove necessary, the British and French Governments would be prepared to make a small contribution to help maintain the law and order. I do not believe that this will necessarily arise, and after independence, of course, the new Government will have their own police force, which, I am quite sure, will be able to maintain law and order. Our objective, however, is to get a peaceful solution and since there has been no bloodshed so far I am quite sure that there is every prospect of attaining that.
  I now come briefly to the provisions of the Bill. It is not what might be termed the usual independence Bill since it does not provide for the actual grant of independence. This is because the New Hebrides is not a British colony; its legal status as an Anglo-French condominium was established by international agreement and must therefore be terminated in the same way. This will be achieved by the exchange of Notes between the British and French Governments signed in Paris on 23 October 1979, which constitutes a legally binding international agreement and provides for the independence of the New Hebrides during 1980. The exact date of independence will be appointed by Order in Council to be made under this Bill.
  As the long title suggests, the Bill contains, in the main, provisions consequent upon the decision of the New Hebrides Government to join the Commonwealth.
  Clause 1 modifies the British Nationality Act 1948 so as to confer the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizen on citizens of the New Hebrides with effect from independence.
  Clause 2(1) and schedule 1 provides for the modification of certain United Kingdom enactments consequential upon the attainment by the New Hebrides of independence within the Commonwealth.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: To revert to the point my hon. Friend made about citizenship, can he say whether residents of the New Hebrides are at present British protected persons? What is their current status?
  Mr. Luce: Their current status is that of British protected persons, but, because of the unique situation of the New

  683
  Hebrides in so far as it has not been a British colony, clearly we must provide for the fact that there are certain people who should be defined as citizens of the United Kingdom and its colonies. There are only about 460 of them. It is with that in mind and bearing in mind that they wish to join the Commonwealth that we have to undertake these necessary measures.
  Clause 2(2) and schedule 2 provide for the repeal of a number of measures relating to the New Hebrides as a consequence of the change in its status.
  Clause 3 enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make provisions regarding any appeals from New Hebrides courts which may be pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at independence.
  Clause 4 gives the short title and provides that the modifications and repeals effected by the Bill will come into force at independence.
  Turning to more general matters not covered by the Bill, the House will wish to know that the New Hebrides will, on independence, become a republic with an elected President as Head of State. The new Republic will have a unicameral legislature to be known as Parliament and a Council of Ministers responsible to it, headed by a Prime Minister. The independence constitution provides among other things for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, citizenship, the judicature and the public service.
  The New Hebrides economy and development will depend for some time on external aid donors. The parallel British and French administrations which developed as a result of the condominium system are being merged. While this process is now well advanced, we and the French Government are well aware of the heavy administrative burden which will be imposed upon the independent New Hebrides as a result of the duplication inherent in the condominium system of government. We shall be sympathetic to their future needs.
  A British aid mission has recently visited the New Hebrides to discuss aid after independence. We hope that aid negotiations can be finalised when Fr. Lini visits London later this month.
  684
  The road to independence in the New Hebrides has not been an easy one and, as I have explained, there remain some difficulties. Such difficulties, however, are not unusual at this stage of the independence process and I am sure they will be satisfactorily resolved. I am equally sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating the people and the Government of the New Hebrides on the very considerable progress which has been made since the decision in July 1977 that the territory should become independent this year. I am sure that our long association with the country will continue for many years to come.
  With the assent of Parliament to the Bill, the way will be clear for the New Hebrides to join the Commonwealth on independence; and I am pleased that it will be as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we shall have the prospect of continuing the close ties which already exist between ourselves and the people of the New Hebrides.
  4.28 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister has said that we very much welcome the accession of the New Hebrides to the Commonwealth, and in that we heartily concur. It is not only that it is a unique country, but it will be extremely welcome for the great range of talents that it will bring to the Commonwealth. There can be very few parts of our Commonwealth that have such a joint heritage, which, of course, carries with it considerable difficulties, but which are capable of contributing so much.
  I am delighted to welcome the New Hebrides to its new status as a republic, but there are one or two questions on which I wish to press the Minister. Although he has set out the history in considerable detail, some of the political implications of the Bill have been lightly passed over. The New Hebrides has been the responsibility of both the United Kingdom and France. This joint tradition means that the merging of the judiciary, the various administrative systems and the whole question of the languages will cause considerable difficulty.
  The Minister did not say specifically whether our new Commonwealth member intended to apply for membership of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of nations which has an associate status

  685
  with the European Economic Community. I assume that will be so and that, because of its francophone and anglophone traditions, the New Hebrides in the Community will be able to cross what sometimes seems to be a great divide. There is a practical difference between anglophone and francophone countries which is demonstated by the systems of law, administration and representation. The New Hebrides will have a monumental task in overcoming those differences, and for this it will need a great deal of economic assistance.
  The Minister said that there would be discussions on the amount of aid that would be made available to the New Hebrides after it became a republic. I hope that we shall be more generous than we have been to new Commonwealth countries in the past. Because of all the difficulties that will be caused by the presence of two European languages and several others, even though there is a comparatively small population, it will be necessary to set up a completely new administration which will require monetary support and practical assistance.
  What internal arrangements are envisaged in the new republic? Although the Minister seemed to be content that the Chief Minister would have responsibility through his police force for maintaining law and order and would be able to deal with any conceivable difficulties that might arise, there has been political trouble in the recent past, and we should not be fulfilling our role responsibly if we simply said that we intended to go ahead irrespective of the arrangements made for the maintenance of internal law and order. After independence, if we are asked by the New Hebrides Chief Minister for assistance, what will be the Government's attitude? Will they be prepared, if need be, to send assistance?
  How will dual membership of francophone and Commonwealth organisations work for individual citizens of the New Hebrides? I assume that Commonwealth membership, which will carry with it considerable advantages and responsibilities, will not override membership of francophone organisations and that the two will work in concert and not necessarily against each other.
  The Minister said that we should allow the New Hebrides to solve its problems
  686
  in a Melanesian way—a phrase which he did not elaborate. He is asserting a self-evident truth. In Melanesia, in what other way can the people solve their problems? The people of the South Pacific have a special quality. They have warm personalities and high standards. We should wholeheartedly support many of the moral values enshrined in their new constitution. Because of those qualities, the people are perhaps ill equipped to deal with more sophisticated societies which might for purely selfish reasons want to move in and put pressure on this extremely stable society, given the mixed strands that make it up.
  We welcome the Bill because we wholeheartedly welcome the people of the New Hebrides to the Commonwealth. We shall give them our hand in friendship, and we hope that the Government are not assuming that with their attainment of full Commonwealth status our responsibility to them will be at an end. Our responsibility to them must be the moral responsibility of good friends, and we must be prepared to honour that responsibility in terms of hard cash.
  I am very dispirited at the Government's attitude to the supply of aid. It is a disgrace that the United Kingdom has not been able to attain the percentage of support for underdeveloped and partially developed countries that it should have attained. In deciding the level of support, I hope that the Government will take into account all the complex questions, the religious differences and the language problems and say that in this instance it is only right, in view of its history, to give the new nation more generous assistance than we should have done in other circumstances.
  Many years ago the people of the New Hebrides earned my affection with their warmth, kindness and upright character. I welcome them warmly to the Commonwealth, and I hope that independence will be the beginning of a new phase in an old and valued friendship.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I join the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in welcoming the independence of the New Hebrides. Like her, I was charmed by the welcome I received when I visited the New Hebrides some years ago. I extend my congratulations

  687
  to Fr. Lini and his Government for the way in which they have started their task.
  Because of the history and the present events in the New Hebrides, it is right that more than mere formal congratulations should be voiced in the House of Commons today. I am bothered that we are leaving behind us a system of law that is rather less than clear. Up to now there have been three systems of law—indigenous, French and British. In theory, since 1914 the Chief Justice has been appointed over the two European sections of the law according to the constitution by the King of Spain. For a long time there was not a King of Spain, and since there has been a King of Spain no steps have been taken to implement that constitutional law.
  That is sufficiently puzzling, but to unravel the puzzle it was decided that a posse of British lawyers should elaborate a criminal code of justice and a posse of French lawyers should do the civil code. The British lawyers got down to their job, but what they produced was unacceptable to the new Government and they have been told to go back to the drawing board. The French lawyers just chucked their hands in the air and gave up, and no work has been done. Neither the criminal nor the civil code of law is ready for the new State.
  Therefore, my first question to my hon. Friend is, what system of law are we leaving behind? Is it the old system? Will a British judge act according to British law and will a French judge act according to French law? Will there be French, English and indigenous law? How soon can that issue be clarified?
  My second question concerns the police. Up to now the police have operated in different compartments. There is a French office of police and a British office of police. The two forces do not speak each other's language and they operate in different areas. To whom will the police force be loyal in future? Obviously, it is intended that it should be loyal to the elected Government, but what steps are being taken to ensure the amalgamation of the two forces?
  I come now to the dreadful Mr. Stevens. He is, as I understand it, British—perhaps not—and is the front man for
  688
  a bunch of desperadoes who wish to take over the island of Santo for their own economic purposes.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Maybe he is a Conservative.
  Mr. Kershaw: He may be a Conservative and he may be Australian Labour. I do not know what he is, but I do not think that he deals in politics. Mr. Stevens deals in money.
  He has an illegal radio transmitter and he broadcasts his rubbish from Santo. I am not sure what my hon. Friend said about this, but so far no police have been willing to go to Santo to chuck out this chap and the people for whom he is the front man. If the police went there, there might be bloodshed, and that may be a good reason for not undertaking an expedition. Nevertheless, I should like to know what the position is. Are we trying to bring this man to heel, and after we have left the New Hebrides who will bring him to heel? My hon. Friend said that we were willing to make a small contribution to the maintenance of law and order. Is that contribution to be money, or troops, or a Commonwealth force? What are we talking about? Are the "bobbies" to go on from Rhodesia in order to fix Mr. Stevens? We would like to know.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Before the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) leaves the matter of Mr. Stevens, I think another question should be added to the list he has posed, especially as Mr. Stevens is coming to London. Lord Trefgarne said in the House of Lords:
  "With regard to the position of Mr. Stevens' nationality, I am advised that he has on at least one occasion endeavoured to travel upon a passport that he issued himself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 1980; Vol. 404, c. 1109.]
  Can the Minister say whether Mr. Stevens is coming to London on a passport that he has issued to himself?
  Mr. Kershaw: That is an interesting point. It means that at least one would be sure that one's passport arrived in time for one's journey.
  There is the question of citizenship in the New Hebrides. My hon. Friend dealt adequately with this matter. We understand that the new State will become a member of the Commonwealth. In that

  689
  case, I take it that those who wish will be British subjects without the right of entry to the United Kindgom. What will happen in the case of the French union? Will those citizens also be members of the French union? I suppose they will. If so, what right of citizenship is involved? Have those people the right of entry into France and its dependent territories such as New Caledonia? That might be important to them.
  We know from the history of the Pacific that one of the great dangers in that part of the world is that States split apart. That was the bugbear of their history before the colonial Powers moved in. We are quitting the new State and leaving behind two systems of education, three systems of law, two police forces and the island of Santo, which appears to be trying to separate itself, in dubious circumstances, from the new State. There are two European languages and goodness knows how many indigenous languages there.
  That is not the sort of scenario that we have left behind previously. No doubt, as the hon. Member for Crewe so rightly said, we will be generous with our aid, which I believe is running at £6 million a year. I believe that we should be generous because the people of the New Hebrides will have special problems given that the picture I have painted is not incorrect.
  I wonder whether the Government have considered asking Australia whether she would join in this matter. After all, Australia has a great deal to do with the New Hebrides. The Australian dollar is the currency of the island and most of the visitors come from Australia, as do most of the young executives. I have no doubt that Australia would be willing to entertain the idea and I hope that she will be asked.
  The people of the New Hebrides are embarking on a difficult voyage and I believe that they are entitled to a bettter launch than they are getting. However, I was much relieved to hear that the Government have asked the leaders of the New Hebrides to come here to try to iron out some of the difficulties which I felt it my duty to set before the House today.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for recognising me twice in succession. Perhaps that is because I am, indeed, larger than the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Only just.
  Mr. Johnston: I can also claim a unique attribute in that I suspect that I shall be the the only Member of the House to speak in the debate on the independence of the New Hebrides who comes from the old Hebrides.
  How the New Hebrides got its name is not clear from history. The journal of Captain Cook from 31 August 1774 recognises the activities of other European explorers in those regions. The journal also notes that Captain Cook's journeys had been more complete than those of the other explorers. It goes on to say about the islands whose future we are now discussing:
  "I think we have obtained the right to name them and shall in future describe them by the name of the New Hebrides."
  There does not seem to be any real connection between Scotland and those islands, much though I would like to establish one.
  It is far enough now to travel from the island of Skye in the Inner Hebrides, where I was brought up, to Santo or Tanna or Porto Vila. In the days of Captain Cook it must have seemed like a journey beyond Mars. I think that it is a comment on the extent of public interest in the fragmented tail of empire and an observation on our lack of any serious responsible commitment to these inheritances of our Imperial past that the only press interest in the independence of the New Hebrides that I could dig up was an article in The Guardian on 21 November 1979 and an article in this week's issue of the magazine Now covering the period 24 February to 4 March. That is all that I have seen in the British press. I may have missed something, but that is not very much. Neither article gave me particular cause for comfort—rather the opposite. I shall return to that in a moment.
  My point is that we are proceeding with this important legislation—important despite an earlier objection by an hon. Member who said that there was not

  691
  much business in the House today, merely the small matter of the New Hebrides—in that this day we are giving up responsibility for the weal of 120,000 people. That is important.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to dispel any misconceptions. I think that I am the only Member of the House who has raised an Adjournment debate on the New Hebrides. If our discussions on one will be happier than I. I certainly this Second Reading last until 10 pm, no do not intend to curtail my remarks. I simply felt that the House was not as packed as it usually is for an occasion of this kind.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is correct. Only 12 hon. Members are in the Chamber. I do not seek to criticise the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, but we should be worried that the House is making a decision on behalf of the New Hebrides when only 12 of us are present. We must be sure that we are making the decision in response to a clear demand, or we must be sure that we are doing right by the people whose traditional mode of life was disrupted by our ancestors. They bequeathed upon them languages, religion, laws and cultural mores which had no previous place in the islands' development. We have a great responsibility for the way in which the islands are now run.
  In pluralist Europe we make great issues of individualism and human rights but we still play the numbers game. I have just returned from Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe. I praise the Government for going to such enormous lengths to ensure that the transition there was as fair as possible. They ensured that if they misjudged or missed anything there were enough people to hone in on, highlight and facilitate their correction.
  But Rhodesia's population is about 6½ million and the country holds a crucial position in Africa. The New Hebrides has a population of only 120,000. Most people do not even know where it is and—this is very important—no one believes that it has special commercial or political significance. What worries me is that we are deciding on an issue about which we know so little. We are acting on advice from the Foreign Office. Usually that
  692
  advice is not bad, but it can be seriously wrong occasionally.
  When I was in Rhodesia I heard Joshua Nkomo speaking at a great rally in Gwelo. He said that people are people, whatever their colour or number, and that they are of like importance. That is worth remembering. I am not sure whether we are doing the right thing. The Bill might be right. I shall not oppose it, but I am not sure.
  I should like to ask the Minister some questions. Is there genuine pressure for independence, or is it a question of Britain and France getting shot of an inconvenience? Normally, when there is genuine pressure for independence protesters go to see Members of Parliament. Nobody has come to see me about the issue. I know that the islands are far away and that the people are not rich. That might be the reason. I should like to know whether there has been genuine pressure for independence.
  Were discussions held about the French system of dealing with its enclaves, because that has been pretty successful and should not be dismissed lightly? Integration with metropolitan France has been achieved in a number of cases. That is not an easy solution when there is simultaneous responsibility, but it should not be impossible. Was there any discussion about the possibility of giving the New Hebrides a dominion-type status with full self-government and with the condominium remaining responsible for defence? That would be a relevant solution.
  Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office does not exclude the possibility of Britain's accepting an ongoing responsibility for its enclaves? Britain has only a few bits and pieces scattered round the globe. Have the Government considered that possibility, if the islanders so wish, as do the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong? Have we had a dialogue with our existing dependencies about that possibility? Have the Government considered the possibility of retaining such a relationship with the New Hebrides?
  Our remaining dependencies tend to be small and fragile. However, they have an integrated concept of themselves. Gibraltar, for example, has such a concept of itself. We should recognise that in terms of human rights. Will the

  693
  Minister make available in the Library a document expressing the Government's schematic thinking and, colony by colony, what they believe should be done with the pieces of land and people over which we retain sovereignty? Is there a general view as opposed to a pragmatic reaction? I do not seek to resist genuine claims for independence. However, as a responsible parent Power with responsibility for small fragile colonies, we should consider whether another option is appropriate.
  Mr. Kershaw: Will the hon. Member explain the similarities between Pitcairn Island and Hong Kong?
  Mr. Johnston: The similarity is that they are British dependencies. However, Pitcairn Island has a population of only about 60, while Hong Kong has a population of about 5 million. They are both British responsibilities. At some stage we must decide what to do about them. It may be easy to give independence to Hong Kong or to give Hong Kong to China. It is more difficult to give independence to the 60 people of Pitcairn Island. However, the responsibility is ours.
  The word "fragile" is relevant. I am an islander from Skye. That island has a larger population than that of Anguilla. We experienced great problems in Anguilla. Islands are economically difficult, but touristically they can be enormously profitable. They can also be strategically crucial, as is Diego Garcia. If they are way out in the sea they can easily be seized. The hon. Member for Crewe mentioned Mr. Jimmy Stevens, and the possible American influence there was also referred to by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). This has also been outlined in Now magazine and in The Guardian. The House would benefit from the Minister's indicating his knowledge of this matter. Is what we have read in the press well founded, or is it not? It is not just a question of Left or Right.
  I am unhappy about what has happened in the Seychelles, where an elected Government were replaced following a coup d'etat. That is a group of islands where the people are educationally undeveloped and it looks as though they will be shaped and moulded by someone who
  694
  has seized power. That is something that we should not wish to see happen in the New Hebrides. Some people suggest that that might happen in Santo.
  I conclude by saying that I am unhappy on an occasion which should be a happy one. My noble Friend Lord McNair has indicated in the other place that we are not by any means convinced that the future of these islands to which we are giving independence is an assured democratic one. We believe that we do not know enough to make a proper judgment. I must honestly say that Lord Trefgarne's speech in the other place was somewhat inadequate, and I do not believe that the Minister's speech was any more illuminating.
  As a Liberal, I am frequently critical of the actions of the press, but I suspect that if the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and The Times had correspondents sitting in the New Hebrides our debate would be of an entirely different character and the Minister's speech would have taken account of that.
  We have been told continuously by the Minister that central authority has been criticised. It seemed that he admitted that in his speech. At the same time, it is strange that we should pass a Bill before we have had discussions to resolve and recognise the difficulties. When I intervened in the Minister's speech, he admitted that that was so. The nature of these difficulties has already been specified, so I shall not repeat them. There are the problems of statute law, the police, and Mr. Stevens. No one has mentioned the Phoenix Foundation, which, according to Now magazine, is behind Mr. Stevens. It might be helpful if the Minister confirmed, denied or commented on whether this is a real criticism. I am not raising this matter because I know anything about it, but as a Member of Parliament I am merely saying that that is the only information that is available to me.
  Now is certainly not a magazine affiliated to the Tribune group, as far as I am aware—no doubt the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) will confirm that in due course—yet it has expressed serious doubts about whether the end result of the passing of the Bill will be democratic.

  695
  I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I wish to register considerable concern, in the absence of information, and I place full responsibility for the Bill with the Government. In saying that, I do not in any way suggest that I do not offer Fr. Lini and the people of the islands my warm support in their future status.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Unlike previous contributors to the debate, I cannot claim to have enjoyed Melanesian hospitality and I have seen neither the New Hebrides nor the old.
  We had a typically Liberal speech from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). He said—I summarise—that he might be right or he might be wrong. He was not sure about the provisions of the Bill, but in a speech of great sincerity and charm, mostly in the interrogative, he came to the conclusion that he did not know enough to make a proper judgment.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: As the hon. Member has never been to the New Hebrides, I am sure that as a Conservative he is fully capable of making a totally convinced judgment.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am. I shall make a judgment about subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1. Before I do so, I should like to add my congratulations to those already given to the people of the New Hebrides. I wish them well in their independence.
  The provisions of this legislation to which I wish to draw attention are rather analogous to those to which I drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State during the Report stage of the Zimbabwe Bill. However, in one important respect the matter we are discussing this afternoon is unique. The condominium status of the New Hebrides is different from that of any other territory to which we have granted independence. Therefore, the citizenship provisions in the Bill are different. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether, first, membership of the francophone association which the people of the New Hebrides will enjoy after independence confers any rights of subject-hood in the way that membership of the British Commonwealth does on Commonwealth nationals.
  696
  There is another matter in the Bill that is of significance. By the passage of the Bill we will confer upon those residents of the New Hebrides who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies—I gather that it is all of them with the exception of about 460—a status they did not previously enjoy. In the independence legislation that has been passed hitherto, we have continued the status that people have enjoyed up to that time.
  I gather that residents of the New Hebrides are British protected persons. In essence, they are stateless, similar to the way in which residents of Kashmir were stateless. However, we have undertaken certain technical obligations in their regard. If residents of the pre-independence New Hebrides were, for example, to reside in Britain, I take it that they would not be able to join the police or the Armed Forces, serve on a jury or vote in the same way as British subjects and Commonwealth nationals are. After the Bill becomes law, because New Hebrideans will become Commonwealth nationals, and, ipso facto, British subjects, they will be able to enjoy those rights. That is something that is totally new in our citizenship law. It is also of great significance.
  This may be almost the last opportunity that I shall have to draw attention to the concepts of British subjecthood as described in the British Nationality Act. British subjecthood, as described in the British Nationality Act 1948, is totally analogous to Commonwealth citizenship. The 1948 Act describes "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" as having the same meaning. That may be so in strictly legal parlance according to the 1948 Act, but surely they do not have exactly the same meaning in terms of the everyday perception in this country of what British subjecthood means. Section 1 of the 1948 Act provides:
  "Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject."
  In every piece of independence legislation that has passed through the House—for example, the Tuvalu Act and now, we hope, the New Hebrides Bill—we have given to people many miles away from these shores, who probably have no

  697
  family connection with this country and who probably have little understanding of our way of life as it is lived in Britain, the right to fulfil certain obligations and privileges in the United Kingdom. For reasons that are based largely on nostalgia, the concept of British subjecthood stems directly from our Imperial legacy. It stems from the day when a citizen of a colony or a dependency of the United Kingdom, wherever it may have been on the globe, could proudly say "Civis Brittanicus sum"—"I have the same rights as any United Kingdom passport holder in the United Kingdom itself." It was a fine and noble concept. However, the reality has been that the independent States that we have created have been proud above all of their independence. That has been their supreme pride. It is not right that for ever we should perpetuate a system that is in essence nostalgic, quasi-Imperial and in no way related to contemporary reality.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he saying that it is all right to be nostalgic if we are British and talking about someone who stands as a colonial subject but that it is wrong to use the fact that we have had responsibility for that State as the basis for giving it a proper status once it has become independent? Is that the basis of his argument? If it is, it seems extraordinarily paternalistic and mildy offensive.
  Mr. Wilkinson: It may offend the hon. Lady, but it is anything but paternalistic. I see no reason in logic why the citizen of an overseas country that is independent and happens to be in the Commonwealth—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Happens to be in the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Wilkinson: Yes. It freely decides to join the Commonwealth. I see no reason why a citizen of that country should have rights and obligations in the United Kingdom that are greater than the rights and obligations of an EEC national. That is a fair basis of comparison. For example, EEC nationals resident in Britain are not able to vote in elections to the Assembly of the European Communities. However, Commonwealth nationals, who probably have no concept of the EEC and who probably may not
  698
  even understand English, can vote by virtue of their Commonwealth citizenship. I do not think that that is appropriate. I do not think that it is right.
  I am seeking to put out a marker for the reform of citizenship which is necessary. British subjecthood should be a function of residence in this country, or close family connection with the United Kingdom, namely, patriality, which is a principle that we have already established in the Immigration Act 1971. As the Under-Secretary of State has said, the Bill has no immigration overtones. Similarly, my speech has no immigration overtones. I am merely seeking to draw to the attention of the House some of the anomalies that exist in British citizenship law, and the Bill has done that very well.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Russell Kerr: I shall make only a brief intervention, for two reasons. First, two of my relatives spent varying times in the area of the New Hebrides, one as a medical administrator and the other as a business man. My two relatives spent about half a dozen years in the area separately. Secondly, although it is true that I have never been to the New Hebrides—I have been to Papua and New Guinea—I believe that I am the only Australian-born Member of the House of Commons. In part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I share that distinction with you as a Commonwealth-born Member.
  It is appropriate that as the New Hebrides is delivered into nationhood there should be a great mass of good will shown towards it explicitly, certainly by the United Kingdom and by the older and, dare I say it, rather richer members of the Commonwealth, such as my own native Australia, which for geographical reasons has a sizeable interest in the new nation.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has reminded us that Australian business men and professionals have had quite a long association with the New Hebrides. It forms part of the Australian consciousness. It will be appropriate if relations between Australia and the new nation become even stronger in the years ahead. The new nation is being launched on to the sea of nationality all on its own. It will need friends and assistance in

  699
  rather more liberal measure than was forthcoming in the past. It is potentially a rich country. If it is properly managed and if the right sort of political and social system is forthcoming, it promises a full and happy life for its inhabitants.
  Perhaps the main reason for my intervention is to emphasise that we are discussing an area of considerable sensitivity. The feature that makes it sensitive in terms of international politics is that over the past 20 years—certainly over the past 10 years—there has been a major Japanese economic incursion into the area. A great many of the bits and pieces of the economic infrastructure of the area have been taken over by the Japanese, who are now Australia's number one customer in both importing and exporting. That is a factor that cannot be dismissed. I am not sure whether I can offer any advice on what the answer is or what it should be. However, it is not something that we as a nation can ignore any more than Australia should be ignoring it.
  I wish to place a warning beacon so that we know what we are doing in future. I hope that we shall walk around that part of the world with our eyes open and avoid stumbling into situations that we may come to regret for political reasons.
  My lighthearted references to Mr. Jimmy Stevens and his political sensitivities were not meant over-seriously. I am not even aware that he is a member of the Australian Labour Party. Perhaps that is even less likely than my earlier references.
  I welcome the new nation. I welcome the Bill because of the help that it is offering to the new nation. I am sure that the residents and natives of the New Hebrides can look forward to a long and fruitful period of co-operation with the essentially generous and liberal-minded people of this country. I wish the new nation every success in future.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to give my good wishes in advance to the newly independent New Hebrides. However, I wish to make one remark about the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). It was an interesting and realistic speech, but it was reminiscent of his former speeches when he represented
  700
  the constituency of Bradford, West. Britain's law on citizenship contains many problems. We have not yet sorted out those problems. However, the fact that a few New Hebrideans might come to Britain and acquire in May the right to vote here is a cause for self-congratulation on the flexibility and liberality of our constitution. It is not a cause for little niggles.
  The Minister referred to three sets of events that have taken place in Santo since the elections as "difficulties". Clearly they are difficulties. However, it has been the Government's custom to describe violence and intimidation as "violence and intimidation" when it occurs in Britain. I recognise how delicate the situation is. However, we should call a spade a spade. On the island of Santo, the Vanuaaku Pati might win a majority. Violence and intimidation might take place afterwards. As a result, many of the citizens of Santo will leave the island. They will be too frightened to return. The Government's representative's house may be occupied. The Government's writ may no longer run in the island for several days. The British representative may be unable to go there. Such events should be described for what they are. They should not be described by such euphemisms as "difficulties".
  There is a problem of policing and of security in the New Hebrides. The conference may take place during the next few weeks. Whatever the result of that conference, there may be problems after independence. It behoves the British and French Governments to leave resources in the hands of the locally elected Government of the New Hebrides. They should ensure that it remains a united country.
  There are difficulties. One difficulty is that of the French connection. It is well known that the forces of intimidation in Santo are connected with French business men on the island. The French have substantial economic interests on Santo. The same difficulties that existed before independence many reappear after independence. If the British feel that they wish to fulfil an obligation, and if they wish to ensure that this newly independent country can survive, they should bear in mind that the French have troops in Noumea, in New Caledonia. They may not be inhibited, as they were in the past,

  701
  from using those troops if French citizens are involved. If troops from Noumea are used to put down troubles in the New Hebrides, it may cause trouble in Paris.
  Britain is not in a position to intervene. Our nearest troops are in Brunei. I do not want the Minister to spell out every contingency plan. I was encouraged by the statement of the two Ministers of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I was also encouraged to some extent by the words of Lord Trefgarne. Fr. Walter Lini deserves a very forthright statement from the Government during the Second Reading debate. The Government should state that this country is committed to the integrity of the New Hebrides. The Government should be prepared to go further and to commit themselves, if that should prove necessary. We have had such assurances before for the period before independence. The Government have said that they will take every necessary measure. That is reassuring.
  We do not know what will happen after independence. It has been pointed out that we shall be asked to give the Bill a Second Reading and to go through the remaining stages of the Bill before the conference takes place. The Minister hopes that the conference will smooth out any difficulties. The conference may not take place at all. It may succeed and it may fail. Should it fail, we must use our best endeavours both before and after independence to ensure that nothing disrupts that country. We must go ahead with our promise to give it independence in May or June of this year. Many preparations have been made and it would be counter-productive to postpone the independence celebrations or procedures. I differ from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on that point.
  The New Hebrides is a difficult country to govern. It is not used to unitary government from Porto Vila. Very powerful economic interests are involved. Several people might be determined to break up that country. Strong connections in terms of air transport and economic links exist with the neighbouring French colony of New Caledonia. Nickel deposits are found there. There is a fifty-fifty balance between French colons and the indigenous
  702
  kanaka. As a result the French have made clear that they will never give New Caledonia its independence, in the same way as it was conceded to the New Hebrides.
  There are powerful people in New Caledonia who have a lot of money to spend. They do not have the best interests of the New Hebrides at heart. That country is trying to do what no other country has ever tried to do, with the exception of Mauritius and the Seychelles, namely, to build a bilingual State. In addition, religious divisions exist. The Minister must speak convincingly if we are to be reassured that events following independence will be given a reasonable guarantee. The Government of the country have few resources.
  My second set of questions concerns the status of the conference that the Minister announced. I am sure that he will agree that it is unthinkable for that conference to reopen the constitutional conference. That should be made absolutely clear. The constitutional conference has taken place, the parties have signed their agreement and free and fair elections have taken place. They did not get as much publicity as the other free and fair elections, but they were free and fair, and the British and French authorities agreed to respect them. One group and one group only are still disputing them.
  If only one group disputes a set of elections, it is not normal to haul everyone over to London for a second constitutional conference. I accept the Minister's statement that Fr. Walter Lini hopes to settle these matters in the Melanesian way, and I discussed that with him when he was last in London. If they are to be settled in the Melanesian way, I would expect it to be done on the spot.
  If the conference takes place, I hope that it will in no way be seen as undermining Fr. Walter Lini's authority, which has been bestowed on him by free and fair elections in the New Hebrides. I should like that reassurance from the Minister.
  Is it expected that Jimmy Stevens will come to the conference? The Minister did not say that in as many words. If he is, it will provide a colourful sight at Heathrow. We may waive some of our passport restrictions. I doubt whether he will receive the treatment that some of

  703
  my constituents get when they arrive at Heathrow. If he comes, I hope that the Government will get their protocol right. They should not equate an individual who has gone through a series of democratic elections and lost with a Prime Minister who has gone through them and won. It is important to get that straight.
  I have qualms over whether bringing the parties to London is the right approach that will lead to the best result. The Government have decided to issue invitations, although I understand that there has not yet been a response.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he say something about the integrity of the New Hebrides? The subject occurs again and again in these circumstances. It occurred over Bermuda and Banaba, and we have had secession arguments over many other places. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the condominium concept of the New Hebrides is valid?
  Mr. Price: I believe that it is as valid as any other. The most appalling bequest from the West to the Third world is that its peoples should live within accidental geographical areas which originally had no meaning. Nowhere is that more true than in the Pacific Ocean.
  We agreed to let the Gilbert and Ellice Islands split up into Kiribati and Tuvalu. It would have been unreasonable to force one island full of Micronesian people and the other full of Polynesian people to form the same community, especially when they were thousands of miles apart.
  In the New Hebrides the people are broadly Melanesian. They have probably been less susceptible to Western democracy, law and general customs than many other communities. That may be one of the problems. Looking at the map of the New Hebrides, at first sight they do not appear to be an easy group of islands to run from Porto Vila.
  The only hope for the world with regard to international affairs and law is to stick to the territorial integrity of former colonial countries, whatever absurdities and idiocies are produced. One day it may be possible to have greater rationalisation. The only way for decolonisation to proceed has been on that prin-
  704
  ciple. I suspect that that must happen in the New Hebrides, but the people need help and reassurance that they are not being undermined. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness that it will not be an easy task.
  Finally, I realise that in the constitution the new Government will have the right to take control, with compensation, if necessary, of land in the New Hebrides.
  In replying to my Adjournment debate on 7 December, the Minister said:
  "The constitution provides that all land in the Republic will belong to the indigenous custom owners and their dependants. It requires that Parliament shall enact a national land law. It goes on to say that Parliament shall prescribe such criteria as it deems appropriate for the assessment of compensation and the manner of its payment to those persons whose interests are adversely affected."—[Official Report, 7 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 883.]
  That is splendid as far as it goes. I am sure that the new Government, after independence, will take steps to make sure that they have control over the use to which land is put.
  However, I was disturbed when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to me on a matter that he had been unable to deal with in the debate, with regard to land in the New Hebrides owned by Americans connected with the Phoenix Foundation. He said:
  "I understand that a total of 5,008·5 hectares"—
  I cannot work that out, but I understand that it is quite a lot—
  "of land on the islands of Gaua (Banks Group), Malekula and Pentecost is at present owned by Americans directly connected with the Foundation. Title to a further 3,498·5 hectares of land—most of it on Santo—is held by an American who is suspected of being involved"—
  that is, with the Phoenix Foundation—
  "but whose precise relationship with the Foundation is not clear. This particular area of land has been sub-divided into 283 plots, title of which has been registered to other individuals, including some Americans."
  After independence there will be a frail Government with tiny resources, who will be trying to take control, with compensation agreed in the constitution, of land allegedly owned by some dubious Americans. Anyone who knows about the history of the New Hebrides understands that the role of the British and French

  705
  in dividing up land over the past 100 years has been dubious.
  I fear that although the constitution is splendid and gives the new Government the right to take control of land and use it in the interests of the people, which I am sure they know best about, it is doubtful whether they will have the powed to do that, considering some of the interests that they may be up against.
  I ask the Minister to make it clear that if there are any attempts—whether direct or through economic pressure, or in any other way—to put pressure on the new Government of the New Hebrides they will have the full support of the British Government in resisting those attempts and running the New Hebrides as they think it should be run. I am pleased that the Bill provides for the New Hebrides to become a member of the Commonwealth. That is some sort of earnest of the help that we may be able to give. I am also pleased that the New Hebrides will become a member of the Lomé convention. That is also an earnest of the support that we shall give.
  The decision of the United Kingdom over the past 15 years—a decision that has been accelerated over the last five or six years—to grant independence to a number of tiny island States in the Pacific is right, but we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that it puts them into strategic positions. It could place them in great difficulties.
  In a sense, the French have recognised that by saying that they will stay in Polynesia and Caledonia for the foreseeable future. We are giving independence, but we are really relying on our friends in Australia, New Zealand and even Japan to make sure that those States are able to develop as genuinely independent mini-States rather than as neo-colonialist dependants of other Powers. The more the Minister can say that we are committed to their genuine interests and to letting the New Hebrideans run their country as they think fit, the greater the reassurance will be to Fr. Walter Lini and his colleagues. I am sure that the whole House wishes them well when the New Hebrides becomes independent.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, should like to answer at least some, if
  706
  not most, of the many points that have been raised.
  I was somewhat taken aback by the response to my speech. I had thought that the House would find it rather long, but many hon. Members thought that I had not been full enough in my explanation not only of the history but of the present situation in the New Hebrides.
  It is remarkable that we are debating a country that is a long way from here, in the Pacific. It is a country that many people—this is no offence to the people of the New Hebrides—do not know very much about, and yet there are Members from all parties who have spoken with expert knowledge of that part of the world. That is one of the extraordinary things about this House. In a debate on almost anything under the sun, there is always someone who knows something about the problem. It should be a source of comfort to the people of the New Hebrides that some hon. Members know a lot about their country.
  The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has left the Chamber. It is rare to hear him speak, and it is very rare that I agree with what he says. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke about the progress towards independence for the New Hebrides and I should like to reaffirm, on behalf of the Government, that Great Britain and our other friends in the Commonwealth, notably Australia, will demonstrate a real and continuing interest in the future of the New Hebrides. We, along with the French, shall continue to do that after independence.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) knows a great deal about the New Hebrides, and I listened to his speech with care. I stress to him that the British and French Governments are totally committed to the agreements that were reached last autumn in Vila about the constitution and the agreement to proceed towards independence between May and June of 1980. We are totally committed to that, as are the French Government, and we owe it to our friends and to the Government in the New Hebrides to ensure that we proceed along those lines.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested that I was not calling a spade a spade when I spoke about the island of Santo. I was not seeking to exaggerate

  707
  the problem. I do not think that it should be exaggerated. Of course, there has been some intimidation, and there is—I say this in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw)—a small police force there, but they have not had to use force. Order has been maintained, and there has been no bloodshed. I was deliberately seeking not to exaggerate the problem. I was simply seeking to inform the House that there are some outstanding differences of opinion between some members of the Custom movement and the central Government.
  Although we are fully committed to proceed with the agreement, we felt that it was our duty with the French as the join Powers responsible to act as a sort of lubricant machinery to try to smooth over any of the outstanding difficulties between now and the date that is shortly to be chosen for independence. I stress again that we are fully committed to everything that was agreed last autumn between all the parties and with the French. There is no question of reopening the issue.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked some important questions about matters that I did not touch on in my speech, and I am grateful to her for asking them. She touched on the question of economic assistance, which is an important issue. We already give a considerable sum of aid to the New Hebrides. It is one of the highest in the world, per capita, and it has been at the rate of about £6 million a year—which is a large sum for a population of 120,000. An aid team has recently visited the New Hebrides and made an assessment. We shall be ready to discuss with the Chief Minister when he visits Britain at the end of the month the future aid programme after independence. We shall be as forthcoming as possible.
  The hon. Member for Crewe also asked about the ACP. As a dependency up to now, the New Hebrides has received benefits from the European development fund. On independence, it will be entitled to full membership of the Lomé convention. I am sure that it will receive benefits from that.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: One thing that occurs to me is that there is a marked
  708
  difference within the ACP between countries that are ex-francophone and those that are ex-anglophone in the way that they negotiate trade arrangements with the EEC. It is noticeable that where countries are still regarded as part of metropolitan France they have a special relationship with the Community, and in some instances they get much better terms than do ex-anglophone countries. Is the Minister satisfied that the New Hebrides will benefit to the fullest extent? It is just possible that it might be losing a positive advantage.
  Mr. Luce: In these circumstances, we have the unique situation of condominium—that is, joint responsibility between France and Britain. If there is any truth in what the hon. Lady says, the New Hebrides will have the benefit of both the British and French Governments taking a keen negotiating interest on its behalf within the Community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has visited the New Hebrides and knows a great deal about that part of the world. He asked one or two questions. On the security side, the police forces will be amalgamated. They will pledge loyalty to the new Government in the same way as other services which will be amalgamated. After independence it will be up to the new Government in the same way if they wish, and we shall consider any requests from them. Some of the British expatriates serving in the police force and other services in the New Hebrides may wish to continue giving service. We shall continue to take a keen interest in all these aspects.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the law. We are now in the process of seeking a unified criminal code, which is being prepared, and British experts are also preparing a unified civil and commercial code. There will be a single system of courts, and the British and French courts will cease to exist.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has a great interest in citizenship. I shall not get too involved in this question, as we could spend a long time discussing it. My hon. Friend is a considerable expert and he knows that the Government are pledged to reform the nationality law. That will provide him with the opportunity to put his points across.

  709
  I apologise to my hon. Friend because, when he intervened earlier, I misled him slightly on the question of citizenship in the New Hebrides. There is an indigenous New Hebridean population which consists of 112,000 of the total of 120,000 people living there. At present they are technically stateless, although they carry special travel documents when travelling abroad, enabling them to call on the British and French authorities for protection if that is necessary. Under the independence constitution they will acquire New Hebridean citizenship on independence.
  There are about 5,000 French citizens living in the New Hebrides, 1,500 Australians, New Zealanders and citizens of other independent Commonwealth countries and 460 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The Bill provides for them to continue as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
  The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) raised a number of points, some of which have been partly answered. He asked whether there was genuine pressure or desire for independence. I confirm that there is and that there has been for some time. That desire led to the setting up in 1978 of a constitutional committee of all parties to examine the constitution on the basis that all parties wanted independence and were committed to it. This led to the two main parties working together for a common constitution. At that stage there was a Government of national unity, which demonstrated the common desire to proceed in this direction.
  The hon. Member also asked whether other options had been considered. The answer is "Yes". It was open to the
  710
  parties concerned to consider union with France. The Government party, which is the anglophone party, represents 55 per cent. of the population. However, these arrangements for independence were the wish of the two main parties, so there is no problem there.
  The hon. Member ended up on the broader issue of British Government policy on dependencies. I do not think that it would be right for me to make a long comment about the future of our remaining dependencies, save to note that whichever Government have been in office—Labour or Conservative—have adopted a pragmatic approach to each situation—Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands and Belize. In this unusual case we have done just that, in close co-operation with the French. In fact, throughout all the stages we have worked extremely closely with the French Government.
  Both Governments are committed to the agreement to proceed towards independence. We intend that independence should come about in May and hope that the facilities that we have offered to enable outstanding differences of opinion—which are not very great—to be resolved will bring about that resolution in the next few weeks. We hope that the country will then proceed to independence, and I am glad that, to judge from the speeches we have heard tonight. all hon. Members wish the people of the New Hebrides well in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  CONSULAR FEES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.56 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill before us is a simple one, with a modest objective—to facilitate the most economical allocation of duties among the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Diplomatic Service and to ensure that where such duties attract a consular fee we have the power to levy it.
  The levying of fees for the performance of consular services requested by the public was introduced by the Consular Salaries and Fees Act 1891. At that time, and right up to the Second World War, the Consular Service was separate and distinct from the Diplomatic Service. The post-war period, however, has seen the absorption of all our official overseas representation into one body, the Diplomatic Service, and the parent Departments into one Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The fee-bearing functions that were formerly the prerogative of consular officers alone are now carried out by members of the Diplomatic Service and other staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both in the United Kingdom and at our posts abroad. The issue of passports and visas has assumed a volume and revenue-earned importance unimagined in 1891. While these functions are recognised by the Vienna convention on consular relations as relating to consular officers, there is, of course, no requirement to confine their performance to officials bearing consular titles. However, legislation as it stands at present confines the power to charge the relevant fees to consular officers alone.
  Much has been done in recent years to reduce the size of the Diplomatic Service, streamline its activities and make the best use of its resources by introducing greater flexibility. We have, for example, introduced the concept of "small missions", which are mini-embassies consisting of two or three officers with the strictly limited role of supporting our essential interests as economically as possible.
  712
  Nevertheless, these missions have to be prepared, from time to time, to perform certain unavoidable consular duties. Yet to confer on them a formal, and therefore unrestricted, consular role would represent a dissipation of resources which ought to be concentrated on more essential tasks. On the other hand, for such missions not to be able to charge the appropriate consular fee when they have provided a consular service would be illogical and involve a loss to public funds. The Bill will close this gap by ensuring that the fee derives from the function and not from the designation of the official who performs it.
  The application of this principle will also remedy a deficiency in the existing legislation in so far as the operations of the British passport agency in Belfast are concerned. The Bill will make it clear that the power of that agency to levy fees for issuing passports rests on the same basis as that of the parent passport office in London.
  Our purpose is to update and rationalise the earlier legislation. At the same time, we wish to preserve those provisions of the legislation that remain appropriate to present circumstances.
  I should like to explain briefly in general terms the purpose of each of the two clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 is the substantive one. Subsection (1) of the clause gives powers to prescribe by Order in Council the fees to be levied by persons exercising consular functions or, within the United Kingdom, functions which correspond with consular functions.
  Subsection (2) defines what is meant by consular functions by reference to article 5 of the Vienna convention on consular relations, which is set out in schedule 1 to the Consular Relations Act 1968.
  Subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make regulations governing matters such as the levying and handling of fees.
  Subsection (4) states that tables of the fees, or extracts from them, are to be exhibited in any office where fees are taken.
  Subsection (5) repeals earlier legislation that is replaced by the Bill and makes necessary amendments to other legislation.
  Clause 2 simply gives the short title of the Bill.

  713
  The House may like to know how we decide the level of fees. In 1970 the Conservative Government decided that fees should be set at a level that would in due course cover the cost of our consular services. This was in line with the policy of the Government of the day that certain services to the public that attracted a charge should be made self-financing. In this case, the decision meant that the cost of the passport offices in this country, public departments in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dealing with consular, nationality and related matters, and the consular work of 150 or so of our overseas posts had to be paid for. An initial target was set of 80 per cent. recovery of overall expenditure.
  In 1977 the previous Labour Government decided to increase fees further to achieve 100 per cent. recovery. As a result, for example, the passport fee was raised from £8 to £10, and other fees were similarly increased. The Government introduced further increases in March 1978, so that the passport fee now stands at £11.
  It is the present Government's intention to maintain this balance. With the buffeting that we constantly receive from escalating costs and variable rates of exchange, this balancing act requires the utmost economy in our consular operations if we are to keep the level of fees steady. We have had a fair measure of success, largely owing to the buoyancy in demand for new passports. That is why there has been no increase in fees since March 1978. Of how many commodities and services can one say that much?
  I can recommend the Bill as the good housekeeping measure that it is intended to be. It entails no extra staff and no extra expenditure. Indeed, by ironing out a minor difficulty, it helps to smooth one area of our operations and should result in a marginal economy.
  6.3 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Once upon a time, the carrying of a British passport was regarded as a right and not as something given to us as a God-given gift by Governments provided that we were prepared to pay a certain amount of money for it. I should like the Minister to confirm that no decision has been taken so far to change the existing British passport. Those who
  714
  travel a great deal regard it as essential that our existing passport documents should have proper covers. We do not regard suggestions that the passport should be printed in imperial purple as an advance.
  Passport documents, given the increasing shrinkage of the world in terms of travel, should simply be a clear statement of the right to travel from one country to another. I hope that at some stage we shall return to that state and avoid the innumerable difficulties that now appear to be put in the path of British citizens. I regard as wholly reprehensible the splitting into different categories and the compartmentalisation, if I may use an appalling word, of British citizens into groupings.
  The Minister, in moving the Bill, suggests that the whole point of consular fees is that they should equal, as far as possible, outgoings in regard to the Consular Service. The hon. Gentleman says that the Consular Service was originally separate from the Foreign Office. Some of us regard with disfavour the suggestions that the number of consular services should be cut down. There was a great deal of ill feeling in various countries when it was suggested that consular services should be consolidated into large embassies. I hope that the Foreign Office will not progress gaily along the path of centralisation without consulting areas where there have been consulates.
  Gothenburg is a case that springs instantly to mind. A great deal of work was done by the consulate there, not only in the economic sphere but specifically in commercial work of tremendous importance to this country. If that was true of Gothenburg, it is undoubtedly true of a number of consulates elsewhere. If the Minister is looking for means of balancing fees, he should be sure that his sums are correct and that he is balancing them in a way that will enable us to keep as many consulates as possible in areas where they are useful. I say "useful" in the sense of commerce as well as providing services to citizens.
  The Bill, as the Minister says, amends several existing Acts, including section 20 of the Foreign Marriage Act 1892 and the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906. I examined both pieces of legislation, as they obviously had some specific effect. It is interesting that although both relate

  715
  to the marriage abroad of British citizens and subjects to foreigners, nowhere do they actually say "male" British citizens. There is no suggestion in those Acts that only male Britons should have certain rights in relation to marriage to foreigners. Both these Acts are different from existing legislation that the present Conservative Government are trotting out. The Conservative Government have no doubts about the matter. They know that women are inferior and intend that this should be enshrined in legislation.
  This has happened despite the fact that in previous years the House of Commons actually passed without a Division a little Bill, introduced by my now ennobled Friend Lady Jeger, that provided that British women should have the same rights as British males in relation to foreign citizens. That has been conveniently forgotten. The wording of the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906 is of use only in that it gave permission to charge more money for consular functions. It is not of interest in saying that any British subject who desires to be married in a foreign country to a foreigner may, if I can paraphrase, have that right provided that he or she has complied with certain straightforward rules on identification and status.
  How things have changed. It is simple when talking about money. One can always find a way of bringing a simple Bill before the House. When talking about the rights of the female Briton as opposed to the male Briton, one is talking of two different subjects.
  I welcome the Bill in respect of the fact that if we are to have efficient consular functions they should be paid for, but I do not welcome it inasmuch as I do not see any demonstration that the Government have thought about the implications of cutting down the number of consulates. I certainly do not welcome it because it repeals those parts of existing Acts which, however they were framed in the past, had one basic understanding, which was that British subjects, even if they wished to marry foreigners, were still British subjects whether they were male or female. Even though the first of those two Acts dates from 1891, they were both way ahead of the present Government. I only wish that we could
  716
  say that such a degree of enlightenment existed in Whitehall today.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: It is a little odd that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) should attack the Conservative Government so strongly for their denigration of the female sex, because, after all, we have elected a female as leader of our party.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that that right hon. Lady has absolutely no time for women's rights and that she is doing her best to destroy them?
  Mr. Kershaw: I do not recognise that description at all. Anyway, I think that there is one ladies' right for which she stands up extremely well.
  I should like to ask several questions of my hon. Friend. He said that the fees were increased again in 1978 in order to cover extra costs. As, presumably, we do not seek to make a profit from consular fees, I take it that they were increased in order to achieve 100 per cent. cover. If that occurred in 1978, is it likely that the fees will have to be increased again because of inflation?
  I echo what the hon. Lady said about passports. There was a sinister plot—I do not think that it emanated from the Foreign Office, but it slipped through without the Department looking too hard at it—to give us a horrible bit of pasteboard because that could fit into a computer machine. I hope that we shall have no nonsense such as that. We like our stiff, awkward passports, which are less easy to forge, and so on. I very much hope that they will be retained.
  I do not find it unacceptable that people who want passports should be asked to pay something for them. It may be desirable to go everywhere without passports, but if we want a passport for the conveniences that are attached to it we ought to be prepared to pay. Furthermore, it is almost the only revenue that the Consular Service receives.
  The Consular Service sometimes does other quite agreeable things, such as enabling one to get married. Very often, one pays for that on the dot and, no doubt, in future years. But consuls often have to remedy disasters, such as

  717
  the personal disasters of tourists and others. I very much hope that in looking at the fees my hon. Friend will try to temper the wind to the shorn lamb in such casts. Is he able to give any progress report about distressed British subjects? Do they cost a lot? Do they increasingly repay the travel money that they receive, or does that occur less and less often? What is the cost, each year, of repatriating people who deliberately run out of money when they are abroad?
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to reply briefly to some of the points that have been made. I do not wish to respond to the attack by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) that it is the Conservative Party's view that all women are inferior. I would not dream of making such a remark, especially when my wife reads Hansard with great care. The foreign marriage Acts do not make any distinction between males and females; they apply equally to both sexes.
  Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) raised related questions about the fees for the service and the cuts in consular services. The Government believe that the Consular Service should play its part in the objective of reducing the size of the Civil Service. We think that it would be quite wrong to exclude the Consular Service from that.
  The hon. Lady mentioned Gothenburg. The consulate there has not been closed: rather, it has been reduced in size. But it is true that certain consulates in other regions have been closed. That is simply part of the overall objective, as part of the public expenditure exercise, of making our contribution to the cut in size of the Civil Service.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that there used to be something called the European Integration Unit in the Foreign Office. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that we are now fully integrated into Europe, and could not some of those units be got rid of first?
  Mr. Luce: It is not just the Consular Service that has been cut in a small way. Every aspect of the Department has been
  718
  examined very carefully, and we are playing our part in every area.
  My hon. Friend asked about fees. He asked whether, because of inflation, it was likely that the fees—particularly the £11 for a passport, and the other fees for the various services that consulates provide—would be likely to rise. As I implied in my opening speech, the demand for passports is increasing at a tremendous rate. Last year there were 1·8 million applicants for passports, and all the evidence this year suggests that the demand is increasing at a considerable rate. Fortunately, because of that it is not necessary at the present time to consider the need for an increase in the cost of a passport. As I said earlier, the cost has remained static since March 1978, and it would be refreshing if we could keep it that way for as long as possible.
  My hon. Friend also asked about distressed British subjects. I shall give him a detailed answer, but perhaps he will allow me to do so by letter. From the evidence that I have received and from my responsibilities in this regard, I can tell him that we have a duty to help those abroad who are in distress, to bring them home and to seek to recover the money from them over a period of time.
  So far as I am aware—I shall seek to confirm it—there is no evidence of any great increase in the number of people who apply for that assistance and who are repatriated if they satisfy the criteria. I cannot give the cost of that service at present, but I shall seek to give my hon. Friend a proper answer by letter.
  With those few remarks, I hope that the House will be satisfied with this small Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Cope.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third lime and passed.

  POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.20 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies report on the police negotiating machinery—Cmnd. 7283—which was presented to Parliament in July 1978. It is not a long Bill, and its effects will not be far-reaching. It is nevertheless an important Bill, since it will establish on a statutory basis the negotiating machinery that is essential to the long-term health of the police service.
  Perhaps I might remind the House of the background to the Edmund-Davies report. For over 60 years—since 1919—police pay has been determined by the Secretary of State, who promulgates the rates of pay in police regulations. This is an essential feature of the Secretary of State's responsibility for ensuring the efficiency of the police service. Throughout this period there has been a national body, in one form or another, comprising representatives of the Secretary of State, police authorities and the police staff associations, set up for the purpose of considering the pay and conditions of service of members of the police service. Each successive body has borne the title of Police Council.
  At first, there were separate Police Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland, and their role was to advise the Secretary of State in the exercise of his responsibilities. Under the Police Act 1964, a single Police Council for Great Britain was established to negotiate pay and conditions of service. At the same time another statutory body, the Police Advisory Board, was set up to advise the Secretary of State on consultative matters affecting the police service. In 1969, the Police Council was expanded to embrace Northern Ireland and became the Police Council for the United Kingdom.
  Section 4 of the Police Act 1969 defined the task of the Police Council for the United Kingdom as
  "the consideration … of questions relating to hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, or the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements."
  720
  The Police Council accordingly dealt with all matters that were dealt with by negotiation affecting the police service, together with matters affecting police pensions. Under the 1969 Act the Secretary of State was required, before making regulations on pay or conditions of service, to take into account any recommendation made by the council. In practice, the procedure was normally for amending regulations to be produced to give effect to agreements reached by the council; changes in the regulations were rarely put forward by the Secretary of State.
  In July 1976 a dispute over the pay settlement due under the pay policy prevailing at that time came to a head when the Police Federations for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland walked out of the Police Council and announced that in future they would negotiate only with the Secretary of State. At the same time, they declared that they would not be prepared to take part in the work of other national police bodies, such as the Police Advisory Board. They would be prepared to resume their former policy of co-operation only after more suitable negotiating machinery had been established. Since the Police Federations represent the vast majority of police officers—all those below the rank of superintendent—the Police Council ceased to be effective and the work of the other national police bodies was similarly affected.
  For the next 12 months, morale in the police service was at a very low ebb. All ranks of the police service felt—with justification—that they were underpaid and undervalued. They considered it totally unjust that at a time when the police were assuming increased responsibilities, coping with increasing demands and being exposed to increasing stresses —including the risk of serious injury—many constables were finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Pay was at the root of the problem, but their sense of frustration was increased by the fact that they could see no redress for their grievances unless they were given new negotiating machinery which would command the full confidence of the police service. Like members of the Armed Forces, the police officer has no right to press for improved pay or conditions of service by withdrawing his labour. If he

  721
  is dissatisfied with his conditions, he has just two options: to seek improvements through the statutory negotiating machinery or to resign.
  In a situation where the negotiating machinery had broken down, increasing numbers of policemen felt that they were, in fact, left with only one option; they took it and resigned. At no other period in police history has there been such a severe wastage of experienced officers through resignation, and there were just two underlying causes—dissatisfaction with pay and dissatisfaction with the negotiating machinery. Others felt that the only way of achieving a fair rate of pay was by industrial action, and at the Police Federation's annual conference in May 1977 a resolution calling for the police to be given the right to strike was endorsed by an overwhelming majority. It was against this background that the Edmund-Davies committee was appointed in August 1977 to review the police negotiating machinery and make recommendations. Four months later, its terms of reference were extended to include the issue of police pay.
  The debt that we owe to the committee has been widely acknowledged. It is difficult to think of any report that has been welcomed as unreservedly and with as great a degree of unanimity as the Edmund-Davies report on police pay. This was a well-earned tribute not only to the immense amount of work that the committee put into its demanding task but to the judgment that it displayed in formulating its recommendations. I think, too, that it reflected the esteem with which the police service is regarded very generally and served as an acknowledgment that the high standards that we rightly demand of our police officers must be reflected in adequate rates of pay.
  The implementation of the committee's report on police pay completely reversed the trend during the two years preceding its publication. Between the end of 1976 and the publication of the committee's report in July 1978, the strength of the police service in England and Wales decreased by nearly 1,700. Most forces were under strength, some of them seriously so. Between July 1978 and the end of November 1979, the strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by about 5,500, to an all-time record of over 113,000. Recruitment is
  722
  now running at 40 per cent. above the rates for the 12 months ended 30 September 1978, while wastage is now about 35 per cent. below the rate for that period.
  The present state of police morale is high. We want to keep it that way, but if we are to do so we need to get the negotiating machinery right. That is why the Edmund-Davies report on the police negotiating machinery—which went largely unnoticed when it was published in the same volume as the committee's report on pay—is so important. In general, the committee endorsed the overall shape of the existing negotiating machinery. It recommended that the new negotiating body, like the Police Council, should comprise an official side and a staff side. It thought it right that representatives of the local authority associations should, with representatives of the Home Departments, form the official side, since police forces are maintained by the local police authorities. It did, however, recommend three important changes.
  The first change was that the new negotiating body should have an independent chairman and one or more deputy chairmen, appointed by the Prime Minister. This genuinely independent voice would not only provide continuity but might serve to help in bringing the two sides to agreement.
  The second change was that the new body should have an independent secretariat. This would serve to ensure that suitable research facilities were available to both sides and so would overcome the disparities between the experience and expertise available to the official side and the more limited resources at the disposal of the staff side.
  The third change was that one-third of the local authority representatives on the official side should be magistrates. This would ensure that the new negotiating body reflected the composition of police authorities, which are composed of two-thirds elected members and one-third independent magistrates.
  The Edmund-Davies report recommended that legislation should be introduced as soon as parliamentary time could be found to give statutory effect to the new body; meanwhile, it should operate on a non-statutory basis. The new body, known as the Police Negotiating Board, was established after wide-ranging consultations with all the

  723
  interested parties in July 1979. The chairman is Lord Plowden, who was a most appropriate choice, not only because his qualities of judgment and impartiality made him acceptable to all parties but because he was a prominent member of the Edmund-Davies committee. The effect of the Bill will be to complete the committee's work on the negotiating machinery by implementing the recommendation that the new body should be established on a statutory basis.
  I turn now to the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the establishment of the Police Negotiating Board. Subsection (1) provides that it is to be composed of representatives of the police authorities and the police staff associations and that it is to consider such matters as police pay, allowances, pensions and conditions of service. Subsections (2) and (3) leave the detailed arrangements for the establishment of the board—that is, the board's constitution—to be made after consultations between the Secretary of State and the bodies represented on the board but require the chairman and any deputy chairmen to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State power to defray any expenses incurred by the board and to pay the chairman and deputy chairmen such fees as he may determine, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Subsection (5) provides that on the establishment of the board the Police Council for the United Kingdom shall cease to exist.
  Clause 2 confers certain statutory functions on the board. Subsections (1) and (3) require the Secretary of State, before making regulations about matters with which the board is concerned, to have regard to any recommendation made by the board and to furnish the board with a draft of the regulations. As under existing legislation, this requirement does not apply to pensions matters, in respect of which the Secretary of State is merely required to consult the board before making regulations. Subsection (2) requires the board's constitution to include suitable arrangements for reaching agreement on recommendations to the Secretary of State and for the reference of any dispute to arbitration.
  724
  Clause 3 deals with repeals and the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill.
  Perhaps I might comment briefly on two of the more important Edmund-Davies recommendations that are not reflected in the Bill itself. The first is the recommendation that the new negotiating body should have an independent secretariat. As the explanatory and financial memorandum indicates, the independent secretariat will be provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. This has been agreed by all the interested parties during the extensive consultations which have preceded the establishment of the Police Negotiating Board on a non-statutory basis. But it seems right that formally the arrangements for the independent secretariat should be set out in the constitution of the board, which is to be drawn up through the consultations required under Clause 1(3), rather than through specific provision on the face of the Bill itself. That is the reason why the independent secretariat is not mentioned in the Bill. I can assure the House that there is no disagreement about the Edmund-Davies recommendation for the independent secretariat.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has said what he has. Of course, he is entirely right. The independent secretariat is running, is doing a good job and has already been taken care of by the consequential arrangements under the clause that now retrospectively acknowledges its existence.
  Mr. Britton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in view of his particular position, for confirming what I have said.
  The recommendation that one-third of the local authority representatives on the official side of the new negotiating body should be magistrates is a matter that I should deal with. The local authority associations were initially opposed to this recommendation, but in the consultations preceding the setting up of the board on a non-statutory basis they agreed to implement it. As with the question of the independent secretariat, it is appropriate to leave the arrangements giving effect to this recommendation to the consultations required under clause 1(3).
  Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister has twice said that one-third of the official side—the representatives of the police authorities—would be magistrates. Just to get the record straight, would he qualify that by saying that that refers to the representatives of the police authorities in England and Wales and not in the whole of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Britian: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  As I said earlier, this is a short Bill and, I hope, a non-controversial one. It is, nevertheless, very important for the long-term health of the police service, and for this reason I commend it to the House.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. George Cunningham: The main lines of this Bill are uncontroversial both in content and in origin. The committee to which the Minister of State referred was established by my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary and the present Government have inherited its recommendations and are implementing them, as the former Labour Government would have done.
  From this side of the House, too, I want to pay tribute to the committee for its valuable work and above all to Lord Edmund-Davies, the chairman appointed by my right hon. Friend. Committees of inquiry can be good or bad, but they are rarely a rapid means of disposing of a problem. In this case the speed of the work was as much to be commended as its quality, for the police service was passing through a crisis at that time and rapid decisions were needed.
  But another tribute is due, and perhaps as someone who was not a member of the Labour Administration I can be permitted to pay it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) had the bad luck to be Home Secretary at a time when the pay policy which was such a vital part of our campaign—our successful campaign—to get inflation down and keep it down made it difficult to do for the police what everyone would otherwise certainly have wanted to do. The problems with the police in 1966 and 1967 were caused by pay policy, but that pay policy worked. It got inflation down
  726
  to levels that make today's level look quite South American by comparison.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South deserved understanding then, and deserves thanks now, for having been the man in the middle who could not escape causing resentment from that fact. He got more kicks than ha'pence for his trouble at the time, not least from the then Opposition. If that situation existed today, and if that negotiating machinery existed today, the local authority representatives on the negotiating machinery would find it a great deal more difficult to cope, with the rigid restrictions on local authority expenditure which the present Government have imposed.
  The police service has emerged from that unhappy period. The recommendations on pay made by the Edmund-Davies committee set up by my right hon. Friend have had a dramatic effect on recruitment, as the Minister said. Wastage is down by 30 to 40 per cent. and recruitment is up by 30 to 40 per cent.
  This Bill, on the surface, deals with rather technical and detailed arrangements for negotiating police pay, but behind it lies a more fundamental question of the status of the police in relation to local and national government. We should address ourselves to that fundamental issue in the course of this debate, at least to some extent. It was, after all, the feeling of some of the Police Federations that they should negotiate with the national Government, not with local government, which led to the walk-out about three years ago, and the new arrangements provided for in the Bill to some extent reflect that preference.
  I want to deal first with the machinery proposed in the Bill. One problem that we have in doing so is that to a great extent this is an enabling measure. We cannot find in the clauses an account of just who will compose the official side of the board. The chairman and the deputy chairman will be persons appointed by the Prime Minister. We already know that Lord Plowden will be the chairman, as he is of the non-statutory board now, and we know the intentions as to the rough composition of the board as set out in the Edmund-Davies report, but we should have from the Minister tonight a better indication than we have had either at this stage or in the discussions in the House of

  727
  Lords. After all, the board has been operating on a non-statutory basis since last July. The composition of that unofficial board is no secret. It is right that the Minister should give an account of it in the debate and say whether he intends to make changes when the board takes on statutory respectability with the passage of the Bill.
  The Edmund-Davies report made three recommendations on the board: that there should be an independent chairman and deputy chairman or chairmen; that there should be an independent secretariat; and that one-third of the local authority representatives from England and Wales should be magistrates. When I intervened in the Ministers' speech, he acknowledged that I had intervened but did not confirm that my intervention stated the truth. I think that it does.
  The first two of those recommendations about the chairman and the secretariat have commanded general assent. The old arrangement of alterating chairmen was unsatisfactory in two respects. It deprived the council of continuity of leadership, and it put the chairman of the day in the impossible position of representing one side in the council and having also to try to hold the ring between the two sides.
  Then there is the innovation of an independent secretariat replacing the secretariat drawn from the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board. This change was supported by the staff associations because they felt that the LACSAB people were too close to local authority interests and not close enough to the particular conditions and needs of police work. The new secretariat drawn from the Office of Manpower Economics will not only remove fears of partiality but bring to the deliberations of the board an expertise in areas more appropriate to police work.
  The presence of magistrates on the board has been a more controversial issue and the local authorities have been brought round to it with greater reluctance. Lord Edmund—Davies's committee was emphatic in its recommendation on the point, however, and the Opposition accept it, although some of the reasons for it as stated in the report are a little odd.
  728
  I read from paragraph 53 of the report:
  "While we appreciate the difficulties, we see as of overriding importance the need to create a clearly identifiable 'employer figure' for the police. Since the roles of central and local Government are perhaps rather vague, we consider it would be of benefit to have represented on the Official Side of the negotiating body all those with responsibility for the police service."
  The report goes on to talk about the magistrates in that context. I do not find anything vague about the roles of either central or local government. By contrast, the role of a magistrate when he is not on the bench but is on the committee exercising an administrative rather than judicial function is rather vague.
  Councillors are answerable to their councils, whether or not their councils hold them to account for this kind of work, and central Government civil servants have a clear line of command and answerability. Magistrates, on the other hand, can speak only as individuals. I do not imagine that anyone supposes that the magistrates on the board will take instructions, or even discuss in their local benches the work of the board, and I do not suggest that they should do so. Indeed, I see the value of magistrates on the board as arising exactly from this difference between their position and that of elected representatives of local authorities.
  Magistrates should, and, if carefully chosen—I stress those words—will, bring to the board a measure of permanence and continuity and—dare I say?—an absence of financial responsibility that might be of value to the board. I stress the point about the selection of the magistrates. The job of selection will lie technically with the Secretary of State, but in practice, I expect, with the local authority associations. I should like to feel that the Secretary of State will keep a tactful eye on the selection. If magistrates are to act as leaven to the elected element, there must be no question of "Buggins's turn" in choosing them.
  As a London Member, I cannot forbear from injecting a comment about London. The Edmund-Davies report states that magistrates form one-third of the membership of police authorities in England and Wales. That is not true. In London the Home Secretary is the police

  729
  authority, and he has no magisterial presence to leaven him. My understanding is that there will be seven magistrates on the official side, and I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that. In having seven magistrates in the England and Wales official side team of 21, we are giving the magistrates in England and Wales a slight preference over the local authority representatives.
  I invite the Secretary of State to consider whether a London magistrate—lay rather than stipendiary—should be included even though that person could not be a member of a police authority, and the Edmund-Davies report recommended that the members of the board should be drawn from police authorities. As the Home Secretary is the only police authority for the metropolis, it is impossible to meet his endeavour to have both magistrates drawn from the various areas and people drawn from the police authorities.
  Will the Minister also say whether there will be any representative of the Greater London Council or the London Boroughs Association on the board? If not, then not only London magistrates but London local authority representatives will be excluded from a body on which the rest of the country is represented. We all know the structural reasons for that, but it is for consideration whether those structural reasons should not be overcome in choosing the membership of the new body.
  The Bill leaves to the Secretary of State enormous flexibility. It does not prescibe even the number of members of the negotiating board. Would it be possible, without disturbing any members who are on the provisional board, to add one or two to take account of my comment about London?
  To tidy the record, perhaps the Minister will provide in the debate the answer to a question put in the House of Lords by Lord Ross of Kilmarnock at the end of the Third Reading debate which his colleague did not have time to answer. The question was: what was to be done about magistrates in Scotland? I think that I know what the answer is, but as the question was left unanswered it should be answered in this debate.
  It should be useful if the Minister could give us a breakdown of the official
  730
  side on the board as it is now and some indication of his intentions when the board is appointed under the Bill. I am thinking of the breakdown as between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the breakdown as between central Government Departments and the breakdown between magistrates and elected representatives within England and Wales.
  The affairs of the police service occupy a good deal of attention in the press at present. There have been the individual cases of Mr. Blair Peach and Mr. Kelly. Much is happening in Whitehall and in this House. The Select Committee on home affairs is looking into the Public Order Act and into the issue of deaths in police custody. The Select Committee covering the Department of Employment is conducting an examination into picketing. More chief constables have been seen in the corridors of this building in the last few weeks than in the previous few years. That is all to the good.
  The Home Office is conducting a review of public order, and the work of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure will be concerned largely with the activities of the police in questioning suspects, with whether the police in England and Wales should continue to be responsible for bringing prosecutions and with whether in England and Wales we should come into line with most of the world and the rest of the United Kingdom in creating a public prosecutor system.
  My view is that the police will be better able to do the vital work that only they can do if they are relieved of the responsibility of the prosecuting task which can, and, as most countries believe, should, be done by professional lawyers. All this activity, particularly in the press, reflects, shall I say, some not inconsiderable concern about the police and their work.
  What should our attitude be to the police? We should surely adopt a two-handed approach. On the one hand, the police are on our side. The criminal is the enemy. The police are our protection from burglars, vandals and muggers and from the moral degenerates who practise terrorism on the streets. In performing this role the police are to a greater extent than ever before on truly active service.

  731
  Apart from the Army, the police are almost the only people who are required, by the nature of their job, to engage in physical fighting. A higher proportion of the force is subjected to physical attack than in the past, and we must declare out support for the police in their work.
  On the other hand, we must insist that in the discharge of their work the police stick to the law that we lay down. We must insist that bending of the rules is not tolerated just because the police are the police. Civil liberties are no good unless they operate in the police interviewing room and the cell. Policemen who break or bend the rules must be punished and removed.
  It is inevitable that the police will resent some of the rules and control that we and the courts decide to impose upon them. The good policemen will resent the rules because they do not think they need them. Bad policemen will resent the rules because they do not wish to obey them. Let no one pretend that there are not bad policemen. They are a minority, but they are there, in a job that confers even on the newest constable great power over the individual.
  The worst temptation to which any of us could succumb—whether we are in Parliament, in the press or in campaigning bodies—would be that since others are unfairly attacking the police we should right the balance by only praising the police. On the other hand, we should not say that because some people only defend the police we should concentrate on things that are wrong with the police. Each of us needs to defend the police when they do their job according to the rules, but we should criticise them and take vigorous corrective action when the rules are broken or bent by the police.
  Among the people whom I should like to see adopting this two-handed approach are the police themselves. I should like to see it in the pronouncements of chief constables and in police magazines, where the language sometimes borders on the paranoid. The police do themselves no good by responding in kind to unbalanced attacks upon them. Greater contact between elected representatives, the press and the police at police training sessions might assist, and I ask the Minister to look specifically at that possibility.
  732
  Some of the bad feeling generated in 1976 and 1977 centred on whether the police service was a national or a local one and which of the two it should be in the future. As usual, we have a situation of characteristic British untidiness. In London we have a national police force. Outside London we have local police forces. In practice there is little difference between the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the non-London police forces and his role in relation to the Metropolitan Police force.
  The Secretary of State is so attuned to his semi-detached status outside London that he does not choose to exercise all the powers that he could in London. That reflects the position of successive Secretaries of State of all political parties. Police authorities outside London do not control their police forces even in the matter of general policy. The new enlarged police forces do not fit easily into the pattern of local government. Police committees appointed from different local authorities in one force area present problems. The chief constables of at least some of these large forces fear and resent control by elected representatives.
  Today, police forces are too big a thing, and too powerful a thing, to be easily subjected to control at local level. If anyone is to exercise control over the police, it is likely to be the national Government only in the person of the Home Secretary and national elected representatives in the form of Members of Parliament. Nobody else has the clout to do it.
  It can be argued that by our present arrangements we give ourselves the worst of all worlds. Provincial police authorities technically have the power to control the police, subject to the limitations of what anyone can direct a constable to do. Police chiefs outside London insist on keeping police committees at a distance. If police committees in the provinces had less legal right to control, they might find themselves able to exercise greater influence.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am listening carefully to an important point, but I wish that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) would not use the word "control". The

  733
  police are not controlled by police authorities. Nor are they controlled by the Home Secretary. They are the servants of the law and of the Queen. There is no question of their doing what they are told by police authorities.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I, too, am listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), and I cannot really relate his remarks to the Police Negotiating Board, important though the hon. Member's remarks undoubtedly are.
  Mr. Cunningham: I shall try to make it is easier for you to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by explaining that the origin of the Bill and the disagreement which gave rise to it lay in the view whether the police should negotiate on pay with local government or national Government. I realise that I must not go too far into that matter, but I do not intend to go much further before coming to a dead stop.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to complete the train of thought that I had begun, because I believe that my remarks are relevant to the origins of the Bill. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Griffiths) about the limitation on control over the police, and I hope that I have acknowledged that. I was using the word "control" as a shorthand description of the powers that are legally conferred upon police authorities by the Police Act 1976.
  I was using the term "influence" for something much less than that. I acknowledge that the police are not subject to control by anyone with regard to whether they should bring a prosecution or upon what charge a prosecution should be brought. My argument is that if police committees had less legal right to control under the Police Act they might be able to exercise greater influence without giving rise to the same degree of resentment and opposition. In that case, someone else must have the right to control—and that must be the Home Secretary.
  In London the problem is different. Because the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan force, the local authorities in London have no say in police matters. There is no obligation
  734
  to consult the borough councils or the GLC about station closures, for example. Successive Home Secretaries have claimed that they have ultimate control over the police service, if only because they control the purse strings. Only a few weeks ago the Minister of State assured my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) to that effect in an Adjournment debate.
  The Chief Constable of Northampton-shire has flagrantly broken the guidelines on jury vetting which were issued to police chiefs by the Home Secretary. That chief constable was advised by his prosecuting solicitor that legally he was free to do that because the guidelines do not have the force of law. The lawyer is right. The law was not broken by the police breaking the guidelines. What does that suggest about the ultimate power of the Home Secretary, as described by the Minister of State in that Adjournment debate? It suggests that we should recognise the reality. We should put power where it belongs—at national level—and consultation where it belongs—at local level.
  This is not the occasion to go into those aspects in depth, but it is legitimate to go into them to that extent because of the origins of the Bill. Those aspects are relevant. On another, more appropriate, occasion we must return to them because they are fundamental to the policy on police forces.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall try to stay closer to the Bill than did the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in an admirable speech. I shall also try to be brief. I shall be blunt.
  The Bill arose because we came close to a police strike two years ago. I was much involved. The House knows my interest. I never thought that I would see the day when the disciplined and dedicated officers of the British police would vote, as they did almost unanimously, to take the power to strike. Many police officers, particularly in the constable rank and in the great Northern forces, were willing to strike. If they had clone so, the country would have faced a civil catastrophe. The police service would have split—between ranks

  735
  and between the different forces. As I said at the time, they would have lost their most valuable ally—the British public. It was a close-run thing.
  This is not the time or place to throw blame around. I heard with interest the manner in which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, speaking fairly, sought to defend the record of the Home Secretary who was then responsible. I had numerous discussions with the then Home Secretary and with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street. Had it not been for the appointment of Lord Edmund-Davies, the wise conclusion that he reached, the acceptance in principle of his conclusions by the Labour Government and their immediate implementation by the present Home Secretary, the thin blue line would not now be intact.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) does not wish to give the impression that implementation was not begun by the previous Government.
  Mr. Griffiths: I was careful in my choice of words. The previous Home Secretary properly announced in advance that he would accept the conclusions of Lord Edmund-Davies and his committee. Of course, when the chips were down he was able to accept only half of the most important recommendation on pay. He insisted that the full implementation would be over two years, although Lord Edmund-Davies had said that that recommendation should be implemented at once. The difference between the two sides of the House was that the then Opposition agreed that the proposals should be implemented in full and at once.
  The first action that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretry took when he assumed office was to fulfil that commitment and to pay the full Edmund-Davies award at once. That is the most important thing that the Home Secretary has done since he assumed office, because he now enjoys the almost unanimous support and admiration of the police service. He fulfilled his undertaking to the letter.
  736
  Many of the remainder of the recommendations are implemented in the Bill. The reason why we have a new Police Negotiating Board is that the Police Federation, in which I declare an interest, walked out of negotiations under the previous machinery. The House should know why. Partly it was a protest because the machinery had failed to allow the police to keep pace with many other occupations. More important was the conclusion by the Police Federation negotiators over many years that party politics had entered into the Police Council. Far too often, as we negotiated within that body, we found that those on the other side of the table representing local government were not making judgments on the merits of the police case but taking a party whip from their local authorities. That is not entirely wrong. Local authorities must have regard for the majorities which they reflect.
  The Police Federation rightly came to the conclusion that decisions taken in the Police Council were based not on a fair judgment of police needs but upon the party political balances within the municipal and county authorities. The federation was not prepared to accept that. The most important feature of the new Police Negotiating Board is that it puts police pay and negotiations outside party politics, both at the national level and at the local level. Nationally, it puts pay negotiations outside the party political battle because Lord Edmund-Davies devised an inflation-proofed formula to which both sides of the House are now committed. There is a provision for overriding because of national necessity, but police pay is now not to be bandied about in line with particular Governments incomes policies. To that extent, the police have been removed from the political and economic battle.
  To a great extent, the police have been freed from party politics at the local level, notably by the involvement of magistrates. I know, from considerable personal involvement, how difficult it was to get local authority associations to accept the inclusion of magistrates. They made the fair point that since magistrates were not always elected but would be able to make decisions about local ratepayers' money, it was a bad principle, in so far as one should not have the ability to dispose of funds without the

  737
  obligation to be elected. I understood that view perfectly.
  I believe that it was the resolution of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that persuaded and cajoled—I am almost inclined to say " pushed down the throats of "—the local authority associations to accept the Edmund-Davies recommendations on magistrates. He did that for one reason. It was impossible to say in advance that we would accept the Edmund-Davies recommendations and then, when they came forward, pick and choose which ones we would implement. The Home Secretary took the view that it was all or none, and he—wisely, in my view—took the recommendation on magistrates along with the rest. Consequently, I believe that the presence of the magistrates on this new Police Negotiating Board will remove a great deal of party political difficulty that has so annoyed, irritated and disillusioned the police staff associations.
  I want only to say this about the two speeches that we have heard. This is not the time or the place for a wide-ranging debate about the police service. There remain, however, those parts of the Edmund-Davies recommendations that do not fall to be implemented by the House. Pay has been dealt with; that was part one. The negotiating machinery has been dealt with; that was part two. But, of course, Lord Edmund-Davies made a number of other recommendations. I can collect them together under one label. He proposed a measure of industrial democracy for the police service. He suggested that the time had come when responsible police officers, carrying a heavy load, should be no less able to take part in the decision making in the police service than anyone else.
  Manifestly, in a disciplined service there must be command from the chief officer all the way down. No one would disagree with that. But in many other aspects of the police service, such as health and welfare, it is perfectly proper that the representative staff associations should be brought into the discussions and negotiations with police authorities and chief officers more than they have been in the past. I am sure that that is something on which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I can agree.
  738
  Lord Edmund-Davies has made his recommendations and I am sure that the police authorities take them seriously. I hope that all chief officers will also take them seriously. But some are slower than others, and I can tell my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that the Police Federation will be looking to the Government to encourage chief officers and police authorities to take fully into account the balance of the Edmund-Davies recommendations in respect of a measure of industrial democracy within the police service in the non-operational areas.
  As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the police are always in the news. On the one hand, they must carry out their onerous duties, yet, on the other, they must always be accountable to the law and to this House.
  What the police seek today can be summed up as follows. First, they want fairness—fairness from the media in their approach to police activities and fairness from this House. Naturally, that means that we should recognise that there are bad apples in the police service. But it also requires recognition that there are many good apples in that service, which is not always given.
  Secondly, what the police need, and, I believe, deserve, is backing. They have had backing all the way from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and they are immensely grateful for that. They have not always enjoyed that backing—I accept that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was not involved—from the Opposition. At the time when members of the Cabinet were on the picket line at Grunwick and many hon. Members who are now in Opposition were condemning the actions of the police who were trying to maintain law, there was a deep sense of disillusionment in the police service about the lack of backing they were receiving from the House. I hope that that will never happen again. It is right that we should condemn and examine all those police officers who step out of line, but we should never, as a House that depends above all else on the maintenance of the Queen's peace, fail to give the police support when they are in need of it.
  Finally, what the police require is support through legislation. This is not

  739
  the time or the place to pick and choose what the police require as regards laws on picketing, law and order or many of the other aspects mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The Bill, technical as it is, is one element of the increasing demonstration of support for the police service that has been given by the present Government. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend —and I hope that he will pass this on to the Home Secretary—that the Police Federation is grateful to the Government and will give them all the support of which it is capable so long as the Government continue on their present course.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: Most of what I wanted to say has been said much better than I would be able to say it, but I assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I was pleased to hear what he had to say about the police force. I thought that what he said was sane and sensible, and I agreed with most of it. However, the exoneration of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for holding down the pay of the police did not, to many people, seem sane and sensible at a time when the whole country depended so much upon maintaining the police force to ensure the safety of citizens and to prevent people being mugged.
  I think that it was in 1967 or 1968 when, as Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition ceased recruiting for a year. He then tried to turn the tap on. It is almost impossible to do that. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind that we cannot suddenly boost the police, or any service, and then try to stop them dead in their tracks. The police must be supported all the time, because the basis of our life in this country depends on maintaining a police force that everyone can respect and that is properly able to hold up its head in the community.
  I am glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) say that the negotiating machinery is welcomed by the Police Federation and by all police officers and constables. It has stopped the appalling lowering of police morale. I do not want
  740
  to harp on that, but many people have died, been injured or lost their possessions simply because there was not a large enough police force to do the job. We must be frank about this. While morale was low, the police sometimes did not try to do as much as their strength would have permitted them to do. I hope that the police force will receive the backing not only of the Government but of the whole House.
  I am pleased that this small and technical Bill is before the House. It should be a major step towards preventing the events that my hon. and learned Friend outlined so graphically. I refer to the situation in which the police force found itself and the state that it reached.
  In my locality many long-serving police officers who could have continued for another five to 10 years—for example, the sergeants and those who comprise the real backbone of the force—were leaving. We now have an extremely young police force. As we get older, policemen seem to look younger and younger. We must recognise that we have lost many who comprised the solid centre of the police force. The force must be encouraged for many years to come. We must not let it down again.
  I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who said that we must back up the force. I was appalled when I read a newspaper report of an incident that had taken place in one of the small market towns in my constituency. A gang of youths had set upon a policeman. He was knocked or tripped to the ground and the youths started kicking him. About 20 or 30 members of the public stood by, none of whom lent a hand to help him. As I have said, that is appalling.
  We can help in many ways to assist the police—for example, by providing information and by keeping in touch with them as Members of Parliament keep in touch with the police forces in their areas. As members of the public we can help the police an immense amount. I wish the Bill god-speed. I hope that it will be an important measure for the police force.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. John G. Blackburn: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I

  741
  shall not venture to make it more wide-ranging. My comments will be directed to the Edmund-Davies report. As I was waiting to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I reflected that 14 members of my family served in the police force. For many years I served in the police force. At this moment my son is serving in the police force. It is against that background that I applaud the arrival of the Edmund-Davies report. I am glad that the House does so with once voice.
  Many things are said about the police service. When we reflect upon them, we realise that some of them are not true. It is so easy to say "Our wonderful police service has never been on strike." It has. Those who speak about striking to the ageing population who were in the police service in Liverpool will see tears come to their eyes. In 1919 they went on strike and they lost everything. We must thank God that the tragic position of the police service in 1976–77 was relieved and that the service was saved from the brink of disaster at the eleventh hour. It was recognised that it is one of the finest bodies of brave men and women.
  It is true that there is a river of kindness flowing through every member of the police service, but the Edmund-Davies report arrived not one second too soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that we lost part of the backbone of the police force, but some members of that backbone hung on out of a sense of loyalty and dedication to the task, because they saw in the Edmund-Davies report the means of restoring themselves to their rightful position.
  There was criticism because the pay issue was dealt with not immediately but over two years. Action was taken on the negotiating procedures. In effect, the Bill came from the secretariat, which is not embodied in this measure.
  The decision was taken that the Edmund-Davies report would be accepted as the basis for building a sound police service or it would be rejected. However, the arrival of the report meant that there could be selectivity. We were able to be selective about what we would accept and what we would allow to fall by default. I shall listen intently to my hon. and learned Friend's reply because I am anxious to know whether Her
  742
  Majesty's Government accept the findings of the report without question, without qualification and without condition.
  It is of considerable interest that among the many bodies that appeared before the committee led by Lord Edmund-Davies was the National Association of Retired Police Officers. The association has about 55,000 members. The evidence that was presented by that body received commendation. There are two sections in the report that recommend that the association should have the opportunity to discuss its problems on, for example, two occasions a year with Home Office officials.
  I ask my hon. and learned Friend to confirm that the Government will hold fast to the Edmund-Davies report. Secondly, I ask him to confirm that the Government will accept the recommendation of the report and that the National Association of Retired Police Officers will have the opportunity to make representations to Home Office officials.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) said that it had been a wide-ranging debate. Perhaps it has been rather too wide-ranging. I am sure that the Minister of State will confine himself to the contents of the Bill and will not respond to some of the questions put to him that do not relate directly to the Bill.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Britian: I shall deal first with general points that have been raised during the debate. I am delighted that the Bill has received universal support. I am even more pleased—without wishing to trespass further on your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that everyone who spoke felt it right to include warm commendations and support for the work of the police. That will be appreciated.
  It gave me particular satisfaction to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). From his words it was clear that the Government's actions and the measures proposed in the Bill command the support of the Police Federation. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked about the composition of the Police Negotiating Board. The board has 62 members, and no changes are planned when the board is put on a statutory basis. Of those

  743
  members, 33 are on the official side and 29 on the staff side.
  The official side comprises seven representatives of the Home Department and 26 representatives of associations representing the interests of the police authorities. Of those, 14 are from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, four from the Scottish local authorities and one from the Police Authority in Northern Ireland. Of the representatives of the police authorities and the 21 local authority associations in England and Wales, one-third—that is, seven—are magistrates, five emanate from the Association of County Councils and two are from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
  The staff side comprises representatives of the police staff associations, including six representing the interests of the chief officers, six representing superintendents and 17 representing the federated ranks—that is, officers below the rank of superintendent.
  The board is a purely formal body. Its business is conducted by five autonomous standing committees. Magistrates from London are not included or represented, nor are London county councillors, for the simple reason that it was thought right that representatives on the official side should be representatives of the police authorities. The Home Secretary, and not members of the GLC or magistrates, constitutes the police authority for London.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised the question of control of the police. I cannot discuss that at any length because that would go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman proposes to pursue that line of thought more widely he will have to ask himself some difficult questions. If there is to be genuine operational control at a national level, a Minister or politician will have to be given operational control of a national police force, however that is divided. In terms of civil liberties and of our other traditions, the consequences will be great. Alternatively, if we are to have a national force without democratic national control, the consequences will be even greater.
  At present there is a division of responsibilities between the police
  744
  authorities in terms of administration and other matters. The Home Secretary exercises a degree of control by means of checks and balances. The responsibility of the police force to the law and the operational responsibilities of the chief officers of police are probably the best way of securing efficiency. Although remarks may be thrown out about the lack of responsibility and the need for control, the consequences of putting control on a national basis may lead to far less satisfactory results than are provided by our present arrangements.
  Other issues were raised in relation to the board and the operation of the Edmund-Davies proposals. I am unable to give the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) requested, although I do not disagree fundamentally with anything that he said. However, some of the other proposals in the Edmund-Davies report, particularly those contained in part III, are still being considered by the various bodies. They have received a warm welcome. I note that, and I do not wish to say anything that might give a contrary impression. I have no doubt that part II will play an important role in the future life of the police service.
  Finally, I shall take up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It is not sufficient for us to enact legislation that supports the police and gives effect to the new arrangements. It is necessary to give support on a continuous basis, both through legislation and through the support that we give elsewhere. I wholly concur with that view.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will forgive me if I make one final point. I return to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The debate has not been contentious or controversial. However, I could not allow the debate to conclude with a bland acceptance of the hon. Member's gloss over the events of 1976–77. I do not wish to rub new salt into old wounds. However, it will not do for the hon. Gentleman to say that that was an unfortunate episode in the course of a successful campaign against inflation. The success of the previous Labour Government's campaign against inflation can be gauged by the fact that their

  745
  incomes policy collapsed in total disaster last winter. It did so not as a result of overwhelming Conservative opposition but because it was utterly rejected by the trade union movement and by the Labour Party. The incomes policy, its collapse and the way in which it collapsed fuelled the flames of expectation that will always arise at the end of a prolonged period of incomes restraint.
  I do not accept, therefore, that the cause of the police was rightly sacrificed to the more general interests of the economy. The previous Labour Government got the economy badly wrong, almost disastrously so for the police. That is a truer view of the picture. I commend the Bill to the House and I am grateful for the warm reception that it has received.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
  Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order this day.

  POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for a Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom in place of the Police Council for the United Kingdom, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any sums required by the Secretary of State to enable him—

  (a) to pay to the Chairman and to any deputy chairman or chairmen of the Board established under that Act such fees as the Secretary of State may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service; and

  (b) to defray any expenses incurred by that Board; and

  (2) any other administrative expenses of the Secretary of State incurred by him in connection with that Board.—[Mr. Britton.]

  POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [Lords]
  Postponed proceedings resumed.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

Clause 1

  THE POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. George Cunningham: May I take the opportunity to ask for one further point of clarification from the Minister of State? Clause 1 clearly provides for the method by which the chairman and any deputy chairmen of the board will be appointed. When we come to the other members, subsection (3) simply tells us that
  "the Board shall be established in accordance with such arrangements made after consultations between the Secretary of State and organisations representing the interests referred to in subsection (1) as appear to him to be satisfactory."
  It was in that sense that I referred to the Bill as an enabling Bill on Second Reading.
  It would be useful to know how that will operate. Will the members on the official side, other than the chairman and deputy chairman, be appointed technically by the Secretary of State on the basis of submissions put to him by local authority associations, or will the arrangements referred to in that subsection give the technical right to appoint to local authority associations? It is important for us to know that.
  Mr. Britton: It would be better if I told the hon. Gentleman that later. I am not now in a position to answer with guaranteed accuracy.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am sorry to hear that. I do not wish to be unkind to the Minister of State, but we are in Committee. It is an obvious question to ask. We are authorising arrangements of unusual vagueness. I do not criticise the vagueness. It is perfectly appropriate, but we are entitled to know, if it has been

  747
  decided, how the Secretary of State in-ends to exercise the powers that we are conferring on him. I should like an answer.
  Mr. Brittan: I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to know the answer, and I do not criticise him for that. I have explained in considerable detail the composition of the board and where it derived from. I believe that I have accounted for the origin of every member of the board.
  I am now able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the members will be appointed by the local authority associations. That is the arrangement that has been made.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister. That is exactly the point that I was after. I was asking not about the composition of the board but who, technically, would appoint it.
  May we take it that details of those arrangements, which presumably will be set out in some document, will he at least placed in the Library? I realise that there is no provision for there being a statutory instrument, but it is a document that should be available here and, I believe, more widely. May we have an assurance that it will be available in the Library?
  Mr. Brittan: I see no reason why it should not be possible to produce a document setting out the arrangements. I believe that we can reopen the question whether it is appropriate to put it in the Library or deal with it in some other way. It is certainly not a secret, and I can undertake to supply a documentary description of the arrangements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, REPEALS AND EXTENT
  The Chairman: I have selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Home Secretary.
  Manuscript amendment made: In page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (5). —[Mr. Brittan.]
  Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

  GIPSIES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I believe that we have nearly three hours for debate, but from the number of hon. Members present I doubt whether we shall need that time. Even if we took the full three hours, the immensely complicated and emotive problems associated with the life, times and wanderings of 8,500 families—45,000 people—collectively known as gipsies would not be resolved.
  One problem is numbers. The issue is made complex partly because cultural heritage varies greatly between different families. There is a wide gulf between the sense of independent pride and wealth of many of the Romany families and the variable lifestyle of many travellers of Irish descent.
  In my view, the Government would be well advised to give intensive thought to what can be done to monitor the movements of Irish gipsy families. It is a contentious and difficult matter even to mention. I believe that the problem should be considered at governmental level. We should try to see whether an agreement can be reached between the British and Irish Governments on the control of Irish tinkers entering this country. I accept that it is an extremely difficult problem. It opens up a Pandora's box. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the immigration question with Ireland is already vexed.
  The problem cannot be swept under the carpet, even if it is not possible to establish greater control—and I cannot

  749
  think of a better word—over the movement of Irish tinkers. Many of them wander backwards and forwards between Ireland and this country. I suspect that none of them pays taxes in this country and few feel genuinely associated with it. The problem must be aired. I should be grateful for a response from the Minister.
  I accept that even if it were possible to establish greater control over the movement of Irish tinkers, the major problem would continue to exist. The tension in many areas, certainly in my constituency —many of my hon. Friends also have considerable problems—is created by large numbers of gipsy families roving around. There are 300 gipsy families roving around the counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and the problem is considerable It is caused in part by the refusal of many gipsy families to conform to modern standards of cleanliness. Often gipsies are their own worst enemies. For instance, the litter that they leave when they move from encampment to encampment causes great distress to the majority of people living in outlying villages in which gipsies have been camping.
  Local unhappiness is a result of the fact that in any modern society it is not easy to accommodate people who have no permanent place of residence. However, there are growing signs that a number of gipsy families would like to be able to settle in one place if they were able to do so.
  Mr. D. A. Trippier: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the point about the problems that tinkers cause in certain areas, will he accept that whenever they have been brought to book and put before the courts they have been found guilty of stealing coal from people's houses, backyards and doorsteps?
  Mr. Spicer: It is always dangerous to generalise. I should have thought—I spoke recently to my gipsy relations officer in the county council about the matter—that there was a consensus that, on the whole, gipsies are pretty unsociable. The police encounter difficulties and sometime dangers when they have to enforce law and order. It becomes a matter of considerable worry to the police when they have to tackle large numbers of Irish tinkers. In my part of the world there have been some nasty in-
  750
  cidents. I agree with my hon. Friend on that matter.
  There is now a growing feeling amongst some gipsy families that they would like pens—certainly it is true in my constituency—it often causes additional problems where, in some cases, local authorities give gipsy families priority for orities give gipsy families priority for council houses.
  The question whether the answer to those problems lies in the greater provision of permanent sites for gipsies is controversial. It is easy to propound the issue as general philosophy and then to say that there should be sites in other areas than one's own constituency. That certainly applies at the district level and at county level. Everyone is in favour of the idea in general, but when it comes to the specific site problems start to emerge.
  All Government reports, such as that of Sir John Cripps, and the relevant legislation, such as the Caravan Sites Act 1978, presuppose that the solution lies in the provision of more permanent sites. I understand the force of that argument, especially when it is put forward in reaction to a widespread illegal use of land by gipsies.
  The case for more permanent sites is stronger when it is borne in mind that the authorities invariably have immense problems and difficulties in moving gipsies off land on which they are squatting. Lack of permanent sites is causing local authorities to turn a blind eye and even to connive at the breaking of basic planning legislation in order to get gipsies off the roadside.
  There is a case in my constituency on a farm at Atch Lench, where the county council gipsy liaison officer has conceived it as his responsibility to encourage gipsies to camp on private land, admittedly with the agreement of the owner, on which planning permission has not been obtained and which is now threatened with an enforcement order by the Wychavon district council. The matter is not eased in my area by the fact that the Property Services Agency is determined to evict all the gipsy families encamping on its land in Hattlebury.
  Despite those strong arguments for permanent sites, it must be accepted that the involvement of gipsies in the life of an

  751
  area is frequently seasonal. In the Vale of Evesham gipsies have historically played an important part in the picking season, at the end of which they have tended to move to other parts of the country.
  The question of the role—usually a seasonal role—that gipsies play in the local economy is relevant not only to the general advisability of the permanent site concept but also, and perhaps more important, to the issue of how quotas for sites should be spread. That is something that no legislation has tackled. However, any uniform dispersal of permanent sites, as between areas in which gipsies play a large part in the economy and those in which they do not, is inappropriate.
  Whatever view is taken about the advisability of permanent sites, it is clear that the way in which the law apparently operates in respect of the provision for the financing and management of sites is ridiculous.
  At present, it is the duty of county councils to find the appropriate sites. It is the responsibility of the central Government to provide the funding. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about funding, because there have been indications that the Government are prepared to consider funding permanent sites this year but perhaps not beyond that. The district councils are responsible for the operation of the sites.
  At the end of this crazy procedure, the county councils are responsible, as I understand, for picking up the tab on any deficits that are incurred over and above the central Government budget. Clause 209 of the original Local Government, Planning and Land Bill attempted to remedy that by placing a greater responsibility on district councils by permitting designation to be made on a district basis. One of the purposes in raising this matter tonight was to ask the Minister why clause 209 was dropped from the Bill.
  If we do not believe in permanent sites for gipsies or if we cannot afford to provide them, we should say so. If we believe that there is merit in the greater provision of permanent sites, we have an obligation to see that they are properly sited, managed and funded. It is also
  752
  essential that the rights of adjacent owners should be considered.
  My personal feeling is that the seasonal work patterns and the itinerant nature of gipsies makes this a national rather than a local problem. For instance, a permanent siting policy should be based on a national programme. That is the only way in which we can overcome the tremendous pressures on highly localised authorities that are considering putting in permanent sites.
  In particular, there is an urgent need for the formation of a national consultative body. I accept that the Government are committed to abolishing quangos. My personal request is expensive, but one thing that is absolutely critical in any policy of better management of the problem of gipsies is that all the vested interests of the farmers, the local councils and the gipsies themselves should be directly involved in any policy which evolves. It would be disastrous if the gipsies were not involved. If one accepts that there is a problem, it must be tackled more rationally and reasonably. We cannot avoid setting up a body with a representative of the gipsies on it, as well as representatives of the landowners, land users and local authorities.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to air this subject. I expect that there is common ground between us. This is a difficult problem, particularly in rural areas. It is a visible and emotive problem. Many Members have come to me since I put down this Adjournment topic and said that they have this problem in their constituencies. It may be increasingly difficult to stand out against the more populist elements in the constituencies, who may well turn quite nasty and unpleasant. There is an onus on everyone here to accept that there is a problem and to ensure that it is tackled better than it is being tackled at present.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Dennis Walters: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on having raised this subject. Some of us may have become interested because of constituency issues, but it is a national problem that causes strong feelings and it is right that it should be discussed.
  My interest was brought about by a recent case at Dilton Marsh, in my

  753
  constituency, which has tremendous problems brought about by the present unsatisfactory state of the law. The inhabitants of Dillon Marsh have felt strongly about it, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was in Wiltshire recently, was left in no doubt about the depth and strength of those feelings. A site was chosen at Dilton Marsh only yards from one ratepayer's house and within 100 yards of many more houses. The local residents proceeded to picket the proposed site for many weeks and the county council has therefore been forced to resort to the High Court and serve an injunction on a number of residents in order to be able to proceed with the work.
  It should be recognised that the problem is very difficult for the county councils. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 imposed a duty on them to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies
  "residing in or resorting to the area".
  The words "residing in or resorting to" embrace all gipsies—those living in Wiltshire and those from another county who come in on a seasonal basis.
  The trouble is that almost always, wherever the gipsies and particularly the transient gipsies are put, they cause much more severe problems than the resident gipsies simply because of their way of living, which tends to devalue property. This is understandably severely resented by people whose houses represent their life savings. Regrettably there is no provision made for compensation from the Government for householders. I hope that the Minister will comment on this matter. He has kindly seen me on a couple of occasions about the Dilton Marsh problem, so he knows all about it.
  Before the site is established, the law says that a county council is bound to consult the district council and such other authorities and persons as the council thinks appropriate. If the district council objects to the proposal, the Secretary of State for the Environment must direct the county council to do one of three things—abandon the proposal, proceed or make an application for planning permission. If, after consultation with the parish council and the district council, the county council receives an unqualified "No", as frequently happens and certainly happened at Dilton Marsh, but
  754
  nevertheless decides to go ahead with the aid of central Government procedures, inevitably a great deal of tension and ill feeling are created. That has happened in my constituency.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South pointed out, clause 209 of the original Local Government, Planning and Land Bill attempted to improve the situation by placing greater responsibility on the district councils and by permitting designations to be made on a district basis. Like my hon. Friend, I want to know why the clause has been dropped from the No. 2 Bill.
  This is an unsatisfactory situation nationally and obviously it is most undesirable and regrettable that situations such as Dilton Marsh should occur. They cause unhappiness and considerable tensions in local government which take time to set right. Something like clause 209 would have helped to prevent them. Why is it not in the Bill? The position is not satisfactory. It should be looked at.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having introduced this topic and also for the short speeches made in earlier debates, which enable us to examine the issue in greater depth. As this is the third time that I have spoken in the House today, I should like to take some credit.
  There are two sorts of gipsy. One is the traditional gipsy, the countryman and the picker of hops, who fits into the countryside pretty well. The others are what have come to be called tinkers. largely not from this country. To be frank, they are an absolute pest. Something should be done about letting them in and about clearing them out. Having said that, I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that of two bad solutions the permanent site is the better one. If, however, there are to be permanent sites, there must also be proper planning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) called attention to a most startling case in his constituency. I have another—not, perhaps, quite so bad but one that nevertheless merits the attention of the House. This is at Moreton Valence, where a permanent site has been chosen by the

  755
  county and agreed by everyone concerned. I would not have put it there. It is situated in an area where no one is allowed to build houses. It is not exactly a green belt area. That would be an inappropriate description in a county constituency. No one else is allowed to build a house, yet this eyesore is about to be installed by the county council.
  To make injury to the local people even worse, the local farmer, a Mr. Bamford, with a small farm adjoining the site, has been refused by the district council the right to build a house on his farm. One is allowed to establish a gipsy encampment but not to build a house.
  Next door to the site Mr. Bamford has his stock and his barns, but no house. One can imagine what will happen to his stock, his barns and his fields when the gipsy encampment is full. All that he can do is to visit his fields occasionally, walk up and down and try to protect them as best he can. I believe that between them the Gloucestershire county council and the district council have made a mess of this situation. I believe that Mr. Bamford has been badly treated. Everyone has acted exactly according to the book. All are within their rights. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not be able to reproach them for doing anything illegal, but they have done something that is not only silly but oppressive.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Richard Needham: I also have a problem concerning gipsies or tinkers at a place called Thingley in my constituency, of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware. I should like to discuss the question of priorities in Government expenditure. We face immense financial difficulty. It behoves the Government to look carefully into the reasons for establishing such sites. A large capital cost is involved when other infrastructure services are desperately needed in other areas.
  I should like to refer to a letter from a county councillor, one of my constituents, who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services:
  "I am very concerned at the attitude which has been taken up by the Department of the
  756
  Environment, and I cannot understand how it can be that a newly-elected Conservative Government faced with the most difficult financial problems Britain has had to deal with this century and the need for the most drastic reduction in public expenditure can continue to press on with implementing the Labour Government's legislation and that Government's policy of very heavy spending on this subject.
  The present Government are pledged to make very substantial cuts in public expenditure in order to curb inflation and many essential schemes such as urgently needed new school buildings, homes for the elderly, homes for the mentally handicapped, and provision for handicapped children leaving educationally sub-normal schools at 16 have had to be struck out of County Council budgets. Gipsy sites would have been struck out too, and not a penny would have been spent on them, but they have remained in the budgets only because the Government hand out 100 per cent. grants."
  Not only is there a problem in terms of those sorts of services. In places like Swindon and Chippenham we are desperate to bring forward land for development. We find constraints because of the cash limits imposed on local authorities. We are not able to provide the infrastructure of roads, schools and sewage works, with the result that industrial land in Swindon has tripled in value in the last three years while that in Chippenham has doubled. Are we really saying that large amounts of capital money should be put into the provision of these sites while providing long-term jobs in new industries goes by the board?
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Does my hon. Friend feel that there is any alternative? Presumably, if the matter is left and gipsy sites sprawl all over the place, they will have an equally detrimental effect.
  Mr. Needham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but the problem has existed for a long time. I am not certain that it is for me to determine Government priorities. By what yardstick do the Government judge that this is sensible capital expenditure while, at the same time, we are not able to spend public money on the provision of vitally needed infrastructure for the creation of many new jobs? If policies create unemployment in certain areas it seems, in a sense, pointless not to be able to provide employment in areas where companies wish to provide jobs but facilities cannot be provided through lack of money.
  I should like to turn to the question of cost. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary

  757
  of State, in a letter to me on 19 October 1979, said:
  "We have looked at Mr. Jamieson's suggestion that the standard of the Hay Lane Wroughton scheme ought to be generally adopted".
  That was a scheme put into effect for permanent sites near Swindon in 1973. My hon. Friend added:
  "However, the overall standard of the Thingley and Dilton Marsh schemes"—
  in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters)—
  "will be lower than the Hay Lane standard."
  The Hay Lane standard was costed, per site, at £4,147 in 1973. The proposed new cost at Thingley is £14,500 per site. That is a much greater rise in cost than the cost of inflation. The question that I should like my hon. Friend to answer is why the cost of £4,147 in 1973 should now have gone up to £14,500. My hon. Friend answered that the cost yardsticks used in 1973 were used only by the county council and that it was difficult to judge the relationship between costs then and costs now.
  This is taxpayers' money. It is surely the job of the Department of the Environment to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent as wisely as possible. If the county council is their agent in the matter, why is the council unable to explain to the Department of the Environment the reason for this rise in costs in seven years? At the end of the day, according to my hon. Friend, standards will be lower than the standard that already exists.
  My third point relates to planning principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury talked about the emotional difficulties that arise when planning permission is granted for such schemes. I do not want to go too deeply into section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act, but, as my hon. Friend said, the county council grants planning permission to itself. One can appeal only when a planning application has been turned down. One cannot appeal against a planning application that has been approved.
  In the case of Thingley there were objections from the planning committee of the district council, from British Rail—because its high-speed trains run about 50 yards from the site—from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England,
  758
  and from the NFU. The director of social services expressed considerable concern because the site was a long way away from schools.
  Because section 8 restricts objectors and does not allow them to put their views either before a public inquiry or the Minister in an open way, and because there is no appeal machinery, one can understand why people feel so strongly about the issue. One is left with the suspicion that justice is being done behind closed doors. When it is an issue that inevitably creates the sort of problems that people face when tinkers live next door, surely justice must be seen to be done. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to look at section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act and see whether we can ensure that the siting of such pitches must automatically be decided by public inquiry. If my hon. Friend can explain to people why the pitches are sited there, the atmosphere will be much better. That is important in order to establish such pitches and in order to gain public acceptance of the need for them.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. D. A. Trippier: I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to this important debate. Like many of my colleagues, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on raising this important topic, which has been a source of frustration not only to hon. Members but to members of councils, both county and district, throughout the land.
  It seems that this evening we shall have as many different opinions as we have hon. Members in the Chamber. That is no bad thing because, as he said, my hon. Friend's main intention was to air the matter and to enable it to be fully discussed.
  I can remember with mixed feelings my entry into the political arena. It began on a derelict site in Rochdale in 1970, when I flattered myself by putting myself forward as a Conservative candidate. I remember that on the eve of poll the three candidates turned up on the site where the tinker caravans were situated, and it did not matter one jot whether the people who lived in the surrounding area were convinced that the Conservative Party's policies were right; what really

  759
  mattered was which of the three candidates would get those tinkers moved off that site. It depended on the force of the argument of each candidate whether he would win the election the following day. Fortunately, I won, but I did not realise the amount of work that I had taken on as a result of the promises that I made on the eve of poll. In fact, for two weeks my first job as a councillor was to do nothing except concentrate on getting those people moved.
  At that time Rochdale, which was then in Lancashire—it is now in Greater Manchester—was one of the first areas of the North-West to have experience of tinkers settling more permanently than before. For the rest of my speech I should like to differentiate between itinerant caravan dwellers, whom I call tinkers, and the Romanies—a word that has not been used so far—for whom I have a high regard. I have a great respect for them. They do a great deal of work and are not at all like the tinkers to whom we have referred so far.
  As a Member of Parliament I am now threatened because tinkers will shortly arrive in Rossendale. In fact, they are now in the neighbouring constituency. I felt that my past experience would have served me in good stead for dealing with the problem, but the sad fact is that it does not, because, despite the fact that I have learnt a great deal about what they do when they move on to these derelict pieces of land, the problem remains how we can get them moved on quickly.
  As I have learnt to my cost, it has taken an inordinate length of time for at least one local government officer, who has spent his time doing little else than trying to work through the hive of rules and regulations and laws of the land to ensure that they are moved on where-ever possible and as quickly as possible.
  My solution to the problem is a simple one, but I do not think that the Minister will agree with it. It is that we ought to change the law and give more powers to the police to ensure that these people can be moved on more easily and effectively. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the argument that there should be gipsy or tinker caravan sites throughout the country. I do not accept that such people want to settle down on such sites. Had they wanted to settle down, they would
  760
  have done so long before now. They have within them a seeming impetus to move around the place and literally to be itinerants.
  I have also seen at first hand a gipsy caravan site in operation in Oldham, which is not far from my constituency. There, the local authority spent a lot of money on providing facilities for a large number of caravans. It laid on water, electricity and gas. It made that site available because it was then easy for the law to be enacted, whereby one could move both the caravans and lorries off the main highways because there was a caravan site nearby. That is the main reason for the caravan sites made available under the Caravan Sites Act, to which many of my colleagues have referred.
  Within two months the water taps on the site had been ripped out. The brass had been taken. Bills to the caravan owners were left unpaid while the gipsies moved on yet again. The ratepayers of Oldham picked up the bill.
  I make this point forcefully to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Thinking about the matter logically, one imagines that this process will be repeated on every caravan site throughout the land. Even if one says that one will put these sites on the moors, it will not make one jot of difference. The gipsies will neither pay the bills nor leave the sites in a decent condition.
  Why should we offer these people facilities that we do not offer to other law-abiding citizens in our constituencies who pay their taxes and rates regularly? For example, would we lay out the amount that we are prepared to lay out on one gipsy caravan site on an ordinary touring caravan site for people who would use it, look after it and genuinely tour in our areas? No, we would not. Why are we genuinely sympathetic to these people? We feel that we are under a moral obligation not to interfere with people who wish to live as they do. We feel that we must provide facilities for them. I cannot accept that. They do not thank us for doing that. They take full advantage of it.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: There are three sites in my area. The occupants pay substantial rents in at least one of them. I understand the point about the capital

  761
  costs. However, we can settle for rents and allow a project to pay for itself.
  Mr. Trippier: I accept that point. All local authorities have difficulty in collecting rents from some council house tenants. My hon. Friend must accept that we shall also have difficulty in collecting rent from gipsies.
  Mr. Spicer: Not the Romanies.
  Mr. Trippier: I accept that. I refer to tinkers. We shall experience difficulty in collecting rents from the tinkers. Difficulty has already been experienced in the areas to which I have referred.
  Mr. Needham: Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me. However, I refer to the costs of a site. The rent proposed was £200 a year, or £4 a week. If the cost is £14,000 per site, the interest at 20 per cent. will be much higher than the amount recovered. The cost will be up to eight times more than the amount recouped by way of rents. The costs to which I referred will be much greater than any income.
  Mr. Trippier: I agree. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South. We are talking about people collecting the rents. That means another officer. My hon. Friend referred to a county gipsy liaison officer. I do not know how much a county gipsy liaison officer is paid, but he must be expensive.
  Believe me, I am trying to make matters much easier for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I do not want his Department to deal with this matter at all. I have no doubt that he will not agree with me. None the less, I still feel that the police should be given more powers. My hon. Friend could well say "Do the police want more powers?" In previous debates I accepted that the police did not. In this matter I am fairly confident that the police would welcome more powers to deal with itinerant caravan dwellers. They are as frustrated as I am that they have such limited powers to move on gipsies. That is the simple answer.
  8.34 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on
  762
  initiating this important debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) for their contributions, and I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) on completing his hat trick of speeches in this Chamber today.
  I must place this on record. It is surprising that no member of the Opposition is present to take an interest in this important subject.
  I feel that I should first reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South because it is his debate and he has initiated it. I am aware that he has raised the problems of dealing with gipsies before, and I recall that he wrote to me last summer about the environmental problems of unauthorised encampments. I explained then that the Cripps report, published in April 1977, set out recommendations for improving and extending the provision of sites and included certain suggested changes to the existing legislative framework. I went on to explain that we were looking anew at this issue and at the question of legislative changes. I am pleased to be able to give a fuller explanation of policies in my response tonight.
  First, I think that I should say a word or two about gipsies in the county of Hereford and Worcester. I have noted the constituency points raised by my hon. Friend. He referred to recent events in his county in the development of a gipsy site strategy. I understand that officers of my Department have been able to agree with officers of the county council on an assessment of the overall requirement for gipsy sites in the county. The county council considers that throughout the year there are about 400 gipsy families residing in or resorting to the county. Of these, about 100 families live amicably on farms or on authorised private sites. The county council has concluded that 230 families require to be accommodated on permanent residential sites to be provided by local government, together with a further 70 or so in transit. We have no reason to question that assessment, and we welcome the county council's efforts to make sensible provision, as it is required to do, within the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  763
  I accept fully all the points that my hon. Friend made about the difficulty of locating suitable sites and the fears and forebodings of local residents almost everywhere about any such proposals. This concern has been shown by my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight because they are representing their constituents, and the last thing that we want is disharmony in the countryside because of the possible provision of caravan sites and the effect on local residents. Both the county and the districts have statutory responsibilities for the provision of sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area, and I cannot offer my hon. Friend any better solution to the gipsy problem than the completion of that task in any county.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the current estimate of about 8,500 families as the gipsy population of England and Wales, and the figures that I have given to the House as the most recent estimate of the gipsy population in the county of Hereford and Worcester indicate that its responsibility stretches to about 5 per cent. of that national total. My hon. Friend may consider that that is a not unreasonable burden.
  Mr. Trippier: In quoting these figures, is my hon. Friend talking about gipsies, Romanies, tinkers, itinerant caravan dwellers, or what?
  Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend has shown his knowledge of this subject, and he will know that it is difficult to distinguish between the various groups. I shall certainly talk a little later about the Irish gipsies, and, indeed, about the word "gipsy", of which I accept it is not easy to find an appropriate definition.
  I suggest that the gipsy problem is not primarily that of coping with massive numbers and a rapidly expanding population when considered in national terms. The Cripps report estimated a gipsy population in England and Wales of between 8,000 and 9,000 families—that is, 40,000 to 50,000 persons. We now have six-monthly local authority counts of gipsy caravans, and the figures obtained in July 1978, and again in January and July 1979, corresponded remarkably closely to an overall figure of about 8,500 families. I must talk in round terms because, as I am sure the House will
  764
  appreciate, a nomadic gipsy population does not lend itself to precise counting and it would be a waste of resources to attempt precision in that direction.
  The greatest changes and probably the greatest set of problems have arisen through economic factors rather than population factors. The traditional picture of a gipsy is of someone following a seasonal cycle of mainly rural activities. This is usually encapsulated in the phrase "the true Romany"—by coincidence, yesterday I saw members of the Romany Guild—and contrasted with the other picture which we all have nowadays of itinerants dealing in scrap metal and living in illegal encampments on roadside verges. These are not pictures of the good and bad gipsy; they only illustrate the changes in the gipsy way of life which have been necessary to retain a cultural identity.
  Post-war economic changes have led to the loss of traditional sources of income, such as seasonal farm labour, and have led the majority of gipsies to adapt to other work, such as scrap metal recovery, which has brought them in large numbers on the urban fringes. The advent of legislation such as development control in 1947, restrictions on the use of highway verges in 1959 and the licensing of all caravan sites in 1960 have contributed to the loss of traditional camping grounds and made it difficult for gipsies to develop legal encampments for themselves. That point was brought out very strongly yesterday by the Romany Guild. The gipsies have a problem in getting planning permission even if they manage to buy land for themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be interested to know that pressure came from the West Country because of the impossibility of obtaining planning permission for farm land. This is very much a local authority matter, and it is difficult for Ministers to intervene.
  As these trends have become apparent, successive Governments have first exhorted local authorities to provide sites under the general powers in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and then to fulfil the responsibilities placed upon them by part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. That Act gave county councils, county borough councils and London borough councils a duty

  765
  to provide caravan sites for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas and came into force in April 1970. It is the duty of district councils to provide the services and facilities and manage the sites provided under the 1968 Act.
  Several of my hon. Friends referred to the criticism that many have levelled at this split in responsibilities. I think that the split in functions can be said to be a reasonable reflection of the need both for a strategic and co-ordinated approach to the choice and location of sites and the closest possible sympathy with local interests in managing such sites. I accept that it might be possible to postulate a different arrangement, but I am not convinced that it would be any change for the better.
  The greatest need is for both tiers of local authorities to come to terms with their responsibilities and to co-operate in carrying them out. In July 1979 there were only 3,745 gipsy caravans on authorised private and local authority sites. The provision of further sites is surely the only stable method of dealing with 5,000 nomadic families without any legal right of abode. As the Cripps report pointed out, the problems of dealing with the entire gipsy population of some 50,000 people must be small compared with the needs of a total population in England and Wales of some 49 million. I am not in any way underestimating the extreme difficulty of finding these sites locally.
  My hon. Friends have shown an interest in the financial implications, and I want to say a little about that. A grant system had already been started in February 1979 in anticipation of securing suitable legislative power. We were convinced that there needed to be greater impetus in the provision of official sites and that once such sites were available powers of control to ensure their proper and effective use were vital. We therefore put together a package of legislative proposals, which were included in the original Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, introduced in another place earlier this Session.
  My hon. Friends asked what happened to clause 209. There is a simple explanation. I ask them to accept that the Bill was considered to be too extensive in relation to the parliamentary time available, and a number of provisions had to
  766
  be removed from it before it was reintroduced in the House. Clause 209 was a casualty. The clause that mattered most in the original Bill was that relating to grant, and that has been retained. It has been said that the lost clause might have given help to the district councils in the provision of adequate sites, but that clause was intended specifically to allow districts to be designated. When those districts had sufficient sites, designation would have been provided. The clause would have made little practical difference at present because relatively few counties and districts have sufficient sites for designation, though there are notable exceptions.
  We shall continue to supply specific grant aid to local authorities for the capital cost of sites to encourage further provision and reduce the burden on local resources. We are greatly concerned that in doing so we should get value for money and not spend more than necessary. The current best estimate of total expenditure for new sites is £37 million. However, our current plans for public expenditure levels mean that if such a total is ever reached it will be over a longer time scale than the five years originally envisaged.
  My hon. Friends would wish to know that in 1979–80 we anticipate spending £1·3 million as a result of the applications that we have already received. These applications have been looked at extremely closely to ensure that there is no wasteful expenditure, and frequently we have gone back to the local authorities to urge them to cut costs to what we feel is a reasonable level.
  Mr. Needham: If what my hon. Friend says is true—and I accept that it is—how is it that we have had this extraordinary uplift in prices between 1973 and 1979, from £4,000 to £14,500, and yet standards are lower? If the Government have gone back and asked local authorities time and again to check on spending, where has this enormous increase come from?
  Mr. Monro: We all had to face inflation under the previous Government, and we were well and truly landed with it during the last 12 months relative to construction costs. I shall examine the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham). I am aware of his concern about the site in his constituency, but I assure him that

  767
  there will be no waste of Government money in this context.
  I am insistent that site costs should come down. Indeed, we have made substantial progress in recent months on that front, but it is right to say—since local authorities are interested—that it is our wish to continue grant aid. It is an important carrot, because the provision of these sites will lead to the removal of many of the unauthorised sites at roadsides and elsewhere that cause disappointment to local residents, and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, a great deal more than disappointment.
  Mr. Needham: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but if the Government are prepared to give grant aid to local authorities in this important area, are they also prepared to do something in what I am sure he will agree is perhaps a much more worthwhile area, namely, the creation of jobs in the form of infrastructure for industrial development in similar parts of the country?
  Mr. Monro: I come from a rural area, and I am interested in the development of industry in the countryside where there is a possibility of rural depopulation. However, it is not my Department's responsibility to change policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham is obviously unhappy about the policy. The major difficulty will not go away on its own. The initiative must come from the local authorities. I am not thrusting this down their throats. The initiative must come from them. If they propose schemes that are acceptable to the local population, we shall assist with grant. I am not in any way saying anything other than that the initiative must come from them.
  Mr. Trippier: Certain members of my council, not of my political persuasion, think that it is a good idea to establish a site, yet when it is suggested that it should be in their wards they do not like it. That is the problem. We shall never solve that problem, because such resentment is built up. I suggested earlier that we should differentiate between Romanies and tinkers. This is an emotive issue. There is tremendous sympathy for Romanies but not for the tinkers. Those
  768
  who read the debate will link those two groups.
  Mr. Monro: There is pressure on councils to remove roadside encampments. They cause endless trouble. A frightful vicious circle is involved. We are discussing one of the most difficult of social problems.
  Reference has been made to Irish travellers. This is a slightly different issue. There is known to be a certain flow of travellers between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, but no one has any idea of the numbers involved. The travelling tradition in Ireland is longstanding and might even go back further than any Romany tradition in this country. Control of such movement, either direct or via Northern Ireland, can be done only by the imposition of a general requirement for travel documents for all visitors at the point of arrival. This has been done under emergency regulations in the past, but there appears to be no merit in considering such a possibility in relation to a small category of visitors, particularly as common membership of the EEC now entitles residents of the Republic to enter the United Kingdom to look for work.
  It has been suggested that many so-called Irish travellers in this country are second or third generation travellers within Great Britain, who retain pronounced Irish accents because of their insular way of life. Be that as it may, most long-distance travellers in this country appear to be Irish, demonstrate particular insularity and are likely to have special requirements if suitable and successful official sites are to be provided. Consequently, my Department has embarked upon a research project intended to identify the numbers, patterns of movement and particular site requirements of Irish travellers to ensure that the general policy of providing sites throughout the country under the 1968 Act takes account of these factors.
  It is intended to put the results of such research before local authorities for their further consideration, and the steering group directing the research includes local authority representatives.
  The Cripps report and everyone else peculiarly difficult to find anything that who has thought about it have found it

  769
  would give a better definition of "gipsy". Until something turns up that will be of benefit, I think that we had better leave the definition where it is.
  It is important for hon. Members who are concerned with these matters to realise that designation is the goal of the counties and eventually, I hope, the districts. Once designation is agreed, it provides better enforcement procedures, and eviction can be carried out on a broader front and more effectively. Those counties that have achieved designation, such as Dorset, have found that it is of enormous benefit to have that agreement with the Department of the Environment.
  I turn now to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury. He has been extremely assiduous in looking after the interests of his constituents who have been so bedevilled by events at Dilton Marsh. He has been to see me, and he has raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think that he realises how carefully we have looked at the difficulties that he has brought before us.
  My hon. Friend rightly went over the procedure at Dilton Marsh, the options that were open to the county council and the fact that in April 1979 the previous Secretary of State decided on the option to proceed with the Dilton Marsh site. In law there was no question of the present Secretary of State overturning a previous decision, so it had to be accepted as a fact when we came into office last May.
  My hon. Friend may or may not have received a letter from the Secretary of State in the last few days subsequent to his visit to that county, but I have no doubt that he will know that both the Secretary of State and I are concerned and have tried, on occasion, to put forward possible solutions but they have not come to fruition. This is a problem that must be resolved by local authorities. The Secretary of State is fulfilling his duties and has no power to reverse what has already been done.
  I wish that I could offer my hon. Friend greater hope for a quick solution to this unhappy problem. All of us want harmony in the countryside, and I know that this issue has caused everyone great concern and unhappiness. As far as I am
  770
  aware, it is no nearer solution than it was some months ago.
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to say anything further to me. As I say, I wish that I could give him greater hope, but this problem must be resolved within the local authority area.
  Mr. Walters: My hon. Friend knows that I should like him to give me greater hope than he has just given me. I know that he and the Secretary of State have been in communication with the authorities. If it is not possible in law to reverse the decision that was made by the previous Administration, I hope that my hon. Friend will at least remain in touch with local authorities to try to ensure that whatever solution is found is as amicable as possible.
  Mr. Monro: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall do everything possible to assist, as will my Department, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind our limited responsibilities.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, that this is a planning matter. I discussed it yesterday within the broad issue of building on sites in the countryside.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham referred to expenditure. It is necessary to weigh the balance of the alternatives. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale, if we do not provide sites we shall have more problems with unauthorised encampments and roadside camps, which are so unsightly and so unacceptable. We must carefully scrutinise all the costs. In recent months we have been able to reduce them substantially in a number of instances. If we are to adjust section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, we may need to introduce new legislation. I promise to consider whether the adjustment may be dealt with administratively. My present view is that adjustment will need new legislation, and that will not happen in this Parliament.
  I mentioned designation while referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. My hon. Friend asked for more powers for the police. An eviction order is a matter for the owner of the land or the local

  771
  authority. The best way to obtain additional powers is through designation. I hope that local authorities, with the help of our grant, will press on and provide more sites so that we have authorised camping rather than a multitude of unauthorised sites.
  Mr. Needham: I apologise to my hon. Friend for taking him back to section 8. I am most grateful to him for saying that he will reconsider it. Does he favour my suggestion to make planning more open and to allow applications to go before a public inquiry and an inspector so that some heat may be taken out of them? I shall be grateful if he will indicate the Government's view.
  Mr. Monro: I take my hon. Friend's point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said—he took much trouble to get the facts right, as I would have expected of him—if a county wishes to proceed, it has three options. If a county proposes to have a gipsy site, it must consult a district, under section 8. If the district objects, the issue must be referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the option of going ahead, the option of abandoning, or the option of calling in the planning application. I am told that in the past the latter option has been rarely used.
  The district has a right to object to a county proposal. I hope that when districts are considering proposals they will take into account the views of parish councils and individuals so that everyone concerned is well aware of what is happening before a further stage is completed and an application goes to the Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South asked about consultative committees. A number of committees represent the gipsies, and I see them from time to time. My hon. Friend rightly said that I should be somewhat reluctant to establish a new body. It is my Department's feeling that quangos sometimes cost a great deal of money for the work that they undertake. There is no lack of communication between the gipsies, my Department and the local authority, and I hope that that will continue. We must work together to reach a conclusion.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Perhaps my hon. Friend would say a little more about
  772
  that. What does he mean by "communication"? Do the gipsies have a genuine sense of being involved in policies, or are they simply called in and told what is happening?
  Mr. Monro: I spent several valuable hours during the past winter meeting representatives of gipsies and of their different organisations. I listened to their views. Yesterday the Romany Guild spoke to me on the very issue of planning. Therefore, there is a substantial two-way flow of knowledge. I doubt whether a further consultative body would be advantageous.
  The Hereford and Worcester county council has already consulted the Department about a suitable programme. We have agreed a probable level of provision in broad terms. The county has produced a long list of possible locations, a number of which may face difficulties and deficiencies on closer study. No doubt it will be some time before the short list can be presented. This is an important step along the road towards providing sufficient sites. I am glad that the county council is taking such constructive steps towards ensuring an adequate level of sites for the future.
  This has been a useful debate and a number of useful points have been made. They will be given careful consideration by the Department. They will be part of our future thinking on this policy and they will have a place in any documents that we produce, so that local authorities and gipsies may know where they stand.

  FLUORIDATION
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I make no apologies for taking this opportunity to raise once again the question of fluoridation. It is an issue that has been described only this week by Dr. John Yamouyannis as
  "the greatest medical fraud of the century".
  He made that comment when he spoke earlier this week to the all-party anti-fluoridation committee, of which I have the honour of being chairman.
  Dr. John Yamouyannis is one of the foremost experts in this field. He is an American biochemist whose experience and bona fides are acknowledged by all

  773
  but a few who have no knowledge of the man and little knowledge of his subject. Their passion for mass medicating the public's water supply with a possibly dangerous substance understandably leads them into total errors of judgment. Apart from his presence in Britain to explain the Burk-Yamouyannis study that indicates the link between fluoridation and cancer, which may take upwards of 10,000 lives a year in the United States, there are two other reasons for raising this subject.
  First, there is the recent news that another half a million people in the West Midlands will receive fluoridated water by 1981. That brings the total number of those who drink fluoridated water in Britain to nearly 10 per cent. That area in the West Midlands includes Coventry, part of Solihull, Warwickshire and a small area of Hereford and Worcester.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend mentioned Hereford. Has he heard about the manner in which the area health authority has gone about putting its case across? Has he heard that the health commissioner has produced a document that indicts the local authority for the bureaucratic and insensitive way in which it has attempted to convey its case? Indeed, he used the word "pompous" in his report, which was published a few days ago. It has tried to bully through its case. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard of that report.
  Mr. Lawrence: I have heard about the report, and it does not surprise me in the light of what I hope to say, which reflects on the regional authority, if not directly on the area health authority. At any rate, the extension of fluoridated drinking water is very much a Government responsibility.
  The second reason why I raise this subject for debate is that there is circulating in the West Midlands area a quite disgraceful publication entitled "Fluoridation News", issue No. 4, January 1980, from the West Midlands regional health authority, and therefore published with taxpayers' money. That is another Government responsibility.
  I do not propose to speak tonight about the infringement of individual liberty involved in forcing everyone to drink
  774
  doctored water, not to save life, as with chlorine, but merely to improve some people's teeth, an improvement that could be brought about by more brushing and less sugar consumption. It is a drive that is regardless of whether the majority need or want that medication.
  I also do not have time to deal with other interesting questions of how substantial or illusory the alleged benefits of fluoridation are or the legality of fluoridation or the completely undemocratic process by which it often occurs. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) gives a further example of how some areas in his constituency have recently started to be fluoridated by the Severn-Trent water authority. I shall concentrate on some of the preposterous assertions in "Fluoridation News" by individuals and an organisation which the citizen has a right to expect will not mislead him and whose scientific conclusions such a citizen ought to be able to trust.
  May I repeat a point that I always try to make when speaking on this subject. I am not attacking the honesty of anyone. For all sorts of reasons—and it is true that some of them are hardly credible—honest and well-meaning men, doctors and dentists mostly, become convinced that fluoridation of the public water supply would be a good thing and then proceed to make statements in support of that thesis which are demonstrably false or which cannot be shown to be scientifically true. The publication is full of such statements.
  Before I give a few specific instances, may I give one general example. The headline of that edition says:
  "No truth in cancer allegations."
  I expect that that edition is circulated to health centres and other places where the public gather. If it were a headline in the Morning Star or another daily newspaper, the public would know that it was merely an expression of journalistic opinion, without the necessary authority behind it. They would be quite likely to take it with a pinch of salt, and no harm would be done. However, when they see that it is an official publication, the author of the article being no less than the Birmingham area dental officer, and they see inside that the work of the same

  775
  regional health authority is endorsed in its fluoridation extension by none other than the Secretary of State, all caution will surely go out of the window. The absolute accuracy of the statement
  "No truth in cancer allegations"
  is likely to be accepted. People are likely to take the headline as being scientifically substantiated fact which no reasonable body could in any way challenge.
  They would be wrong. They would have been misled by that headline. The truth is that the headline is just opinion, and an exceedingly bold overstatement of the true position, even for someone in favour of fluoridation. The reader would be very surprised, not to say alarmed, to discover that what purports to be scientific fact is no such thing and has been rejected as such by reasonable bodies.
  Let me give two examples. The first is the judgment in a court of law in the United States. For five months in 1978 Justice Flaherty heard the best scientific evidence that the pro-fluoridation lobby could muster to argue that there was no truth in the cancer fluoridation allegation. For probably the first time, those scientists gave evidence on oath, and they were tested in cross-examination. At the end, Justice Flaherty—who has since been elevated to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court—ruled that he was convinced that there was truth in the cancer allegations. He said:
  "Point by point, every criticism defendants made of the Burk-Yamouyannis study was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often, the point was turned around against the defendants. In short, this court was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs."
  The plaintiffs were the citizens who were bringing an action against the water authorities on the basis that it was not safe to fluoridate the water.
  He went on to give an example of one of the principal witnesses for the profluoridationists, who acknowledged certain unresolved doubts concerning the safety of fluoridation. When he was asked whether it was his testimony that he recommended fluoridation in water supplies, his answer was:
  "I don't want to state on that."
  Later, on 31 July 1979, Justice Flaherty wrote to the mayor of Auckland, New
  776
  Zealand, who had written to him about the matter, because all the water in New Zealand is fluoridated. The judge wrote:
  "The trial brought into my court experts on the subject of fluoridation, and I meticulously considered the objective evidence. In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. Since my decision, I have received hundreds of letters, quite a few of which have been sent by physicians and dentists, all concurring with my decision."
  He continued:
  "Prior to my hearing of this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation. I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence. If you are interested, I suggest that you review the 2,800 pages of testimony and all of the exhibits presented in this case."
  That is the first of my examples. I need hardly say that there is no reference to that judgment in Fluoridation News".
  I give a second example. In Quebec in November 1976 the new Government decided to make a thorough review of fluoridation before implementing a Bill requesting all municipalities to add fluoride to the water at 1·2 parts per million in order to prevent dental caries. That governmental inquiry consisted, as one would expect, of 10 highly qualified persons, such as the scientific adviser to the advisory council on the environment, the director of a hospital research centre, the chief of the environment protection services and the senior adviser to the Minister of the Environment for Quebec. The conclusion was in favour of an indefinite moratorium on fluoridation from August 1977, which is still in force.
  It is difficult to select just one passage from the committee's report, and I recommend that hon. Members should read it all: it is not very long. The report suggested, under the heading of "Pathology of Fluorides":
  "Fluorides are highly toxic for humans and a narrow margin separates an 'acceptable level' from a toxic level. According to Dean, at a 0.9 ppm level in drinking water approximately 12 per cent. of the children examined during the course of his investigations showed signs of dental fluorosis. At a 1.2 ppm level, 20 to 30 per cent. of the children showed signs of intoxication. It is not surprising, therefore,

  777
  to find a recent study published in the American Medical Association journal which showed that nearly 70 per cent. of the children living within a fluoridated area and receiving vitamins containing fluoride had dental fluorosis.
  Dental fluorosis seems to be the first indication of chronic toxicity of fluorides. The seriousness of the diseases caused by fluorides appears to progress with the level of ingestion. … In people who drink greater than normal amounts of fluoridated water such as people with renal insufficiency, those suffering from polydipsia and people on dialysis machines, a number of cases of osteomalacia and/or osteosclerosis have been reported."
  The report continues:
  "Two reports taken from the abundant literature on fluoride toxicity merit particular attention. The first one is a group of studies carried out by Rapaport which showed a dose/response effect between drinking water fluoride level and the number of mongoloids in the population. All are aware of the genetic factors which have an influence on this disease."
  It goes on:
  "other studies have now shown quite convincingly that fluorides, by some still unknown mechanism, seem t o produce chromosome breaks and/or aberrations. These reports of unsuspected cellular damage are highly disturbing and merit all the attention of the scientific community. The second disturbing study is that of Yamouyannis and Burk which showed a higher cancer death rate in fluoridated cities than in comparable non-fluoridated ones. When first published, this study was ridiculed by public health officials. More recently, however, it has been reaccredited before a court of law as a scientific study done according to the state of the art. It is rather amusing to find that courts of law are doing the work that public health officials should have been concerned with. The Yamouyannis study is not altogether surprising, however, and many scienists have suspected their conclusions for some time.
  What is implicit in this study is that fluoridated organic compounds and the fluoride ion may be as potent carcinogens as chlorinated organic compounds".
  The report then says:
  "The possibility of formation of fluoridated organic compounds either during the water treatment process in public waterworks or during later use by industry takes on a new dimension and should be of utmost concern to all who are interested in Public Health."
  This report, needless to say, is not referred to in "Fluoridation News". I wonder whether anyone imagines that anyone other than a handful of fluorofanatics would feel justified in taking the risks implicit in these two reports.
  I shall refer to one or two particularly serious misstatements in an article in "Fluoridation News", which has the presumption to end with these words:
  778
  "It is a tragedy that the misinterpretation of data can generate doubts in the minds of those who do not have the medical and statistical knowledge to enable them to make their own informed judgments".
  The first misleading statement is this:
  "The first set of results were published by Burk and Yamouyannis in 1977."
  That is quite wrong, but it is only a small point.
  "They compared the cancer mortality of the 10 largest fluoridated cities in the USA with that of the 10 largest non-fluoridated cities. The results they published indicated, they claimed, an increase in the cancer death rate following water fluoridation. These figures have been re-examined by experts in this country and in America and they have shown a number of fallacies in the original publication".
  The article goes on to refer to some of those fallacies:
  "The figures took no account of age, sex and ethnic structure of the population. It is well known that cancer is strongly related to age and to a lesser extent sex and race. When the mortality data is standardised to account for these factors, no association is found".
  The first of those statements—that
  "The figures took no account of age, sex and ethnic structure of the population"
  —is simply untrue. All except the earliest papers of Burk and Yamouyannis have taken those factors into account. Anyone who denies that merely proves that he has not bothered to read the latest studies. That is a complaint that can commonly be made against those who often speak loudest in favour of fluoridation. That is what Justice Flaherty said in the court case about that subject:
  "Dr. David J. Newell who has a Ph.D. in medical statistics, and is head of the Department of Medical Statistics at the University of Newcastle, England, testified that the Burk-Yamouyannis Study did not take age, race and sex variables into account. For example, Dr. Newell stated the cities' populations were changed drastically between the years 1950 to 1970, due to the large influx of black people. Statistically, black people have a higher incidence of cancer than white people.
  Responding specifically to this criticism, Dr. Yamouyannis testified that the growth of cancer rates for non-whites coincides with their influx from rural to urban centres, and that there is no racial difference in susceptibility. Thus, he argued, the different racial mixtures of the subject cities are of no consequence. Furthermore, Dr. Yamouyannis stated that many cities stopped keeping records based on race in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, and that for the 1970 census the available figures were no longer reliable at all, since people were classified by asking them how they wished to be identified, rather than on a firmly defined basis.

  779
  In response to the criticism that the Burk-Yamouyannis study age groups were too large and therefore distorted the results, Dr. Yamouyannis explained that he had broken the groups down into smaller ones to see which population groups were increasing in number, but he had found that the smaller groups had essentially the same increases in numbers as the larger ones, so the larger group could be properly used.
  As for the criticism of the sex variable not being taken into account, Dr. Yamouyannis responded that the proportion of males to females actually went down in the fluoridated cities as opposed to the non-fluoridated cities. Therefore, since males have a higher rate of cancer than females, if he had adjusted for sex in the manner suggested by his critics, there would have been an even larger cancer mortality than the Burk-Yamouyannis Study revealed".
  The judge seemed to think, and common sense seems to support, that the statement regarding age, sex and race in "Fluoridation News" is simply untrue. The statement
  "when the mortality data is standardised to account for these factors, no association is found"
  is simply untrue. The standardisation referred to was based, first, on data now admitted to have been inaccurate and, secondly, by drawing a line on a graph that only joins the starting point to the end point and ignores the other nine-tenths of the points. That is atrociously unscientific. On the contrary, once errors and omissions have been corrected, Burk and Yamouyannis said, an association between fluoride and cancer was shown in all the studies considered.
  I could go on to indicate other misleading and false statements in the same article. Burk ignored sites where there was a decrease in cancer incidence or failed to read Kinlen's tables and footnotes correctly. I have no wish to bore the House more than is necessary. I merely make the point that in that article in "Fluoridation News" what is alleged to be scientific fact is at the lowest wrong and at the highest disputed by reputable scientists. Therefore, the article is misleading and ought not to be in circulation. Certainly it ought not to be in circulation through taxpayers' money.
  But that article is not the only misleading matter in "Fluoridation News". Incidentally, I have provided my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with a copy so that he knows to what I am referring. Another article by a former opponent of
  780
  fluoridation tells why he changed his mind and saw the light. It is entitled
  "Million reasons for a change of heart"
  and states:
  "I became convinced that the merits of the anti-fluoride case are in inverse ratio to the noises they make—says a former opponent".
  He explains that among other reasons the figures for Birmingham, since fluoridation in 1964, support the benefits of fluoridation. He says:
  "The number of children in Birmingham making emergency visits to dentists with acute toothache dropped from 10,000 in 1964, the year of fluoridation, to 2,000 in 1975. The number of children given general anaesthetics for tooth removal dropped from 18,400 to 3,800 in the same period. In Wolverhampton it increased by 30 per cent. In Birmingham one in 3,500 children was supplied with false teeth: in Wolverhampton the figure was one in 280–12 times higher."
  In order to reach those conclusions, there would have to be a scientific consideration of the data. In order to say what effect fluoridation has had, one must be able to show what the treatment of teeth was like in the period up to fluoridation. There are two serious things wrong with the conclusion that that writer draws from the undisputed figures. The figures that he gives are not challenged, because they were the figures that were given to me by my hon. Friend in a parliamentary answer.
  First, those figures are misleadingly selective. A fuller consideration of the figures shows that in 1965, before fluoridation, 113,536 children were examined, 44,815 fillings were made to permanent teeth and 4,367 fillings were made to temporary teeth. In 1976, after fluoridation's magic had more than halved dental decay—which is the boast that is put around in the West Midlands area—106,680 children were examined, 42,927 fillings were made to permanent teeth and 15,616 fillings were made to temporary teeth. In other words, per child examined, fillings to permanent teeth increased by 2 per cent. and to temporary teeth by 281 per cent. Therefore, a selective choice of figures is hardly a good scientific basis for feeding those members of the public who are expected to read "Fluoridation News" and to accept the statements therein as being scientific truth.
  Secondly, the figures show an immediate sharp drop on fluoridation, which

  781
  would be truly miraculous if the cause were fluoridation, as it takes several years before it stops teeth decaying. More likely, what happened in Birmingham was that with the public dispute and argument over fluoridation the attention that was drawn to it in the newspapers and the discussion about it with dentists, there was a campaign that alerted people to the dangers of dental caries. More teeth were brushed. More care was taken of children's teeth. Perhaps parents read more and learnt that a better diet helped to improve teeth. Perhaps the fashion of general anaesthetics for teeth removal, or for taking out a tooth when it could be filled, changed. Those are far more realistic explanations, in the light of the figures that I gave, than that immediately after the introduction of fluoridation there was a sudden drop in dental decay. Those figures are either unscientific and, therefore, false or, at their highest, disputed by statisticians.
  Is it not time that the Government started to take more seriously new evidence about cancer and the benefits of fluoridation? We all respect careful scientific analysis, but is there any laboratory evidence in the world showing that fluoridation improves teeth or proving that fluoridation is completely safe? The opponents of fluoridation have laboratory evidence that it is not safe. I dealt with that matter in my last speech on the subject on 23 January, when the House debated the Merrison report on the National Health Service. That report recommended fluoridation, although it was not within the committee's terms of reference. It heard no evidence on the subject, even if the subject had been within its terms of reference.
  This is the usual syndrome. The medical authorities all say "If Professor Sir Richard Doll and Leo Kinlen at Oxford university say that it is safe, that is OK for us." That is still just the opinion of two men. One part at least of their inquiries was based on inaccurate data. That was admitted. The fact that the data were inaccurate is not important. What is important is the fact that those two highly thought of and reputable gentlemen are as capable as anyone else of slapdash work. That is not a basis for building a whole theory of safety in the face of other evidence when the re-
  782
  sults are 10,000 deaths a year in America and perhaps 2,000 a year in this country.
  Certainly, if there is any doubt in the matter the risks are enormous. For the safety of the people, the benefit of the doubt must be given to those who can show evidence that fluoridation is unsafe. The Government must put aside the calcified blinkers of the Department and consider the evidence afresh.
  I conclude by reading a letter that was written to Justice Flaherty by the chancellor of Fairleigh Dickinson university. It encapsulates what is wrong with the debate on fluoridation. Perhaps it is an indication of the way in which I hope the debate will progress. The chancellor, Peter Sammartino, in a letter to Judge Flaherty dated 19 December 1978, wrote:
  "Having founded a school of dentistry I accepted fluoridation like everyone else and had faith in my faculty, in the ADA"—
  the American Dental Association—
  "in the public Health Service, which made sizeable grants to our school.
  Then one day I read somewhere that water for kidney machines had to be defluoridated. Since I am prone to kidney stones, the statement aroused my interest. I found that the fluorides combine with the calcium in the body and could cause serious illness or even, death.
  I began to ask my dentists, all of whom are specialists in the field and for whom I have a great regard. In a pleasant way they said, Look Peter, this is not your field. Fluoridation is good and it decreases cavities by 60 per cent.'
  But I began to read and the more I read the more I became conviced that fluoridation was evil. I began to prod the ADA. Again, the cavalier response: Why everyone knows fluoridation is good. Do you think the Public Health Service would be for it if it wasn't good?'
  So I began to poke around in Washington. I ran into a wall of gobbledegook. They pointed majestically to the Kingston-Newburgh experiment. Well, I read the report of that experiment six times. That was the most unscientific and souped-up experiment ever foisted as a breakthrough.
  The strange part of it all is that the Department of Agriculture tells farmers not to use fluoridated water, and of course, the FDA"
  —the Food and Drug Administration—
  "forbade the manufacture of pre-natal fluoride tablets.
  But even if the case for the 60 per cent. decrease had been established (which it hasn't) the fact remains that in the United States and in a number of other countries it is becoming abundantly clear that the medical side-effects are most serious.

  783
  And then, even if fluoridation were effective and even if there were no side-effects, the forced medication is totally repugnant to basic principles.
  Now, it is becoming evident that fluoridated communities have eventually a higher rate of tooth defects than non-fluoridated communities.
  I am 74 and it doesn't make too much difference to me, but when I think how every day, in fluoridated communities, we are adding a little poison to bodies, knowing full well that some of it (probably about 40 per cent.) is cumulative I cringe at our stupidity."
  Well, apart from Eire, Great Britain is the only country in the Common Market that now fluoridates its water. Apart from Portugal, a scheme in Basle in Switzerland and, I think, a scheme in Finland, no other countries in Europe fluoridate their water. The reason may be political, but my hunch is that even if there is no merit in any of the criticisms that I have read out tonight there is a lot of scientific support for the decisions that have been taken by those countries either not to touch fluoridation or to discontinue it if they have had it.
  I therefore implore my hon. Friend and his Department to take their blinkers off and to look again in an objective way at the sum total of the evidence. I am sure that in the end they will agree that on an issue of such importance, upon which medical and scientific men of great calibre conflict, it would be totally unjustified to continue to fluoridate any water in this country.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has done the House a service in raising this issue. The catalogue of scientific data which he has assembled and presented is persuasive and interesting, and it certainly behoves the Minister and the Department to reply objectively and to reassure people on this matter.
  However, I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to take a rather different line from that which he has taken in his speech. I do so without any pretence of having great knowledge of this matter or any scientific array of figures in front of me, but as a former secretary of the all-party dental health group in the House of Commons I have taken a general interest in this matter. My understanding has always been that the majority of
  784
  principal health authorities in this country and internationally support rather than oppose fluoridation.
  My hon. Friend dealt almost entirely with the scientific and medical evidence that has been assembled rather than with the point of principle of compulsory medication by adding fluoride to water supplies. It is important to differentiate between the voluntary and the compulsory use of fluoride. Presumably, if one takes as true my hon. Friend's conclusions, there is a case for reviewing the voluntary use of fluoride in its various forms in this country and elsewhere.
  My view, on balance, is that fluoride is a considerable help in reducing the incidence of caries. An extraordinary fact which I found difficult to believe when I first heard it, but it is true, is that one in three people over the age of 16 have no teeth. In most cases tooth decay sets in in the first 16 years of a person's life. That is when fluoride can be of most assistance. Once people are adults, there is perhaps less need for fluoride.
  It is important to understand that, however far we go down the road of voluntary dental health education programmes, however much we encourage the voluntary use of fluoride, we shall never be able to reach out to the many families and individuals who are entitled to basic standards of dental health without leaving open the option of using fluoride through the public water supplies. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on the medical evidence and will not close the door to the use of fluoride in water.
  I hope that even those who question on a point of principle or on scientific evidence the addition of fluoride to public water supplies will recognise that there is a place for the voluntary use of fluoride. One of the most valuable methods of administering fluoride as a means of encouraging dental health is through fluoride mouthwashes for children at school. This has been done in this country and abroad to some extent but not generally. Here, parents have an option, if they object to the use of fluoride, not to let their children use the mouthwash. If they feel that it is a valuable means of ensuring dental health, they have that option open to them, an option which perhaps they would not take if they had to buy fluoride pills.

  785
  I have a young daughter, and as soon as she is able to take them I intend to give her a daily dose of fluoride pills to ensure that she benefits from the protection that fluoride can provide. Can the Minister say anything about the extent to which his Department has considered making fluoride pills available through the National Health Service? I understand that they cannot be obtained on an NHS prescription. Although they are by no means expensive, the cost is sufficient to put many people off.
  Perhaps more expensively but maybe most effectively, dentists can treat the teeth of young children with fluoride in various ways, thus providing the most adequate protection and the most effective treatment to ensure dental health in adult life. One method used is the topical application of fluoride. That is a simple procedure with young children whereby a mould is placed over the teeth on which the fluoride sets a fine coating. That is sufficient to protect children's teeth against caries for a long time. There is also a more effective method of fissure sealant whereby fluoride is introduced into the cracks in teeth, thus ensuring a more secure moulding protection for teeth. Although this procedure is more expensive and slightly more complicated to apply, it is one of the most effective means of treatment. Will the Minister say something about the extent to which such treatment is available from dentists under the NHS?
  Returning to the question of the compulsory fluoridation of water supplies, it is appropriate for those of us who support fluoridation to question why we make out a case for the introduction of such a chemical into our water supply. My political leanings and personal inclination are against such compulsory measures. Nevertheless, the high incidence of caries in adulthood and the tremendous costs that we all have to meet for dental treatment either under the NHS or through private practice are sufficient to justify the case for leaving the door open on this question.
  My understanding is that the financial cost of the application of fluoride through water supplies is infinitesimal compared with all the other options that I have described. The evidence that I have seen—and I recognise the force of the evidence presented by my hon. Friend the Member
  786
  for Burton—does not lead me to the alarmist conclusion to which his evidence led him.
  In to some extent putting the opposite view and, in so doing, representing a number of other hon. Members who are not able to participate in the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that there are views on both sides. It would be against my wishes and, I believe, those of a number of other Members if he were to respond by indicating that the door on the discussion of public fluoridation of water supplies will be closed.
  Mr. Lawrence: I wonder whether I might put a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), bearing in mind his concern for personal freedom and the problems of compulsion. Suppose that one set of scientists said that fluoride was safe and another set of scientists, equally credible, said that it was unsafe. Would not my hon. Friend concede that there was a doubt about the question of safety? If the effect of there being fluoride in the water was to kill one person—never mind hundreds or thousands—would his concept of freedom not drive him to the conclusion that the risk should not be run, and that if there was a doubt there should not be fluoridation? If his answer is "Yes", why does he take the attitude that he has manifested in the course of an otherwise interesting speech?
  Mr. Nelson: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's intervention is "Yes". If a number of scientific experts came to the conclusion that fluoride was entirely safe, and an equal number decided that it was entirely unsafe, I would be a good deal more concerned than I am. My understanding—even after my hon. Friend's speech—is that that is not the case. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of medical opinion is that fluoridation is safe.
  Even if one decides that fluoridation is probably safe, if it is responsible for one death out of millions one must ask whether it is justified. I do not like to compromise on issues of principle. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton does not like to compromise either. I am strongly against the compulsion involved in the seat belts issue, for example. However, on this issue one must make a judgment. It is not entirely

  787
  black or white, good or bad or entirely true or false. That is why a political decision and judgment are involved.
  From what I have read, the majority of evidence indicates overwhelmingly that fluoridation is beneficial to dental health. It is likely to reduce substantially the incidence of caries. I do not rule out the possibility of some people reacting badly to fluoridation. However, some people react badly to penicillin. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to rule out the application of that medication, because it is beneficial to the majority.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on being able to debate this subject so unexpectedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said that the issue was not clearcut and that it was not black or white. The issue will be mottled or brown if the Government side with the pro-fluoridators and legislate compulsorily to fluoridate water supplies.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. I do not think that I shall tread on any bureaucratic toes if I say that he probably knows more about the subject than the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate. My hon. Friend probably knows more about it than many of the civil servants in the Department who have probably provided the Under-Secretary of State with a brief.
  I had the privilege of sitting with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton on the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in the last Parliament. We carried out a lengthy inquiry into preventive medicine. Teeth and fluoridation took up much of our time. We heard conflicting evidence. My hon. Friend has presented a good argument for the Government's being careful about the stance that they take.
  The Under-Secretary of State might use the pro-fluoridation argument. Evidence from highly respectable and reputable medical experts indicates that fluoride can be dangerous to humans in the long term. My hon. Friend said that a certain percentage of fluoride taken into
  788
  the body is permanently retained by the body. There is a strong case against the compulsory fluoridation of the public water supply.
  I shall not argue tonight the libertarian cause that it is wrong to medicate the water supplies, because that would mean compulsory medication for everyone in this country. I believe that it is wrong, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester supports this argument to an extent in that he does not believe that the House should legislate on the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I played a part in that debate, 10 days or so ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton played an even greater and more important part in that debate.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
  Mr. Winterton: I was saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton played an important part in the debate on seat belts, and I am sure that he will do the same tomorrow.
  I am fundamentally opposed to compulsory medication. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester will say that we already have certain chemical components in public water supplies. I agree with him. Of course we do. That makes it safe to drink. It does not seek to medicate everyone, a small percentage of whom may benefit.
  The statistics relating to Birmingham quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton are pertinent. Statistics can prove anything. We can prove anything if we choose the right statistics. I am sure that I could present to the House or any other academic body an extremely good argument to support anything that I was putting forward by using statistics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton clearly illustrated.
  Fluoride is an industrial waste. There is perhaps a hidden, faceless lobby that seeks to find a use for that industrial waste. Perhaps there is a profitable business in finding a use for it. I am happy to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester to develop his argument and

  789
  I await the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the voluntary use of fluoride.
  Mr. Lawrence: It is not just that fluoride is an industrial waste; one-tenth of an ounce of fluoride kills immediately.
  Mr. Winterton: I fully take the point made by my hon. Friend. Fluoride is a poison. I wonder how many people realise that. I fully support the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton put forward earlier; I believe that there is a direct connection between the imbibing of fluoride and the incidence of cancer. It is interesting that cancer is an increasing problem in modern society. I wonder whether there is a more direct or alarmist connection between the adding of fluoride to the public water supplies and the growing incidence of cancer than that which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton put forward? I do not want to labour the point, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton presented a dramatic or alarmist case. I believe that he gave the facts and figures that had been produced by reputable and respected people.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give a constructive and considered reply and not just quote from a brief provided by those faceless men who advise him and trot out the same old statistics from the DHSS.
  I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I believe that there is some form of conspiracy to try to foist upon the people of this country the compulsory medication of public water supplies. Successive Governments have toyed with this idea but because of the pressure of those of us who oppose them they have held back. I only hope that my hon. Friend will not be the one Minister to announce that the Government will support the compulsory fluoridation of all public water supplies in this country.
  The evidence that my hon. Friend produced so extremely competently was compiled after lengthy work by many reputable people in the medical profession. What about the countries that have fluoridated their water supplies and have now terminated that practice? What about the states in the United States of
  790
  America and the countries within the European Community and elsewhere in Western Europe that previously fluoridated their public water supplies and have now terminated the practice? What about the mottling of teeth where fluoride has been applied? What about the mottling of teeth of those who have imbibed fairly large quantities of fluoride? All these questions must be answered.
  I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will reply sensibly on the probable connection between fluoride and cancer and the damage that might be caused later in life because fluoride has been retained in the body and has perhaps contributed to the contracting or development of cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to the voluntary use of fluoride. If people wish to buy milk to which fluoride has been added, fair dos; I am in favour of that. That is a voluntary choice. The same applies to the taking of fluoride tablets or pills. Fluoride toothpaste is widely available.
  Mr. Lawrence: Under the National Health Service.
  Mr. Winterton: I do not know whether that is so, but I have used it. I have used it because it was a voluntary decision for me to make. I have three children. My oldest boy is now nearly l9½ years. He has only two minor fillings. That is because I have always advocated and encouraged the cleaning of teeth. In his early years I cleaned his teeth for him. He has always been taught to clean his teeth.
  There are better ways of going about improving the dental health of the children and people of Britain than doing it compulsorily by fluoridating the public water supply. This is a matter of great importance. There is a great divide that extends beyond the two sides of the Chamber and exists between those who sit on the same Benches. We must have more dental health education. I say to my hon. Friend that he should not seek to introduce legislation compulsorily to add fluoride to the public water supply. If he does, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and I will oppose him hook, line and sinker. We believe that it is fundamentally wrong and that the case has not been proved.
  10.8 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): This has been an interesting and long debate. I shall try to deal with as many of the issues that have been raised as I can. If I do not have time to deal with all the issues, I undertake to write to my hon. Friends to give them replies to the questions they have asked.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that this is a subject that has interested me for many years, and long before I became a Minister. I remember attending one or two meetings of a Back Bench committee on health while in Opposition that was concerned with this very subject. I do not approach it entirely reliant on the advice of civil servants. I spent some time in Opposition briefing myself on the subject.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for giving me the opportunity of restating the Government's position on fluoridation, as explained in a debate in another place on 15 November 1979 and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the debate on 23 January on the report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made a welcome contribution. He outlined the advantages of fluoridation. He was right to say that the area health authorities are in favour of fluoridation. In England, 84 of the 90 area health authorities have independently decided to fluoridate water supplies. There is a similar majority in Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend asked me about alternative methods of fluoridation, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield.
  For the greatest protective effect against dental decay, fluoride must be provided from birth during the years of tooth formation up to about 14 years. Other methods are possible such as fluoride tablets, which benefit the individual rather than the community, but experience has shown that the necessary regularity of administration for the first 14 years of life is seldom achieved. Fluoride in school milk would not be ingested during the first five years of life, which is an important period of tooth formation, nor
  792
  during school holidays. Moreover, some children do not like milk.
  Salt has sometimes been suggested as a vehicle for fluoride. However, it is unsatisfactory for young children. Fluoride mouth rinses give much less benefit than fluoridation in relation to the resources required. Fluoride toothpaste, which now accounts for over 90 per cent. of toothpaste sales, has a useful complementary effect to that of fluoride in drinking water. Topical application—which I have had applied to my son—is available. However, I believe that it is not free on the NHS. One has to pay for it.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I are about to undertake an active review of dental health policy. We shall look at these alternatives and discuss them with those concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked whether we had any plans for legislation. The Government have no plans to legislate on this subject. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Expenditure Committee and to its conclusion. In contrast, a number of other bodies have also examined this subject. They have decided to support fluoridation. That includes the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the Royal Society of Health, the World Health Organisation and, more recently, the Royal Commission on the National Health Service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burton drew heavily on "Fluoridation News", issued by the West Midlands regional health authority. I hope he will accept that my Department has no direct responsibility for the West Midlands regional health authority. I shall draw its attention to his remarks.
  I think I should first explain that fluoride occurs naturally in most water supplies, sometimes at a satisfactory level for the prevention of dental decay. Fluoridation consists merely of the adjustment to the optimum level for dental protection—one part per million in temperate climes—of the fluoride content of those water supplies that are deficient in it naturally. When water containing the optimum level of fluoride is consumed during the years of tooth formation, the protection conferred in childhood continues during adult life.

  793
  I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton was a member of the inquiry into preventive medicine carried out some years ago by the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of this House. The bodies which gave evidence to the Sub-Committee endorsed the efficacy and safety of fluoridation. They included the Royal College of Physicians, the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association and my Department. The Government continue to support their views today.
  Fluoridation was proposed some 40 years ago because of observations by research workers of the better dental health of communities served by water supplies naturally containing about one part per million of fluoride. Contrary to suggestions made by opponents, the idea was proposed purely as a means of reducing the prevalence of dental decay, not only in individuals but in the entire community.
  Studies from about 1945 onwards in the United States and Canada showed that consumption of fluoridated water in certain study areas, by comparison with low-fluoride control areas, led to a reduction in dental decay similar to that which had been observed in areas with an adequate level of fluoride naturally. For the best effect, fluoridated water had to be consumed from birth up to 14 years of age—that is, during the years of tooth formation.
  On the recommendation of a mission sent by the then Government to North America, similar controlled studies were undertaken in the United Kingdom from 1955–56 onwards. Reports on the first five and 11 years of those studies, published in 1962 and 1969, showed substantial improvements in the dental health of children who had consumed fluoridated water from birth in the study areas. An expert research committee, set up to supervise the studies, concluded that it had shown fluoridation to be both safe and effective.
  These and other studies in fluoridated areas of the United Kingdom could examine only the effects on the dental health of children, since fluoridation in those areas had not been in progress long enough for older people to have consumed fluoridated water from birth. How-
  794
  ever, studies of lifetime residents of areas with similar proportions of fluoride naturally in their water supplies have shown that a satisfactory intake of fluoride in childhood confers a protection against dental decay that persists during adult life.
  Some years ago, the Royal College of Physicians, as an independent body concerned with public health, set up a committee to carry out a comprehensive survey of the evidence on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. The Royal College published a report in 1976, concluding that fluoride in water, added or naturally present, over the years of tooth formation substantially reduced dental caries throughout life. There was, moreover, no sound evidence at all of harm to health.
  Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir G. Young: I wonder whether I may make progress, and I shall give way in a few moments. I must try to respond to the arguments put forward.
  One chapter of the Royal College's report dealt with the alleged link between fluoridation and cancer and concluded that there was no evidence that fluoride increased the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ. That, however, has been the main point of criticism by those who allege that fluoridation is not safe.
  Mr. Lawrence: On that very point, is my hon. Friend aware that the Royal College of Physicians did not take into account the Burk-Yamouyannis studies?
  Sir G. Young: The next line of my speech runs as follows. Two United States biochemists, Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis, have claimed that cancer mortality increased more in 10 fluoridated American cities than it did in 10 unfluoridated cities over the same period. That claim has been examined in much detail by cancer epidemiologists and medical statisticians here and in North America, who have independently concluded that there is no difference in the changes in cancer mortality in the two groups of cities when appropriate corrections are made for demographic factors that play an important part in the complex matter of cancer causation.

  795
  Much is made of some small corrections needed in the results obtained by these experts, but these occurred through slight transcription errors, which happened when the published national statistics were collated for their use. As I have said, their statistical analyses were conducted independently, and the corrections that they made—and published—did not affect their conclusions.
  It is entirely defensible to use as basic data statistics collected in that way and, despite suggestions to the contrary, this is quite different from accepting another scientist's experimental results.
  Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis have since announced the results of further analyses, although without necessary supporting evidence at certain critical points.
  If, as my hon. Friend said, Dr. Yamouyannis yesterday described fluoridation as the greatest fraud this century, at best he was mischievous and at worst he has caused quite needless concern.
  Dr. Burk has also re-examined data published in a 1974 paper from Oxford university about differences in cancer incidence in various organs between certain fluoridated areas and certain similar control areas and between sets of areas with varying levels of fluoride naturally in their water supplies. I understand that differences in the Oxford paper could have arisen by chance or because of difficulties in the selection of adequate control areas and do not indicate an association between cancer incidence and fluoride in drinking water, whether present naturally or artificially.
  Moreover, Dr. Burk has attempted to show from these and other figures that cancer mortality has risen more in Birmingham since fluoridation than in Manchester and other unfluoridated British cities. However, I am advised that he has selected figures from the Oxford study that tend to support his case and that he has not taken account of appropriate demographic factors. I understand that, while the increase in cancer mortality may be greater in Birmingham since fluoridation than it was in Manchester, it was less than in unfluoridated parts of the West Midlands. Moreover, the increase in cancer mortality was greater in certain other unfluoridated cities.
  796
  Perhaps it is relevant here to recall what the Royal College of Physicians' report said on the subject of Birmingham, since my hon. Friend mentioned it. That report considered allegations that the cancer death rate had risen unduly in Birmingham since fluoridation started there in 1964. It pointed out, by reference to the Registrar-General's Statistical Reviews of England and Wales, that mortality from cancer, and from leukaemia in particular, had not increased in Birmingham relative to low-fluoride parts of the same area. Slight increases had occurred in both, but these were greater in the low fluoride areas. The chapter concluded:
  "There is no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ."
  The college considered that the enormous body of information bearing on the subject of fluoride and health amply justified the conclusion that there was no evidence that the consumption of water containing about one part per million of water in a temperate climate was associated with any harmful effect.
  No other studies carried out by appropriately qualified persons and published in scientific journals of good repute support the allegation of a link between fluoridation and cancer. Moreover, the suggestion that fluoride is a carcinogen is not supported by reviews by experts in this and other countries and reviews that have taken full account of animal and other laboratory studies, as well as epidemiological studies of cancer in several countries. No properly authenticated tests have supported the conclusion that fluoride salts as used in fluoridation are a mutagenic hazard to man.
  Perhaps I can now deal with the question of an inquiry by my Department into these matters. Press reports last year were wrong in suggesting that Ministers had instituted a formal inquiry. However, as my noble Friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne said in another place on 15 November 1979, this does not mean that we shall not continue to examine carefully any properly supported claims that may be made as to the safety or efficacy of fluoridation, even though we are at present satisfied on both counts. Indeed, following approaches to my Department by Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis, my

  797
  professional advisers have been in correspondence with them and they have recently received answers to a number of questions about both their published and unpublished work. They will be studied with care and, as is always the case with a matter of this kind, advice will be obtained from the academic experts who regularly advise my Department, to the extent that it may prove necesssary.
  It was suggested during the debate that fluoride was a poison. Fluoride is a natural substance and it occurs widely in the diet and most water supplies. In some water supplies, it occurs naturally at around the level of one part per million used in fluoridation. Fluoride, like many other items in the diet such as salt, iron and vitamin D, would be toxic if taken in great excess. However, at a level of one part of fluoride per million parts of water it cannot be considered poisonous.
  Those opposed to fluoridation have pressed for a formal inquiry, and even for a suspension of our efforts to encourage fluoridation. The Government are clear that that would be unjustified. No a priori case that there is a cancer hazard has been established. In the past, Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis have been prepared to advance arguments based, for instance, on the use of figures which take no account of demographic differences between populations or on the selection of results which tend to favour their case, which receive no credence in usual scientific circles. Their more recent, and somewhat more sophisticated, published work contains notable omissions. Much of their case depends on claims to an American court, unbacked by publications. The material that has now been provided may repair some of these omissions. It will be examined objectively and in detail. The result of the study will come before Ministers in accordance with normal procedures. But, it would be quite wrong to anticipate that their claims will in the end prove to be justified.
  I should like also to refer to the case brought by local residents before the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to require a water authority to stop fluoridation in parts of Pittsburgh and some outlying districts. The judge, sitting alone, said he was "compellingly convinced" of the plaintiffs' evidence, based largely on claims by
  798
  Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis of a link between fluoridation and cancer. He therefore issued a preliminary decree until the court held a final hearing or until the matter was dealt with by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
  Although the court's jurisdiction is still the subject of an appeal, the Department of Environmental Resources has considered the evidence given in the court but has, nevertheless, directed that the water authority should continue to fluoridate. Fluoridation also continues in the rest of Pittsburgh, where it began in 1952.
  Perhaps I could say a word about the position in Canada, since it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. Fluoridation began in Canada in 1945. Of the total population of 18 million with piped water, 46 per cent.—8·3 million—at present received fluoridated water. The decision to fluoridate rests with individual communities. On the basis of a preliminary report, the new Quebec Government decided to suspend implementation of their predecessors' Bill which would have required communities to fluoridate. The report was based on the alleged fluoride-cancer link, although the Canadian Government hold to the view in their 1977 report, based on a detailed study, that no such link exists. The so-called "moratorium" does not, however, prevent other Quebec communities from fluoridating, although those are relatively small, because much of the population of the province is concentrated in Montreal. At present, fluoridation covers 14·4 per cent. of the Quebec population supplied with piped water.
  The Canadian Public Health Association, with the assistance of Health and Welfare, Canada, undertook a study of fluoride in drinking water, and its final report, published in 1979, recommended that the optimum concentration of fluoride in Canadian drinking water should be established at 1·2 parts per million.
  Perhaps I can also deal with the position in other countries abroad. Although the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are at present the only EEC countries with fluoridation, the reasons why various Continental countries have not adopted it are not always completely clear. I understand that fluoridation had to stop in the Netherlands—where it had

  799
  been adopted to a considerable extent—because of a Supreme Court ruling that a separate unfluoridated supply should be provided for those who wished it. This, of course, was impracticable on technical grounds. The measure continues on a substantial scale in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
  Finally, as my right hon. Friend indicated last January, it remains the Government's view—like that of their predecessors for many years—that extensive trials throughout the world have shown that fluoridation safely and effectively reduces the prevalence of dental caries—one of the commonest diseases and one which has lifetime consequences for general and dental health.
  800
  Of course, my advisers will be examining figures of cancer incidence in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of the country from the usual sources, alongside the material provided by Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis. All this information is rigorously analysed by experts in my Department who are fully conscious of their responsibility for public health and are supported by the best independent advice that is available. They are satisfied that the current policies are right, and Ministers in the Department fully endorse their views.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Jobcentres and Employment Exchanges
  Jobcentres and Employment Exchanges
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Short-time Working (North-West)
  Short-time Working (North-West)
  Unemployed Persons and Vacancies
  Unemployed Persons and Vacancies
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Visiting Boxers (Work Permits)
  Visiting Boxers (Work Permits)
TRADE
  Counterfeit Automotive Parts
  Counterfeit Automotive Parts
  Tourism Projects
  Tourism Projects
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Copyright and Designs (Whitford Report)
  Copyright and Designs (Whitford Report)
  British Airports Policy
  British Airports Policy
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisons (Complaints Procedure)
  Prisons (Complaints Procedure)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Jersey and Guernsey (Draft Legislation)
  Jersey and Guernsey (Draft Legislation)
  Deaths by Shooting
  Deaths by Shooting
  Firearms Regulations
  Firearms Regulations
  Obscenity and Film Censorship
  Obscenity and Film Censorship
  DETAINED PERSONS (DEATHS)
  DETAINED PERSONS (DEATHS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  UNITED KINGDOM (TOUR)
  UNITED KINGDOM (TOUR)
  CHILD BENEFIT
  CHILD BENEFIT
  PENSIONERS
  PENSIONERS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUDGET)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUDGET)
  HAMPSHIRE
  HAMPSHIRE
  BRANDT COMMISSION (REPORT)
  BRANDT COMMISSION (REPORT)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
  PARIS
  PARIS
  TAOISEACH (MEETING)
  TAOISEACH (MEETING)
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS)
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS)
  MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
  AFGHANISTAN
  AFGHANISTAN
  LAND REGISTRY
  LAND REGISTRY
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Health Authority Expenditure (North-West)
  Health Authority Expenditure (North-West)
  Child Death Grant
  Child Death Grant
  Social Security (Expenditure)
  Social Security (Expenditure)
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Orthopaedic Surgery (Doncaster)
  Orthopaedic Surgery (Doncaster)
  Laboratory Staff
  Laboratory Staff
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Heart Operations
  Heart Operations
  Maternity Grant (International Comparisons)
  Maternity Grant (International Comparisons)
  Immigrants (Medical Treatment and Benefit)
  Immigrants (Medical Treatment and Benefit)
  Invalid Care Allowance (Married and Cohabiting Women)
  Invalid Care Allowance (Married and Cohabiting Women)
DEFENCE
  Royal Marines (Officer Entry)
  Royal Marines (Officer Entry)
WALES
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
SCOTLAND
  Jobcentres (Costs)
  Jobcentres (Costs)
  Western Isles (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Western Isles (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Otters (Protection)
  Otters (Protection)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Hull Trawlers
  Hull Trawlers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Borrowing Requirement
  Borrowing Requirement
  Money Supply and Domestic Credit Expansion
  Money Supply and Domestic Credit Expansion
  Banks (Foreign Exchange Losses)
  Banks (Foreign Exchange Losses)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Voluntary Organisations (Tax Concessions)
  Voluntary Organisations (Tax Concessions)
  Wines and Spirits (Excise Duty)
  Wines and Spirits (Excise Duty)
  Income Tax Evasion
  Income Tax Evasion
  Steel Industry Dispute (Revenue Loss)
  Steel Industry Dispute (Revenue Loss)
  Income Tax Allowances
  Income Tax Allowances
TRANSPORT
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Road Vehicles (Rules and Regulations)
  Road Vehicles (Rules and Regulations)
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Soviet Shipping (Refuelling)
  Soviet Shipping (Refuelling)
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Long-distance Hauliers (International Permits)
  Long-distance Hauliers (International Permits)
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
ENERGY
  New Cars (Petrol Performance)
  New Cars (Petrol Performance)
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Advertising)
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Advertising)
  Gas
  Gas
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
INDUSTRY
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Inmos and Nexos Projects
  Inmos and Nexos Projects
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Chile
  Chile
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Tenants (Security of Tenure)
  Tenants (Security of Tenure)
  Sporting Fixtures (Ticket Distribution)
  Sporting Fixtures (Ticket Distribution)
  Oil Refinery (Canvey Island)
  Oil Refinery (Canvey Island)
  Local Authorities (Houses—Staff Ratio)
  Local Authorities (Houses—Staff Ratio)
  Toxic Waste Tips
  Toxic Waste Tips
  Beckton District Plan
  Beckton District Plan
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Bloomsbury Properties
  Bloomsbury Properties
  Home Insulation Grants
  Home Insulation Grants
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rating Revaluation (Business Properties)
  Rating Revaluation (Business Properties)
  House Building
  House Building
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Education
  Education
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Gas
  Gas
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Security
  Security
  Irish Republic (Foreign Minister)
  Irish Republic (Foreign Minister)
  Public Officials (Nationality)
  Public Officials (Nationality)
  Education Boards (Expenditure)
  Education Boards (Expenditure)
  Health and Persons (Telephones)
  Health and Persons (Telephones)
  European Community (Transport Policy)
  European Community (Transport Policy)
  Transport Projects (European Community Aid)
  Transport Projects (European Community Aid)
  Terrorist Offences (Legal Aid Costs)
  Terrorist Offences (Legal Aid Costs)
  Licensed Activities
  Licensed Activities
  Human Rights (Advisory Commission Report)
  Human Rights (Advisory Commission Report)
  Companies (Public Investment)
  Companies (Public Investment)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: 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 support they have received from our NATO allies and from sporting bodies in the United Kingdom for their policy for a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Governments of the United States and the Netherlands have publicly supported a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow, while a number of other NATO countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway and Luxembourg, have expressed reservations about their athletes taking part. As regards sporting bodies in the United Kingdom, an increasing number of them seem to be having doubts about the wisdom of going to Moscow.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Can he tell us what views have been expressed by the Sports Councils of the United Kingdom and, if they have not expressed a corporate view at this stage, some 12 weeks or more after the invasion of Afghanistan, can he press them to do so?—because it seems to me that, as the national bodies representing sport, it is time that they expressed some view. Can he also give an assurance to all the sports which have supported the Government in their appeal to boycott the Olympics that not only will financial support—if it is financial support that the Government are prepared to give them—be given for the staging of world class competitions for the year 1980, but in view of the fact
390
that it is a short time in which to organise a world class competition that this support will in fact extend to the year 1981? Lastly, will the noble Lord recognise the patriotism of the national coach, Mr. Watts, in putting his country before himself?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, I certainly recognise the patriotism of Mr. Watts. As for the corporate view (if that is the right expression) of the various sporting bodies, they really have not come to a corporate view yet. We very much welcome the decision of the British Olympic Association to defer responding to the invitation from the Moscow Organising Committee until a later date: that is consistent with the attitude being adopted by other Western national Olympic Committees and indeed with the advice given to the association by the Government. As for the financial implications of my noble friend's supplementary questions, I cannot give any assurances of particular financial support at this moment.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the common sense and statesmanlike plan of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for a neutral Afghanistan is receiving growing and worldwide support? Will he also agree that at the present time the Carrington plan (as it is being called) provides greater hopes for resolving the real issues concerned than any increased pressure for a boycott of the Olympic Games?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, certainly the whole world is recognising the importance and merit of the proposals advanced by my noble friend, but that does not detract from our view that to go to Moscow in the present circumstances would be wholly unacceptable.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that there were some very good athletes who would have won medals in the 1940 and 1944 Olympic Games but who are dead and buried, and would he further agree that that was in part caused by some of us who were stupid enough to go to watch the 1936 Games and by some who took part in them?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to say what is the Government's estimate of the cost of staging worldwide games in 1980 and what he thinks they will cost in 1981 and succeeding years? Also, while I would not press the noble Lord to be specific —that would be asking too much—will he give an indication of, say, a percentage that the Government are prepared to ante up, or can we take it that, like the rest of their policy, it is just that they are concerned with words and not with actions?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is not true. We are certainly concerned with actions and it is actions that we are trying to achieve in this matter, not mere words. As for the cost of games this year or next, I am not in a position to answer that question without notice.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that it might be pertinent to ask the Sports Councils of Great Britain to ask their athletes what it will profit a man or a woman to win a gold medal if they lose their soul?
Lord TREFGARNE: That is a very pertinent question, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I did not gather from the noble Lord's answer what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government about this matter. Will he take note—because this has a bearing on the Question on the Order Paper—that the United States has declared that until the Russians vacate Afghanistan they will not agree to their people going to Moscow? What is the Government's attitude to this matter? Have we now reconciled ourselves to the presence of the Russians in Afghanistan and are we taking no further action?
Lord TREFGARNE: Indeed not, my Lords. The Question on the Order Paper, of course, relates to the Olympic Games. Our attitude is closely in line with that of the United States: we strongly advise our athletes, and indeed our spectators, not to go.
The Marquess of EXETER: My Lords, to clear up a misapprehension on the
392
first part of the Question, is the noble Lord aware that the Sports Council has no say in this matter at all;it is entirely a matter for the national Olympic Committee, which is controlled by the 28 sports which compete in the Olympic Games. They held a meeting two days ago and they decided that, although they would not send in their official reply, they would go to the Games, and they have not changed their minds up to this stage. So the letter will go out on 25th March. Is the noble Lord aware that that is the body which decides and no other body has a say in this matter?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am aware that the position is just as my noble friend describes. As I understand it, the decision of the British Olympic Association was to postpone replying to their invitation. We very much hope that the BOA will in the end accept the Government's further advice not to go to Moscow and will refuse the invitation.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is not only the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which should prompt us to consider declining to attend the Olympic Games in Moscow but also the Soviet assistance to the repressive réegime in Ethiopia, which is murdering and persecuting many thousands of citizens in Eritrea and the Ogaden, and also the intensified persecution of dissenters within the boundaries of the Soviet Union itself? Will the noble Lord not agree therefore that the advice given to the British Olympic Association that they should not take part in the Games would not be rescinded simply as a result of the Soviet Union agreeing to the Carrington plan on Afghanistan? The Soviet Union would have to show willing on these other matters as well.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, a Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan, if it were to take place following acceptance of my noble friend's proposals—or any other—would clearly significantly alter the position, but, as the noble Lord has said, that would not necessarily of itself mean that we would withdraw our objections to the Olympic Games in Moscow.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us warmly welcome the proposal

393
of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary but that at the same time many of us would regard it as deeply reprehensible were British and other athletes from Western Europe to go to Moscow for what in fact is going to be a Soviet propaganda spectacular, at a time when Russian aircraft are bombing Afghan villages?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. It precisely confirms our view.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that that position was known years and years ago? The propaganda aspect of this is nothing new. The new aspect of this is the Afghanistan position and surely we ought to be backing the Foreign Secretary in his proposals. Is that not the contradiction in the whole thing?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think there is a contradiction at all. Certainly the Russian way of behaving, including the ways referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were with us long before Afghanistan, but I think the noble Lord underestimates the enormity of what the Soviets have done in Afghanistan. They have invaded a neighbouring, unaligned and sovereign nation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I put two points to the noble Lord? Did I hear him aright to say that even if the Russians were to withdraw from Afghanistan we would still not be advising or allowing our sportsmen to go to Moscow? If that is what is said, it would seem to me to be an imbalance of assessment. Perhaps the noble Lord would clarify that point. The second point is this. The noble Lord said that our Government are advising our sportsmen against going to Moscow. Does that advice apply to the British media, particularly the television medium?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the Russians withdraw from Afghanistan that will, of course, fundamentally change the situation, but I would not want in advance to have to say that, if they did that, without any reference to whatever else they might do between now and then, we would automatically lift our objection
394
to our athletes going to Moscow. Perhaps the noble Lord would remind me of his second point, which I have forgotten.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my second point was this: Will the Government give the same advice to the British media—particularly the television medium—about going to Moscow as they are now giving to our sportsmen?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for a slip of memory. Yes, indeed, we do give the same advice to the media and to spectators.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the Government intend to take any active steps to discourage British visitors to Moscow during the period of the Games?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I have just said, we hope spectators and visitors will take note of our advice not to go.
The Marquess of EXETER: My Lords, may I clear up one extra point? The Olympic Games do not belong to the host country;they belong to the International Olympic Committee. Is the noble Lord aware that the International Olympic Committee take over all the stadiums? That is why when Hitler was there in 1936 all the propaganda was taken down in the stadium, under the instructions of the International Olympic Committee. Is the noble Lord aware that the International Olympic Committee and all the federations which run the technical side of the sports, which are completely worldwide, own the Games? The facilities are provided by the host country, and naturally if they do them well they are proud of them, as all other host countries have been in times past.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I readily acknowledge the passionate views of my noble friend in this matter and I understand what motivates them;but the fact is, none the less, that if the Games are to continue in Moscow as planned it will be a propaganda coup and triumph of monumental proportions for the Russians.

THE OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

  MOTOR FUEL: AVGAS 100 L
  3.14 p.m.
  Lord WHADDON: 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 is the difference between Avgas 100 L and four-star motor fuel, and why four-star motor fuel cannot be used in light aircraft which normally require Avgas 100 L.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I apologise briefly for the length and complexity of this Answer, but it is an important matter, so I hope your Lordships will bear with me. Avgas 100 L differs from four-star motor fuel by virtue, inter alia, of its octane characteristics, its vapour pressure, its sulphur content, its aromatic content and its comparative freedom from gum formation. Furthermore, Avgas is manufactured to more stringent specifications, particularly with regard to impurities. The use of four-star motor fuel in light aircraft engines not so approved will lead to shortenened engine life, and increase the risk of engine failure, both because of vapour locks in the fuel system and for other reasons. It also prevents the engine delivering full power at take-off, thus invalidating take-off performance data.
  I wish to emphasise that the use of unapproved fuels in any aircraft invalidates the manufacturer's guarantees, the insurance cover and the certificate of airworthiness. Operators use them, therefore, at grave risk to their aircraft, their passengers and themselves.
  Lord WHADDON: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that, if he insists that there are sound technical reasons for using exclusively 100 L, there is a concomitant duty on the Government to try to ensure adequate supplies? Is he aware of the chronic shortages which have plagued the industry in the last year or two, and that the overall quantity of fuel is negligible to the oil companies but absolutely vital to the vast majority of aircraft on the British register? What action do the
  396
  Government propose to ensure greater security of supplies in the future?
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we do recognise that there is a world problem, certainly a European problem, and an acute problem indeed in some parts of the world, regarding this particular product. The oil companies are urgently considering whether they can adjust the manufacture of motor spirit in such a way that it could be used safely in small aircraft engines.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what are the vapour pressures of Avgas 100 L and of ordinary four-star fuel? Can he also tell us what are their relative octane numbers? These are both important parts —in fact, they seem to me to be vital parts —of his Answer.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the answer on the octane numbers. Four-star motor spirit has an octane rating of not less than 97 research octane number, whereas 100 L Avgas has a rating of not less than 100 octane performance octane number weak mixture, and not less than 130 performance octane number rich mixture. I am afraid I have not got the vapour figures in front of me.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that when he talks about vapour lock in the system, it depends entirely upon the relative vapour pressures of the two, and therefore his answer is, if he will forgive me for saying so, unsatisfactory.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do apologise to the noble Lord.
  Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the price of Avgas in the United States is only 50p compared with, I think, four times more here, and that as a result of that and other factors the cost of becoming an airline pilot is something like £30,000 here compared to 6,000 dollars in the United States, in addition to which VAT is payable on learning to fly here, unlike any other instructional course? Does not this militate very much against British flying, and can the Government look into this?
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while there is a significant difference between the prices of gasoline here and in the United States, those are not the only causes for the difference in the costs of learning to fly. A commercial pilot achieving his licence in this country is required to undertake, I believe, at least twice the number of flying hours of his American counterpart.

  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGE
  3.18 p.m.
  Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state how many employees of ambassadors and high commissioners in Great Britain are covered by diplomatic privilege.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, 5,264 officials of diplomatic missions in London, together with their families, are entitled to full or restricted diplomatic privileges and immunities. A further 846 are entitled to some privileges and immunities under the International Organisations Act 1968, mostly for official acts only.
  Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an employee of one of the embassies who was deemed to be drunk while driving a car and had an accident and killed a woman, the mother of two children, and is now claiming diplomatic immunity? Is there any chance of action being taken and perhaps obtaining compensation for the family concerned?
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the particular case to which my noble friend refers—and I am obliged to her for giving me notice of her intention to raise it—was an unhappy one indeed. But I should tell the House and my noble friend that the prosecuting authorities decided that the evidence could not support a charge of causing death by reckless driving, and at the inquest the coroner brought in an open verdict. The police are still
  398
  considering whether lesser charges can be preferred in the light of the evidence. No request for a waiver of immunity in respect of any charge has yet been made, and indeed it cannot be so made unless and until the police decide to prefer charges. If they do, and if it then appears that the case cannot be dealt with in the United Kingdom, the Finnish authorities, with whom we have kept in close touch and who have been very co-operative, have already told us that it will be dealt with by them.
  Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, can my noble friend say when this accident took place?
  Lord TREFGARNE: Last October, my Lords.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our practice in this matter stems fundamentally from our accession to the various Geneva agreements which bind a large number of countries;and secondly, from the obligations we incur, like other signatories, when we accede to protocols to agreements in regard to specific international arrangements? Further, will he confirm my impression—I think it is fairly well-founded, but I should like it confirmed—that this country accords this type of privilege and immunity very much to the same extent and to the same numbers of personnel as comparable countries like, for example, the Republic of France and Western Germany do?
  Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The privileges which we accord to diplomats in London are in line with those accorded to our own diplomats in almost every country in the world. They stem from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 which was given effect in United Kingdom law by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.
  Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that our diplomatic corps does not systematically abuse the laws of foreign countries with regard to the parking and driving of motor vehicles? Would he further agree that the diplomatic corps in London—there are, of course, exceptions —has been systematically abusing those laws? Is it not time to say to our diplomatic

  399
  people that, if they are to have private cars—I am not, of course, referring to ambassadors' cars—they must, in advance, waive their diplomatic privileges as to the utilisation of those cars?
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it would not be true to say that there is widespread abuse of these arrangements. There are a few well publicised abuses which we do our best to deal with. However, we could not unilaterally restrict the privileges of visiting diplomats without risking the genuine and very necessary privileges accorded to our diplomats overseas.
  Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would my noble friend add to what he said about the Finnish authority's willingness to deal with the matter vis-à-vis the man concerned? Will he also tell us what they would do as regards compensation?
  Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, I can readily deal with that matter. The compensation is not affected by diplomatic immunity. Diplomats, like everyone else, are required to have proper insurance arrangements and that is certainly the case with regard to the recent Finnish incident.
  Lord MISHCON: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise the wonderment with which this House is witnessing the number of subjects which he is able to cover? As a result, does he realise that it is leading to the under-employment of his Front Bench? Is that consistent with the Government's general employment policy?
  Lord MONSON: My Lords, reverting to the Question of the noble Baroness, would the noble Lord perhaps agree that diplomatic privilege ought not to extend to exemption from the normal obligation to give evidence at a coroner's inquest?
  Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords;I am afraid that I would not agree with that. There are good reasons why that should be the case, and that is why it is provided for in the agreements.
  The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers):
  400
  My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt for a moment because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invited a change of occupant at the Dispatch Box. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to move on to the next Question after the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has had her go?
  Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Does the noble Lord regard it as an absurdity that diplomatic privilege has been used to excuse children of 10 and 11 from stealing in London stores?
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not aware that that is the case, but perhaps I can look into it if the noble Baroness will draw my attention to a specific incident. I can only repeat that, if that were so, it would arise from the agreements which we have entered into.

  DEFORESTATION IN LATIN AMERICA
  3.26 p.m.
  Lord VERNON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making representations to the Government of Brazil and appropriate other Latin American countries concerning the alarming rate of the destruction of tropical forest in the Amazon and Orinoco basins.
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Governments concerned are aware of the environmental aspects of this problem, on which there is already significant international co-operation. We think that the strengthening of this cooperation—to which the United Kingdom is able to contribute much knowledge—is the best way to make progress towards a solution.
  Lord VERNON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that more than half of the remaining area of tropical forest in the world lies within the basins of these

  401
  two rivers, and that it is being destroyed at the rate of 15 million hectares a year, which is equivalent to an area the size of England and Wales? Is he further aware that leading ecologists believe that that can have a very adverse effect on world climate and that therefore it is a matter that concerns all of us?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I was not aware that the rate was actually 15 million hectares a year but, with the approved and the illegal felling, it could be that much;I do not know. I point out to the noble Lord that in that part of Latin America there are some 1,200 million hectares of tropical forest, so there is still a large amount. I think that we must accept that in that region there is an area which is exploitable, but that there will always remain a large area which is unexploitable. It is a problem and we are giving as much help and advice as we can to the relevant bodies.
  Lord VERNON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one further question. Is this not a suitable matter for the EEC to look into, and is it not something which perhaps the noble Lord's noble friend the Foreign Secretary might raise at the next Council of Ministers, because joint representations from the Community would obviously be more effective?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we are dealing with a nation's resources and we do not tell other countries how they should develop or exploit their own resources. Where there is a world scientific problem I take the view that the United Nations is the correct body to deal with such matters.
  Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government aware that the present issue of The Ecologist magazine has a supplement which makes very compelling reading and should, I think, be read by every Member of your Lordships' House? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is a movement afoot on the part of distinguished scientists and others to make proposals whereby it might be in the interests of the Governments concerned —the owners of the tropical forests —not to cut down these forests?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. The contribution which the forests make to the world's ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen is a very complicated subject. The noble Lord mentioned The Ecologist. I have a great volume in my hand which is even more erudite and points out that the problem is by no means a simple one. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Governments in Latin America signed a pact in 1978 under the terms of which they have agreed to exchange scientific views and do research on the matter with a view to proper development and exploitation, coupled with proper conservation and, what is most important, the replanting and if possible the natural regeneration of these forests which, as the noble Lord pointed out, is in the interests of those countries.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has been acting as a very competent pinch hitter for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in attempting to deal with this problem, but would he not care to go back to his earlier work with regard to conservation and realise that this is a most important international matter? Would he not agree, therefore, that it is quite urgent that the Govern-ment should use all their influence in order to have the matter dealt with properly? Would he not also agree that it would be quite disastrous if, as a result of deforestation, another part of the world had to demand aid and help?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, Yes;I appreciate the worries of the noble Lord, who has great scientific knowledge. But our information is that the scientific evidence at present available does not make it a matter of immediate international concern. We think that the short-term and local consequences of deforestation may well be more serious. Nevertheless, the possible global and long-term climatic effects are sufficiently serious to warrant more scientific investigation. We have had British technical co-operation officers serving in Brazil, and the Governments out there are most happy to accept our advice on some of these matters because we have a great deal of experience in the tropical forests and our Commonwealth Forestry Institute

  403
  officials are very knowledgeable on this matter. It is not as though they do not wish to co-operate;I emphasise that they wish to do everything possible to help.
  Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord not find it surprising that Her Majesty's Government are asked to intervene in the Amazon and other forests in Brazil, but are not permitted to intervene in the steel strike?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, our intervention in the Amazon is purely in aid of scientific help and as part of the United Nations organisations. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme. Both that organisation and those taking part in that programme are pleased to use scientific advisers from all their Member States. That is the way we help.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, will the Government also make representations concerning the protection of the Indians living in these forests, whose numbers have been considerably reduced in recent years?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord is quite right. If all these forests were cut down, there would indeed be serious implications for the natives who live in them. But as I said, there will always be large areas of non-exploitable forest.

  LORDS EXPENSES
  3.32 p.m.
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose is to give effect to the secretarial allowance for Ministers and other office holders in your Lordships' House, which was announced in the Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on 14th February and which I repeated here. The new allowance of up to £1,000 per annum is available only to Ministers and other office-holders in your Lordships' House, and is towards the cost of secretarial
  404
  assistance which is needed to deal with non-departmental correspondence. Those noble Lords will, however, cease to be eligible for the maximum of £700 per annum of Peers' expenses allowances, which they may currently claim. Ministers in another place are entitled to claim towards the cost of secretarial and research assistance and office expenses incurred on constituency business, and also some of the costs of running a home in their constituency. Apart from the £700 a year which can be claimed against the Peers' expenses allowance, noble Lords who hold official offices do not receive any allowance towards similar expenses.
  These differences in the treatment of Ministers in each House arise largely out of their constituency responsibilities, which are carried out by a Minister in another place. The review body did not feel able to recommend an allowance which would enable office-holders in this House to meet the costs of maintaining a home outside London. But they did recommend that they should receive some financial help towards the cost of secretarial assistance which is needed to deal with non-departmental correspondence.
  The review body, therefore, concluded that expenses up to a maximum of £1,000 a year would be right. I would only re-emphasise that this figure is the maximum against which reimbursement of expenses, which have actually been incurred in employing secretarial assistance to deal with non-departmental correspondence, can be claimed, and that claims against this allowance should be accompanied by receipted vouchers. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House approves the following proposal with respect to expenses incurred by Lords after 14th February 1980—
  No expenses shall be recoverable under the resolution of 16th July 1979 by any Lord who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or by the Chairman or Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, but every such Lord and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees shall be enabled to recover expenses not exceeding in any year the sum of £1,000 and certified by him as incurred on secretarial assistance for the performance of his parliamentary duties.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he is satisfied that this arrangement, in fact, meets with the approval of the Ministers sitting opposite me at present. Does not it mean that they will lose £700 a year, which did not involve the requirements which the £1,000 will involve? Am I right in thinking that there may be other people in your Lordships' House who are in recept of £700 a year for specific purposes, which they still need, who will not receive one penny under this arrangement?
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has expressed. The best way in which I can explain this to him is as follows. The £700 expenses allowance, which at the moment is allowed, consists of £100 which is tax-free and the rest which is taxable. However, that is the subject of a separate claim and has to be claimed as an expense. Under this system it will be possible to claim, not £700, but £1,000, and it is not impossible that if these are justifiable expenses, accompanied by vouchers, there would be a larger amount which would be free of tax. But that is, of course, a matter for negotiations with the Treasury. However, the £700 allowance, to which the noble Lord refers, is the subject of a special allowance claim and is not part of the salary.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I asked the Minister whether I would be right in thinking that there are some people—not necessarily Ministers—who at present are in receipt of the £700 a year, who will not now receive that. Am right in thinking that that is so?
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am not in a position to know what people claim on their allowance forms. In fact, that which is claimed should be claimed because of expenses undertaken. But I certainly take the noble Lord's point, and if he is concerned about it and wishes to discuss it further, I should be quite happy to discuss it with him.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
  Standing Order No. 61
  After "Procedure Committee" insert "Science and Technology Committee".
  Standing Order No. 62
  In line 3, after "but" insert "he must not attend any meeting while the Committee deliberate, unless invited by the Committee to do so, and". —(Earl Ferrers.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EEC RURAL AREAS AND AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES
  3.38 p.m.
  Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD rose to move, That this House takes note of the 27th Report of the European Communities Committee on policies for rural areas in the European Community (H.L. 129) and of the 15th Report of the committee on policy for agricultural structures (H.L. 63). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to start by recording my thanks to my un-named colleagues on the Select Committee on Community affairs for their help in producing a report for your Lordships to debate. Coupled with that go our thanks to our staff and to our specialist adviser, to our 60 witnesses who were good enough to supply us with evidence, and to our eight embassies, among the other members of the Community, who provided us with views relating to the countries to which they were accredited. I should also like to welcome the distinguished speakers who are participating in this debate and adding their opinions on this matter to those which we have already harvested.
  As a preliminary, perhaps it would be as well for me to say a few words about the nature of this report. Most reports coming from the Select Committee on

  407
  Europe amount to comments from our Select Committee on a draft proposal which has come from the Commission. Others are very different from that and have served to focus a wide range of opinion on an important and perhaps neglected topic on which the Commission has not pronounced at all or, if it has pronounced, has not pronounced at sufficient depth, range or width. We have produced previous reports of this kind—one on enlargement in March 1978, and another on the relationships between the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Parliament, which was completed in July 1978.
  Ours, which we have nicknamed "Arcadia "—I shall come to that in a minute—is in this latter category. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have at least succeeded in concentrating a wide range of opinion on an area which deserves more attention than it has been getting. We have no doubt that we have done little more than make a start, and we are quite certain that a great deal more work needs to be done. I hope that this debate will have the effect of ensuring that more work is in fact done.
  I said that we code-named this report "Arcadia" and I should like to explain why. Arcadia is in Greece—the next applicant country to joint the Community. Arcadia in present-day reality is an inaccessible, impoverished, upland plateau in the Greek Peloponnese, but in legend and in aspiration it was thought of in Greek classical literature as the ideal rural place in which farming and recreation are delightfully combined, in which shepherds sit playing their pipes, basking in the sunshine among their flocks.
  Enlargement will bring thousands of hectares of countryside like the real Arcadia into the Common Market, and thousands of poor peasant farmers like the Arcadians into the Community. We have to ask ourselves what are the chances of their hopes of a higher quality of life approaching the ideal Arcadia being fulfilled. What hopes are there of their expectations of democracy being met? Will our already over-stretched resources stretch far enough further to meet their basic needs? We have to go on and ask whether the intractable and wasteful Common Agricultural Policy, as it has
  408
  now become, so direly in need of reform already to serve the needs of the Nine, will have been remoulded by this time next year, when Greece will be in the Community, to deal effectively with the needs of the Ten, and capable of being reshaped further to deal shortly after that with the needs of the Eleven and the needs of the Twelve.
  Another question mark is, will the impending review of the Regional Fund have been carried through in time to cope with the enlargement which will make this Community more rural, more southern than it is now, in the 1981s, 1982s, 1983s? I believe the whole House will agree that it is extremely difficult to be confident about the answers to any of these questions. Perhaps after the debate after this one some of your Lordships will gain confidence on hearing what the Three Wise Men and the Spierenburg Report have to say about the likely capacity of the European institutions to grapple effectively with problems like these.
  So far the only sign of a fresh look at the need for rural policy comes in Directive 5720/79, to which our report refers. That is the only directive so far indicating a fresh approach to rural problems in the Community. This does no more than offer the prospect of three relatively small pilot projects of so-called integrated rural development in the Western Islands of Scotland—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, may tell us a little about how that is viewed up there—in the department of Lozère in France (a department which contains the uplands of the Cevennes;Robert Louis Stevenson country), and the Ardennes in Belgium;an area of Belgium rather confusingly called the Province of Luxembourg.
  Side by side with these question marks relating to the whole Community there is an undoubted need, when you look at things nationally, for new departures in rural policy. During the preparation of our report the central Government here have completed the countryside review with five reports: Problems and Policy in the Countryside;Food Production in the Countryside; a report on rural communities;Leisure in the Countryside; and most recently published since we completed our work, Conservation and the Countryside Heritage.
  Before we started the Association of District Councils had expressed their anxieties in a paper they entitled Strategy for Survival. While we were working the Association of County Councils produced theirs called Rural Deprivation, and since we have finished the National Association of Local Councils have produced their further report called Change or Decay. So there is a good deal of interest and anxiety in this country on this topic as well.
  It would be tedious of me to go through the report chapter by chapter, and still more paragraph by paragraph. All I want to do is pick out in my own personal way three themes which, it seems to me, are particularly sharp and calling for attention;broad issues which appear from the evidence given to us. The first is a challenge to the claim that food production is the primary land use of the countryside. That sounds convincing. It may have generally been true, and in some parts of the countryside it still is true. But if the Community is looked at as a whole it cannot be true to say, when we are generating large and expensive surpluses of milk and dairy products, wine, sugar, et cetera, that it is a primary use of all our land to go on generating these surpluses. There must be more useful things which can be done with some of the land in some of the countries in the countryside.
  The problem surely is how and where to stop and curb this wasteful and unnecessary production of food which is not required. It is not as though there were no other strong claims to the use of land in the countryside, and to the use of land in the countryside in this country in particular. I am not a landowner but my understanding is that as well as being one of the best countries in Europe for growing grass we have some of the best conditions for growing timber. It therefore seems to me extremely odd that there should be only one other country in the Community which has a lower proportion of its land dedicated to the growing of trees.
  I should have thought under present circumstances that that is another form of diversification which we ought to be pressing forward with energy. I say no more about that because I believe that there is a debate on forestry before very
  410
  long in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. However, it indicates that we must look less to the exclusive use of rural land for food production and more to the integrated use of rural land for forestry as well as farming, and for amenity and recreation as well. There is an absolute necessity to strike a better balance in the use of rural land.
  The second theme which seems to me to be particularly striking in the evidence which we have had is the view that not all the agricultural technologies now being advocated are as appropriate as they were some years ago. Can it be sensible to be advocating technological advances in agriculture which require more and more use of expensive and rare chemicals which have to be imported, particularly fuel which we need to conserve and of which we know the supply is limited, and at the same time to be adopting argricultural technologies which require less use of labour, and have the effect of forcing young boys and girls to leave the land of their fathers and to add themselves to the thousands of unemployed people who are already in the industrial cities? The Mansholt plan, which had that effect, might have been a good thing 10 years ago, but I very much doubt from the evidence we are getting whether it is a suitable policy to continue to apply so vigorously in present circumstances.
  I would point out as an exemplary exception to this our own upland sheep farmers, who have enormous success over, say, the French, and who achieve it with the consumption of a minimum amount of fuel and the use of a minimum amount of materials, largely by their own skills, the skills of their dogs and the hardiness of themselves, their dogs and their flocks. That seems to be an admirable example of a highly appropriate technology which should be thought about throughout agriculture. Surely, therefore, the trend of professional advice has to change in this field, too.
  The third strange feature which seems to emerge strongly from our evidence is the very high value and esteem set by all our people on our rural heritage in its totality and diversity and the need for the rural communities it keep it all alive. Side by side with that we have the anomaly that this village life is showing every sign of frailty and tendency to break down,

  411
  and the economy which supports it is getting weaker and weaker and more and more vulnerable. Examples of this come up time and again. Last month it was the threat to rural sub-post offices. Next week, when we are discussing the Education Bill, it will be the threat to rural school buses. But there are also the pubs, churches, village halls and all sorts of other rural institutions which are all highly regarded, esteemed and valued but which are threatened, one after the other, by some development in central or local government policy. The reason is that it is always possible to demonstrate that a particular rural service is uneconomic and therefore should be cut, but it can be done only by neglecting and overlooking the enormous intangible and unmeasurable values and internal resources which are possessed by every village, and we must do more work to ensure that that factor is not so often overlooked.
  We are therefore faced with the need to find ways and means of achieving a more balanced use of rural land and pursuing what the Commission call "integrated rural development", and that seems to lead us to a choice, broadly speaking, between two methods: the first relies on planning and planning control, which farmers like so long as it is used to prevent the loss of agricultural land;on the curbing of afforestation, which amenity lobbies like, so long as it is used to curb the spread of afforestation;and on development control, which nobody likes but in which the planners are nevertheless actively engaged. This way of proceeding, it seems to me, has two major disadvantages: it is all negative and it is impersonal.
  Fortunately, there is a choice. We have the way of proceeding by means of positive management agreements as to the use of rural land, and the Less Favoured Areas Directive for use in those areas provides a good framework for a good deal of this;a way of harnessing farming, conservation, tourism and other rural activities together. The sad irony is that the Ministry of Agriculture in this country makes far too little use of it. The national park management plans now available in all our 10 national parks provide a more detailed framework in which management agreements can be operated, and one hopes that the Countryside Bill, which contains provisions for
  412
  making management agreements more effective, will not be much further delayed. The great advantage in proceeding in this way is that the energies and enthusiasms of private farmers and landowners can be engaged in a positive way in the development of their own holdings, both to provide their own private objectives and to mix these with other objectives.
  But if this is to be done on any scale, many farmers, and particularly smaller farmers, will need a broader range of professional advice. Fortunately, our own Agricultural Development Advisory Service, and no doubt other extension services elsewhere in Europe, have recently accepted in principle a wider remit, as was recommended by the Strutt Report last summer. But under present circumstances they are most unlikely to be allowed to engage any more members to undertake such a role, and, if the arrangements for administering farm capital grants are developed on the lines about which we were hearing last week, it seems there will be less engagement between the advisory services and the farming community. In those circumstances, it seems that we have to look for supplementary professional advice on multiple land use and to ask from where that will be forthcoming: I shall be interested to hear during the debate how noble Lords think that is going to be provided.
  Finally, I come to our view that for this to proceed we need to have a European statement of objectives for rural land use. It is not fashionable to suggest any change to the Treaty of Rome and we are not proposing one, but we are recommending something of the same size, character and shape as the clause in the Treaty of Rome on which the Common Agricultural Policy is based, and because that is significant I will read the relevant passages. The aims we suggest are:
  " To make the best use of rural land and all its varied potential, and in particular to exploit responsibly the natural resources of the land for the production of food, timber, water and minerals;secondly, to promote the economic prosperity and social wellbeing of the whole rural community, including those not directly dependent on agriculture for their living;thirdly, to conserve the character of the countryside landscape and the wild life within it;and fourthly, to provide all practical access and facilities to the public for tourism, recreation and sport".
  We all appreciate that that is a very tall order, far easier said than done, but we

  413
  believe it can be done and we have indicated some of the tools of policy by which it can be done. Above all, we believe it is imperative that we do better in fulfilling these aims before the EEC tries to encompass and embrace the countryside and countrymen of Greece, Portugal and Spain. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the 27th Report of the European Communities Committee on policies for rural areas in the European Community (H.L. 129) and of the 15th Report of the committee on policy for agricultural structures (H.L. 63).—(Lord Sandford.)
  3.58 p.m.
  Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I wish at the outset to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his committee on the very production of the report. Anyone—and many of your Lordships have—who has sat on an EEC scrutiny committee knows the literally inches or feet of bumf one has to wade through, the many interesting witnesses one has to hear and the enormous amount of sifting one has to do. The production of a report at all is a miracle, and for producing a good one the noble Lord and his committee deserve our congratulations.
  I must disagree with the noble Lord slightly in his strictures on the agricultural policy. He is of course entitled to his view, but he said he was not a landowner or farmer and was therefore slightly ignorant. Nevertheless, it is right and proper that people who are not professionally engaged on the land should look at the land and its problems. I should also like to tell the noble Lord that the picture he painted of a happy Arcadia for our hill shepherds in this country is slightly askew. They depend upon helicopters to spray bracken in order to knock it down. When they roam the hills with their dogs the main instrument they carry is a syringe, in order to interfere with their sheep! Scientists have done enormous good for hill farming by producing vaccines against all kinds of ills. So the Arcadia is helped by the modern world.
  It is very encouraging to see that the EEC realises what it is going to do;and when I say the EEC I mean us—that we realise what we are going to do to the rural areas. The tradition and the pattern are well known. When industrial production
  414
  is built up and the nation becomes wealthy people leave the land, and at the same time the land is industrialised, and people flock to the towns. If we do not watch out, we shall have 300 million people in places such as Birmingham, London, the Ruhr, and parts of North Italy, and the rest of Europe will be in a sorry state, hardly able to maintain its services. Perhaps there will be a few areas, such as Yorkshire, and so on, which will survive. But, quite seriously, on the whole what happens is that people leave their traditional occupations;there is, for instance, the cobbler in the village who goes to work in a factory which produces shoes which people later throw away.
  Basically the problem is one of people. I recall an interesting point mentioned when I attended—naturally—my father's funeral. Many of his old men were there, and we were reminiscing about old times. One of them said—and I shall not say it in Scots, because a large number of your Lordships would not understand: "There's not the fun on the farms nowadays". A cleverer chap said, "There aren't the folk on the farms nowadays". I believe that that is the basis of what we are discussing—the need to maintain a healthy, virile population, living useful, not ornamental, lives;not Arcadian shepherds, but useful, practical people who like to live in the countryside and can afford the services. I must say that the committee did extraordinarily well in paragraph 53 of their report when they tried to define this point. They acknowledged the central role of agriculture in the economy, but they went on to say:
  " it has become unrealistic to expect the primary land-based industries to sustain rural economies on their own".
  That is absolutely right. We must accept that if we are to maintain enough folk in the countryside, we must, along with agriculture, develop the other uses of land, ranging from forestry to tourism, as well as manufacturing in small or large factories—but factories which are suitable for the area and in which part—time farmers and others can get a living. This is not easy to do—I have had quite a lot of experience of it—but it can be done. It has been done in Germany, and in parts of France. We must look to manufacturing, along with forestry, in order to supply the extra people needed to keep the areas viable and virile.

  415
  The easiest thing to do is to tackle the natural assets. In other words, I have found that where there is an area of great natural beauty one can put money into tourism and into training for tourism, which is just as important, and one will get an economic reward. I believe that tourism is a natural asset in our country areas, and that it will be needed more and more as people in the towns, in the great areas of the Ruhr, London, and Birmingham, in this apex of industry, increasingly need to go to the countryside. Where there is an enormous area of concentration of power, such as we are moving towards in Europe, one has to look after the periphery;and the periphery is enormously important.
  I do not want to speak for much longer on the general theme. The report makes a number of other excellent suggestions about how we should tackle this subject. There is the central point, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, where they ask for a definition of rural policy. This is very important, and I believe that we, too, in Britain must define what we mean by a policy for the rural areas. We have done more than many other countries in this regard. I think of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Crofters Commission, the various bodies in Wales, the experiments in the Pennines, and many other areas of government and of popular and proper activity.
  We should seize again on the three experiments mentioned in the report, and which are in hand, though they are not progressing very fast. In particular, we should push for the one which is designed to spend a great deal of money and do something for the Western Isles. I know a little about the Western Isles, and this is the ideal area on which to start, although I think that the area should be widened to include the rest of the Highland area on the coast opposite the Western Isles, which might be in more need. That would be a better, larger, and more integrated area with which to start. Somehow or other, the Western Isles has managed to hold on to its population, so there is something which one can preserve, which is much easier than trying to build up again after it has all broken down.
  We have had many experiments in the
  416
  Western Isles. Lord Lever—not the present one, but the one connected with Unilever—spent an enormous amount of money 50 years ago trying to turn that area into a fishing and packaging centre. Of recent years he failed because the matter fell down over the question of land. When one tackles land as a centre one begins to come to a proper solution, particularly in areas like the Highlands.
  In the Western Isles we had an adviser connected with the agricultural college, Mr. Gillespie, who was a marvellous natural leader. He persuaded many crofters to take advantage of the Government subsidy for the reclamation of land, and they poured, at a 100 per cent. subsidy, the shell sand from the sea shore on to peat and a large amount of the Western Isles which was formerly peat hag was reclaimed into grass. That was most successful. But it is going back now due to the lack of this same lime subsidy.
  I believe that this Government, too, should put up £10 million, as the EEC wish to do;it ought to be matched by us. We should do this, but we should apply the knowledge that we have to the hopes and the kindness of the larger body, the EEC, because to pour £20 million into agriculture in the Western Isles would be ludicrous. The annual budget for the whole of the Crofters Commission is only £1½million. To put £20 million into a small area, in agriculture alone, would be quite wrong. This is precisely what the report talks about—and that is widening the basis. It must go into tourism, agriculture, forestry, land improvement, and transport, too, which is also enormously important.
  Another point made in the report which I consider is very valuable is that we really should not expect Brussels to try to run affairs in the Western Isles. They must put forward the policy, and then it must be administered by the bodies who know something about the area. We really must not in Brussels build a bureaucracy which tries to run the crofters of the Western Isles, because they will not be run in that way. It is difficult enough to run them in any shape or form, but to run them from Brussels would be absolutely impossible. If we can get the money and the spirit organised, and then follow it up ourselves, we can make in the Western Isles a very good experiment

  417
  which might show us how to handle this problem, which will affect the whole of Europe. I must commend the report.
  4.10 p.m.
  Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in offering our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for giving us the opportunity to debate this report this afternoon. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on his very clear presentation of the report, and his committee on producing such a readable report which we can understand and find so interesting. I want to deal with only two particular aspects, but in rather general terms. For my sins, I happen to be one of the vice-presidents of the Association of District Councils, and they have asked me to say how much they warmly welcome the report because the conclusions which are expressed in it are in accord in so many ways with the views which they expressed in their evidence to the committee. They wanted that to be on record, that they warmly welcome the report of Lord Sandford and his colleagues.
  Like so many other bodies which submitted evidence to this committee, they believe—and I believe the committee have supported their view—that the full potential of the rural areas is going to be realised only when there is a truly comprehensive approach to rural policy which aims to safeguard the future of the rural communities. I accept that there is a considerable variety of types of rural areas within Europe;and, while it may not be realistic to seek a comprehensive rural policy for the whole of the Community, there are a number of areas where there is scope for improvement in policy-making as it applies to the rural areas in this country. Maybe action here and in our partner-States in Europe could be stimulated if we could have more consideration of the relevant issues that occur to all of us at Community level.
  The Association of District Councils is one of those blanket organisations which, through all the district councils, in effect covers the interests of the whole of the rural population of England and Wales;and, like many other organisations and individuals, it is very concerned about rural deprivation and depopulation, and
  418
  also about the present application of the Common Agricultural Policy. As the noble Lord said in his introduction, the Community is about to be enlarged, and the Common Agricultural Policies have a direct influence on both the general prosperity and the level of employment in agriculture in all the Member States. So far the CAP has been encouraging the movement towards more mechanisation and larger units, and to some of us it would seem that they have not always been completely aware of the impact of their policies on the social and economic conditions in rural areas. If there is to be a positive and co-ordinated approach to the problems, then there must be an increase in the resources at national and local levels, and indeed at European level.
  The ADC believes—and I think, again, this view was shared by the committee—that the major problem is the reliance at this point of time on three separate agricultural, regional and social funds, each working in somewhat watertight compartments and, it would seem, without very much attempt at co-ordination in the way in which they apply and implement their rural policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, suggested, this lack of coordination, and sometimes conflicting policies, have given momentum to the decline of the rural areas. Agricultural employment goes down, the indigenous country-dwellers have to leave the rural area and go to the urban district to seek work, and their place is taken by retired people and by commuters who move into the country for their place of residence. This is the kind of changeover which upsets the whole basis of our rural society, and generally means an increase in those of the older age groups and a corresponding decrease in the younger age groups within our village communities. These changes in themselves have a very significant effect on employment, on housing, on education, on transport and on all the Community services;and the rural policy of the EEC must be better co-ordinated and integrated if the drift from the rural areas is to be reversed.
  Action is needed to create more employment opportunities on the lines of schemes sponsored by the Development Commission. There must be better housing facilities, with reasonably-priced houses for

  419
  sale and to rent, and perhaps encouragement to housing associations to do more in our rural areas. There certainly must be better transport and community and social services. I am one of those who regret the present tendency of some of our county councils, in our present economic state, to talk about selling off their smallholding units. The present trend towards larger farms may help to provide a career structure for those who want to help in agriculture, but there are very few opportunities for young people to start farming on their own account;and in many areas the smallholding is the only avenue open to meet a very real and continuing need. I hope that our Government will give positive encouragement to the local authorities to retain their present smallholdings, and indeed to create new and additional ones where possible, and will urge that other countries look at similar sorts of schemes.
  One other aspect I want to put to your Lordships is the impact of EEC policies in rural areas which are not in assisted areas, and where central support from Government is limited. As noble Lords will know, I come from Cambridgeshire, and that county submitted fairly detailed evidence to the committee. In the East and North-East of that county we have the very highly productive Fenland, unlike the wide open spaces, haunted by the shepherds playing their pipes, of the Arcadia described to us by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The land is rich and the land is very fertile, and 25 per cent. of the jobs in that area are in agriculture and horticulture. Most of the industrial activities in that area are also concerned with food processing, with packaging, with canning and with agricultural engineering.
  The county council took a long, hard look at Fenland and its problems in relation to its structure plan, and the problems of Fenland must be shared by many other parts of this country and by many other pockets throughout the Member States. The county council found that over the last 15 years there had been very little population change but a very marked decline in the number of jobs available. The area is a remote and scattered one, and rural isolation is one of the biggest problems. A very high (if not the highest) level of unemployment
  420
  in the county is in Fenland, and there is little or no opportunity for school-leavers. Many of the unemployed are unskilled, and can therefore compete for only a very limited range of jobs;and the deteriorating employment situation both reflects and contributes to the other problems of the area.
  This part of the county is not very accessible, with only the A.47 as the principal link between East Anglia and the Midlands, but it also has an important rail link between the Haven ports and the Midlands and the North. The housing conditions in the area are relatively poor, and a much higher than average proportion of the dwellings lack real basic amenities. Poor accessibility, limited services and facilities, and relatively few skills in the local labour force, all reduce the attraction of the area for future employers, and the county council have accepted that in this case the problems need to be tackled by strengthening the economic base. Here, they are in effect trying their own form of integration, by involving all their departments and some of the central Government departments. They want a major re-orientation of county council road programmes to give improved access into Fenland, so they are pressurising central Government to try to improve the A.47 road. The Development Commission have come to their aid;they have declared Fenland one of the special investment areas, and factory units are being constructed. They have encouraged the district council to build mini-units in the county, and the district council and the county council between them are trying to make available serviced industrial sites for development.
  They have also involved the British Waterways Board, and are jointly investigating with them the potential use of the Wisbech port to handle European traffic;and the Peterborough Development Corporation are offering their services and expertise in helping them with selective industrial promotion and also in preparing a brochure for use by their Members of the European Parliament to press the case. The county council is also planning to strengthen and reorganise their secondary education and have a reprieve from the DHHS to retain their hospital at Wisbech.
  These are some of the things that can be done when people start to work

  421
  together and to integrate their policies. But, despite all efforts, the areas' problems are still immense. They need the support of a much wider range of public investment bodies and the confidence of private investments. This is where EEC grants and supports would prove invaluable. The present and threatened cuts in public expenditure pose a very real threat to today's level of services and, as the Cambridgeshire report to the committee said—
  " If the present generally depressed level of services, including public transport, education and health, cannot be maintained, even additional employment opportunities will not maintain balanced rural communities, and prevent the area's younger and brighter citizens from drifting away, the downward spiral which is widening the inequality with urban facilities, will not be arrested, but rather could be accelerated".
  The Community funds which are available, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, had to be additional to what we put in ourselves and not a substitute for it. In the short term, the efforts of the Community must be concentrated on ensuring that the existing funds arc administered as cost effectively as possible. The current problems that arise from the CAP and the wider question of the Community budget are substantial and very complex, but I feel that this report provides an excellent start for ensuring that the wider questions of the EEC rural policy are given proper consideration in that context.
  4.22 p.m.
  Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I am very glad of the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. She has an excellent knowledge of these difficult problems from the angle of local government. If she will one day do me the honour of coming across to the "Garden of Eden "in Devon—and she can leave all her warm clothes behind her—I hope she will bring with her a few thousand tons of that marvellous black soil from the Fenlands;provided that it does not blow away, as we have quite a wind.
  The report which my noble friend Lord Sandford has introduced so skilfully this afternoon is not only interesting but is a very timely one. The theme, the key, can be found in the first paragraph of the report, in a single sentence which reads:
  " A large proportion of the rural population
  422
  now earns its living from activities other than agriculture or horticulture".
  That is very true. The structure of agriculture in Northern European countries has changed out of all knowledge over the past 30 or 40 years, and the number of persons directly employed has been enormously reduced. In some countries, that process is not by any means completed and will go a good deal further. Personally, having lived in the country all my life, I deplore the loss of so many agricultural workers who I always thought formed as fine and as wise a section of the community as anyone could know. There is one remark made by an old farm worker that I have always remembered: "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you, pigs is equal." I think that is one of the shrewdest remarks I have ever heard.
  The Common Agricultural Policy is almost exclusively concerned with agricultural production—a very important facet but not the whole of the problem of rural areas, as my noble friend has clearly outlined. The efforts to safeguard and encourage efficient agricultural production—and when I say "efficient ", I refer to the efforts to increase the volume of agricultural production—have resulted in the currently alarming surpluses. Much of European agriculture is nothing like as efficient as the average level in the United Kingdom. We must also accept that, owing to technical changes in agricultural structures, a satisfactory return to agricultural producers directly benefits fewer persons every year as is mentioned in the report. Having said that, the level of efficient agricultural production and productivity is very important, but is not the whole picture. I am not sure that I will go as far as to say that food production is not the primary use of land, but it is certainly not the only use.
  One question which has to be answered is this. Is there rural deprivation in the United Kingdom? The answer, I am sure, is: yes, there is some. There is a climate of deprivation in some localities and there are elements of deprivation in the lives of some of the rural inhabitants of most areas, particularly perhaps in the case of the elderly. The age of the rural population is higher than the average because of the dearth of employment opportunities for young people in their own villages. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Sandford on that and I would invite

  423
  him to come down again to stay with me one day. He will find me piping among my flocks and we will go around and see a few things;and then I can lend him a spare pipe and we can join in a lament together.
  There are some benefits which those who live in rural areas would agree they enjoy—healthier conditions and a quieter life, for instance. What are the disadvantages? Notably, perhaps, they are disadvantages stemming from geographical remoteness, transportation, in some cases education and fewer public services because they have to be spread more thinly. A survey of the countryside today, I think, might be a little deceptive. On the whole, it looks tidy and well looked after and even prosperous;but, on closer inspection, it will emerge that many villages have completely changed their character over the past 35 years. No longer are they in any sense whatever self-sufficient. They may be dormitory appendages of the local town or city;their houses will have market values as second homes which put them completely out of reach of rural pockets;the employment of the residents, where they have employment, is usually no longer agricultural employment and young people no longer look for employment within their own villages.
  Having said that, I believe that, socially, the gulf between town and country that we used to talk about so much 40 years ago is less wide than it was. The inhabitants have become more accustomed to one another and in one sense lead more the same kind of lives, perhaps brought together by such modern amenities as motor cars and television. The report suggests the desirability of a more comprehensive rural policy for Europe and outlines some of the cogent arguments in favour of that objective. Among others, the report makes a point interesting to me: that in many parts of Europe part-time farming is increasing. The report asks whether this development may make it easier to develop a comprehensive rural policy. That is certainly something I never thought about. One thing, however, that we ought to expect as, hopefully, a more comprehensive policy is developed to deal with the consequences of deprivation, is that, with the access of the new Member States to which my noble friend referred—Greece, Spain, Portugal, et cetera—with needs
  424
  in this field more obvious than ours, there is likely to be more competition for funds. The share of the United Kingdom in the total allocated may be less. So, in pressing for a more comprehensive approach, unless the total available is increased, may secure no direct advantage. One answer to this may be that if the cost of the CAP is at present about three-quarters of the total EEC expenditure, there is room within that total for some reallocation. I believe, coming back to the United Kingdom, that there are areas here which are crying out for action.
  I had the great pleasure not long ago of staying for a few days with my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, after he "cracked up "Fermanagh in your Lordships' House a little bit before. So off I went, and he took me round that beautiful county. As he will tell us later this evening, there are astonishing differences between one area and another in that extensive county. At present, my Lords, within the United Kingdom the work of the Development Commission is highly to be commended. It is admirable but its resources are limited. The main burden of helping with rural areas falls therefore on local authorities—the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, implied that in what she said—particularly on the shoulders of county councils. Here again, the problem comes down to the question of resources, and rural services are a great deal more expensive per capita, for obvious reasons, than urban services.
  A study was carried out, as my noble friend Lord Sandford, mentioned, in this past year, under the auspices of the Association of County Councils, called Rural Deprivation. It is quite a mine of information about what is happening, and the difficulties of extending it under present conditions. I hope that the present Government will resist the temptation to which its predecessor succumbed, to raid the grants available for other county councils because of the particular problems of the inner urban areas. The inner urban areas, we all know, have tremendous problems. I suggest it is a pity to reduce services very much required in rural areas because of that, if there is some way of avoiding it.
  I hope from everything that has been said on the part of the present Government, that they have no intention of

  425
  pursuing that line further. It is as always with government, a question of balance, and in assessing the balance in Europe and the United Kingdom it is right to be reminded, as this report reminds us, that the majority of people living in rural areas no longer earn their living directly in agriculture, though the productivity and prosperity of agriculture is of very great importance to them as the background of their lives in country areas. In what I say in no way do I want to imply that the increasing, efficient production of foodstuffs in this country ought to be stopped or discouraged. The two things can go perfectly satisfactorily together. I thought that this report struck a very moderate, reasonable and excellent balance between the various factors.
  4.35 p.m.
  Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, this report is excellent. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, chaired the committee and although I may have one or two slight criticisms to make, on the whole I agree with every word that has been said by those who have spoken on the report. It is timely, since those of us who live in a rural area know how every day there are temptations for people to leave the rural areas and go into the towns, although at the moment possibly not quite so much because of a certain amount of unemployment. But in my area there is not much unemployment. It is something one continually has to look out for and hopes to be able to prevent.
  The report points out that in the rural areas it is perfectly possible to have small industries, to have other interests and to enlist the support of other organisations. On the whole, we have done it fairly well in this country up to date because of the organisations which we all know very well. The Development Commission, the National Council for Social Service, the Scottish Council for Social Service, the women's institute movement, and many others, have all been pioneers in improving and making the rural communities more varied, to have more interests and attract more people to stay in those areas. I should like to congratulate those organisations and others because they are doing exactly what this report is suggesting might be done on a wider scale.
  Whether or not that type of organisation goes on in Europe, I do not know.
  426
  Probably there are some comparable organisations, in which case I am sure that they also do help. It is very good to be able to bring about a close cooperation between the variety of different interests that can and do come into the countryside. I live in one of the so-called least favoured areas—never a phrase I would like very much, because I think where I live is far nicer than anywhere else. When people talk about the Highlands or the hillside, the Borders, or Wales, the countryside of Wales or Cumbria, as being "less favoured ", it always gives me a slightly uncomfortable feeling because I think that they are more favoured than any other part of the world, if one likes living there, which many people do.
  I realise that if one lives in such areas one must try to do everything to make life there attractive, not only to those who are engaged in farming but for those who are doing other things. I would say—perhaps it is not necessary because it has been said before—that the primary importance of those areas, as well as areas like the noble Baroness knows so well, the Fen areas, which are some of the richest in the country, the hill lands, Highlands and so on, are still making a very valuable contribution to agriculture. One must not look upon them as a paradise for tourists or anything like that. There is no reason why in the Lake District or the great and attractive parts in Wales and Scotland there should not be tourism;but tourism is not the most important thing. The most important thing is the growth of stock in the hills which then goes down to the country which has rich grazing and is turned into the sheep industry, the beef industry, and so on. Without the hill lands, without the areas where the animals are bred, there would not be great sheep or cattle industries or anything else. It is important to realise that.
  In some way there have been conflicts in the past. I know that, certainly in Scotland, there has been a rather antagonistic feeling between the hill farmer and the tourist industry, because tourism can be harmful if people climb your hills, walk over your land and leave gates open so that sheep and cattle get mixed up and so on. One does not feel too friendly towards those happenings. However, the situation is improving because more and more people are beginning to understand

  427
  that there are limitations in hill-climbing, walking or other sports when these are done in an area where sheep and cattle are being produced. In this connection, I support many of the recommendations in the report, and the way they have been put. I think that the evidence which has been collected from all the organisations is remarkable. There is not an organisation concerned with the countryside which has not put in a memorandum or contributed to the report, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has done marvellously well to get so much information into one report.
  There is one recommendation, however, which I would not support, and that is in paragraph 64, where there is a suggestion of diverting to what I would call nonagricultural aspects of rural areas money which is allocated for agriculture and for the development of agriculture. There is a suggestion of a transfer of existing CAP funds for expenditure directly related to agriculture: in other words, funds for crops, livestock production and other items of expenditure might be diverted to work of a non-agricultural nature. I do not think that is a good idea—I speak, of course, with a certain amount If feeling, since I am one of those who farm in the countryside! I think that money for that kind of thing should really come from the Social Fund or the Regional Fund of the EEC. What is intended for food production and intended to help agriculture obviously must come from the CAP and must go to those things. I am in favour of getting money from the Regional Fund or some other Funds for what we are talking about today, which is the development of other interests among a farming community. I certainly think we should do that. As we all know, we make huge contributions to the CAP. While we do get a lot of money back, we could get more, and I think a good deal of what is wanted here might come from other Funds of the EEC.
  The other important matter is that when these three new countries come in we shall be getting an enormous increase in agricultural population. For example, in Greece, the agricultural population is 35·4 per cent. of the country;in Portugal is is 21·1 per cent.;in Spain it is 22 per cent. The figure for the Community of Nine as it exists now is 8·7 per cent., and if you take
  428
  our agricultural population, it is only 2·75 per cent., I think. The importance of money being available for agriculture, certainly with the new countries coming in, is going to be very great. That is another reason why I do not think we should encourage the Community to divert CAP funds to other activities of the rural areas. I agree with everything that has been said about this document: it is extremely important, and I hope very much that it will make a big contribution to the policy of the EEC and to those who are conducting these affairs in Brussels.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord PARRY: My Lords, as Chairman of the Wales Tourist Board and a member of the British. Tourist Authority, it is essential for me to make the usual disclaimer in terms of the Addison Rules and a bow in the direction of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who has just spoken. It is also a very great pleasure, and not a duty, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his committee, as other speakers have done, on the work which he modestly claims is making little more than a start. I think that we believe it has done much more than that. This report gives us the basis for some really hard thinking about an alternative economic development, which is essential. I put that in parenthesis at the beginning because there are some points I should like to isolate from the report as needing some further thought.
  I would first turn your Lordships' attention to claims which the report makes, and makes fairly, that the rural areas are themselves areas of low income. It does not quite as well make the point that these areas of low income are in fact the country's areas of highest unemployment so that we have a coincidence, in what the noble Baroness has rightly called some of the most attractive areas of Great Britain, of two major weaknesses of the British economy—we have low income and high unemployment coinciding side by side.
  Perhaps I may also point out what I consider to be an omission in the report: the current unemployment figures as at 10th January 1980 for Great Britain show an unemployment figure of 1,404,389, making 5·9 per cent. of the registered employable population, including school-

  429
  leavers. I make that point simply to say that from there on you have a multiplier effect at work. I have made that point before in this House and I make it again now, because it is very often understated or not stated at all. In Wales, when you have in Great Britain an average unemployment figure of 5·9 per cent., the figures almost always show that doubled. At the moment the figure stands at 8·3 per cent. In Scotland it stands at 8·9 per cent. and in Northern Ireland, with its specific and desperate difficulties, it stands at 11·5 per cent.
  I am not here making a political point but an economic one: in other words, the disposition of the economy of Britain works to the disfavour of the peripheral areas of Britain and therefore it is to those areas that we need to apply ourselves. That is why I welcome this report. That is not to be misunderstood as saying that I disregard the problems of the industrial or urban areas of Great Britain. I give them equal importance in my own mind. I only urge, as this report does, that the Government and others should give equal importance to the position of the rural areas.
  The number employed in agriculture is crucial to the debate and perhaps to some of the statements that will follow during this debate. For example, in Wales in 1974 it was 52,483. That may surprise your Lordships: it surprised me. It was 51,949 in 1975, 56,088 in 1976 and 55,450 in 1977. I quote those figures in order to draw the attention of the House to the point that I wish to make: that in fact, while the Common Agricultural Policy, as has been rightly said in the report and in other speeches, has accelerated the rate at which people leave the land, there is nevertheless an upturn in the number of people employed on the land. In that connection I wish to say that that is because tourism is far more important than the noble Lords sometimes seem to imply. I want to say that in the Spey Valley in Scotland, for example, I recently heard at the Aviemore Conference on Local Government and Tourism a chief officer claim that tourism had all but wiped out unemployment in the Spey Valley and that the only people now unemployed there were people who were physically or mentally unemployable or who were temporarily out of work.
  430
  If we take that point, it emphasises a very important portion of the report. I am not going to go into the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his committee have quoted. I would, however, particularly draw your Lordships' attention to page xiii:
  " The Directive's opening Article sets out its purpose—' to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level or conserving the countryside in certain less-favoured areas '."
  Since that statement is there, since the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, isolated it in his report and since he underlined it in his speech, is it necessary for anyone entering the debate subsequently to assume that one is attacking agriculture or farming? We take the point made in evidence, which can be found in the appendices to the report, that it is the aim of all of us to keep the farmer on the land. It is also our aim to see that, in being kept on the land, he is able to employ other people as farm workers and ancillaries to his industry.
  As regards farm tourism in Wales—and I quote these figures because I have them at my fingertips—we have a list in the Wales Tourist Board of 1,200 farms which are not merely subsidised by tourism, but which are turning farming towards tourism as a way of conducting it as an authentic argicultural business, not as ancillary bacon and eggs pocket-money for the wife, but as an agricultural policy which takes into account the fact that our industrial heavy industry is decadent, that our urban economics—because they are dependent on them—are run down and that people want increasingly, anyway, to return to their roots;and the roots of all of us are in agriculture, whether we have been severed from them or whether we enjoy the pleasures of living or working on a farm. I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who enjoyed his peregrinations around houses, that I should be happy to accompany him on such a run at any time.
  The point then needs to be made that,
  "…the Government consider the present level of aid to be adequate: and Article 10.2 (which provides for the payment of investment incentives for tourist or craft industry purposes) has not been applied because assistance is already available from the Tourist Boards and the Development Commission".
  Some reference has been made to that. It is absolutely important that I should

  431
  make reference to it, in view of the fact that the Government are looking at expenditure on all statutory bodies' programmes. We have done very well in tourism. We believe we can claim it was understood by the last Government, and is understood by the present Government, that tourism is at least a basic tool of the economy. Nevertheless, the Government have a mandate for looking for certain cutbacks, and it would be a very bad move if any real spending capacity were cut from development for tourism purposes. In the rural areas, it is essential, where it is possible to fund alternative development of farm buildings, farming stock and farming programmes, in order to get a greater revenue from the attraction of tourism, that that money should be available.
  We have an area called Section 4 in the Development of Tourism Act, which takes account of some of the expenditure. But when we measure it against the claims that are made upon it, we find that we can service only something like 28 per cent. of the demands. So there you see that the present machinery, regardless of politics, is inadequate and any addition to the finance available for this important development is essential to the economy of the country. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 30 on page xiv. I shall not read it out. All I want to say in that context is that in East Anglia there is a massively important rural area, rich in all the things that the noble Baroness rightly identified, and it has no aid at all because there is no industrial basis for it to draw that aid. So it is clear that the report is right and the policy is wrong.
  We have had people talking about the richness of rural life. We have also had some mention of the difficulties of rural life:
  " The Committee would not support any diminution of Community aid to urban areas".
  So there, again, the point has been made. We do not seek to detract from the amount of money available to the urban areas, and problems are especially acute for areas where a declining industry, such as shipbuilding or textiles, has been the major source of employment. I suggest that, far from being a peripheral point in the economy, far from being something that we regard as an interesting addition
  432
  to our life, tourism and the development of the true resources of Britain, particularly the rural areas, is an alternative economy and should be treated in that serious vein. So I say Amen to the statement there.
  I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who pointed out that transport is very important. I should like to go further and say that it is crucial, because today there is very real hardship, often quite unrelated to income and position in society, for people who live in the rural areas of the country and who have seen the dismantling of services that has gone on in the last 50 years. I have picked up old-age pensioners in my car and carried them to their local surgery, where they were going to have their prescriptions filled. They have said to me, "Gordon, it was easier to get from Dale to Milford Haven during the Boer War than it is in 1980".
  It is a fact that the young housewife, the young girl who chooses to live in some spot of great importance to her and her husband, can find herself, as her husband is promoted, becoming increasingly cut off and living in a kind of genteel poverty, because there are no services—they perhaps have not reached the stage of the second car—and she is held by small babies. So we have a very real interference with the quality of rural life. In fact, it is deteriorating and we should note it and emphasise it and bring it to the attention of the EEC.
  May I in that connection say that we have not given enough thought to the multiple use of services which already exist? We create at great cost, under separate institutions, things which are of great value to people and then we use them exclusively. This country, under any Government, can never in the future create that kind of resource and use it part of the time. I always wondered why it was that the rural postal vans could not be used as postal buses as they now are, and I was happy to be a part of that initial experiment. I would extend that to service transport. I would extend it to the use by aircraft of service runways. I would extend it to the use of schools in the rural areas which have tarmacadarned areas and very good services, but which are closed during the peak periods of the holidays.

  433
  Of course, the noble Baroness was right when she talked about the nuisance of tourism. Who would be silly enough to argue that one does not like a deserted beach better than an overcrowded beach? She was indentifying properly one of the problems of the management of tourism, and it seems to me that we are not being fair to the economics of this country, nor to ourselves, if we allow valuable resources to lie under-used in the rural villages of Britain and do not press them into service to relieve the pressures that tourism creates, when we know that tourism is fundamental.
  I realise that time passes quickly and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for avoiding a patronising attitude towards tourism in what he had to say. He and I agree that he, in no sense, under-estimates its value or its importance. But I cannot too heavily underline the fact that I believe it is not fully yet understood that this country is passing into a service-based economy, that its heavy industrial period has altered beyond all recognition, and that, therefore we must in future look to the identification of the positive in the service industries;and tourism is among them. I would say with the greatest possible affection to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that the only point on which I disagree with her is that it is the most important thing, whereas she does not take it to be. I am an evangelist, at this stage Tourism is not an ancillary, it is not simply a prop;it is a basic industry in its own right. The sooner we realise that and build it into our future programmes for heavy industry, high technology industry and agriculture, the quicker we shall come realistically to grips with our own problems.
  Tourism employs 1,500,000 people in the United Kingdom today—a nice little relationship to that unemployment figure. Last year it recouped £3,500 million of foreign exchange;so it is important and it must be seen as important. And its place is in the rural areas and along the coastal resorts as much as in the overcrowded and overpriced streets of London Town.
  The national parks are themselves contributory to part of the difficulty of planning in the rural areas. That is why I welcome so much the positive emphasis of the evidence given to Lord Sandford
  434
  by the national parks in general and by my own Snowdonia National Park in particular, which is one of three we have. Young people in the rural areas come up against a plethora of bodies which have responsibilty for planning, and their own life style is often affected by decisions taken by bodies to which they have very difficult access. So I particularly welcome the evidence that the Community's approach should be more comprehensive in scope and should not concentrate merely on agriculture.
  May I draw finally attention to the fact that 25 years ago the Mid-Wales Investigation Report pointed out the development of some of these problems when it recorded the falling-in of so many agricultural holdings. Had those agricultural holdings not fallen in, there would be today available to whatever Government of whatever colour of this nation a tourism stock, a basic industrial stock which would have been equal in value to the factory stock which we are trying desperately to keep going in order to keep our people at work. So there is perhaps too optimistic a statement in that paragraph.
  I should also like to say one word about the evolution of tourism in using the countryside as a theme park. If I may come to the four objectives of the report, I should like to say that objective (b) is very close to me. Objective (c) is equally important but objective (d)—that we should provide all practicable access and facilities to the public for tourism, recreation and sport;that is, the leisure industry—is basic to whatever you wish to do. I am glad that the submissions of the Wales Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and of all the other bodies were included in this report.
  I made a disclaimer at the beginning of my speech and I make one again at the end. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the European Economic Community. I fought it tooth and nail from the time that I was a boy and I still am unconvinced that it is the great boon that its adherents believe it to be. I believe the contrary. But here today in this House I welcome the initiative of the European Economic Community, I congratulate Lord Sandford, and I hope that he is as successful as the tourism industry is at this moment.
  5.3 p.m.
  Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Sandford for his presentation of the report. I know the tremendous trouble he has taken over travelling across Europe to find out what are the policies for rural areas in other countries. It is an advantage to me to be speaking so far down the list in today's debate;so much has already been said that it leaves me with a lot of blue pencil lines through what I was going to say. I support practically everything that has been said. I support in particular what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about the extension of these experiments in the Western Isles to the Highland areas. I should like there to be an extension of that sort of principle to larger areas in my own country of Northern Ireland.
  When I read these reports I am always absolutely staggered by the way in which the staff of these committees collect together the vast amount of evidence and present it in such an incredibly readable and intelligent way. I feel that this House should never cease to record its gratitude to the staff for their very hard work and for the long hours that they put in.
  May I support the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in her plea that the money given to other industries, such as tourism, to maintain the rural community should come not from agriculture but from other parts of the Community. In Northern Ireland, we have a greater interest in agriculture than have the people of Great Britain. Agriculture is more important to us by a multiple of about four. Therefore, this debate and report on policies for rural areas in the EEC is especially important. Because we are such a small area we sometimes feel a little bit swamped by the way in which these reports are dealt with and by the way, possibly, the United Kingdom deals with the EEC in relation to our rather smaller area. However, we do agree that there should be a comprehensive policy for the rural areas. That, surely, is the main theme of this debate. There should be a comprehensive policy for the maintenance of rural life in our country.
  As I have said, the maintenance of a rural policy should not fall solely on the
  436
  CAP. In fact, a large proportion of it should come from national resources, and it must certainly be administered nationally. There has been a lot of publicity of late about our fight to reduce the net effect of our contribution to the EEC—that is, the net deficit that the United Kingdom should get back from the EEC. I believe that when the Government finally end their negotiations on the present EEC proposals they will find that one of the ways of recouping our contribution will be by the extension of special support for the rural policy.
  In particular, may I refer to an experiment, the details of which I have here. It comes from the Irish Republic. I would describe it as "hire purchase forestry." It is being sponsored by an EEC operation in the West of Ireland. In my opinion, our Government should look very quickly at that EEC experiment in the West of Ireland to see whether or not we can learn from it and experiment now so that when the time comes to implement the policy we shall already have a basis upon which to build.
  The principle of this scheme is that the forestry service will go to a farmer—the particular cases involved which I am thinking about are in Leitrim and Sligo;the land there is of very high quality;it goes up to yield class 25 which is the very highest yield class of forestry land—and say to him, "Will you take your land out of forestry for 35 or 40 years? We will plant it for you and then pay you an annuity based on the final crop value. For that you will manage that bit of forestry during the years of maturity." They have worked out figures which show that, in various areas, by taking a particular farmer out of milk production the net return to that particular farmer will be very close to what it is for milk production.
  Tremendous emphasis is placed upon taking farmers out of milk production, which is in surplus, and trying to convince them that they should go into beef production. However, our experience of going into beef production is that automatically it means a lower standard of living because it is not so profitable an industry as milk production. If this experiment could be tried it would maintain the income of these particular areas. It would produce a product which is in deficit. One reads almost every day the

  437
  projections about the great wood shortage. I believe that we would have a viable alternative and a really stable community, because forestry develops saw milling and the other industries. So in hoping that this report will have some effect on Her Majesty's Government, I should like to ask them urgently to look at this particular scheme.
  The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Land Sandford for the work that he did as chairman of "Arcadia "and for bringing these two very important matters to your Lordships' attention today. It is difficult to isolate them, and therefore I have found it necessary to take into consideration on an EEC level the Select Committee's report on the Common Agricultural Policy and to go back on a national level to the Strutt Report Agriculture and the Countryside and the Government's publications. They are all part of an interlocking puzzle which I call "rural land".
  However, first I should like to go back to the 1942 Report on the Committee on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas—a Committee chaired by Lord Justice Scott—and to quote from paragraph 14, because the report sums up very concisely what I want to say:
  " The landscape of England and Wales is a striking example of the interdependence between the satisfaction of man's material wants and the creation of beauty. The pattern and the beauty of the countryside as we know them today are largely the work of man during the past few centuries …If land were left uncultivated, if downs and mountains were not grazed by cattle or sheep, the countryside would gradually but inevitably return to its former natural condition of forest in the valleys and on the lower slopes, and a scrub of brambles, thorn bushes and bracken on the higher levels".
  I trust the House will agree that it would not be inappropriate to change the words "England and Wales" to "the EEC".
  Part of the ever increasing cost of the CAP (if I may be permitted to use verbal shorthand) is the maintenance by subsidies of farmers on marginal land or in less favoured areas. This is, of course, of tremendous importance but it is a social and agricultural problem. It is evident that the cost of the EEC budget will soon outstrip the income it generates and as farmers will be the first to suffer so this will affect rural areas. There is therefore
  438
  a pressing need to do something to secure these rural areas and reduce their dependence on agriculture.
  Professor Dennison in his minority report to the Scott Report in 1942 saw the need then for an integrated approach and therefore the initiative of integrated development programmes for the Western Isles of Scotland, the Lozère in the Massif-Central, and South-Eastern Belgium are to be welcomed and supported. If it is possible to make these schemes work—and I believe it is, with encouragement—then by using agriculture as a base the local economy, which has been contracting, could start to expand in a variety of ways. Part-time farming has been common for many years in these areas and this EEC proposal could inject a level of financial and other resources hitherto too meagre to provide the necessary launching pad to extend the concept of occupational pluralism.
  Alas! we come back to finance, but as the committee has shown a slight change in emphasis in the CAP so that rural areas benefit more from it, this, backed by a more flexible approach by the managers of the European Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund, together with greater inter-departmental co-ordination, could generate some of the funds needed to fulfil the purposes of these schemes. Are we asking too much? To those who say, "Yes "I would ask them to contemplate the horrible alternative if nothing is done to stop the decline in rural areas.
  The three schemes put forward are only a start—the tip of the iceberg—and it is necessary for the EEC and each country to consider further areas which are in the same plight. I am sure the House will agree that, with the accession of Spain, Greece and Portugal the necessity for the integrated approach will become even more acute.
  We should be wrong to rely on the EEC alone to solve all our problems in this field and national Governments must play their part in encouraging this process. The Committee have given examples of the upland management experiments in Annex II of the report, and I should like to mention another scheme, albeit much smaller and one relating to industry, in which I was actively involved for some years and which was carried out with

  439
  private finance but which could have been a scheme where EEC or national support might be forthcoming.
  Briefly, it is as follows. The area is in the Cotswolds near a village called Blockley, close to Moreton-in-Marsh. One might initially think that this is not a "deprived area "or one needing special attention, but when analysing local population trends and places of work we received some depressing statistics. Nearly everyone commuted to work by car or train and the population was centralising itself in one or two villages.
  On one of the estates that i helped to manage at the time there was a former war-time American hospital which later became a Polish refugee camp. It comprises about 40 acres in the former park to the house, on which were built huts of various sizes up to about 3,500 square feet. In 1970, when the Government returned it to the owner, about one-third of the buildings were converted into a dairy for the home farm. The rest was scheduled for demolition and returned to agriculture. All services were there, the buildings could be refurbished and we believed that they would make good light industrial units. The planners believed otherwise. With the help of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas we persevered with the planners and I understand that the disagreements—if that is the right word—are still progressing but we eventually obtained light industrial consent on part. There are now on site metal spinners, a printing works, welders, a plastic model design manufacturer, timber frame building specialists, a fibre glass product manufacturer, a fibre glass boat builder—who incidentally exports 90 per cent. of his boats—and two silkscreen printers, one printing on metal, the other on cloth.
  I should like to extol some of the virtues of this site. It has put employment within bicyling range of the local villagers instead of the necessity to go by car. It has stimulated the local economy. It has helped the infrastructure of the area by offering opportunities to young people to stay in the villages. It has enabled one or two man bands to start up at rentals they can afford and in non-industrial estate type buildings which they seem to prefer. It has also buried the myth that
  440
  light industry in a rural setting will not work or is unacceptable.
  The planning principles it raises are important. There must be much greater flexibility in the minds of planners and greater liaison between countries where such a scheme is on the boundaries of two councils. During the committee's visit to Brussels it was suggested that it was up to each country to put forward schemes of its own. There is, therefore, a need for a small, central entrepreneurial body that can advise on such schemes and other matters of integration and to put forward such propositions if they fulfil the requirements for some financial aid. I have mentioned one, but there must be many more possibilities in this country, smaller or larger than the one I have mentioned.
  There are many more aspects of these reports on which I should like to comment but time does not permit it. I hope that the EEC integrated proposals will be approved and will work well, and that both this Government and the EEC note and take action on the points the committee raised. I believe that they have extra weight because those who sat on the committee really do care for the wellbeing of the rural community. I started with the Scott Report of 1942 and it is perhaps fair to finish with it as times appear not to change very much. The words I have in mind are:
  " As a nation …our great failures, both in war and in peace, have been due to a failure to think ahead and to make plans in advance".
  My Lords, it is up to this Government and all of us to see that my children do not turn round to me in a few years' time and say, "You saw the problems, you prepared a report, but what did you do about it? "
  5.19 p.m.
  Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I rise this afternoon to make two brief points. First, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to an excellent booklet entitled Country Workshops;Decay or Development? which has been issued under the auspices of the Somerset Small Industries Committee and is the work of Mr. David Pattern, who is the local Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas organiser and who covers that area of Somerset. It is a very small book, merely a dozen or so

  441
  pages, with quite a number of photographs, and deals simply with ideas for new uses for old buildings in villages with a view to creating more rural employment. I do not think I need say anything about the desirability of creating more rural employment because it has been dealt with by a great many speakers this afternoon and it is accepted that it is essential to stimulate some rural industry so that the villages do not become mere dormitories for urban workers in nearby large towns or, worse still, if further away, mere ghosts when most of the houses have become what are now termed "second homes".
  In his booklet Mr. Pattern is simply advocating that those derelict buildings which are found quite often in the countryside, such as old railway stations, churches, chapels and, in my opinion, more important, superfluous agricultural buildings, can be put to new uses which can alleviate the problems of rural unemployment. I mention this booklet only so as to recommend it to your Lordships, and to say that should any noble Lord wish to see a copy I can no doubt obtain some more. It mentions in passing the problem to which my noble friend Lord Caithness referred, the effect of planning and highway considerations on development. I do not think I need say anything more, because I think my noble friend Lord Caithness knows far more about this, other than to put in a plea that the planning authorities think much more creatively about this.
  I think one of the problems is user classes, which would cause some small workshop in an old agricultural building to he termed "light industrial". If one hears the words "light industrial "one has pictures of dark satanic mills and so on, which quite obviously need not be the case. The small craft workshop will be no more a blight on the countryside than an efficient working farm;in fact, it would probably create far less traffic. Think of the traffic a dairy farm creates, in terms of at least one tanker a day, as well as other lorries arriving with feedstuiffs. I do not think the highway problem need arise.
  That really leaves me nothing else to say except how much I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and in slight disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in asking for slightly less stress on tourism. I know it can create a lot of money, but with oil and petrol
  442
  prices going up I am not sure that it can be guaranteed to continue to provide a valuable really long-term contribution to the rural economy. I should like to end by expressing my appreciation of the work of such bodies as CoSIRA and the Development Commission, congratulating the Select Committee on this excellent report, which has been aptly called "Arcadian ", and agreeing with all those who have said how eminently readable and sensible it is.
  5.23 p.m.
  Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I must first apologise for not putting my name down until so late in the day. I live in the area of the Eden District Council if not in the area of the East Fellside experiment, so I am to some extent one of the natives about whom this report has been written;and an excellent report it is, and very timely. I was also once Member of Parliament for Westmorland and therefore in contact with Umex 1, 2 and 3, which are also familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who was a constituency neighbour. We both know the area which has been chosen, and I think it is a very good area for these experiments.
  Further, I am president of the Cumbria Tourist Board and I should like to confirm what was said a few minutes ago about Wales and say what a big contribution the tourist industry can make in these areas. But it goes far beyond bleak promotion and it is wrong to test everything by figures. We often see summaries of tourism figures in the daily Press, but I do not think they tell us the whole story. We must go beyond that.
  This problem which we arc studying today has been very clear over the past few years, tending to get worse over the past 40 or 50 years when small industries were closing down and population was being drawn more and more into the larger towns—possibly because private transport is now so widespread, but there are other reasons too. About 100 to 150 years ago in these areas small industries were scattered right throughout so offering a much wider choice of employment. The managers of the big estates then existing gave a lot of attention to this, if only because it put up the value of the property for which they were responsible. But today few are big

  443
  enough to achieve very much. So we must all think again and this report is an example of excellent thinking and hard work in this sphere.
  I am not too depressed. Westmorland, the county I represented in the House of Commons for years, was looked on by people who came from the South as an area were the inhabitants were to be pitied: I never quite know why. I looked on Westmorland as a part of England which had much in common with Switzerland, and nobody is going to say that Switzerland is the poorest part of Europe. Perhaps the only advantage that Switzerland has over Westmorland is that it has tax concessions.
  My last point is purely an historic one but is rather amusing, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will forgive me. Whereas Westmorland was rich in rural industries, which sad to say are now nearly all in ruins, it was the south of the county where they were found spread more densely than in the north. That was partly owing to the more reliable water power, but also it was further away from the Scottish border and further away from the risks of kidnapping and terrorism which existed then just as in other parts of Europe they exist today.
  5.26 p.m.
  Lord PEART: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on the way in which he introduced this most interesting report, which I know most noble Lords now in the House must have read carefully, judging by the quality of their speeches—and that is not flattery. I was one of Lord Inglewood's constituents or he was one of mine. The Vane family have always taken a great interest in agriculture in Cumbria, but above all a great interest in forestry, and I thought the noble Lord was going to intervene on that subject.
  Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, will he not also mention that we have a very good inn and that he himself has patronised it on a number of occasions?
  Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords, it was in my constituency—the Pheasant Inn. If the noble Lord Viscount, Lord Amory,
  444
  wants to do a tour he can come North and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I will take him to the Pheasant. This is one of the rural amenities that I always like and which I consider essential to country life. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is not only a farmer and a forester but also an innkeeper.
  Let me come now to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said. He mentioned the need to have an integrated community, the need to integrate agriculture, forestry and the social needs of the area. I thought he was a little anti-farmer in some ways;perhaps I am wrong. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, sensed that and that was why he made the apt reply that he did. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, went on to talk about the problems of the EEC. I know they have got their problems. I was once a critic of the EEC and a very strong critic, because I was always afraid that acceptance of the EEC would mean the end of a policy I had supported for a long time, the 1947 Act, assured markets, guaranteed prices, the sort of legislation which I thought did so much not only for farming but also for rural England.
  Good farm policy is good for the area, not just the farmers. I think that point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, whose domain I was pleased to see not very long ago when I was in Scotland addressing the Border area of the National Farmers Union. What a lovely place! I should like to go there and be welcomed back, but I am not a socialite in that sense. I should like to see better weather for the farming which I know is so good there.
  I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that I do not think he can really fault the EEC. After all, they have produced very good reports on this matter. Indeed, when I used to go there as the spokesman for the Government it was always one of my great concerns to press the need to have an integrated policy. I always thought that somehow they neglected forestry. I believe that forestry has so much to offer. I do not see forestry as a competitor with general farming in the hill and upland areas or indeed as clashing with tourism. Indeed, my view is rather the contrary.
  The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has spoken about his area of Westmorland,

  445
  which is now in Cumbria, and likened it to Switzerland. It is like Switzerland—it is called "the little Switzerland". Anyone who goes to the Lake District and experiences, all its beauties and then goes to Switzerland, will realise that there is much to be said for that comparison. It is a great upland area which has benefited so much.
  As regards my own old constituency, the 27th Report shows the Upland Management Experiments which are taking place now in the Lake District. They were first established in the Lake District in 1969 in an attempt,
  " to deal with the conflicting purposes of landscape conservation, public access, farming and the economic and social wellbeing of local people in areas of the National Parks".
  It then goes on in great detail to say how important it is that,
  " farmers and self-employed workers living in the dale heads where problems of economic decline [are serious] and lack of employment are endemic were paid to mend stiles, drain footpaths, build bridges, repair walls and maintain other features of the landscape. They repaired visitors' damage, re-routed footpaths "
  and so on. There is another report for the same area.
  I am making the point that there are many factors in the community life in the rural areas, and I would not like to see again the battle of forestry versus farming;sheep versus trees and so on. That is silly. I believe that there should be proper integration in areas where it is necessary. On the other hand, the farming community in rural areas may be in areas where it is essential to have crop farming. That point is well known by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who in her own area has animal farming which is so successful.
  There must be the right balance. I hope that there will not be any attitude of "anti-farmer". Even in the Lakeland it is the farmer who protects the hedges and often does so much to improve the amenities for the tourists to enjoy. I am glad to say that Cumbria is now developing tourism in a very forceful, aggressive and good way, showing the people of England and Wales, through advertisig, that it is a lovely spot which should attract tourists and that tourists should see the Lakeland before they go abroad. So I am very proud to have connections with that area, just as I know my noble friend
  446
  Lord Parry, who made a very eloquent speech, is proud of Wales and my noble friend Lady Stedman is proud of the Fenland and Cambridgeshire and what tourism can give to those areas and how those areas can expand. In the end, in the rural areas, it basically comes down to the farming community.
  I remember that when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, talk of his Arcadia, I thought of a period when I was chairman of a commission in the Council of Europe. The commission comprised different nationalities. We visited Greece, which the noble Lord mentioned. I can assure him that it is all very well to have the type of life that he envisaged there, but what the Greek farmers wanted was help and aid for good farming, for improving irrigation, for improving stock by better feeding and for the growth of machinery. Indeed, I was surprised to see the development of artificial insemination. In fact, the first experiment that I ever saw was in that country and not in my own. Tom Williams, behind whom I used to sit, was the Minister who introduced the Bill to make that possible.
  All that I am trying to say to the noble Lord is that rural development depends basically on the farming industry in a particular area. I continued my surveys with that commission in not only Greece, but later Italy which I knew much better because I was stationed there for a long time in the Army during the last war. There again it was the farming community that was the strength of the local community. I am not saying that other industries are unimportant. After all, agriculture provides many other ancillary industries—for example, the supplies needed for the industry itself. Therefore, I hope that there will not be this "anti-farmer "attitude in anything that comes out of the Community.
  Again, do not let us condemn the Common Agriculture Policy. Its aims are very similar to those of the Agriculture Act 1947—and I direct that remark to the noble Lord, Lord Parry. I could quote it, but all that I am trying to say is that they have their problems. Of course, they have surpluses, and I should like to see them export those surpluses. They talk about a mountain of butter, but what is the mountain? My friends in the Lake District will know. Is it as big as Skiddaw?

  447
  I do not think that it is. I think that it is only about two days' supply. So, we must be sensible.
  Too much is made about the CAP creating surpluses. The worry has been about where we have been directing those surpluses. Indeed, there was a Question the other day complaining about selling surplus butter to the Soviet Union. I believe that a French millionaire has the tender and does the trade but that is his business. All I am saying is that if there are surpluses, we should export them or give them for aid in those areas that need them. After all, the United States has great surpluses and relies on getting rid of its surpluses of wheat throughout the world, and even in our own country. Do not let us have any critisicm of the CAP as regards this matter.
  We are now thinking in terms of integration, in terms of the need to attract industry into the rural areas. I am only sorry that one of the schemes which I initiated when I was a Minister fell through. I am referring to the Pennine Rural Development Scheme. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, probably did not approve of it in the way that I did, but I can assure him that many of his colleagues in the CLA and the National Farmers Union wished that that scheme had been successful. I set it up and I appointed a very distinguished farmer, a member of the National Farmers Union, as the first chairman. It prepared the way for developments which I thought would be good for the industry, developments which would encourage not only farming, but road development, more electrification of the area and also more tourism, which we now have. What happened? We were defeated and I went out as Minister for Agriculture—as I once said in this House—at a stroke. Mr. Heath and Mr. Prior destroyed it, and many people regret that.
  I also set up a similar scheme in mid-Wales. I am sorry to say that it became ground down in Welsh nationalism, so really they did not deserve it. However, the rural development scheme in Cumberland would have been a success and that is the type of pattern which I still think should operate as regards our approach in that area.
  448
  I should like to praise those organisations outside Government—and even outside local government—that have done so much for the rural areas. I have here a document from the Development Commission encouraging enterprise in the countryside, which I think has been quoted previously. I wish to pay a tribute to the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Lord Northfield was a member of the committee which also examined the European document and he has done so much as regards the creation of new industries in rural areas. I am sorry that he is not present today, and he has asked me to apologise for his absence. We, and the Community generally, owe him a great deal.
  His report recommends integrated rural revival plans with experiments, including those already started by the Commission beforehand, in those regions which are suffering from decline—in other words, depopulation, which has been mentioned in many areas;bad age structure;high unemployment and absence of alternative work. That, of course, is exactly what the Development Commission was set up to do. I hope that noble Lords who have read the European report will also now read the document, Encouraging Enterprise in the Countryside, which is published by the Development Commission in its 37th Annual Report for 1978–79.
  Therefore, speaking from the Front Bench, I recommend the Commission's work which is so strongly supported on all sides of the House. It operates in three broad ways. They have approved a programme of nearly 1,000 small workshops and factories in key points in all declining rural areas of England, and the programme is a partnership in operation with the local authorities, who assess their own requirements and show us what self-help they will provide. Secondly, they have a subsidiary, the Council for Small Industries in Rural AreasCoSIRAs—which, with a staff of only 300 mainly outposted to the counties, and with advisory committees of businessmen in each country, advises, guides and gives expert management and other training to small businessmen, as well as offering loans. I understand that having lent over 30 million, they have lost only just over £70,000 which is a pretty good record.

  449
  Thirdly, the Commission supports rural community councils which, in turn, organise self-help activity in order to enliven and support social life and to cure social needs in the rural areas. Therefore, there are these three elements or prongs which will provide aid to the areas which we have mentioned. In the past five years the commission has built up its present strength;for example, five years ago virtually no factories were approved. The Government have commissioned, and have just received, a report by civil servants on the future of the organisation. I have not seen this document, but I hope that help will be given from central Government. I know that in recent years the previous Labour Government more or less trebled the budget. At Government level we appreciated what was being done. I hope that the present Government will carry on with this work. We shall press the Government to produce the report, to institute a review and to make a Statement on it.
  By this debate in this House we can show that we are examining what the Community have offered and what it is doing;and we can link with that the aid which is given by bodies from central Government. I believe that we have had a well worthwhile debate. I have cut my remarks to only 16 minutes. We had a very long debate last night, which went on until nearly midnight. This has been a short, concise debate and it has been all the better for it.
  5.43 p.m.
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I welcome the raising by my noble friend Lord Sandford of the important issues covered in the report of his sub-committee and of the report on farm structures, which we are also debating. I should like to congratulate him on having set afoot such a very good discussion as we have had, especially with contributions from noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who was one of the most popular Ministers of Agriculture this country has ever had and who has more knowledge than most of us.
  With your Lordships' permission, I shall concentrate at first on the former report, which concerns policies for rural areas in the European Community. It is now just a year since we last debated the
  450
  problems of rural areas in this House in the Motion on rural deprivation tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. That dealt, of course, with these problems in a national context;today's debate goes wider and takes in the European Community dimension. I think that the House will agree with me that we owe my noble friend Lord Sandford and his colleagues an immense debt for their pioneering work in what, to all intents and purposes, is a new and untrodden field. I should also like to pay tribute to the thoughtful and wide-ranging speech made by the noble Lord when he spoke earlier this afternoon, and I should like to give him an assurance that we shall take most careful note of the various points he has identified for consideration.
  The report of the sub-committee draws atttention to social and economc changes over the years in the countryside, which have altered the balance of employment opportunities and the social and demographic structure of rural communities. We all know the factors which have contributed to this process. Principal among them is the increased productivity of modern agriculture, and the consequent decline in the workforce. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, "there are not the folk on the farm "these days. With the absence of adequate alternative local employment, people have had increasingly to migrate to the towns to find work, and added to this has been a process of overall centralisation of services, in both the public and the private sector. All of this has led to what I think are termed, in the jargon of the sociologist, "knock-on "effects. For instance—and the noble Baroness Lady Stedman, drew attention to this because she was very worried about it, and so did several other Peers—a decline in rural jobs leads to migration of active people to the towns;such migration weakens the economic basis of village services—shops, transport, schools and, of course, sub-post offices, that centre of village life. There is a loss of facilities and, to some extent, of community spirit;this, in turn, leads to further loss of population. It is a vicious spiral and one which is difficult to arrest.
  As several noble Lords have described, the effect has been the phenomenon now widely termed "rural deprivation". As the sub-committee of my noble friend

  451
  Lord Sandford has noted, the extent and nature of this process in the United Kingdom is well-documented. For instance, in the last 18 months comprehensive reports have been produced on the subject first, by the Association of District Councils and, subsequently, by the Association of County Councils. These reports and others like them, have been most helpful in highlighting the problems, which are not, of course, unique to this country. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made that clear. But we face them with some severity, partly—and also ironically—for the reason I have just given: as a result of our high rate of agricultural efficiency. I want to emphasise that the Government fully recognise these problems and will do all they can to maintain the economic and social wellbeing of the countryside within, of course, the present constraints of finance and other resources.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackie highlighted the task and said that it was good sense to tackle and harness the national assets of the countryside, such as tourism, which, as he pointed out, would lead to economic renewal. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, speaking from his experience of the Welsh Tourist Board, also emphasised the importance of tourism. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peart, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Inglewood on running a good inn, in The Pheasant.
  I should just add that my colleague, the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, shortly expects to meet the chairman of the two local authority associations to discuss the reports to which I have already referred, and the views that have been expressed. Naturally we are already giving these most careful consideration.
  My noble friend Lord Sandford, and his colleagues make the point that
  " the diversity of rural areas emphasises the need for flexibility in all policies which affect the countryside".
  I am sure that there is no one rash enough to disagree with that. I am also certain that it has now been widely recognised that it is an over-simplification to refer to the "problem "of rural areas, as was once the fashion. There is on one single problem;there is no one single type of area;instead there is a whole range of rural areas, each with its specific characteristics
  452
  and experiencing its own blend of problems I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in saying to my noble friend Lord Amory, that I, too, should like to savour the problems of Devonshire, and take up the invitation which he specifically issued to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
  Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should like a little warning of numbers. If necessary I will hire a coach—I should be perfectly prepared to do that at the right moment. As for the "Vane Inn ", I am a little confused;I have an idea that if I ask for that, I shall ask in vain!
  Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lords will be careful. I once was invited to the noble Lord's residence and he took me to the Devon Show, and I had the biggest protest meeting of farmers I have ever had in my life!
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the last time I went to the Devon Show the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, was crowning the Dairy Queen from New Zealand, so I have happy memories of it. Dealing again with the problems we are talking about, at one end of the spectrum we have the more remote parts of the Countryside—notably in the uplands—where there are few countervailing influences working to stem a steady trend of depopulation. In England, this is perhaps best exemplified by the North Pennines which show ed a decline of more than 20 per cent. in population between 1951 and 1971. We shall, of course, have to await the results of the next 1981 Census before any more up-to-date figures are available.
  Then there are village communities which have become popular for retirement, or for weekend homes, or both. Here, although the active workforce has declined, the total population may have stabilised. Parts of South-West England clearly fall in this category. Thirdly, there are those rural areas lying nearer to our conurbations which have largely become, in effect, commuter dormitories. These have suffered, and I use the word advisedly, from the increases in the cost of housing in our towns, particularly over the past 10 years. People earning relatively high wages have looked further afield for their homes with consequent effects on village

  453
  house values and, sadly, the pricing-out of young local couples. Again there is probably no net depopulation occurring—in fact overall there may even be small increases in the size of villages. But, because this is achieved by an influx of newcomers, these types of area too are affected by basic social change. People who earn their livelihood elsewhere often do not integrate satisfactorily for some years with those whose families have been born and bred in the village for generations.
  My Lords, I now turn to the European Community aspects of these issues;and perhaps first I might comment on the implications for spending patterns of enlargement of the Community, a matter to which reference is made in paragraph 14 of Lord Sandford's report. This states that such enlargement will involve demands for a shift in Community aid towards the southern half of the Community and towards rural areas. My Lords, in terms at least of agricultural expenditure this needs, I think, some qualification. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, called this his Arcadian point, and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, talked so wisely and sensibly about the Greek element of this.
  There will naturally be increased expenditure by the Community on Mediterranean produce—such as wine and olive oil. But it is not a foregone conclusion that the Community's agricultural spending will shift very dramatically or rapidly to the South. I hope that this will reassure my noble friend Lord Amory, who also expressed anxiety on this point. There will be a transition stage of some years, and you cannot, for example, store fresh fruit and vegetables in the same way as butter, beef or wheat. Full scale intervention in the traditional sense just is not possible for some Mediterranean produce. The United Kingdom has also consistently resisted firmer protection or price guarantees for Mediterranean produce. It will be some time before the new Member States will be able fully to apply the existing structural directives. Any new programme for improving agriculture structures would have to be shown to be cost-effective before we could agree to it.
  Even so, it is clearly salutary at this time to look in detail, as Lord Sandford
  454
  and his colleagues have done, at the nature of Community policies for rural areas. His sub-committee have considered a range of options to develop. For instance, they propose that the Community's less favoured areas directive could provide the United Kingdom with "a framework for improved policies".
  My Lords, this directive is, of course, designed to ensure, in its own words,
  " the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level or conserving the countryside in certain less-favoured areas".
  As the committee recognise, the United Kingdom is the major beneficiary under the directive. The few measures not implemented by us would involve very limited aids to investment to a small sector of farms. They would be payable to farmers in respect of improvements and operations on their farms;and, of course, could only bring indirect benefit to the rest of the rural communities. In short, I think scope for further action under, or based on, the directive is limited, but noble Lords will know that the agriculture Ministers are studying the possible extension of our existing less favoured areas to include marginal land outside the hills.
  Lord Sandford has drawn attention to the way the less favoured areas directive is implemented in the United Kingdom and was critical on a number of points, in particular regarding the role of Article 3(5). This provision relates, of course, to areas affected by specific handicaps and, as the report points out, is not at present applied in the United Kingdom. But one must be cautious of reading too much significance in this fact. Most of the areas which could qualify under this category are already designated under the "basic "Article: 3(4). And there is no difference in the aid given to each category. However, we shall continue to keep the application of the directive under review, including the case for promoting designation of certain small areas, not otherwise eligible for aid, under Article 3(5). I cannot say more at this stage.
  The noble Lord, Lord Parry, asked about the application of Article 10(2) of the less favoured areas directive. The assistance available through tourist boards has a higher ceiling, more appropriate to tourism needs, than the directive. If a

  455
  farmer can qualify for tourist board aid it does not require him to tie himself to a farm development plan, as the directive would do.
  My Lords, fundamental to the future of rural areas is, as Lord Sandford and his colleagues point out, alternative employment to replace jobs lost in farming. At national level they make reference to the very useful work done by the Development Commission in promoting this end. I too should like to add my tribute to the achievements of the Development Commission which has just celebrated its 70th birthday. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who was so rightly praised by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is of course the distinguished chairman of the commission, but unfortunately he is unable to be with us this afternoon. However, he kindly sent me a copy of the annual report for 1978–79, which has just been published. It provides a good account of what the commission has been doing initiating the building of over 250 advance factories and workshops in English villages and small towns since 1975, and it welcomes the increased awareness of rural problems. I trust that my noble friend Lord Henley will not think it is producing dark, satanic mills in so doing.
  The report notes that the commission and its offshoot, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, are being reviewed by the Government and a decision on their future is expected within the next month or two. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, mentioned this review in his speech, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said that he is guardedly optimistic about the outcome. All I can add at this stage is that we are giving very careful consideration to the issues and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
  The report criticises the urban emphasis of the European Regional Development Fund—the ERDF and the Social Fund which they think might be applied more generously to benefit rural areas. As noble Lords will know, however, the ERDF is only available to projects in areas receiving national regional aid. Although in the United Kingdom our assisted areas include some large tracts of countryside, the main thrust of our
  456
  regional policy is directed towards our older industrial areas which have the greatest concentration of social and economic disadvantages. The Government's revision of the regional aid system and of the assisted areas, which will take its full effect in 1982, will ensure that resources for regional development are concentrated in the areas of most need. It is right that this should be so and that the much smaller resources of the European Regional Development Fund, which are a complement to national aid schemes, should likewise be concentrated, otherwise aid will be too diffuse and thinly spread.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, stressed the point that Community funds should be regarded as some kind of bonus to be added to the funds available from the Exchequer. The Government take account of receipts from all sources when formulating their expenditure plans. Without a Community contribution, these expenditure plans would be lower.
  As for the non-quota section of the fund, the report points out that that is extremely limited and that the Commission's first proposals have concentrated on some of the most difficult problems of the United Kingdom. Apart from the very special case of Northern Ireland's border area with the Republic, their proposals affecting the United Kingdom are concerned with areas suffering from the effects of steel and shipbuilding industry closures. These problems are severe both in scale and intensity and it is right that the limited resources should be devoted to assisting such areas. Indeed, the Government consider that more aid than the Commission have proposed should be made available to assist with the problems created by these closures.
  We have, of course, noted the point made more generally in the sub-committee's report that rural areas benefit little from non-agricultural spending under the Community budget. None the less, because that budget is so heavily weighted in favour of agricultural spending, this means in practice a flow of resources to many United Kingdom rural areas, though I concede not necessarily to those most in need. At the same time, the resources available from other parts of the budget are very limited. It would be wrong to spread the small benefits which we get from some of those parts even more thinly;it would dissipate what small good they

  457
  do and perpetuate the fundamental imbalances in Community expenditure. The Government seek, rather, a better balance within the budget as a whole and an agricultural policy more suited to the special needs and problems of the United Kingdom, including those of rural areas which are by their nature predominantly agricultutural.
  A recent positive initiative by the Community has been the concept of "integrated development schemes ", proposed by the Commission in its communication on agricultural structures. The sub-committee have strongly endorsed their implementation and extension. We agree with the sub-committee's view that such schemes, involving the co-ordinated use of agriculture, social and regional funds, could prove a useful pathfinder to better integrated rural policies at Community level. If successful, they could make the agricultural population in certain areas less dependent on agriculture and thus on the support of specially high farm prices.
  However, we must remember that present proposals are merely for pilot schemes. We shall need to ensure that they are properly prepared and integrated, and then fully monitored and evaluated, before committing large funds and efforts on similar schemes in other areas of the Community. As for the areas which the pilot projects should cover, this point is still under consideration. The views of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will be noted. We agree that such projects should be under local management and not under the Community. I am sure, too, they should not be handed over to Brussels bureaucrats.
  Reference is also made by the sub-committee to Community transport policy;the noble Lord, Lord Parry, and others were worried about that. But as the report points out, this matter is of great importance to those who live in rural areas, especially the more remote parts, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his colleagues observe that the Community transport policy appears to attach no special importance to the needs of rural areas. That is understandable, and it is appropriate that the transport chapter of the Treaty of Rome should concentrate on the international aspects of transport policy, such as harmonisation of conditions
  458
  of competition, non-discrimination against other Member States' operators, and consignments. Policies on the provision of transport services in rural areas are determined in the context of national and local needs by the national and local authorities;this is not really a sphere in which a Community transport policy could make a useful contribution, as it requires small-scale improvements, innovative forms of transport and of management and self-help arrangements which can harness volunteer potential and help in recreating a sense of purpose in declining rural areas. There is little or no value in centralised or international planning on these.
  Some points made by the report are ones which relate primarily to the European Commission as an organisation—for instance, the comments made on coordination of policies among the Com-mission's directorates general and the staffing of the environment and consumer protection service. Of course, these are matters essentially for the Commission itself. The recent Spierenburg report on its workings commented on a lack of coordination and made recommendations aimed at improving the position, but the House will know more about that shortly, in the next debate.
  On staffing, we are aware of the comparatively small number of staff in the environment and consumer protection service relative to the tasks it undertakes. But I must point out that bids for increases in Commission staff are treated for budget purposes in total numbers. It is therefore up to the Commission to decide its own priorities for staffing in the light of increases finally agreed. The United Kingdom Government are, of course, bound to look very critically at any proposal to employ more staff at a time when they are seeking to restrain the growth of the Community's budget and, at home, are endeavouring to reduce numbers in the Civil Service.
  Closely related to these matters are the proposals made in the sub-committee's report that the Community should adjust policies to encourage comprehensive rural development;should adopt a statement of objectives for rural policy;and should develop a central organisation to consider such policy and developments. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made the important point that policy for rural areas as regards

  459
  forestry, farming and amenity considerations, should be tackled on a fully comprehensive basis. This is not, of course, in dispute, and I hope that will please the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. And of course, we fully accept that ADAS will have an important involvement. But in present circumstances we must take account of the likelihood that any major development in European Community policy or in central organisation within the Commission, would necessarily result in an increased total budget. Given present disparities between Britain's contributions to the Community and our receipts, this factor must, I would suggest, give us pause.
  For the same reasons, I endorse the sub-committee's present rejection of the concept of a rural fund. In both the short and long-term, the Government's policy is to seek a better balance of expenditure within the budget and to restrain as far as possible the growth of Community expenditure. In that context too, the Government agree with the committee that at present a special community rural fund is not a practical proposition;it would only exacerbate our budgetary difficulties. At the same time, I also take note of the committee's view that:
  " If total expenditure had to remain constant, a transfer of funds from direct agricultural support to other rural area expenditure would be needed".
  This worried my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Lord, Lord Parry. Noble Lords will readily recognise that such a course of action would raise issues of' wide-ranging significance involving the CAP which lie beyond the scope of this debate. We agree of course that the CAP is in need of some reform, but, that said, noble Lords will, I think, accept the principle that we should not seek improvements in rural areas by lessening our concern to increase the efficiency of agriculture, and I endorse the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Peart, on that.
  Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I wanted to ask my noble friend before he reaches the end of an extremely interesting speech whether he would agree that when we have said everything about all these measures of diversification, if the day should ever come when efficient agricultural production in this country was no
  460
  longer remunerative, the whole heart would be taken out of our countryside?
  Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think I would agree with that completely. So far, I have dealt principally with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and his colleagues. I want to conclude by making some comments on the report on Farm Structures, with which the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was involved. We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, and I am sorry that he is unable to be with us today.
  I shall deal first with over-production. The Government agree with the committee's conclusion that over-production is to a large extent the consequence of too high prices. This is a factor which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food will have very much in mind in the CAP price discussions which are now in progress.
  The views of the committee in paragraphs 9 and 10 of their report are noted, and to a great extent the Government have sympathy with them. As far as aid in the United Kingdon is concerned, tests of eligibility under both the Farm Capital Grant Scheme and the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme exclude those who are not capable of earning a fair living from their holdings. We do not want to see aid distributed in the Community, except on a cost-effective and sensible basis. In paragraph 11 the committee appear to be speaking of denying aid to farmers because they are on good land. I feel that these thoughts need some clarification.
  There are many factors which need to be taken into account in deciding who shall have, and who shall not have, aid. For example, we have ourselves recently introduced limits to the amount of investment which we will grant-aid. These limits will obviously affect the big investor more than the small man, but we imposed them in the knowledge that those operating large enterprises do not need so much support, because the Chancellor's Budget changes last year have increased substantially the proportion of net income available to these people.
  Regarding the point on interest subsidies in other countries which the committee has made, under the Farm Modernisation

  461
  Directive those countries are subject to the same limitations as the United Kingdom on total aid, but we prefer to offer similar levels of aid by way of capital grants.
  In paragrpah 13 of their report, the subcommittee comment on the bans on certain investment aids proposed by the Commission. The Government have sympathy for the sub-committee's views, but it has to be remembered that not every Member State is in surplus on production;the United Kingdom and Italy, for example, are in deficit on dairy production. A key factor in the surplus situation is that of prices, and this aspect has to be solved separately. But the proposal for an investment aid ban must be considered further and solved within the context of the structure package as a whole.
  Lastly, the committee, in paragraph 14 of their report, have expressed the belief that the Commission should formulate a long-term plan for structural policy. To an extent the Commission would certainly argue that their package of proposals taken as a whole, and bearing in mind the integrated regional programmes it contains, already represents the makings of such a policy. We do not suggest that the Commission package is without flaws, and the experimental nature of certain of the regional schemes must be emphasised. These particular ideas, of course, highlight the difficulty of trying to deal on a Community-wide basis with all aspects of structural problems. Many of these tend to be particular to individual countries. This points to the need for allowing for some national solutions, at national expense.
  Rightly, the committee underline the importance of processing and marketing. The European Community affords help in these areas under headings other than the structures directives. Again, much must be done and allowed to be done by national actions. My right honourable friend in another place has appointed five eminent and lively marketing minds to seek out innovations and improvements without waiting for a Community Directive to do this for us.
  We have had a full debate on the matters raised by these reports. I am most grateful for the points which speakers have made, and I have tried to comment on as many as I can in the time at my
  462
  disposal. It is clear that in rural affairs at large the Community has an increasingly important significance. We must do what we can to ensure that this results in a better quality of life for those who live in our countryside. The reports of the noble Lords and their colleagues have served to highlight in a most clear and helpful way the issues and problems concerned. I am sure that I speak for all when I again extend to them my thanks.
  6.14 p.m.
  Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the speakers who have taken part in the debate, and I am sure that all my colleagues on the committee will be grateful for the complimentary remarks that have been made. I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, complimented the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. His contribution to our committee was as valuable and as distinguished as is the contribution of the Development Commission to the countryside. I would have been disappointed and suspicious had we got through the debate without any controversy at all, and therefore I was particularly glad that the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Peart, crossed swords with me, to a very minor degree. Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, about farmers, and I am afraid that I am not anti-farmer;I have to agree with him in being very much in their support.
  The point at issue was a rather narrower, though I think nevertheless significant, one;namely, that whereas until perhaps quite recently it has always been possible to say, quite rightly, about almost every bit of the countryside—and Herr Ertl is always saying it about Germany and Bavaria—that if something is good for agriculture, it must he good for the countryside as a whole, my committee received quite a lot of evidence (which I was reporting to your Lordships), to the effect that there are parts of the countryside now where the common agricultural policy, if it is good for agriculture, is not always beneficial to the rest of the rural community. Perhaps we shall continue to disagree about that, but it is a rather different point.
  This brings me to the end of this debate. All that I wish to add is that the next

  463
  time I shall be discussing these matters will be when I am in Cumbria, at that admirable establishment on the shore of Lake Bassenthwaite, the Pheasant Inn. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS
  6.17 p.m.
  Baroness WHITE Baroness WHITE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report on European Institutions (the Three Wise Men) and the Spierenburg Report (9732/79). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, upon the debate which preceded this one. I think we all agree that he initiated a most interesting and valuable discussion.
  I hope to speak briefly, both out of regard for the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, whose business follows ours, and also because a clinical thermometer indicates that I perhaps might be better off elsewhere. I speak in this debate with perhaps more diffidence than usual, as it is only a short time since I had the privilege of succeeding the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, to whose services as Chairman of the Select Committee of the European Communities I would pay a warm tribute. For myself, I know that I still have a great deal to learn.
  The two reports which we wish to draw to the attention of the House are both —I think noble Lords would agree—lucidly and really admirably written, and for this reason, among others, the Select Committee concluded that it was preferable to publish only the evidence taken, without adding a commentary. Those interested would, we thought, do better to consult the original texts. But we were also concerned to provide a fairly early opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to state their views on the two reports and to indicate how far the recommendations fit in with the Government's concept of how Great Britain can best contribute to the work of the European institutions and, in turn, benefit from them.
  The evidence taken by the Select Committee, and contained in the reports
  464
  which are available to your Lordships, is well worthy of attention, including not only the views of senior United Kingdom officials, but also the testimony of Mr. Edmund Dell, one of the Three Wise Men responsible for the major report on the whole range of Community institutions and their interrelationships, and the testimony of Mr. Dick Taverne, one of the five-member Independent Review Body under the chairmanship of Ambassador Spierenburg, which reported to the Commission on its own particular organisation and effectiveness.
  Coincidentally with these reports there has recently been re-issued an up-dated version of the most illuminating booklet on the European Community and how it works, from the pen of the greatest authority of them all, M. Emile Noel, the Secretary-General, who was good enough to receive us when my colleagues and myself visited Brussels. I would warmly commend this short treatise to all those who perhaps remain somewhat baffled, as I think I still do, by the institutions of the Community and all their works. As M. Noel rightly points out, the Community is unique. It is not supranational;nor is it a federal government;nor simply an intergovernmental organisation. It cannot, indeed, be adequately described in conventional terms.
  Both these reports deal primarily with matters of organisation and of procedure, and also with political or administrative interrelationships. The Three Wise Men are rightly at pains to point out that the concern which is currently widespread as to whether the Community can function adequately in the face of its present problems cannot be met simply by procedural or mechanical adjustments. The gravity of the difficulties likely to face the Community in the economic as well as the political field during the 1980s will defy even major adaptations of machinery. None the less, only harm can ensue from unnecessary frustration and irritation caused by the sometimes ill-adapted procedures of what is surely the most complex political-cum-bureaucratic organisation yet devised by man.
  If one may start at the top, at the European Council, the Three Wise Men recognise the vital political impetus which may flow from meetings of Heads of State and Prime Ministers. But so far in our

  465
  discussions we have found little support for the major proposition in the report of the Three Wise Men that the European Council should,
  " work out an explicit scheme for Community action in the next few years".
  There seems to be a consensus that this is not the true function of such top political leaders, and that the work which would be involved in preparation for such a task would simply not be worth the candle. On the other hand, there has been much sympathy for the emphasis on the need to improve the working of the Council of Ministers, the membership of which varies, as we know, according to the subject matter under discussion, sometimes with junior Ministers representing their national interests and with agendas containing items of a technical complexity which may make wise judgments extremely difficult, as many of us on the subcommittees of the Select Committee know only too well.
  Suggestions for delegating work now done in the Council to Coreper, the meeting of the permanent presentatives—in other words, the ambassadors of the Member States in Brussels, and their staffs—would of course provide far better continuity, but it would retain the thorny question of voting. Should the unanimity rules be more frequently set aside in favour of decisions by weighted majority? If this is attempted will not the Member States who believe themselves to be disadvantaged resort regularly to the so-called Luxembourg compromise, whereby a State will insist that a vital interest is at stake and reassert the need for unanimity? In the opinion of David Marquand, one-time chef de cabinet to Mr. Roy Jenkins, expressed in his recent book on A Parliament for Europe, the Luxembourg compromise, which was pushed through by General de Gaulle in 1966,
  " destroyed one of the central elements of the Treaty system".
  Admittedly Mr. Marquand writes as an integrationist who accepts the proposition that a prior commitment to putting the Community interest first is necessary for the true health of the organisation. The need to search for solutions which will meet with unanimous approval, however, slows down Community decisions, sometimes almost indefinitely, and always to the pace of the slowest, and it makes the Council of Ministers less of a Community
  466
  institution than a forum for inter-State haggling and bargaining. I shall be very interested to hear the views on this matter of Members of your Lordships' House who have had much greater experience in Brussels and Strasbourg than I have.
  Consideration is given by the Three Wise Men to the role of the President of the Council. Is it wise that the period of office should be as short as six months? Because no sooner has the person concerned played himself in than he has to be thinking of how to re-establish himself in the politics of his own country, taking his staff and furniture with him from Brussels. The disadvantages of changing from the six months to a longer period seem, nevertheless, to outweigh the benefits;but the consequential changes of staff and committee chairmanships undoubtedly add to the problems of bureaucracy and illustrate vividly how hard it is to reconcile political necessities with efficiency. When one comes to the Commission, as opposed to the European Council and the Council of Ministers, one turns from the Three Wise Men to Spierenburg, as the three sages (as they are called) accept most of the recommendations in the latter report. Here again, the role of the President, this time the President of the Commission, is crucial. Should his powers be increased, in particular in the choice of his fellow Commissioners and in the allocation of their portfolios? Even someone of strong personality and great experience must find it hard to run an efficient team without the kind of power base enjoyed by national Ministers.
  In our consultations we found almost universal agreement with the view that, with the second enlargement of the Community in sight, the number of Commissioners should he diminished rather than increased. We also found, however, much scepticism as to whether this would, in the event, prove possible. As noble Lords will be aware, the larger States in the Community enjoy two Commissioners, which has certain great attractions. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it has been the tradition that one Commissioner to whom we are entitled should be from the Government side of the House and the other from the Opposition side, and some

  467
  of our colleagues in Europe who are accustomed to working with coalitions also find it extremely helpful if they can accommodate more than one party in the coalition by allowing them to represent their country in Brussels. When we discussed this with those who were good enough to receive us in Brussels, the more philosophical observers remarked that, while it would be very difficult in practice to reduce the number of Commissioners—they all agreed, I think, that it would be more efficient—nevertheless they thought there would be plenty of representational opportunities at the European Parliament to keep the Commissioners engaged whenever there might seem to be too little for them to do in Brussels.
  As an army marches on its stomach, so an administration depends on its civil servants. We are reminded in these reports that Brussels, and indeed Strasbourg too, suffer from certain serious staff rigidities. In addition, there are the problems caused by the need to keep an acceptable balance between the staff coming from the different Member States —a balance in which, in some areas, Great Britain does not seem to do too well. It was encouraging, however, to learn that Mr. Roy Jenkins, as President of the Commission, has asked his immediate predecessor as President, now Vice-President Ortoli, to take charge of the implementation of as many as practicable of the Spierenburg recommendations in Part III of their report, concerning staff. There has been considerable tension and dissatisfaction in Brussels on such matters as promotion prospects, and we hope very much that a more satisfactory arrangement can be made.
  A subject on which I think it is fair to say we failed to obtain a satisfyingly coherent reply was the extent to which the Commission was carrying out the proposals agreed on by the Commission itself in 1978 when they considered the matter at Comblain-la-Tour, by which suggestions for harmonisation should be judged by certain criteria to test their importance, and indeed their necessity. I think I am speaking for all Members of the Select Committee and most Members of the Sub-Committee when I say that in our experience nothing causes more irritation or puts the Commission as a whole in a
  468
  worse light than proposals which do not seem to the ordinary citizen, consumer or industrialist, to make sense;and there are some areas where people feel that they should be allowed to take their own decisions.
  Some of those we consulted said that they had noted a marked decrease in harmonisation proposals at Comblain-la-Tour, but were far less convinced. I cannot pretend that we were in a position to obtain authoritative information on this. Most of us who work on the scrutiny sub-committees would agree, I think, that too many proposals emanate from Brussels. If I may quote Mr Marquand again:
  " Community Europe is overwhelmingly a technocrats' Europe. Brussels seethes with committee meetings, at which civil servants talk to other civil servants about policies suggested by yet more civil servants …When the Commission has finally hammered out its proposals, they are considered at yet more meetings, under the aegis of the Council of Ministers, at which the same national and Commission officials battle formally over the points which they have previously discussed informally".
  To be fair, once it is settled that a proposal is to go forward, much of this is essential if it is to attempt to reconcile as many interests as possible. All the more important, therefore, actively to apply the criteria of necessity laid down at Comblain-la-Tour.
  Finally, over all our discussions and consultations has hung the question mark: How much difference will the elected Parliament make? The rejection of the budget seems to have been accepted philosophically in Brussels;and one very senior official revealed that he was considering taking bets on the likelihood of Parliament using its other major power, that of sacking all the Commissioners. As the Commission will be dissolved anyway at the end of this year, such a gesture would not perhaps be too damaging some time in the autumn, provided that the issue chosen was an appropriate one and not one that would only serve to debase the parliamentary currency.
  But as it is the day-to-day relationship between Council, Commission and Parliament which really matters, and not just the occasional dramatic moves, it is clearly too soon to pass judgment. Nevertheless, the difference between the present Parliament and its non-elected

  469
  predecessor is surely profound, not least in the United Kingdom, where our Members of the European Parliament have been elected on a constituency basis, not as in most other Member States on the list system, with its much less specific local responsibilities. The Commission admitted that the elected Members at Strasbourg added considerably to the burden of work but also added greatly to its interest.
  My Lords, the two reports we are considering are models of their kind. I hope this brief debate may lead Members of the House who are not on the Select Committee or its sub-committees, as well as those who are, to consider them and so bring about a better understanding of the way in which the organisation to which we belong really moves. We look forward to the Government's response and to the contribution of several speakers with, as I have said, considerably greater personal experience in these matters than that on which I, myself, can draw. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the Report on European Institutions (the Three Wise Men) and the Spierenburg Report (9732/79)—(Baroness White.)
  6.35 p.m.
  Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the trouble with these splendid reports—and there are not many copies available;this one is very bulky and has been duplicated but not printed—rather like the mountainous productions of Royal Commissions, is that Governments rarely pay much attention to them. In saying this, I am not referring to Spierenburg, the adoption of which (or otherwise) is almost entirely the affair of the Commission itself rather than of Governments, beyond saying that Spierenburg's recommendations, all of them appear to me to be very reasonable and I do not propose (except in one respect) to comment on them further. What normally gives rise to these wide-ranging reports is that Governments —in this case the nine Governments of the Community—get into difficulties. The machine clearly does not work;vital decisions cannot be taken;there is much public disgust about the functioning of the Community as a whole;and the Ministers feel that, by having recourse to a report, they can put off the fatal moment when something really must be done if the Community is not to break up or
  470
  become a sort of badly-working Customs union.
  The report which appeared before the major one which we are considering today was the work of one man only, M. Tindemans, then and subsequently Prime Minister of Belgium. It was published as long ago as December 1975. It contained a large number of constructive proposals. The most notable of them, I remind your Lordships, were as follows: that co-ordination of external policies should make way gradually for common policies, but the Community should speak with one voice in external affairs. To achieve this, the minority should rally to the views of the majority at the conclusion of the debate. A substantial part of national appropriations for development or co-operation should be transferred gradually to the Community;there should be a greater degree if unanimity in the field of defence supply and in the encouragement of joint and co-ordinated research.
  To this end, there should be periodical meetings of the Community Ministers of Defence. The traditional distinction in ministerial meetings between the Community's foreign policy and related defence questions and economic and development aid relations should end. There should be early adoption of a common economic and monetary policy in the Community and a convergence of economic policies generally. Regional policies should expand in step with progress on economic and monetary union. The European Council, whose president, as the president of the Council of Ministers, should be appointed for one year—and this is Tindemans—should act not only in accordance with the Treaty but take decisions outside the Treaty as well. The president of the Commission should be appointed by the European Council and himself appoint the remaining Commissioners in consultation with the Council. The European Parliament should be able to discuss all questions within the competence of the Union whether or not they are covered by the Treaties.
  Tindemans, himself a convinced federalist, believed that these broad proposals were entirely pragmatical and based simply on what might be done to improve the working of the existing machinery. Nevertheless, as your Lordships will

  471
  observe, scarcely any of the proposals that I have read out have yet proved to be acceptable to the Ministers. Impressed, no doubt, by the lamentable failure of Tindemans, the report of the Three Wise Men is more pragmatical still. The proposals that they submit represent simply ways and means, all within the existing Treaty obligations, whereby the functioning of the Community machine can be made rather more efficient.
  Thus the European Council—which, of course, operates outside the Treaty of Rome—should adopt before 1981, in collaboration with the Commission, "priorities "for the Community as a whole. This was also something which in principle was favoured by Tindemans. Its president should appear every six months before the European Parliament. For its part the Ministerial Council should lighten its work load and devolve some decision-making from Ministers. The Coreper, the permanent representatives in Brussels, should strengthen its already strong position as a co-ordinating centre. All decisions, save where otherwise provided for in the Treaty, should increasingly be taken by majority vote—and this, of course, is Tindemans in a milder form. The President must define objectives and insist on rules being abided by. The Council's secretariat should, if possible, play a more important part in the organisation of the Council's work and might even assist the European Council. Generally speaking, political co-operation should be intensified which, after Afghanistan, I should have thought was only common sense.
  These and many other pieces of good advice are submitted, and the whole report is full of suggestions which, one might imagine, would be accepted with alacrity in toto by all the nine Governments. But none, save one, is likely, if adopted, to have in itself any very profound effect. For that, as Mr. Dell and his colleagues would be the first to admit, and do admit, there will have to be some major political impulse which still is lacking.
  The one exception is the proposal that, before the arrival of Greece in under a year's time from now the Commission (as regards the reform of which the Three Wise Men agree with Spierenburg)
  472
  should consist of one Commissioner from each Member country;in other words that, after the Greek accession, it should be reduced from a potential 17 to 10.
  The case for this particular reform, in spite of what we have heard from some witnesses, is unanswerable. The Commission, as opposed to the Council or even the Parliament, is not a body in which national interests should play any part at all. Every member of it has to take an oath to be loyal only to the Community in the sense of not taking any orders or instructions from his own Government. In principle it should not matter where he comes from.
  Apart from that, there would obviously not be sufficient work for 17 portfolios, and some Commissioners would perforce have to play a subordinate role which politically speaking, might be very difficult. Anyway, with all 17 sitting round a table, the whole machine would become top heavy and almost impossible to operate. This is consequently the one major proposal and it will be interesting to see whether the Ministers, including our own Government, accept. All the betting is that French opposition will prevent their doing so. In that case, and if the majority of the other less important suggestions are brushed aside—as is only too likely—we may, indeed, I fear, expect the EEC to become a sort of dinosaur after 1981, a colossal body with the brain the size of an egg.
  This is clearly what the report expects unless its various recommendations are approved and applied within only nine months from now. It appears, for instance, that in such an event tendencies in the directon of a "two-tier "membership—that is, first- and second-class members—will become too strong to be resisted, even though the report believes that this solution—disguised as it might be by the extension of "compensating devices "—should be "rejected outright ", as of course must be all kinds of protectionist measures.
  Then there is the final obstacle of an additional language—and no doubt three additional languages—which may in itself be so formidable as to prevent further progress towards any kind of European political union, which, as Hugh Gaitskell said on a famous occasion—with magnificent meisois—would be a pity.

  473
  The report is, however, eloquent and convincing in its closing passages on the possibility of arriving at European union and what we might expect from such union, if ever achieved. Convincing, that is, for any intelligent person looking at the problems confronting our nine democracies objectively and, as it were, from the outside looking in. Whether such a formulation will seem convincing to our rulers is quite another matter. They have to cope with the immediate political effects of any step in this direction which may adversely affect particular interests and hence their chances of being returned to Parliament. But perhaps when they contemplate the likely results of any collapse of the EEC they will be able to weather a few political storms.
  The report's final words (in its annexes) on harmonisation and the conciliation procedure for arriving at agreement on the budget between the Ministers and the Parliament are really admirable and, one would have thought, likely to be of real assistance to all the institutions concerned In particular, the conception of "the triangle "—that is, the relationship between Council, Commission and Parliament—as the essential motive force behind the whole Community strikes me as excellent.
  Might I just say in conclusion that since a think-piece by one man is usually, in the nature of things, more immediately impressive than one composed by several persons, I warmly recommend to your Lordships the subsequent lecture by Mr. Edmund Dell delivered at a meeting organised by Mr. Goodison, chairman of the Stock Exchange on 24th January of this year. With your Lordships' leave, I will quote one short extract from the lecture which was illuminating on all aspects of the present situation. After saying that everybody now recognised that the British contribution to the EEC budget constituted a problem, Mr. Dell continued:
  " The other members of the Community are almost certainly prepared to do something effective about the British contribution problem because they realise that politically no British Government can accept the present situation. As, looking to a longer future, they probably still prefer Britain to remain a member, they will be prepared to bend the rules to create a situation which is politically intolerable for British Governments and people. I hope we will not handle this problem in a way which leaves us with exit from the Community as the only dignified step left. We will then look rather stupid when we do not in fact leave".
  474
  I do not feel that these words of wisdom require comment from anyone who still believes in the necessity of forming some sort of European political community. And lest I should appear unduly pessimistic, let me say in conclusion that I still share such a belief. For it seems to me that the darker the external scene becomes, the more likely we shall arrive at the moment when Governments will have to make the fatal jump—the saltus mortalis—towards a genuine political association in the direction of which we appear to be being pushed still by the logic of history.
  6.48 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady White for the admirable way in which she initiated this useful and timely debate. We also are very well aware of the fact that, although she has not been in the chair of the Select Committee for a very long time, she has already given ample evidence of her great capabilities. Today's speech—like its predecessor—was an example of what I mean.
  It is obvious that at this stage none of us would wish to press the Government to be at all conclusive about the tentative proposals contained in either report. The status of both reports, I take it, is that Governments are busily considering their recommendations—including our own—and that the European Council will, as soon as possible, deliberate over them. It was hoped—was it not?—that the Council might consider them at the February meeting, but that proved impracticable. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether they look like being discussed at the next meeting, which I believe will be in May or June. These are both very important reports and need fairly urgent consideration by Governments so that the needed reforms and restructuring can proceed. The independent review body, as we have heard, was asked to examine how the Commission's work could best be organised to meet future needs, and a large part of the future is on our doorstep already, with the imminent expansion of membership to 10 and its expansion to 12 by 1983, with the accession of Spain and Portugal;so there is not much time to be lost before considering the major point raised by both these reports.

  475
  May I make one firm basic comment at this point? It is absolutely imperative that, whatever proposals are accepted, the essential paramountcy of the Council of Ministers should be retained on all matters relating to policy as well as on questions of structure and of staff which are not clearly for internal decision by the Commission itself. I will return to that matter later because I feel we have not as yet given sufficient attention to the chain of authority and the clarity of the operation of the Community. In seeking such clarity, which will commend the Community more and more to public opinion, I think the role of the Council of Ministers, as the paramount authority on policy making, must be clearly accepted and retained.
  The expansion of which I spoke will indeed present the Commission and the Community with new challenges in, I would have thought, at least three ways;and both reports refer to this. First, the workload itself will naturally increase;secondly, the need to make the best use of staff will become more urgent and, as we heard from my noble friend Lady White, this urgency is being increasingly felt and voiced in Brussels these days. It refers to career structure, to frustration arising from the difficulty of effective interchange of view and the concerting of action, and it is an important aspect of the Spierenburg Report, and almost as much so of the report of the Three Wise Men. Thirdly, the organisation of the Commission will become more difficult as a result of expansion in respect of this thorny problem on the distribution and number of Commissionerships.
  My first comment, therefore, will be on the extremely difficult question of the Commissionerships and, related to it, of the Directorates General—what is called in the reports, "the imbalance of portfolios". By "portfolio "is meant an area of departmental activity, and we in this country would probably use the word "department". This problem will certainly not become smaller as membership expands. The Spierenburg Report proposes that the number of vertical, that is departmental, Commissionerships should be increased to eight, plus, of course, the Presidency and the single Vice-Presidency. That is essentially 10;and suggests they are looking to the
  476
  possibility of giving one Commissioner-ship, in one way or another or of one sort or another, to each of the Member States.
  Similarly, as the expansion proceeds to 12 Member States, so it is more than the implication of both reports that the number of commissionerships, inclusive again of the Presidency and the single Vice-Presidency, which is proposed, will be 12. We all know what the pressures of nationalism can be but I think that, while a readjustment of administrative areas is from time to time necessary and beneficial, nevertheless the operation must be carried on for the right reasons;that is, improved administrative and executive efficiency. But one wonders sometimes whether the proposals of either report in regard to the Commissionerships are based on the right reasons or whether they are still wedded to the assumption that everyone must have a prize and that if at all possible each country shall boast a commissionership, even if no country may boast two any more.
  I am sure that in a Community of nation-States, which is what we have and what we are likely to have for some considerable time, the political direction of the Commission's work must rest in the Council of Ministers on the principle of "one country, one Member". No matter how many Members there may prove to be in five, 10 or 15 years, it is perfectly possible to give them all an equal voice in the political gathering, in the Council of Ministers. The principle fits the purpose and that surely defers sufficiently and effectively to both national pride and national interest, and at the appropriate level.
  But is it necessary to apply the same procedure to the fields of administrative and executive action? That is, after all, what the Commissionerships are about. There are, of course, persistent attempts to make them into quasi-ministerial functions, but I do not think that is part of our purpose in the Community. There would be confusion and an absence of hierarchical clarity—an absence of the chain of authority without which a mature democracy like ours and that of others will be lost for ever in Europe. Possibly, too, Europe will be lost with it, because there is not this emergence of clarity of the chain of authority based on the vital

  477
  distinction between ministerial and administrative functions. To put it in another way, while the principle of automatic unit representation in the Council is politically appropriate, and it works, give or take some argument about the majority rule question, which is negotiable—it has proved to be negotiable and has been amended and there is no reason why there should not be more talk about it and an expansion of the toleration or liberalisation we have already achieved—does it apply to appointments to administrative posts?
  Once more I agree that the pressures of nationalism and national interest are very great indeed, but surely the Council is the proper and adequate response to them. Can we get the best administrative and executive officers, including the Commissioners themselves and the Directors-General, on such a basis? I think you can get the right Ministers by political criteria, but there is very grave danger when you appoint executives on political criteria. That seems to me to be a dichotomy of movement from the very beginning of the Community.
  The report itself confirms to some extent what I have just said, at least in relation to the staff. I have no time to quote from paragraph 64 of the Spierenburg Report, but I do commend it to your Lordships because it says there that the staff—presumably everybody below the levels I have just described—should of course be recruited on a broad geographical basis of balance, but that this should not be the finally deciding principle. I think that the same view should be taken of all appointments, from the very top downwards. It would enable the Community to recruit across the board for these vital administrative and executive functions, without constantly having a quick think about, "What will happen if we appoint him and do not appoint anybody from that country? "This has no place in administration. It has a place in political guidance, but not in administrative and executive appointments.
  I stop at that point to ask: are the two reports on this question of the organisation of the Commissionerships in danger of tying the Community up in a too rigid way, looking to the future? I think it is paragraph 46 which states that the arrangement which they propose first as to 10 and
  478
  then, presumably, as to a maximum of 12 "must be permanent". I believe that those are the words used. What happens if the Community, as so very many of us hope will happen, expands further northward, southward and possibly eastward? "Must be permanent "is far too permanent a phrase to use in that connection.
  It may well be, of course, that they have in mind the possibility of an enlarged membership beyond 1983 and beyond the number of 12, but retaining a maximum of 12 portfolios which will then be operated by whatever number of member countries there may be. That is going to be a very difficult business to arrange. Far better, I think, to emphasise the political basis of the Council of Europe and the Parliament and to cut loose and try to achieve a non-political, non-national basis of recruitment for all members of staff from the top downwards.
  I hurry on, because there are a number of noble Lords whom I wish to hear on these questions. I have referred to the question of majority rule, which my noble friend raised. I see no reason why constant discussion as to the amendment of this rule should not proceed, so that in an orderly fashion categories of subjects can be advanced into the majority section, as it were, while care is taken that we do not overdo it too quickly, and arouse profound and proper national apprehensions about the future of interests vital to them.
  A further point which I should like to make is this. I have referred to the need for a definition of the chain of authority, with a clearer picture of how the whole thing works. My noble friend was so right when she said that this must be the most complex governmental organisation ever invented by man. I thought that she put it in that way with a faint implicaton that no woman would ever have invented it. I rather think that she was right. There is a case for being simplistic about the processes of government, so that those who are governed can see how the thing works.
  Part of the reason why democracy in some parts of the world and to some extent in our country, has lost ground in the hearts of the people is that they cannot see a simple logicality, but only the

  479
  machinery. "Whom do we see? There is nobody when you ring them up. "This is the beginning of it. No system will survive a lack of clarity. Indeed, democracy must proceed by faith, hope and clarity—above all, this new form of democracy in Europe.
  I hope that the very brilliant minds which have contributed so sincerely to both these reports, and which have worked so hard on both of them, will go on to a further examination which is necessary;that is, examination of the hierarchy of power and also the vitality of the institutions. There are a number of institutions in Europe—a number of communities—one of which is the European Court. In any democracy, the validity of its court is fundamental to that democracy's health. I should like to see an examinaton of the working of the several institutions, including, as I have said, the European Court.
  I do not want to raise again the question of British lamb, but it is very important indeed that we in this country and our partners understand that the continued flouting of the very purpose and spirit of the Treaty of Rome and the Community, and, indeed, defiance of its own courts in this instance—and it is not the only instance—must lead to a deterioration in the respect of everybody for that institution and, indeed, for the parent institution itself.
  Like a great many in this House, in the other place and indeed in the country, I have always been a federalist. I know that we are in a substantial minority. I want to see us moving in Europe—or, I hope, in a still wider area—to very close union indeed, primarily for political reasons. The great prize is, of course, stability and peace. To achieve that, it is right that we should fashion economic structures, but the purpose is political. Peace is the great prize. It is a greater prize than the achievement of a high standard of living. Any standard of life is more important than any standard of living.
  The political purpose of peace was really the inducement for many people like me to support what we regarded as somewhat doubtful economic contrivances. But we swallowed our objections, as many noble Lords know, in order to go after the
  480
  political union. But there is no hope for political union in Europe, or beyond Europe, unless the economics and the governmental arrangements behind it make sense to the people. It is important, therefore, that we should negotiate a better economic system and, also, a firmer system of legal sanctions in Europe. Some things must be negotiated. I freely agree with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister that what we contribute is a matter for negotiation. There is no rule, tariff or schedule about that. It is a matter of argument, and I very much hope that we will carry our partners with us. But other matters are for legal rulings and legal injunctions, which are not only laid down but obeyed. Otherwise, there is no real future for the Community.
  I was glad that my noble friend Lord Gladwyn mentioned what to some people may be a minor problem;namely, languages—the burden of babble which threatens to clog up the channels of communication and negotiation. We have at the moment nine Member States and six languages. Soon we shall have 12, and nine languages. One of the reports tells us that the Commission employs, apart from its research staff, 8,300 people—not excessive, having regard to governmental organisations both nationally and internationally. But the extraordinary fact is that fully 40 per cent. of that 8,300, working in Brussels, is engaged directly or indirectly on linguistic activity—essential, of course. I spoke of having clarity, and language should be a means of clarity. But in the further examination of the various institutions and of their unity, I think there should be room for a special look at this question of language.
  Language, of course, is sensitive. No one knows that better than 1, and my noble friend. And perhaps it would come better from a Welsh speaking Welshman, who is at the moment speaking a language which is not entirely native to him, to make the suggestion that the people of Europe, who have magnificent languages and literatures, should agree that for the purpose of the governmental business of Europe they should choose one, possibly two, perhaps three languages so that the task of translation and of negotiating translation is made easier. How often have I spent hours negotiating the translation into some other language of a document which had been agreed, say,

  481
  in English or perhaps in French! It is going to be extremely difficult, but I think it is worth while starting to get our European partners thinking along these lines. It would make a certain contribution to the effectiveness and clarity of which I have spoken.
  I join with my noble friend Lord Gladwyn and my noble friend Lady White in thanking those who arc responsible for these two reports for their work. I would also suggest that we should not relinquish these two teams too soon but should ask either one or possibly both of them to look a bit further, and perhaps a little bit deeper, into the implications for the future.
  Lord MORRIS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him, with respect, whether he has any sympathy for the device which they enjoy at the Council of Europe, in which there are 21 nation-States but only two official languages;namely, English and French? Bearing in mind that the Council of Europe has been in existence—and highly succesfully—since 1949, does he not think that due consideration should be given to this particular point by the European Economic Community?
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has quoted what was on the tip of my tongue to quote, but one does not want to put one organisation against another. However, it is perfectly true. Many members in the middle echelons of the Commission, I am sure, because I know a few who have said this to me point to that example. It works extremely well. Those of us who deal with documentation either in Government or in Opposition know that it works. Indeed, with a few more languages—I believe four—the United Nations Organisation has shown that it can get along with fewer than nine. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, many subjects are discussed in the two reports which we are considering today and the noble Baroness, Lady White, has with clarity extracted from the reports the most important points from what are long documents. The House is indebted to her.
  482
  I will concentrate on a few of the principal points concerning the EEC Commission, after a word or two of comment on the Council of Ministers. This will supplement the subjects which have been raised by previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has raised interesting matters on other subjects. On the one subject upon which I shall be overlapping with him, I agree wholeheartedly with him on the future size of the Commission.
  On the Council of Ministers, which of course is dealt with in the report of the Three Wise Men, I think the suggestion that there should be less separation of the Councils working on different subjects is one that should be seriously considered by Governments. For example, the Agriculture Ministers hold their meetings, apparently quite separately, and without co-ordination with Ministers of Finance. There are other examples. I give that example because those who participated in one way or another in our domestic price reviews of the kind which we used to have before we became members of the EEC will remember that the Chancellors of the Exchequer had just as much say (if not more) about what was done as the Agriculture Ministers. This is one of the troubles which the EEC has been running into.
  Another recommendation is that there should be more delegation of activity from the Council elsewhere. I would support that recommendation and suggest that more could be delegated to the permanent representatives, to Coreper. That course is the one which is most likely to contribute to improvement. When say "the permanent representatives "of countries, under their supervision a number of technical subjects could be dealt with. This would mean that more of the important political issues could be handled by the Council of Ministers. They would be dealing with them and would be less bogged down with other matters.
  Before coming to the Commission, I would draw attention to the recommendations of the Three Wise Men, that the Commission's performance would benefit if there were more general guidance and outline planning of subjects to be tackled over future periods—indicating priorities, if possible—from the European Council and from the Council of Foreign Ministers. Such authoritative direction

  483
  certainly would help the Commission in planning and organising its activities.
  The Committee, chaired by Ambassador Spierenburg, which submitted the report on the EEC Commission only, has made some valuable recommendations. The principal ones were endorsed by the Three Wise Men in their report which was published a few weeks later. I should like to draw attention to the criticism which the Spierenburg Report makes of the Commission. It is summarised in paragraph 16 of the report where they say that they found a certain lack of cohesion in the College of Commissioners, an imbalance between portfolios, insufficient co-ordination among senior officials, a maldistribution of staff between departments and shortcomings in the career structure of the civil servants of the Commission. That is a summary and it sounds highly critical. The rest of the report indicates that they do not recommend drastic changes in the structure, but they are blunt in that criticism.
  Perhaps the most important recommendation, and at the same time the most difficult one to carry out, is the one which has already been raised about reducing the number of commissioners. This requires a concession to be made by the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy because the obvious way of doing it would be for the countries which have two commissioners at present—the larger countries—to dispense with one, otherwise when the three applicant nations join, as is expected during the next five years, there will be 16 or indeed 17 commissioners. Seventeen are expected because at the present time it is anticipated that Spain would have two. The Spierenburg Report suggests that from 1st January—in less than 10 months' time, when Greece is due to join—there should be 12 members of the Commission, and the four Members of the Community who now have two commissioners should have only one. This is the most urgent of the recommendations because the most practical time to make the change will be on 1st January when the new Commission is appointed for four years and when Greece joins the Community.
  It is of course linked to portfolios, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, pointed out. It is linked to the division
  484
  of subjects. If there are to be 16 or 17 commissioners in the future the Member countries would be artificially separating subjects or searching for additional ones and looking for extra activities for the commissioners. I agree with what has been said earlier, that no doubt activity could be found for the commissioners, in accordance with Parkinson's Law hut, it is inimical to good co-ordination in the departments of the Commission—an area in which both reports state that improvement is required. In the event some of the commissioners would probably have to double up, one acting as a deputy for another in handling a portfolio. To manufacture four additional portfolios simply to reflect the size and prestige of the larger countries would be a formula for inefficiency. So if in practice there is to be a "second eleven of commissioners then why not dispense with the "second eleven ", as proposed in both reports?
  The internal weaknesses which are described in the reports and which I summarised just now will not he put right if the Commission itself is top-heavy and inefficient in the arrangements at commissioner level, patently pandering to certain national claims. The commissioners are not representatives. During their four years they serve the EEC as a whole and there is no doubt that their allegiance is to the best interests of the EEC. Hitherto the record in this respect has been a reassuring one. So I urge the British Government to make a supreme effort to persuade the other countries concerned—especially France and Italy—to agree to a reduction in the numbers of the Commission in future.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, went further, following up the point I made about the commissioners not being representatives of their countries but being international while they are doing the job. I agree with him and I hope that in days to come a country would be happy not to have a commissioner of their own nationality at all. But I think that is in the future, and I would suggest that for the moment we must take this one step at a time. Clearly if one is going to make progress in this direction, with good organisation, the first step is that the second commissioners should be dropped.
  It is not a surprise, when we come to the shortcomings reported in the Spierenburg

  485
  Report of the Commission, to read that the workload is unevenly spread. Nor is it news to some of us that the initiation of schemes, draft directives and regulations is somewhat haphazard. We have been aware of some proposals from the Commission which did not appear necessary or of value to Members or to the Community as a whole. Much time and energy have been expended on such schemes of harmonisation where there was no reason to change a system which was already operating successfully and in harmony and was not in need of confusing or disruptive changes.
  To improve the internal working I support the suggestion that more must be expected of the President of the Commission. It does not seem that any change in the Treaty of Rome is required for this. One of the recommendations which has been mentioned is that there should he a single vice-president to assist him in these particular functions. Together they would promote internal co-ordination and better distribution of work.
  It has been suggested that in future the President should be appointed six months before what was the normal time in the past. Whether or not that finds favour, the proposal that he should be more closely involved in choosing the rest of the team of commissioners has much to commend it. After all, he has to combine the qualities of a chief executive and the conductor of an orchestra and he ought to be given the chance to choose his team and then the authority to improve the efficiency of the Commission as a whole. I believe that improvement in the organisation and methods of working will best be carried out by the Commission itself and not by some outside body. Of course, the Commission can call in consultants, and indeed that is really what it has done in commissioning the Spierenburg Report. I believe that the most effective improvements will be made if the Commission can do the job itself. So that means that this is a task which should be given to the new President when he starts in January 1981 and he must have the necessary authority and support. However, this is not a blank cheque for increasing staff and I agree with the reports that there must be a safeguard against expanding bureaucracy, and that where that is proposed, then it must be considered from outside the Commission.
  486
  There is one last point I should like to make, arising from the language point which has been raised by the two previous speakers. It has been pointed out that 40 per cent. of the staff of the Commission are involved, directly or indirectly, in language work. When the enlargement is completed there will be three more new languages. There must be some rationalisation and I support those proposals, but I should like to put in a word of caution. My noble friend Lord Morris mentioned the similar situation of the Council of Europe but I think there is a difference because the EEC has to consider, amend, approve, publish and then apply direct, regulations in the Member countries and a regulation which has to apply as law in one of the Member countries must be in the language of that country. It must also be expertly drafted. I will not go into the work of the Council of Europe. It has drawn up various declarations and international documents, but I do not think it has the same problem of having to produce documents which have direct legal application in the Member countries. So I think there is no short cut to economy there, but it is clearly something that must he looked at very carefully.
  Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but would he not perhaps agree that the distinction between an official language and a working language is a valid one? We might get by with two or maybe three working languages, but of course the documentation must be in all the official languages.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords indeed I do, and that of course is the way in which the United Nations operates because there are so many languages there: a number of working languages and a number of official languages: and there have been a number of arguments about that. I sat behind the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, 30 years ago in the Security Council when I was a diplomat—we were dealing with Korea in 1950. The problems of language were arising then because there were only about 50 members of the United Nations at that time, whereas my latest count is nearly 160 now. They have been through all this, but again they do not have the problems of legal application in Member countries.

  487
  My Lords, I was just concluding by saying that I believe the two reports are helpful and can be useful because they are practical. I hope the Government will consider the recommendations in them, not only with care but also with some urgency, because some of them will need to be carried out and agreed this year if they are to be effective when the new Commission is appointed.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord WOLFENDEN: My Lords, I have very little right to be imposing myself on your Lordships this evening. I am, I think, the newest member of the Select Committee and I think the most recently appointed chairman of a sub-committee. I am, therefore, and I know it, an utter novice. As part of my education or initiation or indoctrination or whatever, I had the privilege and pleasure—and it was, I assure your Lordships, both—of accompanying the noble Baroness, Lady White, on a one-day visit to Brussels just a fortnight ago. It was a very full day, in the course of which we had five conversations with different groups or individuals, and I should like, if your Lordships will allow me, to report very briefly indeed my first virginal impressions. Without exception of any kind, all those whom we saw were friendly, welcoming and forthcoming, and they ranged across the board from a vice-president and other high officials of the Commission to a couple of our own United Kingdom representatives. Nowhere was there any sign of holding hack or keeping us at a distance. Further, without exception of any kind, they struck me, at least, as being, all of them in their various ways, able, hardworking, thoughtful and anxious to make the whole thing work. So far as the personnel of the Commission are concerned my impression was wholly favourable.
  What was not so favourable, my Lords, was my first naive impression of the machine which these first-rate people have to work. Put as briefly as possible, the input of high-powered time and thought is considerably greater than the outcome. Put another way, the system of checks and balances, which would delight the heart of a Bagehot, seems to me to he in such beautiful equilibrium that momentum, impetus, results, if so crude a word may be allowed, tend to get lost on the
  488
  way. I do not mean that the Brussels staff are idle, far from it. There is an endless flow of documents, briefs, appreciations, drafts. We all know how many draft directives reach our own long-suffering, sub-committees in the course of a year. But what, in the end, does it all add up to or result in?
  I must not attribute opinions to those who talked to us, but my own impression was that many of them felt frustrated and even discouraged—" disillusioned "I think would be too strong a word—by their inability to make the impact, "punch "is perhaps too crude a word, that they would wish to make within their own various spheres of activity, and that is sad. This sort of thing is, if I understand them, the kind of thing the two reports we are considering this evening would wish to cure or at least to alleviate. These reports come from people deeply experienced in the ways of Brussels and familiar with all the procedures of its constituent instruments and elements. My own knowledge is by contrast ludicrously inexpert.
  I can only say that, on the basis of this one-day visit, I would plead with Her Majesty's Government to do everything in their power to support and reinforce the positive, constructive, productive measures which these reports propose. I would make that plea, first, for the sake of an appropriately forceful impact by the Communities on the problems our world faces;secondly, for the sake of the men and women who are working so hard to bring this about: and even, thirdly, for the sake of our own Select Committee and its subcommittees so that we may all make our modest contributions to the final outcome.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord ARDWICK: My Lords. I am sorry that this debate is taking place on a Thursday night, when it is not very usual for us to have a full House here. should have liked to see a bigger attendance. Although we have got three of the old guard from Brussels here, it would have been nice if some of the new Members of the European Parliament who are also Members of this House had been able to come to this debate tonight.
  I hope. my Lords, that this report will be studied and discussed by all Members of this House, but particularly by those Members who opted for British membership

  489
  of the Community some years ago but have since become disillusioned because the results, far from living up to the expectations of the most ardent Europhiles, have been bitterly disappointing. The situation, as the disillusioned see it, is that we are compelled to bear an unfair share of the costs of running the Community, and we are not able to enjoy full industrial reward as predicted, simply because businessmen across the Channel find it easier to sell their goods to us than we do to sell our goods to them.
  I share that disappointment. I share the resentment at the gross unfairness which the financial arrangements have proved unexpectedly to have. But I do not share the disillusionment and despair. I still have faith that the European experiment will succeed, and I still hold the belief that it must succeed.
  The four years that I spent in the European Parliament, four years discussing the problems of Europe and the world with men and women of eight other nations, gave me a rather different perspective from that of my colleagues who were pro-European but who did not share that experience. As I go around today I meet a good deal of rather small-minded nationalism. I find one-time Europeans, former Europeanists, who fulminate about fish or utter lamentations about lamb or get apoplectic at the thought of Bolsheviks gorging themselves on subsidised Community butter. These complaints are often just. But the critics of these inequities give them, I think, far too much importance, and fail to give the thought that is needed to the much deeper problems which afflict Europe and indeed the Western World today.
  I would hope, my Lords, that the disillusioned will study particularly the opening and closing pages of this report. It is not an onerous task, for it is written with grace and clarity, and the recommendations of the Three Wise Men are indeed full of conspicuous wisdom. As they point out, their brief was a narrow one;to consider adjustments to the machinery and procedures of the Community institutions. But they have in their wisdom permitted themselves some wider reflections. And they say at the outset that the concern which is felt about he slowness of progress towards the
  490
  European goal and about the failures and inadequacies of the Community performance is because they are not due, as the noble Baroness pointed out, to mechanical or procedural faults but to deeper causes. All the Community can do by correcting the mechanics is to remove one gratuitous obstacle to progress. That obstacle is perhaps bigger than it appears. To make progress the Community must command goodwill among the citizens and some enthusiasm among the leaders of public opinion, and it cannot do that if people suspect bureacratic ineptitude, or are aware of a Commission which lacks the collegiate spirit, a Council of Ministers to which senior Ministers do not always turn up, or a European Council of Heads of State and Government which issues perfunctory, hasty, rather ill-written communiques. I think that perceived inefficiency can easily sap political will.
  The analysis that the committee of three make of the shortcomings of the institutions, and the remedies they propose, strike me as accurate and sensible when they are dealing with things that I was able to observe from my ringside seat in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Perhaps they do not give enough credit to members of the Commission for their long and frequent appearances before the Parliament's committees.
  In the Economic Committee, for example, I found Messrs. Ortoli and Davignan unsparing of their time and even of their patience with Members who had clearly not read their papers, and perhaps with the majority of us who were never able to penetrate fully the mysteries of the EMS. But, for most of us, I think, the body of the report serves mainly to show how difficult it is to run this kind of organisation with Ministers from nine countries, heavily burdened by their duties in the departments and parliaments of their national States and often preoccupied by a national, political or economic crisis.
  The report does a useful service when, in dealing with the state of the Community, it presents the positive side. "A major new entity "they remind us "has taken its place on the world negotiating scene". Indeed, outside the confines of a national State no comparable attempt has been made to establish a homogeneous economic area with uniform conditions for competition.

  491
  With all its imperfections the Community has become one of the most important single trading blocs in the world. I do not think that we have to resent the mass of paper work that the achievements of such a trading bloc must generate.
  Perhaps the most important boast the Community could make in the 1970s was that it survived. It was plunged into a world economic crisis of great severity before it had evolved a common economic or monetary system on which to base a united European front. And at that moment it had the additional task of absorbing three new Member States. Of course, in the 1960s, when Europe was being built, there was sustained economic growth and stable money. In those days Governments were able to make some sacrifice for the common good and Governments were strong because their countries were doing pretty well. But, in the 1970s slow growth and monetary disturbance have made the Member States defensive and reluctant to experiment. Governments have often been insecure, based on fragile coalitions with very small majorities and very often lacking in authority. It is not remarkable that the tempo of the European construction has slowed down;rather it is a wonder that the Nine have stayed together and resisted the temptation to adopt any really significant protectionism.
  But what about the future? The task of the European Council is now, as this Committee sees it, to lay down the priorities for advance. I cannot see why there is so much objection to that;I cannot see from where else the initiative could come. The Commission does not have the type of status today to do it and the Council is, after all, a rather ragged body. What the Commission could do, would be to inspire the European Council with some rough outline of the sensible priorities that the Community could decide to follow in the forthcoming years.
  Of course, Britain had the ill luck to join the Community in 1973, the very year, as the committee points out, which saw the end of a 25-year epoch of growth and relative monetary stability. The committee believe that in the foreseeable future we shall not see a return of those conditions. Even the hopes which I remember were engendered in 1978 by
  492
  M. Ortoli with his plan for concerted growth, investment in new industries and the reconstruction of the old ones, can no longer be sustained, at least not for the short term. As the committee see it, several years must pass before inflationary expectations are effectively discouraged, and not until price rises slow down considerably is there real hope of substantially speeding up economic growth in Europe.
  There is also the terrible question of energy. Last year we experienced the second oil crisis in a decade and that is not the last crisis of its kind that we shall see, given the precarious balance of supply and demand. So, the Community must face more difficult years, particularly as an increasing work population struggles for jobs in a period of low growth. It will be a period of severe competition among exporters and the Community will face the danger of protectionist measures—measures which, of course, could threaten its very basis. What the Community does about its relations with developing countries striving to be industrial would be another important question. What will the Community do about the problems of adjustment as these Mediterranean countries are recruited? And what of the continuing problem of the dollar?
  So, as far as the Three Wise Men—and not they alone—see it, the Community's first problem will be to keep what, we learned when we were in Europe to call the acquis—to keep its heritage, to keep its achievement. But, keeping its achievement does not mean that the CAP, for example, is not in dire need of reform. That must be carried out. Most of the great problems that the European Community will have to face are world problems and they will require negotiation at world level or with other great economic units throughout the world. So, the continued unity of the Community will be essential—this is the message of the Three Wise Men—and nothing will be more essential than political co-operation, for the economic problems are inseparable from the political ones. I think that in a way the Three Wise Men have shown infinite wisdom not by following M. Tindemans, who presented not what was possible but what he wanted and hoped to have but by presenting what is possible —the way the Community can go forward. They see union not as a federal goal, nor

  493
  as a nothing, as some people imagine union to be, but as a process of working together whenever it is possible to work together and that is particularly true of political co-operation. The current crisis over Afghanistan reveals the need for Europe, whenever it can, to speak with one firm voice and to be, as M. Genscher put it, not standing between the United States and the Soviet Union, but standing side by side with the United States.
  7.49 p.m.
  The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very happy to follow my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. He was a very good companion during the four years that we served together in the European Parliament. I should like to say that I think he is the only Member of your Lordships' House who can write verse in French in the style of almost any famous French poet. That relieved the situation after perhaps a modest dinner in Brussels. They were arduous years, but he made them a little less arduous.
  I should like, too, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for having introduced this debate. We are all so very happy that she should be our new chairman. I congratulate her on the appointment. It is an excellent appointment and it is a very good idea to have in some "new boys ", like my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, to give a new picture because first impressions are so often right. I very much agreed with what he said about the frustration that exists among officials, whether national or international, and also even among Ministers, which I think is distressing, but which I noticed very clearly in the relations that I have had with some of them and which I still have with them.
  In view of the time, I should like to confine my brief remarks to the importance of strengthening political co-operation. Therefore, these remarks arise more from the report of the Three Wise Men than from that of Ambassador Dirk Spierenburg, who confined himself to the Commission. With others, I think that both reports are excellent and most useful, and I hope that the Government will look at them with very great care. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the admirable recommendations of Prime Minister
  494
  Tindemans and how sad it is that these have not been realised.
  However, the importance of strengthening political co-operation is stated very clearly on page 106 of the Wise Men's report, where they say that all the great problems facing a united Europe today—and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned this—whether it is monetary stability, energy supplies or the new international division of labour, are world problems which frequently require negotiations and agreements at world level, or with particular economic units outside the Community—United States, Japan, EFTA, Eastern Asia, the oil producers and the non-oil producing developing countries. In these cases I am glad to see that the Wise Men consider it desirable that the Community and the Nine should, in these various relationships, act as a united body, and I assume, of course, that that applies in such dire situations as the invasion of Afghanistan.
  The question is: how should, or can, the elaborate machinery for the Foreign Ministers acting in political co-operation—perhaps outside the Council and the Treaties—be effectively strengthened. That is the main question which I put to my noble friend this evening who will answer on behalf of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. How can this machinery be effectively strengthened?
  According to Mr. Arrigo Levi's article published in The Times on 28th February, the Foreign Secretary is reported to have suggested a significant improvement in this mechanism in a case of emergency, and that COREU—that is to say, the assistants of the political directors in the Member States who are described as "European correspondents "and who are in constant direct communication with each other, but, not through embassies—has been asked to produce a report on the matter. I hope that that is true, and that it produces some useful suggestions.
  I recognise that from the start political co-operation was founded on consensus, which means that each one of the Nine maintains a veto power. It would be most interesting if my noble friend was able to elaborate or comment on that article by Mr. Levi, especially when he speaks of Britain now setting up what is described as some "unclenching

  495
  mechanism" which would automatically lead to a meeting of the Nine in a crisis, so that they might produce a common reaction.
  I was glad to read Mr. Edmund Dell's answer to a question which I put to him in the Select Committee—it is page 30 of the Minutes of Evidence—where he agreed that the political co-operation machinery ought to be strengthened. It will be seen, too, that Mr. Hannay of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office agreed that there was a feeling that at least some modest improvements ought to be made to ensure that the conclusions of the European Council should be rapidly known and worked on. But when I mentioned to Mr. Dell the idea of establishing a permanent, international political secretariat—an idea which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I know was much talked about some years ago—Mr. Dell said that the word "secretariat "had, for certain historical reasons, got a bad name and he did not, therefore, think it desirable to use that expression. But he did think that if political co-operation was to be developed more fully, some machinery would be necessary to do it—more effective machinery than can be provided by the individual Member State during its six months' tenure of the presidency.
  I believe that I may be right in saying that some strengthening has come about by allowing members of the secretariats of the previous and following Member States which held and will hold the presidency, to overlap to a certain extent. I was interested to learn that the other day, and it is certainly a step in the right direction. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend could comment on this whole question.
  I think that it is excellent that the Nine Foreign Ministers should meet formally in political co-operation four times a year;that is to say, twice in every presidency. It is also excellent that a political committee exists which is composed of the "political directors "of the Nine or their equivalents. I am glad, too, to learn that a considerable number of ad hoc working groups on specific subjects outside the Treaties have been established, and what an important role the European
  496
  correspondents, as they are called, themselves play.
  However, all this machinery seems to me to be somewhat heavy and unwieldy. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, indicated in perhaps a somewhat different context, as soon as the Nine seem to get together, they must have a great deal of very heavy machinery around them, which does not always advance decisions. I hope that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary is successful in persuading his eight colleagues that the mechanism needs improving, especially in cases of dire emergency.
  I recognise, of course, that whatever the machinery, differences of national pride, even on questions in which the common interest is obvious, can be very deep-seated, and that whereas the adoption of a common attitude may often be achieved, agreement on common action is a very different matter. However, I am glad to learn that even if political cooperation is still in a fairly primitive stage, none the less it seems to have been considerably successful in the General Assembly of the United Nations, where a high percentage of issues have achieved common votes.
  Taking into account the somewhat unwieldy existing machinery, it is certainly a great achievement that the Nine have been able to stand together so continuously on so many issues. However, I hope that my noble friend will say that he believes that, specifically for political co-operation, the presidency of the Council should be strengthened by the establishment of a permanent international political staff which would be able to act more effectively than would the secretariat of the Council in Brussels, whose activities are technically circumscribed by the treaties, or the secretariats of individual Member States which change with the six-month presidency, even if—as I say—some beneficial, if minimal, secretarial overlapping has now been decided upon.
  All this may well involve formal institutional development, and I believe that only thus will a common foreign policy over a larger number of issues be achieved. It may well be that only a major world crisis will compel the Nine—and soon the Twelve—to consolidate more effectively in this way. However, I should hope that the machinery might

  497
  be improved before we have to face another world crisis.
  I was very interested to re-read an article on strengthening the presidency which appeared in the New Europe in 1976. It was written by a group of European officials of different nationalities and emphasised the fact that it is the president-in-office of the Council who is at any given time the single most important and influential person in the Community and who wields, in effect, more responsibility for the running of the Community on a day-to-day basis than anyone else, even the president of the Commission, or the president of the Parliament—whose influence I think is increasing. I might note here in regard to the Parliament that it never did, nor does it now, confine itself to dealing with questions arising purely from the treaties. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, knows, they concern themselves with all matters of foreign and defence policy.
  I was looking back at the Fouchet proposals, initiated by the French Government in 1961 and 1962. They envisaged the creation of a European political union. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, speak about this and speak about this ultimate aim in sympathetic terms. Those Fouchet proposals envisaged the creation of this European political union which would be serviced by a political secretariat. However, as the New Europe article points out, the creation of a political secretariat in the near future seems no more likely now perhaps than in the 1960s in view of the wrangling over its site, competences, and institutional role. But, in my view, possibly a small secretariat, a kind of "think-tank ", could he created—and, speaking entirely personally, I wonder why this should not be in Paris which, especially in view of enlargement, would be geographically an appropriate site. This "think-tank "would provide the presidency with policy input studies and prepare background papers for following presidencies.
  I was also interested to note the recent proposal of the German Minister of State for ForeignAffairs, Dr. von Dohnanyi. He suggested that the role—this is just a suggestion on which I should be interested to hear my noble friend's comments;I am not certain whether it is a good
  498
  suggestion or not—of the Secretary General of the Council of Ministers might be upgraded and that he might take the chair at some meetings of the Council, in the same way as the Secretary General of NATO does. As I say, I should be glad to know the views of my noble friend on these various proposals. I hope that the Government will press hard for an improvement in present procedures.
  Just one word about languages. I agreed very much with what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said on this. It is going to be difficult to reduce the number of languages in the European Parliament, for example, because that is a directly elected body. Even with the delegated body, the indirectly elected body, of which some of us were members, it was noticeable that if a Danish farmer has been delegated by the Danish Parliament to go to the European Parliament, he might not necessarily speak any other language, and so Danish was always insisted on. I remember many occasions when the Danes walked out if there was not a Danish interpreter there.
  It is going to be extremely difficult with a directly elected Parliament, with people who have not been brought up in the ambience of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or as delegates to the United Nations. They are different kinds of people. But when they are directly elected I think they more often like to speak their own language. That is all I have to say, except again to congratulate the authors of the report and to hope that the Government will take them seriously.
  8.5 p.m.
  Lord GREENHILL of HARROW: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, I am a new member of the noble Baroness's committee, and I look forward to working under her chairmanship. I enjoyed working with her in the Foreign Office a few years ago, and I am sure this pleasure will be continued. I am not going to detain your Lordships more than a few moments. In my opinion the report of the Three Wise Men and the Spierenburg Report reveal a disturbing and disappointing state of affairs. It is no good denying that. A state of affairs in great contrast to the expectations which were raised at the time of the

  499
  referendum. The fact that both reports were so well written softened the blow but did not entirely eliminate it.
  I asked a friend of mine who was familiar with the workings of Brussels—not himself a strong European—what he thought about the recommendations of the reports. He replied that in his view they had merely tried to part the hair on the head of the corpse. That of course is a harsh judgment, but there is an element of truth in it. Multilateral diplomacy, even among friends, is a difficult job. If the impetus and political will is lacking, as it now is in Brussels, no amount of tinkering with procedures, however sensible, is going to revive the corpse. Not only is multilateral diplomacy difficult but international bureaucracies, like the Commission's staff, have never in my experience been other than hard to organise and hard to manage. The staff of the United Nations is the supreme example, as the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Campbell of Croy, know. Promotion often goes by nationality rather than by merit, and there is an endless attempt to manipulate the service on the basis of national loyalties. Things are of course much better in Brussels than they are in New York, but there are many of the same inherent difficulties, and we must take realistic account of them.
  I understand that there is every indication that the Commission intends to take the Spierenburg Report seriously. It is in my view Her Majesty's Government's duty to encourage them to put their house in order, especially with the complicating prospects of enlargement and the emergence of the Parliament as a stronger factor. Clearly one of the greatest weaknesses is the lack of co-ordination, and the reports' proposals for improving this need sympathetic endorsement. It would involve a special vice-president with a co-ordinating responsibility. That seems right to me.
  I do not feel able to express a view on some of the more detailed recommendations of the Spierenburg Report, but on the question of the commissioners I have no doubt in my own mind that a reduction would be desirable. But I do not believe that it is politically possible to make any significant reduction in the numbers when the Commission, or when the Community,
  500
  is enlarged. I have been disturbed by the reports of hostility between the Commission and Parliament. Speaking to some foreign members of the European Parliament I have noticed their anxiety and willingness to enter into conflict with the Commission. I hope that our own Members of the European Parliament will use their influence to try to prevent this wrangle developing to the detriment of the progress of the whole Community.
  I revert briefly to a few of the other observations of the Three Wise Men. As has been pointed out, their most striking suggestion is that the European Council should set the course for the Community by stating clearly, annually I believe, priorities and objectives. This has of course a compelling logic, but at the moment I believe it is beyond the wit of the members of the council to do so. As an experiment, I tried to draft such a document myself and found it was either immediately unacceptable politically or what I believe the present Prime Minister would call "wet". Mr. Dell, in the evidence he gave, was more optimistic, but I do not think his optimism is sufficiently justified.
  As has been rightly pointed out, the Council of Ministers is the key body in the Community set-up and the report's proposals for the improvement of it are very straightforward. They amount really to urging people to accept responsibility at the lowest practical level, thereby keeping from the council itself the vast volume of business which presently overwhelms it. This is a very elementary system of administration which is as valuable in business as it is in the Civil Service, and if all the members of the organisations in Brussels just observed the simple rule of taking responsibility when they could, a great leap forward would have been made.
  There is an interesting section in the report on the responsibility of national capitals. Do they prepare adequately for the council meetings, are Ministers properly briefed, are national departments adequately co-ordinated? From all the inquiries I have made, I believe our people in Whitehall come out very well in this, and that is something to be applauded.
  The Three Wise Men attempt at the end of their report to comment on the

  501
  outlook from 1980 to 1985. They are not encouraging. Inter alia, they emphasise strongly the need for a Community energy policy. We know how difficult this is, and I believe we shall be debating it shortly in this House. There is one thing however, that we could do now, and I cannot understand why we do not proceed to do it at once, and that is to increase the rate of exploration in the North Sea. I emphasise "exploration", not necessarily development. Let us first find out what our potential resources are, and then we can see if they can be fitted into the very difficult equation which is manifestly coming up in Brussels about an energy policy.
  8.13 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate these two reports, and once again your Lordships are in debt to the Select Committee on the European Communities, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, for undertaking this study. The committee has produced a number of notable reports in the past. The Government will want to take account of views expressed in this debate and of any conclusions that the Select Committee may reach on these matters.
  As several noble Lords' have observed, there is an important distinction between the two reports we are now considering. The report of the Wise Men, which originated in an initiative by the French President, who was concerned that the Community should be properly equipped to meet the challenge of enlargement, was commissioned by the European Council in December 1978. Its terms of reference embraced all the institutions of the Community. The European Council was looking for practical ways of improving the operation of the Community rather than wholesale reform;Treaty amendment was ruled out.
  The origins of the Spierenburg Report are rather different. Following their informal meeting at Comblain-la-Tour in September 1978, the Commission invited a group of five independent experts to examine how the Commission's organisation and staff resources could best be adjusted to meet future needs. The Speirenburg Review Body was thus concerned with the internal workings of the
  502
  Commission rather than with the operation of the Community as a whole. The initiative came from the Commission itself and its recommendations are, therefore, for the Commission alone.
  The Community was fortunate in being able to call on Mr. Barendt Biesheuvel from the Netherlands, Mr. Robert Marjolin from France, and Mr. Edmund Dell from this country, to be the Wise Men. Each member of the committee was of course a most distinguished person in his own right. Their report was submitted to the European Council in November last year. The Commission Review Body was appointed in January 1979 under the chairmanship of Ambassador Spierenburg and, as several noble Lords have mentioned, Mr. Dick Taverne was one of the members. They presented their report to the Commission last September and it was made public at the same time.
  I will deal with each report in turn. The House will wish me to say a word first on the timing of consideration of the Wise Men's Report, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. At its meeting in Dublin, the European Council agreed that Foreign Ministers should examine the report with a view to preparing discussion at the next European Council. An informal meeting of Ministers was held at Varese in Italy on 8th February and there may be another informal meeting before the European Council at present planned for the end of March. It seems possible, however—perhaps it is more probable than possible—that substantive decisions may have to wait for the June European Council. I should emphasise here that it will of course be for the members of the European Council to take the final decisions.
  I come to the Government's general approach to the Wise Men's Report. In their introduction the Wise Men expressed the hope that the European Community will be able to deepen and extend cooperation among its members. The Government's wholehearted commitment to the Community means that we share this hope. And it follows from this approach that we should like to see the institutions of the Community working as efficiently as possible. We accept that the Community's shortcomings cannot

  503
  be rectified by mere improvements to its institutions and machinery. We also believe, however, that there is scope for useful procedural improvements. We believe that the report contains valuable suggestions on which we hope action will be taken. It is important that it should not be allowed to gather dust or get lost in the Brussels machinery, and the same is true of the Spierenburg Report.
  So much for the Government's general approach. As far as the Wise Men's specific proposals are concerned, the Government have not yet reached final conclusions. The vast majority we broadly welcome as being thoroughly practical and workmanlike suggestions. On a few, however, we have some reservations, and I shall come to them shortly. But we certainly have not yet reached the point of finally turning down any of the recommendations. We want to see what our partners think, for example, before coming to any definite conclusion. It may well be possible to resolve some of our doubts in the course of discussion. We shall also want to consider what has been said in your Lordhsips' House this evening and to hear whatever may be said in due course in another place. I am, therefore, not in a position to do more now than to give your Lordships an account of the Government's preliminary views.
  The Wise Men make a number of specific proposals affecting the European Council. For example, they recommend limited agendas, limited attendance, careful preparation and follow up, early circulatiion of documents, and clear presidency responsibility for drafting conclusions. Their two most important proposals are that the Council should, in collaboration with the Commission, adopt a master plan of priorities for the Community as a whole;and that the President of the European Council should appear once every six months before the Parliament so as to achieve a direct dialogue at the highest level.
  It must of course be for the Members of the European Council themselves, in our case of course my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to make up their minds on how they wish to organise their own meetings and to give effect, if at all, to the recommendations of the Wise Men in this area. The Government
  504
  certainly agree in general on the advantages of a clear definition of priorities for Community work. But there may be dangers in seeking agreement on too rigid a plan. Equally, if the plan is too flexible, it may be so generalised as to be meaningless.
  The Government also agree on the need to establish a constructive relationship between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The appearance of the President at the Parliament might be one way of furthering that objective. But I cannot anticipate what decision the European Council will take on this question. As far as the Wise Men's procedural recommendations are concerned, many of them are little more than recommendations for the implementation of what has already been agreed in the past.
  The Wise Men have made a number of valuable proposals affecting the Council of Ministers, which they believe produces too few results for too much work. This point has been referred to more than once already this evening. There is obviously much to be said for the clearer definition and the more efficient execution of the responsibilities of the presidency. Much of course depends on the attitude of the presidency itself. Here again, whatever rules are agreed will have little value unless the presidency is in practice guided by them. The Wise Men have drawn attention to the value of the presidency informing the Parliament of its objectives at the beginning of its term of office, and of presenting an "end of term report." This would strengthen the dialogue between the institutions, and act as a useful discipline in the presidency's monitoring of its own progress. The Government see considerable attraction in these proposals.
  On the other hand, we have some reservation about the proposal that the presidency should have discretion to share its burdens with other Member States: for example, the preceding presidency. This, we believe, could lead to confusion, if different Member States were handling overlapping dossiers. We believe that the advantages of unity of control should not lightly be set aside. We certainly do not want to rule the idea out entirely, however. One possibility might be to decide each case on its merits. But we believe that a better way to lighten the President's burden

  505
  would be to implement another of the Wise Men's proposals;namely, that the resources of the Council secretariat should be more fully and regularly used.
  The Wise Men argue that the Council must be free to concentrate on genuinely political issues. They therefore recommend making wider use of delegation to the Commission, and giving more room for manoeuvre to the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—and the lower level bodies. The Wise Men's objective is clearly right. It may, however, be difficult to decide on criteria that should govern the delegation of work to the Commission. One possibility would simply be to reach agreement on a case by case basis on issues related to accepted areas of Community activity.
  The Government are also prepared to consider sympathetically the Wise Men's recommendation that more use should be made in practice of majority voting where the Treaty of Rome provides for it, it being understood that this would represent no departure from existing principles and would not affect Member States' ability in the last resort to insist on a decision being reached by unanimity where their own vital interests are concerned. But it could considerably speed and simplify the decision taking process.
  I come now to a proposal made both by the Wise Men and the Commission Review Body. Indeed, it is perhaps the single most important specific proposal to emerge. I refer to the reduction in the size of the Commission to one per Member State. I should like to say a word about the Government's attitude to this recommendation. We recognise the case for one commissioner per Member State on grounds of efficiency. Particularly after enlargement, this change could substantially facilitate the day-to-day work of the Commission. On the other hand, the ability of the larger Member States to appoint two commissioners has enabled the larger countries, ourselves included, to appoint commissioners from different parties—an arrangement which they have found valuable. It is of course also the case that the present arrangement reflects to some extent the relative weight of Members States in the Community. On the other hand, the Treaty of Rome itself guarantees that the members of the Commission shall, in the general interest
  506
  of the Communities, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. These are the various factors which will determine the Government's final view on this recommendation in due course;but we have not yet come to a decision.
  The Wise Men and the Spierenburg Committee have also made parallel proposals on the appointment of the President of the Commission and other members of the Commission. Both recommend that the President should be named six months before he takes office and should he consulted on the latter's appointment by the Member States. The Wise Men further recommend that the President should have the last word on the allocation of portfolios. This is clearly a sensitive subject. The Government are not likely to have any difficulty with the principle of the early appointment of the President, nor in giving him the right to be consulted over other Commission nominations. But there are clear difficulties for Governments about giving the President the last word over such nominations or in the allocation of portfolios.
  The Wise Men rightly attach importance to relations between the Parliament and the other institutions. So far as relations with the Council are concerned, the Government agree that the Council should take Parliament's resolutions seriously and are ready to play their part in working out practical improvements to tackle the difficulties arising in the implementation of the "conciliation "procedure.
  May I now turn to some of the points specifically put to me this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, first of all asked about the paramountcy of the Council. If the proposals in the Wise Men's report are adopted, they will make no difference to the institutional balance within the Community. The Council of Ministers will continue to have the last word on all Community legislation, working under the political guidance of the Heads of State or the Heads of Government in the European Council.
  My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked me about the Commission's proposal for harmonisation and some of the difficulties that we have had there. May I say that my right honourable

  507
  friend the Prime Minister has emphasised that we will support only harmonisation proposals which are really necessary to improve the functioning of the Common Market. Many of the directives which have been implemented under Article 100 have been useful in reducing barriers to trade, and the Government intend to ensure that all future proposals meet this criteria.
  I wish to return now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts;and I am sorry that I am taking these points a little out of sequence, but perhaps they are better dealt with this way. The noble Lord made a number of points, and he referred especially and most importantly, to the need for respect particularly for the decisions of the European Court and the other institutions, with particular reference to the vexed sheep meat problem, which has been so long before us.
  It is for the Commission, as guardians of the Treaties, to bring to an end this illegal situation—which is what it is. They obtained the original judgment from the European Court of Justice in September last year. They initiated a second case against French quantitative restrictions on 14th January, and I am glad to see that they have now decided to lay a third case before the court against the levy and licensing system which the French have imposed, and are imposing, at various times;and they—that is the Commission—will apply simultaneously for an interim injunction in both these cases. So your Lordships will appreciate that the Commission is not allowing the grass to grow under its feet.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, will all this get us anywhere? Do we go on having these injunctions, these judgments, with nothing at all, in effect, happening?
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot hide from your Lordships our regret that, so far, that seems to be the case. However, we have high hopes that the French will comply with the forthcoming judgments when and if we get them, as I believe we shall, and perhaps then this unhappy matter can be brought to a close.
  508
  My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and indeed my noble friend Lord Morris raised the question of languages, and I think that at least one other noble Lord did as well. Since Community legislation is directly applicable in Member States, it is inconceivable that each Member State should not be able to read it in the Official Journal in his own language. But, that said, a large part of the financial and administrative burden of the proliferation of languages is incurred by the need for interpretation at meetings—and this point has been made by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bessborough. We hope it will be possible for pragmatic solutions, already much practised, to be extended.
  I think it was my noble friend Lord Bessborough who raised the remarks of the German junior Foreign Minister about the need for a powerful political Secretary-General (if that is the right word) to the Council of Ministers, who might, for example, take the chair at meetings of the committee of permanent representatives. We have much sympathy with the Wise Men's view that an effective and efficient Council secretariat can play a part in support of the presidency and in the handling of Community business. Strengthening of the role of the Secretary-General could be one way of doing this, and will be one of the considerations we shall take into account in reaching our conclusion.
  Finally, now, the important point raised by my noble friend Lord Bessborough about political co-operation. The esssence of political co-operation is well expressed, I think, in the words of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary,
  " It is better to sing in harmony than in unison".
  Divergence among the Nine is a source of democratic strength, perhaps, though it is often represented as a weakness. My noble friend Lord Bessborough referred to the machinery of political co-operation as elaborate and unwieldy. It is in fact quite simple, and provides a maximum direct contact between Ministers and officials at all levels with a minimum of bureaucracy. On the need for an emergency procedure, referred to by my noble friend, the machinery of political co-operation

  509
  is certainly under constant review, and, indeed, the invasion of Afghanistan has highlighted the need to look in particular at mechanisms for organising urgent meetings. If political co-operation is to develop further, it will require stronger administrative back-up, and the United Kingdom is therefore prepared to consider anything practical upon which the Nine can agree.
  A system of secondments from past and future presidencies was initiated by the United Kingdom in 1977, and has proved a useful way of providing experienced staff for the presidency. The current system is not too expensive, it has no inordinate international administration, and it provides valuable direct contact at all levels. Furthermore, it provides what is referred to as a renewal of enthusiasm every six months. A new and special secretariat might prove to be very expensive, and might indeed be at risk of losing touch with political opinion within the Nine. But, having said that, we do not wish to be inflexible in these matters, and will keep any sensible proposal under careful consideration.
  May I now say just a few words about the Spierenburg Report. I have already explained that it is for the Commission itself rather than the Council to decide on the handling of this report. I gather that the Commission has already put in considerable work, although they have not yet formally announced any internal reforms, nor made any proposals to the Council concerning those recommendations which would require approval of the budgetary authority. At a Press conference which he gave in October, the President of the Commission, Mr. Jenkins, said that the Commission welcomed the report and had decided to deal urgently with the detailed proposals on staffing changes, which they had already broadly endorsed. They also set in motion a major review of the basic administrative units of the Commission's services, possibly leading to a reduction in their numbers.
  Against this background, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to take any decisions at this stage. We have nevertheless studied the report with great interest, and consider that it is an excellent analysis with a number of very sensible proposals. The Commission has an important role defined under the treaties. It
  510
  is in the Community's interest, and therefore in our interest, that the Commission should operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. Taken as a whole, the Spierenburg proposals, if adopted, would make a useful contribution to this. We await with interest an indication of what specific action the Commission will take or propose. We have naturally discussed this question informally with the Commission, who are aware of our broad views.
  I have dealt earlier with the question of a reduction in the size of the Commission. Whether or not this is eventually agreed, I think many of the Spierenburg recommendations can stand on their own merits, and would lead to an improvement in the operational effectiveness of the Commission. For example, Spierenburg pointed out the need for greater coordination of policy proposals. This is right. It would be an even more pertinent recommendation if it were decided to retain a large Commission. Increased mobility of staff is another factor which, in our view, will contribute to an improved morale of the personnel and an improved capability for the Commission to respond flexibly to changing policy priorities. Finally, I should like to suggest that the Spierenburg recommendations for reducing the number of Directorates General and rejuggling the composition of portfolios is not one which is ineluctably dependent on reducing the size of the Commission itself. After 20 years of Community activity, it is natural that the focus of policy priorities will have shifted, and some recognition that the structure of the organisation should follow these changes seems to me both self-evident and necessary.
  In conclusion, I should like to leave your Lordships with two thoughts. The first is the Government's belief that the functions of the Community's institutions depend not only on the right procedures but on the right attitude of mind at every level in the Community. The Government hope that firm decisions will be taken on both the Wise Men's report and the report of the Commission Review Body to provide the right procedural and organisational framework. But if those decisions are ever to be translated effectively into action, it is vital that all concerned, both Ministers and officials, should

  511
  bear in mind that in the last resort institutions and procedures are only as effective as the men who operate them. Rules alone are not enough: they must be observed.
  The second thought with which I should like to leave your Lordships comes from the final chapter of the Wise Men's report, which speaks of two unwritten Community rules of an importance comparable with that of the Treaties themselves. The Wise Men define the first rule as follows:
  " If a Member State finds itself in serious difficulty, whether as a result of circumstances, or of the application of certain Community rules, or of its own mistakes, it is a question both of duty and of self-interest for the other Community countries to help it find solutions or to give assistance, by all the means in their power, within a programme aimed at correcting the situation".
  The second rule is defined as follows:
  " Every Member State should refrain, so far as is at all possible, from any act which might directly or indirectly make life more difficult for other Member States and for the Community as a whole …Every Member State should bear in mind, in all its important decisions, the possible consequences of its actions for the Community and the other Member States".
  The Wise Men call these rules the rules of active and passive solidarity. Her Majesty's Government believe that the healthy development of the Community, in which we firmly believe, does indeed depend upon the observance by all the Member States of these two rules.
  8.40 p.m.
  Baroness WHITE: My Lords, my sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his team has been mounting. This is no reflection whatsoever on any noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, for every speech tonight has been extremely constructive. We also are grateful to the Minister for having given us such a careful and detailed reply—better than I expected, frankly;and, of course, needless to say,.I mean the details. We are very grateful. It only remains for me once again to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and to thank noble Lords for some generous references to myself: they are deeply appreciated. As all that we are doing in this Motion is to ask noble Lords to "take note "of two significant and interesting reports, I have no wish to withdraw the Motion;and I hope that it will be accepted.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  WORLD COMMODITIES CENTRE
  8.40 p.m.
  Lord SEEBOHM Lord SEEBOHM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are fully aware of the great benefits to the United Kingdom' which could accrue from establishing a world commodities centre in London;whether they have taken into account the finance which the City have already pledged to the setting up of such a centre;and whether they will give further consideration to the proposal. The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords are all aware, that the proposal to set up a world commodities centre in London with Government assistance has been turned down. The Question I wish to ask the Government therefore is this: Are the Government fully aware of the great benefits to the United Kingdom which could accrue from establishing a world commodity centre in London? Have they taken into account the finance which the City have already pledged to the setting up of such a centre;and will they give further consideration to the proposal?
  The World Commodities Centre Committee was convened by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on behalf of the Parliamentary Group for World Government, as long ago as December 1975. There were then, and still are, five International Commodity Councils. These are the Cocoa, Coffee, Sugar, Tin and Wheat Councils and several study groups, increased recently by Lead and Zinc Groups which have arrived here;and very large funds are and will be based in London if these ICOs and groups can be pursuaded to stay. In recent years, London has become one of the largest dealers in non-American oil. I believe it has now increased to nearly 30 per cent. of the world trade outside America and is mounting to over £250 millions a day. I give these figures to show that it would be a great pity if anything was done to destroy London as a centre of commodity dealing, with the enormous invisible exports now involved.
  The essential function of these groups is to administer international commodity agreements, which are likely to grow rather than shrink. Several other Governments are also members of these groups and arc aware of the financial and diplomatic advantages of having all or any of them in

  513
  their own countries. As an example of the international implications, there are 29 member-countries in the Tin Agreement alone;so that, far from Her Majesty's Government not being able to offer financial assistance, it is our contention that they cannot afford not to do so. Vast invisible earnings are at stake.
  Now what is this financial commitment? In another place, figures were given which I do not understand and which I consider to be completely incorrect. The original estimated cost of a suitable conference/office complex, in 1975 terms, was about £12 million. Now, it is probably in excess of £20 million. The City, at its first financial facilities meeting, which I chaired last year, agreed to a figure of between £2 million and £3 million;but I should like to say that this was only the first meeting and there was not a very large attendance.
  I think it is also extremely important to point out that the potential finance of future buffer stock, administration of the common fund and the transfer of additional ICOs to this country all depend on appropriate accommodation. Therefore, it is worrying to know that Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and West Germany are all angling for this prize fish and that most, if not all, are offering very favourable terms from Government sources. This is one reason why the problem cannot simply be passed on to the private sector.
  My Lords, I would stress again on the financial front that a large amount of money will not be required at once as it will take several years to build and, with the contribution from the City in the form of equity at the top and some loan money at the bottom, the Government outlay is unlikely to exceed 50 per cent. of the cost and could be very much less if the City and business come up with more money. Inflation is likely to let them off the hook altogether before long. But I cannot stress too strongly—and I have said this ever since I became involved over four years ago—that this centre could be a forum for important international discussion of a very high level and a location where important North/South discussions could take place.
  We made promises of help to the developing countries at the Kingston Conference a year or two ago;and what
  514
  have we done? Here is a chance to provide many of them, at relatively little cost, with something that they want. It would be a gesture which would bring goodwill into an atmosphere of frustration and disillusion. This is another reason why Government participation seems highly politically desirable. Let us not forget that the viability of these countries depends on orderly and efficient commodity markets. For some, commodity sales are their only source of income. I cannot help wondering, therefore, whether these important points have all been given proper consideration.
  The letter to me dated 30th January from the Minister concerned referred solely to the immediate cuts in Government expenditure, with no reference whatever to the long-term financial employment and diplomatic gains;and it caused surprise and offence to those to whom the letter, when copied, was distributed. The last Government had agreed to support the project. Your Lordships can imagine our disappointment after four or five years of hard work to receive such a rebuff in such terms so soon from this Government. I read today that the Chancellor is asking for ideas on how to use North Sea oil profits. I hand him this suggestion on a plate. I could speak much longer since I feel so strongly about this matter;but the hour is late and there are other speakers with considerable contributions to make. So I end by most seriously urging Her Majesty's Government to think again.
  8.47 p.m.
  Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and I should like first to stress that this is not a party issue, except that this Government have taken a wrong decision. It took us quite a long time to educate the previous Government;and at that time I was a member of the British Overseas Trade Board and we had to work very hard to do so. We are glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, with his legal background, is replying to this debate because I hope that he will listen carefully—as I am sure he will—to some of the financial and other arguments. May I say that it is very satisfactory that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has been involved, and my old friend Lord Davies of Leek, who was

  515
  a Member of the House of Lords Committee on Commodities, and the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, who has probably got commodities running out of his ears so much does he know about this subject.
  To many this is a very esoteric subject and it is an area which is exceedingly difficult. If I may, without being patronising, I would say that I have sympathy for Ministers pursuing a policy on cuts —and I am not querying the policy;not tonight, anyway—being faced with some additional expenditure. I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in arguing that the figures which were put before the Government are not sound. I would first start by expressing my sympathy to the Property Services Agency. As a former Minister for the Civil Service, I know something of their problems. But they burned their fingers over the IMCO building and are, quite properly, being very cautious. But I think that the advice that may be coming to the Government is unsound;because I think the figures, for safety purposes, have been exaggerated, and I should like to show in what they have been so. The new figures are attributed to the sponsors of the scheme;and the judgment of those of us who have looked at this—and the Government have looked at this—is that these figures are far too high for the Government to consider seriously at this difficult time.
  May I go into some detail, and then I will have a suggestion, which I think may be of help to the Government, as to how to process this further. The PSA estimate of Scheme 1 to cover the facilities for seven international commodity organisations is put at £20 million. I am sure even at present rates of inflation—but then they all go up together—this is too high. However, accepting this figure, half could be raised from the market in a normal way on the strength of the rents coming in mainly from the office accommodation. As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has said, the City has already promised £2·7 million, mostly in the form of equity, leaving around £8 million to be found by the Government over the four years during construction.
  May I at this point say that my own company has been willing to put up £50,000 towards the equity. I am not
  516
  declaring an interest because I do not believe that we have a financial interest that we do not share with our fellow men. The case for this is that it is in the national interest to do this. The PSA figures—and I should like to put this argument—depend to some extent on the technical understanding of the nature of the site. A site could be offered free since undoubtedly the value of the surrounding land would immediately be raised owing to the presence of the world commodity centre. Indeed, a greater contribution than £250,000 might be forthcoming from the GLC if the building were on the edge of what we now call the new riverside area. This factor alone would bring the total cost down to £16 million, and there are other provisions in the PSA specification which we are inclined to think are excessive, and the total might in fact be no more than £15 million, which would leave only £2 million for the Government to find over the four-year period. There is of course inflation;but leaving that aside, I am reasonably satisfied with the broad figures. I have discussed them with expert economists who are familiar with this.
  Now let me come on to running costs. The shortfall calculated is just under £1 million per annum. This is arguably too high a figure for the Government to meet. The calculation is based on an enormous figure for rates which are charged to the project and then partly recovered. I think it is something like £1½million. This item swamps anything else under the running costs, being nearly five times the total for such things as maintenance, lighting, heating and cleaning. There is again the question of amortisation, which I acknowledge. We believe that this can be dealt with by ordinary market ways.
  All these costs, apart from the rates, can be met by the revenue of the tenants, so that apart from the rates no contribution for running costs need be required from the Government. This to some extent will depend upon the location of the building. Obviously, following the IMCO example, some revenue for this purpose would come from the new organisation to meet part of the charge. But it is one that could well be met, and my noble friend Lord Seebohm indicated the Austrian attitude. The way that the municipality there have dealt with the matter is that so far from charging

  517
  anything at all for rates, they do not even charge rent to international organisations. If this was in the new riverside area close to the new Sheraton Hotel, where a theatre and park are planned, then many of these operating costs would be significantly reduced.
  The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, made the next point very strongly. I should like to reiterate—it is the urgency of the matter—that some feel that because certain markets, like the London Metal Exchange, have been established for so long in London, any new international commodity organisation will be drawn here, and that neither the international commodity organisations nor the markets themselves will ever leave London. However, that is simply not the case. That is where the urgency comes in. A number have gone: rubber, cotton and tea. They are leaving or have already gone. With modern communications and cities throughout the world competing, it is perfectly possible for them to do, as with bauxite in Jamaica, copper in Paris, tungsten in Brussels and rubber in Kuala Lumpur. Nothing is more certain if we do not take this initiative that commodity associations and inter-governmental organisations will drift away.
  It is difficult for us to understand—this is a measure of some of our failures nationally—some of these international questions. We have relied for so long on the skill of the City and the energy of our manufacturing industry. But we now know that we are under great pressure. Commodities are not a single subject;each one is unique. Zinc is different even from lead, even though they may be found together. Therefore it is very necessary and helpful for the Government and the City to have this information on their doorstep. There is no limit to the number that one could have. I am surprised that we have not a market in frankincense or a spot market in myrrh. Perhaps we have. This is the natural thing to have in this country.
  The development of this and of its value to Government, to the City and to this country cannot be overestimated, and it can be developed more effectively if the experts—the producers, the marketmen, the shippers, the consumers, the trade associations and the bankers—can all be consulted in one centre. It is difficult
  518
  for many of us to understand that commodities are the foundation of the international trading structure. Therefore, whether it is gold or bulk ethylene, this is where we nationally want this.
  There is however the international case to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred. It is worth noting that UNCTAD and the ILO are in Geneva. The FAO is in Rome;the international court is in The Hague, and this is where a lot of people would like them to be. We should like to put the international commodity organisations in one building. Let me give one or two figures. It has been calculated that one of the many series of UNCTAD meetings in Geneva over a period of four years has brought in about £2 million for Geneva and yet this excludes the cost of the hotel and other expenditure. A Swiss official has estimated that the economic benefit of expenditure by inter-governmental organisations in 1977 was £606 million, of which 60 per cent. or £363 million went to Geneva. It is no wonder that everybody is rushing for this.
  I will not develop the wider figures of the value of this trade to the British;but what is so surprising—and I am quite sure that the Department of Trade and their Ministers will now be aware of this —is that the Government do not appreciate this. I very much dislike, on general economic grounds, hypothecating North Sea oil, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm does, but, since the Government did ask for suggestions, this is one. There is the international point. We have not done enough since Kingston. We are going to have to contribute something like £500 million to the European Development Fund. This is where some of the money could be spent. We are contributing to Lomé. This could be of importance to the developing countries.
  I end on this point, my Lords. There are two matters at issue. One is Government policy on public expenditure. We accept that they have a policy and that they are seeking in hard times to carry it through. The facts here have not been appreciated. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, would consider either setting up an inquiry or possibly even a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. This is something that could be done very quickly

  519
  in order to sort out the figures, in order to ascertain whether the figures the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has given are right or wrong, and then they will have the facts on which to argue with their colleagues. I seriously ask the noble and learned Lord to consider that recommendation.
  9 p.m.
  Lord WADE: My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity of expressing my support for the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm: namely, the setting up of this world commodities centre in London. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for raising this subject in this House, and I think I can safely say that the whole House is also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shackelton, for taking part. We always give great weight to his remarks, and I am sure that the Government will take very seriously what he has said.
  The noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Shackleton, have explained the nature of the proposal we are discussing tonight. In my view, it certainly deserves support and, I think, support without delay. Moreover, as I think both noble Lords have pointed out, it relates to the bringing together of inter-governmental organisations. Some evidence, therefore, is necessary of the British Government's willingness to assist. It is because of this inter-governmental aspect that the British Government's attitude is so important even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has shown, the major part of the cost would in all probability be borne by non-governmental sources. But our own Government's desire to welcome it, as the Government of the host country, must in my view be shown if it is to be taken seriously by bodies from overseas. I am not going to enter into the legal niceties of the obligations that already exist on the part of the British Government in relation to existing organisations here in London, because we are looking ahead and this is really a policy decision.
  Before proceeding further in commendation of the plea that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I should perhaps explain how I personally come to be involved. As your Lordships
  520
  know, there is an all-party body, with members in both Houses, which is known as the Parliamentary Group for World Government. It has been in existence for over 30 years. As the name implies, it has long-term aims of an idealistic nature—none the worse for that. I have been impressed by the fact that this group has always been ready to initiate and sponsor projects of immediate practical importance. I think that is one of the merits of this group to which I have the honour to belong. It is therefore understandable that the group became concerned in subjects such as basic raw materials, the chaos that might result from widely fluctuating prices and the need for co-operation on a world scale. I think it is fair to say that these intergovernmental commodity organisations, while they cannot solve all the world's problems, have as one of their objects the stabilising of world prices. Therefore the link between the Parliamentary group to which I have referred and the proposal which we are discussing tonight is understandable: it is a natural one.
  My name has been mentioned. I would merely say that a few years ago there was a meeting upstairs which was organised by the group to which I have referred, and I happened to be in the chair at that time. It soon became obvious to me that this was a matter of world interest, and also one of very real interest to Britain and the City of London. I do not think there is any need to apologise for the fact that those two interests seem to me to coincide. I am very glad to do anything I can to help the interests of my own country, and I am very well aware of the valuable role played by those who work in the City of London. But it was clear to me at that meeting that Britain would benefit from this proposal and it was equally clear that the matter was urgent. I agree with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, not only that it is urgent but it is really vitally important that the opportunity now presented to us is not missed—and it may well be missed if we let the chances pass by.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has explained what he means about the very real danger of the extremely valuable business in the City being lost through lack of evidence of support from the Government. The large attendance of experts at the

  521
  meeting upstairs that I have referred to made clear to me that there were many who realised where the future lay if we did not act speedily. Therefore a campaign committee was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. David Knox, M.P. For my part, I am glad to have played any small part, hut it is the issue that really matters.
  The idea did not originate from that meeting. I think that credit for putting forward the idea goes to Mr. Harold Allen of Australia. He was the executive head of the International Tin Council and is now their special adviser. It was he who advocated the idea as far back as the autumn of 1975. Since then, there have been long discussions about the practical details and, as your Lordships are aware, there have been negotiations with the Government and, for the moment—and I hope that it is only for the moment—there has been a disappointing reply from the present Government.
  One should appreciate that there is an issue of principle involved here. It is a very important matter of principle, and that really is the main contribution that I wish to make to this short debate. The principle that I see is the distinction between, on the one hand, cutting current expenditure on consumables and services which arguably might be postponed and, on the other hand, capital expenditure of a now-or-never character. I shall not enter into the question of whether or not there should be cuts, or what kind of cuts there should be. We have already had plenty of argument about that, and there will he further argument about it. The point I am making is that we are now considering capital expenditure which will, undoubtedly, bring in future income which may he considerable. This is a question of investment for the future requiring a quick decision. It is no good saying "At the present time, we cannot afford it. We cannot afford this just now, however worthy it may be". Later will, in my view, be too late and we really cannot afford not to afford it.
  That leads me to say that the only explanation for not affording it is a lack of faith in the future. I should not like to suggest that that faith is lacking, but alas, I am already aware that some observers overseas are coming to the conclusion that Britain has no faith in the future, as a consequence of the attitude
  522
  to this proposal. Of course, I hope it is not true that that faith is lacking, but it is relevant to the issue that we are discussing tonight. The attitude of the Government has, most unfortunately, been regarded as due to a lack of faith and the sooner we put that right the better.
  As to where the money should come from, I am very interested in this suggestion that there should be money from North Sea oil. That is a useful illustration of the point that I am endeavouring to make, because North Sea oil should be regarded as a capital asset and if it is disposed of we should reinvest the proceeds in other kinds of capital project which will bring in income for the future. It should he used as an investment with potential income in the days to come, particularly, in this case, in the form of invisible earnings. So that the reference to oil is very relevant.
  But time is not on our side. I believe that rejection of the proposal which has been advocated this evening would be very damaging psychologically, and would certainly he shortsighted. I am not one who is given to exaggeration, but to reject the appeal that has been put forward might have very unfortunate consequences and would he a grave error. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will be empowered to give a favourable answer.
  9.13 p.m.
  Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, the Minister's reply in another place was not merely disappointing to those who had worked on this project for some years and thought they were on the verge of success. It was also deeply unsatisfactory. But now, I think that the Government themselves are learning that it is not good enough, whenever an expenditure is to he cut or a proposed expenditure is to be turned down, for a Minister to shelter behind a few well-chosen words about the need for financial stringency. We all know that there is such a need. We all accept that the need for stringency is real.
  But as parliamentarians we must be vigilant to see that in matters of saving and spending the Government get their priorities right. One day, for example, they must prove to us that charging pupils for school buses is one of the better ways of spending money on education. This evening they are asked to show us,

  523
  in rejecting financial support for a World Commodities Centre in its natural habitat, namely, London, that they are resisting an unjustifiable extravagance and are not, as some of us here this evening would suggest, throwing away a golden opportunity. Indeed, as we have heard, it is an opportunity that some other countries—most of them not very big countries—are anxious to seize. In fact, the scale of expenditure is small by any standard. It is a project which would increase our invisible earnings, add another gleam to the brilliant lustre of the City of London and serve an international social purpose, for the management of commodities is of crucial importance to the developing as well as to the developed countries.
  This is one of those projects—not rare, yet not too common—in which expediency and self-interest are also right. My right honourable friend Mr. John Silkin, as chairman of the Parliamentary Group for World Government, has already warned Ministers that its decision may have prejudiced those Governments which are members of the international commodity organisations against supporting the location of the Common Fund in London, a rejection which surely this Government would regret, even if by their actions they had invited it. Mr. Silkin pointed out that capital expenditure on the scale which has been outlined today by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, would he putting to fruitful use a tiny fraction of the revenues from North Sea oil, that precious commodity revealed to us by divine Providence at a moment in our economic history when we stood desperately in need of a miracle.
  Of course, within the first month or two of their life this Government, through the voice of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, refused to use this rich bounty for specific purposes. The battle against hypothecation was won in the days when pioneer motorists naively believed that the proceeds of what the Government called the road fund licence should be used to fund road building. Nevertheless, it seems that the Government are at least coming along with ideas about fruitfully using the wealth that is steadily accruing to us from the North Sea companies which in a few years' time, when the exploration and development allowances are used up,
  524
  should amount to an annual revenue of, I think, £5 billion—moreover, at 1978 prices, too.
  The Minister's reply in another place on 4th February has been criticised for its harsh tone and its narrow view. Can we hope for a reply tonight that is both broader and more gracious, a reply which indicates that the Government have not yet pronounced their final dismissal of the project and that they are aware of the financial and moral importance of maintaining London as the commodities centre of the world?
  9.17 p.m.
  Lord KISSIN: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation because the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the other speakers have made most of the arguments that refer to the proposal which is before your Lordships. I want in the first place to thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for once more drawing our attention to what I consider to be this most important project. I have lived my life to a very large extent in the commodity field, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was kind enough to say. I am proud that the City of London, the commodity community of London and the commodity markets in London have achieved a leading position in the world. Perhaps we are the leading commodity market today.
  London started as an entrepot port, but the facilities and services that we have developed over the years are unique and are constantly expanding. Today a number of the producer countries have become independent. This will change the pattern of trade. They are desirous of taking control and of directing and expanding their commodity marketing operation. There is equally a desire on the part of the consumers to find a platform for negotiation and discussion with the producers in order that the relative interests of both parties can be adequately protected.
  The World Commodities Centre, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is not primarily, or I think at all, intended to give office space to commodity traders and dealers. It is intended as a centre for all the commodity government agencies of producer and consumer countries, and their joint bodies, which they

  525
  have established for many years, and as a place to locate them in one building, the City of London is unique. To date, London's tradition as a commodity centre has attracted some six or seven international commodity bodies and a great number of Government commodity agencies have chosen to make their headquarters in our city. I see this desire for closer co-operation between producer and trader and consumer growing and I can see the absolute necessity for providing the kind of environment that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has advocated in a world commodities centre in London.
  It is bound to happen. The need to create facilities where the various Government agencies and the international commodity bodies and organisations and the trading community can meet at commercial and diplomatic level is becoming increasingly urgent. We have about 20 commodity markets operating in London and more than half a dozen international bodies are located here. To give them the kind of facilities that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has advocated, in one building, would create a permanent —and I repeat, a permanent—seat for these organisations and would promote a trend for new organisations to come to London and centre their functions and create contact with our trade and our commercial organisations here.
  What concerns me is that the previous Government had given promises of assistance for the creation of a world commodities centre in London. The rejection of that project by the present Government could be highly prejudicial to the status of London as a commodity centre. The involvement of the Government in this project is essential and it is not only the money that is essential. That is perhaps not the essential part at all. The important element is that the bodies concerned with world commodity trade should see that the Government of this country are desirous of supporting and maintaining the position of London as a principal centre, as it stands today and in the next phase of development.
  At the moment it is estimated that the commodity markets alone arc contributing to the invisible earnings of this country to the tune of some £200 million and the buffer stocks bring in another £100 million. These figures will increase materially as
  526
  more Government agencies concerned with commodity trade are set up in London and the service operations which are part of the commodity trading activities will increasingly benefit. It would make London the obvious location for the new UN common buffer stock which will no doubt need a large bureaucracy to administer 750 million dollars under its control. London-based banks tend to get the lion's share of the deposit and loan business arising from buffer stocks of cocoa and tin and the new UN fund, and possibly others, will add to these earnings.
  What are the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted as costs against the income that is at stake? Having previously taken a positive attitude to the creation of the centre, its rejection, as I have said, could be misinterpreted by the community concerned with commodity distribution. Instead of creating a kind of UN secretariat for commodities, creating bodies that would regulate the commodity trade, we are turning away the opportunity to other countries and we are offering something that is within our grasp to countries that have never been concerned with the kind of development in the commercial trade that we are involved in. From Kuala Lumpur to Vienna efforts are being made to move the world commodity centres away from here. If this were to happen the influx of foreign officials representing the producer and consumer countries, the influx of new trading organisations and banks which hope to benefit from this trade which comes from buffer stocks and other elements of the commodity trade, would come to an end. We are likely to lose some of the organisations that have been established here over the last few years, and we might create competitive areas which would have serious repercussions on the close co-operation existing between trade and international commodity organisations that are situated at the moment in London.
  My Lords, this is a short debate and I hope I have kept myself fairly short on this subject. But the issue is a vital one. When our Government forecast a bleak economic outlook for the next few years, and reduction in our export of manufactured goods, I think it is advisable to state once more the benefits that can accrue to this country from the project which has been advocated tonight. I am not one of

  527
  its authors, but I should like to go on record that I am one of its keenest supporters. I would beg the Government to consider the representations that have been made tonight and the consequences that might result from the rejection of this project at this very moment.
  9.27 p.m.
  Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I shall try not to reiterate the points that have already been made. Noble Lords have had a busy day and there is a busy week ahead. Consequently, there would be no purpose in repeating the cogent arguments that have been put forward. First of all, may I say how grateful I am and we are to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for raising this matter? The length of the speeches is incommensurate with the value of the speeches;in other words, the value of the speeches is much greater than their length. As a matter of fact I want this debate to be an example of brevity but of common sense to the House.
  I would say straight away to my noble friend Lord Shackleton that I support 100 per cent. the idea of this Select Committee quickly drawn together to reassess the position, a Select Committee in relation to a commodity centre. The noble Lord, Lord Kissin, took care to clarify the minds of people who may think this is an esoteric subject, to show what the commodity centre actually is. There would be diplomatic privileges, but there would be conference rooms, opportunities for discussion on the commodity basis and on the country basis. Britain is cramping itself with fear. In some cases articles, and economists, are talking us into the ground and over-emphasising in a frightening way the dangers and the rocks that are ahead for us.
  I do hope that we shall take the same courageous approach as was taken to one of the greatest crises in London, in 1666. If you read the diary of Pepys you will know more about it than I do. There you will see that when the whole of London was burned down London did not weep about it but courageously went into rebuilding itself, at £12 million in those days. If noble Lords would go down to the World Trade Centre at St. Katharine's Dock there they would see
  528
  a flourishing development of international trade. Already we are opening up the river with a hydrofoil that is daily making a trip to Ostend, a 3½-hour trip. Here is the possibility, where there is already an active centre, of building up something like a world commodity centre. The jetfoil started its first trip on 29th February. I would say, like the World Trade News, that up to a point Britain is fettered a little by its own successful history.
  A brief analysis of the past 300 years is sufficient to show that we are all rather ill-equipped, even for the present, and surely that is where the London Trade Centre holds, at this moment, an important position. I should like to see the idea of a world commodities centre developed, because in this country we have central banking which began in the 17th century, with know-how integrity second to nothing in the world and, despite the politics of any nation whether Marxist or Socialist, invisible incomes and services have to be used even in the Soviet Union. They have to develop these things. We cannot afford to throw away 300 years of development, banking and marine insurance right from the Elizabethan days up to today. Consequently, the world that we knew yesterday is disappearing. Simplicity has gone. The latter years of the 20th century are destined for professionals. Sterling is no longer a reserve currency. We have to understand world currency "sell in terms of other people's money and use forward exchange markets. Half of our overseas trade is no longer with the Commonwealth, but with Europe. The situation has changed. We must not allow London to disappear in the maw of this change without deciding to rebuild it.
  I was delighted when, before the Select Committee—and all of the Members here made a contribution to the Select Committee on Commodity Prices which your Lordships suggested—we were given the benefit of the long know-how of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in the area of insurance, marine banking, and industry;you name it and the noble Lord has practised in it. I remember him coming to us and saying:
  " Finally, another thing I just wanted to mention—I did happen to mention it in the House of Lords, I do not know if it comes into your brief at all—"—
  unfortunately it did not—
  " is the formation of a world commodity centre in the UK. There are a lot of reasons for this;

  529
  obviously it would be to the benefit to this country if we had a world centre here. I do believe the problem we are talking about is not going to be solved easily or quickly. It is going to take a very long time, but if we did have a world commodity centre here and most of the Commodity Associations were based in London we would have an automatic forum "—
  this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, emphasized—
  " in London where these things could be discussed in a country which is basically very interested for all sorts of reasons, not only its own economic reasons".
  The chairman of the committee was the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, and the report goes on to point out the invisible earnings that our commodities are making. Up to now they are earning somewhere in the region of £200 million a year. I shall not bore the House—I have already spoken for seven minutes—by going through the matter in detail, but, I have taken the trouble to find out what, in the last 200 years, has earned Britain's bread and butter. Strangely enough, on only about five or six occasions in the last 200 years has the export of goods paid for the things we needed.
  Let me make the position clear so that it is on the record and everybody will understand what I am talking about. The goods that we have sold have never made Britain solvent. I have the figures for the period of the Battle of Waterloo. For example, in 1816 the visible balance was plus £4·1 million. Invisible earnings were £15·5 million—over three times more for banking, insurance, shipping and even cotton than we were buying and selling. I shall not bore the House by going down the list;noble Lords must take my word for it. Had time been on my side, I should like to have quoted a number of those interesting figures. The man in the street must be aware that the commodity markets: insurance, banking and shipping, are not robbing him, but are helping him to put butter on his bread. We ask: Has the House considered in depth what it would mean to allow London, as a world commodities centre, to lose the grip and the know-how that it has had since Elizabethan times?
  What do we ask tonight? The Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is:
  " To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they arc fully aware of the great benefits to the United Kingdom which could accrue from establishing a world commodities centre in
  530
  London;whether they have taken into account the finance which the City have already pledged to the setting up of such a centre;and whether they will give further consideration to the proposal".
  That anchors me to the first-class suggestion of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, which was supported by other speakers, that we might have a Select Committee of informed people to go into the issue of commodities centres.
  I want to keep within 12 minutes if possible, so I shall raise just one other matter. Despite the Brandt Report, this commodities centre would have a constructive link with the whole theory of that report. Let me leave the matter with that one sentence, which is not arid, but which well-informed noble Lords, as you all arc here, will be able to follow. I shall point out something that is not so clear. I have knocked around the world. I am interested in Korea, Japan and the Far East. Let us not regard Korea as a Third World country with the rags on its behind beating its brains out, to use a Welsh colloquialism. Its shipbuilding industry, its lorry- and car-manufacturing industries, and its know-how are on a par with those of most of the developed countries of the world. That is also true of some parts of South-East Asia, and certainly of Hong Kong. I am not wearing my Hong Kong Stock Exchange tie today, but they can teach some members of our Stock Exchange lessons now. I am interested in Malaysia, which has been mentioned in the debate, and Singapore, which is offering people comfort, succour and cheap rents to develop world centres down there, and in particular Taiwan. The figures are interesting.
  We are apt to forget that over these past 20 years the world has seen a dynamic switch in the money going to the Third World;it is moving away from Government aid and going more and more into private aid. Private aid has increased from 40 per cent. in 1960 to more than 66⅔per cent. last year. In other words, there is now a greater tendency for private enterprise to develop and help developing areas. Strangely enough, that could be increased through the development of a commodities centre.
  Although I should like to go further into this, I shall make just one more suggestion in passing. If we get this commodities centre, I hope that more appreciation will

  531
  be expressed for the work done by insurance, banking and invisible earners. Some years ago I had a little directorship in a firm that won the Queen's Award. I suppose I should declare an interest in commodities because I am linked with a platinum outfit and it was my outfit that helped to introduce the hallmarking of platinum a few years ago.
  Ultimately I should like to see recognition by the British Government—which-ever party is in power—of the value to the nation of invisible earnings. I believe that a Queen's Award could well have been devised for the invisible marketeers some years ago. I have been speaking for 13 minutes. Noble Lords have had a hard day. I do not want to reiterate what has been said. However, I beg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to take note of this important little debate and see whether he cannot accept the suggestion that this matter be looked into in greater depth.
  9.40 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for bringing this matter to our attention, and also all of your Lordships who have participated in all that has been said in the light of a great variety—and I acknowledge this freely—of experience that is relevant to the matter. Perhaps I should also join with my celtic predecessor in commending the brevity with which these points have been made.
  I sympathise with a great deal of what has been said today about the desirability of setting up a world commodities centre. On 21st May last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade said in another place that the Government were keen on the idea and would like to see such a centre in London. I am sure that he had in mind many of the matters that your Lordships have mentioned tonight, but he added an important qualification. He said:
  " We must try to find a way of making such a centre self-financing, without resort to the Exchequer".
  The reasons for this were clear. When the Government came to power, we inherited a public sector borrowing requirement which was too large and a public
  532
  expenditure programme which was out of control. Our major priority since then has been to put matters right. We have had to take some difficult decisions. Last year saw one round of cuts in public expenditure, and the general economic situation is such that we are now having to consider yet further reductions. It is against this difficult background—and this has been acknowledged more than once in the speeches we have heard—that we have had to weigh the costs and benefits of the proposal for a world commodities centre.
  I should like first to say something about the costs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred. After the general election the campaign committee for a world commodities centre put a concrete proposal to the Government. They said that a suitable centre could be built for £15 million. This would be made up of approximately £3 million each from the City and the Government, with a balance of £9 million met through a market loan. Thereafter, by implication, the centre would be self-financing on the basis of rent paid by the seven international commodity organisations which would occupy it.
  The Government looked at this proposal very carefully. We carried out a detailed assessment (and some reference has been made to that already) in consultation with the City interests concerned and with the staffs of the ICOs themselves. But I am bound to say that the results were disappointing. Our revised estimates, which I understand were broadly accepted by the City people and the ICOs, showed that the centre would in fact cost £20 million. The equal capital contributions required from the City and the Government would be between £5 million and £6 million. The centre would in addition run an annual deficit on its running costs—mainly rates—of over £1 million.
  This was not the full extent of the problems which these more detailed calculations revealed. One assumption involved was that the ICOs would be willing to pay rent at a level a good deal higher than they pay for their present accommodation;and I understand that it is a point on which they expressed some reservations. Moreover, all the estimates, as has been mentioned, were at current prices and made no allowance for inevitable cost increases

  533
  due to inflation before and during the construction period.
  In sum, the project turned out to require Government assistance on a significantly larger and more uncertain scale than had been originally estimated, and on a continuing basis. It is important in this context to be clear that even expenditure of this significant order, as I understand, would have provided a centre for only the seven ICOs already based in London. A project which went further by making provision for the accommodation needs of future ICOs coming to London, and of the Common Fund, would have cost considerably more;on our estimates at least £27 million. So the figures that have been discussed so far are not referring to the sort of project with which many of your Lordships have been dealing.
  I am not saying that in ordinary circumstances we would have regarded the outcome of this more considered work as necessarily ruling a scheme out completely. We might very well, for example, have wished to have further discussions with the City to see if some rather more modest scheme could be evolved or one for which the City would put up a larger proportion of the money involved. At a time, however, when we are being compelled to consider a further round of cuts in Government expenditure in what we all recognise are difficult and sensitive areas, my right honourable friend had reluctantly to come to the conclusion that it was not right for public money to be made available at this time for this project. I have sensed from the debate—indeed, your Lordships have made it very clear —that there is much disappointment at this decision, and I personally share that disappointment, but in hard times unfortunately hard decisions cannot be escaped.
  Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says about giving out money at this time, but may I ask him whether, when the statistics were worked out, the return on that money, including the invisible return on it, was taken into account? Is he aware that it is not just a question of giving money with no return?
  Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As I said at the outset, my Lords, in welcoming
  534
  the idea of a centre, I feel certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade was considering that very matter, along with many others, including the more general international and political matters to which reference has been made. I hope that nothing I have said suggests that we are in any way lacking in our appreciation of the presence of the ICOs in London. They complement and enhance London's major role in world commodity trading. They provide a concentration of expertise in international commodity matters, and they bring us direct benefits through the money which they and their staffs spend here.
  Some alarming words have been spoken in the debate about the danger that, if the world commodities centre project does not go ahead, bad results will follow for London as a commodity centre. We do not see a basis for such a fear. The fact is that just as the ICOs bring great advantages to London, London we believe has great advantages for them. With major commodity markets here and an unrivalled concentration of financial institutions, London is a natural centre for ICOs. They also receive an important measure of Exchequer assistance, with a major proportion of their rate bill being paid by the Treasury. I am confident they will see it in their interest to remain here. I hope and believe that new ICOs, and the Common Fund when that is established, will see the advantages of a London centre also.
  In summing up, I will follow the example of speakers who preceded me in their brevity, by answering the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in specific terms. The Government have weighed very carefully the costs and benefits of providing finance for a world commodities centre. We have taken full account of the finance pledged to it by the City, but we have decided, with regret, that, worthwhile as the project is and however much we welcome it, we simply cannot in present circumstances afford to support it financially.

  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments. The said amendments to be printed.
  COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments. The said amendments to be printed.
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS' ROLE
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS' ROLE
  WRIT OF SUMMONS: ROYAL COMMAND
  WRIT OF SUMMONS: ROYAL COMMAND