Sitting of 29 April 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    M40 Extension (Oxford-Birmingham)
    Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish orders for the extension of the M40 motorway from Oxford to Birmingham.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Later this year.
    Mr. Cadbury: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this road forms a vital part of the export route from the industrial Midlands to the South Coast and that because of the present inadequate road system many Midlands companies are paying unnecessarily high transport costs? Will he ensure that the M40 is extended to Birmingham as soon as possible?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that present routes between the West Midlands and Southampton are inadequate, and the new road could also provide some relief for the M1 which is congested. I assure my hon. Friend that we are pressing on with the road as quickly as possible. We will publish the draft orders later this year and the scheme is progressing with real seriousness.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Under-Secretary bear it in mind that, although many of us have no objection to the proposed link, where the road goes through my constituency it is not of motorway standard, that it already poses many safety problems in Hammersmith and the neighbouring constituency of Ealing, Acton and massive problems of pollution by noise and vibration for those who live alongside the road? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that any increase of traffic will be safely conducted through that non-motorway section and, above all, will his Department give some help to those who live beside the non-motorway section?
    Mr. Clarke: I realise that there are problems where the A40 goes into London. We have a steady programme of improvements planned for the road, and we hope to have them completed by the time the M40 is opened. I appreciate the problem and we will do our best to help.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to review the possibility of making compulsory by law the wearing of seat belts by occupants of the passenger seat of private motor cars.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have no plans to extend the compulsory wearing of seat belts beyond the proposals relating to children contained in the Transport Bill.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I make an almost invariable voluntary practice of wearing a seat belt, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that he has behind him a considerable number of hon. Friends who wish him well personally but who are implacably opposed to the further extension of compulsion in this area and will seek to oppose it in any way they can?
    Mr. Fowler: I understand that feeling. It has always been the case, and as far as the Government are concerned it always will be, that compulsion is a matter for a free vote in the House. My advice, as Secretary of State for Transport, is that people should wear seat belts. They save lives and injuries, but my personal view on compulsion is the same as that of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the article in The Sunday Times at the weekend, which drew attention to the dangers facing young children, following tests with seat belts, may we expect a further statement from the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Fowler: I saw the article in The Sunday Times and we have told the paper that we will examine the evidence that it set out. There are a number of issues that The Sunday Times has not considered, particularly the findings of the Child Accident Prevention Committee, but we all want the same thing—safety for children. I will examine the results of the investigations of The Sunday Times and I will let the House know the result of that inquiry.
    Mr. Higgins: If the House showed on a free vote that it favoured legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to introduce it?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, of course. I have always made it clear that we will abide by the will of Parliament. That remains the position. The issue that I wanted to emphasise is that there is a division across parties and hon. Members hold different views on the issue. It is sensible to arrange matters so that the issue is decided by a free vote.
    Mr. Prescott: We all agree that this is a matter for a free vote and that the House has expressed its support for seat belts on a free vote. Bearing in mind what The Sunday Times said about an amendment, which the Secretary of State supported, for seat belts for children in front seats, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, after looking at the evidence, changing the Bill in another place so that it meets those circumstances and allowing a free vote when the Bill returns to this House?
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about children and seat belts, the Government will be proposing a new clause on that issue in another place. We have made that clear and the amendment passed in this House is not the last word on that matter. As I said in my original answer, we have no plans to introduce a new clause or amendment to require the compulsory wearing of seat belts generally.

    Private Capital
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the introduction of private capital into the public transport industry.
    Mr. Fowler: The Transport Act 1980 provided powers to return the National Freight Co. Ltd. entirely to the private sector. The current Transport Bill provides for the introduction of private capital into both the British Transport Docks Board and British Rail's subsidiary businesses. There are therefore plans for the introduction of private capital or the introduction of new competition affecting all the transport industries for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that of all the public sector industries for which the Government are responsible, British Rail has been the subject of the greatest constructive dialogue between management and the Government for the introduction of private capital, which can only benefit both the public and British Rail employees?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend's last remark. The introduction of private investment will benefit the subsidiary companies of British Rail, particularly companies such as British Transport Hotels. That is why the British Railways Board agrees to this way forward.
    Mr. Stoddart: Can we assume that the right hon. Gentleman has no plans to hive off, or to introduce private capital into, British Rail workshops, which do extremely good work on an organised basis? Any plans to hive off or introduce private capital into that sector of British Rail would cause much trouble.
    Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman will know, no decision has been taken on the matter. The Transport Bill now going to the House of Lords gives the Government powers over the subsidiary companies of British Rail, and that would include British Rail Engineering. However, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there are no plans in this respect at present.

    European Community (British Hauliers)
    Mr. Butcherasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made since he took office in increasing the issue of permits and the size of quotas for British hauliers in the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have made strong representations to the three countries, France, Italy and West Germany, which impose inadequate quotas. Since 1979, our quotas in those countries have been increased by 21 per cent., 50 per cent. and 112 per cent. respectively. In addition, European Community and ECMT multilateral quotas have been raised by 18 per cent., and 25 per cent. Despite this progress, we must continue to press for further increases.
    Mr. Butcher: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his reply. Will he not agree that the British transport haulage industry is probably the most efficient in Western Europe, and that any further steps he can take to open up competition in the Western European market can only benefit the domestic haulage industry?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that the road haulage industry is still restricted within the Community by the national quotas imposed by some of our partners. Quotas are hardly conducive to the development of a free trading area and proper trade among Member countries.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have been in touch with him frequently about a road haulier in my constituency who is finding it difficult to get the necessary permits to travel to Italy, while many other road hauliers have permits in excess of their requirements? In view of the high level of unemployment in my constituency, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the matter seriously and see that something is done in this regard.
    Mr. Clarke: I recall the case that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) brought to my attention. There are many such cases. The unfortunate policies of Italy and Germany, in particular, leave the British Government with the difficult task of dividing the permits among British hauliers. I often hear rumours that some of the holders of permits have spare permits, but I have been unable to substantiate those rumours—or to lay my hands on the permits, if I may put it that way. We agree the rules with the trade association, and we try to be as fair as possible in distributing the permits.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Minister aware that many hauliers who have business on the Continent and would like to obtain permits cannot do so because all the existing permits for this year have been used up? Does he know of the case of Mr. Orgies in my constituency, who has 20 trips arranged for transport to France but cannot get the permits? There must be many spare permits that are not being used.
    Mr. Clarke: The road haulage industry is going through a difficult time at present, and many hauliers are exasperated when they get business abroad which would help to overcome their problems but then cannot get the permits to make the necessary journeys. That is why my right hon. Friend and I take every opportunity to stress to our opposite numbers in Western Europe that a most unfair and discriminatory system has been imposed upon our hauliers. However, it is difficult to make any progress, and the German and Italian Governments, in particular, remain difficult.

    British Railways (Corporate Plan)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made regarding the implementation of the British Railways corporate plan.
    Mr. Fowler: The basic conclusion of the plan is that the board can achieve sufficient improvements in productivity to enable them to finance substantially more investment in future without needing external finance beyond current levels. I have always made clear my view that productivity improvements should be used to increase the board's internal resources available for investment, and I look forward to seeing signs of progress in this direction. Implementation of the plan is for the railways board.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not the plan make it clear that 1981 is the year when decisions have to be

    773
    taken? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when we can expect a statement increasing the financial limits of British Rail, enabling it to carry out that precious investment?
    Mr. Fowler: That matter is now being considered by the Government. I intend to make a statement to the House in that respect as soon as possible.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about improvements in productivity, because gains in that respect are essential to the successful implementation of the plan?
    Mr. Fowler: The corporate plan sets out a programme of improvements in productivity. I hope that both sides of the House agree that the attainment of better productivity is crucial to the future of the railways. In freight, in particular, improvements can be made. I hope that these improvements are made, because about two-thirds of the railway costs are those of wages and salaries.

    Bus Services (Subsidies)
    Mr. Parrisasked the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence is available that high subsidies for bus services attract people from cars to buses.
    Mr. Fowler: All the available evidence is that high subsidies have little or no effect other than encouraging some extra trips by existing passengers. Reducing the fares by 10 per cent. achieves only some 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. extra travel.
    Mr. Parris: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, although subsidies may be justified as a lifeline to threatened services, using subsidies to try to enforce travelling habits on the public is both extremely expensive and ultimately futile?
    Mr. Fowler: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. South Yorkshire has taken this policy further than any other authority. If we applied the policy adopted by South Yorkshire to the other metropolitan counties and to the Greater London Council, the cost would be over £500 million a year. I hope that, in the coming elections, the public will understand that.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that if 2 per cent. of the car-driving population caught the bus, 180,000 fewer cars would be on the road, representing a saving of about £45 million? Is he aware that research in South Yorkshire shows that, with a high subsidy and low fares, 34 per cent. of people travel to work by bus, which is twice the national average and gives a good electoral bonus for the coming elections, as we shall find out next week?
    Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."'
    Mr. Fowler: It is interesting to hear the reaction of hon. Members opposite. The figures for South Yorkshire show that, at enormous cost and expense to the ratepayers both domestic and industrial, there has been only a 6 per cent. increase in passengers. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) now supports the policy adopted in South Yorkshire, why did the Labour Government oppose it throughout their term of office? Not only the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) but every Labour Minister of Transport opposed South Yorkshire to the death.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of retired people want to see the introduction of a fairer concessionary fare scheme throughout the country? What will he do to help local authorities over that hurdle?
    Mr. Fowler: Local and central government are spending about £145 million a year on concessionary fares. It is reasonable that that should be a matter for local choice. That is where the decision should be taken.

    Trunk Roads (Maintenance)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the amount to be spent on maintenance of trunk roads, other than motorways, in 1981–82; and how this figure compares with that for 1978–79 in real terms.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We plan to spend £48·2 million on the maintenance of non-motorway trunk roads during 1981–82, compared with £62·5 million during 1978–79. Both figures are at November 1980 prices.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not time the Government realised that cutbacks in road maintenance are shortsighted and highly detrimental to a good infrastructure, which in turn is the basis of a successful economy? Is it not time that the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to convince the monetarist zealots who surround him of these basic facts?
    Mr. Clarke: We have not made cuts in maintenance. The hon. Gentleman has skilfully asked a selective question. If motorways are added to the trunk road maintenance figures, one will see that maintenance expenditure has been increased this year to its highest level ever. Total expenditure on trunk roads and motorways is 23 per cent. higher than in the year which the hon. Gentleman has selected for comparison.
    Mr. Squire: Nevertheless, will my hon. and learned Friend welcome evidence from the Opposition of some commitment to better roads, which is sometimes overlain with other considerations? Will he also reaffirm that Greater London perhaps faces the greatest road system problem? Will he also reaffirm his commitment riot just to the M25 but to improvement of roads throughout London generally?
    Mr. Clarke: The Select Committee certainly pointed out the inadequacy of the London road network, and that inadequacy is obvious to anyone who uses the roads in and around the metropolis. There is an extremely low proportion of trunk roads within London and most of those roads are the responsibility of the GLC and the boroughs. If Labour wins the GLC election, it is highly unlikely that there will be any money left out of transport expenditure to make any further improvements to the London road system.

    British Railways (Fare Pricing Policy)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail his fare pricing policy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are always ready to talk to the chairman of the Railways Board on any matter, but the board has sole responsibility for fares.
    Mr. Durant: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says. In view of the present high cost of energy, does he

    775
    agree that this is the best opportunity for British Rail to attract passenger traffic? Bearing in mind the success of the recent BR old-age pensioner scheme, will he discuss with the chairman the possibilities of looking at off-peak commuter fares as well as overseas package holidays, which I believe could make a lot of money for British Rail?
    Mr. Clarke: To be fair, British Rail has an adventurous fare policy. Its railcard policy covers many groups which might not otherwise have used the trains considerably. The board's recent scheme for the disabled is an example. I also agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for encouraging off-peak travelling on commuter services, and I am sure that British Rail is interested in that.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister tell the chairman of British Rail that there can be no possible justification for refusing reduced fares under the big city saver scheme to a city such as Stoke-on-Trent with a population of 250,000, especially when the same scheme applies to towns such as Macclesfield with much smaller populations?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairman, but British Railmust market its services, and it arranges its fares to bring onto the system passengers who might otherwise not travel with a view to maximising its revenue. If it were to give up revenue at the present time, it would only add to its financial problems. That would have an ill-effect on other rail passengers as well as the taxpayer.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that many of these concessionary schemes and railcards are deservedly popular? It is therefore unfortunate that in order to get at a minority British Rail should withdraw those facilities for the four days preceding the England-Scotland match from stations not only in Scotland but in England as well, including Berwick-upon-Tweed.
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that British Rail appreciates that many ordinary travellers and football supporters will be inconvenienced by those arrangements. However, I am sure the whole House agrees that British Rail and its employees have faced appalling problems in the past from the England-Scotland match, and something fairly drastic was required this year.

    Ports of London and Liverpool (Severance Scheme)
    Mr. Nealeasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the severance scheme in the ports of London and Liverpool.
    Mr. Fowler: By this morning, 957 registered dock workers in the port of London, and 1,132 in the port of Liverpool, had applied for severance under the special arrangements.
    Mr. Neale: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the scheme comes to an end at the end of this month? Will he further confirm that, despite the public's concern about the amount of money involved, securing these severances is vital for the future of those ports?
    Mr. Fowler: I confirm both those points. The scheme comes to an end tomorrow at midnight. There has been an encouraging response to this offer. Severances are crucial for the future of both ports.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State agree that this individualistic scheme has disregarded possible redundancy and efficiency schemes in other ports? Would it not be a good idea if the scheme was scrapped at the earliest possible opportunity so that normal industrial negotiations can proceed?
    Mr. Fowler: The scheme comes to an end at midnight tomorrow. In that respect, I imagine that I have the support of the hon. Gentleman. We introduced a special scheme because of the special problems faced by both London and Liverpool. The response to the scheme has been encouraging, and is a good omen for the ports industry.
    Mr. Moate: Do not the figures totally vindicate my right hon. Friend's decision to introduce this special scheme, and totally demolish the argument put forward by the Opposition, who voted against it? When my right hon Friend introduced the scheme, he emphasised the critical nature of the financial position in the ports of London and Liverpool. Can he now say whether there will be any early change in the position, particularly in the port of London with regard to the maintenance of the Royals?
    Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend has said, the figures entirely vindicate our position as well as the legislation that we proposed. The next step will be for Ministers next month to consider the results of the scheme, along with other information.
    Mr. Eastham: Was not the basis of the Opposition's objections the fact that the scheme gave preference to those two ports at a time when other ports faced the same difficulties and are justifiably asking the Government for some assistance?
    Mr. Fowler: Obviously, I understand the request which has been made. However, no other ports are faced with the problem on the same scale as London and Liverpool, which is why we took this action in respect of those two ports.

    Car Sharing
    Mr. Marlandasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the level of interest in car-sharing schemes.
    Mr. Fowler: The level of public interest in car-sharing and car-pooling schemes is encouraging, although I believe that there is still considerable scope for increased use of such arrangements. I hope that more people will take advantage of the opportunities presented by the Transport Act 1980.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the amount of co-operation he has received from the insurance companies? I understand that in the past they have not been enthusiastic about the introduction of this scheme.
    Mr. Fowler: The insurance companies have co-operated fully with the scheme. There is no problem in that regard. That message should also go out to those who wish to take part in car-pooling arrangements.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme is largely a will-o'-the-wisp compared with the necessity for better publicly supported bus services throughout the country? If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so enthusiastic about car-sharing, why do so many Tory Members arrive at the House sitting on their own in the corner of a big motor car and why do Ministers have one car apiece?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not know. The hon. Gentleman will have to carry out a survey outside the entrance of the House of Commons to see whether there is any difference, but I suspect not. Most of the big cars that I have seen have been owned by Opposition Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the aim of car-sharing is sensible. It was something which the Labour Government supported.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better to encourage people to buy bicycles? Does he recall telling the House on two occasions that the Green Paper on cycling would be published "soon"? However, "soon" is now 12 months ago. By the same token, does he recall promising to send me £1 to join the all-party friends of cycling group, and I have not yet received it?
    Mr. Fowler: On the second point, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for my delay. It is very difficult to get money out of me. I am glad to tell him that I have the letter and the money for him in my room, as I understood only too well that he would be here today. With regard to the cycling policy document, I hope that that document will be published in the middle of next month.

    Railway Services (London)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss services in the London area.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received recently the board's plan for its London and South-East services that my right hon. Friend commissioned from the chairman. This sets out a number of policy options. We shall be discussing this plan with the chairman very soon, with a view to consulting more widely on it.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister also discuss with the chairman of British Rail the possibility of integrating British Rail commuter services in the London area with London Transport services? Does he agree that the examples of other cities in the world, particularly Paris, suggest that there are major benefits in such integration?
    Mr. Clarke: There certainly is more scope for integration of fares and other policies between British Rail and London Transport. I know that the management of British Rail is interested in that and is trying to make progress with it. Many comparisons can be made with Paris, but they do not all lead in the same direction. In this case, I am sure that both British Rail and London Transport are anxious to make pregress in integrating their services.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: How much of the public service obligation grant is spent by British Rail on subsidies for its London services?
    Mr. Clarke: The total PSO grant is more than £2 million a day—well over £600 million per year. It is
    778
    difficult to put a precise figure on the amounts spent in London and the South-East. My right hon. Friend recently suggested that there might be a separate board for London and the South-East under the main British Rail board. That would help us to identify a separate management unit and perhaps also to fix a definite sum of money within the PSO for commuter services.
    Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among commuters who live around the London area about the shortcomings of the services that they use to get into London and back home again as a result of the financial difficulties of British Rail? Is he prepared to state clearly here and now that the Government will give British Rail all the financial support that it needs to provide a decent and adequate level of commuter services for those people?
    Mr. Clarke: We have not the slightest doubt about the level of dissatisfaction felt by commuters about many of their services. But the reasons are many. The recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that we commissioned identified a large number of areas in which action was needed and which I am glad to say British Rail is pursuing. We have not cut the investment level of British Rail. A high proportion of that investment goes into commuter services. We have increased the public service obligation by £23 million for next year. So even in these difficult times, the financial side is not the major cause of difficulty.

    Bypasses
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the information available to him on which to judge the benefits that might be obtained from the construction of bypasses.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that we can all be encouraged by that answer. Is my hon. and learned Friend really satisfied that the Department is able to present to inquiries into proposed bypass schemes such as that impending for Brighton and Hove up-to-date evidence of the "before and after" effect on items such as noises and fumes?
    Mr. Clarke: The most elaborate analysis is now carried out on the effects of proposed bypasses on fuel savings, time savings, accident costs and so on, as well as evidence about environmental effects and other matters. Our public inquiry system is now quite exhaustive and I am sure that the forthcoming Brighton bypass inquiry, which particularly affects my hon. Friend, will be a very full one, giving a complete picture on the matters to 'which he refers.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the Minister remind some of his Cabinet colleagues of the devastating effect that the proposed cuts in Government statistical services will have on the availability of this type of information?
    Mr. Clarke: Absolutely no cut is being made in the availability of information on which we make the cost-benefit analysis of road schemes. As much of the work involves road surveys, I am glad to say that we are likely to automate our road survey information collection system in order to get efficient statistics at minimum administrative cost.
    Mr. Squire: When my hon. and learned Friend, who I know has considered the matter at great length, considers the possible bypassing of Rainham village by the A13, will he take into account the exhaustive, as he says—and no doubt exhausting—statistics available to him and ensure that he comes to the right conclusion?
    Mr. Clarke: I hope that my office will be contacting my hon. Friend again in the very near future so that we may have yet another of our talks about improvements to the A13 in the vicinity of Rainham. I am aware of his concern and I can tell him that we shall be making a decision soon.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any further plans for privatisation and liberalisation of any organisation in the transport sector.
    Mr. Fowler: So far as the introduction of private capital is concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). So far as liberalisation is concerned, the Transport Act 1980 provided for the removal of many controls over passenger transport operations. I am encouraged by the response to this deregulation.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome his encouragement. Will he comment, however, on how successful the liberalisation of the traffic commissioners, which was part of the Transport Act 1980, has been and whether he has received any evidence that it is now working in terms of coach services?
    Mr. Fowler: In terms of coach services particularly, the Act has led to an unprecedented increase in services. On many major inter-city routes, such as London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and London-Liverpool, there has been an increase in passengers of about 150 per cent. At the same time, prices have actually come down, in some cases by about half, as a result of competition and deregulation.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister recall that at the last Transport Question Time one of the advantages that he claimed for the liberalisation brought about by these measures was that rural services were improving and he cited South Humberside as an example? Is he aware that in the last two weeks the reduction or withdrawal of more than 14 rural services has been announced in that area, with no services at weekends, reduced services early in the morning and late at night, and with services having been replaced by a private operator operating about one a day?
    Mr. Fowler: The information that I have about services that have been abandoned by the National Bus Company is that independents have taken over at lower fares in areas such as Exeter, Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Leicestershire. I cannot speak with authority on the hon. Gentleman's own area, but the signs are very encouraging and suggest that independents are now coming forward.
    Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the difficulties that his Department is encountering with regard to further privatisation is that many of those employed in the various sectors within his responsibility have index-linked pensions and potential purchasers do not want to take on that responsibility?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that that has been a problem in our plans to bring private capital into these industries. Certainly in the National Freight Company, where that was one of the fears, I think that we have found ways to overcome that. Indeed, many of the staff are now very enthusiastic about their entry into the private sector.
    Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State forget the profit motive and provide a service for the people in the community? Will he admit that he and the Under-Secretary have tried private services in the county of Nottinghamshire, that those services have failed, and that there is nothing to replace them because of the Government's own policy?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that anyone quite follows the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. I shall explain to him what is actually being done. He seems to believe that all passenger transport is now run on a commercial basis. I must tell him that at present more than £½ billion per year is going into the bus services—that includes concessionary fares—from ratepayers and taxpayers.
    Mr. Haynes: That is nothing.
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman says that that is nothing, that further confirms that the Labour Party is standing for more and higher rates in the forthcoming elections.

    Railways (Electrification)
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the desirability of extending the electrification of the British railway system.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Railways on the implementation of the electrification programme.
    Mr. Fowler: I have received many representations in favour of extending the electrification of the British railway system. The chairman of British Rail and I have discussed the question of electrification on a number of occasions and I hope to be able to make a statement soon.
    Mr. Marks: Has the Minister had any advice against the electrification proposals? Does he agree that electrification would be a valuable and timely investment, not only for the railways but for the country as a whole, as well as being a useful base for a growing export industry?
    Mr. Fowler: The bulk of the representations that we have received are in favour of electrification, but there is a considerable amount of money involved and clearly it is reasonable that the Government should take some little time to look at all the various schemes that have been put forward.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is no time to waste, and that investment in early electrification of the railways is vital to the whole of British industry? Will he accept that electrification would be a massive boost to a wide range of British industry, and that it is the only way in which the Government can prevent unemployment from touching 3 million or even 3½million in the coming year?
    Mr. Fowler: We want to make a decision as soon as possible. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says in that respect. The largest option before us would cost about £750 million. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Government should take some time to study the details, while at the same time remembering the hon. Gentleman's point about the considerable advantage that electrification would bring to much of the private sector industry supplying the equipment.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say how long the electrification of the railways would take? I understand that it would take a number of years. Therefore, the short-term effect on employment one way or another would not be very great.
    Mr. Fowler: It would depend on the option that was chosen, but it would take between 15 and 20 years. We have estimated that it would involve about 2,000 new jobs.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: Does the Minister understand that there is a great deal of wide support throughout each side of British industry for option 5 of the proposals that he has before him? Does he realise that, when both the TUC and the CBI are unanimous on proceeding with the maximum level of rail electrification, he should consider aligning himself with them?
    Mr. Fowler: We recognise the considerable support of the CBI, the TUC and many other bodies that are in favour of electrification. We shall seek to make a decision on the question as soon as possible. We are thinking in terms of perhaps a couple of months. But it is reasonable that the Government should examine carefully all the forecasts that have been made concerning electrification before coming to a final decision. It is an important decision, not only for the railways but for industry generally.
    Mr. Dover: Is the Secretary of State able to say whether it will be possible for private sector funding to be made available for the electrification work?
    Mr. Fowler: British Rail is currently exploring the prospects with its financial advisers. Clearly, the Government would be willing to consider proposals in this respect.

    Rush Hour Travel
    Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made during the last year in reducing peaks in rush hour travel.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Only the local authorities and the public transport operators can say what improvements, if any, have been made in rush hour travel. We continue to encourage them to reduce all forms of congestion, and to make it easier for the motorist to contribute through car sharing.
    Mr. Higgins: Will the Minister take a new initiative in this area—which has potentially great scope for saving both the energy and the capital investment that is needed in road and rail transport—especially in regard to the staggering of office hours in the public sector?
    Mr. Clarke: The Government and the Civil Service now have well-established procedures for staggering hours, and we encourage employers to look at the possibilities wherever possible. Ultimately, individual employers have to decide whether their businesses can
    782
    adapt to flexible working hours, bearing in mind the costs imposed upon them and the need to keep some core time. Wherever it can be done it makes a valuable contribution to reducing congestion.
    Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that the biggest single contribution that the Government have made to reducing rush hour travel has been by putting another million people on the dole? Is he aware that Greater Manchester transport attributes an 8 per cent. loss of revenue to this fact? Before the Prime Minister puts another million people on the dole, should not the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Transport Minister, warn her of those consequences?
    Mr. Clarke: To attempt to attribute all of Greater Manchester's transport problems to unemployment would be somewhat misguided. The demand for passenger transport rises and falls from time to time, as demand for other goods and services in the economy varies. The best run services are those which adapt their capacity to demand in the quickest and most flexible way. Enormous costs are involved if one disregards demand in planning public transport, in big cities in particular.

    Railways (Ivnvestment)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for increased investment in British Railways.
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he intends to make to the British Railways document, "Rail Policy", a statement of their policies and potential for the 1980s.
    Mr. Fowler: The investment ceiling currently stands at £325 million. I believe that this is adequate to meet the present needs of the railway businesses. As for the future, I am concentrating on the board's corporate plan for 1981 to 1985, which argues the case for increased investment based on improvements in productivity. I hope to make a statement about this in due course.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that there its a wide consensus, both inside this House and outside, that it is in the national interest that there should be, as speedily as possible, substantial investment in British Railways? Does he recall that, in answer to a question a few moments ago, he said that it would take him two months to make a statement? He said the same thing a month ago—that it would be two months. Will he now give us a specific date when he will make a forthright and imaginative statement on the investment programme of British Railways over the next decade?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot give a specific date, nor do I know whether the hon. Gentleman would regard the statement as forthright and imaginative. We want to make a statement on the matter as soon as we conceivably can. We have already increased the external finance limit for British Rail this year to £920 million. We have also increased the PSO. Very considerable funds are going into British Rail, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to understand that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration he has given—I have put this question to him before—to the investment required by British Rail to support the building of the Channel tunnel.?

    783
    Does he agree that British Rail would be responsible for the facilities of London termini, or at least one terminal, and for other costs outside the portal to portal expense, which would fall to private contractors? Is he giving favourable consideration to British Rail's request for investment in this valuable project, which can be of vital importance to this country?
    Mr. Fowler: There is a question later on the Order Paper about the Channel tunnel. Clearly, any project about the Channel tunnel must be concerned with the future of British Rail and be important for British Rail.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a very strong suspicion in trade union circles and other places that one of the reasons, perhaps the major reason, why he will not announce this very important decision on investment—which is absolutely necessary in terms of jobs on the railways, and outside, bearing in mind the extra investment—is to do with the current wage negotiations? Will he promise that investment will not be hindered or based upon the settlement reached by the respective trade unions involved?
    Mr. Fowler: The decision has not been held up because there are wage negotiations taking place. But a reasonable wage settlement—not just this year but in future years as well—must be a matter of the greatest importance for the Government and the railway industry. It is absolutely crucial for the railway industry to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be right to have further investment in the railways on one condition—that the money does not go into the payment of inflated wages? Will he clear that point with the unions concerned?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's point is that the money should not go into the payment of inflated wages. I agree with him, and I am sure that the chairman of British Rail would also agree with him. The future of the railways is not just a matter for the Government; it is also a matter for the railway industry. I believe that a considerable number of Labour Members also understand that point. I hope that the message can go out from both sides.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that the case for extra investment in British Rail can stand on its own merits without screwing down the wages of workers in the industry? Will he accept that a consensus has grown up that this positive public investment will not suck in imports but will provide extra jobs in Britain? When will the expression of that consensus get through to the Cabinet?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no question of screwing down pay. It is reasonable for the chairman of British Rail and I to say that important issues are at stake that will affect the future of British Rail. The future level of investment is one of them. However, productivity and the cost of labour are also important issues. This is a matter not only for Government but for the industry.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Efficiency
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she is satisfied with the advice available to enable her to identify ways of carrying out work more simply and efficiently.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I get a good deal of good advice from my officials and as a result of work in Departments on improving efficiency and economy, including work done with the help of Sir Derek Rayner.
    Mr. Sainsbury: That is another encouraging answer. In an organisation such as the Civil Service, which is run by civil servants who have virtually no outside management experience, is it not valuable to have independent advice, particularly on using the latest methods and machinery for matters such as information storage, retrieval and transmission?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I assure my hon. Friend that good advice is welcomed from all quarters. From time to time advice is sought from consultants and outside experts. We are conscious of the need for greater efficiency, which can be achieved by the increased use of new technology. Cost-effective applications of technology are always being sought. We have 500 microcomputers and 350 word processors within the Civil Service. The number of such machines is increasing.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister agree that efficiency is assisted by good industrial relations? If so, will he accept that by tearing up the pay agreement with the Civil Service the Government have not assisted efficiency?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next question.

    Pay
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made towards the formulation of an agreed mechanism for settling pay in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Marksasked the Minister for the Civil Service when next she expects to meet representatives of the Civil Service unions to discuss comparability.
    Mr. Woolmerasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in resolving the issues involved in the Civil Service dispute.
    Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I met representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on Thursday 23 April. We told the unions that the Government were prepared to set up an independent inquiry on future pay arrangements for the Civil Service. We also told them that the Government would enter pay negotiations in 1982 without a predetermined cash limit. On the level of pay increase for 1981, we reaffirmed that 7 per cent. was the most that could be afforded from within cash limits this year. We believe that these proposals offer a reasonable basis for an end to the present dispute, and we have made it clear to the union side that we are ready to continue with talks.
    Mr. Hamilton: How can the Government expect to have the respect and the confidence of civil servants in view of the Government's breathtaking ineptitude and arrogance when dealing with them in the past few months? If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of his case why does he not publish the findings of the Pay Research Unit, or subject the disagreement to arbitration? Why should civil servants trust the Government any longer?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's absurd charges. Is he not aware that 2 million workers in the public services have already settled this year for pay increases within the 6 per cent. cash limit?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the two hon. Members whose questions are being answered with question 45.
    Mr. Marks: Does not the Minister realise that civil servants who dislike strikes support the industrial action because the Government broke an election promise that was made on 10 April 1979 by the Prime Minister? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he fails to meet the unions with concrete proposals and if he fails to put forward some offer—other than that of 7 per cent.—he and his colleagues will bear responsibility for the difficulties that will face the country?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I repudiate the charge that we have broken our election pledge. Before the election we made the position clear. My right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Employment, made a formal statement on behalf of the Conservative Party about pay research. He welcomed the return of pay research, which the Labour Government had suspended for a considerable period. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
    "Naturally, we cannot give blanket approval in advance to the way the new Pay Research Unit is working, nor an unqualified promise to implement its future recommendations. No responsible Government or Opposition can make commitments of that kind."
    Mr. Woolmer: Do the Government still stand by article 8 of the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 151, which they signed in March last year? By signing it, the Government committed themselves to adopting conciliation or arbitration procedures in the event of a dispute with public service workers. If the Government still stand by the convention, which they signed only 13 months ago, why do they not invoke the conciliation and arbitration procedures, in view of the increasingly serious dispute with their own workers?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I looked at the terms of the ILO convention, particularly as Tony Christopher of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation said that the Government had broken their commitment to it. My judgment, and the advice that I have been given, is that we are not breaking the convention.
    Mr. Higgins: Given my hon. Friend's reply, will he re-read the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report on public sector pay as a matter of urgency? It drew attention to the inflationary dangers of reaching a settlement one year in exchange for promises of something better the next year? Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the report and give no such undertaking?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My colleagues and I are well aware of the comments made about a year ago by the Treasury and
    786
    Civil Service Select Committee. The proposals that we made to the Council of Civil Service Unions last week were completely in harmony with the Select Committee's report.
    Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend is aware that the Shipley computer centre is one of the focal points of the eight-week dispute. Many of my constituents who are still at work would accept 7 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—and are determined to ensure that the militants who are trying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—to keep—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are right to tell the hon. Member to ask a question. The hon. Member must ask a question.
    Mr. Fox: Is my hon. Friend aware that 450 union members are still out on strike? Is he further aware that only 20 of them turned up at a mass rally on the half-day national strike? Those involved are anxious to get back to work. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that his formula is acceptable to them?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am aware that many of the civil servants involved in the dispute are profoundly disturbed by the action being taken, particularly when it threatens the defence of the country or causes hardship to those who are innocent and who are not involved in the dispute. The proposals that we have made form a basis upon which talks can proceed. A reasonable settlement could be made. I hope that those talks will recommence as soon as possible.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: How are pay settlements in other industries relevant to the civil servants' claim?
    Mr. Hayhoe: There is an interrelationship with the settlements in the private sector and the other parts of the public sector to which I referred. It would be a betrayal of the 2 million within the public service who have already settled without industrial action in accordance with the 6 per cent. cash limits if we went back on our clearly announced policy.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side.
    Mr. Latham: Why have the Government proposed that next year's settlement should not be covered by cash limits?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have not said that. I repeat what I said. The Government are prepared to enter pay negotiations in 1982 without a predetermined cash limit. Cash limits as a weapon, or mechanism, for the Treasury will remain, but the charge against the Government this year is that there is no possibility of negotiation because of the predetermined cash limit.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister come clean, address himself to the question on the Order Paper, and state frankly that no progress has been made towards agreeing a mechanism to settle the civil servants' pay claims? Is the Minister aware that the nation has experienced eight weeks of industrial action by Britain's civil servants during which the Government have done little or nothing? The House has had two ministerial statements in which nothing was said and there has been one meeting with the unions in which nothing was

    787
    achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] In that situation, the Government stance seems like that of a latter-day Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have questions, even from the Front Bench.
    Mr. Morris: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister direct his mind to some form of arbitration, because the British public's tolerance is not infinite?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said, the 6 per cent. cash limit for this year's settlement must stand. I do not believe
    788
    that there is a demand by the nation as a whole that it should be breached. Our proposals in the first meeting with the unions, and last week, would form the basis for an honourable and fair resolution of the dispute. I hope that the Civil Service unions will seriously consider what we have said, return to talks with the Government and find an honourable way to solve the dispute.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of all those answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Question of Privilege
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make on a matter of privilege.
I received a written complaint from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), as is required under our new procedure, about the form of a memorandum widely distributed among hon. Members by the League Against Cruel Sports in connection with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. The cover of the memorandum is headed with the name of the Bill, the Westminster portcullis badge and the words "House of Commons". There are no words describing the derivation of the memorandum on the title page. Hon. Members could be misled by the format into believing that they had received a communication that has official standing.
I consider that what has been done constituted a serious abuse of the badge and of the name of the House of Commons. I have received a letter of apology from the League Against Cruel Sports, and I propose that no further action be taken in this case. However, under our new procedures, I am authorised to make a statement on a matter of privilege if I consider that it raises issues about which the House should be informed, even if I decide that the matter does not justify my giving precedence to a motion.
I wish to make it clear to people outside the House, as well as to hon. Members, that the unauthorised use of the badge and name of the House of Commons is a serious matter. Having given that public warning, I shall not be disposed to take as lenient a view of any future case brought to my notice.

Protection of Children in Care (Scotland)
3.35 pm
Mr. Allen Adams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the placement of siblings under the age of twelve in the care of a local authority or voluntary care agency in Scotland in more than one residential establishment or more than one set of foster parents, except in the case of illness; and to make such separation permissible after the age of twelve only with the consent of the children concerned.
This is one in a series of Ten-Minute Bills that I have introduced about child care. Ten-Minute Bills are essentially statements of intent, putting down markers on a particular subject. Sometimes they work. Last year I put down a Ten-Minute Bill on the cost of adoption. It gained no legal force, but as a result, two major social work authorities are now paying for the cost of adoption and more people of a modest income can adopt children in certain parts of the country. Sometimes, when the House speaks with one voice, people listen. If my Bills do no more than that, they serve a useful purpose.
I do not wish to create the illusion that we are a nation of child batterers, that people are abandoning their children on street corners or that social work authorities are not doing their best to look after needy children. Most authorities are doing their best. However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, although child care has improved a great deal, it should have improved a great deal more.
Most people seem to believe, first, that the care of children is the domain of women and, secondly, that the problem of children in care is a small one. It is not small. Between 70,000 and 80,000 children are in care in Great Britain. They have been maltreated, abandoned or neglected to such a degree that the local authority has had to take them into care—which says a great deal about contemporary morality. I shall not speculate about 'the multifarious reasons—it would take 10 hours to examine them—but with that number of children in care we must realise that something is seriously wrong.
It is a great problem in terms not only of numbers but of cost. It costs the State a great deal of money to look after 70,000 to 80,000 children. Some social work authorities put the cost of taking care of one child at £90 to £100 a week. Even the beasts in the field look after their young until they are able to look after themselves. It is sad that the only animal which in some circumstances does not look after its young is the human being.
Children are taken into care for three basic reasons. The first is if they are orphaned. One hundred years ago, it was the main reason why children were taken into care, but today very few children are without both parents. Perhaps that compounds the problem. To see children in a children's home, knowing that they have mothers and fathers, or mothers or fathers, who frequently do not visit them makes the position more complex than it was 50 years ago when children were in homes because nobody looked after them. I find it compelling to see a child sitting in a home knowing that somebody should be looking after him.
A second major reason why children are in care is that they have been abandoned. There are substantial instances of people simply walking away from their children. When I was involved with a social work authority in Glasgow,

791
I found that the numbers of children abandoned during any weekend ran into dozens—and into hundreds during the whole year.
The third and most major reason why children are taken into care and why a place of safety order or an assumption of parental rights order is taken out by a local authority is the maltreatment of children who have been seriously battered, not fed or not clothed. It is a serious problem. I said that 70,000 to 80,000 children are in care, and I venture the guess that 50,000 of them have been maltreated—abused in one way or another. We all imagine what we would do if we caught up with the parents, but that would not solve the problem. The children are in care because they have been severely maltreated.
I remember a case that was reported in the newspapers in Scotland not long ago. A father put his child in the washing machine and turned it on. That degree of abuse is more common than one thinks. The public do not hear about such cases because when a social work committee decides to make an order for assumption of parental rights the press and the public are excluded and in 99 out of 100 cases the details never come to light. Perhaps the social work authorities should open the door so that some of the details could come to light. There is a duty to let the public know the facts as well as simply to protect the public.
No matter whether a child has been abandoned or maltreated, if a family is taken into care either because the parents do not care for them or cannot care for them—many are incapable of caring for their children, and often the family involves at least three or four children—at the end of the day the children have no one to turn to except each other. It is a horrendous practice to split a family of children and put one in one home and one in another, or two with one foster parent and three with another. That is often done simply on grounds of administrative expediency. I ask the House to say to local authorities that we do not approve of that practice. If it is within the realms of possibility, we want local authorities to keep families together. The Bill will provide for certain exceptions, but I ask the House to tell local authorities that we believe in the unity of the family.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Don Dixon, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Dick Douglas and Mr. Raymond Ellis.

Protection of Children in Care (Scotland)
  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN CARE (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Allen Adams accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the placement of siblings under the age of twelve in the care of a local authority or voluntary care agency in Scotland in more than one residential establishment or more than one set of foster parents, except in the case of illness; and to make such separation permissible after the age of twelve only with the consent of the children concerned: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 May and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

British Nationality Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.44 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the bill:

British Nationality Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 14th day of May 1981.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 14th May may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on the 15th May 1981.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resoulutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands

  793
  over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
  794

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the British Nationality Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  We hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has recovered from his unfortunate, unhappy experience on Monday night.
  As the House knows, the use of an allocation of time motion to expedite the progress of a Bill is rightly regarded as an extremely serious matter. That is especially so when the Bill concerned affects the status and rights of as many people as does the British Nationality Bill. Such a Bill clearly demands that a lot of time be made available for detailed discussion.
  The Government have provided that time and propose to make a substantial further allocation. Obviously it had been our hope and reasonable expectation that the time allocated would prove sufficient for the full and proper debate of all the issues raised in the Bill without recourse to a timetable motion. However, it has become clear—unfortunately—that progress in considering the Bill is inadequate to ensure its passage on to the statute book this Session. It is, therefore, with great reluctance that I ask the House to agree to the motion.
  At the outset of the debate I wish to make two things plain. First, had it been possible to secure the passage of the Bill without recourse to such a motion, the Government would infinitely have preferred it. Secondly, I make no criticism of the conduct and handling of the Bill by the Opposition. That is a matter for them.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Leader of the House said that he regretted the fact that it had not been possible to debate the issues in the time allocated. What was the time allocated? We asked that question many times but were never given any idea of what the Government had in mind in order to get the Bill out of Committee.
  Mr. Pym: I intend to give the facts to the House. Many approaches and conversations have taken place. The problem and the issue is essentially one of time. In the Government's view, the point has been reached when the remaining available time—which is very

  795
  considerable—must be organised and allocated so that the passage of the Bill can be completed with all the issues debated.
  The basic facts are as follows. The Standing Committee considering the Bill began its work on 10 February. After six morning sittings, amounting to 15 hours, the Committee had still not completed its consideration of clause 1. It therefore increased the number of sittings by moving to additional afternoon sittings of the normal two and a half hours duration. Consideration of clause 1 was not completed until halfway through the ninth sitting. The Committee took more than 21 hours to deal with that clause.
  On 31 March the Committee had reached its twenty-third sitting but had got only as far as clause 6. Consequently, it extended its sittings and began to meet after 7 pm in addition to the other sittings. But even so, and even with its deliberations on two occasions having lasted until well into the morning, progress remained unduly slow if the Bill was to be reported to the House in time for the remaining stages. One would expect the Committee to have completed its discussions on more clauses after its 90 hours of work up to 16 April. By then it had had 32 sittings, during which it had considered 13 clauses and two new clauses. There were still 36 clauses and nine schedules remaining, not to mention several new clauses—in other words, three or more times work than had already been completed.
  Apart from the time spent on clause 1, three other clauses took more than 10 hours each, and four more required between six and eight and a half hours each. It may be argued that that is reasonable, and I am not directly quarrelling with it, but the House understands very well that Bills have to advance through the House at a pace that will enable them to be enacted at the end of a Session. I would not wish to minimise in any way the importance of any or all of the issues involved. I accept that some clauses have been accepted without lengthy debate. Nevertheless, it seems plain that progress altogether is not sufficient to ensure the passage of the Bill. The average rate of progress has been about five lines per hour. If the same rate were continued the Bill would not emerge from Committee in time to become law this Session. At that rate of progress the Committee would need to sit well into the autumn, if not into next year.
  I think that we all agree that the Bill is very important and introduces significant changes. However, the issues of principle that it raises are capable of being argued fully and carefully with greater brevity than has so far been the case. I know that it is usual for debates in Committee to re-traverse ground that has been covered already. I am aware that that happens quite often. However, it seems probable that the Committee would have been able to reach conclusions on a number of amendments at an earlier stage.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I shall not comment on whether it is for the Leader of the House or the House of Commons itself to decide whether matters should be dispatched more speedily than they have been. However, even if it is the Government's view that some of the major issues could have been dispatched with greater speed, why is it that they were unable to move closure motions in Committee? The reasonableness of the
  796
  speed of the debate may be measured by the fact that throughout all the hours of debate in Committee only three closure motions were moved.
  Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that this is an issue for the House to decide. I have read the Hansard reports of the proceedings in Committee in order to form a view. I confess that I can form that view only by being outside the Committee. Therefore, it is for the House to come to a conclusion. I am putting the case as the Government see it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete what I wish to say.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Mr. Pym: I wish to make more progress. It would be helpful to the House if I could make further progress.
  I note that there were strong protests—I make no objection about this—from the Opposition whenever it was suggested that the Committee should sit for longer hours, and that was despite the comparatively slow progress that was being made. In seeking to oppose the sittings motion that was designed to extend the time available to the House, the Opposition must have appreciated—they were quite entitled to do this—that they were making the introduction of an allocation of a timetable motion much more likely.
  On 3 March it took an hour and three-quarters to decide whether the Committee should sit in the afternoons. I think that originally the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) thought that he might be in favour of those sittings, but in the event he and his right hon. and hon. Friends decided to vote against the motion. However, the motion was carried. I understand the reluctance of the Opposition to accept it. It is obviously desirable to avoid Committee sittings in the afternoon when they overlap important debates in the House. However, they have had to take place before.
  It must have been clear to the Opposition that morning sittings only would give the Bill no prospect of completion in sufficient time. In the end the Government had no choice, and we have no choice now but to bring forward this motion. I acknowledge that the Opposition are fully entitled to conduct their proceedings as they decide. They have made clear their opposition to the Bill in principle. I understand that they have undertaken to repeal the Act, if the Bill is enacted, if they are ever returned to office. They have made it plain that they are unwilling to cooperate in the Bill's progress. For example, although part II follows much the same pattern as part I, the Opposition have tabled for part II precisely the same amendments as they tabled at the equivalent stage in part I. They are entitled to do that, but the time taken could be just as long.
  The motion that we have tabled will facilitate the process of consideration without depriving the Committee or the House of adequate time for debate. The House will be aware that the Committee passed a sittings motion last night to sit on Wednesday mornings and evenings, in addition to Tuesdays and Thursdays. I understand that there was a view among the Opposition that they were against the extension, but there was no vote against the motion and it was carried.
  The Government are as anxious as anyone that the later clauses should be properly and thoroughly considered. I assure the House that the timetable that we have put before

  797
  it allows for that. In our view the motion provides the best way of organising the remaining time so that the fullest and best use can be made of it.
  I emphasise that the Government have done their utmost at all stages to try to expedite progress and to answer the many points that have been raised. I know that my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), have been assiduous in explaining the Bill's provisions.
  I stress, above all, that the fact that we have found it necessary to table the motion does not mean that we are in any way trying to ride over the anxieties and fears that have been aroused. Those anxieties have been most clearly felt among members of the ethnic communities who are settled here. Those fears are not well founded, and the Government have shown on many occasions that they are misplaced. The Government are committed to harmonious race relations, and I must make it plain that the decision to introduce the motion does not affect that position.
  The Government have responded constructively to the apprehensions that have been expressed since the Bill's introduction. We have accepted a number of important amendments and we have tabled others in a constructive response to allay the concerns that have been expressed. The motion does not represent a means of evading or ignoring proper discussion of the Bill. The motion has relevance only to the Bill's progress through the House, and it is not an attempt to stifle discussion.
  All Governments must have due regard to the progress of their legislation. the Government are committed to the passage of this important Bill. It cannot be allowed to founder because of the lack of speed with which it is currently being debated in Committee. The time so far spent has not yielded enough progress, so we must allocate more time and use it to best advantage. The time allowed in the motion gives the Committee until 14 May to report. There are then three days allowed for Report and Third Reading. A substantial allocation of time for Report is necessary in my view, because many hon. Members who are not members of the Committee will wish to express views on the issues raised. I think that the House will accept that what is here proposed is generous by our standards and practice. In the circumstances of the Bill I believe that is entirely appropriate. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to approve the motion.
  3.58 pm
  Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House and I have seen many timetable motions in our time. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that I thought that he was singularly unhappy in moving this one. He was not at all sure of himself, and he has been sure of himself in the past.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Silkin: No, the right hon. Gentleman was not happy when he moved it. That was extremely clear. I do not altogether blame him for that. Nothing he said will have altered the mind of the Opposition that we must totally and utterly oppose the motion.
  During Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister talked about the Conservative Government only just equalling the number of guillotine motions that my right
  798
  hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition introduced in one day when he was Leader of the House in the Labour Government, as though there is a ration of guillotines that we are permitted to have and that we must not exceed it. That is the constitutional procedural equivalent of the totting-up provisions in road traffic offences. Of course, the Prime Minister does not know very much about the running of the House, and she never did know much about it.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend knows how to run the country.
  Mr. Silkin: However, the right hon. Lady has a competent Leader of the House and she could have asked him for his opinion. Had she gone to the Leader of the House, I think that he would have said "We are not discussing whether in principle it is a good idea to allocate time to Bills. We are discussing a particular timetable motion in particular circumstances in relation to a particular Bill. This afternoon we can forget about previous guillotine motions and the arguments surrounding them". I am sure that that is what he would have said, because that is what he said in, respect of the Scotland Bill 1977. That would have been right because one has to consider every timetable motion according to the circumstances of the particular Bill.
  The Leader of the House clearly defined the gap between the two sides.
  Sir Frederick Burden: In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member made it clear that the Opposition would oppose the Bill in every way possible. They have stated that they will repeal it. Therefore, it is clear that, had the guillotine motion not been introduced, there would have been no possibility of the Bill going through during this Session of Parliament.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening closely to what I said. I was talking about the timetable motion, and I said that we would oppose it. We are not now talking about the principles of the Bill.
  The Leader of the House talked about the gap between us. There is a gap between the two sides on the matter. The Prime Minister said that the Bill is purely to define citizenship, although she said something different when she was in India. Then she said that it was a Bill to prevent the country from being swamped or overrun by immigrants. The Opposition. say that, whatever the motives of the Home Secretary, the Bill discriminates on the grounds of race and colour. There is a great divide between the two views.
  The Government have taken the view that the major points of the Opposition's case should be rejected. They have rejected the view that no child should be born stateless as a result of the Bill, and that the naturalisation process should be transformed into an objective test with the right of appeal. They have rejected the view that the registration rights now enjoyed by Commonwealth citizens and foreign wives should be exercisable throughout their lifetime, and that sex equality should be achieved by giving men the same citizenship rights as women and not, as the Bill proposes, by taking rights from women.
  Whoever is right or wrong on whether the Bill is purely about citizenship or whether it discriminates, consideration of such a Bill must be conducted in the open and with

  799
  maximum publicity. For that reason, the Opposition warned the Government that that must be done in one of two ways. The usual way is that which was employed by the Leader of the House when he was Patronage Secretary and the European Communities Bill was dealt with. That was the way used when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Leader of the House and the devolution Bills were dealt with on the Floor of the House to ensure the maximum publicity, discussion and openness.
  Another way was open to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not as good, but it was possible to use it if he insisted on discussing the Bill in Committee. It was to use the new Bill procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I put that possibility to him and to his predecessor. At the time, he said that one can use the new procedure only for Bills that are not opposed. He is wrong, because later today we will be dealing with the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which is subject to the new procedure and on which the House will divide. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not ride. At the time, we warned the Government that the British Nationality Bill was of vital interest to everyone in this country and that therefore, it had to have maximum publicity.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that Governments must listen to Oppositions from time to time, particularly on matters about which Oppositions feel deeply. The smooth running of the House depends on the willingness of Governments to concede from time to time, as well as to enforce their will, particularly when procedure and discussion are at risk. Unfortunately, in this case, the Government did neither.
  I am not alone in saying this. The Times has said it, although it supports most of the contents of the Bill. The Bill is long, complex and far-reaching in its effects. Even the Government's friends have their doubts. Only two days ago there was a long and interesting article in The Daily Telegraph which gave voice to those doubts. The Churches have also expressed their doubts about the Bill, whether or not they are friendly with the Government. Therefore, not only the Opposition have had doubts.
  Among those who have had doubts is the Home Secretary. He has had considerable doubts because he has had to make a number of concessions. He has made the concession that those who are British by naturalisation or registration may transmit their citizenship to children born abroad. He has also made a number of other concessions which are perhaps not as important as that but they are important all the same. Therefore, the Bill has changed its form.
  When The Times, which is largely in favour of the Bill, and others who are in favour or are willing to keep an open mind believe that it is wrong to impose the guillotine, the Government should listen.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that much more of the Bill is to be discussed. A great deal more is to be discussed. However, his answer to that is to say that a timetable motion shall be introduced because the Opposition will want to discuss important matters with as much scrutiny as the earlier part of the Bill was discussed. That is true. The right hon. Gentleman says that without the motion we shall not be able to pass the Bill during this Session. There is a simple answer to that, particularly as
  800
  the right hon. Gentleman conceded at the beginning that, while much time may have been taken on certain aspects of the Bill, there has been no filibustering. Members on the Government Benches always think that there is filibustering, although the managers do not.
  Amendments are drafted for the Government by their civil servants, but Oppositions have to draft their amendments as they go along. Often one has to keep an amendment going in order to have time to put down another amendment. I am told by my right hon. and hon. Friends that that has not happened on the Bill so far.
  Mr. Michael Mates rose
  Mr. Silkin: I shall not give way, as I am coming to the end of my speech.
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Mr. Silkin: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Silkin: I was about to offer a simple remedy to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Mates: The right hon. Gentleman is courteous; I thank him for giving way. He made an astonishing assertion that there was no filibustering in Committee. Perhaps he will quickly consult his hon. Friends and ask them how they could spend several hours discussing citizenship of a territory which has no citizens. That is one small example.
  Mr. Silkin: I shall save the House some time by sending the hon. Member a copy of The Times leader of 29 April. The Times believes that the general contents of the Bill are right, although it has some reservations. However, it says that it is wrong to have a timetable motion, because there has been no filibustering. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he would have realised that the right hon. Gentleman was not saying that there had been filibustering, only that the Bill would take up a great deal of time and that without the motion it would not be passed in this Session.
  What is the urgency for the Bill? Why does it have to be pushed through? Is there really a vital time issue? Of course there is not. The Bill could be introduced in the next Session. As the Home Secretary said, it could be introduced in such a way that it could be reported to the House and be given a Third Reading in plenty of time. There is no reason why it should not be deferred for the Session. That has been suggested.
  A letter in The Daily Telegraph today suggests that the Bill might be deferred until the next Session while some of the arguments expressed in The Daily Telegraph and some of the possible consequences that the Home Office might not have realised that the Bill entails are investigated.
  It is possible to make amends. The Home Secretary has said from the beginning that he does not like timetabling constitutional Bills. It was wrong to take the Bill upstairs, hidden away, without its appearing on the Floor of the House or being subject to the new procedure. We should have been allowed to get to grips with the important issues in the Bill.
  On that basis, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the Bill away and withdraw the timetable motion. He

  801
  should bring the Bill back next Session. Let us then consider it on the Floor of the House or under the new procedure.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an unhappy day for both sides of the House. It is more unhappy than is usual when an allocation of time motion is debated. There are guillotines and guillotines. There are guillotines which almost everybody can foresee from the Second Reading of a Bill onwards, when the Opposition, as they are entitled to, take an attitude of total opposition and, making no bones about it, say that they intend to use the time weapon in order to destroy that legislation. In such cases it has been recognised for many years that if a Government are to govern they must seek the assistance of the House as a whole in providing a timetable for that legislation.
  This legislation is not of that kind. It is true that at a certain stage in its progress the Opposition intimated that they were so gravely in disagreement with it that they would look to substantial repeal, if and when they had the opportunity. Yet I think that neither I—and I have attended most of the hours of sitting of the Committee—nor most other members of the Committee could perceive any difference in the manner in which amendments and principles were discussed previously and subsequently to that declaration. The nature of the opposition to the Bill was not of a political or partisan character, nor was it so determined that a guillotine was inevitable.
  This belongs to that much smaller class of guillotines, the guillotines that nobody wanted and which in retrospect we shall regret. In particular this is a guillotine which comes after most of the major issues of principle in the Bill have been discussed in Committee and disposed of. I must protest against the mathematical calculations which the Leader of the House was advised to offer. For example, the right hon. Gentleman divided the number of clauses disposed of already into the total number of clauses in the Bill, whereas in the Bill, as in most Bills, a large number of clauses towards the end are either formal or such as to attract little or no amendment or debate.
  Again, it is true—and the Leader of the House referred to it—that part II reproduces, though in a different context, much that has already been debated and disposed of in the provisions of part I. The Leader of the House was, however, unfair to cite the fact that the Opposition tabled corresponding amendments to the second part of the Bill to those which had been debated on the first part as indicating a deliberate intention to waste the time of the Committee and to protract proceedings. Indeed, they had no choice—unless they were to be ridiculous—but to table the same amendments to part II; for otherwise they would have been told that they did not mean what they said when part I was debated. Yet it is clear that the Committee is disposed to treat the amendments to part II not precisely as consequential, in the technical sense of the term, but as dealing with matters largely debated and disposed of already.
  Five out of six of the really major issues of citizenship in the Bill have now been fully debated, and the Committee has left them behind—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Powell: I see a head being shaken on the Government Front Bench. One could argue a little about the exact fraction, but certainly the great majority of the major issues of principle, issues which it would have been disgraceful not to debate in Committee at full length, already lie behind the Committee. This guillotine is being introduced, therefore, after most of the more difficult parts of the Bill have been dealt with.
  The guillotine is a confession of failure, a confession that the House, on both sides, has wished to deal with a Bill of major constitutional importance without artificial restraints upon the way in which it is debated—especially as it was taken upstairs and not, like the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, kept on the Floor of the House, and has found itself frustrated in that desire. The Bill, then, falls into the category of guillotines—like that imposed at a very late stage on the European Assembly Elections Bill in the previous Parliament—which are confessions of failure.
  So let us examine why the House, in Committee and on the Floor, has failed in achieving its undoubted intention of dealing with this constitutional measure with full responsibility and without artificial limitation of time.
  I do not believe that the fault lies with procedure. Some commentators out of doors have suggested that we should be using a different type of Committee for the consideration of the Bill. To me it is preposterous to suggest that we would have made better progress—and I deny that we have made bad progress—if we had been able to have a number of additional sittings in which outside witnesses could have been interrogated.
  Indeed, I would go further. The illumination which the Committee stage of a Bill such as this is intended to produce is obtained primarily by debate. It is obtained primarily by a confrontation in political debate, because this is essentially a political Bill. We are not in much doubt or dispute about the legalities or the facts. The numerical and legal facts that we lacked were provided as we went along by the Government and are not in question. The debate is about political intentions, about the political principles of citizenship.
  Whatever may be the other uses of the experimental new procedure—of which I personally have little hope— I cannot believe that it would have contributed to the acceleration or the improvement of our procedure on this Bill. To complain of the procedure and say that we should change the rules is like those who have been spectators or participants in an unhappy match wanting the rules of the game itself to be changed. What we ought to do, and what it would be more useful for us to do, is to examine what went wrong with this particular game. I would like briefly to try to do that.
  The blame must primarily, although not exclusively, rest with the Government. The Government knew what they were about when they embarked upon this legislation. They had in mind the stop lines or dates at which certain stages were to be accomplished if the Bill was to reach the statute book by October. Nevertheless, the Second Reading did not take place until 28 January. One must put it on record that for a Government to come to the House at the end of April for an allocation of time motion on a. Bill like this—the most important Bill of the Session—when the Bill only received its Second Reading at the end of January is a confession of faulty tactics. For I challenge disagreement with the statement that this is indeed the most important Bill of the Session. In fact, it

  803
  is arguably the most important Bill of several Sessions, dealing as it does with the definition of our citizenship itself.
  In retrospect, had the Government allowed the extra month or six weeks which it was fully within their power to allow in planning their business for this Session, I cannot believe—and I think everyone who has been on the Committee on both sides would agree—that in that case we would have seen an allocation of time motion. Most of us who have lived through the sittings of the Committee as the Bill has gone on have had in our minds an estimate of probability that the proceedings in Committee would be completed somewhere around Whitsun at the rate at which we were proceeding with the major issues. So we are reaping now the fruits of a misjudgment in the planning of the Session and the placing of this outstandingly important Bill.
  Mr. Mates: How can the right hon. Gentleman, having sat, as I have, through all these sittings, concede, as I believe he has conceded, that the Opposition, in the way that they were deliberately delaying our proceedings and wasting our time would ever have let the Bill come out of Committee, whether or not it had gone in six weeks earlier? Is it not the case that they have made plain their total opposition to the Bill and their desire and eagerness to use every single ruse at their parliamentary disposal to prevent the Bill from ever reaching even the end of the Committee stage?
  Mr. Powell: If that was the Opposition's intention, I must say they are far more incompetent than I take them for. If that is using "every single ruse" in the parliamentary rule book for holding up a Bill, the Government are going to have an easy ride in this Parliament.
  I have certain other criticisms to make, to which I will come in a moment; but let it be put on the record at the outset that it was the Government themselves who, on their own timetable and intentions, chose to deprive themselves of six weeks of debating time in Committee. That fact ought to influence the mind of the House when it is considering this motion.
  There were other, but minor, tactical errors, and I will mention only one. The Leader of the House referred to the point of time at which the sittings of the Committee were extended. There was misjudgment there. It would have been wise to wait substantially longer before extension into the afternoon and evening, which would undoubtedly eventually be necessary, was introduced. There is a Parkinson's law, whether we like it or not, which applies to an Opposition who are in no way obstructive. If hon. Members know that they have all the evening in front of them, it is human nature to use all the evening. That has nothing whatsoever to do with deliberate obstruction. The House and the Committees of the House know perfectly well that they debate best when they are under some degree of pressure of time and when the end of the sitting is visible as the debate proceeds.
  In my view, that pressure was removed far too early. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of sittings which it had then taken to dispose of clause 1. But he did not refer to the fact that at least three of the absolutely outstanding principles of the Bill are in clause 1, and had been disposed of in the debates on that clause.
  804
  At that point of time it was particularly unwise to have attempted, not very successfully, by lengthening the daily sittings, to accelerate the proceedings of the Committee.
  I come to a matter in which responsibility is shared by both sides of the House. Everyone knows that in this House we get our business through most successfully when there is some degree of understanding between the two sides. I refer to a sort of understanding which is perfectly compatible with bitter parliamentary hostility and antagonism but still is understanding for the purpose of making things work. Considering that both sides of the House—and neither of them would deny this—devoutly hoped that this Bill, of all Bills, could be passed without the guillotine, the fact that we have this motion today is a sign of the breakdown of that understanding which ought to have existed and which the House was entitled to expect.
  At the first sitting of the Committee upstairs I expressed regret that the Home Secretary himself was not taking charge of the Bill in Committee. I am sure that the Minister, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), will accept that this is in no way in derogation of himself or his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; but that the Home Secretary should not personally be in charge of every stage of a Bill of this importance is out of all normal convention and expectation. This is not only his Bill of the Session; this is his Bill of the Parliament. If the Home Secretary himself had been in charge of the Committee it would have been far easier to have obtained that understanding, in the sense that I have defined it, which was necessary if the House was going to achieve what it wanted to.
  In order to have an understanding, however, there must be two parties to it, and I do not feel that the Committee had the advantage of full leadership in Committee from the Front Bench of the Opposition. I know a lot of jocular remarks are made when a right hon. or hon. Gentleman has occasion to absent himself from the proceedings of the Committee. But on a Bill of this importance the Committee would have been helped, and the necessary understanding would have been easier to obtain, if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—even if the Home Secretary was going to be absent—had found it possible to give to the Bill—which after all is just as important for him as it is for the Home Secretary—his undivided and continuous attention.
  What happened in Committee was not that there was filibustering. Some speeches were longer than they needed to have been—if anyone wishes to say that that included some of mine, so be it—but certainly that was not through any intention to delay proceedings. What there has not been, on either side of the Committee, is that deliberate leadership which alone would have made it possible for a Bill of this importance, a Bill that ought to have been taken on the Floor of the House, to have emerged from Committee without the necessity for this allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Powell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to conclude my remarks.
  The House should reflect upon that and try to draw a lesson from it for the future; for though we shall have

  805
  many allocation of time motions in future, I do not believe that we shall want to come to an allocation of time motion again on a Bill like this.
  As a final and separate point, I do not consider that the proposed allocation of time for the remaining stages—three days on the Floor of the House for the Report and Third Reading—is adequate for the importance of the Bill. Many matters which have been dealt with in Committee will not be selected for a debate by yourself, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your discretion; but it is right that the House as a whole should be able to debate, though more briefly, all the great principles of the Bill that the Committee has debated at greater length. I do not think that will be possible in three days up to midnight, and I consider that an additional blemish upon a motion which the House as a whole, if it passes it, will pass with regret and with a sense that it has failed in an attempt to which it had set its mind.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), particularly when he is making a contribution about House of Commons matters. As is his custom, he has spoken to us with great logic and clarity. However, perhaps rarely for him, he has not gone quite as far into one of the subjects he mentioned as he might have done.
  The right hon. Gentleman took both sides of the House to task for the lack of understanding between them about the progress that might have been made. When he said that they had failed to come to an agreement I wondered who he meant by "they". He could have been referring to the usual channels operating between the Government Front Bench and the official Opposition. He could have meant a deep difference of opinion in procedure which developed throughout the Committee proceedings between the official Opposition and the official opposition to the Opposition which has been coming from those below the Gangway, or the official opposition to the Opposition in the shape of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who left his party during the Committee proceedings.
  One major reason why there has been so little progress is the complete absence of agreement from the Opposition as to what progress, if any, is to be made. I make a distinction between the reasonably responsible attitude which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has sometimes shown as to progress and the totally unreasonable attitude of the hon. Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Barking (Miss Richardson), who are determined that no progress shall be made at any time in any circumstances. Into that latter bracket must come, if only by virtue of the length of his contributions, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
  It is this total disarray in the Opposition, which is not unknown to us, which has caused the Government inevitably to bring forward this timetable motion. Having sat through almost all the proceedings, as have most of my hon. Friends, I can say with heartfelt feeling that it has come not a moment too soon.
  It is beyond doubt that more progress could have been made if all the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South had been adhered to. If the Opposition intended to make sensible and responsible
  806
  progress on the Bill, we could now be three-quarters of the way through it, and we could be approaching the state of affairs that the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested, whereby the Bill could have been out by Whitsun, which has to be a target date if the Bill is not to be frustrated from becoming law in this Session.
  There is no reason why the Government on this Bill should be frustrated in their intention. It is an intention that the Government publicised well in advance and consulted about in avance. The Government have produced a Bill entirely in accordance with all the principles on which they were elected and in accordance with what they announced they would do.
  There is no question that the Bill has been rushed through. There is no question that any part of it needs to go through neglected, except by the deliberate choice of the Opposition to filibuster and to delay our proceedings by every means they can.
  I shall not go into all the examples; I shall just name one evening when we first decided to sit after dinner. In his usual robust way, the hon. Member for York said in my hearing to his chums "If they sit after dinner, I shall make damned sure they make no progress at all." The hon. Gentleman was as good as his word. He addressed us for an hour and 10 minutes. He was followed by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), who at one stage spoke for an hour and a quarter. For the first time I realised the literal meaning of being asleep on one's feet. At that stage all he was determined to do was to continue, not to make sensible argument or offer constructive suggestions. We adjourned that sitting shortly after two am. At the next sitting the hon. Gentleman was on his feet again from 10.30 until 11.10. The hon. Member for York followed him from 11.10 to 11.40. All this on an amendment about which they did not feel strongly enough to divide the Committee. If that is not the most blatant example of a waste of House of Commons time, I do not know what is.
  No one argues about clause 1. It is, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, at the heart of the whole debate and it is right that time was spent on it. That is why, in response to what the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, no closure was sought or wanted. If the Opposition's assertion that they would be a responsible Opposition over the Bill were true, there would be no need for any closures, but nor would we have dwelt on certain aspects at inordinate length.
  For how long did we discuss British Antarctic territory citizenship, although there are no citizens? We discussed it for well over an hour. We went over the whole course—igloos, penguins. That was not in the interest of constructive debate. There was a constructive point to be made—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The fact that schedule 6 included two territories that had no inhabitants was of great importance for judging the intention and theory behind the structure of the schedule and behind part II of the Bill and the creation of citizenship of the British dependent territories. The argument was pertinent to the whole question that was at issue.
  Mr. Mates: I was just at the point of acknowledging that when the right hon. Gentleman intervened. I will now repeat it. I said that there was some argument to be put; there was a point to be made, but not a point that need have

  807
  taken more than an hour of the Committee's time while we talked about penguins and igloos and potential citizens, and even at one stage what the rights of women might be in this territory which had no citizens. That was sheer frivolity and time-wasting. Although it might have amused us in a boring sitting, there is no excuse for it. Furthermore, those members of the public who listen to our proceedings must have found it very strange that we were wasting so much of our parliamentary time over such trivial matters.
  It is because the Opposition have failed to raise the level of their argument at any stage that we have had to grind on wasting time. I am talking here about the official Opposition. I might come later to what the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West said, which is quite different. He has a point of view that has nothing to do with the Opposition point of view. He has voted against the Opposition more times than have my hon. Friends.
  The official Opposition have no substantive argument. They fall back on what I can only call the scare tactics that they have used since the Bill's inception—that it is racist, sexist and unjust, and that they will repeal it and produce another in its place. What they did between 1974 and 1979 does not bear repeating, because they did nothing about this problem. They were afraid to tackle it. They had no intention of legislating on it because they knew that they would never get such legislation through Parliament. So they left it. Now, with the irresponsibility of Opposition, they are bold and brave and say "This is scandalous and we shall repeal it."
  I am sure many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall finish by asserting one or two of the facts about the Bill, as opposed to the myths, which is all we have had from the Opposition. If it were racist I should want nothing to do with it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not put his name to it and most of my hon. Friends would not be supporting it. It is not racist and it is not sexist. It is necessary and fair and it must be put on to the statute book. It must not be frustrated by the irresponsibility, time-wasting and frustrations of the Opposition who can only do that, given their divided approach to the Bill.
  We have been criticised for having improved the Bill. I am proud that we have improved it and that it is a better Bill than it was when it went into Committee. All the improvements and suggestions have come from the Conservative Benches and they have been accepted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the spirit in which they were offered. If I were to give one bit of advice to the Opposition it would be that they should offer constructive improvements, because they will find that the Conservatives will be more than ready to listen to them. They should not continue to waste our time and frustrate the intentions of the Government, who have a mandate for what they are doing.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. David Alton: Many hon. Members have already expressed the view that this legislation will cause much anxiety in the immigrant community, and for that reason alone considerable time should be spent by the House in considering the serious implications of the Bill.
  808
  Many in the immigrant community have expressed to me and to other hon. Members the view that the legislation is being rushed through with indecent haste. Sixty million people who live in Britain will have their rights affected by the Bill, because their nationality will be defined into new categories and many millions will be affected by the new rules proposed for acquiring United Kingdom citizenship. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that this is probably the most important Bill to be debated during the lifetime of this Parliament. It is certainly the most important Bill in the present Session. Therefore, the Government are dishonest to pretend that this is not a constitutional measure.
  From the beginning, we Liberals believed that it should have been treated as a constitutional measure and should have been handled by a Committee of the whole House. At least, it should have been sent to a Special Standing Committee or an ad hoc Select Committee, as urged by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party on Second Reading.
  Instead, when the Government introduced the Bill they decided that they would push it through as quickly as they could. With six months of the Session already gone they stuffed it into a Standing Committee and they have been reduced to introducing what can only be described as a squalid guillotine manoeuvre, effectively denying proper discussion of the most far reaching reforms. I remind the House that the Liberal Party was denied the opportunity to speak in Committee.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) of the Social Democrat Party, which has, I understand, some sort of friendly relationship with the hon. Gentleman's party—perhaps I am wrong—said earlier this week that nearly all the main issues of substance have already been discussed? To tell the House that this is a squalid measure curtailing discussion, when the vast bulk of things of importance have already been discussed, is quite misleading.
  Mr. Alton: I disagree with what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said outside the House, and will no doubt say so inside it later, that the Opposition believe that the issues involved in the Bill have not been adequately debated.
  The Liberal Party was denied the opportunity of sitting on the Committee considering the Bill. We polled about 4½ million votes—8 per cent. of those affected by the Bill supported my party at the last election. However, we were denied the opportunity of putting our view in Committee so we are more concerned about not having our views heard during the later stages.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House on how many occasions a Liberal Member occupied a seat in the Public Gallery to observe the proceedings in Committee, and to consider them so that he could discuss them afterwards with his colleagues? During the 30 or so sittings of the Committee which I have attended I have not seen any Liberal Member present.
  Mr. Alton: Hon. Members become members of a Committee to put a point of view. Members of the Liberal Party were denied the right to put that view. One can read

  809
  the Committee debates in Hansard and it is pointless to sit in the Public Gallery to listen to other people when one is denied the chance of putting a point of view.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Getleman will be aware that he is repeating a statement that we have heard many times before. On Second Reading he did not speak but the leader of his party spoke. Will he inform the House whether the leader of his party expressed an interest in sitting on the Committee?
  Mr. Alton: I should have thought that the hon. Member would know that leaders of parties do not sit on Standing Committees. We expressed a desire to participate in the Committee. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and to other hon. Members that the Liberal Party took it as a grave insult that we were not given the opportunity to have an hon. Member present in Committee. The Labour Party conspired in what I regard as an unholy alliance to bring about the selection of the right hon. Member for Down, South—who admittedly has a distinctive point of view to put, which most people know about. It seems odd that the right hon. Member was selected, thus preventing a Liberal Member from being selected.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May we lay this myth? In making the selection of the Committee there was one place available for minor parties. It rested between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and a Liberal Member. The name put forward by the Liberal Party was that of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who told the Opposition Whip "I do not want to be on this Bill. Press for my inclusion as much as you can, but make sure that I don't get on."
  Mr. Alton: I am surprised by that information from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will be aware that the Liberal Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), put my name forward for inclusion as a member of the Committee. Having gone to the trouble of reading Hansard, though not having been present at that meeting of the Committee, I see that the hon. Member for York said:
  "On the question of trying to censor the right hon. Gentleman's views,"—
  that is, the right hon. Member for Down, South—
  "I can only say that, as chairman of my party's home affairs committee, I was consulted about whether the right hon. Gentleman or some other hon. Member from the Liberal Party should be on the Committee. I gave it as my strong view that he ought to be on the Committee because he represents a distinct point of view which should be aired in the Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 26 February 1981; c. 205.]
  Mr. HattersleyThe hon. Gentleman is reckless in his use of other hon. Member's names in his cause. With reluctance, I point out that the leader of his party had a conversation with me about the membership of the Committee, but that was after the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had been nominated.
  The leader of the Liberal Party agreed with me that the complication and difficulty arose because the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was—I use the word with which the leader of the Liberal Party agreed—"equivocal" about his wish to sit on the Committee.
  Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the right hon. member for Sparkbrook for that information. He will realise that it is for the Liberal Party to decide who to nominate to serve on a Committee and not for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My name was submitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is a busy man and has many other functions to perform in the House. He was unable to provide the time necessary; time which I should happily have given to serve on the Committee. I can understand why the Labour Party was embarrassed because it voted for the right hon. Member for Down, South, despite his well-known views on the matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to disclose what goes on in a Committee unless that Committee has reported its findings to the House.
  Mr. Alton: I turn to the—
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Alton: I must make progress. The House would not forgive me if I took more time on a fairly irrelevant matter.
  It is far more important to discuss the consistency that my party has shown on race relations matters over many years. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook admitted recently that he was sorry that he had voted for the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. It might not be a bad thing to remind the House that the Liberal Party's view has been distinctive for one reason more than any other—it has been a consistent point of view.
  We opposed the shameful way in which the Labour Government rushed the pernicious and wicked 1968 Act through the House. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to an editorial in The Times of 20 April and I should like to quote from an editorial in Me Times on 2 March 1968 referring to the guillotine introduced to rush through the 1968 Act. The Times said
  "The Labour Party now has a new ideology. It doesn't any longer profess to believe in the equality of man. It doesn't even believe in the equality of British citizens. It believes in the equality of white British citizens."
  The Labour Government used methods in 1968 which have been disowned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but he voted for that legislation and the Act was one of the worst things that that Labour Governrnem did.
  The Liberal Party has been consistent. One can go back to the turn of the century, because in 1905 Asquith moved amendments to protect individual liberty against the Conservative Government's Aliens Bill—the first piece of pernicious legislation in this area.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Was it not a Liberal Government who introduce the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which was the beginning of the obnoxious system of immigration control to which the hon. Gentleman objects?
  Mr. Alton: I dispute that that was the beginning of this sort of legislation, but going down that road would probably serve no useful purpose.
  When talking about the shabby way in which the House and my party have been treated, I must emphasise the fears and anxieties of those within the immigrant community. I represent some, and others have written to me from all

  811
  over the country to say that they regard the nationality law as a running sore and a reason why there will be greater problems in immigrant communities in future.
  Rushing the legislation through by use of the guillotine will cause long-term harm. There is no urgent reason why the legislation should be carried in the current Session. It is clear from the Committee proceedings that much has been proposed in the Bill that is inherently unsound and the Government should have the good grace to learn from their mistakes and start again.
  The Government should introduce redrafted legislation at the start of the next Session and discuss it on the Floor of the House, as befits constitutional matters, or at least send it to a Special Standing Committee that could hear evidence from witnesses and get itself fully briefed on the technicalities and complexities of this difficult subject. Instead, we are faced with a shameful manoeuvre, legislation which has not been properly discussed, a further loss of friends abroad and the likelihood of a string of court cases consequent on ill-digested legislation, leading to suffering and confusion.
  I urge the Minister of State to consider some of the points that I have made, to think again about nationality law, and to consider the harmful and damaging effects that the Bill will have on good race relations.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I strongly agree with the attack of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on the principle of Select Committees for a Bill of this nature. In the previous Parliament he and I were on the same side in that argument, supported only by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—a combination which made me temporarily reconsider my position.
  I wish to speak not about the nature and character of the Bill, but about the motion, because it concerns me. Like my hon. Friends and, I suspect, a number of other hon. Members, I strongly support the principle contained in the Bill. The 1948 Act was out of date within a year, when India became a republic. Since then, successive Governments have either tinkered with the subject or ignored it. Having seen its implications, its scale and problems, they have said, in effect, that they did not wish to handle something so fundamental, important, difficult and controversial.
  When, in Opposition, some of my colleagues were dealing with the matter and trying to produce new proposals, their work was at least based on the idea that an understanding on the definition of British citizenship should be reached for the first time.
  I approve of the Bill in principle, but I come back to the motion before us. My dislike of the principle of Select Committees is matched by an increasing dislike of the situation in which important Bills somehow disappear into Standing Committee and the rest of us occasionally hear echoes and rumours and perhaps see reports in the press about what is happening to the legislation.
  I have told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others that four major items in the Bill cause me concern and that Back Benchers who are not on the Standing Committee should have the right to speak about and vote on them. Those issues are the right of appeal, the problems concerning the language and character tests, the
  812
  cost of naturalisation and the complex and difficult issue of the category of British overseas citizens. I will not deal with those issues now, but I emphasise that they are the sort of issues that hon. Members who are not on the Committee must have the right to debate and vote on.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the fact that we shall have 24 hours of debate on Report, but I ask the Government to consider carefully in the Business Committee the manner in which the time is arranged, so that key questions that do not go to the principle of the Bill but are central to its effectiveness and support—the Bill would have substantial support in the country if those key issues were agreed—can be properly debated.
  I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to look at the question of selection. Many years ago I was an Officer of the House and the question of selection troubled me at that time, because the principle that when a matter has been discussed exhaustively in Committee it cannot be debated on the Floor of the House is a serious limitation on the rights and privileges of hon. Members. I know that selection is a matter for the Chair, but I take the opportunity to ask that the discretion of the Chair should be exercised in the recognition that the issues that I have identified are important subjects on which hon. Members who are not on the Standing Committee should have the right to speak and vote.
  I support the motion, because I believe that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) have merit in relation to the Committee proceedings and I am glad that we shall have on Report a reasonable time t debate important issues, provided that the selection of the Chair is reasonable to all hon. Members.
  There is a certain dreariness about guillotine debates, a certain exchange of reminiscences about how many guillotines took place many years ago and how many were introduced by Mr. Asquith and about Lord Randolph's attack on the closure—"la cloture". I could go on in historical vein. This debate has been characterised by a real concern lest the House could be accused of not having sufficiently debated one of the most significant and important measures of this Parliament.
  In supporting the motion, and in thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, particularly for the time that is to be allowed for Report, I want to emphasise the general point that few things are more frustrating for a Back-Bench Member than to be unable to contribute to the proceedings on a Bill in Committee and then be denied the opportunity to contribute when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. The Transport Bill, and the issue of seat belts, was a recent example of that dilemma. I commend the motion to the House.
  5.01 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I was fortunate to be one of the Members who served on the Standing Committee on the British Nationality Bill. The description of the proceedings given earlier by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) was slightly alarming. He seemed to serve on a different Committee.
  An interesting aspect of the debates in Committee was the diversity of views expressed by Members on both sides of the political divide. It was enriching and valuable that a sterile unanimity of opinion was not forced upon us.
  Mr. Mates indicated assent.
  Mr. Dubs: The hon. Member for Petersfield nods in agreement, yet he criticised Labour Members for showing less than a total unanimity in their approach to the Bill.
  Mr. Mates: I echo what the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) says. We had good and stimulating debates, in which sharp differences of opinion were properly and clearly expressed. Alas, those debates were interspersed with hour upon hour of useless tedium. That is why the motion is before the House.
  Mr. Dubs: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned two of my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Barking (Miss Richardson), suggesting that their views were different and that they had wasted time. My criticism would be that my hon. Friends spoke too little, because their contributions were very brief. I am sorry that they did not have more opportunity to develop their arguments in Committee.
  The diversity of opinion in Committee accounted for some of the time that was taken. It was not a matter of filibustering or of speeches that were devoid of content or argument. It was quite the reverse; we were dealing with issues that were important and absorbing, and which we felt deserved detailed scrutiny. If the motion is passed today, I fear that we shall be unable to do our duty in subjecting the remaining clauses to the detailed scrutiny that they require.
  Our fault, if any, in Committee was that we did not subject the Bill to a sufficiently detailed scrutiny. I fear that some clauses that were passed may contain the seeds of future problems, which a more detailed analysis by the Standing Committee might have averted.
  The Government appear to have approached the Bill in an ill-prepared manner. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that if the Government had wanted to avoid their present difficulty they would have had the Second Reading of the Bill well before the end of January. It was common gossip among Members around Christmas that the Bill would not be brought forward this Session because it had not been presented to the House by Christmas. Many of us were amazed that the Bill had not appeared and wondered whether the Government were having such drafting difficulties that they could not present the Bill this Session. When the Bill finally appeared, we were amazed that the Government were chancing their arm in that way, because the difficulties that we are now discussing were evident and common knowledge among hon. Members as long ago as January, when we had the Second Reading of the Bill.
  It is therefore not surprising that the Government were criticised in Committee for not having consulted Commonwealth Governments and others properly since they could then have argued with more conviction than they were able to do in Committee. One can only attribute that to the Government's anxiety to get the Bill through, having introduced it late.
  Mention has been made of the time that we spent on the clause and schedule dealing with two territories that have no resident population. However, it was the sheer absurdity of the issue that made us spend time arguing it. On that issue, as on several others, the Government clearly lost the argument but forced it through on a vote. I wish that some members of the Committee had voted in the way that they argued. Time and again, some Government Back
  814
  Benchers—I exempt the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) from my criticism—tabled amendments, argued them forcefully, and then voted in the opposite direction. That is one reason why we took so long. Votes did not always follow the drift of the speeches.
  Will the Government clarify something that has been bothering us? It has been the subject of rumour and speculation. Is it true that the Government are anxious to introduce a timetable motion today because they want the House to go into Summer Recess not only before the Royal wedding but at least a week before? That may not be true, but it may be one reason why the Government have shown so much haste.
  There is much anxiety about the Bill in the country. Those of us who have Asians in our constituencies have had numerous meetings and discussions in an attempt to allay some of the fears felt by Asians and some of the misunderstandings that exist about this legislation. Nevertheless, many of the fears expressed are legitimate. There is a feeling that the Government are pushing through a measure which contains major racist elements. It is for that reason, if for no other, that I regret the Government's decision to shorten the debate on this important and critical measure.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: I agree with one comment of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), namely, that there is deep concern among ethnic communities. I shall return to that matter later in my brief intervention.
  It was my impression that there was a wide measure of agreement within the community that a British Nationality Bill was needed, and that a Bill was needed much along the lines of the one that has been presented to the House by this Government. My appreciation of that need stems largely from the many years during which I had the privilege to serve overseas, recognising that Britain, almost alone of the major countries of the world, did riot have a citizenship of its own. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies was defunct within 12 months of its creation, and as the legislation accreted from Governments of both complexions, that citizenship steadily became more and more invalid. It simply did not work. Therefore, I had every hope that the Bill would have a smooth passage through the House.
  Given the attitude of the Labour Party and the former Labour Government, there was some ground for expressing that hope. For example, as long ago as February 1974 the Labour Party manifesto promised to review the requirements of British citizenship. We well know the difficulties that the Labour Government encountered. They therefore turned away from the problems that they saw and failed to grasp the nettle. Instead, in 1977 they produced a Green Paper, which, even then, said:
  "there must be a more meaningful citizenship for those who have close links with the United Kingdom … and who can be expected to identify themselves with British society.
  The Government's White Paper closely followed the lines of that Green Paper and, indeed, in a number of respects moved to take account of the anxieties which had been reflected among the immigrant communities. I mention as an example the treatment of dual nationality

  815
  which took full and sympathetic account of the special concerns of people who have come here from the Indian Subcontinent. There therefore seemed to be further grounds to hope that on this deeply important measure there could be all-party agreement.
  In expressing and cherishing that hope, however, one did so without recognition of the change in the Labour Party. Over the past two years, if any issue has been a litmus test of how the present Labour Party differs from all that went before, it is its performance on this measure. We all know the very delicate sensitivity of community and communal relations. The problem is not confined to Britain. Nor is it confined to any one colour. We know well the problems in the United States. In many parts of the Commonwealth, too, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, we know of the tremendous problems and indeed the loss of millions of lives caused by communal tensions.
  Therefore, in our own multi-racial society, the question of citizenship inevitably involves very delicate treatment of sensibilities, sensitivities and community relationships, which should not be an area in which politics are played. Sadly, however, all too many members of the Labour Party and, perhaps, some of the other opposition parties too, have not taken that view.
  Quite apart from the problems of the parliamentary timetable, which must be of great concern to the House, and which were so well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I suggest that there is an extra-parliamentary dimension—a national dimension. That national dimension has been made more important and more sensitive by the activities of so many people representing the Labour Party interest. Not all of them are in the House, but many of them are and, I suspect, many actually served on the Committee. The longer those uncertainties are allowed to continue, the more damage will be done to community relations in this country.
  I give as an example a handbill issued by an organisation calling itself the Council for Racial Equality, which operates from 679 Fulham Road. This says that the British Nationality Bill equals the pass law and the council advertises a meeting to stop this "new racist Nationality law" to be held, with the attendance of local Members of Parliament, at the Shepherd's Bush baptist church. I have no idea whether any local Members of Parliament from the Shepherd's Bush area attended that meeting, but all indications suggest that that is typical of the kind of problem with which we have to deal.
  The many immigrants from a variety of countries in my constituency have been deeply disturbed by these uncertainties. It is inevitable that people should be concerned and worried about an issue of this kind, but the extent of the concern has been immensely exacerbated by members of the Opposition. For that very reason, a measured timetable must be applied to this legislation. To suggest that what is offered is unreasonable is itself without logic. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—I shall not hold him precisely to his arithmetic—suggested that we had accomplished about five-sixths of the major principles of the Bill. I think that that was his basic point. We are being offered about 45 more hours in Committee to complete the other one-sixth, not to mention 25 hours or so on Report. It seems to me
  816
  entirely reasonable that that amount of time should be allotted and that the parliamentary process should then be completed.
  I believe passionately that this long delay is damaging. If this measure is dragged out, let alone being allowed to die and then reintroduced next Session, it will exacerbate still further the already very serious harm that has been done to race relations in this country. That harm has not been done by the measure itself, because by no stretch of the imagination is it a sexist or a racist measure. It is an entirely fair and necessary Bill. We shall do great harm to community relations in this country if we allow those who have gone about laying the fuel which has already been ignited by the extremists more time to distribute more fuel which will lead to more conflagrations.
  When this Parliament settles the Bill and it becomes an Act, the Government and all of us in this country who feel deeply about the importance of creating a harmonious Britain will have a great job to do in clearing up the mess caused by irresponsibility to which so many members of the Labour Party have contributed.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Edwards Lyons: It is 33 years since we passed the last British Nationality Act and it may be as long or longer before we pass another. In that context, it is clear that we must get things right in the best way that we can. Time is essential for the consideration of so complicated a measure.
  It is interesting that in Committee both Government and Opposition were fragmented from time to time. It has not been made clear that many amendments were put down not by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Speeches supporting those amendments were quite properly made by them and took a considerable time. There were switches in alliances on different issues. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), for example, was sometimes a general for the ranks of Tory dissidents, at other times a colonel in the Official Opposition. That in itself shows how complicated the Bill is.
  Although there were occasions when the Opposition could have been briefer without sacrificing the points that they were making, it is also true that the Bill was brought to the House far too late. The Committee began to sit only on 10 February, and it should have been obvious that it would involve considerable pressure.
  The Bill affects many millions of people, and many people fear its consequences. Sometimes they have a good reason to be fearful; in other cases it is perhaps because of a misunderstanding. None the less, there is widespread public anxiety about the Bill.
  Members of the Committee are receiving and have received many representations about the Bill from diverse kinds of people. They have received representations from large numbers of British expatriates living abroad and from people in Hong Kong, whose Commissioner has sat through large parts of the proceedings on the Bill, and there has been at least one Gibraltarian politician of eminence sitting in the Public Gallery. Academics have written to hon. Members about it. We have had numerous letters from those concerned with the status and rights of ethnic minorities in this country. We have had letters from

  817
  South America, from Belgium and from other places abroad. When we see that interest, we realise the wide scope of the Bill.
  The groups affected by the Bill include not only East Africans Asians living in East Africa and India and holding United Kingdom passports but children born here of parents whose citizenship status is not clear. The grandchildren of British people living here who will be born abroad have a suspect or difficult status under the Bill. The future grandparents are already writing to express concern. Wives of United Kingdom citizens living here, who are entitled to register as British citizens, will have a time limit under the Bill within which they can register. Therefore, large groups of people are concerned about the Bill.
  The Bill has not been thought through properly. It is idle for the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) to say that all the amendments to improve the Bill came from the Government. I shall give two examples to show how wrong he is. An amendment tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) pointed out that under clause 3(2) (b) a British citizen mother had to be working on the day that she gave birth to a child before her child born abroad could be a British citizen. That was nonsense, and the point had been totally missed. The Government have now said that they will take back clause 3 and put it right. That did not come originally from the Government.
  My other example is to the credit of Conservative Back Benchers as well as of Opposition Members. According to the Bill as it emerged from the Government, people in this country who would have a right to registration at the time the Bill became law were to be given two years' grace in which to continue to be able to register. There was opposition to that. The Official Opposition took the view that there should be no time limit for such people to apply for registration after the Bill became law—a view with which I agreed. I tabled an amendment to the effect that, if the official Opposition's amendment failed, there should be a period of eight years in which to apply. That was rejected. A further amendment, in the names of two Conservative Members and myself, to the effect that it should be five years instead of two years, succeeded after a long debate, when the Government changed their mind. In other words, combined pressure from Opposition and Government Back Benchers succeeded in persuading the Government to change their mind.
  There we see the advantage of a thorough investigation of the issues, of a line-by-line scrutiny of a Bill in order to improve it. The Government have changed their minds as a result of amendments and proposals from each side of the Committee. That has to be borne in mind, because there is, happily, not too much discipline on either side in Committee.
  The Government know that many people believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Bill is racialist. The Government know that they are getting a very bad press because of the Bill. It would have been much better for the Government, as well as for the quality and condition of the Bill, if a sensible arrangement could have been reached with the Opposition at an earlier stage so that, instead of having too much unnecessary talk, all important items in the Bill could have been discussed.
  There are still some important matters to be dealt with. The Government have no intention whatever of allowing any right of appeal against any decision by the Secretary
  818
  of State on any matter arising out of the Bill. It is still a provision in the Bill—it has not yet been debated—that there shall be no obligation on the Secretary of State to give any reason for any refusal of any application under the Bill. Those are serious matters and give rise to grave unease and concern. The Government should make it absolutely certain that matters of that kind receive adequate attention and considerable practical scrutiny. As a result of the failure of the two sides to reach a sensible arrangement about the time available, we shall run the risk that substantial parts of the remainder of the Bill will receive no consideration whatever.
  We have seen the old parliamentary game. The Committee was obliged to sit until 2 am and until 4 am, not because it was necessary but because the Government needed to bring up their Chief Whip to go through the usual ritual to prove that there was not enough time to complete the Bill. We were kept up deliberately until 4 am in fulfilment of an old parliamentary ritual, because that is what has to be done before a guillotine motion is introduced. When we were kept up, for no apparent reason, until 4 am, it occurred to me that we were playing the old ping-pong game between the two sides, and that ammunition was being gathered for the purpose of founding a guillotine motion. So it has proved.
  The people abroad, the British people living in this country who are affected by the Bill, and the people yet unborn who are affected by it, are entitled to expect the House of Commons to behave in a mature and adult way in considering a Bill as important and crucial as this one. They are entitled to be disappointed that no agreement has been reached to ensure the maximum scrutiny of every important item in the Bill.
  It now appears that large parts of the Bill may receive no scrutiny whatever. I do not consider three days on Report to be adequate. It has become clearer and clearer in Committee—to the civil servants, to the Ministers and to the rest of us—that the Bill contains many hidden pitfalls and complications. It is essential, therefore, that the remaining parts of it should receive proper and detailed scrutiny.
  The Government have done a great disservice to race relations. However innocent the Government may consider the Bill to be, they know that many people will think—and will be encouraged to think—that the reason why the discussion is being truncated is that the Government want to get rid of a Bill that is causing them so much embarrassment and to have it removed as quickly as possible from public scrutiny.
  Mr. Mates: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lyons: The hon. Member for Petersfield asks me to give way and I am happy to do so, but when I listened to his speech this afternoon I was surprised at his apparent intimate knowledge of what went on in the Committee. My recollection of him is one of a large bulky form which dashed in to vote in Divisions. I did not see much of him during our deliberations. What he said about the hon. Lady, the Member for Barking was nonsense. No one has been more careful in her contributions to the Bill.
  Mr. Mates: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that, like him, I am involved in another

  819
  Committee. That accounts for the absence of both of us on occasion. How many more hours do we need to discuss the Bill?
  Mr. Lyons: The hon. Gentleman has not said that I sought to prolong proceedings. Indeed, although my contributions were fairly frequent I sought to keep them to a reasonable length. I do not know how long discussion of the Bill will take. Even at this stage the Opposition Government should get together to ensure full discussion of all the major provisions that remain. Perhaps things would not be too bad if that were to happen. If we deal with the Bill chronologically, the crucial clauses at the end may not be discussed. Those clauses include not only important schedules, but provision for the denial of appeal as well as other provisions which may have serious implications.
  Mr. Mates: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are in substantial agreement. However, it is not for the Government and the Opposition to reach an agreement, but for the Opposition and those Opposition Members who sit below the Gangway to come to an agreement. That is the problem. If the final clauses are not to be left undiscussed, the further 60 hours of Committee proceedings could be sensibly allocated. As a result of the motion, that will be the amount of time left.
  Mr. Lyons: We shall have to see. If the Government had thought that 60 hours was an adequate time, they would not have introduced a guillotine motion. The Leader of the House did not allege that there had been filibustering by the Opposition, but the Government obviously believe that 60 hours is not adequate. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that 60 hours is sufficient, he will vote against the motion. That is the logic of his position. This motion will lead the public to believe that something improper is going on. They will believe that the House has let them down by not giving full and adequate consideration to the remainder of one of the most important Bills of the decade.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I do not share in all the strictures that have been levelled against the Opposition from this side of the House. This is a fiendishly complex Bill. We have probably never had to deal with such a difficult Bill within the normal confines of a parliamentary Session. The Bill contains intricate points, many of which involve technical and legal matters. Nevertheless, those points have political connotations. Therefore, it was impossible to allow further discussions without introducing some form of discipline.
  The Bill is complex. The immigration Acts sought to remedy some of the huge defects that arose because the Nationality Act 1948 had been almost strangled at birth. That Act remains our only expression of national identity. It was the only law to state who we were. Successive Governments failed to grasp the nettle and failed to see that a new nationality Bill was needed as a result of the dissolution of the Empire and the creation of the Commonwealth. Consequently, immigration problems became so urgent that the defects in our nationality law had to be dealt with by immigration Acts. I am not one of those who say that immigration has no significance as regards the nationality Bill.
  820
  I have given a little thought to this subject over the years and I believe that we piled up more and more problems for ourselves. For example, the concept of the right of abode in 1971 represented a brave attempt by the Conservative Government to narrow the definition of nationality down to the United Kingdom. That has caused tremendous problems for those framing the Bill and has led to problems in discussion and understanding. Independence Acts were passed in various colonies. Each provided for citizenship of that colony after independence had been gained, but paid inadequate regard to the problems of those who did not want, or could not gain, citizenship of that colony.
  Groups such as the so-called United Kingdom passport holders—the East African Asians—were created. On the whole, they were left out of independence Acts. At least one of our former colonies—Malawi—has a citizenship Act that is blatantly racial. A person may not hold citizenship of Malawi unless one of his parents is of African origin. Thus, many of those who lived as British subjects in Malawi when it was part of the British Empire were excluded from citizenship.
  What should we do about such problems? We bear some responsibility for them. As the years passed, greater problems arose which must now be unravelled. Although it is a "nationality" Bill, it does not contain a definition of a British national. It is taken for granted that British nationals are all those to whom the word "British" is to be applied. That involves millions of people around the world and not only those who have the privilege of living in Britain. International law, particularly that which governs responsibility towards refugees, may be involved. Millions of people may be dispossessed or driven out of their territories and may claim that as British nationals they are entitled to admission into the United Kingdom. That is another outstanding problem that the Bill does not deal with.
  The Bill is a brave attempt to deal with a difficult problem. It was impossible to put off a solution any longer. However, let us not pretend that the Bill is a complex solution and that there will not be many problems in future. Within the compass of a parliamentary Session we shall probably not get the Bill right, given the limited resources available to political parties. It is doubtful whether we have considered adequately all the ramifications of the Bill, even if we had continued our discussions, without some form of guillotine.
  I do not blame the Opposition for the way in which they behaved in Committee. They behaved as Opposition Members usually behave and are pledged to repeal the Bill. We should approach the guillotine motion with mixed feelings. The Bill is a difficult piece of legislation that needs great understanding. It will not be comprehensively understood by most of us. However, it cannot be said that there has not been an improvement, both in our understanding of the Bill and in its text, as a result of our discussions in Committee.
  As the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) said, opinions on various aspects of the Bill have cut across party lines, and the result must be improvements to the Bill. It has been, in general, a healthy forum, conducted in good spirits.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that we have probably covered about five-sixths of the basic principles. Nevertheless, we are only on clause 14 or 15 of a 50-clause bill. About three-quarters

  821
  of the text remains to be considered. The remaining opportunities for discussion and probing are vast, and no one can blame the Opposition for wishing to take advantage of them.
  Some Opposition Members spoke in Committee for much longer than necessary. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) has been indefatigable in speaking on so many points of the Bill with relevance, which is a great art. I admire hon. Members who, at the drop of a hat, can talk for hours about nothing yet remain within the rules of order, although I do not include the hon. Gentleman in that. He has spoken a great deal in Committee, but he keeps to the point. Indeed, our Chairmen have not had to devote too much effort to calling speakers to order.
  The guillotine motion is an unfortunate necessity. No one can be blamed for it. It is part of our system, because we insist on completing legislation within one Session. The motion was inevitable in a Bill of such complexity and such vast application. The Government could not risk losing such a vital Bill.
  Let me give an example to illustrate the difficulty. The Bill will be unjust to some Britons born abroad. Two classes of Briton are born abroad. The first is those immigrants who are now living in the country and are Britons by naturalisation or registration. Under the Bill, their children born abroad will be British citizens. The second class is Britons by descent, whose children born abroad will not be British. That great injustice, which contradicts all our history, must be remedied. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that he recognised that there is a legitimate grievance here, to which he has promised to pay attention before Report.
  I presented a petition to the House a couple of weeks ago from the British community of Venezuela, comprising about 85 people. They and their children were all born abroad, although they, as it were, are ethnic Britons. Their children will not be British in future, which is wrong. Those born abroad before the Bill takes effect should have the right of passing their citizenship to their children, as has been understood to be the case since time immemorial. I intend to continue to prod the Government on that, but it is only one problem to be resolved before the Bill becomes law.
  The Bill is vital and urgent, and we must pass it through the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In his impressive speech the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) mentioned five points about the Bill that concerned him greatly. Three remain to be debated in Committee, so it cannot be argued that we do not have serious matters left to discuss. However, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, a great many of the major principles have been discussed, which is one reason why we have taken so long.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge is in marked contrast with that of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), although the latter was at least pleasing in showing that he could speak. He cannot be accused of filibustering, as we have hardly heard from him in Committee. We heard from him today with a vengeance. He totally misrepresented the way that the Committee had approached its task, and showed that he had not been listening to the debates.
  822
  The hon. Member had one legitimate complaint. Some of us believe that to sit after dinner and into the middle of the night on a Bill of such complexity and importance is an impertinence to the subject and a gross abuse of our trust for those whose future will be decided by it. It is absurd to take late at night serious decisions that may prejudice the status of some people. Little progress was made late at night, but the hon. Gentleman's strictures are not relevant to the morning and afternoon debates, when we had proper discussions. On the first occasion that we decided to sit after dinner, the Minister conceded that, although we had spent six to 10 sittings on clause 1, there had been no filibustering. Some speeches had been lengthy, including those of the right hon. Member for Down, South and myself, but it was an important clause that merited serious discussion.
  We should have continued in that way had the sittings been at reasonable times, and the Government would have got the Bill out of Committee by Whitsun. They have achieved nothing by sitting into the middle of the night. The guillotine is giving them only one week's grace, in their timetable. Had the Bill been out of Committee by Whitsun, it could have been to the other place and back here by October.
  It is absurd to impose a guillotine on a Bill the history of which is complicated by the past errors of successive Governments. Since 1948, every Government have made errors of judgment on the subject. Had we, like the remainder of the Commonwealth in 1948, taken our own citizenship, we should not have had the problems of 1962, 1968, 1971 and today.
  We are having serious trouble with the Bill—not in defining who are our citizens—although some of the decisions taken by the Government have not helped that—but in deciding what will happen to those who will not be able to become British citizens but yet are our citizens because they hold current citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. That difficult) would not have arisen had we done the sensible thing in 1948.
  I had hoped that those who would discuss the Bill would do so on the basis of how we could best remedy the defects introduced by past Governments, principally those introduced in 1948. I hoped that we would start by saving that we would scrub everything clean, begin again and approach the matter from a sensible viewpoint.
  The Government began markedly badly by introducing a Bill that was, inevitably, branded as racist because one of their decisions had no relevance to the preceding discussion of the Green Paper or to any preceding discussion in the last Parliament—namely, the provision stating that those naturalised in Britain would not be able to pass their citizenship to children born abroad. That meant that there would be two brands of British citizenship. Because of that conflict we tried to get rid of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Government tried to reinterpret that as British citizenship. Therefore, the Bill began badly.
  The Government amended the clause so that the stigma of racialism was removed from the Bill. They made an important concession about the jus soli, but they did not remedy the major grievance that some people could be citizens by birth but others could not. It is not so much the category who will not be citizens by birth that is important, but rather the conflict and the uncertainty created in the minds of those settled here and who have children here. They feel that their children may not have the British

  823
  citizenship that they had anticipated. That dubiety will cause trouble in future. It may leave a legacy of distrust about the Bill. I hope that even at this stage the Government will think again.
  Apart from those two major concessions—both made before we even began to discuss the Bill—and despite all the hours spent discussing the issues, the Government did not make any concession, other than to extend the period for automatic registration from two years to five years. They made that concession only because two Conservative Members were proposing to vote against their Government. The Minister also agreed that he would reconsider the arguments about the sort of people who could achieve citizenship by descent under clause 3, and would report back before Report stage.
  During all the time spent discussing the Bill the Government made no other concessions. That was the pertinent point in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South. Oppositions have no weapon other than time if a Government are arrogant enough to say that they know best and will not concede in any way to the arguments put forward. Serious arguments and criticisms were put forward but met with no response from the Minister because he consistently took the view that he knew best. His reply to a debate was to say that if only people would think about it, they would recognise that his view was correct.
  People have thought about the issues. Many have thought a great deal more about them than has the Minister. They reached the conclusion that there are many areas of grievance in the Bill that could easily be remedied if only the Minister would accept that he was not always right. That attitude caused the lengthy after-dinner speeches and the resistance from the Opposition. No attempt was made to fulfil the promises that he made regularly. His words are repeated as he moves his lips, but they have no reflection in his mind. He was not prepared seriously to consider the weaknesses in the Bill.
  There are weaknesses in the Bill, and not only with regard to the jus soli provision. There is the question of naturalisation and the test for naturalisation, and the matter of individual colonial citizenship. Most important, there is the question that has always bedevilled any consideration of a new British citizenship, namely, the overseas British citizen. We have not begun our discussion of that part of the Bill. Apparently, there will be no concessions made there, either. Because of that, the Opposition resisted the Bill as best they could within the rules.
  If the Minister had been more considerate and more willing to consider the serious views put forward against certain aspects of the Bill, we would have been only too willing to co-operate. If we have now reached the stage where the Government feel that they must put a guillotine on a measure of such importance—a constitutional Bill about the future status of our citizens—we have done so only because of the obstinacy and obduracy of the Minister.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will not expect me to follow him in his remarks. I fear that he has inadvertently put the strongest argument yet for the timetable motion.
  824
  The Bill is necessary. I take off my hat to the Government for introducing it. The Home Secretary and the Minister have done an admirable job of both drafting and re-drafting in the light of comments from within and without the House. That reflects their good judgment and the positive contributions made by my hon. Friends in Committee.
  I have a qualm about the motion. I do not like timetable motions, because they are too often the resort of those who want to push through what they believe in, against the wishes of those who do not want it pushed through. The specific problem with this motion, compared with others proposed by both this and other Governments, is that, to a great degree, the others have been reactive. They have reacted to obstructive activities in Committee, either upstairs or on the Floor of the House. They have reacted to time wasting and to politically destructive actions by whichever party was in Opposition.
  Judged on what has been said both before and during the debate, I believe that this motion is to a large degree anticipatory of difficulties that may occur. Although the Government are right to anticipate difficulties because of the threats made by the Opposition even before the debate began, I nevertheless have more than normal qualms about the timetable for the Bill.
  There have been different assessments of the amount of time still required and of the work still to be done. Some say that part I is the major part of the Bill and is now out of the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) thought that five-sixths of the Bill had been debated. The Government suggest that 60 hours are required. That sounds a great deal of time, and time will tell whether it is sufficient. I hope that that will be the case. I should prefer the Government to allow time to tell whether that is sufficient for the Bill to go through the due process of debate both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
  In this debate we must each make our personal assessment. We must strike a balance between supporting the Government in putting through their legislative programme, which they were mandated to do by the thorough-going majority that the Conservative Party obtained at the general election, and showing concern for the means that are used to achieve that end. At the same time, we must also be concerned about the parliamentary means of obtaining the end result. The means are crucial in our role as representatives of our constituents and in expressing our individual and accumulated personal judgment, whatever that may be. Therefore, we should be allowed the maximum time for debate.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Rathbone: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I am under pressure of time. I know that my right hon. Friend wishes to begin his reply very shortly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington expressed mixed feelings about the motion. I believe that those feelings are shared by many hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure me on the ground of striking a balance between getting the Government's legislation enacted and having a proper parliamentary debate. By reassuring me that that balance has been achieved he may reassure others, which may lead to converts on the Opposition Benches.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I shall not follow directly the path outlined by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I shall take up briefly one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). Like my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), I was bemused by the comments of the hon. Member for Petersfield. He did not appear in Committee often and when he was there he did not make many positive and telling contributions. His accusation that the Opposition—whether the official Opposition or not—were filibustering is not true and he knows it. The Leader of the House may wish to know that often it was only the presence of the official Opposition that provided a quorum.
  Mr. Mates: Never. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marshall: No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I repeat that on a number of occasions members of the official Opposition provided a quorum while Conservative Members appeared in other Committee rooms along the Corridor.
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Mr. Marshall: I hope that the hon. Member will sit down. The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to Opposition Members advancing certain points of view. I am sure that Ministers will appreciate that it is the role of Opposition Members sometimes to advance points of view with which perhaps they do not wholly agree. On occasions we have to act as spokesmen for outside pressure groups. For the hon. Gentleman of all people to condemn Opposition Members for taking that stance when he, together with the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), has been a principal spokesman for the largest pressure group of all—namely, the Government of Hong Kong—is the height of hypocrisy. I wish that the hon. Member for Wycombe were in the Chamber to hear me charge him with hypocrisy.
  Mr. Stanbrook: We shall tell him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An hon. Member cannot be hypocritical personally. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the assertion.
  Mr. Marshall: I shall withdraw the remark if the hon. Gentleman cannot be hypocritical. I suggest that on occasions he has come close to being so in Committee. However, I withdraw the charge.
  This is a major constitutional issue. It is the most important one that this Parliament is likely to face. I regret that the Government ignored the many pleas to debate the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. I am driven to the conclusion that one of the reasons why they wished the Bill to be considered in Standing Committee was that they thought that that would hide it from the public's gaze.
  We are told after a few weeks in Committee that we shall have to have a guillotine motion even though the Leader of the House accepts that there has been no filibustering. We have sought in Committee to discuss the principles contained in the Bill and the fine detail.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Marshall: No. I have refused to give way to the hon. Member for Petersfield so I cannot give way to my hon. Friend.
  The Government have been driven to table amendments to the Bill as a result of the Opposition's probing. However, they have not been prepared to lose face by accepting that the Opposition were responsible for highlighting the faults, even though we were. Once the faults were highlighted they amended the Bill. They were prepared to give the credit to Conservative Members. I can assure the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garet-Jones) that the more edgy he becomes while in his place the less likely he is to participate in the debate.
  I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—namely, that the Government are up against a problem of their own making. They accepted that the Bill would be the principal feature of their legislation this year, but they left its Second Reading until the end of January. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that we should have had Second Reading very soon after the Queen's Speech in 1980.
  The Government's problems are made worse by their desire to get away from the House of Commons early for the Summer Recess. I do not know whether they wish to go on holiday early or to attend the Royal Wedding, but, there is no doubt that their desire to be away from this place is making their difficulties worse.
  Contrary to what has been said, the guillotine will fall at a time opportune to the Government. We are about to consider in Committee the racist core of the Bill—-British dependent territories citizenship and British overseas citizenship. When the guillotine falls it will enable the Government to curtail discussion.
  Despite what Conservative Members have said, the proposed legislation would codify the 1962, 1968 and 1971 Immigration Acts. Perhaps the Government will take comfort from the fact that they are no longer likely to experience embarrassment in their dealings with foreign Governments and colonial Governments. However, they will further damage Britain's already tarnished reputation. The Government must have been overwhelmed by the barrage of criticism that the Bill has attracted from minority groups, from various denominations and from both foreign and colonial Governments.
  After searching questions in Committee, we are infuriated by the Minister of State suggesting in many of his replies that there has been a lack of adequate consultation and discussion with foreign and colonial Governments. He said as late as Tuesday of this week that it is his hope—a pious hope—that no citizen of British dependent territories will actually be stateless. However, he cannot say categorically that that will not happen. He cannot say that every citizen of the British dependent territories will have the right of abode in a particular dependency.
  I charge the Government with taking a high-handed and cavalier attitude to foreign Governments, especially to the Government of India. The Bill states that if a British overseas citizen is living in India and he and his wife have a child, the child will be an Indian citizen if it is born in India. The Indians have no say. The British Government are saying that if the British overseas citizen has a child in the United Kingdom, they are not prepared to extend the same courtesy to that child because they say that that child cannot become a British citizen.

  827
  The Minister of State shakes his head. I am talking, not about the British overseas citizen who is legally settled, but about a British overseas citizen who is living in this country, for whatever reason. The Minister of State has said that such a child would be a British overseas citizen. Therefore, they are treating British overseas citizens differently according to whether they live in India or in the United Kingdom.
  The Bill is despicable. Rather than discussing the guillotine motion, the Minister should do the honourable thing and bring forward a motion to withdraw the Bill from further discussion in this Session and in this Parliament.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I thank the Leader of the House for his good wishes at the beginning of the debate. Almost in the same spirit, I believe that one thing—and one thing only—is to be said in favour of the motion: that it provides the Home Secretary with an opportunity to tell us clearly and unequivocally the purpose of the Bill which he intends to guillotine.
  It may be regarded as strange that the Opposition should ask for a statement of a Bill's purpose some weeks after its Second Reading, but the intentions of the Bill influence our judgment about the propriety of its being timetabled. Our views about the intention of the Bill have been confused by events during the last few days.
  On Second Reading—the last time the Home Secretary uttered on the subject—the right hon. Gentleman offered us the high explanation of what the Bill was intended to do. He called the Bill
  "the comprehensive and logical overhaul of our citizenship legislation that has so long been required".—[Official Report, 28 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 941.]
  Allegations that it was nothing of the sort, that we were debating an immigration control Bill dressed up to look like a nationality Bill, were refuted by the Home Secretary and angrily refuted by the Minister of State.
  I wonder whether the Home Secretary still offers the same denial of the interpretation of the Bill, which the Government seek to guillotine, which I put on its intentions when we debated it on 28 January, because on 17 April, in Delhi, the Prime Minister offered India, and through India, the world, a different explanation of the Bill which the Home Secretary now wishes to timetable. According to The Times of 18 April, she said that the British Nationality Bill was introduced because "immigrants are pouring in" in numbers which had to be restricted. She went on to say:
  "As a small country we cannot go on taking more and more people."
  I fear that that does not respond to the high-minded advice of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that we should all be cautious about the language we use when discussing race relations.
  Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he endorses the Prime Minister's description of why the Bill is necessary? In particular, does he endorse the Prime Minister's statement that immigrants are pouring into this country? With the special responsibilities that he holds, the Home Secretary has a duty to tell the House and the country whether immigrants are pouring in and whether what the
  828
  Prime Minister regards as "pouring in" is the principal and chief justification for the Bill and the need to put it on the statute book in record time.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will answer another question which directly affects the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister. For several weeks, it has been generally known that the Government intended to guillotine the Bill. The idea was floated in some newspapers five weeks ago. More than a fortnight ago, The Times, publishing one of those articles which has all the marks of being taken down at dictation speed from a public relations officer, described the agonies through which the Home Office was going in anticipation of the guillotine. The final decision to guillotine the Bill was announced on Monday, and that decision is being debated within 48 hours of that announcement.
  Nothing has happened since the previous Business Statement made by the Leader of the House. When he made that statement, the Committee was meeting for only half a day, rather than a full day on the Opposition's suggestion. There have been no changes, no filibustering or suggestions that the Opposition were wasting time. All that has happened to justify a 48-hour announcement and the truncation and compression of the guillotine is that the Prime Minister has returned home from the Indian subcontinent. Clearly it was the Government's intention to guillotine the Bill some weeks ago, but they improperly withheld that announcement until the Prime Minister had returned to Britain and her face had been saved.
  As a result, not only must we debate the guillotine within 48 hours of the announcement, but the final 37 clauses and seven schedules are to be debated in just over two weeks—in seven sitting days of the Committee—whereas the first 15 clauses and two schedules occupied the Committee for 37 sittings. Why has there been such a last-minute rush? If it has not been done to save the Prime Minister's face, I hope that the Home Secretary will give us a convincing alternative explanation.
  To my certain knowledge the Government decided to complete the Committee, Report and Third Reading before the spring bank holiday recess. I have no doubt that they will achieve that aim and push their intentions through, with the assistance of their Whips, but they will do so at a terrible price in terms of proper discussion of the substantial parts of the Bill which remain.
  The Committee has had 34 sittings so far. During those sittings, a number of important fundamental issues have been discussed. On Monday, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) told the House that he thought that the Committee had already dealt with all the matters of major complication. He was wrong. It is not the only error of judgment that the hon. and learned Member has made during the last few months, but it is the only one that it is proper for me to discuss now.
  A number of important matters have been discussed. I shall turn to how they affected the progress of the Bill in a moment. When I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) suggesting that perhaps less controversial and less important issues lay ahead, I think I saw the Minister of State indicating dissent and implying—if he was, I agree with him wholeheartedly—that in the days which remain the Committee has to deal with matters of fundamental importance. I shall give only two examples of issues which are outstanding, but I could give many more. There are 17

  829
  major issues which we must still discuss, but I offer the House only two examples, both of which are of fundamental importance.
  The first example is the entire concept of British overseas citizenship—a new status which the Opposition and almost everyone who has commented on it, apart from official Government sources, regard as a status which offers virtually no right to the unfortunate men and women who are allocated that status. That is a matter of major controversy and must now be debated under the threat of the guillotine.
  Secondly, we must debate clause 41, which I shall describe as succinctly as I can by reading from the Bill. Clause 41 provides that the Secretary of State, who determines applications for registration and naturalisation,
  "shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application … at his discretion".
  Clause 41 is the absolute, arbitrary right of the Secretary of State to grant or refuse applications for British citizenship. It is the absolution of the Secretary of State for justifying why he refuses or grants such applications. It is no wonder that the The Daily Telegraph, which does not always agree with my views on race and community relations and immigration, described the clause as
  "being without any known precedent in British statute."
  Mr. Raison: It is not without precedent. It is taken from the 1948 Act.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Daily Telegraph normally agrees with the Minister of State's views and no doubt it will accept his reproof. Precedented or not, I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will not suggest that a power as arbitrary or as unqualified as that is a suitable subject to be discussed under the pressure of a guillotine.
  I intended to give only two examples, but the Minister of State has provoked me to give a third. Appeals relating to all parts of the Bill must still be debated. In Committee last night I said that we should want to return to that aspect again. Another outstanding issue is whether there is a check on the Secretary of State's behaviour. That is of fundamental and primary constitutional importance. It is intolerable that that should be debated under a guillotine.
  Only the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) has suggested that progress has been held up by the Opposition's concious and wilful obstruction. The Leader of the House was careful to avoid making such a charge. I recall only one speech which obviously and unashamedly wasted time. That was the speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) late at night on 9 April.
  Mr. Marlow: Was the right hon. Gentleman there?
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, although my propensity to go out of the House and make public speeches on Thursday evenings is undiminished. I shall continue to make such speeches.
  Mr. Mates: The speech to which the right hon. Gentleman referred lasted for 20 minutes. It followed the speech, about which I complained, by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) which lasted for one and a quarter hours. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was wasting time, but that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central was not?
  Mr. Hattersley: A speech is best judged not by its length but by its content. I invite hon. Members to read
  830
  in Hansard the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and the exchanges with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Every objective reader will agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West that at that time Tory Back Benchers knew that the guillotine was to be introduced and decided to have a little late night fun to justify what was to happen.
  A second piece of evidence confirms the view that, although long speeches have been made, they have not been irrelevant. In the 34 sittings of the Committee the closure was moved only three times. Even allowing for the eccentric way in which the Committee has been Whipped by the Government, the fact that only one closure was moved every 10 sittings suggests that the Government could not sustain the case that time was being wasted.
  Many of our debates were long, but that does not mean that they were unreasonably long. When the House recalls the subjects that we discussed, it will not be surprised that we took time to examine them. For example, we decided in Committee, against the wishes and votes of Labour Members, that the British Government should abandon, for the first time in their history, the absolute and automatic right of every child born in the United Kingdom to be a United Kingdom citizen. It would have been extraordinary if that provision had not been debated at great length. It was so debated, and rightly.
  The Government have introduced a Bill which is highly controversial and complicated. A Bill with two such elements places on the Government a special obligation to ensure that adequate time is provided for its detailed and careful discussion. However, the Government have not provided that time.
  The Government have two reasons for not providing the time. First, the Bill was introduced too late in the Session. The Government have had two years to prepare the Bill. They claim, wrongly, that the Bill was preceded by a Green Paper. If that were true, the Government should have been able to proceed quickly. A White Paper was produced, but there was still delay.
  The Government's business managers are incompetent. It is not for me to allocate blame between the present Leader of the House and his predecessor. However, the Bill should have been introduced in November last year.
  The second problem which has bedevilled our considerations is the Minister's intransigence. Progress is made with a Bill when Government representatives make whatever concessions they can on minor issues. With two exceptions, when the Minister of State had already been told that he could not command the support of his Back Benchers, no concessions were made on even the most minor matter.
  Time does not allow me to cite examples, but I invite the House to read the Hansard report of the Committee late last night when we pleaded with the Minister of State to make a minor concession on the nationality of illegitimate children born in a certain category of citizenship whose putative fathers claimed parentage and were British citizens. An infinitesimal number of children would be covered by such a provision. The Opposition asked the Government to accept an amendment out of compassion. However, the Minister of State reacted as always, rigidly and with mulish obstinacy. Had the Minister of State been

  831
  prepared to be more sympathetic to the minor proposals, quicker progress could have been made. As it is, we must face the guillotine.
  The main problem caused by the guillotine will not be the inconvenience to hon. Members, the cutting short of debate or the inadequate discussion which is bound to follow from only seven days remaining. The main problem that will flow from the Government's decision will be a further feeling among the ethnic minorities that their interests are not being properly represented and that the Government have little or no concern for what they believe to be right. Almost all that the Government have done in their two years in office for community and race relations and immigration is to suggest that immigrants and the children and grandchildren of immigrants born here are in some way a problem and liability.
  By introducing the Bill and by supporting it with the wild and intemperate language that the Prime Minister has used, the Government have hardened the feeling that they regard immigrants and the ethnic minorities as a problem. By introducing the Bill in this arbitrary way and by pushing it through under a guillotine, the Government have made that feeling desperately worse. For that reason, if for no other, we shall vote against the guillotine motion.
  6.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I start by referring to important points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), since one of them affected my personal decision. I believe that it is in the correct traditions of the House to do so. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about my decision. Of course I considered the various options, and I owe it to him, to the House and to the Committee to explain why I took the decision that I did. He may think that I was wrong, but I had to take the decision.
  I do not think that anyone in the House could doubt that the pressures of being Home Secretary have mounted over recent years. They are today very great indeed. The pressures on me in the Home Office, and in the Government as a whole mean that if I had taken the decision to be a member of the Standing Committee I would inevitably have had to absent myself from it. Therefore, I would have taken a place on the Committee, only frequently not to be there. I am sure that with his knowledge the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that was a risk that I would have taken had I gone on to the Committee. For that reason I decided that it was right to give the job to the Minister of State, who was able to devote himself wholly to it and in whom I and all my hon. Friends have the utmost confidence. That was my decision. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it was wrong, but I maintain that if I am to do my job in the Government and through Parliament for the country as a whole I have to make decisions on priorities. I believe that it is impossible to run a major Government Department like the Home Office in any other way. That was why I made the decision.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having met the point head on. I am sure that he and the House realise the importance of the declaration that he has made. He has not made it only in the context
  832
  of this Bill, but it is a downgrading of the responsibilities of Ministers for major legislation that they put before the House.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I did not in any way imply that. I simply implied that if I had gone on the Committee and then had to absent myself that would not have been a sound decision. The precedent is there, and it has been used by many of my predecessors, from all parties, on major Bills, as the right hon. Gentleman will know.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Bill was introduced only in January—a point that was raised also by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). I accept that it would have been much better had the Bill been introduced before Christmas, but there were reasons, including complicated discussions with overseas territories, which in the end made that impossible. The right hon. Member for Down, South will be the first to accept that over the period that he and I have been in the House—a very considerable period—many Bills of a major order have been introduced in January and passed through before the end of the Session. It would be hopeless for Parliament if it were not possible to do that.
  On another matter the right hon. Member for Down, South contradicted himself. He believed that there was a general understanding, which he shared, about the progress of the Bill on the most important issues, and that it would come out of Committee at Whitsun. If the Bill could have come out of Committee at Whitsun, had the full discussion on Report and been able to go to the House of Lords, it could have been passed in this Session. The right hon. Gentleman says there was a general understanding that should have been possible.
  If I understood what was said a short time ago, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook took exactly the opposite view. He said that it would not have been possible to get it out of Committee by Whitsun. I believe that it should have been possible, but the right hon. Gentleman, out of his own mouth, has conceded the case that I am making. The right hon. Member for Down, South feels that it would have been possible; the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that it would not. If the Bill was to be got through in this Session, it would have had to come out of the Committee at Whitsun.
  I come to other points that were made on procedure. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) made an extraordinary point when he said that there was something in the guillotine motion to do with the House rising somewhat earlier than usual for the Summer Recess. I do not know when it is proposed that the House should rise, but it is immaterial to the progress of this Bill, because by that time it will be in another place. Therefore, the date on which the House will rise has no effect on the guillotine motion. That must be the most obvious point that can be made.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman has just said a very strange thing, namely, that by the end of July the Bill will be in another place. Does he think that we shall return here in October to finish the Bill in this House?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I was merely replying in the first instance to the point that was made that something to do with the Bill, which would be in another place at that

  833
  stage, was involved in when the House would rise for the Summer Recess. I cannot see that that point can be sustained.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the decision on when this guillotine motion should be tabled and moved. It would be wrong of me, and totally against everything that I have done in the House over a long period, to disclose private conversations. I do not intend to do so, but I am bound to say that I had made it abundantly clear on many occasions that I hoped that the Committee stage could finish by Whitsun and that I did not want to introduce a guillotine motion. I had hoped, up to the last, that it would be possible to avoid it.
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will know, we did not take the decision until it became clear that we had to do so. We decided during the recess that it was right to take this step. The recess lasted for 10 days, and whether the decision was on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, that is a silly point to make. I said that I decided on this during the recess. Surely my right hon. Friends and I are entitled to decide something during the recess. I hope that that disposes of the matter.
  I come now to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and other hon. Members. There will be adequate time for discussions on many of the important issues. With three days for the Report stage, which is a generous allocation, there will be plenty of time for those hon. Members who are not on the Committee to make their points. I accept the problems that inevitably arise because of the need to get Bills through the House in one Session, but I maintain that the amount of time, totalling over 100 hours in Committee and three full days on Report, is reasonable to discuss the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that it would be better to bring the Bill back later. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to criticise the delay. For Labour Members to talk about delay on this issue is the most appalling hypocrisy. I agree with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that for a long time we have built up the problem for ourselves because we were not prepared to introduce a new Nationality Bill.
  In 1974 the Labour Party said that it was going to introduce such a measure. By 1979 it had issued a Green Paper, but since then the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seems to have been busy repudiating large sections of that Green Paper, just as he has repudiated his vote on the 1968 Act, which was one of the Acts that made a Nationality Bill all the more important.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, a revision of our nationality legislation is long overdue. We have created anomalies over the years by passing the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act and the 1968 Act. In no way do I wish to go back on my vote either in favour of the 1962 Act or in favour of the 1968 Act, both of which were justified. I am always amazed to hear people try to pretend that they wish to go back on the 1962 Act. The Labour Party had every opportunity to repeal that Act, as it promised to do, but it never did. Those who criticise the 1968 Act must remember that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that that measure was crucial in the situation in which we found ourselves.
  I believe that that was right, and my party in Opposition supported that Bill, which was the responsibility of the
  834
  Government of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member. He has decided to repudiate it now. That is his business, but as time was available for the Labour Government to introduce a nationality Bill, the Opposition have no excuse for saying now that the Government are delaying. We have promised to fulfil the undertaking to do something that is vital to the future of the country. This is an extremely complicated measure. I know very well why the Labour Government did not introduce a Bill of this kind. It was because it was too complicated and raised too many difficulties for them, so they ran away from it. It is no use members of the previous Labour Government talking to me about delays and failures.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches cannot have it both ways. At one moment the right hon. Member for Deptford says that the Bill is so ill-thought through that amendments had to be moved by the Government, and the next moment the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for York accuse my hon. Friend the Minister of State of being intransigent and refusing to accept any amendments. We said at the time that we introduced the Bill that we would adopt a constructive approach to the Committee stage. I promised that to the right hon. Member for Down, South, amongst others. I claim that we have fulfilled that promise.
  The hon. Member for York was fair enough to say that one of the amendments moved by the Government had removed the tag of racist that some people had quite wrongly put on the Bill. I was glad to hear him say it. I thank the hon. Member for that, an I hope that many other Labour Members will stop wrongly claiming that the Bill is racist and sexist when they know perfectly well that it is not.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will deal with the first question I asked him, will he not? I asked whether the Prime Minister was right to say that the Bill was the result of immigrants pouring into the country.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said all along about the purpose of the Bill.—[Interruption] Would the right hon. Gentleman mind containing himself and his arms?
  I want to make it clear why I believe that the Bill is essential and to explain its purpose. I have made it clear that the purpose of the Bill, which is widely accepted in the House and in the country, is to create a British citizenship based on the principle that citizenship should carry with it the right of abode in this country. I believe that the new citizenship will benefit the whole community. The vast majority of the ethnic minorities in this country will become British citizens and they will share in the benefit that that brings. The citizenship will provide a clear and unequivocal indication of those who belong to this country and are part of it. That is an enormously important principle.
  I believe that the Bill will end many of the uncertainties and anxieties that have often harmed race relations in this country in the past, and I accept again what the hon. Member for York said on that matter. I believe that the Bill is long overdue. For a long time we have needed a reform of our nationality law. I believe that the Bill will be seen to be fair.
  It is certainly not racist, and it is certainly not sexist. What is more, we are providing now, after over 100 hours

  835
  on the earlier provisions, enough time to debate the other issues perfectly fairly, and the Opposition know it. We are providing further time on Report. I recommend—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).
  Question put accordingly.
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 240.

  Division No. 162]

  [6.45 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Alison, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ancram, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Tom

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Asp in wall, Jack

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Banks, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bendall, Vivian

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Farr, John

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fell, Anthony

  Best, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Blackburn, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Blaker, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Body, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Marcus

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fry, Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brinton, Tim

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brittan, Leon

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brotherton, Michael

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gorst, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gow, Ian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Greenway, Harry

  Buck, Antony

  Grieve, Percy

  Budgen, Nick

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hannam, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Heddle, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Henderson, Barry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Corrie, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hooson, Tom

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Hordern, Peter

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Dover, Denshore

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  836

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Pollock, Alexander

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Porter, Barry

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Raison, Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Knox, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Renton, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Latham, Michael

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lee, John

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rost, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Loveridge, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Luce, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Silvester, Fred

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Sims, Roger

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Madel, David

  Smith, Dudley

  Major, John

  Speed, Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Speller, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Spence, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Mather, Carol

  Squire, Robin

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Steen, Anthony

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stevens, Martin

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, b.(E Renfrewshire)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stokes, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moore, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Thompson, Donald

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thome, Neil (Ilford South)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mudd, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Myles, David

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Richard

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Waddington, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Wakeham, John

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Wall, Patrick

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Waller, Gary

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Walters, Dennis

  Parris, Matthew

  Watson, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, John

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Raymond

  837

  Wickenden, Keith

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Alton, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Anderson, Donald

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ford, Ben

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Forrester, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Derek

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Freud, Clement

  Beith, A. J.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, John

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Graham, Ted

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon K(M'b'ro)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bradley, Tom

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Campbell, Ian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Cant, R. B.

  Home Robertson, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Homewood, William

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Howells, Geraint

  Cohen, Stanley

  Huckfield, Les

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cryer, Bob

  John, Brynmor

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kerr, Russell

  Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Donald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Dobson, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Dormand, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Douglas, Dick

  Leighton, Ronald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Dubs, Alfred

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  English, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (Newton)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Ewing, Harry

  McNally, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  McTaggart, Robert

  Field, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Fitch, Alan

  Magee, Bryan

  Fitt, Gerard

  Marks, Kenneth

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  838

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Silverman, Julius

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Molyneaux, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Stoddart, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morton, George

  Straw, Jack

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Newens, Stanley

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tilley, John

  Parker, John

  Tinn, James

  Parry, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Pendry, Tom

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Prescott, John

  Watkins, David

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Weetch, Ken

  Race, Reg

  Welsh, Michael

  Radice, Giles

  White, Frank R.

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Richardson, Jo

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Whitlock, William

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

  Robertson, George

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Winnick, David

  Roper, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wright, Sheila

  Ross, Wm, (Londonderry)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ryman, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sever, John

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Question agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the bill:

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 14th day of May 1981.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 14th May may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on the 15th May 1981.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  840
  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—

  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

  "the Bill" means the British Nationality Bill;

  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day

  Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.58 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is summed up in its title—Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions). It is a measure to regulate mining on the bed of the deep seas, far out in the oceans of the world. On the sea bed exist valuable hard mineral resources known as manganese or polymetallic nodules. United Kingdom companies, among others, are interested in mining them. The Bill provides a statutory framework for the development of that nascent industry.
  The Bill is also described as a temporary provisions measure because it is an interim provision pending agreement on an international regime. The third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has for several years been working towards international agreement on this matter. When, as we hope, a satisfactory agreement is reached and enters into force, the international arrangements will supersede the national provisions set out in the Bill.
  The Government are keen to improve the security and availability of future supplies of raw materials for British industry. The vast bulk—about 90 per cent.—of our consumption of non-energy industrial raw materials is imported. The United Kingdom is heavily dependent on a small number of countries for supplies of some minerals which are critical raw materials for our manufacturing industry. Our industrial prosperity is dependent on assured supplies of key raw materials at stable prices, and supplies of nickel, cobalt, copper and possibly managanese from the sea bed are a welcome prospect.
  Moreover, the prospect of vigorous participation in the new industrial activity of sea bed mining by British companies promises an exciting new economic opportunity to benefit both the companies and the British economy.
  Perhaps I should explain what and where the mineral-bearing nodules are. Although no scientist, I should like to have been able to explain how and why, but it appears that answers to those questions are less easy to come by. The nodules that give rise to so much current interest and activity are technically described as concretions of a number of elements. They are sometimes described as being like charred potatoes and I saw one for the first time today. Like potatoes, they vary in size and where they occur they carpet the sea bed in a single layer.
  We do not fully understand how and why the nodules form, but it is clear that they require the undisturbed conditions that are found only in areas of the deepest ocean. Although nodules have been found in various parts of the world's oceans, it is only in the north Pacific that the deposits appear rich enough to justify pioneering commercial mining operations. The prime area of interest lies in the Clarion-Clipperton zone between Hawaii and California, which is in an area of about 3 million square kilometres far away from any land and where the sea is about 5,000 metres deep.
  842
  The major deposits of nodules are located far out at sea, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. They are, therefore, resources of the high seas and, in accordance with the doctrine of the high seas, any country has the freedom to recover them.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The brief from the Institute of Geology gave the impression that there were possibilities of viable exploitation in the Indian Ocean and not only in the north Pacific. Is it the Government's view that exploitation is possible only in the north Pacific?
  Mr. MacGregor: The view expressed to me to date, particularly by companies engaged in the initial prospecting, is that interest lies in the Pacific area.
  In view of the potential economic importance of the resources, there has been much international interest in and concern about their exploitation. In 1969 and 1970 that concern was formalised in two resolutions of the United Nations. The first sought to impose a moratorium on deep sea mining until international arrangements come into force. The second was a declaration of principles that the sea bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and its resources were the common heritage of mankind.
  Such resolutions are not international law; they are merely exhortatory. However, we have taken them carefully into account in formulating our national nsmeasures in the Bill. In the light of those resolutions, the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in 1973 to negotiate an international system of regulations for sea bed mining. The conference has been meeting regularly since then and has made significant progress in developing an international regime that implements the principle of the common heritage of mankind, while providing a framework for commercial mining operations.
  There is a draft convention containing complex provisions for operations both by private companies and by an international sea bed authority acting on behalf of mankind as a whole. It had been hoped that the final details of the package would be sorted out this year, but that timetable has slipped. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that there will soon be a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the press coverage of the UNLOSC negotiations in New York in March and April this year. The decision by the United States Administration to carry out a full-scale review of their policy towards the law of the sea and meanwhile to play no active role in the negotiations has obviously been a setback, albeit temporary, to the conference. It has certainly not improved the prospects for an early agreement on a generally acceptable convention text.
  Nevertheless, we remain of the view that it is important to have a generally acceptable international basis for sea bed mining to give the industry a secure future, and we hope that the United States review will be concluded as quickly as possible and will not diminish the prospects of obtaining agreement to an international convention.
  If nothing else, the present circumstances illustrate clearly the sort of uncertainties that may continue to face Governments and mining companies until an international convention has been agreed comes into force. It is because of those uncertainties that this interim measure is needed to give our mining industry a firm basis for continued activity, pending the entry into force of an international agreement.

  843
  Hon. Members may wonder why we need a national measure for deep sea mining at this stage, given that so much effort has already been devoted to working out an international system of regulations.
  The answer to that question is fourfold. The first—I understand from noises on the Opposition Benches that there is great interest in this aspect of the problem—is the position within UNLOSC. Even if the lengthy negotiations are concluded this year—or, more likely, next year—it will be several years before an agreed convention comes into force. There is to be a preparatory commission to draw up detailed rules and regulations and to organise the setting up of the international authority, and that work alone may take a few years.
  It will also take some time for the required number of States to ratify the convention. The present negotiating text requires 60 States to ratify the convention to bring it into force. Therefore, we are considering a system which, in practice, could not become operative, even in favourable circumstances, before the mid- to late-1980s.
  That ties in with the second important aspect. The inevitable delay and uncertainty in the international arrangements leave the developing deep sea mining industry in a difficult position. The industry is newly formed and has to carry out much development work before it will be ready to embark on commercial operations. Expenditure of up to £100 million per project is needed for the next stage and the mining companies are not prepared to invest such sums without a stable, or reasonably stable legal framework in which to operate.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a temporary measure passed by this House will give companies that long-term stability?
  Mr. MacGregor: I will discuss later the hon. Gentleman's reference to a measure passed by this House, with its implication that measures are being passed by this House alone. The Bill will undoubtedly give companies a better basis, and a reasonably stable basis, than they would have without the Bill, especially if other actions elsewhere were not carried out.
  If the mining companies allow their programmes to run down because they have no assurances, it will take many years to build them up again. To go ahead, the companies need certain assurances. I come to part of the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mr. Craigen). Given the political and legal uncertainties at the international level, the companies have turned to their respective Governments for assurances.
  I recognise that national measures can provide only partial assurances and are clearly no substitute for an internationally agreed regime. However, national measures can help to maintain the momentum of the deep sea mining industry so that it may be able to participate fully when the international position is clarified. It is in the interests of providing support and encouragement for the industry, specifically the United Kingdom companies that are involved, that we have introduced the Bill.
  The third reason for legislation now is that the companies, including British companies, that have been pioneering the development of sea bed mining have already expended considerable efforts on prospecting large
  844
  areas of the ocean floor. They wish to secure claims to potential areas that they have already identified as worthy of further exploration.
  The fourth factor relevant to the timing of the measure has been the progress made in other countries. I said that I would return to this matter. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany enacted domestic deep sea mining legislation last year—in fact, before the new American Administration was elected—and we introduced the Bill in another place before that event. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany will be accepting applications for exploration licences within a few months.
  Our mining companies have sought similar opportunities and cannot afford to be left behind in this important new industry. What is more, other countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium, plan to introduce legislation in support of their companies' interests. Their legislation is in prospect, or in the preparatory stages. So United Kingdom companies need equivalent support now.
  Having set out the background against which the Bill is set, I shall now review some of its salient features.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is there not real urgency here? Do I understand correctly that the United States will be issuing licences on 1 January 1982 and that therefore we must be in step with them, or most of the consortia will go through American legislation rather than through the United Kingdom legislation? Is it not important that we pursue the matter on time?
  Mr. MacGregor: I cannot confirm without checking the exact date that my hon. Friend gave, although it will be within a few months, as I said earlier. My hon. Friend's second comment about where the consortia might otherwise go is a material one.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister mentioned the French and the Belgians. My understanding is that they have in mind not the north Pacific, but other areas of the ocean. Is that not so?
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that question is particularly relevant to the introduction of general legislation which is designed to cover all areas, as defined in the Bill, of the deep sea bed. Where prospecting will take place is not relevant.
  Clause 1 prohibits United Kingdom nationals from exploring for or recovering the mineral resources on the deep sea bed without a licence. At present, those activities may be carried out as part of the freedom of the high seas, but our mining companies are unwilling to invest further vast sums of money without more specific legal arrangements. The clause contained definitions of the key terms "deep sea bed" and "hard mineral resources". "Deep sea bed" is defined as any
  "part of the bed of the high seas in respect of which sovereign rights in relation to the natural resources of the sea bed are neither exercisable by the United Kingdom nor recognised by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as being exercisable by any other Sovereign Power".
  In practice, that means areas beyond the recognised continental shelf of any State, areas which are many miles from anywhere.
  There may, of course, be disputed claims about the sovereign rights to certain areas, and in such cases the areas will be regarded as part of the deep sea bed for the

  845
  purposes of this Bill so long as her Majesty's Government do not recognise either of the claims. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State may issue a certificate resolving questions on the definition of the deep sea bed.
  "Hard mineral resources" are defined as deposits of nodules that contain significant quantities of manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorus or molybdenum. In practice, a mixture of these and other elements and compounds is found together, but these are the key ingredients—the ones that make commercial recovery worthwhile. Current plans for commercial operations concentrate particularly on the production of copper, nickel and cobalt, with manganese as an optional fourth product, depending on the state of the market.
  Clause 2 outlines the licensing arrangements for exploration and exploitation. The Secretary of State is empowered to grant licences to fit and proper applicants, although he must take account of any relevant factors, including the need to set aside no-go areas to provide a sound basis for scientific assessment of the environmental impact of mining operations. The form of applications and the evidence to be supplied will be specified in regulations, but in general applicants for an exploration licence will need to supply evidence of their expertise in this highly technological field.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister mentioned the scientific aspects. I do not expect him to answer my question off the cuff, but it would be useful if it could be answered in the winding-up speech. Can we be given a clear idea of what the scientific criteria will be for this impact?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has heard the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am sure that if he can he will answer it when he winds up.
  I was talking about clause 2. Applicants for exploitation licences will also need to supply data and records of exploration activities and evidence of their financial capability to fund the operation.
  Licences will give authority for either exploration or exploitation in a specified area of the deep sea bed. Exploration is defined in clause 17, which deliberately distinguishes exploration from the general prospecting that is a necessary preliminary to any deep sea mining project. Prospecting is not specific to any one site and can be freely carried out without impinging on the activities of others. It is not, therefore, subject to prohibition or licensing. Exploration, however, covers all the activities that an operator must carry out on his chosen site before going into commercial production.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Which resources are available to Her Majesty's Government to administer such a complicated operation as vetting exploitation and/or exploration far away from land and in remote areas of the world?
  Mr. MacGregor: I take the point, and I wish that I could reply to it now. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, it can be pursued in Committee.
  Exploitation licences cover the period of commercial production on a specific mine site—that is, when the operation is of a sufficient scale to be economically viable.
  This Bill is not intended to—nor will it—impinge on the carrying out of marine scientific research. Since only exploration and exploitation are prohibited by the Bill,
  846
  unless licensed, there is no call for any reference on the face of the Bill to marine scientific research. The Bill will simply not impinge on such activities.
  The period of licences will be set long enough to meet the needs of the mining industry. Although a decision has not yet been taken, I expect that an exploration licence will run initially for 10 years, but may be extended for further periods of up to five years, if appropriate.
  Mr. Dalyell: I cannot understand the statement that the Bill will not impinge on scientific research. It may or may not do so, but how can the Minister say that it will not impinge?
  Mr. MacGregor: A distinction can be drawn between the exploration that goes on in connection with deep sea mining and the actual terms of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that this deep sea mining is already taking place. I confess that I am not a scientist, but the scientific evidence on this subject is at a very early stage, and, presumably, much remains to be learnt as time passes. That will be part of the process that is envisaged in the Bill and in others and, ultimately, in the international convention. But there is no need to cover marine scientific research as such in the Bill in relation to licensing under clauses 2 and 17. That could still take place, irrespective of the Bill.
  I was discussing the periods of licences. I expect that exploration licences will run initially for 10 years but may be extended for further periods of up to five years, if appropriate. An exploitation licence may be granted for 20 years to cover the useful productive life of a single site.
  Licences will contain a number of terms and conditions which the licensee must adhere to, or risk the revocation of his licence, in accordance with clause 6. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will consider that important. These conditions will include matters such as requirements to supply the Secretary of State with information about the licensed operations, restrictions on disposing of waste and a requirement to pay an annual fee to cover the costs of administering the licensing scheme.
  The timing of the licences will be subject to two conditions. Exploration licences may not be issued before 1 July 1981, and exploitation licences may not take effect before 1 January 1988, so as to allow reasonable time for the international convention which is now being negotiated at the law of the sea conference to come into force. If progress at the conference goes smoothly, as we all hope it will, we can expect this legislation to be superseded by the international regime before there is any commercial production from the sea bed. If not, the companies have an assurance that, if they wish, they may proceed under this legislation as from 1988.
  Mr. Craigen: Will this legislation facilitate international agreement?
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not see how this legislation as such will hinder it. The opportunity to continue to develop in this area will be helped by the Bill. If and when the convention comes into force, exploration and so on will have taken place, experience of the whole process will have been gained, and at that stage we should be in a much better position to move on into the full force of the international convention. I shall refer later to several other points on that aspect that are contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: My friend and constituent, Lord Ritchie-Calder and, I know Mr. Peter Warren of the Institute of

  847
  Geologists, fear that this could sour the whole thing. I believe that that is likely. If we go sailing ahead, is there not a prime facie case to suggest that things will not be smooth?
  Mr. MacGregor: I read the noble Lord's speech, and I thought the satisfactory responses to his general points were made in another place. It is extremely unlikely that what he fears will take place. A more important consideration is that if a considerable time is taken to reach agreement on the convention and to move on to the stages that I described earlier, there will be a long delay during which the mining companies will be uncertain and will probably not invest the large extra sums involved. The ultimate loss will be to mankind in general. These processes are essentially seen as a transition towards the time when the convention comes into force.
  Mr. Skeet: Does not my hon. Friend agree that when the United States legislation was passed in 1980, the succeeding part of the conference was extremely profitable and it seemed to accept that legislation as a useful interim measure?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is quite right. The delays which have taken place since then have nothing to do with that legislation, because it was introduced before the new United States Administration were elected.
  Clause 3 provides for taking account of the licences and other authorisations for deep sea mining which may be granted by other States which pass legislation corresponding to the Bill. This arrangement will enhance the rights that attach to any licence issued by the United Kingdom, as it will lead to recognition by other States. That is part of the partial assurances which will help the United Kingdom mining companies. If the laws of those States are similar in aim and effect to our own, they may be designated reciprocating countries.
  In effect, that means that anyone operating under an authorisation granted by a reciprocating country will not be subject to the prohibition in the Bill, and the Secretary of State will not be able to grant a licence to anyone else for a site already covered by a reciprocating authorisation.
  More broadly, recognising other countries with similar aims and standards will effectively contribute to the orderly development of the industry and to properly controlled and co-ordinated exploitation of sea bed resources.
  Mr. Dalyell: Co-ordinated by whom?
  Mr. MacGregor: Co-ordinated by those who at that stage are involved in the whole process. Damaging conflict will be avoided if reciprocating countries agree mechanisms for resolving overlapping licence applications and if they adopt similar standards for operations. This clause lays the foundation for reaching beneficial agreements of this kind.
  Mr. Peter Archer: The Minister has been patient in giving way. However, it may shorten the debate if he relieves our anxieties on this point. What kind of mechanisms do the Government have in mind for ensuring that Britain and other countries do not simultaneously grant licences in respect of the same areas? Will the ocean be divided into spheres of influence, or how will it be done?
  Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I can respond to that point in a moment.
  Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 make provision on preventing interference with licensed operations, protecting the marine environment, varying and revoking licences, and the freedom of the high seas. All are necessary supplementary provisions. The provisions made in clause 5 for protecting marine creatures and plants and their habitat are worthy of attention. Although there is no evidence to date that exploration activities disturb the marine environment, we cannot yet know the full effects of the new mining techniques. This clause is, therefore, supplemented by the power to make regulations under clause 12 preventing mining methods that may be harmful to the marine environment. Other conditions thought necessary for the protection of marine life may be included in licences as appropriate.
  Clause 8 is an unusual provision but necessary. It gives the Government the power to take countervailing measures against another State that discriminates against United Kingdom registered ships in connection with deep sea mining. United States legislation includes a provision restricting United States licensed explorers and miners in their use of foreign vessels. This is clearly against the interests of our shipping industry, and the United Kingdom may wish to retaliate against such protectionist policies. If it is decided to make use of this provision, full account will of course be taken of the commercial interest of the mining companies and the terms of any existing contracts.
  Clauses 9 and 10 make provision for collecting a levy on sea bed mineral production, keeping it in a trust fund and paying it over to the international authority that will be established when the law of the sea convention comes into force. Therefore, hon. Members will recognise that here too there are transitional arrangements towards that ultimate stage if and when it comes. It reflects the principle that everyone should benefit from the mineral wealth of the sea bed and anticipates the provisions of the international convention. Similar arrangements are contained in the corresponding American and German deep sea mining laws, and are evidence of good faith in the international negotiations.
  In practice these clauses will not become operational until commercial production begins, which cannot be before 1988 in accordance with the provisions of clause 2. By then, we hope an international treaty will be in force. Wherever practicable, the details of the levy and the fund are left to be prescribed in regulations which may be made nearer the time that the levy will be operational. The fund into which the levy is paid is to be managed by the Treasury and, subject to Treasury instructions, invested by the National Debt Commissioners.
  In case there is no agreement to an international regime, provision is made to cease collection of the levy and to wind up the fund. At this stage it is not realistic to forecast what might best be done with the money in such circumstances—we hope the situation will not occur. Any decision can best be taken at the relevant time, and the Bill simply provides for the money to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
  Clauses 11, 12 and 13 covering inspection, regulations and safeguarding confidential information are self-explanatory. Examples of the matters that may be covered by regulations under clause 12 are listed in the schedule.
  It may be helpful for me to comment on clause 16. This exempts activities carried out under this Bill from the

  849
  provisions of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. This provision does not in any way reduce the standards to be imposed on dumping from deep sea mining operations. Conditions on dumping as on other matters, will be included in licences issued under the Bill. This provision simply means that dumping will be controlled in the context of the overall work programme that is licensed. It eliminates any difficulties that might otherwise arise through overlapping jurisdiction in this matter.
  I hope that what I have said makes it clear to the House that the fundamental objective of the Bill is to provide a temporary statutory framework within which our mining companies can continue their valuable development work in this new industry. It anticipates the entry into force of a satisfactory international regime which we are determined to achieve if it can possibly be done within a reasonable period.
  Perhaps I may add that if on one or two points I have not been able to give a sufficiently full reply, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will deal with them when he winds up the debate.
  In the interests of continued United Kingdom participation in deep sea mining and the orderly development of the industry, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.30 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Opposition have the deepest misgivings about the timing and content of the Bill. The Minister's speech has left more questions than it has answered.
  The Bill comes after seven years of United Nations Law of the Sea Conference delegates' work—slowly, admittedly, but with thoroughness and considerable success—towards international agreement on wide-ranging international controls on maritime and marine activities. Let us remind ourselves that those activities take place over two-thirds of the world's surface. Successive British Governments, Conservative and Labour, have participated in those negotiations with the expressed commitment of achieving agreement on a new and comprehensive international regime—as, until recently, have successive American Administrations.
  As the Minister said, those proposals and discussions took as their starting point the agreed principle that the oceans of the world are part of the common heritage of mankind and should therefore be controlled and managed and, if necessary, exploited only from that common standpoint. There were, and are, many important reasons why that view should prevail and endure. The Opposition believe it to be in the best interests of all nations, including our own. We therefore adhere to that position.
  I remind the House that the draft treaty, almost finalised, covers territorial seas and contiguous zones, straights, archipelagic States, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, high seas navigation, fisheries and conservation, the regime for islands, enclosed seas, rights of access of land-locked States, protection and preservation of the marine environment and scientific research, development and transfer of marine technology, a disputes procedure and deep sea mining outside national jurisdiction. That is what is involved in the treaty, and that is what is at stake if it is not ratified.
  The implications of reaching, or indeed of failing to reach, such an agreement should be obvious to us all. Until March of this year success seemed at least to be in sight.
  850
  In March, however, the Reagan Administration, following the President's inauguration, announced that they were withdrawing their delegates from participation and that they would have a complete and fundamental rethink about what was involved. They did not have the courtesy to do that through diplomatic channels but simply announced it rather offensively in a press statement. That is the reality of what happened. Anyone who thinks that that is conducive to further rapid progress on the treaty is deluding himself.
  That decision has been widely criticised within the United States by Elliot Richardson, who had been in charge of the American negotiating team. It has been criticised in the Third World by the Group of 77, which now embraces between 130 and 140 countries. It has been widely critised in this country in leading articles in many newspapers and scientific and technical journals. Seven years' work has been placed in jeopardy. It is no wonder that the delegates to the United Nations conference are in a bitter and angry mood.
  It is worth paying a little attention to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at what has taken place. A leading article in The Times on 10 March concluded that instead of agreement
  "there would be the threat of maritime lawlessness, with countries reverting to acting according to their narrow interests, declaring 200 mile (or more) territorial seas, interfering with the freedom of navigation and unilaterally appropriating sea-bed resources. The consequences would not be limited to maritime issues. It would only be a matter of time before disputes spilled over into the arena of international politics. That cannot he in the interests of the United States."
  The Opposition agree with that. Nor, we would add, can it be in the interests of the United Kingdom.
  In a major article on 17 March the Financial Times similarly concluded that
  "too much bitterness would be created by such a move for the Third World simply to acquiesce. Instead there is the real danger that coastal states would again begin a drive to enlarge their claims over straits, continental shelves and what are now considered to be high seas. It is not in the interests of the United States or its allies to allow this."
  There have thus been major, serious and damaging criticisms not only from Opposition Members of Parliament.
  I wish to refer also to what the Brandt report said about the activities of transnationals on technology and mineral development. It is true that Brandt was not referring specifically to the Law of the Sea Conference, but the message is the same. On page 272, as one of its priorities for action, the Brandt report states:
  "International codes of conduct and effective national laws should be agreed to ensure the broader sharing of technology, to control restrictive business practices and to provide a framework for the activities of transitional corporations. A better international investment regime should both enable developing countries to benefit from the expertise and resources of multinational corporations, and promote stable relationships between these corporations and host Governments. It would also encourage greater initiatives and investments for the exploration of minerals and oil in the Third World which are essential for the prospects of world supplies. The weakest countries will require special assistance to permit them to participate effectively in such a regime."
  I submit that that is apposite to the Bill. It is amazing how many lessons the Western industrial nations need to learn in order to take cognisance of the hostility and animosity generated by activities of this kind, which are added to by the timing of the introduction of the Bill.

  851
  What is really happening? There are clues to be found in the speech of the Minister of State in another place, in the Bill itself and in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State today. As the Under-Secretary of State said, the Bill was the third of its kind in the world, following the action in the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. We are told by the media that France, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Holland are likely to follow. In other words, the rich and powerful industrial nations of the West are acting in concert. That is the whole purpose of getting unity of approach on licensing and the rest. It is clear that a deal has been done.
  This is quite openly commented upon by informed people in the media and elsewhere, and apparently secret discussions have been taking place since 1980, or perhaps earlier, on this issue. No one should believe that any of this is fooling the Group of 77 into believing that the real intent is to get an international regime. The real intent seems to be quite the reverse, in spite of the protestations that we hear from the Government.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Absolute nonsense.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Minister of State says that that is absolute nonsense. It is one thing for the Government to say publicly what they have said—and I acknowledge that they have said that they are committed to getting an international regime—but the actions of the Government seem to many people, not least to the official Opposition, to contradict that expressed aim. They do not seem to us to be likely to achieve that goal. That is the reality.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly spell out his view of the timing? Clearly, the Bill was introduced before the Elliot Richardson or Reagan Administration change came to the Law of the Sea Conference.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not see the change of the American Administration as being significant to the timing of the Bill. My point is that the Bill follows a similar Bill in America and one in the Federal Republic of Germany. We understand that it is simply one Bill in a long line of Bills that will come from other Western industrial nations.
  The Bill and its contents, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, have been devastatingly criticised by his constituent, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and by other people in the scientific world, so that there are great scientific concerns about the intent or our ability to deliver the commitments that the Minister made in his opening remarks. I shall come back to that in a moment.
  Why have we been presented with the Bill at this time? That is our first and most fundamental question. Why is it necessary at all, in view of the Government's expressed intention of hoping quickly to finalise an international regime? What is so crucial that it is worth jeopardising the whole of the treaty and all the implications to which I referred a moment ago? How, and in what circumstances, have the Western industrial nations taken the decision to proceed with deep sea mining? Will not this cause bitterness, add to the bitterness and resentment that already exist, and develop into lasting hostility to us, with damaging consequences?
  852
  There are strategic issues involved here for major naval and trading Powers. Rights of passage, to which I have referred, through straits and sea lanes are likely to be placed in jeopardy if things go badly wrong. What will happen to the much-vaunted rapid deployment force if that occurs?
  We know that the possible—now it seems the probable—availability of mineral resources is important, but far more important are the world issues that are bound up in the proposed treaty, and the issues related to them, which were so graphically spelt out in the Brandt report.
  As a chemist, I need no convincing—nor do the Opposition—of the importance of mineral deposits and the massive potential that exists. The Minister mentioned one or two of them. I understand that cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium and zinc, in varying quantities, may be available. They are certainly in many cases very important to us. In the fullness of time there may well be others, and I have no doubt that our ability to extract these and other minerals will improve. So will our ability to understand what is happening in the marine environment, which we do not understand very well at the moment. We also tend to minimise the potential damage to the environment from the scale and the nature of the operations that will be necessary to recover these substances in economic quantities. That scale will, of necessity, be vast, and the problems associated with it will be large and long term.
  From the reading that I have done I understand that areas of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, as well as the Pacific ocean, offer some potential, but that, as the Minister rightly says, the area in the mid-Pacific is likely to be the most prolific. Over 300 million square kilometres of that ocean are apparently ripe for exploitation, and the ratios of the minerals there are the highest so far discovered. It is estimated that in the world as a whole about 54 million square kilometres of sea bed could produce economic quantities of nodules. Surely, with the quantities involved, there will be enough for everyone, and enough for us to take time to ensure that the resources are exploited in the way in which the Government say is their real intention.
  There are, then, some arguments—the Government have mentioned some, and there are some from industry—for proceeding, and I do not deny that for a moment. There is the question of the development of the technology and the costs involved. The Minister gave four important reasons why it was necessary to have the Bill at this time. It is somewhat amusing for the Minister to say that the Bill—which he called a temporary measure, and which is referred to in its title as a temporary measure—is a Bill to bring stability. How can a temporary measure bring stability? It is a contradiction in terms. How can national legislation bring stability to an area over which we have no authority and no legal jurisdiction? What stability is brought about in that way? That is a fundamental question.
  If licences for exploitation are to be issued in the next 12 months, that will be a further torpedo against the chances of the treaty on the law of the sea. The Minister of State shakes his head, and we shall be interested to hear what he says on that matter.
  The Under-Secretary talked of licences being issued for 20 years. What is temporary about 20 years? It is an absolute eternity in terms of giving someone a concession to exploit resources in a marine environment. The damage

  853
  that could be wreaked in 20 years could be colossal. There is nothing temporary about a proposal to give someone a concession for 20 years, so we were not over-impressed by some of the reasons that the Minister has advanced for saying that we should proceed at this time.
  It is clear that the world as a whole may run short of some of these elements. That was brought out in another United Nations document, the Leontief report, in 1977, which said that world supplies of some of these minerals could well run out by the end of the century. It is unfortunate that more attention has not been given—as with other resources, such as energy—to the conservation and recycling of those resources that we already have, rather than having a determination to press ahead at enormous cost—these will not be cheap operations—to exploit more resources in the marine environment.
  Mr. Hurd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that British companies should not continue their efforts in this field? Is he saying that they should let American, French and German companies proceed while they fall back and perhaps drop out of the race? Is that his advice?
  Dr. Cunningham: As I think the Minister well understands, I am saying that we should use all our effort and bring all our influence to bear to conclude an international treaty. That is our priority. The Government say that it is their priority, but their actions belie that claim. That is our charge.
  Industrial countries of the world produce two and a half times as much in minerals per head as do developing countries, but we consume 16 times more per head than do developing countries. That is likely to become increasingly unacceptable to those countries. Furthermore, the West depends largely upon imports for its supply of minerals. About 70 per cent. of all our supplies are imported, mainly from the developing countries, and that dependence is increasing.
  The argument can be used both ways. It might be said that that is all the more reason for having our own independent resources, and I see some merit in that argument. However, if we proceed in a way that gives great offence, and if we deny such countries a share in the exploitation of those resources, we are likely to put our existing supplies in jeopardy. It will take a long time—if it is at all possible—to achieve independence of supply. During that time we shall become increasingly dependent upon supplies from the very countries that we are now offending. That is an important consideration and it should be taken into account.
  In addition to oil, the marketing, processing or production of minerals such as bauxite, copper, iron ore, nickel, lead, zinc and tin are dominated in each case by a small number of transnational companies. Those companies can, and occasionally do, exert political power through commercial power. Occasionally—I stress that word—companies have used that power unethically, and even illegally.
  We know that the tension that exists between those companies and Third world countries—such companies are based mainly in the rich, developed nations—has been a major element in North-South relations, and there is a risk that the activities of such companies will further damage relations. That is all the more reason why we should work carefully and openly for the proposed wide-ranging treaty, as a result of which all would share in the
  854
  advantages of the resources of the oceans. It would represent a magnanimous approach and would give a lead and example that others would find stimulating. Few" if any, would be able to ignore it. It would give real meaning to the phrase that such resources are the "common heritage of mankind".
  But, no. Given their industrial and economic philosophy and their attitude to the Third world, it is perhaps typical that the Government should decide otherwise. It is interesting to ask what would happen if the treaty were ratified by more than 60 countries. The Treaty would not have to include Britain, the United States of America, Germany, France or Italy. It needs to be ratified by only 60 countries to become effective. What would the situation be? What attitude would we then adopt? That is another important question for the Government to consider.
  I wish to ask a number of questions about the details of the Bill. I have already mentioned authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will deal with the legal basis of the proposals. What authority have we to issue licences in the way proposed? We are falling into line with our competitor countries. The Minister asked whether we should let them go ahead. It seems that we are not only to become involved with those countries, but to become involved in an organised, planned way. It may well be that any "competition" is purely window-dressing.
  I mentioned that we had reservations about the temporary nature of the proposals. We have reservations also about the title of the Bill and the impact, intent and likely result of issuing licences for periods of up to 20 years. In addition we have reservations about the proposed controls on pollution and damage to the marine environment and life. I do not know anyone or any company that claims to have the knowledge, expertise or technical ability to give such guarantees on the large-scale exploitation of minerals from the deep ocean beds of the world. I do not know of any company that can make that claim. Indeed, I would regard any such claim as dubious. Many of those in the technical and scientific world will agree with that point of view.
  Nodules have built up over thousands of years. The marine environment has Iain untouched for thousands of years. Marine life has developed undisturbed over thousands and thousands of years. Have we the audacity to presume that with our paucity of knowledge and experience we can give guarantees? I blame the Government a little for suggesting that we can be sure about such things. No one can guarantee that we can do what is proposed without causing serious and lasting damage to the marine environment.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is it not true that any technological advance, whether it invokes going to the moon or any other form of development, may cause damage?
  Dr. Cunningham: Of course, I accept that. I should not like hon. Members to think that I am anti-technology. After all, one of the most sensitive technological establishments is in my constituency, namely, Windscale. I have been a consistent supporter of the development of nuclear power. Therefore, I do not hold the view that the hon. Gentleman may fear that I do.
  The development of new technology and new processes shows—often in retrospect—that we should be more

  855
  careful and that we should take more time to examine the risks involved and the balance of risk. I agree that we cannot eliminate risk completely, but experience, particularly of some multinational companies, shows that they are not the best guardians. That is all the more reason why time should be taken for consideration. It is all the more reason for licensing. I agree with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas). Licensing is one thing; inspection and control are something else.
  As a result of my experience in the Labour Administration, I can tell hon. Members about the difficulties that we had in monitoring the flaring of gas by oil companies in the British sector of the North Sea. That is on our doorstep. What possibility is there of carrying out realistic, detailed and systematic control of operations that take place several thousand miles away in the mid-Pacific? Will the inspection and monitoring that will guarantee these matters take place?
  Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to monitor private companies, how will such a complicated and clumsy body as the international sea bed authority carry out monitoring? Governments, looking after their national interests and integrating their legislataion with their neighbours, will look after the real interests of mankind much more effectively.
  Dr. Cunningham: I was not asserting that the international regime would be any more successful, but I believe that there would be a slightly greater chance of success. An international regime could be closer to the action and there could be a more comprehensive approach by national Governments working in concert. Whichever approach we take, it will be difficult.
  We have a query about the levy and the fund. Industry has been saying that the levy should not be too high, or it will scare people off. That is typical of multinational operations everywhere. The Government's experience in the North Sea shows that, in retrospect, we always realise that we have been too generous. We then increase taxation and royalties and decide to take more in the public interest, although there is a limit to that. We should not fall for the blandishments of the multinational mining lobby.
  I am also unhappy with the Government's proposal that the fund should be wound up, which is indicative of their pessimism. Why should the levy not continue, even if there is no maritime regime? Why should the fund not be designated for our aid programme? That is a more generous view and is far more likely to gain the respect of Third world countries than if we say that the money is to go to the Consolidated Fund—in other words, we shall keep everything if there is no international regime. The proposals will follow the new Committee procedure, so those and other questions will then be examined in greater detail.
  The Government's decision to act now is wrong in principle. The Bill is also wrong in detail and, in some respects, inadequate. It is not in the national interest to jeopardise finalisation of the law of the sea treaty. We shall vote against the Bill. Some years ago we committed ourselves to the need for an international ocean regime. We reaffirm that commitment.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have listened to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) clutching at straws with both hands. There are problems. We are trying to work out an international convention beneficial to mankind, but there are many ways of doing that without setting up an International Sea bed Authority.
  Under international law, companies or consortia that want to mine nodules in the Pacific can do so without an international convention, but they are hesitating because they hope that one will ultimately be realised. It was expected that it would be negotiated at Caracas this year, but the timetable has gone awry and it may not happen until next year. One cannot predict these things with great accuracy. It could be at a later date. The Minister stated that the convention is not likely to be operating, under the normal road to signature and ratification, before the mid or late 1980s, so we are concerned with the intervening period.
  We must take account of two facts. First, industrial teams dealing with technology have to be kept together. Secondly, as the Minister said, we must take account of progress in other countries. If the United States is to issue licences in early January 1982, even though the mining cannot be attempted before 1988, we should be at a disadvantage if we could not do the same. As I said, a consortium could go through the American system instead of ours, or possibly take advantage of the German system.
  The Group of 77 is not totally against the approach. Clause 18(3) of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the right to revoke the legislation when all the provisions become merged in a convention. That is why what we are discussing is temporary. The House will have some control, because the matter will first be considered by the House on an affirmative resolution.
  When the American legislation was endorsed by the President on 28 June 1980, it was expected that there would be a great clamour from the Third world, but that did not happen. The next session of the conference on the law of the sea was most profitable, as many matters were agreed.
  The Bill defines hard mineral resources as manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorus and molybdenum. In passing, I point out that the British Nationality Act 1948 is mentioned in clause 1(6). I hope that the Minister will note that and have it altered.
  What are those minerals used for? Cobalt is critical for jet engine blades, electronic applications and metal alloys, manganese for steel production and nickel for corrosive resistance in chemical and refinery plants. It also has many other applications. Molybdenum is used for imparting hardness, strength and corrosion resistance to steel and no-ferrous metals. Copper has many applications, including electrical wiring and tubes.
  As has been said, the United States has taken a strong line under the new President in wishing to review the position. That is reasonable. As a new organisation, it wishes to consider the effect on its national interest. Is the United States to be for ever dependent on Zambia, Zaire and Zimbabwe for cobalt? Should it not be able to obtain cobalt from nodules? Will it have to depend on South Africa and the Soviet Union for manganese? Should it not have the choice of obtaining it from nodules in the 1990s?
  It is estimated that in 1978 the United States imported $2·4 billion of nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese.

  857
  Nodules could ultimately reduce the United States net imports of manganese from 98 per cent. of consumption to zero, of cobalt from 97 per cent. to zero, of nickel from 77 per cent. to 42 per cent. and of copper from 19 per cent. to 15 per cent., and the United States is a major producer of copper.
  We should go into the matter a little more deeply. The dependence of the Western world on South Africa and the Soviet Union must be considered injudicious, particularly when we remember the strategic value of key materials. Let us take world production figures as percentages in 1975.
  In that year Canada produced 30 per cent. of the world production of nickel, the Eastern bloc 19 per cent., New Caledonia 16 per cent. and Australia 9 per cent. Of the countries producing 75 per cent. of world production, only one can be classified as a developing State. The remainder can be classified as industrialised States.
  The Eastern bloc produced 31 per cent. of the world production of manganese in that year, South Africa 24 per cent., Gabon 11·4 per cent. and Brazil 8·1 per cent. From the countries producing 75 per cent. of world production, only one can be classified as a developing State.
  Zaire produced 53 per cent. of the world production of cobalt, Zambia 9 per cent., the USSR and Cuba 10·6 per cent. and New Caledonia and Australia about 12 per cent. Therefore, of 86 per cent. of world production, only three developing countries are the beneficiaries, and they may wish to preserve their interests. Zambia has expressed that view. Nickel and cobalt are exchangeable in many industrial uses.
  The United States of America is a major producer of copper, producing more than 18 per cent. The centrally planned economies of the non-free world produced 19·7 per cent., Chile 11·9 per cent. and Canada 10·4 per cent., followed by Zambia, Zaire and Peru. Of 80 per cent. of world production, the leading producers are the United States of America, the centrally planned economies of the East and Canada, which would presumably be interested in sea bed production anyway. A clear picture emerges. The greatest beneficiaries will be not the Group of 77 but the industrialised States of the world. That is unique.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) raised a matter which the Minister could not clarify. Suppose there is a section—we shall call it section X—measuring 10 kilometres by 10 kilometres, valuable in producing copper. If the Canadians, British, Belgians and Americans cast envious eyes on that area, how, under unilateral legislation, do we work that out? The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has made a great study of these matters. I listen to him with great interest. What is his solution to the conundrum put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend which the Minister did not answer? Can the hon. Gentleman answer it?
  Mr. Skeet: I shall answer the question when I come to deal with the international organisation for the deep sea bed. I can see the problem. If there is a good deal of local or national legislation, it will have to be co-ordinated. It will be easier to do that than to organise the bureaucracy in an international sea bed authority. I promise that I shall answer the hon. Gentleman on that point later.
  The informal text of the draft convention on the law of the sea has been under negotiation since 1973. I appreciate
  858
  that that is seven to eight years. The text contains 320 articles and eight annexes. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that within its jurisdiction lies two-thirds of the world's surface. It would have been much greater but for the fact that the exclusive economic zone has been established or agreed, and the area of the continental shelf has been redefined. It must be acknowledged that the continental shelf area, as extended, will accommodate all the oil and gas reserves of the world.
  I do not think that the Government will agree with me, but I can see problems arising at every corner with an international sea bed authority. A new cartel is being established for more than two-thirds of the world's surface, and in it a triumvirate of powers are being vested—regulatory, fiscal and operational, including marketing. All those powers are being vested in one body. What is the system of appeal? In the system that we are establishing there is an appeal to the Secretary of State. The United States has a system in which the Minister responsible will be in control. There will be a council and an assembly of the ISA. One cannot overrule the other, except on certain matters. There appears to be a complicated system of voting rights in the council.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is being candid with the House. Is he saying that he does not want an international regime? Surely his objections to an international regime would apply even if there were agreement by all the nations of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Is that not an argument for going ahead on a rich country basis?
  Mr. Skeet: That is a direct question. Of course, I want an international convention. We should think about it carefully. The change of Administration in the United States provides an opportunity to reconsider one or two matters. Its decision about the EEZ is correct. Its decision about the continental shelf is reasonable. We shall not examine most of the proposals in the document tonight because it is too vast to cover in the time available. However, it is only right that the House should consider the difficulties. Nobody likes a monopoly, but the ISA will be a monopoly. It is not virtuous simply because it is a public monopoly. We have already been faced with OPEC which is an international body, although admittedly not under the United Nations. But monopolies are not good in any circumstances.
  The format of the ISA is incompatible with the accepted principles of free trade, free access to materials and free competition, upon which the economies of the industrial West are based. It may be that that system must change and that a new system will come into operation in the style that is now being formulated. But the West must recognise the changes that are being wrought.
  A dangerous precedent will be established by the ISA. When we come to divide Antarctica or space, will we have the same sort of treaty? Many who have not advocated an ISA on this occasion will say that they reserve their defence. Many who concede that, will say that every international convention, whether it be the mandatory transfer of technology or something else, will be governed by the treaty.
  The ISA may indeed bureaucratise the sea and achieve a purpose that was never intended. I fully accept that the companies should work for the betterment of mankind. That has been the whole of my philosophy of life. I do my

  859
  best to press them along that course. But I do not think that the ISA will achieve that purpose. We had great faith in the League of Nations prior to the war, but it came to nought. The United Nations has not been able to stand up to any of the conflagrations which have occurred across the world. Yet I still support the United Nations. I simply ask that we recognise its limitations.
  The system of parallel developments envisaged by the Kissinger proposals in 1976 is a distinctly cumbersome procedure. When a company applies to the ISA for a licence it must apply for two—one for the company to develop under the rules and regulations that will eventually be laid down and the other will be banked by the ISA.
  They have no technology and it will take them years to acquire it. I do not know what they will do with it. It may be put aside. It will probably be a long time before anything is done. the delays could be prolific.
  I greatly fear that political rather than practical criteria will be used in reaching decisions. If an international body is put in control of taxation, royalties and the rate of return, it may prove to be unreasonably onerous. That may deter the companies from doing anything.
  If those with technology are deterred because they cannot see an adequate return, not one of the Group of 77 will be able to do what the companies are able to achieve. I agree that the technology should be made available to mankind, but that must be subject to certain terms and conditions.
  The text states:
  "The programmes for the transfer of technology to the enterprise and to developing States with regard to activities in the area, including inter alia facilitating the access of the Enterprise"
  that is the operating arm of the ISA—
  "and of developing States to the relevant technology, be given under fair and reasonable terms and conditions."
  It must be remembered that 96 per cent. of technology is vested in firms throughout the world. It is in the firms that are innovative. If there is to be a mandatory transfer, data will have to be paid for. It will have to be subject to certain conditions. It is a concept that is easy to put on paper, but it will not be easy to implement. For example, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany may lose their technological lead. Of course, they will not want to lose it. Those countries may say that there is a risk that proprietary information will be leaked and that the enterprise which is the operating arm, will hand it out to a third party—perhaps a competitor. If that happens, there will be no right of appeal and the information will be lost.
  The United Kingdom, for example, may come up against security and defence provisions. The Government may not allow the information to be alienated. It is praiseworthy that the Third world should have all the technology and information available to enable these things to be done, and there are many ways in which this can be provided.
  I shall try to answer the question that was posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). A licensing system for granting exploration blocks would be more difficult under the ISA than under joint Government licensing arrangements secured by a mini-convention negotiated between several directly interested countries with both the technology and the finance to mine nodules. That is not to say that an international convention would
  860
  be inhibited. It is right to look forward to an international convention at an early stage. However, I have grave doubts about its immediate implementation.
  The forecast of mineral demand has fallen substantially in recent years. Negotiations during seven to eight years have led to certain issues that were previously considered crucial being downgraded in importance. That has happened because of the passage of time and changing circumstances. I shall give one or two illustrations—
  Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman does that—
  Mr. Skeet: May I finish the sentence?
  Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes.
  Mr. Skeet: One of the great difficulties is that I cannot see nodules coming into large-scale production for many years. Those years are being deferred even further because of certain matters which I shall mention later.
  Mr. Dalyell: How binding in law would be agreements reached under the so-called mini-convention if there were an international treaty? There is no guarantee that the carry-over arrangements would be binding on the subsequent participants.
  Mr. Skeet: A mini-convention would apply only to the contractees. It would not bind anyone else. However, the contractees are those who are likely to do the mining. A mini-convention would be merged in time into an international convention. I think that everybody should ultimately participate in the developments. I am in favour of a convention being negotiated, but that will take time to achieve.
  I shall indicate why I feel that the Third world will not receive the benefit of nodules at an earlier date. Much sea bed mining will not be attempted if it is feasible to work the nickel laterite deposits in Australia, Indonesia, the Philippine Islands and New Caledonia. Initial mining would not take place before 1988 at the earliest. The existence of low-grade ores might be rather more attractive than ores that come from the deep ocean. Additional land reserves of manganese are to be found in many countries, including Australia, China, India, Gabon, Ghana, the Ivory Coast and Brazil. That will probably give the nodules, which have the highest content of manganese, low priority.
  It is essential to maintain industrial expertise in the development of deep sea marine technology. I shall set out the conditions which, in my judgment, should be laid down. First, there should be the acceptance of a convention that is suitable for sea bed operations beneficial to mankind and not simply assumed to be so. Secondly, there should be the establishment of a preparatory commission to lay down the regulations and the procedures of the ISA. That could take a long time, because agreement would have to be secured. Thirdly, preparatory investment protection is crucial to guarantee the inviolacy of the money that has been and, is likely to be spent before the convention comes into operation. I regard national legislation as crucial.
  The Minister has not mentioned that production ceilings will be established by the treaty. I agree that the legitimate interests of producers and consumers must be considered. However, it is wrong that there should be a trade-off

  861
  between producers. The strategic interests of industrial States should be considered and at least recognised, and that will involve security of supply.
  The United States of America absorbs no less than 20 per cent. of the world total production of manganese, yet it produces only 1 per cent. Therefore, it must have a secure source of supply. We must import all our supplies of these key materials. Therefore, we want a secure base as well. Competition from an additional source of supply is not necessarily inhibiting. For example, work on the continental shelf has not been inhibited, because we have land supplies of oil in the Middle East.
  I do not want to detain the House too long, but it is only right that I should make clear one or two matters which are of crucial importance.
  Mr. Douglas: More?
  Mr. Skeet: I have given a little background and it is important that Opposition Members should listen a little further.
  Clause 9 deals with the levy. Can the Minister say whether the taxation which will be made available ultimately to the United Nations or an international sea bed authority will be offset against national taxation? It would be unreasonable if the consortia had to pay twice—if it were taxed here and also by an international sea bed authority.
  Clause 9(1)(a) is also a matter of great concern to me. Its provisions do not appear in the German legislation, whereas those in clause 9(1)(b) do. Why do we not have a simple system and include only clause 9(1)(b)? Clause 9(1)(a) will cover the sale of nodules and clause 9(1)(b) will cover the recovered products. An arithmetical formula would be able to work out what (a) is, and that would make sense. The matter could be dealt with in that way.
  We want a stake in the business for our own companies. Both sides of the House accept that. If the legislation is acceptable to the companies and if it is fair and reasonable, many of the international consortia will want to operate in the United Kingdom, not in Western Germany and the United States. The United States legislation is comprehensive. I should have thought that our legislation was much better.
  The care of the environment, which has caused some concern to the Opposition, is dealt with in clause 5. It is a simple clause. The United States legislation is extensive. I believe that our system is much better. As is mentioned in the schedule, certain provisions can be laid down by regulation and not put in the Act.
  Another matter which I find distasteful in the American legislation, which I hope will not be repeated here, is that section 102 says:
  "Each permittee shall use at least one vessel documented under the laws of the United States for the transportation from each mining site of hard mineral resources recovered under the permit issued to the permittee."
  Why should there be a vested interest in ships of the United States? I am not certain that we have done any good work by putting what is known as foreign discriminatory action in clause 8. I recommend that that clause be dropped. I assume that it was put in simply as a stick to strike possibly the United States of America. It would be better to follow our usual traditions and to deal with that in due course by negotiation.
  I am surprised that the United States legislation says:
  862
  "Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the processing on land of hard mineral resources recovered pursuant to a permit shall be conducted within the United States".
  I know that a provision says that they could be processed in other parts of the world with consent. However, I believe that we should not follow the instructions in the petroleum production regulations and say that, like North Sea oil, minerals must be brought ashore in the United Kingdom, although at a later stage they may be exported. When one is dealing with the great distances over which those minerals may be carried, it is better to leave it to the companies to decide where they will be processed rather than to provide that in the legislation.
  Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friend has more to say and I do not wish to intervene unnecessarily. I have more fundamental misgivings about the Bill than he has. Does my hon. Friend believe that the German legislation is more satisfactory than the Bill?
  Mr. Skeet: I have had the opportunity to go through the German legislation in an English translation. We should not favour that legislation because of the background picture in Germany. There is a withholding tax of between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. It might be difficult to repatriate funds under that legislation. I have examined the three pieces of legislation and I believe ours to be the best. When a number of international consortia have been assembled, the country with the best economic environment and legislation will get most of the business later. We should aim to be that country. The Opposition might be impatient, but they will concede that the more business that the United Kingdom secures the better.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about the obligations on companies. How important does he believe the obligations are in terms of employment and safety? I have come across many examples of employees of companies engaged in the North Sea and elsewhere whose health has been damaged and whose remedies have been small or minimal.
  Mr. Skeet: That is a helpful observation. Under the schedule to the Bill
  "The safety, health or welfare of persons employed in any licensed operation or in any ancillary operations"
  will be covered by the regulations. That is the time-honoured way of operating in the United Kingdom. There is no point in providing extensive coverage in the legislation.
  I am glad that in clause 18(3) there is provision for revoking the arrangement if an international settlement or convention is agreed. With the separate legislation which is likely to flow in over the years it is important that a monitoring body should ensure the compatibility of national legislation. If we agree on that at an early stage, we shall prevent difficulties later on.
  It might be argued that because an international convention will apply eventually it is not necessary to have the provision at this stage. However, I believe it to be useful because, apart from the three countries that we are discussing now, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Japan are in line for legislation of their own.
  The date for licensing applications in the United States is 24 January 1982. It is important that the United Kingdom applies the same date. The legislation must be put through the House as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, the American legislation could be used and we

  863
  could be disadvantaged. I hope that the Foreign Office will bear that in mind and consider the broader issues. It would be meritorious to help British companies a little more in a sphere in which they have considerable expertise.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I always enjoy the peppery style of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), but he will forgive me if I do not follow his long trail. He brought it home clearly that this Bill is about resources. That is what the whole debate is about. I can well understand the development team seeking some assurance to enable them to get on with their pioneering work. What I question is whether this temporary legislation will give them the necessary long-term safeguards which I would have thought they require in order to do this type of work.
  Any industrial opportunities that are available ought to be seized with both hands by this country. What is so disturbing is that, despite all the discussions that have gone on at the United Nations law of the sea conferences over the past two decades or more and despite all the efforts to achieve international agreement, we have here something resembling almost legal piracy; the Government are attempting to introduce legislation to exploit the treasures of the deep seas.
  The Government describe this as a temporary measure pending international agreement by the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. However, it is clear from what has been said that the United States has already led the way and Germany has quickly followed. In effect those two countries have jumped the United Nations starter gun and the United Kingdom Government are simply going to limp along behind them. It would have been far more impressive if the Minister had said that arms were going to be twisted at international level in order to get the kind of international agreement we have been seeking for the past two decades rather than backs broken to get to the resources on the ocean bed.
  Without international agreement, unilateral action by nations will leave companies in a most vulnerable position in the long term and will creat potential conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the Indian Ocean. I am sure that what was at the back of his mind was that if the Siberian adventures of the Soviet Union do not come to pass that country will probably be looking much more closely at what resources might lie on the bed of the Indian Ocean, quite apart from its examination of what is available in the Pacific.
  Clearly the legislation has enormous long-term implications for world resources and the global environment. Nearer home we know that oil and natural gas deposits in the North Sea have created all sorts of problems over claims and lines of demarcation. Perhaps the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will tell us this evening whether we have resolved all our problems with the Republic of Ireland over median lines.
  The potential represented in deep sea mining and the shortage of resources outlined by the hon. Member for Bedford suggest that there will be a considerable source of conflict in the years ahead. The measure that the Government are attempting to pass into law is one of the biggest smash and grab efforts in a long time.
  864
  The Minister knows well that the technological know-how is concentrated largely in the hands of the industrialised nations and that they have the largest demand for the resources that will be available. What I fear is that the guarantees cannot exist without international agreement. Even if we get international agreement there has to be monitoring, as the hon. Member for Bedford pointed out. Clearly, with the United States having decided to review everything, the whole issue has been thrown back into a cauldron of uncertainty. Despite all the lip-service that we pay to the Brandt proposals and the needs of the Third world, efforts of this character will not strengthen the approach towards achieving a better balance between the technology of the North and the needs of the South.
  The Minister highlighted another issue in his remarks about having just seen the nodule. I know that the Lord Privy Seal co-ordinates law of the sea matters and other marine matters. With our involvement in the North Sea and with the prospect of deep sea interests being much closer, the United Kingdom should have a single Ministry for marine affairs. Our country is surrounded by sea. We have a coastline of about 6,500 miles. Perhaps a Ministry of marine affairs—
  Mr. Douglas: The Government have been at sea for years.
  Mr. Craigen: My hon. Friend, who I know is anxious to make a good contribution, says that the Government are already at sea, but that does not guarantee that they have the necessary expertise.
  Seeing my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian on the Opposition Front Bench, and knowing his interest in scientific matters, I am prompted to ask what consideration the Government have given to the long-term geological effects of North Sea oil depletion on our coastline. My hon. Friend knows from his constituency the effect of mineral under-workings on land. Within the foreseeable future, problems may be affecting our coastline because of depletion in the North Sea.
  The Bill impinges on mineral resources and on transportation throughout the world, because the oceans are a mass highway for the passage of goods and materials. Moreover, as two-thirds of the world's surface is ocean, the sea represents a considerable food storehouse and global thermostat and reservoir. So mankind has a considerable ecological interest in the sea, quite apart from the need for mineral resources. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) periodically raises in the House the issue of hydrography and the need for the adequate charting of our seas, particularly the North Sea.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the necessity for departmental back-up in monitoring mining activities. I understand that some years ago the Customs and Excise was approached about extraction from the ocean bed, but the department would not touch it because it did not have available the necessary manpower.
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim, speaking at Caracas on 20 June 1976, said that these deliberations must succeed, lest old quarrels on land be replaced by new quarrels at sea. We should not underestimate the importance of the Bill, nor the indication in the Bill that the Government are simply easing off in the necessary efforts to achieve international agreement.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Body: I agree substantially with some of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Clasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Graigen). All of us are concerned about the views expressed so clearly by the Group of 77. The group undoubtedly has had its suspicions aroused by the manoeuverings of the various international companies that will seek the licences. It can look back on unhappy experiences with some of those companies.
  First, why is the Bill necessary? The Law of the Sea Conference, after many holdups and procrastinations, is at last making progress. A text is soon to be broadcast, which, one understands, will be satisfactory to the world. One would have thought that it would be more sensible to await the natural course of events after that. I searched for some time for an explanation for the legislation. The United States and Germany have gone ahead determinedly.
  Reading the Official Report of the debate in the other place, one realises what is reasonable. Six international consortia have already invested £150 million. It seems that the consortia wish to invest still more money and are unlikely to plunge—we were told in that debate—another £100 million into the project unless they have assurances contained in legislation.
  There is only one way to know how reliable the Bill's assurances are. In issuing the licences the Minister must not only have regard to the criteria set out in clause 5—which do not add up to much—but must consult his counterparts in other countries so that there will be an international carve-up and each consortium will have a fair slice of the cake. Thus, there will be a portion for each consortium. In that way rough justice will be done.
  No doubt justice will follow for the six international consortia, but I doubt whether much justice will follow for any interests emerging from developing countries that might wish to have a stake. I have misgivings about the Bill. I should prefer not to seek a licensing system which can be done only on an international basis for the security that the companies require. I should prefer us to wait one or two years for a more rational licensing system, preferably under the aegis of the United Nations.
  Mr. Skeet: If we are to prosecute the course that my hon. Friend recommends, he should realise that industrial teams are already being paid. They will have to be disbanded because companies will not commit further funds to the projects. Should they not have State guarantees to protect them?
  Mr. Body: My hon. Friend knows that I have rather robust and old-fashioned views about the market economy. I am torn between those views and common sense as expressed by my hon. Friend. I recognise the force of what he has said. One realises that it is important that those companies which have a major stake must be protected. We cannot expect them to go ahead without the sort of security that they have been seeking. But my anxiety is that the Bill will not provide that security and that it can be provided only later, when there is an international carve-up, clandestinely I expect, and the Government will have to act in liaison with their counterparts in other countries, so that each consortium has a fair share and there is no conflict among them. It is a process that I regret, but it may be inevitable.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I have listened with interest to the debate, and particularly to the remarks of the hon. Member of Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). He has a rugged view of the market economy and would not regard it as uncharitable if I said that this view on this issue would be "finders keepers"—those who have the technology to seek nodules should have the right not only to explore but exploit their finds.
  That view has a rugged aura about it which may appeal to many Conservative Members, but we have to ask the Government whether there is a strategy behind the Bill or whether it is merely tactical. If there is a strategy, A has to reside in the international rule of law. What is the status of our law and the laws of other nation States in regard to international law? I realise that that may be a difficult and complicated question for the Minister to answer.
  It seems to me that the Bill is not part of a strategy, but is tactical, and that the tactics relate not to the rule of law, but to acceptance of the fact that certain nations need the raw materials and—or have the technology to exploit them. The nations with the technology are the United States, Germany and Japan.
  The United States is the leader in this area, because the technology bounces off the space programme, which may seem contradictory, and because of the United States' historic lead in offshore oil exploitation. Many of the techniques involved in deep sea mining, particularly drilling, relate to offshore oil techniques.
  I am referring not only to drilling to depths of 600 or 800 ft. but to the techniques of dynamically positioned drill ships. Those techniques exist in the United States, and to some extent in Japan. I ought to declare an interest, because I have some knowledge of drilling and I am associated with Scott Lithgow, which has built two dynamically positioned drill ships. Therefore I appreciate some of the technology involved.
  If it is to be argued that we shall be left behind in the technology, we ought to consider the present position of drilling in the United Kingdom. The latest Brown Book shows that the United Kingdom's share of exploration and appraisal drilling in our own continental shelf is only 31 per cent. That is a shocking commentary on our ability to exploit technologically our indigenuous resources.
  I accept the provisions of clause 8 in terms of trying to get a blocking arrangement in the use of ships, and so on, but I am not satisfied that the Bill will do the job that the Government seem to want it to do. I believe that it will fly in the face of world opinion. We have to balance economic advantage with the position of the rich nations trying to gain an unfair share of a resource that we claim to have internationalised. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said that the Bill flies in the face of the proposals in the Brandt report. Therefore, in terms of giving the companies the assurances that they want, I have great misgivings about whether the Bill will do the job.
  I appreciate that time is limited, and I do not want to trespass too much on the patience of the House, but I wonder whether there are lessons to be learnt from our experience of the continental shelf. In the beginning, much of the offshore oil exploration technology was in the hands of the United States. We recognised that fact in our legislation, because we indicated quite clearly that there would be sharing arrangements. If we grant licences,

  867
  should not the responsibility of the consortia include the encouragement of companies from the developing world so that they will at least share in the technology? To some extent that would meet the point made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), that somehow or other the developing nations would not have the technology to participate.
  We sought to balance our relative lack of technology by writing partnerships into our terms and conditions for licences. On occasions, the Labour Government wisely said that preferential treatment would be given if a public authority was involved.
  I accept that in technological terms exploration could be beneficial, but that must be balanced against the ecological argument. That brings me to the question of regulatory authorities. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that no international authority can do this, but no national authority can do it either. If there is to be reciprocity in licensing agreements, is it not possible to write into those agreements a requirement that there should be international co-operation, to ensure that the ecological systems are not disturbed?
  The Minister must put a better case for the Bill. I am sure that in Committee we shall go through the measure line by line and clause by clause. The Government's majority will ensure that the Bill will become law, but the Minister must recognise that some of us have grave misgivings about rushing ahead.
  It is all very well to say that there will be no exploitation until 1988, but no company will make the type of investment necessary for that exploitation without some clear indication that there is a market for the product.
  Perhaps the Minister will also spell out the nature and structure of the British consortia that are likely to apply and their relationship to the United Kingdom in taxation terms. The hon. Member for Bedford raised an interesting point when he said that if we did not act the consortia would register themselves under the United States licensing system. That is a persuasive argument.
  What are the benefits in terms of taxation, security and protection for the consortia or any consortium in the United Kingdom? I have an engineering background, and I do not believe that science and technology can be put back into the bottle and recorked. There must be clear regulations. I am a little sad that the Government of my country want to dash ahead at a time when we are struggling to get international agreement.
  I accept that the Government will get the Bill, but I hope that they will understand the concern that is felt by Labour Members. We are expressing not only our concern, but the concern that is felt internationally, and we hope that the Government will bear that concern in mind.
  9.06 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Bill appears to be a small and sensible measure, but anyone who has Britain's interests at heart must view with suspicion any measure which has anything to do with our Foreign Office. I therefore put three questions to the Minister, and hope that he will answer them before we proceed further.
  The first is a simple question. Will not the Bill make it more difficult to achieve the international agreement which the Government say they want and which everyone agrees is needed? It will be more difficult to achieve
  868
  international agreement if there are more and more interested parties with a stake. With an American Bill, a German Bill and a British Bill, many licences will be issued, and many interested parties will have to be squared off, almost on a competitive basis, the British trying to do more for their licensees, and the Americans and Japanese doing likewise. So this Bill may make it that much more difficult for an international agreement to be achieved.
  The second question is one that the Minister should answer on Second Reading. We have these splendid, able teams who are anxious to get on with exploration but want a little more security. In the event of an international agreement, which will no doubt be superimposed national licences, will the Government clearly undertake to give appropriate compensation to consortia which have obtained a licence and spent a lot of money and which then find that an international agreement knocks their apparent security for six?
  The third question is also simple. If the British Government give a licence to a person and find that the Germans or the Americans have given a licence, or someone else has given a licence, will the individual or consortium get the money back? The Minister may say that there may be a nod or a wink arrangement or a telephone conversation saying "We shall not give it for the same area as the Germans gave it." If that happens, it will not be a British Bill. It will then be an established cartel.
  Having put those three questions to the Government, I want to raise two further issues. If, as I hope, there is an international agreement and a great deal of cash comes in, I hope that the Government will argue the case for getting rid of the cash quickly to the Governments concerned, whether of under-developed countries, Britain, Turkey, or any other country. I hope that they will hand out the cash quickly and not establish yet another international bureaucracy to support projects throughout the world.
  One of the most dangerous threats, apart from Socialism, to the free economies of the world is the growth of international bodies handing out the equivalent of national contracts. The Government are well aware of the problems of subsidisation, but an even greater danger to the freedom of our economies is the growth of organisations which hand out massive contracts, which can distort the natural disciplines of a capitalist economy, and which seem to provide an immense number of highly-paid jobs for clapped-out politicians and others whom they want out of the way.
  I therefore hope that, if we have a fund, the Government will ensure that the cash is handed out quickly and that we do not have a gigantic new organisation with headquarters in Geneva and lots of conferences for all our friends who enjoy that kind of activity.
  Secondly, if we have international agreement, let us have some means of enforcement, even if it has to be three secondhand gunboats to shoot those who do not agree. We should always remember what happened to the whales. If 77 countries come to an agreement that only their licensees may do something, and if we then find that someone else is operating from Liberia or wherever, surely we should have some procedure to destroy their works. Those who do not agree should remember the international agreement on whales. Everyone agreed, but the poor bloody whales go on getting killed.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tom Normanton: Inasmuch as the Bill gives clear evidence of recognition that an international agreement on the law of the sea and all that flows from it is desirable and necessary and one day will have to be reached, the House should give it a warm and constructive welcome. Nevertheless, at this stage I have a number of questions for the Minister.
  First, how does my hon. Friend see the Bill matching up, marrying or being compatible with the thinking on this subject which is and has been developing within the European Community? The Minister referred to Germany. I earnestly hope that he or his right hon. Friend has had general discussions on this theme in the appropriate Council of Ministers. If not, I hope that the House will be given an assurance that there will be a long and intensive dialogue along these lines.
  Secondly, does he see the possibility—having studied the Bill fairly carefully, I do—of the Bill serving as a guideline to the kind of legislation which in my opinion will ultimately have to be formulated and promulgated on a Western European basis, which to me means on the basis of the European Economic Community?
  Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my reminding him that the European Community, of which Britain is a signatory, is in treaty linked with the Lomé II convention—an institution which brings the 61 ASP States into ever-increasing commercial, industrial, financial and even, in a remote sense, social relationships with Western Europe and the European Community. I earnestly hope that the Minister will bear in mind the importance that those countries place upon finding some solution to this long-standing problem involving a law of the sea which in many cases will affect them as much as, if not more than, the countries of Western Europe.
  Bearing in mind the fact that three Conservative Members serve on the EEC consultative assembly on the Lomé convention, will the Minister use them to help give a better and more constructive understanding of his aims and objectives as I interpret them in the Bill? I assure my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we welcome the spirit of the initiative, but we recognise that it is only too easy for it to be misunderstood and misinterpreted, by those with politically hostile thoughts in mind, in terms of the Lomé convention States.
  Lastly, I ask that British firms which are interested in this area of profound high capital investment and ever-increasing complexity of high technology should be invited to look carefully at—and, indeed should be helped to avail themselves of—the financial support which the Community readily makes available for projects in this area.
  The initiative of the Government should be welcomed and given constructive—perhaps critically constructive—consideration by hon. Members. On the other hand, the Bill, when it comes into effect, must not be one of those many measures on the statute book which serve as a dead hand to inhibit investment, initiative and the expansion of technology in an area of ever-growing importance. I hope that it will not, and I accept the assurances, which I read into the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, that that is not in the Government's mind. If I interpret his views correctly, I am confident that that will not be the case.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West): It has transpired that my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) were right: this has been a debate about international law.
  You will not believe this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I find international law a very emotive subject. It is one of the things that turn me on. I accept at once that that places me in a minority. But international law is about conducting international relations without recourse to war. It is about peace. Perhaps, if it had been recognised earlier that this was a debate about peace, there would have been more of our colleagues adorning the Benches on each side of the House.
  I become emotional about international law because it is a method by which the nation States accept rules about their behaviour towards one another, about resolving disputes by adjudication, and about renouncing the use of physical or economic muscle in favour of consensus to decide who gets what. I am sure that that will appeal to Conservative Members, because law and order was one of the subjects that figured largely in their manifesto.
  The importance of international law in relation to the sea bed is a subject about which some of us have felt passionately for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to my noble Friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. Many years ago, my hon. Friend and Lord Ritchie-Calder and I were fighting shoulder to shoulder on this matter, on which I wish more people would chain themselves to the railings. There is not time now to recognise the contribution that they made, but perhaps the House will forgive me if I spend a few minutes in rehearsing the route by which we arrived at this debate.
  The sea, as we have been told more than once, occupies more than two-thirds of the earth's surface, yet for the greater part of the world's history it has received very little attention from lawyers or legislators, mainly because human activities there have been very simple. People wished to sail on the waters without wishing to add to the problems imposed by natural conditions, so it was necesary to eliminate piracy, and the Governments of the world co-operated to bring that about.
  It was necessary to have elementary international rules about navigation, but usually there was plenty of room to sail without colliding. People wanted to fish, but there was enough for everyone, if only because there were narrow limits on what could be caught with the technical means available. People wished to use the oceans as sewers for their pollutants, but before the recent onset of industrial pollutants, the sea was big enough to absorb them. Countries wished to control a sufficient strip of water around their coasts to ensure that they were not surprised by hostile invaders. For that purpose, three miles was quite sufficient.
  So the rules were simple and they were basically about nations keeping off one another's backs. The regime that obtained in the seas until the mid-twentieth century was basically the regime that obtained on land 3,000 years ago, when man was a hunter. In this century those activities became more complicated. Ships became faster, larger, less manageable and more numerous. As a result, the navigation rules had to be more complicated. Fishing techniques became so effective that some species are in danger of extinction. Unless there are effective limits on fishing, that occupation will self-destruct. As the hon.

  871
  Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, species such as the whale and the dolphin look as if they will be deliberately hunted to extinction.
  Over large areas pollutants are being poured into the ocean more quickly than it can absorb them. That is particularly true of oil, but it is also true of many other substances. Unless all the coastal and river States agree to improve their pollution standards—admittedly, with the corresponding expense—we shall end up by poisoning one another. Hostile invaders can travel at such speeds that the old three-mile limit is pointless. The seas can be used as hiding places for weapons of mass destruction. People have discovered various means of using the sea for leisure pursuits, and techniques have evolved for winning mineral resources, particularly oil, from below the seas.
  All those activities require regulation. Unless they are regulated, they are mutually incompatible. An oil rig can be a danger to navigation. A pollutant can poison off the fish stocks. This century has brought its own problems. In addition, it has brought in a new factor, namely, the nodule. Knowledge of the existence of the nodule was not new. The "Challenger" returned from its voyage in 1836 with the information. But that was simply an interesting scientific discovery. It was known that there was immense wealth on the ocean floor, but there was no technique for exploiting it. Only in International Geophysical Year, in 1957–58, did it emerge that those minerals might be recovered from the ocean floor and that they might be recovered one day more cheaply than from the land. It was a new ball game. Until then no country had much incentive to stake out part of the ocean floor as its territory.
  It was accepted that outside the jurisdicton of a nation State there were things of interest, but they did not matter much. Now the danger arose that there could be a rush to stake out national territorial claims and that there might be a latter-day Klondike. It produced a list of dangers similar to that produced in the Klondike. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline mentioned one such danger. He pointed out that those who were economically strongest and most technologically advanced could get there first and scoop the lion's share of the world's wealth, while the rest of the world was deprived of any share. It would be like the enclosure movement in Britain in the eighteenth century, which decimated commons. There was the danger that the arguments and squabbles over who grabbed what would lead to the risk that one of those squabbles would escalate into a major war. It was like the rush to establish colonies in Africa in the nineteenth century. In addition, there was a danger that we would endow an area that occupies a substantial part of the earth's surface with opportunities for enrichment without the accompanying law and order, just like the Klondike.
  As the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) pointed out, happily this was not the only area in which a need became apparent for establishing an international regime of law and order in what had previously been territory outside national jurisdiction. Happily, international agreement was reached about Antarctica before the prizes became too glittering. In outer space increasing occasions arose for conflict, but the countries involved were determined to resolve their difficulties. So we had some idea how to proceed.
  It was clear that in relation to the oceans we needed to establish two principles. First, there was a need to set
  872
  limits to the area over which an individual State could claim territorial jurisdiction. Already, the three-mile limit had generally become a 12-mile limit. For some purposes some countries spoke of a 200-mile limit. In 1958, they got together at the Geneva convention. That assured coastal States of jurisdiction over offshore areas to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that, to the limit where the depth admitted the exploitation of natural resources. Even at that date it was not generally realised that that formula virtually renounced all limits on human greed and that there was technology within the foreseeable future for exploitation at much greater depths than 200 metres. It was vital to set limits on the territorial demands of nation States.
  Secondly, there was a need to ensure that areas outside the exclusive jurisdiction of nation States should not be left without regulation as a domain of anarchy but should be regulated by an international authority—but, with respect to the hon. Member for Bedford, not an ineffective international authority like the League of Nations but one backed by national authorities and police forces. Neither was it to be a bureaucratic international authority, as suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East. It was intended to have the means of enforcement to impose a regime of law and order, without which no company could safely invest the cost of exploitation and research. In return, it would ensure that those who exploited and profited from the mineral resources would pay a contribution from which the remainder of mankind would benefit, particularly in the less technologically developed countries.
  Many of us, even in those days, were concerned. We wrote about the matter and discussed it. For a time, we wondered whether agreement would be reached before it was too late. Even then, it seemed that there was no limit to human folly.
  Then, at the United Nations General Assembly in 1967, Ambassador Pardo made a speech. It is not given to many speeches to change the course of history, but his did. The United Nations adopted his terminology and agreed that the sea bed
  "beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction"
  was
  "the common heritage of mankind."
  It proceeded to establish a permanent committee on the peaceful uses of the sea bed and the ocean floor. In 1970, the committee recommended that there should be convened a Conference on the Law of the Sea, which duly happened in 1973.
  There followed seven years of hard work and bargaining. Jacob's seven years of work for Rachel were a holiday compared with the work that some people put into the Law of the Sea Conference. I accept that it did not always demonstrate a sense of urgency, but it produced a plan that was generally agreed for an international sea bed authority, which would license mining in the common area, exact a levy on the products of the sea bed to be used for the benefit of mankind and participate in running some of the activities through its commercial undertaking—the Enterprise.
  It was hoped that when the conference reconvened for this session it would be able to resolve the outstanding disputes, to agree the final text and to sign it as an international convention. It is true that no State will be bound until it ratifies, and I agree that it will be a few years before the convention becomes effective because of

  873
  waiting for 60 ratifications, but matters were moving in the right direction and at least the vital signatures would have been on the text.
  However, commercial interests in the United States, and I suspect, elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven said, did not want international agreement. They wanted to scoop up the profits for themselves. In June 1980, the United States Congress passed the Deep Sea Bed Hard Mineral Resources Act. It purported to recognise that eventually there would be an international authority, but in the interim it claimed to license United States citizens and companies to prospect and recover minerals. The United States was going it alone.
  When the delegates assembled for the 10th session, as has been said, they read the bald press release by the United States ambassador. It was as though Dan McGrew had charged into the marshal's office and announced that he was considering his attitude to law and order but would meanwhile proceed with robbing the bank.
  Mr. Skeet: The Americans did not want the money for themselves. There is a levy. It is taxation, but it is being paid into a separate fund for the benefit of mankind. It is not enrichment for the Americans or the companies.
  Mr. Archer: I shall come to the relationship between the profits to be made and the size of the levy, compared with the levy that would have been imposed had the law of the sea conference reached a successful conclusion—a very different matter. And there is a difference between a fund under international control and one in the control of an individual country.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: How long does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it right for us to wait for the conference to reach a decision? How many years will that take?
  Mr. Archer: The United States could have waited for one more session, which could have been sufficient. It was an act of national selfishness and national cynicism. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) gave the reason for that, and it was the same reason as that given in The Times on 9 March. The Times put it neutrally, and in a way that might appeal to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). It said:
  "The mining consortiums feel, however, that the system is weighted against them. They alone have the technology to mine on the ocean floor, but fear that the arrangements under the convention would severely limit their ability to make profits, and make them vulnerable to political decisions by the new authority."
  That is exactly what it would have done. That is what it was intended to do.
  It is curious that the Bill was introduced in another place before the press release issued by the American Government. I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister about that. No doubt they made their views known to the Government. But it shows that a number of things were being said privately among Governments before even the delegates to the law of the sea conference were informed. The companies pressing for all this might have paid a higher levy, but they would have had the protection of a stable international regime. They cannot complain about the absence of law and order and then renounce it when it suits their book.
  I accept that that provided a problem for Governments, including ours. I do not want to be unfair to them. My hon.
  874
  Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) put his finger on the matter when he said that if a group of people are in sight of agreeing a set of rules for their mutual benefit, by which they all renounce the use of individual muscle in favour of justice and civilised behaviour, when one of them announces that he prefers discord to harmony and that he will grab what he can the remainder are faced with a dilemma. If they simply continue to talk, they risk finding that he has already scooped the pool and there is nothing left to talk about. It is therefore tempting to break off the discussions and join in the scrum.
  I fear that in law and order there is the operation of Gresham's law—bad behaviour drives out good behaviour and uncivilised behaviour drives out civilised behaviour. But to retaliate in kind without hesitation is to support the wreckers, to abdicate any power to redeem the position and to jettison any prospect of focusing international opinion in favour of a better future.
  As has been said again and again, this measure will sour the whole atmosphere. It will substantially set back the hope of international agreement. In the process, it will jeopardise other activities, such as navigation, antipollution measures and fishing. I accept that it is a matter of judgment as to which of the reactions would have been appropriate to the American action. If it rested there, I suppose that I would be compelled to concede that the Government differ from us but that it is a matter of weighing conflicting considerations.
  The matter does not rest there, for three reasons. First, the Bill itself discloses a fallacy. The action would be justified if it was vital to act immediately. But clause 2(4) makes it clear that no exploitation will be authorised by licence granted under this Bill until 1 January 1988. There is no question of anyone making a penny of profit by licence under the Bill for another seven years. The Government well know that companies do not need to be licensed to prospect. They can prospect now.
  That is why the problem of jurisdiction does not arise. Anyone can license anybody to do anything. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian could license me to remove the Tower of London. That would mean that he would not object if I removed it. The problem would arise if somebody else subsequently objected. That is the problem that the companies are inviting the Government to consider. The companies do not want to spend money on prospecting unless there is a reasonable guarantee that their sites will be protected from incursions by cowboys.
  Dr. John Cunningham: They want the Government to back them up.
  Mr. Archer: Indeed. But that could be achieved without legislation. It would require only a declaration by the Government that when their investments were likely to bear fruit they would be protected. That is all that the Government are achieving in the Bill. Of course, any future Government might disagree with such a declaration. But a future Government could repeal the Act.
  Mr. Skeet: Would a future Labour Government repeal the Act?
  Mr. Archer: Whether a future Labour Government would repeal it would depend on many circumstances.
  Mr. Skeet: Ah.
  Mr. Archer: Of course. We are talking about a situation that has not yet arisen. That is our argument. The Bill is premature. It is not required yet.
  Mr. Skeet: If the Bill is enacted and no international convention is signed in one year's time or two years' time, or by the time of the next general election, and if, by a great misfortune, a Labour Government were returned, would that Government repeal the Act?
  Mr. Archer: A number of other questions would have to be asked.
  Mr. Skeet: Answer that question.
  Mr. Archer: There are many factors that would determine such a decision. The weakness of the hon. Gentleman's question is that if the Bill were not on the statute book there would be a much greater prospect that the convention would be signed in one or two years' time. This legislation will achieve nothing that could not have been achieved without it. As has been said repeatedly, the companies will have no security from this legislation that they could not have had by means of an international agreement. It is a totally disruptive and provocative measure. It was premature to introduce it at this juncture.
  Secondly, the United Kingdom is placing itself in the vanguard of those wo have jumped to follow the American example. As has been said, West Germany followed America very quickly along the path to anarchy. Those are two countries which are renouncing respect for the international community. There may be others which are proposing to do so. Nothing would have been lost if we had waited to see what course other countries took. That was one of the factors which should have determined whether the United Kingdom legislated, and whether a future Government would repeal the Act.
  Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying "Wait and see"?
  Mr. Archer: Of course. There are times when I really wonder. To legislate without waiting to see strikes me as the politics of the crystal ball. If it were vital to legislate at once it would be a different matter. Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not care about the other factors. He has other fish to fry, and we know what they are.
  Nothing would have been lost if we had waited to see what the other European countries did. The United Kingdom has legislated in advance of them. It will appear in the history books that we enthusiastically rushed to hang on to the American coat tails. That is how it will appear to developing countries. They will see our action as a deliberate and cynical denunciation by technologically advanced countries of their international obligations.
  Thirdly, the Law of the Sea Conference had almost reached agreement on the text of a convention. The text made provision for a levy on the value of the minerals extracted and included the requirement that the money should be paid into a United Nations fund for the benefit of all mankind. I accept that the Bill provides for a levy to be paid by the holder of a licence to exploit. Clause 9 provides for the payment of the levy and clause 10 provides that it shall be paid into a fund.
  Clause 9 sets out the method of calculation. There are two alternatives. It is accepted that whichever method is used—obviously the companies want a choice and they will adopt whichever method suits their books—will produce a levy that will be about half that which would
  876
  have been produced by the Law of the Sea Conference text. So a company which recovers minerals under this legislation will save itself about half of what it would otherwise have had to pay and will deprive the rest of the world of that amount.
  So it is hardly surprising that the Group of 77 has announced that it will not recognise unilateral national legislation on the subject. In another place the Earl of Gowrie conceded that the figure was about half. He spoke of the disincentives to mining companies and the difficulty of competing with other countries if their levies were lower than ours. I accept that. That is the argument. In such matters it is the most selfish, the most anti-social and the meanest nation—so far, the United States—that establishes the norm for everyone else. That is Gresham's law.
  It is possible that a low rate of levy was adopted to put pressure on the developing countries to agree to all the outstanding demands of the advanced countries.
  Mr. Skeet: They are still negotiating.
  Mr. Archer: Of course they are still negotiating, but that is twisting their arms a little. Is it not a little international blackmail? If that is true, it is a shameful device. If it is not, it is just an announcement that the companies wish to get away with the minimum payment that they can make.
  There are two other matters that I should like to raise on Second Reading, since they go to the foundation of what we are discussing. In a number of interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked what would happen if two national Governments issued licences for the same site. He received no answer. I have no doubt that the answer is coming now, but it troubles me that it was a fundamental question. It was the obvious question. A child would have asked it upon hearing about the Bill. Yet obviously, it was not uppermost in the Minister's mind.
  That troubles me because it appears to mean either of two things. Either, the Government have not considered the matter and are leaving such questions to chance. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the procedures for avoiding duplication, who will arbitrate if there is a dispute, and according to what rules they will arbitrate. Will they be privately agreed rules or will they be published so that we know what they are? The other possibility is that the Governments concerned might have reached an informal agreement to divide the deep ocean bed—the common heritage of mankind—among national spheres of influence. If that second conclusion is right, I can only echo the words of Miss Marlene Dietrich:
  "When will they ever learn?"
  In 1973, in the early days of the Law of the Sea Conference, America proposed a scheme that became designated "the Nixon proposal". It divided the ocean bed into blocks, like a patchwork quilt. Each country was to be allocated a number of blocks. So the United States would have a few blocks, and the United Kingdom and Monaco would have a few blocks in the middle of the Pacific. We asked what machinery there would be for enforcement in relation to the United Kingdom.
  We asked how Monaco could get its gunboats to the middle of the Pacific and how it would exploit it, even if it could do so. That was like the Anglo-Saxon system of agriculture, except that there are methods of marking strips

  877
  in a field, however unsatisfactory, but no one has yet devised a method of marking out boundaries on the ocean floor. It must have been one of the battiest schemes—
  Mr. Archie Hamilton rose—
  Mr. Archer: I shall give way in a moment.
  It must have been one of the battiest schemes ever thought of. I use the expression "thought of in its loosest sense. Some of us were worried in case the British Foreign Office took it seriously. In fairness, I shall say that it abstained from the vote on the proposal.
  I attended a press conference on 15 June 1973. It was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who has long been concerned about that topic, by Sir John Foster, who was then a Conservative Member, a former Minister and a distinguished lawyer with an international practice, by Lord Wilberforce, one of this country's most distinguished judges, whose knowledge of making international law was not confined to theory, because he represented this country in negotiations on a number of occasions, by the Right Rev. Prelate the then Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Lancelot Fleming, who, in addition to being a distinguished theologian, enjoyed a formidable reputation as a geologist and explorer, and by Mr. Patrick Armstrong, clerk to the all-party group on world government, who has made a lifetime study of the subject.
  We warned that if that proposal were proceeded with not only would the technical problems be insoluble but, human nature being what it is, it would be a recipe for disputes, uncertainty, violence, national confrontations and, ultimately, for wars.
  The proposal was abandoned long ago. It is remembered as one of the more bizarre episodes in the history of international relations. It is destined to be included in a book that I shall write in my retirement, if someone does not beat me to it—an anthology of silly suggestions.
  I am troubled because I wonder whether, the proposal having been buried, its ghost has been resurrected. If the alternative to misunderstandings and conflict about duplicate licensing is an agreement about spheres of influence of that kind, we might be confronted with a version of the Nixon proposal which appears to be less absurd only because it has not been spelt out.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven, for West Lothian and for Dunfermline raised another question. The oceans are a meeting place for many different activities with complicated inter-relationships, which means that one activity might seriously affect others. Mining activities might pollute the beginnings of a food chain, which will seriously affect fish stocks and the conservation of rare fish and mammals. The difficulty is that we know so little about the ecology of the ocean floor. If we once arouse Leviathan we do not know what chain of events we shall begin.
  The Law of the Sea Conference has paid great attention to that. However, the Bill simply provides in clause 5 that the Secretary of State "shall have regard" to such matters. That is a vague formula to protect such an important consideration. The Bill was improved in another place with the help of my noble Friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I am not an uncritical admirer of the House of Lords, but I accept that sometimes a good thing comes out of Nazareth. But there is still reason for great anxiety. The
  878
  activities that the Bill will licence are irreversible. We cannot unpollute or revive an extinct species. We need more assurances.
  In much of human activity regulation for the foreseeable future must be by the nation State. That is what the House is about. But there are spheres of activity, and they are increasing, which need other machinery for decision-making, and where ordinary people believe that they could be better represented. The Bill is a proposal by the Government, but many people in this country bitterly resent what is being done in their name.
  The Minister was right to say that the subject is exciting. It is immensely exciting. The question is, who is seeking to stifle these exciting possibilities? Last Sunday The Sunday Times carried an article under the heading:
  "Reagan tries to play King Canute."
  It is not the Opposition, not the developing countries, not the United Nations and not world opinion that are opposed to an exciting future. Of course there is a chance to win untold wealth for the benefit of mankind and perhaps to transform the world's economy. The only question is, who is to benefit and in what measure?
  But there are more exciting prospects still. There is a chance to substitute law and order for anarchy over two-thirds of the world's surface. There is a chance to show that there are better ways of resolving disputes than by the use of force. There is the chance to establish co-operation in place of conflict and perhaps to use this as an example over other and wider ranges of human activity. There is a chance to bring mankind together instead of dividing it. If we in the United Kingdom turn our backs on those prospects we shall be judged by posterity, and we shall be judged to our eternal shame. That is why hon. Members on this side of the House will vote against the Bill.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made rather similar speeches; they were powerful and interesting speeches which were easy to listen to, but there seemed to be a strange hole in the middle of the argument. They both made strong speeches in favour of an international treaty on this subject. Then they used the conviction which they held, and which the whole House holds, as if it were a reason for voting against the Bill. There seemed to be a gap in the argument which they were unable to fill.
  There is no need for either hon. Gentleman to wag his finger at this side of the House about the desirability of having an agreement and a treaty. We looked into this shortly after we were elected and came to the conclusion that there was no doubt that in the British national interest we needed a treaty. As has been pointed out often, the present draft is the result of many years' patient work. Although it is not what we would have drafted ourselves in all respects, nevertheless it should form the basis of the eventual agreement.
  The British delegation has worked hard under this Government, as under the last Government, to reach agreement—not least in the last few weeks. The idea that there is some conspiracy in which we are involved to frustrate the negotiations is absurd. I do not think it is

  879
  believed by anybody except the Opposition. The echoes which reach us of the views of the Group of 77 do not support that belief.
  A treaty is still some way off. The date when a treaty would enter into operation is several years away. Even if agreement were reached tomorrow—obviously it is not going to be—then there would be the period of the preparatory commission followed by the period of ratification. It is the gap between this evening and the date when even on the most optimistic assumption an international agreement could come into force that this Bill is about.
  I asked the hon. Member for Whitehaven whether during this period, which will last several years, he wanted Britain to fall out of the race. He did not answer the question. On his analysis, which has just been repeated by the right hon. and learned member for Warley, West, the answer to that question must be that he does want Britain to fall out of the competition. He wants no legislation because he is going to vote against the Second Reading. He wants no kind of protection, even imperfect, to be extended to British companies while their competitors, other members of the consortia, will be going ahead and developing their investment and expertise.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) put forward the same argument. He started by saying that he did not want British industry to lose its opportunities, then he went on to fall into exactly the same hole by producing an argument that we should do nothing for the time being. I do not understand how that attitude of doing nothing over this crucial period of several years would benefit the Third world in any way.
  I cannot see how this would advance the aims of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we abstain from legislation at this time it will simply mean that British companies might—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was going to say "would"—lose interest, to some extent check their investment and thus postpone the contribution which Britain could eventually make to the enterprise when there is an international agreement.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister is prostituting his experience in foreign affairs when he pursues the argument which he is pursuing. Everybody who has taken any interest in this issue knows that we do not need to license companies to prospect, to explore or even to exploit these resources. The point is—he knows it without my reminding him—that we are breaking ranks in the international sphere in this activity in a way which jeopardises the reaching of an international agreement in the shortest possible time. I accept what the Minister said about the time taken to reach international agreement. We do not need to take these measures to allow these companies to be involved. The Minister knows that as well as I do.
  Mr. Hurd: That is not their view. They say that they need a measure of this kind, or they will find it difficult to do A and B, and the hon. Gentleman says that they do not need it—
  Dr. Cunningham: They do not need it.
  Mr. Hurd: Who is to make the decision? It is the companies, not the hon. Gentleman. On the second point,
  880
  the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence to support the thesis that, by passing this legislation, we are jeopardising or souring the continuing negotiations. The Carter Administration passed the United States legislation. There was some sporadic criticism at the time, but where is the evidence that that United States legislation of last year soured the negotiations? It did not. Where is the evidence that the German legislation also on the statute book soured the negotiations? It is a proposition that has been repeatedly put forward without any evidence to support it.
  This is one of the difficulties we find in the whole range of North-South issues. We are constantly being told that certain actions or inactions by the Government are bringing our name into disrepute in the Third world. We always hear it from right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. We do not hear it from the developing countries. The only evidence outside this House brought to bear was the evidence quoted from Lord Ritchie-Calder. He is a distinguished gentleman, but that is a different matter from his being able to show the House that this legislation and other decisions of this kind by the Government are producing the effect in the Third world that they allege. The evidence is not produced because it is not there.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister tell us the status of the complementary national legislation in international law? That is the kernel of the argument.
  Mr. Hurd: I was expecting the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to develop the point, but he did not. I thought it was one of the main Opposition arguments so we examined it carefully. There are no grounds for supposing that this legislation infringes international law in any respect, any more than the United States legislation or the German legislation did. Nor is that the view of the international community as a whole.
  Hon. Members have rightly tackled and probed the question of the protection of the environment. They are also right to say that there can be no guarantee that this measure, or any measure, would provide total security for the marine environment.
  I draw attention to paragraph 5 of the schedule, which, under the heading "Subject matter of regulations" lays down that the Secretary of State may include in the regulations
  "The prohibition of any method of working which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is or is likely to be harmful to any marine creatures, plants or other organisms or their habitat".
  That is a fairly wide definition, but it is not a total guarantee. Once again I ask the House to accept that the choice here is between some protection or no protection, some licensing or no licensing, some provision for the environment or no provision for the environment, in this period of several years that we are talking about. That is the choice, and we believe it is right to make an effort in this direction, accepting that it may not be, at least at the outset, complete.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) asked whether there would be co-operation with other Governments on the evironmental point and the answer is "Yes".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in a remarkably perceptive speech—[Interruption.] There is a certain amount of mockery from hon. Members who were not here to listen to my hon. Friend's speech. He went to

  881
  the core of the matter. He has misgivings not about the principle of a treaty but about what he called the danger of bureaucratising the system. The danger exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) covered the same ground. We are involved in the negotiation—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thompson.]

  Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Hurd: We are involved in an immensely complicated series of interlocking negotiations. If one takes away important parts of that structure in an attempt to improve it, one starts to unpick bits which have already been negotiated and there is a danger that the whole structure will collapse. We are conscious of that as the negotiations move towards what we hope will be success.
  My hon. Friend raised a number of other detailed questions with which I shall not deal because there will be further opportunities to discuss them. However, he stressed the importance of tax, especially the payments to the sea bed authority which, under present law, would probably be considered as allowable business expenses. Companies feel that that is not adequate and that such payments are more like taxes. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry has said that he will consider that with the Treasury to see whether it is possible to meet the concern.
  The main point which has been stressed by several hon. Members is how one insures against different national Governments licensing in the same area. It is precisely because of that difficulty that we believe an international agreement, such as is being negotiated, is best, because it offers the best assurance against such a clash. We argue that national legislation cannot provide that total assurance by its very nature. Therefore, during the interim period of several years there must be co-operation and co-ordination with reciprocating countries—under the phraseology of clause 3—which have similar legislation.
  The number of consortia presently involved is not enormous. Therefore it should not be an insoluble problem in the interim. That is an imperfect answer, but the alternative asked for by the Opposition is no legislation and no attempt to resolve the clash. Thus one may see wildcat operators in the same promising patch and there will be no attempt to deal with them until an international agreement comes into force.
  Although the Bill does not purport to provide a perfect answer, it provides a better answer than the Opposition would provide by having no legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) expressed doubts from the opposite point of view.
  Mr. Archer: The Minister has already made the point that it should be practicable to avoid conflict because there are so few consortia able to do exploitation work. He talks about cowboys and wildcats. Who are these wildcats'?
  Mr. Hurd: By definition one cannot say who they may be, but they might exist, as we are dealing with hypotheses. Perhaps I should summarise my argument as the right hon. and learned Member has not understood it. The best answer to the problem that he posed is the international agreement for which we are working. The worst answer would be to make no attempt, and an interim answer is what is proposed in the Bill—which, we accept, needs to be associated with co-operation with countries that propose similar legislation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) mentioned the EEC. Obviously this is a matter on which we need to be in close touch with our partners and we are trying to get a clause in the convention to enable the EEC to participate in it. That is one of 'the outstanding points.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West argued that under the Bill there could be no exploitation before 1988 and he asked why we needed the Bill. He fails to understand that exploration comes before exploitation. The fact that exploitation would be barred before 1988—because we do not want to prejudice international agreement—does not mean that the Bill will prevent essential exploration. The core of our case is that we see no reason why British companies should be discouraged from exploration when other countries are steaming ahead.
  There must be impetus behind the international negotiations. We hope that the American review will be completed quickly and will result in a resumption of the negotiations so that they can be wound up quickly. There must also be an impetus among the companies through their investment and interest. It is no good having the companies ready without a decent framework in which to operate and no good having the framework with no companies interested in taking part. We must press ahead on both fronts, and it is to enable us to do so that the Government believe that the Bill is essential.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 68.

  Division No. 163]

  [10.07 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Alton, David

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Ancram, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert

  Cope, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Beith, A. J.

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Dover, Denshore

  Best, Keith

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Brinton, Tim

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Brown, Micheal(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Freud, Clement

  Buck, Antony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butcher, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  883

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Neubert, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Normanton, Tom

  Grist, Ian

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Penhaligon, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pollock, Alexander

  Heddle, John

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Henderson, Barry

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hicks, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Renton, Tim

  Hordern, Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Loveridge, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thompson, Donald

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  MacGregor, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Trippier, David

  Major, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Marlow, Tony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Mather, Carol

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Wakeham, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Watson, John

  Mellor, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Moate, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Morgan, Geraint

  Murphy, Christopher

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Myles, David

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Tony Newton.

  Neale, Gerrard

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dalyell, Tam

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Dixon, Donald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dormand, Jack

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Douglas, Dick

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Cowans, Harry

  Eadie, Alex

  Craigen, J. M.

  Eastham, Ken

  884

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

  Morton, George

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Newens, Stanley

  Foster, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Prescott, John

  Golding, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Robertson, George

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Snape, Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kerr, Russell

  Tinn, James

  Lamond, James

  Welsh, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  White, Frank R.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Winnick, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  McWilliam, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Allen McKay

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

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

  WAYS AND MEANS

    Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions)
    Resolved,
    That any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to deep sea mining operations may provide—

    (a) for the levying from holders of licences granted under that Act of sums equal either to 3·75 per cent. of the value of certain deposits recovered in pursuance of the licences or to 0·75 per cent. of the value of certain elements or compounds found in such deposits;

    (b) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund, in certain circumstances, of the proceeds of the levy; and

    (c) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees or other sums received by the Secretary of State in respect of or in accordance with any such licence.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

  DEEP SEA MINING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to deep sea mining operations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the administrative expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by any Government department—[Mr. MacGregor.]

  Turkeys (French Exports)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
  10.19 pm
  Sir Paul Bryan: I have taken it upon myself to speak for the British turkey industry because I have in my constituency the highly successful firm of Twydale Turkeys Limited, which I have watched growing over the past 30 years from a modest one-man concern into one of the largest, most go-ahead and sophisticated units in the industry. The firm employs 600 people directly and many more indirectly. It benefits local farms and compounders which supply most of the cereal feeding stuffs for the 2½ million turkeys which are produced every year. The turkeys are reared and fattened on farms all over Yorkshire.
  In anything like normal circumstances, the future for Twydale Turkeys Limited would look as promising as the past. The turkey, unsubsidised in any way, has competed successfully against all other meats, most of them subsidised. New developments in the direction of further processed turkey are already a proved success. I cite the thriving Twydale company because it seems typical of the firms in the industry in its enterprising management and the modernity of its plant.
  The industry is not appealing for Government help for the reasons so common to other industries in this time of recession. It is not an old, outdated industry struggling for survival. It is not like steel, doomed to contraction owing to world surplus. It is not like the many that the recession has shown to be dependent for survival on an undervalued pound. It is not an industry embarrassed, as the pig industry has so often been, by a temporary cyclical depression which will put itself right in due course. Nor is it threatened by foreign competition based on cheap labour or other inherent advantages. Britain is a perfectly appropriate place in which to produce turkeys, and our plants are among the most modern and efficient in the world.
  Over the past two years, however, the industry has faced competition which is unfair in every sense of the word and which is here to stay. Last year, that competition came from America and France. The Minister has done much to correct the American threat by the adjustment of sluice gate prices.
  The French threat is more menacing in that it is the direct result of the deliberately planned and determined policy of France to use its vast agricultural potential to help to pay the bill for imported energy. In less than three years, France's farm food industry has swung from a trade deficit of £600 million in 1977 to a record surplus of about 17 billion francs in 1980.
  According to Michelle Debatisse, Secretary of State for Agri-business, a new Cabinet-level post created to supervise the agricultural expansion, the export performance will continue to improve. As part of this programme, according to the French Minister of Agriculture, French poultry meat production could rise by 24 per cent. during 1981—this at a time when poultry meat production is falling in every other European country.
  Agricultural expansion is so unnatural in a Europe plagued by surpluses that it cannot happen without
  886
  vigorous artificial stimulus. Against the background of these surpluses and the competition of efficient British farms, it can be achieved only by means of heavy subsidisation to set up new units and to make the product so cheap that it is bound to flood any market on which it is dumped.
  During my years as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, I have often heard complaints from producers—usually pig producers—about unfair subsidisation by foreign Governments, but these have always been very hard to prove. In this case, we have no such difficulty. Never has there been more detailed evidence of unfair competition and subsidisation than has been gathered, at great trouble and expense, by the British Turkey Federation. This was submitted to the Minister by Mr. Matthews, the chairman of the federation, in a letter last November. Quite apart from the £400 million douceur handed out to French farmers last December by President Giscard d'Estaing in preparation for the presidential election, it seems that there is a staggering array of grants and subsidies which virtually guarantee profitability and in some cases absolve the producer of the necessity to find any capital at all.
  Mr. Matthews tells us of an aspiring Breton turkey producer who qualified for three capital grants, a 10 per cent. agricultural grant, a 25 per cent. regional development grant and a 25 per cent. discount on the cost of the land needed for the new turkey plant. On top of that, a wide range of cheap credit is available at a good 5 per cent. below the market rate. That money has to be paid back only when a profit is made.
  The producer having been subsidised into a substantial way of business without any capital at all, the French Government will pay the entire wage bill for the staff for an unspecified training period. Nor are the beneficiaries of all this largesse small operators. One Breton producer, Mr. Bourgoine, is just completing a £6 million plant with a capacity equal to that of the whole British turkey industry. In addition to the grants that I have just mentioned, this gentleman benefits by a scheme under which the Government pay 90 per cent. of the average salary for six months of every worker whom Mr. Bourgoine rescues from the dole queue.
  I think I have said enough to show that the British Turkey Federation is absolutely justified in raising the alarm. The first effects of the French subsidised turkey expansion have been a record build-up of frozen turkey stocks, and hence a drop in prices so severe that the industry cannot stand it for long. The future effects are so predictable and so severe that as a nation we should be very stupid if we allowed matters to take their course while watching our turkey industry disintegrate.
  The turkey producers are puzzled to know why no action has yet been taken, since it is now almost six months since evidence of this unfair competition was conveyed to the Minister. Can my hon. Friend the Minister of State confirm that these subsidies, obviously objectionable, are also illegal?
  Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome states that
  "any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market."
  That seems to me an exact picture of what I have been describing. What is the Commission doing to enforce its

  887
  own rules? It seems extraordinary that on the one hand the Commission is using its funds to deal with services while on the other hand, from another fund, it is boosting production and creating further surpluses.
  Most farmers believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stood up for British farming in Brussels extremely robustly. Turkey producers are anxious to learn what he has been able to do for them in their crisis. What is the latest news from Brussels? I understand that the Member of the European Parliament for Humberside, Mr. Battersby, and a group of Conservative Members have been pursuing the matter vigorously.
  What can my right hon. Friend the Minister do off his own bat? The French Government appear to have no difficulty in making a grant of £400 million to their farmers. If there is to be a delay in dealing with French subsidies, would it be possible for the Minister to make a temporary grant to British producers until the matter is resolved?
  I appreciate that an immediate ban on the imports of French turkeys would be illegal and, therefore, out of the question, but what of the illegality of most, if not all, of the French subsidies? These are the questions that I am being asked by my constituents and to which I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Eric Cockeram: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). In addition to supporting the justice of his case, I have practical experience. Dales Turkeys is based in my constituency, near Ludlow. It is a highly efficient company that has expanded over the years. It employs about 1,000 people. It has been efficient and has lowered its production costs in real terms over the years. However, it is being hit by the competition that my hon. Friend outlined.
  Hygiene standards are laid down within the EEC. They are supposed to be enforced throughout the EEC, but it would appear that British hygiene officers, through the British Veterinary Association, enforce them to the letter—as, no doubt, was the intention—whereas on the Continent they are observed more in the breach. The cost of hygiene enforcement is passed on to the firms involved. The local authority is responsible for standards and is entitled to reclaim the entire costs involved from firms. As a result, British firms incur higher costs than those on the Continent. That adds to unfair competition.
  I took up the subject of the enforcement of hygiene standards with my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. I received a reply from him to the effect that he was pursuing the matter in Brussels. I am sure he is doing so vigorously, and I support him. I do not wish to criticise him for doing so. However, the longer British industry is at a disadvantage compared with its Continental competitors—particularly the French—the longer we shall be squeezed out of the market. We cannot afford that much longer. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will cover this point.
  10.31 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am
  888
  grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) for having raised this subject. As he rightly said, it is a matter of immediate concern to his constituents. However, the subject is also of wide interest to the poultry industry, particularly the turkey industry as well as to agriculture in general.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and I share much of the concern that my hon. Friend expressed. Some of the facts and figures that he produced are very much in line with the results of our research into what is going on in the industry. The reasoned and sensible way in which my hon. Friend presented his case was impressive. My right hon. Friend and I treat his remarks extremely seriously. If things ended up in the way that one could envisage, the consequences would be serious for the turkey and poultry industries.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) for his brief intervention. Obviously, given his experience of his constituency he shares the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is also present. That shows the concern that exists both in that area and more widely. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Howden that the poultry industry, and particularly some of the firms that he mentioned, showed an extraordinary degree of enterprise, drive and efficiency in the 1970s in building up an industry that is in the forefront of Europe's poultry industry. At the same time it provides, at a good and a reasonable price, a product that is welcomed not only on our tables, but on those of other countries.
  The industry's efficiency is not in question. The rate at which the industry grew during the 1970s is evidence of a considerable success story. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I do not want to see that success story destroyed.
  In the period of growth in the 1970s we saw a large increase in turkey production in the United Kingdom. By 1978 we had reached 106 per cent. self-sufficiency. However, particularly in recent years, we have had to face competition as industries in other parts of Europe have been developing. Italy is the major producer in Europe, at about 217,000 tonnes per annum, France follows with about 200,000 tonnes and last year we reached about 114,000 tonnes. Together we represent about 85 per cent. of Europe's total production, so we have a considerable interest in the market.
  In the past year or so, the rate of growth has been levelling off. In 1981, we do not expect to see continuing growth. We are concerned on three counts. First, stocks in the United Kingdom are greater than a year ago, which would worry any industry. Secondly, prices quoted by Continental suppliers are below what we consider to be the reasonable cost of production in this country. Thirdly—and this is at the heart of the debate—French production has continued to expand. In 1979 the expansion was about 14 per cent., and the French Government are taking positive steps to continue it.
  Within Europe there is free competition, with a common tariff but with certain concessions for third country supplies. Until now our industry has done extremely well, set a good example, and prospered. However, competition must be not only free but fair. The turkeymeat regime in Europe is unfair if trade is distorted and rules are not complied with. That is our fear, and it

  889
  stems not only from what my hon. Friend, the British Turkey Federation and the British Poultry Federation have said about what is happening in France.
  It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that the different Governments and industries comply with the rules. Last November we received representations from the president of the British Turkey Federation. We immediately sent the Commission details of the structural aids given to the French industry. We are extremely disappointed that, so far, we have not received a definitive reply, even though many of the arguments are clear—although national aids, and particularly the industrial aspects involved in processing, are perhaps less straightforward than for other agricultural products. At the same time, we have made inquiries through our embassy in Paris to determine precisely what is happening in France. We have also had further discussions with the industry.
  In March we received further representation from the British Poultry Federation, and we and the Commission discussed them. We are disappointed with the response from the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Minister has raised the matter personally with Mr. Dalsager, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture. We shall continue to press the Commission and the Commissioner until the matter is properly resolved. We must ensure that EEC aids do not distort competition. Aids on the scale introduced by the French Government distort competition and the Commission should be ready to take action.
  I have dealt with the State aids brought to our attention by the British Turkey Federation last November, which are of a structural nature. But that leaves a second area to which my hon. Friend referred. The package announced in December 1980 for French agriculture amounts to almost £380 million of direct income aid. There is a poultry element within that. Immediately we knew of the package we raised the matter with the Commission, which immediately asked the French Government to provide details. The French Government did not reply until February of this year and the Commission replied to them
  890
  in March telling them that the package was incompatible with Community rules. We now await further action from the Commission.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is not satisfied that any final action has yet been taken. We have seen only procedural steps by the Commission. We shall continue our pressure because we do not want our efficient turkey industry to suffer, which could happen if the French industry expanded through national aids. Although I express disappointment that we have not seen action by the Commission, the House and the poultry industry, especially the turkey industry, will realise that my right hon. Friend has already shown that he is prepared to act and not simply to put verbal pressure and persuasion on the Commission.
  My hon. Friend is right in his remarks about the hygiene rules for the processing of turkeymeat—both the applications of the rules and their relationship to costs are unsatisfactory. Because of strong pressure from Britain, the Commission has brought forward proposals for better enforcement of the rules and for dealing with the cost aspect. That is important. The Commission has referred its proposals to the Council, and they are presently being discussed by a working group. We are also consulting the industry. In the meantime, because the position is unsatisfactory, my right hon. Friend has made available £2 million to assist our industry until there is a property harmonised scheme. That demonstrates that when my right hon. Friend is able to take action he will do so.
  The same is true of third country imports and sluicegate prices, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Howden referred at the beginning of the debate. It applies equally to imports from the United States. We have seen a considerable increase in imports, and the tariff is applied to different qualities of product. Pressure has been mounted and action has been taken. That policy will continue. I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend's arguments have been advanced.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

TRADE
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India
  India
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Finance Bill (Explanatory Material)
  Finance Bill (Explanatory Material)
  Petrol and Derv
  Petrol and Derv
SCOTLAND
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Processions (Bans)
  Processions (Bans)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Statistical Services
  Government Statistical Services
  Staff (Reductions)
  Staff (Reductions)
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Pricing Policy)
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Pricing Policy)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Pay (Dispute)
  Pay (Dispute)
ENERGY
  Automotive Fuels
  Automotive Fuels
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Burnham Further Education Committee
  Burnham Further Education Committee
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
WALES
  Medical Personnel (Study Leave)
  Medical Personnel (Study Leave)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Children's Committee
  Children's Committee
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Herring
  Herring
  Shrimp
  Shrimp
  Lobsters
  Lobsters
  Whitefish
  Whitefish
INDUSTRY
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Nationality Bill
  British Nationality Bill
  Inner Area Partnerships (London)
  Inner Area Partnerships (London)
  Processions (Bans)
  Processions (Bans)
  Wild Animals (Snares)
  Wild Animals (Snares)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Hospitals)
  National Health Service (Hospitals)
  Paracetamol
  Paracetamol
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Children's Committee
  Children's Committee
  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Grants (16 to 19-year-olds)
  Grants (16 to 19-year-olds)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Charities (Value Added Tax)
  Charities (Value Added Tax)
  Contraception (Mortality Data)
  Contraception (Mortality Data)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Lurgan (Car Park)
  Lurgan (Car Park)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Processions (Bans)
  Processions (Bans)
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
  Road Accidents (Alcohol Limit)
  Road Accidents (Alcohol Limit)
  M11 Service Area
  M11 Service Area
  A6(M) (Stockport)
  A6(M) (Stockport)
  Roads (South London)
  Roads (South London)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Road Deaths
  Road Deaths
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Investment)
  A1-M1 Link Road
  A1-M1 Link Road
  Coach Services
  Coach Services
  Local Authorities (Transport Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Transport Expenditure)
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Trunk Roads (London)
  Trunk Roads (London)
  British Railways (Industrial Relations)
  British Railways (Industrial Relations)
  "Rail Policy"
  "Rail Policy"
  South Yorkshire County Council
  South Yorkshire County Council
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
DEFENCE
  Territorial Army (Smallpox Vaccination)
  Territorial Army (Smallpox Vaccination)
  Armed Forces (Women)
  Armed Forces (Women)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Foreign Language Training
  Foreign Language Training
ENVIRONMENT
  Canals
  Canals
  Inner Area Partnership Programmes
  Inner Area Partnership Programmes
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales

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

Theatre Nuclear Force Reductions in Europe
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the discussions between American and European senior officials at the meeting of the NATO special consultative group at Brussels from 30th March onwards on the reduction of theatre nuclear forces in Europe, and what was the attitude of the British representatives.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, at the NATO meeting on 31st March, allied representatives, with full British support, reaffirmed their Governments' commitment to NATO's December 1979 decision on theatre nuclear forces, including the pursuit of arms control. We would welcome early resumption of United States-Soviet talks and share our allies' views as to the importance of continuing alliance consultation on these matters.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the decision to urge an early negotiation, may I ask whether the Government will seek, at the meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers in Rome early next month, to reach a decision about the date of the negotiations? Is there not hope that this negotiation might lead to the withdrawal of the Soviet SS20s and the Backfire bomber and make unnecessary the stationing of the cruise missile in this country? Has the Minister noted the decision of the Belgian and Netherlands Governments not to station cruise missiles until the result of these negotiations? Could not our Government reach a similar decision, particularly in view of the critical report on the effectiveness of the cruise by the United States Congress study which was published yesterday?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think it is understandable that the new American Administration wish to review their negotiating position on theatre nuclear forces and, indeed, to review it as part of the wider consideration of SALT and their general arms control policy. It is only reasonable to expect a new administration to do that. But the United States Administration have already said that they intend to continue with the talks on arms limitation and theatre nuclear forces. I do not think any date has yet been fixed, but I hope it will not be too long delayed.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, while welcoming the tone and substance of the Foreign Secretary's reply to my noble friend, in that it means that we shall continue as a country to support all meaningful attempts to secure arms control in this field, in a most comprehensive sense, both inside NATO and outside in other fora, may I express pleasure at seeing him back in this country and looking so well?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I do not think we should forget, when talking about arms limitation talks and theatre nuclear forces, that, at the present time, there is a very serious imbalance in favour of the Soviet Union. Therefore, though we are very willing to discuss limitation, it is necessary that the double decision taken by NATO in December 1979 should be adhered to.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say what counter-withdrawal has been made by the Soviet Union, in response to the Americans' withdrawal of 1,000 warheads from their stockpile in Europe?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, that is a rather different set of negotiations. That is concerned with mutual and balanced force reductions, and not so much with the strategic arms limitation talks or, indeed, with the theatre nuclear forces talks. But what the Soviet Union have said, and have repeated to me in a message which the Soviet Ambassador delivered to me last week, is that they would be prepared to go ahead with talks on theatre nuclear forces.

The European Parliament: Locations
2.41 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to seek to establish a single seat for the European Parliament and, if so, what efforts they have made to achieve this aim.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the European Council recently agreed to confirm the status quo in regard to the provisional places of work of the European Parliament, and I see no present prospect of agreement on a change in these arrangements.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it has been estimated that some £15 million a year of public money could be saved by fixing a single seat for the European Parliament? May I ask him whether he agrees with any such estimate, and whether he accepts the fact that the people of this country, and others, would be far more effectively represented by Members of the European Parliament who were able to establish a single seat?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, being very well aware of my noble friend's views on this subject, I think it was very nice of him to thank me for the Answer at all. I do not think I could quarrel with the estimate that he has given of the expense of having these various locations. But the subject of a single site, or the subject of the Parliament's activities, including the committee meetings and the location of the secretariat, was raised by the French last year and it became apparent—and I am afraid that it is a very divisive issue in the Community—that it would not be easy to reach a generally accepted agreement. The European Council therefore agreed to maintain the status quo.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there would be great jubilation in this country—never mind the seats of the Euro-Parliament—if we came out of the Common Market entirely? What a colossal amount of money we would save, if we came out!
Lord Carrington: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord opposite over what seems to be a very great number of years, his question does not surprise me.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the decision that was apparently arrived at quite recently, the expense and the inefficiency which flows from this circus moving round the three points is the point which may well bring about the disintegration of the European Parliament? It is the one thing which will not allow the European Parliament to work in a way which will establish itself as a permanent feature. Is my noble friend also aware that the overwhelming view of the Members of the European Parliament is that it is vital that we should have some sort of stability, which is not there at the moment?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I hope very much that the Parliament's views will be put to the members of the Council. Also, I hope very much that the consequences which my noble friend predicts will not occur.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that it is better to have NATO with all its faults and weaknesses than another European war?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, in so far as that bears on the Question—and, indeed, in so far as it does not—I agree with the noble Lord.

Scottish Courts: Strike Disruption
2.45 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: 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 contingency and other planning was undertaken to minimise the disruption of the administration of justice in Scottish courts consequent on strike action
1174
by the clerks of court: (a) before the closure of the sheriff court in Glasgow on 23rd March 1981; and (b) since that date.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the department of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in contact with the Sheriffs Principal well in advance of the strike. General guidance was issued to all courts on 2nd March and a meeting with senior court staff concerned was held on 16th March. Since that time regular contact has been maintained with the two Sheriffs Principal concerned and with the Sheriff Clerk at Glasgow.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, I am bound to say that I am a little startled by its inadequacy. In finalising it, did the noble and learned Lord have in mind the following circumstances: First, did he have in mind the duration of the strike, which is now in its second month, during which the administration of justice in Glasgow and Edinburgh has been practically at a standstill? Did he have in mind also the three previous incidents of strikes in the Civil Service and their consequences for the Scottish courts? On the first of these occasions none of the staff, or only a minority of the staff in the sheriff court struck, and none at all in the Supreme Court. Does not the noble and learned Lord recognise that this suggests a considerable decline in the morale of the staff of the courts, the restoration of which must be the responsibility of the Ministers in the Scottish Office? Finally—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Wilson of Langside: Finally, did he have in mind the action taken in 1979 by the Labour Government, for whose competence I had no particular love, when they took the necessary emergency powers to keep the wheels of justice turning? Does he not appreciate that something of that vigorous nature is called for by this strike which is causing so much difficulty in Scotland?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, obviously we had in mind the duration of the strike, and we have it continually in mind. We also had in mind that there were previous occurrences and we regret the fact that in some respects the situation is worse than on some previous occasions, although in other respects it is better than on previous occasions. It is not quite right to say that the wheels of justice are at a complete standstill in Glasgow and Edinburgh. So far quite an amount of work has been done in the sheriff court both in Edinburgh and Glasgow, although certainly not nearly so much as is usually done. We also have in mind what took place on the last occasion in the way of emergency powers legislation. We are keeping that possibility under review. However, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the emergency powers legislation has no effect on getting people back to work, and it is to that primarily that the efforts of the Government are directed.

Expired Passports: Extension of Validity
2.48 p.m.
Lord Schon: 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, in the light of the present circumstances, they will consider the possibility of extending the validity of passports which are due to expire for a period of time in order to avoid unnecessary difficulties.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government could not expect foreign immigration authorities to accept expired United Kingdom passports during the current industrial dispute over Civil Service pay unless the expired passports were appropriately endorsed. As the dispute is affecting both the Passport Office and the Immigration Service it would be administratively impracticable to renew expired passports exceptionally in the present situation. As far as possible we are trying to maintain the issue of passports, in cases of urgency, to personal applicants.
Lord Schon: My Lords, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his Answer. Is he aware that the validity of old-age pensioners' travel permits originally issued by London Transport is extended in post offices upon production of evidence of identity?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand the exact purpose of the noble Lord's question. Could he explain it a little more if he wants an intelligent answer?
Lord Schon: My Lords, a passport expires at a certain date unless it is extended. I am advised that old-age pensioners can get their travel permits, which are issued by London Transport, extended at post offices. Could the same thing not apply if one could assure the identity of the person applying for the extension?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that would be very difficult. But what does happen is that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies wishing to make holiday visits to the European Community, to Scandinavia and to other Western European countries and Canada, can obtain British Visitors' passports, while they wait, at the main post offices in Britain.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I announce that my noble friend Lord Ferrier has decided that, in view of the other business on the Order Paper today, he will not be asking the Unstarred Question standing in his name.

Equality in Society
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to call attention to the need for greater equality in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the need for greater equality in the United Kingdom, and to move for Papers. I am sure that for once I am speaking for the entire House when I say how delighted we are that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is speaking in this debate, and how distressed we are to think that, at the moment, this would appear to be his swan song. In my 35 years or so here I do not know of any bishop who has made so valuable a contribution as the right reverend Prelate. I cannot believe that noble Lords, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, or the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—who was here a moment ago—and others who have been here longer than me, would disagree with that. I can only express the hope that by some mysterious process he will reappear in some other guise. At any rate, whatever he is styled he will always be enormously welcome in this House.
There are many distinguished speakers who are to speak between now and the appointed time two and a half hours further on, and I have set myself a limit of 15 minutes, which seems to be reasonable. If I go on beyond that I hope that somebody—the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, or somebody else—will move that I be no longer heard. I have prepared a speech but other noble Lords, like myself, could, of course, speak for ever on this subject. However, I intend to speak for only 15 minutes.
Not long ago one noble Lord—one of the rising stars on the opposite Benches—said to me in his usual courteous fashion: "I thought the idea of equality had been disposed of some time ago". I asked him whether he ever asked himself, when he looked across at these Benches, what distinguished our basic point of view from his own; indeed, what we were doing here at all; why we did not go across and join them. He was much too prudent or polite to answer that question at the time.
In this country and in other democracies Right-wing and Left-wing parties usually share a number of ideals and I would include among them patriotism, liberty and the rule of law; but the concept of equality in some sense or other—equality of wealth or of income or of opportunity—is beyond doubt one of the two basic inspirations which distinguish Left-wing groups and individuals. The other, with which I will not deal today, is the vision of society where service to the community rather than the pursuit of private profit is the main economic motive. Both ideas have been expressed eloquently in this country time without number. The first, for example, in the late Professor Tawney's book under the title Equality, and the second in his book, The Acquisitive Society, which has influenced many of the older and, it may be, the younger Members on this side of the House.
When I speak of an unequal society as compared with an equal society I am of course speaking in terms of degree. No one of genuine distinction, except perhaps Bernard Shaw, has ever recommended complete equality of income, and as we know he made no attempt to practise it. It is therefore a question of degree. But the difference between Right and Left, although in this respect it is a matter of degree, has far-reaching practical implications. We saw the great gulf exemplified recently when we debated the effect of public expenditure cuts on the social services. On the face

1177
of it, that was an argument about a number of particular issues, a detailed discussion; but behind all that lay the fundamental question: do we, or do we not, want this more or less equality in our society? I say that, while being well aware that there are noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite—perhaps particularly the latter—who have laboured just as assiduously as we have on this side for the under-privileged and the distressed.
My Lords, I submit three propositions which I hope will command a wide measure of support, even in a House where the Conservative philosophy is so strongly represented and ever more intellectually. We have a whole new race of Conservative intellectuals joining us, and it is very unlike the House that I joined 35 years ago. I suggest these three propositions: first, a society marked by a high degree of equality, other things being equal—I am sorry to stress that—is morally superior to one which is marked by a high degree of inequality. Secondly, our present British society is marked by a high degree of inequality; and, thirdly, which follows fairly obviously, that we should redouble our efforts to make our society more equal if this can be done without damage to other values.
I will say a few words about the first two propositions. To me it is axiomatic that the ideal of a society with a high degree of equality is morally superior to the ideal of a society with a high degree of inequality. Most of my remarks will be devoted to discussing how this works out in practice, but as an ideal that must surely be superior. Certainly no Christian or Jew would question the statement that each one of us is of equal and infinite significance in the sight of God. That in itself raises a strong presumption in favour of the proposition submitted. From the time of the Stoics, from the days of Epictetus and Cicero, the best humanists have expressed a universal creed in their own terms.
I come now to my second proposition, which summarises the position in this country today. Mercifully, by the timetable, if by nothing else, I am exempted from becoming involved in statistics. I will not produce a single figure and I hope no one will reproach me for that because, as Professor Robbins would say, once you introduce one figure you open the door to an infinite number of figures. No one can deny the blatant inequality which permeates our present British system. If anyone wants figures I would recommend them to read a book which I ventured to recommend to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a book on Inequality in Britain by Frank Field, MP, who has devoted so many years to this subject. I will pick out only one thought from that book which seems to back up the acceptance of this argument.
I think it is clear that the reduction in inequality—the move towards greater equality—has been carried forward to nothing like the extent that is generally supposed. That I can say is non-controversial. But once we accept the idea that ideally there should be an equal society—and in our present state of affairs we have a very unequal society—we have to approach the matter and ask ourselves: what damage, if any, does movement towards a greater measure of equality inflict on other values?
The primacy of the family weighs so heavily with me, and I am sure with most of us here, that I would never
1178
carry my egalitarianism to a point which endangered family continuity. I would never willingly consent to an egalitarianism which meant that no one could ever hand on anything to their children. That is very far removed from any current discussions. Because I accept a limit there to my egalitarianism, it certainly does not mean that I would regard our present laws of inheritance as in any way satisfactory.
I come now to liberty:
"Oh, freedom",
cried Byron—if I remember rightly, though I very seldom quote anything correctly from memory—
"Yet thy banner torn but flying streams like the thunderstorm against the wind".
And today Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Steel, Mr. Michael Foot—and I am sure our Social Democratic friends, who as it were are firing from the back—are equally convinced that freedom is what they stand for. I shall go to my own grave insisting that the masses of this country are freer today than before the coming of the Welfare State. I assert dogmatically that social security, the National Health Service and the immense improvement in education have provided a freedom from want and fear and a possibility of real dignity which previously did not exist for most of them. I am sure many noble Lords around me will agree with that, and I hope that all noble Lords in all parts of the House would see the force of it. I would say the same of any extension of the social services which I can remotely envisage.
But I must mention a vital consideration which restrains my socialist ardour. I am speaking this afternoon as a convinced but moderate socialist. I am taking it for granted in this place that we are talking of democracies. Obviously you could have systems which, in theory at least, pursue equality without reference to what we call liberty. There are plenty of examples of that in the communist world, though it is at least arguable that equality there is not genuine. But even in a democracy you could carry a certain kind of socialism to a point where all or almost all employment was given by the state. That would not, in my opinion, support liberty. I have got nothing whatever against civil servants, but if we were all civil servants I am afraid there would not be much liberty left. That, therefore, sets a limit in my eyes, even in a democracy, to the extent to which one would carry socialism. There may be differences of opinion, as there will always be differences of opinion, among my own colleagues, as elsewhere, as to how far one should go in the direction of state ownership. I am not dogmatising about that this afternoon. I am only pin-pointing the danger and stating my conviction that there is a limit, but there is a long way to go before that limit is overrun.
And so to the ever controversial question of what distribution of income leads to the greatest production of wealth. Obviously, if there was some form of inequality which made everybody richer than the more equal system, there would be strong arguments in favour of it, not necessarily conclusive arguments, but strong arguments. Fifty years ago when I was a young man working, now I come to think of it, in the Conservative research department—it had almost escaped my memory until I prepared these remarks—I

1179
read two sentences in The Times which have always remained in my memory:
"Unfortunately, wealth is like heat. It is only when it is unequally distributed that it performs what the physicists call work".
Even our respected Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, herself I believe endowed with an honours degree in science, could not put the point more succinctly. I believed that doctrine at the time, over 40 years ago, but for 40 years it has failed to impress me. I am not likely in these last few sentences to convert anybody to my point of view about that, if they do not already agree with me; but I should like at the very end to put that argument in perspective.
I would submit that the moral justification for pursuing the ideal of equality can only be refuted if the economic arguments are decisive in the other direction, and I defy anyone, economist or non-economist—even the great Professor Robbins—to say that the economic arguments are coercive on that side. I have one minute left and I will use it in this way. I said earlier that behind every administrative argument lies the central question: Are we or are we not prepared to move deliberately and explicitly in the direction of more equality? I submit that on any principle of Christian or humanistic ethics we are bound to do so. I beg to move for Papers.
3.6 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this important question this afternoon. I think it is necessary that from time to time we should consider very carefully the principles on which our economic and social policies are based. And, in this context, we shall listen with particular attention to the contribution to be made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The noble Earl has told us that this is the last occasion on which the right reverend Prelate will address us, at any rate in his present capacity, and I should like, on behalf of my noble friends to express our regret that that should be so, our appreciation of the very considerable contribution which the right reverend Prelate has made to our deliberations, and our good wishes for the future.
We need to be clear about the aims of our economic and social policies, and that raises, in the context of this Motion, the question, is equality a proper aim? We on these Benches have long been committed to equality of opportunity. We have seen, for example, a free education system and a free health service as instruments to that end. But, despite much progress, few would deny that there is still a long way to go. It is argued by some that if once equality of opportunity is achieved then we should seek greater wealth for all which will lift up the poorest with the richest; increased wealth for all, rather than redistribution, it is argued, is the remedy for poverty. But that argument becomes more difficult to sustain in a no-growth situation.
My party, in addition to standing for greater equality of opportunity, has also stood for greater equality in the distribution of wealth. Noble Lords may recall that in Anthony Trollope's novel, The Prime Minister, which was published in 1875, the Duke of Omnium, Liberal Prime Minister in a coalition Government,
1180
during a walk in the country with a Cabinet colleague expounds his political philosophy, and he equates liberalism not with liberty and free institutions, as might have been expected, but with a slow but steady progress towards equality.
After all, John Stuart Mill, who is perhaps most famous for his Essay on Liberty, also stood for an equitable distribution of wealth. As the House is aware, a Liberal Government laid the foundations of our social security system and introduced progressive taxation, which together have done much to redistribute income, and on which all parties have built. We have sought a reduction in the extremes between richest and poorest, and a wider distribution of wealth, both in income and capital, campaigning for that under the slogan "ownership for all".
The welfare state has done much to redistribute income. So have trade union strength, full employment and economic growth, although not always to the very poorest. But in spite of this, real poverty, though reduced in extent, still exists today and may now again be on the increase. The system is far from perfect. What is more—and I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for introducing a statistic or two—the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth tells us that the top 10 per cent. receive 25.8 per cent. of the earned income before tax—22·4 per cent. after tax—and 55 per cent. of the investment income. As regards capital, the top 10 per cent., so the Commission says, owns 60·6 per cent. of the marketable wealth, a much greater concentration with capital than with income.
In the Guardian last Sunday Harford Thomas reviewed a new book by three Danish writers on how to solve the problems facing modern industrialised society. He reported that those three insist that there should be an equal wage for all and that profits should either be ploughed back into the company or transferred to a community budget. We do not have to go anything like as far as that to recognise that the figures which I have quoted indicate that further redistribution is desirable.
Therefore, there is a strong case for greater equality of wealth in Britain today. There is also a strong case for greater equality between men and women in our country. Twenty-five proposed changes in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts that would improve equality between men and women were put forward by the Equal Opportunities Commission in January. There is a strong case for greater equality between white and black in our country through the elimination of discrimination and the provision of greater job opportunities for the young black population.
There is a strong case for greater equality in our country between the community as a whole and those with families. In recent years the tax policies of successive Governments have worsened the relative position of families, and increased child benefit is the key remedy here. There is a strong case for greater equality between the community as a whole and the elderly and disabled, particularly the very elderly. That means no more cuts in personal social services and in social security benefits which affect these people, and the allocation of adequate resources.
There is a strong case for greater equality between the employed and the unemployed. In this country

1181
we are in danger of becoming two nations: those who have jobs and those who do not. However, I am quite convinced that a change in Government economic policies could substantially reduce the number of unemployed. But will full employment as we knew it ever return? Should we be thinking about work sharing? Should we be thinking about reductions in the working week?
As regards the redistribution of wealth, I should like to suggest three ways in which we might redistribute income. The first is through a tax credit system. That is automatically a means of redistribution, as indeed was the introduction of child benefit, which provided help for those who were not helped at all by income tax allowances because they did not pay tax. The wider application of that principle in a tax credit system would be redistributory. The second is through a national minimum earnings level. We have published details of how this would fit in with a tax credit scheme. The third way is through a great increase in profit-sharing.
I have three suggestions as to how we might spread capital. The first is by replacing capital transfer tax with an accessions tax under which the recipient of a gift or bequest would be taxed according to the size of that gift or bequest and according to the number of such gifts and bequests that he had already received. This would encourage donors to spread their wealth. The second suggestion is through a tax-free allowance for a certain amount of savings income which would be replaced later under a tax credit system, with a tax credit linked to saving available to those who saved. This would provide an encouragement for small savings of all kinds and help to build up the capital resources of those who have little at the present time. The third suggestion is through wider share ownership linked to the profit-sharing which I have already mentioned.
I recall that in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, The Gondoliers, the Republican Marco sings these words:
"The aristocrat who banks with Coutts
The aristocrat who hunts and shoots,
The aristocrat who cleans your boots,
They all shall equal be".
In political, civil and legal rights, that must be so. In wealth and possessions, as the noble Earl said, absolute equality is impossible and undesirable. But I believe that greater equality is—as the Motion implies—both possible and necessary.
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving the House the opportunity to debate a matter which is of profound and fundamental importance to the good government of this country. I am also most grateful to him for the very kind words that he has spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for the things that he has so generously said.
Some years ago the late Archbishop Lord Fisher of Lambeth observed that:
"All humans are equal in the love of God, but not in the sight of God".
His epigram fell flat, though it did, indeed, bring a storm of abuse about his head, possibly because it was
1182
spoken in the unprofitable circumstances of a visit to Africa and also perhaps because it was rather too subtle for most people to appreciate. This was unfortunate, as the archbishop was drawing attention to a fundamental dilemma which faces anyone who tries to discuss the concept of equality. On the one hand, as the noble Earl has said, surely every Member of this House would agree—either on religious grounds or on other grounds—that every human being born into the world is equal to every other person by reason of the common humanity which they possess and, therefore, each has certain inalienable rights.
I am sure we would also agree—and I think the noble Earl has hinted at this—that it is patently obvious that in a sense all human beings are not equal and never will be equal. The circumstances of our birth may produce an inequality which perhaps eventually may be overcome, though it is unlikely that the child born on the streets of Calcutta will ever achieve equality with a child born in this country. Nevertheless, some have a higher IQ than others; some have more efficient technical ability than others; some can run faster, propel tennis or golf balls more effectively, move boats more speedily, perform better in the arts or have more common sense than their fellow human beings. These are inequalities which will always be present and, therefore, although the exercise of training direction may remove some of their impact, they will always be there.
Therefore, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl for introducing this debate, because he is asking us to give thought to issues which are fundamental to the process of good government. In doing so we must take note of this fundamental dilemma that he places before us. All human beings have fundamental rights by reason of their humanity, and it is the duty of Government to protect them. But each human being is unique in certain particular capacities. How can these abilities be directed and used for the common good and not produce frustration in the individual? These are the issues which Government must concern themselves with.
First, as regards that equality which belongs to all, the general principles have been stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its preamble it recognises the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family; it asserts that their recognition is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and it goes on to define in detail what they are. It examines them in detail, and from that examination emerge two great principles: the principle of freedom and the principle of justice.
Each individual has the right, so far as possible, to be a free man: each individual is entitled to protection under the law. It would be impossible to examine in detail the scope of these rights, but they should always be in our minds as we examine the issues which come before this House: the threat of totalitarian régimes; discrimination on the grounds of colour or sex; the right to worship freely; to move and speak without restriction; to receive proper consideration for health so far as the whole body politic is not injured by these things. These are the basic equalities upon which civilised living can alone be founded, and we have the guardianship of them.

1183
But what of those inequalities which are inevitable by reason of individual gifts and capacities and which, by their very existence, differentiate us from one another? Here surely the emphasis in good government must be upon opportunity. What is important is that the society in which we live should ensure that every citizen has full opportunity to train and develop whatever capacities he has, and then to be able to put those abilities to good use for the benefit of society, of himself, and of his family. This means that society must protect the health and the stability of the family; must ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a good education and, if necessary, of retraining; and then, having been educated, everyone ought to have the opportunity to put to creative use the ability which he possesses.
Every one of these issues would merit a full dress debate in this House, and indeed they have frequently been given consideration here and elsewhere. I must confine myself to some simple, rather telegraphic observations upon them. The stability of family life presupposes a decent home to live in. There are few causes for inequality in our society more powerful than the differences of opportunity in the provision of housing. We have had frequent debates in the past on this subject, and I must content myself with a plea that whatever Government are in power they will put in the forefront of their thinking and their action the necessity of ensuring a strong and effective housing policy so that the shocking prospect of being unable to find accommodation, especially in the case of the young, becomes a thing of the past.
A healthy society will ensure equality of opportunity for education at all levels. I have to admit, and I do so reluctantly, that I recognise that our present system of education is socially divisive. I am a product of a public school—as are some other, distinguished Members of this House—not very far away from where we are sitting at this moment. I must accept that I enjoyed there advantages which were denied to those less fortunate than myself. I could wish that others could have had the same opportunities. Here is another vital area to which Government must address themselves. I do not think that the answer lies in the destruction of what many would regard as good, merely because it is not open to all to enjoy the benefits.
I have never been able to subscribe to the argument that, because everyone cannot have fillet of steak, all must be content with bully beef. I regret the abolition of the direct grant schools which I know, for I was a chairman of one of the best of them for 18 years, covered the complete range of social strata; and I do not think that the assisted places scheme really adequately replaces what we lost in the direct grant schools. I cannot agree, as has been said, that the right of parents to choose what education their children should have is too high a price to pay for the health of society. I know that the public schools are not the preserve of the wealthy, for I am aware of many instances where parents, many of them young, are making real sacrifices so as to enable them to pay the school fees that will be required of them.
I think it would be a tragedy to kill those independent schools by the process of slow strangulation by forbidding parents to pay school fees. I believe the answer
1184
may lie along the lines of improving the standards of the comprehensive schools to such an extent that they can compete realistically with the voluntary sector; and that there should be full consultation with the independent schools to see if there is a possibility of finding some middle path by which their right to exist is recognised, so long as they are prepared to take their place in, and make their contribution to, an integrated system of education. There is so much good, such great traditions, such excellence in our public schools, that they should not be destroyed, nor should their benefits be confined to a small section of society.
But it is of no avail to have an excellent system of education if at the end of it there are no opportunities for exercising the skills that education has implanted. I suppose that there is nothing which encourages a sense of inequality in society more certainly than the fact that some have secure jobs, some have jobs that are in serious jeopardy, and some have no jobs at all, and cannot get them. And when this insecurity is linked, rightly or wrongly, with other potential causes of inequality, such as racism, then there are the conditions for real and terrible trouble. I have no intention of approaching these social problems from a party point of view, for I do not believe that the quality of compassion belongs to any one point of view. But I do believe that it is absolutely top priority that there should be the most careful and expert examination of the effects of long-term unemployment on society.
We all want to return as soon as possible to full employment. We are told that it will be a slow process at the best, and that possibly we shall never return to the circumstances that we have known in the past. That is all the more reason to examine the effect which this state of affairs can have on the soul of the nation. What measures can be taken to meet the destructive influence which the inequalities within society caused by long-term unemployment may have upon the thinking and behaviour of our people? Many of us can remember the 1930s and what happened in countries other than our own, where evil leadership battened upon the sense of inequality and injustice among the young unemployed. We feel bound to sound a warning and plead for an imaginative understanding of the underlying causes for unrest.
One thing is certain. We must at least, at all levels of society, try to understand one another and co-operate with one another in the search for a solution. This can be done at its best among the young. So I make no apology in returning to the subject of a debate I initiated in your Lordships' House in November 1979, pleading for some form of organised youth service, which would bring young men and women together, regardless of their social standing and background, to do some useful service for the benefit of the nation as a whole. My arguments then have been powerfully re-stated by Sir Hugh Fraser in an article in The Times of 8th April. I see there is a further reference in The Times today regarding the creation of a debate about youth, which has produced a number of objections by people who say it would be impracticable; but I am glad to see that so distinguished a person as the noble Baroness, Lady David, is taking part in the discussion which is going on. I hope that the Government will not only encourage this research but them-

1185
selves initiate thought and action. For unless we can find ways of satisfying the reactions and emotions of young people who are perplexed and then angered by the injustices of which they find themselves victims, we shall be laying up for ourselves a store of terrible trouble.
There is one more point which I feel must be made. Though there must be inequalities in society, it is yet necessary that those of us who are more fortunate and upon whom providence has smiled, should not make personal capital out of our good fortune. I can never put from my mind the haunting injunction that "to whom much is given, much will be required"; or that Our Lord, having said some scathing things about those who took advantage of their privileged position, reminded them that the greatest are those who serve. It is all too easy for us to demand that Government shall remove the causes of inequality. It is required also of each individual to combat the evils that come from it. I believe that much could be done by an avoidance of ostentation and a simpler life style on the part of many of us.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if on this occasion I end on a personal note. In a few hours' time I shall cease to be Bishop of London, and therefore a Member of your Lordships' House. I count it a very high privilege to have been a Member for twenty-one years, and to have taken some modest part in its work. I believe that this House makes an essential contribution to the good government of this country and I would oppose to the last, in so far as it may be possible for me to do so, those who seek to destroy it. I have made many friends and received much kindness, for which I thank your Lordships. I wish you well.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I should like to thank my friend the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this valuable and important debate. On behalf of the rest of your Lordships' House I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for his speech. Every Sunday I pray in my church for Gerald, our bishop, and I shall continue to pray for him although he will be our bishop no longer and will be succeeded by another familiar friend here in your Lordships' Chamber. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London's speech this afternoon was characteristic of the wisdom and courtesy with which he has informed your Lordships' debates over many years, and on behalf of us all I assure him that whatever he says and wherever he goes he will always be listened to with affection and respect.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Vaizey: The right reverend Prelate's references to unemployment are of particular relevance to your Lordships's House because we do, of course, have a Select Committee on the long-term consequences of unemployment, on which I have the privilege to serve and of which his brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, is a distinguished member. I am sure that when our report appears it will make a landmark in the discussion of this important topic.
1186
My Lords, I am sure that from us the Bishop of London takes with him every conceivable best wish.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Vaizey: I approach this topic with great difficulty and with some apprehension. I was a close friend of the late Tony Crosland, whose death was a terrible blow to us, and was much more of a blow to our nation. Tony Crosland argued that socialism was about equality, and for many years I was one of those who was proud to call himself a socialist. Finally, I came to the conclusion that socialism was not about equality but was about tyranny, and that all the examples we had of socialism both in the Communist bloc and in the third world were tyrannical states. The question I want to broach this afternoon is whether there is a conflict between the three great ideals of the French Revolution of liberty, equality, and fraternity. As a follower of the creed of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I personally believe that the greatest of these three is fraternity—but I must confess that all three words loom very large in my personal creed.
I have devoted many years of my academic life to studying what equality means, and it is by no means a simple question. Some years ago, as a result of a series of discussions on Radio 3 I ventured to publish a book under the title Whatever Happened to Equality? A large number of people took part, including the then Lord Chancellor and many other extremely distinguished persons. The question of how one measures the present distribution of incomes, how one measures the present distribution of opportunities, and what one means by a shift to further equality is by no means clear.
If you take, for example, the statistics of income or of wealth, these are largely based on the returns held by the Inland Revenue. It is admitted that these returns are inaccurate; they exclude almost all low incomes, and they exclude many high incomes of those people who use the income tax system to avoid paying income tax and capital transfer tax. Therefore the question of what is the unit of income is a very difficult one. How does one add up a man, a wife and three children and compare their income with that of an old-age pensioner? Does one do a simple division and say that the family has an income of £10,000 a year, divide that by five which gives a result of £2,000, and say that is equal to the £2,000 which is paid to an old-age pensioner? I can assure your Lordships that this is by no means a simple question and in principle, in many cases, it is often an unanswerable question in statistical terms.
I have no doubt in my own mind that, loosely phrased, a society that is more equal is preferable to a society that is less equal. The evidence is odd. The higher the average national income of a country, the more equal appears to be the distribution of income and other opportunities. For example, the United States, is according to most normal criteria, a more equal country than the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is a much more equal country than the Republic of Ireland; and the Republic of Ireland is a much more equal country than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In other words, the higher the national income per head, the more equal the

1187
distribution of income appears to be. I confess that I am driven to the conclusion that the distribution of income is in some respects a function of the average level of incomes per capita in a society.
That is an interesting and important conclusion from research because it suggests that, whatever political system or measures one adopts, it is extremely difficult to alter the distribution of income or of other opportunities in society which might lead to greater, rather than to less, equality. I share the admiration of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for Mr. Frank Field, the Member for Birkenhead, for his brilliant recent book, and I am convinced that it would be a major step forward in social affairs in this country if an adequate system of child benefit were introduced. I believe that because it is extremely important to try to eliminate child and family poverty, and I should be glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his advocacy of such policy, which has for long been advocated by the Liberal Party. I am not at all sure that on all criteria that would lead to greater equality. In other words, I think the case for child benefit is a case on behalf of children rather than a case for equality.
The evidence of attempts to achieve greater equality in this country is extremely disheartening. It must be said that the work of the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the work of Professor Atkinson of University College, and the work of Mr. Field, all of them distinguished experts in this matter, all suggests that under the Wilson and Callaghan Governments equality was not pursued and that society became if anything more, rather than less, unequal. I believe that to be an academic finding which, on the present state of knowledge, is irrefutable. I do not conclude from that that if one votes Labour one votes for inequality. I conclude from it that we really do not know how to go from here to there—how to go from our present condition to a more equal state.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in a moving and important speech, said that education in this country was socially divisive, and I see that Mrs. Williams, a woman for whom I have great affection and for whom we in this House have enormous respect, agrees with the right reverend Prelate and has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to abolish the public schools. I had assumed when I served on the Public Schools Commission that we were set up in order to abolish the public schools, but the message soon came through that that was the last thing on earth the Cabinet wished to hear from that commission. They did not even want to see an integration of the public schools with the maintained sector.
What steps could be taken to make educational activities in this country more equal? Here, Tony Crosland's speeches and books are revealing and the evidence is quite clear. What does the great Stockholm Professor Torsten, who has for many years studied the impact of comprehensive schools in Sweden and throughout the world—he was responsible for the introduction of comprehensives in Sweden—say on this issue? He says in his latest book, which I received in November, that the education system in Sweden has become more unequal and not more equal as a result of the introduction of the comprehensive reform.
1188
The persistence of inequality in societies appears to be not amenable to simple-minded administrative or legislative acts.
What does equality mean? Does it mean equality of opportunity? That was what the right reverend Prelate rather rested his case on. Does it mean that we should all equally be able to take scholarships to Eton, Trinity or Christ Church? Does it mean that we should all have equality of treatment—that if we go to the local comprehensive or Eton the same number of pounds per year should be spent on us? That of itself is important and, as a matter of fact, it is almost true of our present structure; the cost of education in ILEA schools is as great as, if not greater than, the cost in many independent schools. However, we do not really believe that, because it costs more to educate a spastic or deaf child than an ordinary child, and it costs more to educate a gifted child than an average one if the gifted child is to be fully stretched.
Do we mean equality of outcome? It is quite clear—this has been said repeatedly by Professor Halsey, Mrs. Flood and other experts in this field—that equality of outcome would involve the family in social engineering of a really radical kind, of the kind which was tried in China under Madame Mau during the Cultural Revolution. One must handicap the children of gifted professional families if one wishes to have equality of outcome.
This is a complex and difficult question and we have only a brief time this afternoon to consider it, and I am conscious that I have reached the end of my time. I would only say that after many years of arduous and careful study of the question, I doubt very much whether in the short run there are many practical steps that could be taken which would actually lead to greater equality. I would favour particular actions because I believe them to be good in themselves, and one in particular would be an adequate child endowment scheme. But I must confess that over the years of my study, and particularly of the education system, I am defeated. I do not know what steps one would take, if one were Minister in a Government with all power to reform the education system, to make it more equal. I really and genuinely must say that on this question I have become a complete agnostic.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for his very helpful speech. I wish at the outset to refer, as the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Banks, did, to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth which met under the distinguished chairmanship of my fellow Social Democrat Lord Diamond. Despite the difficulties, which Lord Vaizey mentioned, of grappling with the statistics on this subject, it marshalled so much evidence about the persisting inequality in our society that it is bound to be an important source book—certainly for our new Social Democratic Party as it develops its policy and, I hope, for other parties too—in trying to learn from the lessons of the past in devising some new policies which will prove more effective than previous policies have done in reducing the extent of inequality in our society.
From the seven-and-a-half volumes which the Royal Commission produced over the years, I stress a particu-

1189
larly important fact; namely, that the share of the total income going to the bottom 50 per cent. of incomes has hardly changed in the last quarter of a century. The share of the top 10 per cent. has fallen, yet the beneficiaries have not been the bottom 50 per cent., but rather the people between it. In my view, that is not a very remarkable or satisfactory result for what many people have at various times in the past spoke of as an age of equality.
The Royal Commission was put out of commission, abolished, very soon after the last general election by a Government who did not want to maintain a continuous independent review of this vital subject. I believe there is no doubt that had it continued in existence, and had it been reporting in an eighth or even a ninth volume today, it would have shown an even more unfavourable picture than it did when it was still in existence. In my view, and that of many other observers, the present Government have done more to reduce equity in our society from Brixton to Birkenhead than have any other Government which this country has had this century.
In 1979, in the first post-election Budget, taxes were reduced by some £4½ billion, and that was done largely to the benefit of richer people and very largely to the detriment of poorer people. What was then started has, unfortunately, continued with much nibbling away at the already meagre standards of many poorer sections of our population. Both the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Vaizey, referred to the book by Frank Field, as did the noble Earl in opening the debate, and I agree with all of them that it forms a most important statement, and to some extent it has succeeded in bringing up-to-date, though not with the same degree of chapter and verse, the findings of the Royal Commission reports themselves.
Against the background of that analysis, what should be done? All those who are taking part in this short debate today know that to come to any conclusion on that question would take a much longer debate than we have time for, but we do have time to express some of our own individual opinions, and to some extent the opinions of the parties which we represent, if we do represent parties here today. If I may, as a Social Democrat I should like to state a view about one particular reform which seems to me crucial. Before mentioning it, going back to one of the great socialists to whom the noble Earl referred in his opening remarks. I should like to state what is the underlying belief which he and I and many others share in terms drawn from one of Professor Tawney's books on the acquisitive society. He said that there is no justification for
"a small class which wears several men's clothes, eats several men's dinners, occupies several families' houses, and lives several men's lives".
Following on from that, the reform that seems to me to be required—perhaps even more than others—is in the tax and social security system, not considered separately, but taken together. The last grand simplification that this country saw was the Beveridge Plans, and I was very pleased to see in the recent biography of Lord Beveridge that tribute was paid to the noble Earl for the work that he did, when he was Frank Pakenham, in publicising the Beveridge Report in 1942. That work had a very important influence on
1190
the reception that the report received. Perhaps no report this century has had such a big effect on social policy. It aimed at bringing together a variety of social insurance schemes in order to abolish poverty, or want, as Lord Beveridge referred to it, by setting a minimum standard below which no one should be allowed to fall. We know that, at any rate in the terms in which he proposed it, that policy has not worked, or successive Governments have not allowed it to work.
The policy of incremental gradualism, which has been such a marked feature of our social policy, has produced one little addition after another to the basic structure without raising the fundamental underlying insurance benefit to a proper level, and has added a really amazing complex of different, new means-tested benefits, all of which involve what seems to me an unwarrantable interference with human liberty on a matter which is of great importance to many people. It is something that they would like to keep private to themselves, or, at any rate, from the tax people; namely, their own income, and how they spend it.
Quite apart from its other evils, the structure that we have is quite incomprehensible to any but the experts, and quite often even the experts cannot understand it. Certainly the people who are entitled to the benefits under the great panoply of schemes that exist cannot possibly be expected to understand what are their entitlements. That partly accounts for the fact that the take-up under so many of the schemes is so lamentably low. This nation is far from being a nation of scroungers; much more is it a nation of people who are baffled by the incomprehensibility of the social benefits system, which makes it impossible for many of them, or at least an adequate number of them, to claim their proper entitlements no matter how much they might wish to do so.
So, leading on from there, what I am suggesting is that in principle what is required is a general simplification of the tax and benefits system. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that he favoured tax credits, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I think went at least some way to agreeing with him on that. Sometimes the term used is "tax credits", sometimes people talk about the negative income tax, sometimes about social dividends, and sometimes about a national minimum income. But in principle they all amount to very much the same thing.
Many Governments have toyed with the idea of a grand simplification under this kind of label and so far have failed to bring it off. One of the essential ideas is that it is ridiculous and costly and it involves too much interference with individual liberty to have a whole set of officials taking away money from citizens in the form of taxes and another whole set of officials handing it back to citizens, not necessarily the same people, but through an amazing series of complicated hoops. As I said earlier, this double system is becoming progressively more complicated and more onerous. If everyone received a guaranteed income that was taxable, then at any rate in principle we would again have the kind of simplification with which we started off in the years after 1942.
There are hundreds of difficulties, administrative and otherwise, about this, but in my submission they should not be so baffling that we cannot take a

1191
grip on them. If we do not produce a complete simplification involving all the social security benefits system and the tax allowance system, then at least we should be able to move towards that end, and towards a reform which had not only a strong egalitarian but also a strong libertarian bias to it.
The Social Democratic Party has existed for only a few weeks. The statement that it made at the time of its launch was only an outline one, but one of the sentences in the statement which was made said:
"The state should lean towards greater equality, but if it intervenes oppressively it will damage individual liberty and diminish the nation's wealth".
I hope that the kind of reform that I have just been referring to (hardly even outlining in the time available) may commend itself to the noble Earl who opened this debate, and also to the House, as being in accord with that statement of policy from this newly-born party.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, it has been a great opportunity to have this debate, but I wish it had been a fuller debate. I want to add my gratitude to that expressed to the right reverend Prelate, and I hope that somehow or other we may have the opportunity, as I have had over the last 10 years, of listening to his wisdom and to the contributions he wants to make in this noble House. My noble friend Lord Longford, who is now on this side of the House although he was once in the research department of the Conservative Party, dealt with these questions philosophically and unpolitically, but nevertheless they are of maximum importance to the problem which this great country is facing. I, too, was brought up on Tawney and others during my extra-mural work for many years. I am not agnostic about education, having been a rough practitioner in it in the toughest types of schools and having been plunged into a class of 80 in my first job in a church school—a school that I loved and a little church that we helped to keep going. We had 80 children in one class, and out of those we got a few scholarships to the grammar school and ultimately a couple, maybe, to the university.
But there is no need to be lugubrious. If we look at the progress (and I will use the old-fashioned expression) of the so-called working classes this last 30 or 40 years educationally here in Britain, we see that there are more ordinary students, like those who came from the setting of How Green Was My Valley, at the universities and at the technicolleges today than there ever were before, even proportionately. That must be taken into account; and much of the greatness that we saw in the last war came from such people. I could name a professor—he is dead now—who was a communist, who through his training was used by the Government, in a devastating part of his work, which led to the complete and successful invasion of Normandy. In other words, masses of people who had no privilege contributed to the victory over Nazism and over those who would curtail human liberty.
However, I still agree with Tawney; and I took the trouble to look up in the Library a quote from the epilogue that he wrote not long before he died, when
1192
he said that one of "the two most massive pillars of indefensible disparities" was the educational system. He said:
"The inequalities of educational opportunity are mischievous and a menace to the future of Britain. It is to poison their soul—it is to smite the child with the blight of inferiority".
There is nothing in the world worse than pushing into the minds of the underprivileged a sense of inferiority—and thank goodness I have not got it! But we had to fight not to get it; that is the point. I do not mean arrogance or hubris. I mean, those of us who did not have the privilege knew that we could get to the light only by work.
Now the principle of equality, commonly stated, is in a conditional form. In public matters we believe that people should be treated roughly identically, in justice and with law. Nevertheless, one of the great inequalities is in the poor man getting justice in the courts today, because ultimately he cannot afford it. Our legal aid system has not been the success that we would have liked it to be; that is another avenue. In this country, thank goodness!, the right to listen exists—and I want it to exist more—in regard to the radio and television. I know there are some sins of omission in television, but, my word! it has made a great contribution to the uplift of ordinary people—a series of Shakespeare; a series of music; music that it would cost £7 a ticket to listen to at the opera or in a theatre put before millions nightly to watch. Some of the greatest films and some of the greatest events in our music and in our industry have been seen in the ordinary working-class homes as well as in the so-called middle-class and (if you like to use these horrible terms) upper-class homes every night of the week, somewhere, sometime, for all of us.
There, there is equality of opportunity, and that is one thing that has come with the technological revolution. So when we are spiking down what we are after, we are spiking down more than money—much more than money. We wanted the opportunity. My grandmother used to say, "Oh Lord, I do not ask for money—tell me where it is, and I will do the rest myself". It was an old Welsh prayer; a little wicked one, I think, but nevertheless I understood what the old lady was driving at. Therefore, I do not want to press for equality of incomes so much. The spreading and the increase of the money factor, yes; but we want to keep people above the sustenance level. We want people to have the opportunities.
What is more, we must take into account the fact that holiday brochures at the moment are absolutely loaded with applications intended for ordinary people who have been working hard all the year round to go to Spain, to go to France and, now, to go to Miami, if they are not afraid of being mugged. It is quite true, and the House has forgotten these factors. Ordinary people are moving around the world as never before. Most of my family moved around because they were in the South Wales Borderers, and were pushed around serving overseas, or somewhere or the other. Now, thank goodness! people are reaching a sense of dignity and have less inferiority than they ever had before because of this.
Let us take something else. I do not want to make a political point, but with the 1945 Government the uplift of our people was one of the finest things that we

1193
did. Because we are in an economic jam, I do not want us now to brutalise the opportunities of children by cutting to the bone educational opportunities. If we do, it will be all the worse for Britain. I remember, in 1941, the famous statement of the four freedoms:
"We are searching for freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear".
I wrote a booklet at the time, and I consider that as important as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear there is a fifth freedom—the all-embracing freedom for under-privileged people: freedom from contempt. That is what we must be struggling for. We can get that only by lifting up the dignity of people, and that can only come from abolishing mischievous cuts in education, and in giving educational opportunity at the roots.
The right reverend Prelate goes back to Dickensian days. You cannot have an educated child if his house is a slum. I know the military people will go for me a bit here, but I think it would be for the greater security of Britain to take some of that £5,000 billion spent on defence and say that, come what may, in the next five years we are going to have a housing programme the like of which Britain has never seen before. If some party had the courage to go to the country and say, "We are not making any vast promises, but we are going to try to wipe out the indignity of homelessness in Britain", I guarantee that it would be one of the greatest blessings that there could be towards building up equality of opportunity in Britain.
Therefore, my first step to this greater equality is freedom from contempt. I remember my noble friend Lord Longford working with Beveridge on those famous giants, the giant of want, the giant of disease, the giant of squalor, the giant of ignorance and the giant of idleness. Those are the giants behind the discontent in our society today. They are still there and they increase with unemployment. But the evils of unemployment can be partially nullified if the mind is developed. There are those of us who are lucky enough to live in nice houses and to understand lovely music, beautiful pictures and homes that are lovely. Many would consider more desirable than Bernard Shaw's arid phrase "equality of income" the ability and opportunity to appreciate the wonderful inheritence of human beings in art, music and poetry. Those are the things which give equality of opportunity.
I remember the gloomy dean, Dean Inge. I apologive to the right reverend Prelate, but he knows, or knew, Dean Inge. He was an arid old curmudgeon. One of his statements was, "It is time to stop educating the children of the poor". Yes, he really said that. I cannot understand this attitude because, to pay a tribute to the Church, the Church schools in Britain were in existence before the 1870 Education Act. I am glad the Church does not take the opportunity to follow the gloomy dean today. I hope that they will keep their schools going. The other thing is that when people are most happy they are most gullible. In the period 1808 to 1812 there were some who were giving free meals to children. The Times said of this:
"There is a section of the School Board for London which aims at saddling upon the ratepayers the responsibility for feeding the children sent to school without proper meals; a policy which we have contended from the first will inevitably tempt a large class of parents to starve or half starve their boys
1194
and girls in order to escape the burden to which they are legally subject and one which they are well able to bear".
I will finish with a statement made by Catherine Booth, that great woman, in July 1881. In the War Cry she wrote:
"Oh how I see the emptiness and vanity of everything compared with the salvation of the soul! What does it matter if a man dies in the workhouse? If he dies on the doorstep covered with wounds like Lazarus—what does it matter—if his soul is saved?"
And there is a double meaning there. I will leave it at that. I am glad that the Church did not take that attitude. In the end, Governments and the Church itself—and, as I know, in South Wales the Methodist Church—did a lot for the uplifting of the opportunities of our people.
I pay tribute to the women of Britain, who work so hard and are underprivileged. My great-grandmother had these words on her tombstone:
"Here lies a woman who was never tired"—
The noble Lord is watching the clock. I ought not to be stopped in the middle of a poem.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is a timed debate and every extra minute that he speaks he takes from other Lords.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, the noble Lord has added a minute to my speech, for by now I should be sitting down. But out of courtesy to the noble Lord the Chief Whip I shall not recite the rest of the little poem.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for casting his Motion in conveniently wide terms. I have enjoyed and, I hope, profited from all the speeches, including the poignant speech of the right reverend Prelate, but I want to follow rather a different line of argument. I do not know the noble Earl personally enough to judge whether his amiable qualities include absentmindedness but I have a special reason for hoping that he forgets to withdraw his Motion for Papers at the end of this debate. I have been wondering what Papers we could recommend to the noble Earl to advance his education—not more Blue Books, not more Fabian tracts or official reports of which he may have swallowed too many. What other Papers would cheer the noble Earl and help to persuade him that his plea for greater equality has already gone a long way towards being fulfilled in our lifetime by the remarkable operation of private enterprise in competitive markets? My choice of Papers to put this debate into perspective would be the social commentaries embodied in the bound volumes not of Hansard but of such journals as Homes and Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Women's Weekly—which, I see, goes back to 1911—and all those contemporary magazines on holidays, motoring, eating out, foreign travel and other growing national pastimes.
Who now remembers the working-class world in which at least some of us were brought up? Who remembers the world of fly-papers, of gas coppers, of black-leaded grates, of mangles, meat safes, boiled milk in the summer and acres of lino—or, should I

1195
say, linoleum? Such domestic horrors have now been banished by aerosols, detergents, washing-machines, heaters of all kinds, fitted kitchens, refrigerators, deep freezes and wall-to-wall carpeting. Noble Lords can dwell on sad exceptions, but the lives of most ordinary people have been transformed in two generations. I am arguing—and I think it a fair point from the Cross-Benches—that none of this practical progress owes very much at all to politicians and Governments. The larger part of Government social spending consists in taking money from the majority of people and returning it to much the same people in cash and kind—minus heavy freight charges in both directions. While the forebears of many noble Lords here were calling for the "elevation of the masses" the practical process of improvement was being advanced by businessmen, galvanised by unequal incentives in the market, to find better ways of serving their consumers, and, at the same time, offering more rewarding employment. The whole history of liberal capitalism is one of extending the luxuries of a privileged minority ever wider to become the everyday conveniences, even necessities, of growing majorities. The tragedy, in my view, of the last 100 years is that the market worked so well that we took it for granted and began to make its operation more difficult.
It has been well said that in confronting social policy we should be inspired by love but guided by reason. My reasoning tells me that many noble intentions aired in debates such as this are likely to finish up doing more harm than good. Our concern should not be with the distracting and destructive phantom of equality. It should be with a realistic discussion of how we can revive our economy so as to afford a more humane minimum standard for those who cannot maintain themselves in the market. We would all agree—there would be no disagreement—that no one should be allowed to fall below what we judge to be an acceptable poverty level. But I want to ask why today's conception of a minimum standard is so much above what I will call the skimmed-milk standard that was applied by Booth and Rowntree in theie poverty surveys 100 years ago? The improvement owes far less to the secondhand generosity of politicians doling out other people's money than to the application of capital and labour in multiplying marketable output.
It is clear that greater equality has a powerful, emotional and even aesthetic appeal and effect on its advocates. But its danger lies in the conflict with the indispensable requirement of incentive for a free and an efficient society. My argument in a nutshell is that the disincentive cost of the British Welfare State has now become the major obstacle to the spreading of prosperity through the more effective operation of vigorous competitive enterprise. I agree with the tendency of much of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I express them in this way: our mistake in social policy has been that instead of concentrating help selectively on those in need—for example, as he said, by a reverse income tax—British policy has indulged the essentially collectivist folly of universal free services and benefits which are both inefficient to the recipient and inordinately expensive to the taxpayer as provider. That is why we now have at the same time excessive taxation going
1196
hand in hand with inadequate help for some categories of special need.
The cost and burden of indiscriminate benefits is damaging in a host of ways. I shall mention briefly four. In the first place, high taxes necessarily inflate labour costs; at the same time, they deflate the incentives to effort and enterprise. Secondly, the availability of universal services puts a premium on sloth and safety-first. Thirdly, the spreading burden of taxes down the income scale impoverishes millions of families who thereby become dependent upon multiplying state subsidies; and finally—for the moment—the narrowing or non-existent gap between taxed income from work and untaxed social benefits must increase voluntary unemployment and so reduce real output.
Sceptics will find much more interesting evidence than provided in the Diamond Report in a recent compilation by Ralph Howell, the Norfolk MP, entitled Why work? Why indeed, when taxation on a family—a man, wife and two children—starts at a wage of £41 a week compared with tax-free supplementary benefits on offer at £66 a week? Why work indeed when the head of that family would need to earn £115 a week to be better off than collecting unemployment benefit plus tax refunds? Why work indeed when the same breadwinner in a family of four earning £105 a week comes out of the tax-benefit mangle £11 better off than if he earned only £35 a week? Greater equality? My Lords, no—not unless we want, in Churchill's phrase:
"Equal sharing of miseries"
rather than
"unequal sharing of blessings".
I conclude that, instead of sliding with the noble Earl down the slippery slope of equality, we should urgently seek to reduce the half of the national income now spent by Government, to cut taxes and to widen differences of income both from work and investment. We should in my view pursue a deliberate policy of differential incentives in the long-run interests, not least, of the poor and the handicapped. If we really want to encourage employment and to enliven our economy, we need above all to free this economy from decades of self-inflicted political mutilation.
4.25 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I agree with almost everything the noble Lord has said. I do not suppose that your Lordships are surprised at that. When the noble Earl put down this Motion, I thought he was joking to start with; but I understand that he is serious now. We are the most unrestricted democracy in the world and we have more equality in this country than any other country in the world. I am not arguing with that. It is on the whole a good thing.
What has surprised me in this debate is that there has been hardly any mention of biology. The right reverend Prelate skirted around it. I presume that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is a product of nature; he did not appear here by parachute from some heavenly being. Therefore, he must abide by the laws of nature. I would remind him that man is governed by nature's laws and not the laws of political idealists. Nature's first law is its infinite variety. If you take a microscope, as I have done often, and look at a handful of grass

1197
out of any field, you will see that not one blade is the same as another. You get your giant trees of the forest; you get your scrawny shrubs beneath them; you get your master stag and your king wolf. You can go throughout the whole of nature and the main thing that you find is the great variety and great inequality.
The higher the species in nature—and I suppose man is the highest—the greater the variety you get, the greater the difference among members of the same species. That is a biological fact. I have often quoted here the 18th century philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. They said that all men were born equally wise and virtuous, and all men were born free and equal. Regarding "equally wise and virtuous", I do not think history has borne that out. The philosopher said that it was only tyrannical government that made men not virtuous. However, history has not borne that out.
One is not born free, either. One is either born into a tribe or a community. We have to abide by the laws of that society. If we want to be free we have to take to the jungle and fend for ourselves. Then we would probably end up inside some animal. One is not horn equal, either. One is only equal when dead. One is equal then, I agree, so I think that will please the noble Earl. I am all for equality if it can be attained practically, but one has to remember that the great difficulty of economic equality is that no economic equality can survive the workings of biological inequality.
It is a fact of life that there are many who wish to have complete financial equality and the rewards of success without the responsibility, the work and the inconvenience that entails. Many people in fact wish to have their cake but they also want to eat it. But if you wish for equality you must be prepared to undertake the responsibility and the work. As I say, you cannot have equality with those who are more talented than yourself if you are not prepared to undertake the obligations that that entails, and many people are not prepared or fitted to do that.
Of course, it is easy to level down economically through excessive taxation, and to a great extent we have done that in this country, but it has a great danger because eventually it will drive out the country's brains and so dishearten others that they will not attempt to create wealth; and this will impoverish the people. There is a great danger in that because when we get down to real economic equality we shall get the triumph of ruthless men—men of force—who will rise up and enslave the people. And of course history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
I quite agree that it is very important for every human being, as far as practicable, to have equal opportunity. We have tried to engineer that in our country by our education system. We have had free education in this country for at least 90 per cent. of the population and probably more; but here again you are up against biology because not all the pupils will come from the same background. Some will have been brought up in the country and others will have been brought up in industrial areas. Some teachers will be good and others will be bad. You may have the same school curriculum and exams, but you cannot make all your teachers the same. One noble Lord was saying earlier that if public schools could be incorporated into the state system that would
1198
be good. That would be all right if we had enough teachers who were up to the required standard, but I can see no practical way of achieving it.
However, we must be thankful that in this country every man is equal before the law. Of course, we get some bad verdicts from juries, but here again the biological problem enters into it and we cannot get rid of that biological problem. There are plenty of examples of men who have had very little opportunity in life yet have risen to great power and great wealth; so we cannot put too much weight on the education system. I think the biological influence is really most important.
May I say, regarding equality, that there are many instances where we could have more equality. For instance, why should a man who is earning £12,000 or £14,000 a year have a council house? There are plenty of instances of such cases where people are being supported by far poorer members of the community who are paying rates to subsidise that council house. We have many instances like that. For instance, why should workers in the nationalised industries, which on the whole are loss-making industries, have got higher pay rises—20 per cent. generally speaking—than workers in the private or wealth-producing industries, who this year on average have only had about 7 per cent.? That is a question of extremely unfair inequality and there are various inequalities like that which I should like to see altered.
My Lords, I have had my 10 minutes now but would just like to say that—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think my noble friend has reached the end of his speech and he should sit down.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Yes, my Lords. I should just like to say that if we could get a really egalitarian society I can imagine nothing more dreary or boring and it would completely kill culture and the advancement of the nation.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Stewart of Alvechurch: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity of debating this subject, which I regard as a highly important one. Clearly there is a growing need for greater sex equality in the United Kingdom than is available today. Although the Equal Opportunities Commission, established in 1975, is an important body in itself, it has achieved little to date and one need only consider the composition of the other place and of the Cabinet in order to realise the high degree of sex inequality which predominates in this country. Apart from the Prime Minister, all the remaining 22 Members of the Cabinet are male, all but one of the 29 senior Ministers who are not in the Cabinet are male and all but one of the 51 junior Ministers are male. Since the total num er of women MPs is only 19, one cannot expect to have a greater number in the Government as Conservatives.
If one hopes, as I do, that in years to come there will be sex equality in the political arena and that there will be approximately the same number of women as men among our MPs, clearly changes must be made in the hours of work of MPs and in parliamentary and

1199
constituency procedures. Once sex equality is accepted in the parliamentary sphere I do not think that this will be difficult to establish.
Today, sex equality in the political arena is due largely to the belief that married women cannot undertake both the responsibilities of family life and those of a Member of Parliament without neglecting one or other of these spheres. This is not an insoluble problem and if today we gave more thought to parliamentary procedure and the hours of work of MPs and their problems relating to travel, I have little doubt that both men and women could undertake the responsibilities of Members of Parliament without damage to their home lives and their children.
Once sex equality is established in the political arena, I think it will spread to many other fields of occupation now primarily occupied by men. These may include builders, decorators and bus drivers as well as poets and university professors. I would like, in conclusion, again to thank my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to discuss this matter and I hope it will be discussed in the near future by this House and the other place.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, I do not think anyone wants to hear anything except the three winding-up speakers, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Longford, so I should like to confine myself to three points only. First, I should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate, which is a particularly suitable one to introduce in this House which, I believe, is called the House of Peers. I know that that, to many people, has an unpleasant connotation. It means house of equals. All Peers are not equally equal, but I cannot think of one who is more equally equal than the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
With great respect, if he will not mind my saying so, I should like to compare him to Saint Paul, who had an answer to everything. If you say "You know nothing about Protestantism, because you are a Catholic" he can say, "I was born into a Protestant family". If you say "You know nothing about prisons, because you have never been in them", he can say "I have been in them for years more than you". If you say, "You know nothing about practical politics, because you have never been on a Front Bench", he can say, "I have been on the Government Front Bench in this House as Leader". You can go on in that way on almost every subject. He is somebody who is worth listening to. He could even boast, although he cannot speak as rapidly as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that he can speak second best to him. He cannot possibly diverge as widely into theology and biology as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has done, but he can make a good effort at it. I think he has raised an extraordinarily interesting debate and I have listened to most of the speeches.
Secondly, in case I am accused of being a party politician, I should like to say that I do not always agree with every single word that is said by the Liberal Front Bench spokesman. In general, I agree with my noble friend Lord Banks and on this occasion I agreed
1200
with everything he said. I would also agree with what a lot of noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, have suggested, that this is not a question of equality, like equal triangles or, still less, like congruent triangles. No one has suggested that everyone in this House is as beautiful as any other, as verbal as any other or as experienced as any other. What has been suggested is that every Peer in this House has a right to speak for a limited time. I see that I now have two minutes left and I do not want to go beyond that. I just want to say why I am speaking at all; except that I want to wish all the best to the right reverend Prelate sitting there. The only time one turns one back on Bishops is when one is saying one's prayers. They do not seem to mind that. But we are the goats and they are the sheep.
To get back to the question, it is a matter of equality of rights. Some noble Lords have been a little optimistic in saying that we all have equal rights and equal opportunities in this country. It is perfectly true that we have more in this country than in many, but I should like to mention one class of persons—if one can call them that—as we had a debate about children the other day. I think that the noble Lord who introduced that debate would have some sympathy with me here, and would agree that it is not a subject to be discussed at this moment.
We had a debate about children in which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made an excellent speech, and said that we had to impose a limit. On the whole, children are people under 16. You could not call Abraham, who was one of the Children of Israel, a child, and Jacob's sons went on into old age. There is a maximum limit of 16. Is there a minimum limit? Almost everybody, including the right reverend Prelate, said that we all have a right from birth onwards. The point that I should like to make is that there are certain rights for unborn children, but only for a very limited time. There have been three efforts in another place to introduce a Bill saying that the date should be earlier, and that these children should have a certain right not to be killed off indiscriminately. I believe that such a Bill would get a large measure of support in this country; the idea is getting support in other places in the world.
If anyone suggests that a child before birth is not a person, then I should like to know what is the definition of a "person". If it is, in the ordinary legal phrase, the physical body of a human being, there is no doubt that the foetus in the womb is a physical body; otherwise, it could not be killed. There is no doubt that if it is a human being it cannot turn into anything else. I shall not go into that subject, but I can see no possible reason for denying one right which seems to be more fundamental than the right to good education or the right to anything else; that is, the right to the opportunity to be allowed to live. We talk about handicapped children, but the worst handicap would be to be handicapped out of the race altogether, before you had a chance. I throw that out as one of the ideas on which there is inequality with regard to a certain class; and that minority is, in fact, a 100 per cent. majority, because we have all been children at one time. At the risk of boring people, it is worth raising that subject from time to time. I apologise for taking more than five minutes.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that this has been a debate of great interest and we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Longford for introducing it. The kind of subjects which legislatures have to discuss today are, as a rule, so full of detail and technicality that we often find we do not have time to look back and ask what kind of society are we creating; in what directions ought we to be moving? It is particularly valuable, therefore, to have a debate of this sort, and it is this House rather than the other which has the time to do that kind of thing. As was wittily said, this is, indeed, a House of Peers so let nobody be jocular at the expense of the idea of the Lords debating equality.
It seems to be agreed throughout that there ought to be in existence equality of opportunity, and agreed throughout that there ought to be equality of rights and equality before the law. But what we are urging from these Benches and what I would say, with respect, some noble Lords have not given sufficient weight to, is that if you have more than a certain degree of inequality of income you will suffer both in equality of opportunity and in equality of rights before the law. It is one thing to set up a legal aid service, but unless you put sufficient resources into it, it will still not give very much help to really poor people who are in danger of losing their legal rights. Practically every right you create must have some material resources put behind it, if there is to be anything like equality of enjoyment of those rights.
Early in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, rightly stressed equality of opportunity and I was very glad that he went on to make the point that equality of opportunity, by itself, is not enough. Excessive inequality of income can damage equality of opportunity. Take, for example, my Lords, the question of housing, which was very eloquently referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whose departure from here we are all greatly regretting. He pointed out what a fearful handicap from birth it can be for a child to be inadequately housed. However good the education system is, that child will suffer unless the housing is reasonably adequate. Unless, therefore, you provide a limit to the amount of inequality between how the most fortunate are housed and how the least fortunate are housed, you are not providing equality of opportunity. I have given the other example of the legal aid service. Unless you pump more funds into that than are being pumped in at the moment, you will not get equality of rights before the law between the richest and the poorest. One of the objections to inequality of income is that it fights against that equality of opportunity and equality of rights upon which presumably we are all agreed.
Another evil of great inequality of income is this. Noble Lords should notice that I say "great inequality". Nobody is pretending that we want all incomes to be mathematically equal. But what I think undoubtedly is true is that the range of inequality today is far too high. If you look for any rationale behind why one person is richer than another it is often very hard to find. Great inequality is bound to create a divided and an unhappy society. It is possible today for a man to work all his working life, some 50 years, at a
1202
socially valuable service. He can be a postman or a railwayman and work for 50 years. In all that lifetime he will not earn as much money as can be made in a single day in a property deal which will add nothing whatever to the total wealth of the community. That is the kind of inequality we are talking about.
I believe, by the way, that one of the answers to the question put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey: why do we strive so hard to create greater equality but apparently do not get there? is the underlying influence of the ownership of property, in particular landed property. To my mind it is remarkable, particularly if one studies Lord Diamond's report, that the growth in inequality has not been much greater. All the work which has been done to promote greater equality has had a small result, but if it had not been done the inequalities would be very much more flagrant even than they are today. That is the effect, importance and justification of the increase in social services which we have noticed during this century, and in some cases a little earlier.
In that situation, it is no good preaching to people who earn their living, whether by hand or brain, the duty of restraint regarding the public interest. They live in a society which does not pretend to distribute wealth on principles of justice and public interest. It distributes it according to what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, called "biological reasons". Quite what kind of biological reason causes a journalist working on the late magazine Now! to be paid £15,000 a year, a postman to be paid a very much lower wage and the Beatles to get the large sized incomes that they do, I am not sure.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, the journalist working on the magazine Now! is paid more because, presumably, he is giving a service that few people can give. If you put a postman to work on the magazine Now! he would be unable to write articles in the same way as a journalist can. It is a question of supply and demand.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, if postmen had been supplied, the magazine might be still in existence. One cannot be at all sure that there is anything just or sensible about it. In a society where there are gross inequalities, many of which (I do not say all of them) are totally unjustifiable upon any rational principle, it is no good trying to persuade people who work for their living to accept restraint and to have regard for the public interest. We live in a society in which people want to get more. That perhaps is a common and an unavoidable human weakness. But one result of our positive worship of inequality is that people not only want to have more for their own enjoyment but regard it as a virtue in itself to have more than the other fellow: the evil which the Greeks called pleiomexia, the itch for having some more. It is that which over the years has made incomes policies fail. Some people conclude from that that one ought not even to try.
When a Government say that they are not going to try to have an incomes policy, we all know what it means. It means that they will let people in private industry get as much as their muscle will obtain for them and that they will solve the problem by bashing

1203
the public servants. That kind of injustice is bound to follow in a society where people will not respond to the idea of making an incomes policy work. And they will not respond because the whole ethos of that society urges them to believe that it is a good thing to try to get more than somebody else, never mind whether you deserve it, never mind whether the public interest justifies it, never mind whether you create so much inflation that in the end you will find it is not worth it.
The evil of inequality is that it breeds on itself. It encourages people to regard inequality as something to be praised on its own account. Against this, some urge that there are such drawbacks to the idea of greater equality that we must just put up with inequality, whatever its evils. This case was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who spoke to us about incentives. We must accept that one justification for some measure of inequality is incentive: to get people to put up better efforts, to train themselves for more skilled, more responsible work. This would be reasonable enough if, first, the degree of inequality were not intolerably great and, secondly, if there were a real relationship between how much you get and what your contribution to society is. But the plain fact today is that the largest incomes are not made by work. The largest incomes are made by the ownership or manipulation of property.
I believe that one of the things we ought to do if we are to remedy this evil is to see that a greater amount of land in this country is brought into public ownership. Three times Labour Governments have endeavoured to see that people should not make large, unearned fortunes out of land. Three times Conservative Governments have frustrated those attempts. The spectacle of people making large, unearned incomes goes on. It is no good, therefore, saying that inequality of this sort can be justified as an incentive to greater work. Inequality within moderate limits and inequality definitely related to function does make sense. What we have at present does not. It is not only, as my noble friend Lord Longford argued eloquently, immoral and repulsive to our senses. It is something which is actually injurious to society.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, rejoicing in our liberation from flypaper, linoleum and various other horrors of the past, ascribed all this to the virtues of private enterprise. It was plain enough towards the end of the last century when capitalism was really getting into its stride, that by itself it was quite incapable either of housing most people decently, or of providing education adequate to the needs of the society in which they were living, or of looking after their health properly. Those things had to be done by public action—that is, by mitigating the inequalities which society had suffered.
I say, therefore, that our rules for the distribution of wealth ought to be these. Let us regard equality in itself as something to work for and let us accept such inequality as is necessary—in deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, necessary for biological reasons. But this means that it must be moderate in amount and closely related to function: that if A is richer than B, you ought to be able to show, first, that he is not so much richer that he lives a life so wide apart from B that they can never
1204
understand each other and, secondly, that there is some solid public reason why A should be richer than B—that his advantage is not only an advantage to him but an advantage to the public.
How can we get nearer to that goal? Partly, I think, by dealing with the laws relating to inheritance and the transfer of wealth by gift. Capital transfer tax was introduced because death duties were so often avoided. I accept, as did my noble friend Lord Longford, that it is desirable that people should be able to pass on something to their heirs, but once again there should be moderation and proportion. For a man to be born into the situation where he inherits wealth to the extent that he need not (if he does not want to) do any work for the rest of his life is neither good for him nor justifiable to society. Therefore, I think we need to strike more at the passing of great fortunes in that way. As I said earlier, we want to extend the public ownership of land and reduce the opportunities for private persons to enrich themselves in ways that do not enrich society as a whole. There are other inequalities. My noble kinswoman Lady Stewart of Alvechurch drew attention to the inequalities from which women still suffer. In particular I think we need to get rid of the prejudice against the entry of women to certain employments, because it is that more than anything else which keeps women's wages down today.
I will suggest, perhaps lightheartedly, one very simple reform which we could introduce quite speedily: let it be a rule that titles descend to the eldest child, irrespective of sex. In a generation the composition of this House would be quite considerably altered and we should then have struck a blow for equality. In general, what we are trying to create is a kind of society with a different set of values, in which, while we recognise that there will be inequalities and there will be difficulties, we do not regard the mere acquisition of wealth—and particularly more wealth than somebody else—as a benefit in itself. We can encourage people to look at the other incentives to work: the interests of public service, which for many people are almost as powerful. As R. H. Tawney, who has so often been quoted, put it:
"To have useful and interesting work to do and enough money and leisure to be able to do it properly is as much happiness as is good for the sons of Adam".
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I must begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this debate; but before going on to answer his argument I should like to pay my tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who made a most moving and wise speech and gave us all a great deal to think about. I know that I speak for all my noble friends in thanking him for his many important contributions in your Lordships' House and in saying that we wish him well in all that he does.
We have had a great many thoughtful speeches this afternoon and I should like to begin by stating two propositions on which I hope we might all agree. The first is that it should be the aim of the Government to ensure that vulnerable groups in our society, such as pensioners, the disabled, and the chronically sick, share in any general rise in living standards. I think it is fair to say that this has happened over the years.

1205
Between 1948 and 1980 the real value of supplementary benefit, the minimum income laid down by Parliament, has doubled. It is also true that since the war there have been similar improvements in real terms in all the main social security benefits and in addition, particularly under the last Conservative Government, a number of new benefits were introduced for groups like the disabled with the attendance allowance, pensions for the over 80s and certain widows who previously had no pension at all. The present child benefit scheme which combines the previous separate arrangements for family allowances and child tax allowances has brought about a considerable improvement in the provision for families, particularly at the lower end of the income scale, and we have given special help to one-parent families. Recent statistics have shown that in 1979, a typical family in the bottom 20 per cent. of the income distribution recovered benefits in cash or kind which increased their pre-tax income by 70 per cent.
I recognise that there are still blackspots of poverty and squalor in Britain today. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be agreement that the cause of these blackspots is often not necessarily because there is a shortage of money. For example, we all know the difficulties which many families have experienced through living in tower blocks. We all know that the problem of living a decent life in certain housing estates is not so much concerned with a standard of housing, which is often good, but with vandalism and crime, particularly burglaries and the breaking of windows, which makes life difficult for those trying to maintain good standards. This is particularly true in the case of the elderly.
The second point on which I hope there will be general agreement is that there is a need for an enlargement of opportunity, particularly for young people, both black and white, in our remaining blackspots of poverty. Here I listened with great interest to what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, said, but I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who wishes to call this the need for more equality of opportunity that I would not quarrel with him, provided that he is thinking in terms of levelling up rather than levelling down. However, I would emphasise that his Motion refers to the need for more equality, which is different from equality of opportunity, for it has frequently been said that the purpose of equality of opportunity is to enable people subsequently to become more unequal.
The call for more equality would be more understandable if the wealth of our country was indeed in the hands of a very small minority with the great majority of the population in real poverty—in other words, a minority of very wealthy people, the remainder of the population being very poor. But this is not the case. If we look at the distribution of income in 1972 as set out in the Royal Commission Report, incomes after tax were divided up roughly as follows: at the upper end of the scale, the top 1 per cent. of earners received 4 per cent. of income after tax; the top 10 per cent. received 24 per cent., and the bottom 10 per cent. approximately 3 per cent. of total income. These are not dramatic differences by the standards of other Western economies, nor I suspect, of many countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Turning now to the distribution of capital assets,
1206
there is of course the claim that 10 per cent. of the population own between 80 and 90 per cent. of all capital assets. But this calculation ignores pension rights, including state pensions. If pension rights are included we find that the top 10 per cent., own less than 45 per cent. of capital assets, which is a very different matter. Even this calculation is open to error because wealth is normally distributed unevenly between husbands and wives, old and young. When these distortions are allowed for, even the figure of 45 per cent. could well turn out to be an overestimate.
The truth is that over the years in Britain the very rich have tended to get relatively poorer, but both the poor or the relatively poor and those particularly in the middle ground of incomes have got richer—and more people have moved into the middle ground of incomes; and I, for one, welcome the changes which have occurred.
It must be appreciated that those who today are often described as poor because they are at the lower end of the income scale, would certainly not have been regarded as living in poverty, say, 40 or 50 years ago—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. Thus, while one can have some sympathy with Professor Townsend's concept that poverty should be considered in terms of relative deprivation, I would not go all the way with him in saying, as he said in his recent book, that anyone is poor who cannot:
"participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong"—
It seems to me that this would mean that even if standards of living of everyone in the country, including those at the bottom of the incomes scale, were doubled or even trebled, the professor would still be making precisely the same criticism as he is today. The fact is that the concept of equality is in many respects a delusion. I believe, as a Christian, in equality before God, and I believe, as a citizen, in equality before the law. But today anyone who has attempted to define equality has run into difficulties.
I am sure we all listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Vaizey's most thoughtful speech and the difficulties that he has found, as an economist, in defining equality. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, who called, among other things, for a simplification of the benefits system. But I think even he will accept that over the last years the social security system has been substantially reviewed. The contributions system has been remodelled, new earnings-related pensions introduced, child benefit introduced for all, non-contributory benefits have been introduced for the disabled and the supplementary benefits system has been reformed. We have made a significant start on simplifying the supplementary benefits system as we have spelled out claimants' entitlement by making the rules public in regulations approved by Parliament. But it is not an easy matter, as the noble Lord will know, once one begins to look at it.
The fact is that any attempt to impose an egalitarian society would in practice mean an ever-widening gap between the growing bureaucracy and the rest of the population, for the assumption underlying this demand is that people should be protected against making wrong decisions by having the state decide things for

1207
them. The fact that people make mistakes is something which must be accepted in a free society. Nor should it be supposed that there is some sort of ruling élite who would be better equipped to make decisions than the people themselves. Of course there is not; and even if there were, it would itself negate the concept of an égalitarian society because, put another way, some would undoubtedly be more equal than others.
The advocates of equality rely to a large extent on the fallacy that the profit motive is immoral because it appeals to the worst instincts of human nature, such as greed. But I believe this is a distortion of the facts, because one of the main incentives to work and to thrift is the desire to improve the living conditions of one's family—surely not an ignoble aim, and surely one central to the philosophy of both the noble Earl and myself; that is, support for the family. We should therefore accept the need for the profit motive, bearing in mind the words of Archbishop Temple when he declared that:
The art of government in fact is the art of so ordering life that self-interest prompts what justice demands".
Noble Lords may, of course, say that this Motion does not call for a completely égalitarian society but only for more equality, and I accept that. But if the noble Earl is dissatisfied with the present pattern of income and wealth and is calling for greater equality, he must have in mind some specific pattern of distribution which he would seek to impose in some way in place of the present arrangements. What then is the pattern of distribution which he would seek to impose on us, and how would he impose it? He referred to the book entitled Inequality in Britain, by Frank Field, the honourable Member in another place. May I say that he is someone who I view as a man of great integrity. As the House will know, he has over the years been just as critical, if not more critical, of social reform records of Labour Governments as of Conservative Governments. I have read his book with great interest. He has made the way to achieve more equality in a no-growth economy; he believes in a major redistribution of resources and a complete reassessment not only of the traditional welfare state but also of four other welfare states, which he has identified as those provided by tax benefits, by companies, by private markets and by unearned incomes. He sees poverty in relation to the wealth of the community, like Professor Peter Townsend; he sees it as relative rather than absolute.
But, my Lords, interesting as his book is, I think there are two criticisms. Even if this massive redistribution of wealth were possible, he has made no allowance at all for any alteration in the behaviour of people as a consequence of this transfer of wealth. Let me give just one illustration of this. He proposes to extend capital gains tax to owner-occupiers selling their houses. This would inevitably affect the housing market. It would certainly affect the price of houses. Many couples want to sell their house, once their children are grown up, and move to a smaller house. Yet it would be most unattractive to sell under those circumstances. The population would become less mobile, with all the attendant disadvantages to young couples. And if tax relief on mortgages was confined to those paying the basic rate it would mean that fewer
1208
people would move to more expensive houses. The fact is that to introduce this massive redistribution one must take account of the effect this would have on decisions by a number of people. And the same argument, if I may say so, seems to me to apply to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, on the various land taxes that have been introduced, which have not had precisely the effects which their movers intended.
My Lords, this Government want to see a continuation of the social progress that has been made over the past 30 or 40 years. We believe in, and I would particularly like to comment on, the importance of child benefit, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and we are very glad that we have been able to give a commitment to uprate it each year to maintain its real value. Indeed, it is being increased by 10½ per cent. next November. But we accept that the first essential is to conquer inflation, and there is no easy or painless way of doing this. We still have a long way to go before we achieve the goal of a property-owning democracy first put forward by Sir Anthony Eden in 1950. A great deal of progress has been made. Now there are 56 home-owning families out of every 100, as compared with 30 families in 1950. We must also go on to see a considerable extension of individual share ownership of industry. The present Government have taken a number of steps to encourage this. It is a fact though that through contributions to occupational pension schemes or life insurance policies the majority of households in Britain may be indirectly investing in the Stock Exchange. But the connection is too remote for there to be any feeling of personal involvement, and unhappily there are only about 2 million direct individual investors in British industry.
My Lords, the time has come when I must conclude my remarks. I would like to say that, although I cannot accept the terms of this Motion, I believe that in a free society it is the job of the Government to encourage equality of opportunity, and included in that must be opportunities for wealth creation. I believe at the same time that it is for the individual always to act with love, thought and responsibility towards his neighbour.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not have more time because I know she had a lot more that she wished to say. I am grateful to her for her last remarks. We all recognise their sincerity, indeed the sincerity of all her remarks, but we are particularly grateful for those. I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate, and I repeat my tribute to the right reverend Prelate, all the more since we have heard his eloquent speech this afternoon.
I do not want to take up the time of the House any further. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, replied broadly to the Conservative arguments that had come up before the speech of the noble Baroness. I would say only one thing about what she said. It remains to me quite unclear whether she would like to see more or less equality—I repeat, quite unclear; I defy anyone to say whether she wishes to see more or less equality. She boasted in a discreet kind of way about what seemed

1209
to be the progress towards more equality. She certainly did not say she wanted to put the clock back—as Lord Harris clearly did—but I am bound to say, without dragging in party politics at the last moment, that the present Government have in fact stood for a policy of more inequality. No one doubts that. I am not saying it is out of any brutality or lack of compassion; it is just because they think that is what will make the economy work better. That is Mrs. Thatcher's doctrine and no one doubts this. We have not, of course, introduced such a difficult subject as that up to now, but I think we must say, when we are talking about this subject, that the noble Baroness's remarks bear no relation to the policy actually being pursued by the present Government. Having said that, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part, and particularly the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Newspaper Industry's Future
5.19 p.m.
Lord Birdwood Lord Birdwood rose to call attention to the future of the newspaper industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of this Motion is the future of the newspaper industry, and to the extent that I can I am going to concentrate on the future rather than the past and rather than the present. A summary of the press today exists in ample form in the McGregor Report, the most recent of Parliament-initiated examinations of the world's newspapers. Nobody can dispute the thoroughness of that report or the quality of its investigation. It is a benchmark for the industry, and we are lucky that one of the speakers this evening is the chairman of the Royal Commission which produced it. The recommendations in the report were many; they were credible and they were justified. The changes that it predicted in the industry were prescient. The will to implement the recommendations is undimmed, and the industry's debt to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, will not be repaid until these sensible counsels have been absorbed into its ideas and actions.
I said that I wanted to look to the future, and the starting point has to be the technical possibilities. In my discussions with people inside and outside the industry in order to gather opinion and fact, I found that a real understanding of the technology changes which were possible was missing outside the industry itself. As things stand, the physical printing side of the industry has to be in the future what it is today: big, fast machines impregnating huge rolls of newsprint with inked images; cutting, folding and making the newspaper that I read each morning. Where the hidden changes must happen is in the stages which the contents—the words and pictures—go through between someone writing them and their appearance in cast plates.
What is truly extraordinary is that the production of a newspaper, using conventional methods—and most do—would be completely recognisable to a journalist from an era which predated the telephone. But the technology exists which could take these
1210
processes and these jobs forward by 100 years. The key, of course, is the creation, storage and manipulation of electronic material which bypasses the mechanical processes which the industry has inherited. If I may, I should like to describe what is possible.
A reporter on the scene of an event types his story directly onto a keyboard clipped to a telephone. That automatically delivers an image of the copy content to a visual display waiting at the publishing control centre. Then a sub-editor trims it where appropriate, using the keyboard on his machine; he decides on priority and position and introduces it into the page layout using the machine to take the detailed print and column decisions, which were the decisions of the compositor in the print-room. In minutes a page of the newspaper is complete and available to be read off a visual display by the newspaper's editor. Approval follows and the page—indeed, all the pages of that edition—can be transmitted directly to plate-making.
It will not escape your Lordships that this process can take place over any distance. Let us imagine a situation in which newspapers were publishing houses only; with titles, consumer loyalties, and individual styles—all the qualities which make us buy one paper rather than another. These would not even need their own presses. Instead they would print with contract print companies all over the country and beyond, geared to respond to electronic data. Such print centres could run each night, printing to precise demand forecasts, the daily nationals and distribute to local catchment areas. It could happen, but it will not.
The truth is that the new technology is a fact of life as real as the spinning jenny, the combine harvester, the television set or the home computer. The burdens of our newspaper industry, of any newspaper industry in the developed world—high fixed costs, strong unions, climbing prices for newsprint and in many cases falling circulations and at best wavering advertising revenues—need no exaggeration. The trouble is that everyone—readers, advertisers, the Government and, to some extent, Fleet Street itself—falls into the trap of believing that the newspaper industry is graveyard bound. We tend to forget that the mixture of professional pride, cynicism and sometimes cussedness, which so often seem to be tearing the newspaper industry apart, also gets a fresh, brand-new product to millions of consumers every day. I challenge: beat that, Unilever!
We are right when we think that Fleet Street is the print media capital of the world, and the quality of what it produces is second to none. Its casualties are that much more public; we have an example just two days old. But to be fair the net sums involved hardly compare with major industrial failures. The strengths of the newspaper industry are so often overlaid by a sort of death wish, and the apparent eagerness to pronounce that the patient is suffering from a terminal disease. I believe that the prospects are by no means as bleak as they are made out to be.
Earlier this month a reputable survey of business ratios published hard facts about newspaper profitability, which totally demolish pet ideas of an industry dying on its feet. The Investors Chronicle went very bullish on the regional press a few weeks ago; product advertising, as opposed to recruitment advertising,

1211
has been held at pretty much the same cash levels and looks set to climb.
But the future financial help of the newspaper industry depends so much on getting the new technology in, and working. There are two aspects to this problem. The first is the effects on the industry of the development of alternative electronic media. The teletext systems of Prestel, Ceefax and Oracle are already with us, to be followed soon by new developments in television—fourth channel and breakfast TV. This will surely be followed by video discs, satellite and cable TV. People are playing with the thought that the house owner will simply sit in front of his machine and access information on to his own reusable newspaper. A lot of these new media will carry advertising.
The second consequence of new technology directly concerns the production of newspapers themselves. It involves the application of photo-composition, computer typesetting and dispersed printing. Unless this industry can substantially raise its efficiency by applying new technology, it will find cruel competition in the next generation of electronic media.
Of course, it is easy to exaggerate the speed with which new media could pose a serious threat to the newspaper industry, but it is hard to over-estimate its ultimate importance. For example, it was once assumed that the only commercial application of the wireless would be for groups of people to listen to sermons. But then again, the advent of television and radio has not brought about the death of the printed word. I believe that the threat posed by the new media has been over-stated. My reasons for optimism are varied.
Past experience suggests that the growth in television has tended to increase the demand for printed information, particularly commentary which is shut out of TV as a consequence of the very nature of the medium. In the entertainment business, the book-of-the-film is an example. But there are other areas where a viewer's curiosity is aroused by morsels of information, and he or she follows up by reading about it in, quite often, a newspaper.
Newspapers by their very nature have an in-built capacity to carry more information, news, and comment, on a wider range of subjects than either radio or TV, and this information can be retained for future reference. And a newspaper can campaign in a way denied to other sources, except possibly local radio.
In terms of volume and variety of programming teletext is even more restricted in what it can do than television and radio. Teletext is suited for carrying factual information such as train timetables and exchange rates, and much else, but can offer little or nothing in terms of editorial content. What I cannot stress enough is that newspapers are sources of information which are paced to the real behaviour of real people—casual, human things—whereas their electronic would-be counterparts need a rigid, disciplined interaction, completely alien to ordinary life. The industry has nothing to fear from that direction, although in 10 years' time I may have to think again.
The position of Fleet Street and the regional press as sources of stories is accepted by programmers in the other media. Without the newsgathering skills
1212
of our nationals, some TV and radio programmes would look very thin, not to mention Ceefax and Oracle, which use a lot of newspaper-carried information. But surely the overwhelming comparative advantage of newspapers is that the reader can decide what he wants to read and can browse among the information that is available.
In the next few years I suppose that we shall all be subjected to a mass of electronic information which is likely to have precious little entertainment or educational value. The possibility that a householder may one day be able to produce his own paper by pushing buttons is a very long way off. But, if it did happen, it would still be more convenient to walk to the local newsagent and buy a paper, rather than to sit in front of a screen and punch out all the information one wants to read.
If the competition is to pose no real threat then the onus is on the industry itself to improve its efficiency, reduce advertising rates and cover prices, and increase circulation. At the moment, as we all know, there is an endless repetition of futile skirmishing between the unions who doggedly resist new technology and the managers who see it as a means of achieving all their objectives. Fleet Street is something in the same position as New York publishers were 30 years ago. It faces rocketing costs, and the inheritance of conflict. We will just have to see whether the new owners in the Street will fare better than their predecessors. Newsweek is a good example of what can be achieved using the technology I have described. Printing, like many other forms of communication in America, has moved into space. The Wall Street Journal beams editorial by satellite to seven of its regional printing plants. The Herald Tribune has already started satellite transmissions to Hong Kong, and the Columbus Dispatch claims a breakthrough as the world's first electronic newspaper by making its entire editorial content available to some 3,000 terminals across the States.
In the UK we have a long way to go. The Economist has introduced photocomposition, but there are no VDUs. The Wolverhampton Express and Star has done well to instal visual display units for its journalists, but as yet the material is not transmitted directly to the printers. The fact is that Fleet Street is still using hot-metal setting, and journalists tap typewriters. No one doubts that the new technology will speed up production and permit the separation of editorial and print functions and get more rapid local, national and international distribution. Particularly higher productivity newspapers will be able to contain increases in their newsprint costs.
Recent developments in the newsprint industry such as the speeding up of machines, the mechanisation of wrapping and finishing, and the use of computers to monitor quality have reduced unit costs. But newsprint still accounts for a substantial proportion—it varies between 20 and 40 per cent.—of the total cost of producing a paper. An equally pressing problem is the catastrophic drop in production capacity of the UK newsprint industry. The great proportion of our newsprint is now imported from Canada and Scandinavia, but it must be strategically as well as economically important that the UK newsprint industry is maintained. For the industry to be 100 per cent.

1213
dependent on supplies of foreign newsprint is as undesirable in my view as for manufacturing to be dependent on 100 per cent. imported steel.
At the present time, due pretty much to the recession, UK newsprint consumption is down to 1·3 million tonnes. This country, incidentally is the third largest consumer of newsprint in the world behind America and Japan, and is trailed by West Germany and Russia. The market is a mature one which has not varied much over the years, but, if the economy improves, consumption should increase slightly over the next 10 years to, I think, 1½ million tonnes.
The price of newsprint depends on the cost of raw materials and energy as well as on the dollar sterling rate of exchange. It is bought in dollars, so a strong pound means cheaper products. The important consideration must be, from the point of view of the industry, that the price of newsprint has gone up nearly four times in the last 10 years. Ecological measures have also more than doubled the cost of new plant, and this has inevitably been passed on to newsprint customers.
One cannot touch on newsprint without a prod to the Government to be vigilant on the subject of EEC quotas of newsprint and the question of tariffs. I urgently draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to the terms of Protocol 13 and its interpretation within the GATT quota timetable on newsprint. He will be aware that from 1984 Canadian newsprint will be punitively penalised on quota. Reassuring sounds came from another place on these subjects in a debate at the end of last year, but they hardly constituted guarantees. Obviously no one would be more watchful than the newspapers themselves on the topic of possible tariffs, as the effect of a sudden extra jump in costs on this front would be absolutely intolerable.
The problems associated with human or mechanical failure have cost the newspaper industry millions in lost production. And these problems associated with the implementation of new technology and escalating costs have been exacerbated by a marked recession in recruitment advertising. There are two related problems. Total demand for advertising space has been adversely affected by the recession which is affecting all media outlets. In the case of press advertising there are brighter prospects for next year, particularly in the case of display advertising, but newspapers are going to have to market themselves even more aggressively to maintain their share of the market. But this might not be a bad time for the press to sell itself hard. With a slump in Independent Television's audience ratings in the final quarter of 1980, coupled with the alarming increase in the cost of commercials, many of Britain's biggest advertisers are less than avid to spend money there, and I believe would welcome an excuse to divert more to the press.
Provincial newspapers are in a slightly different position. They traditionally take a hefty slice of total media advertising, but are, more than the nationals, vulnerable to the threat from regional TV, local radio, and teletext, and in particular the recent development in free newspapers. Fleet Street's flair for drama has viewed give-aways as debasing journalism and cutting into press freedom, and perhaps these fears are not entirely groundless.
The threat, though, seems less now than 10 years ago. In the form we think of them, free sheets started in Birmingham, I believe, some 16 years ago, and now number around 300 titles. Provincial newspapers have absorbed this development and now own half the titles—a pragmatic but commercially justified development. Furthermore, free sheets, despite the sector's reputation for being a sort of journalistic kindergarten, have reached a degree of respectability. Even so, the pressure on standards remains, and in the interests of local communities it is important that provincial newspaper proprietors and the independent owners of these free sheets strike some sort of responsible balance between journalism and advertising. As in the rhyme, "when they are bad they are horrid".
But the economics are compelling. To take just one random example, in the last six months, the New Observer at Kingswood and Keynsham, in the West Country, have changed from a paid-for weekly, printing 9,500 copies and losing money, to a free weekly, printing 42,500, which is now profitable. The improved revenue of course comes from higher advertising rates, and more advertisers, by giving guaranteed penetration. Opinion varies whether the position of free sheets has stabilised after peaking, but at least one major newsprint supplier has predicted to me that free sheets will represent a quarter of his tonnage sales in the next 10 years.
Despite the self-evident commercial pressures, the editorial content of the majority of our national and regional newspapers is extremely high. Perhaps it is a tribute to the prestige of the industry that there seems to be a never-ending supply of corporate sugar-daddies attracted to the idea of owning a newspaper. By checking the abuse of power, and crusading on behalf of those without rank or influence, newspapers in this country perform a vital role in our democratic process. Editorial freedom is widely respected and the interaction that takes place in London between overseas representatives and our own journalists plays a significant part in promoting Britain's image as a free society abroad.
The editorial integrity and diversity of opinion which is expressed in newsprint cannot be taken for granted. There are already pressures at work which are clouding this freedom of choice, and the price of keeping standards high is incessant vigilance. With newspapers vying with each other to maintain their share of the market in difficult trading conditions, there must be some danger that newspaper owners from outside the traditions of newspaper publishing could allow—certainly not aim for, but allow—lower standards.
Ownership itself is not necessarily benign, and it is not impossible to picture ownership of newspapers with substantial interests outside the publishing world using this privilege to further those outside interests. Finally, there is a very real threat arising from the concentration of ownership of newspapers in the hands of one man or one company. The restriction of competition has, goodness knows, detrimental effects on other industries—not least the elimination of choice for the consumer. But no free society can allow a monopoly of the printed word, and in this area the Government has a delicate task in ensuring that those in the industry observe not only the letter but also the spirit of the law relating to monopolies and mergers. Despite the threat of closure, the principles of editorial

1215
integrity and freedom of choice must be upheld. The problem of the newspaper industry are not just the problems of yet another sector of British economy in decline. There is more at risk and there is more to lose, and it would be a tragedy for this country if the journalistic clichés of honesty and the search for truth declined.
It was not my purpose in opening this debate to air my own views. Other participants this evening are more expert, and I am grateful that we have been given the chance to hear them. As an outsider to the world of newspapers, I am tired of the repetition of criticisms about the way in which newspapers run their own affairs. While I have been looking at the subject, I have felt like an outsider in a big brawling family. All the relatives know each other's faults and have learned, almost, to live with them. But the family blood ties come first when a threat from outside the family is perceived. All that one might say about management and labour has been aired—intelligently, passionately, sorrowfully—in countless editorials and articles. No one should underestimate how brutally aware the newspaper industry is of its own problems—and of its own future.
Nor was it my purpose to list figures about the profits and losses of the various titles. These figures exist abundantly and up to date. But I have been interested in the relative lack of continuous financial information available to managers; the kind of working information which would be standard practice in other manufacturing industries.
I did not feel the need today to stress the differences between the nationals and provincials, or quote the percentages of employment in these terms. But I was disturbed to get evidence that industrial relations in, for instance, Manchester, are beginning to echo some of the less appealing practices of Fleet Street. In passing, one individual commented to me that television has no reason to be complacent in this area. Because of the crisis and the immediacy which prevails in both media, his words were, "Television is in danger of becoming the Fleet Street of tomorrow".
Several people have made the point to me that not enough management time has been deployed in the past in "product planning" in its commercial sense. Also, I have been made aware of the vicious circle of colour supplements forcing up cover prices at the expense of circulation rather than attracting new readers. A relatively new phenomenon is the historically loyal reader making a conscious decision not to buy because of price. High general unemployment is hurting the mass market titles with loss of factory gate sales. Some people have regretted to me what they see as newspapers turning into daily magazines, with features at the expense of hard news stories. Speaking for myself I do not agree, as I enjoy the personal style of regular feature writers. I cannot let this pass without the most sincere regret—shared by all in this house, I think—at the loss to our day of Bernard Levin and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Mr. Levin's lobsters and bumble bees, the gas board, his passionate, meticulous condemnation of tyranny—these will not easily be forgotten. To go on in the same vein about the noble Lord in his presence would be impertinent of me, but I feel sure that your Lordships will echo my feelings.
Lastly, I have heard fears expressed that the changing
1216
patterns of ownership are causing concern among those countries which send their journalists here to be trained. I feel sure the Government has grasped this point and is in a position to give positive assurances today. We cannot over-estimate the value to the nation in being the favoured training ground for so many would-be journalists from overseas. I look forward, my Lords, to hearing—unlike my own papers for contribution—the views of experts. I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, newspapers have a wide fascination which acts like a magnet picking up diverse opinions—often uncomplimentary to the press and expressed with a reckless confidence and an awesome authority which have little relation to reality. This does not apply, of course, to the moderate speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and indeed we are indebted to him for keeping this important subject under current review. We are also indebted to my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris—who I am delighted to learn will be speaking later in this debate—whose Royal Commission on the Press produced an excellent analysis of its current state. Many of the report's recommendations still need to be implemented.
Suggestions that the newspaper industry is in dire straits are not true, and I am very glad that Lord Birdwood also took an optimistic view. The industry is alive, thriving and thrustful. The printed word, which is one of the most important facets of our civilisation, is holding its own. It is not being eroded by television or by radio but is being complemented by them. I will not go into the electronic forms because the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, dealt with them at some length. Printed words have a permanency and they do not rapidly disappear from the eye or the ear as do television and radio. Today, we in this country have 10 national daily newspapers with a total circulation of 15 million; a drop from the 20 million of a decade ago. We have seven national Sunday newspapers whose circulations have also dropped, but they have still maintained around 18 million sales. We also have a provincial press which is usually in a a very healthy state. The drop in circulations is a result, I believe, of the increase in cover prices which have now been pushed to the limit. The coldest draught has been felt by quality newspapers because half their advertising revenue comes from classified advertisements; so that when a recession hits hard, it hits these newspapers very hard as well. Yet the Sunday Express now has a colour supplement, the News of the World plans to introduce a colour supplement in September, as does the Sunday Mirror, and the publishers of the Daily Mail are talking about launching a new Sunday newspaper.
I share the doubts which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, about the proliferation of colour supplements because of the investment which goes into them and the competition they pose as giveaways to some magazines. I say this with feeling having once been the associate begetter and editor of Nova, where we felt that the colour supplements copied from our magazine and got off the ground free, which made them very difficult to compete with.

1217
Returning to newspapers, we have seen the launch of a new Sunday newspaper in Scotland, the Sunday Standard aiming at a circulation of 170,000, and which will also be giving employment in that heavily depressed area, which is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred to the question of giveaway newspapers. I believe there are two sides to this question. Many of them are owned by provincial newspapers, and a number of good provincial newspapers which are flourishing today started life as giveaway newspapers at the end of the last century.
The question of changing patterns of ownership is currently posing some problems, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, touched on this point. I believe without any doubt that the sale of Times Newspapers should have been referred to the Monopolies Commission before it was agreed to. The result might have been the same; I accept that Rupert Murdoch is a professional newspaper man. But when one has a structure and a procedure, then it should be followed. I believe that the Government were quite wrong not to insist that this matter be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Meanwhile, Mr. Murdoch having given certain undertakings, I wish The Times well and will say at this point that it has had a very good rebirth. However, there should be an emergency procedure, because one of the reasons why this matter did not go to the Monopolies Commission was that Mr. Murdoch was unwilling to wait the three months required for this procedure; and when there is the likelihood of a newspaper closing down, or where there is a hiatus, it is impossible to expect that people will wait that length of time while the newspaper loses its advertising and goes down the drain. Perhaps the Minister would say whether the Government are seriously considering this; I understand that by the use of an emergency procedure it could be sorted out within two or three weeks.
Coming to the Observer, we have a different proposition. The problem here is not really one of monopoly but whether the particular ownership is for the public benefit. Owning great slabs of industry in Africa and the Lonrho style of management raises serious doubts as to whether it should own a newspaper whose reputation is now largely based on its coverage of African affairs. Now!, which since Monday has affectionately been known as "Then", had no chance from the beginning. There is little prospect in this country of an expensive news magazine with no passionate views, no soul and no campaigning spirit, standing up against competition from the national dailies and Sundays. Sir James Goldsmith made the mistake of thinking in the French context, where his l'Express is extremely successful, and that the same result would be achieved in this country, where we have a tremendous number of national dailies and Sundays.
One of the most important points to consider is the quality of newspapers. As a reader and journalist, I believe that the most important factor is that of content. This is what newspapers are all about, and in my view the tabloids, with a circulation of 12 million, cause the most concern. Many years ago the Daily Mirror, under the editorial leadership of my noble friend Lord Cudlipp, proved that a paper could be serious, campaigning and entertaining. Then we got the Sun—the rebirth so to speak—which started at the
1218
lowest common denominator yet still managed to descend editorially.
Unfortunately, the Daily Mirror went down market as well, debasing its own editorial currency in defence of circulation. That was a great mistake. The Daily Mirror is now pulling up; its content is more serious, it is crisp and very readable, and its circulation has increased. The lesson to be learned here is that you must not under-estimate people; once a market has been set and you know your product is acceptable and is being well read, you should try to hang on. Although I do not subscribe to its political views, the Daily Mail is a good tabloid. In recent days we have heard Lloyd Turner, the new editor of the Daily Star, say;
"I am not a tits and bum man",
and he has said he wants to turn it into a more serious Left-wing paper.
There is today a certain amount of cross-comment which is interesting, remembering the cultural and political gap there is in the pattern of our newspapers, a subject to which I shall come shortly. For instance, The Times, which has been considered all along as the defender and supporter of a Conservative Government, contained a leader on the Nationality Bill which was a sensible and constructive critique on what is being done on the subject. Yesterday it ran a slashing attack on the Contempt of Court Bill, which has left your Lordships' House for another place. That was not surprising in view of the thalidomide campaign which the paper undertook some years ago.
When speaking of quality, it should be pointed out that journalists themselves have a great responsibility. I speak from experience when I say that there are frontiers beyond which one cannot go. Nevertheless, most journalists take a pride in producing well-written work, material which they would like to read themselves. That is not to say that when one re-reads what one has written one could not make improvements in it. But journalists must heed their editors. There is a political and cultural gap and it is clear that we need in our pattern of newspapers a left of centre non-tabloid. A feasibility study is being carried out now by the TUC into whether it would be possible to finance a new paper of the Left. I agree with those who do not want newspapers subsidised by the state; that would be a dangerous and slippery path for newspapers to take in a free democracy. I also doubt whether the national printing corporation as suggested in the minority report to the Royal Commission report is necessary; there is ample printing capacity among the newspapers now in operation.
One cannot run too far ahead of one's readers. One has to reach the point where they are not underestimated. One can push an experiment, but if the point is reached when people do not want to read the paper, then one is undertaking a self-destructive exercise. I see the long-term improvement in quality as resting in the educational sphere. In my view, newspapers should be read and criticised as part of the school curriculum. I accept that certainly the better schools, in the sixth and even lower forms, have societies where this activity is undertaken. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords have been invited to speak to them and answer questions. That newspapers are discussed in schools today must be a necessary part of

1219
the curriculum if the readers of the future are to demand something better. Knowing something of what the various newspapers stand for must be of great help in that connection, and I am not thinking only of the political slant of newspapers. I am thinking of the differences between news and comment, what is missed and how some newspapers specialise in particular features and so on. Such informed demand would also be good for newspapers because it could only result in a greater demand overall for newspapers in the future.
A certain amount of monitoring of newspapers is done by the Press Council, which was established 27 years ago. However, it is concerned mainly with complaints. The Press Council got off to a flying start with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, as chairman, followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross; but latterly it has taken quite a bashing, some of it justified in my view. Eight editors have refused to publish the adjudication. I accept that the council has put it out again and had it republished in other papers, but unless the newspaper industry supports the Press Council—for the benefit of the industry as well—I fear we shall see a dangerous situation arising. For the Press Council to be effective, it must be strong and be seen to be strong, it must be authoritative and show its authority, and it must make itself well-known as a protector of the public and not just as a tool of the industry. It should advertise itself and not have to go about begging bowl in hand; in my view, £200,000 is chickenfeed if the Press Council is to do an effective and well-recognised job. After all, unless it puts its own house in order, a statutory body with legal sanctions will replace it, and that would be an unfortunate development.
My union, the NUJ, had its representatives withdraw from the Press Council. My personal view is that that was a great pity, and if there had been a ballot, which there was not, I would certainly have voted against that decision. I say that because while they may disapprove of what the council is or is not doing, the representatives—there were four of them, the largest representation of any group on the Press Council—should have stayed and fought front within, even though a separate Commission of Inquiry has been set up by the Campaign for Press Freedom. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations about the Press Council, some of which have been implemented. For example, 50 per cent. of the members should be lay members. But, as the Press Council stresses, it is important that these members should be chosen from a very wide spectrum.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, spoke at some length and interestingly on the new technology. As he said, the new technology has made some strides, in particular outside London, and in this area it is fair to say that IPC has led the field. But progress is understandably slow. New technology means cuts in manpower, whichever way one looks at it, and it can be brought about only by union and managerial co-operation. The unions' move towards amalgamation of the number of print unions should be encouraged. This has been on the board for some time and I hope that something will come of it.
I think that there is a great deal wrong with what
1220
is happening in regard to restrictive practices and other matters. I do not make excuses here. But management has an abysmal record, and I believe that it is even more to blame than the unions for the industrial relations snarl-ups that we are suffering and which have been building up over a number of decades. Today management is trying its best to disentangle the situation and to create a climate of co-operation, but we are suffering from what has happened in the past. The Times management, when The Times was closed down, tried to get through the new technology without having enough consideration for the professional and social consequences.
Of course, restrictive practices and very high wage demands are millstones around the industry's neck. But the unions have a heritage in the industry going back 500 years. The human factor is of tremendous importance. In the 'thirties, 'forties, 'fifties, and 'sixties the proprietors were very weak. They never stood together; they certainly do not always stand together today. In those years restrictive practices and wage demands were encouraged in order to win the circulation wars against competitors.
It has been said that there is a mutual conspiracy in the industry between management and workers. Well, as Bernard Shaw said,
"Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity";
and so probably is every industry. But mutual conspiracy is really a basis on which one can sometimes get things to work. I think that a marriage probably has to be a mutual conspiracy if it is to be successful. But we must find a basis of mutual understanding as an infrastructure for the mutual conspiracy. That understanding seems to be slowly coming about, but if we are to look to a successful future, it needs to be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred to the newsprint industry and said that in the United Kingdom it must be maintained. I believe that we must be clear that we cannot have a vast home newsprint industry. The main exporters of newsprint to this country are Scandinavia and Canada. But here there should be more recycling. As I saw when I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, the waste problem in this country is very grave. Whenever people were asked to save newspaper and other material—in particular newspaper—the complaint was that it was never wanted if they delivered it somewhere themselves, or it was never collected from them when they offered it. I would press the Government for help on this matter, though I must add that I think all Governments have been very remiss in this field. Help here would certainly not endanger press freedom, but would aid the industry.
Finally, despite the faults, the shortcomings, and the gaps in the political spectrum, we have throughout the country a wider variety of newspapers than there is anywhere else in the world. Although the quality is not always as good as many of us would like it to be, it is still a free, volatile, and fairly high quality press. The future is far from black. Let us improve it, but let us make sure that in doing so we do not erode its basic freedom.
6.5. p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to

1221
follow the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in the debate. It was once observed, somewhat cynically, by a noble Lord opposite that perhaps the two simplest routes to your Lordships' House, apart from birth, were, first, being a Liberal Member of Parliament and, secondly, working for the Mirror group of newspapers. Well, here we both are. But my answer to that charge would be as follows. First, it is not very easy to become a Liberal Member of Parliament, and, secondly, I am quite sure that it is not easy to achieve in the press the degree of expertise that has been achieved by the noble Baroness. I listened with very great interest to every word that she said, and I am quite sure that her speech has been of immense help to us.
We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for giving us an opportunity today to bring a little light into a rather dark place. Recently a great deal of hysterical nonsense has been spoken, in another place and elsewhere, about the press and its various problems. I believe that your Lordships' House can be counted on to talk informed good sense on the subject, as indeed it so often does on many other subjects; and certainly we shall have informed good sense from the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who is to speak later. I am quite sure that what has been said, and what has yet to be said, in the debate will be of very great importance, but whether those concerned will actually take any notice is perhaps another matter.
At the outset I must make absolutely clear two points regarding the views of my noble friends on these Benches on this important question. First, we believe passionately that a vigorous, free and unfettered press is a vital ingredient in any democratic society. We also believe that the press discharging its vital functions effectively depends basically on the maximum number of journalists, editors, and others operating with the maximum degree of freedom and autonomy. Only in that way shall we achieve a proper and effective balance of opinion and outlook. The freedom and the autonomy of the individuals who are actually writing in the papers is much more important than the matter that has already been referred to—that of ownership, though I admit that that is of some importance.
In other words, on these Benches we do not believe that fairness, political balance, and adequate ventilation of minority points of view can, or indeed should, be imposed on the press by Parliament. What Parliament can do, and perhaps should do, is to pass a Freedom of Information Bill, so that the press can always find out exactly what is happening, instead of discovering it when it is too late to do anything about it. We also happen to believe that we should pass, too, a protection of privacy Bill and give some effect to the recommendations of the Younger Committee. We see no inconsistency in those two matters. Indeed, noble Lords on these Benches have a long history and tradition of treading delicate paths of this kind without falling over on either side.
Basically, I am saying that essentially this is a matter of communication between the press and Government, between Parliament and the press, between the people and Government; and it must be a two-way business. The Government must keep the press fully informed, and not push the press into a position where it constantly has to find out things. The Government must open
1222
up the books to clear scrutiny, perhaps a little more than is done in this country. I believe that in Britain we are still obsessed with secrecy. It must be a two-way affair. The press must be free to comment freely.
Of course, the Government are entirely free to read the comments with which they happen to agree; and I know that that is what Governments tend to do. I think it was Sir Harold Wilson who, as Prime Minister, was once described by someone with perhaps a clinical turn of mind as suffering from what was called the "Cleopatra syndrome". Noble Lords might recollect that Cleopatra, in her less amiable moments, was apt to execute messengers who brought bad news. If one does that, it is remarkable how soon the good news starts flowing in. Of course that is the kind of press that the Soviet Union has—a press with which the Government always agree. I hope that we shall always have a press with which no one always agrees and which always expresses different points of view.
Secondly, on behalf of my noble friends I want to make it absolutely clear that we believe that it is not Parliament's business to bail out an industry which two Commissions have shown to be suffering from bad management, deplorable industrial relations, thriftlessness and waste and outrageous and extravagant overmanning. We all know what is wrong with the press. It is in all these volumes—nearly 1,000 pages produced by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and his colleagues, in their admirable report. We all know what is wrong; but, surely, the press must themselves sort these matters out, and if they want to stay in business they must put their own houses in order. Otherwise, they must just go to the wall, like other inefficient concerns.
That really means that the press has to come to terms with new conditions and has to adapt to new conditions and to new demands. We have seen that happening so often in the media as a whole. When films first appeared it was generally said that that was the end of the theatre. It was not the end of the theatre. It meant certain changes in the theatre, so that the theatre changed its techniques, perhaps, and developed in different ways. When gramophone records and recorded music were first produced we were told that that was the end of orchestral music. It was not; it was in many ways the beginnings of orchestral music. Live music had to adapt to recorded music.
We now have a situation in which the main purveyor of news to our people is not the press any more but is television and radio, and that means that the press itself has to come to terms with new demands and has to fill a new place. I think many papers have already done that admirably, and have realised that they are not the primary source of news for our people; they are the primary source of comment and perhaps further explanation, in-depth discussion and matters of that kind.
Further, I want to say that the suggestion that the loss of one or two so-called national newspapers would mean the end of a free press totally ignores the very important role played by scores of vigorous, healthy, thriving, regional and local papers all over our country which genuinely keep the flag of freedom flying high. If we look back at the record we shall soon see that time and time again a regional or a local paper, such

1223
as the Sheffield Morning Telegraph, for example, to quote just one—and it is one with which I have no personal connection—has unearthed a national scandal and been in the forefront of the civil liberties movement. If we look further back we see how much the so-called "national" papers have in fact damaged what were once powerful and influential opinion-formers.
Noble Lords may know that when Thomas De Quincey decided to edit a paper he did not edit The Times; he edited the Westmorland Gazette. When Matthew Arnold wanted to write to the papers to ventilate his very important and interesting views he did not write to the Guardian; he wrote to the Sheffield Independent. There are still excellent small papers all over Britain carrying first-class, informed and balanced leading articles—and well written, too, which cannot be said of all the quality dailies today. I think there are times, perhaps, when the old art of sub-editing appears to have departed, and when one could cover The Times, the Guardian and the Telegraph with grammatical corrections. I think that from time to time one will find a higher quality of writing in some of the regional and local press. But I am bound to say that the influence of regional and local papers has in fact been reduced and diminished by the excessive concentration and metropolitanisation of our press in Fleet Street.
I said "so-called" national papers because I think that some of them are not really national papers at all; they are London papers, local papers—and this time I am really using the term "London" in its correct, strict, geographical sense, and not in the normal Manchester sense. When we say "London", of course, we mean Cornwall, Devon and all points south of the Wash. But I really do believe that many of these papers are not "national" in any meaningful sense of that word. In fact, I think the national press does much to support and to maintain and preserve our excessive concentration of power and influence in London.
Noble Lords on these Benches have campaigned against over-centralisation in many fields, and we do not share this national hysteria about the London papers. It would be ludicrous to give financial help to the industry which pays the highest wages in London and wastes money in innumerable other ways. Of course, it is regrettable that the Scottish Sunday Express, I think, now has to be printed in Manchester, but perhaps that makes up a little bit for the Manchester Guardian now being edited and controlled and run in London. As a Manchester man, I could face the world provided I had an umbrella and the Guardian—but that leads me to my final point.
This excessive preoccupation with Fleet Street, this undue metropolitanisation of the press, I think has done much to diminish the value of the press. I do not say for a moment that the provinces, or what is done in Manchester, in Sheffield or on Merseyside is better than what is done in London. What I do say is that it is different. I think that what the regional journalist and the regional press can do is to look at national and international events through regional eyes and give a regional flavour to international and national themes.
Even in the field of television, because programmes
1224
are produced by Granada in Manchester—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, here—does not necessarily mean that they are better, but it does tend to mean that they are different. I think that one thing that happened with the movement of the Manchester Guardian to London was that it immediately affected recruitment. Once the seat of power was in London its recruitment was in London, along with that of The Times, the Telegraph and the other quality papers. So the difference has tended to be diminished, and I wonder whether distinguished journalists like Francis Boyd and Neville Cardus would ever have come to the fore had the Guardian been situated in London in earlier days; and I think that that question applies to many of our affairs.
I would close by saying that I think a great deal of the strength of our whole society in Britain depends upon its diversity. I now think that there is a danger that the weakness of our press lies in its lack of diversity, and I hope that sooner or later we will see our press thriving and flourishing, with a vast variety of control and operation, not just in London but throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the future of the newspaper industry, and I shall want to pick up a number of the points that he made in his admirable and extremely wide-ranging speech. The newspaper industry must be, I suppose, just about the most researched and investigated industry in the country. There have been three Royal Commissions since the war, the last reporting four years ago, and numerous other reports, books and articles of varying degrees of usefulness. One might well think that there was little new that could be said about it, but an old concern can take on a new emphasis in the changing environment in which our press has to operate. The speeches we have already heard show that, I think.
My own interest in the press stems, in the main, from an intensive three years as a member of the last Royal Commission, under the distinguished and wholly agreeable chairmanship of—and I am sure that on this occasion he will allow me to refer to him in this way—my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris. I should also record that I have a number of professional connections with the newspaper industry.
Inevitably—and I think the speeches so far have already shown it—one tends to concentrate on the national newspaper industry, and I shall be no exception. Notwithstanding that, I should like, as a north countryman, to echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on the importance of the provincial newspaper industry. Incidentally, he referred to De Quincey as being the editor of the Westmorland Gazette—the newspaper of my home town. I think that in fact he had to be removed from office because he was far too highbrow for the Kendalians of the time—but, still, it was an interesting event. The provincial newspaper industry is larger than Fleet Street in industrial terms. It is larger in terms of output and employment. Nor should we forget that the provincial newspapers are in general (excluding, perhaps, the present recession) reasonably profitable. I did not

1225
know that United Newspapers were being tipped, but, on the whole, they are reasonably profitable. They have been proceeding quietly and steadily with the introduction of the new technology, and, even if their manning levels are high by international good practice, they do not exhibit the same horrors as Fleet Street. They provide an essential service as a source of local news and opinion and an equally essential service which is sometimes forgotten, by creating a market place through their classified advertisements for the sale of goods and services. I doubt whether they will suffer seriously from local radio, something which some people think might happen. I think that local radio is partly complementary but partly a useful competitive spur in a situation where all the main towns now have only a single evening newspaper. I think that the relationship with radio will be a healthy one.
There is one feature of the development of the provincial newspaper industry over the last 15 years which is not satisfactory, and that is the growth of regional concentration in ownership. There are understandable reasons to do with production economics which in part explain this tendency. Nevertheless, it tends to reduce local competition and, perhaps more important, it carries the danger of lessening the variety of opinion and voices at local level. The last Royal Commission drew attention to this and I believe that the Monopolies Commission has taken note of our views. It would be helpful to hear the Government's views this evening.
We should remember that there are some half dozen journals of opinion—when I prepared these notes, I wrote, "not all flourishing financially", and that was at the weekend, before we learned of the demise of Now!—but we should remember also that there are large numbers of periodicals often referred to as "the alternative press" all of which contribute to a diversity of social and political comment. We would all agree, I am sure, that we should be much poorer without Private Eye.
But it is our Fleet Street newspapers that matter most and that is where the trouble lies. We have seen in the last 12 months the demise of the Evening News and the transfer of ownership of The Times and the Sunday Times which followed the failure of the Thomson Organisation's efforts to get them on to a proper footing. Now there is the prospective change of ownership of the Observer. Both these changes of ownership stem from poor, if not appalling, financial performance. Just before Easter it was announced that the Guardian had had a poor year which was not even covered by the profits of the Manchester Evening News and the other papers in that group. To set against this, we have only Lord Matthew's courageous enterprise in starting a new popular daily. One cannot help feeling that it is a case of plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.
I do not want to comment on the specific issue of why the Government did not refer The Times's change of ownership to the Monopolies Commission while they referred the Observer change. I am fairly familiar with the circumstances in each case and I shall listen to what the Government have to say with great attention. There are involved here important issues both of policy and of its application in particular circumstances.
I want to concentrate on the general problems of
1226
Fleet Street which lie behind these recent events. Some would say that everything is due to the inexorable economic law that the economies of scale derived from larger-scale circulations tend to be self-reinforcing and that these economic forces will be so strong that the market leader in any one class of newspaper will drive out its competitors. I do not subscribe to that thesis. All the evidence I have seen suggests that Fleet Street is such an irrational place that it is wise to be agnostic and unsafe to make predictions. The failure of the News Chronicle was not the result of this law but had more to do with its management and editorial performance. The resurgence of the Sun in the 1970s—whatever one thinks about it in terms of quality, which is a value judgment—after it was acquired by Mr. Murdoch, should not have been possible according to this law. Its unit costs resulting from its derisory initial circulation should have been far greater than those of its larger circulation rival, the Daily Mirror. But, in fact, its unit costs were lower.
Like so many so-called economic laws, the reality of the market place is often very different. As I have already noted, it ignores the abilities of different managements adequately to control costs—manning levels and pay rates—in production, administration and editorial departments. This is such a truism as to seem scarcely worth stating. But all the evidence that I have seen suggests that once a newspaper becomes successful it becomes appallingly difficult to retain control. And one might add that it is not just successful newspapers that have difficulty—witness The Times. One might add: the richer the parent, the more difficult it is. Nor does the law take account of that simple but elusive factor, editorial flair. The mere spending of money on the editorial department is not a substitute for editorial flair and it does not ensure that you get the right readers in the right quantities. Finally, the categorisation of newspapers into simple classes fails to recognise—and I am speaking now principally about the quality press—that there is no such thing as a single quality advertising market. There is a whole host of different markets and sub-markets. The secret of success, in my view, lies in finding your market niche. A paper which strays outside its niche does so at its peril. Yet so often one finds Fleet Street managements chasing ever-larger circulations and ever-larger advertising volume. Large circulations in the quality press are not necessarily profitable; nor, necessarily, are large advertising volumes. The most notable example is the Financial Times, which has the lowest circulation of any of our national newspapers but which is much the most successful on the whole.
When the late Lord Thomson acquired The Times in the 1960s, he proceeded to push up its circulation from 300,000 to over 500,000. But he ran into larger and larger losses because the new readership did not have the pulling power and, therefore, the advertising profitability of his old readership. He had to retreat; and by 1973 he had just about got The Times to at least a break-even position. In the course of last winter, I was involved in the preparation of a business plan for The Times. This was for the purpose of a long-stop bid to preserve The Times should all else fail. At that stage, as people generally know, The Times losses were approaching 50 per cent. of its turnover an the manning levels were absolutely unbelievable. Yet

1227
the projections made by our extremely experienced technical consultant showed that it was perfectly possible to publish The Times profitably. Indeed, the manning levels that he postulated were somewhat above provincial levels. The composition at The Times would have been carried out based on an existing organisation which uses female typists and computer typesetting. The current rate of output of these girls, I am told, is over twice that of Fleet Street compositors and the girls earn about £6,000 a year. By contrast, some top compositors in Fleet Street now earn up to £30,000 a year. If it had been possible to break out of the Fleet Street straitjacket, with its customs and practices, not into some hypothetical world but into a world of relatively modest technical performance, the finance for this venture could have been found on strict business criteria.
Contrast the position of The Times with an example from one of the best-run United States newspapers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred, the Wall Street Journal. He gave some graphic descriptions of what the new technology can do. As a further illustration I may say that the Wall Street Journal—and this was five years ago—has a printing plant in Florida. Facsimile pages are beamed in from New England by satellite and the whole print for the southeastern States is run off by just 14 people. We were told that one of these 14 is a janitor and another a gardener. I do not think you would find that anywhere in the United Kingdom. It does not surprise me that discussion among Fleet Street executives is not so much whether in an ideal world one could increase productivity by, say, 25 per cent. but rather whether it could be four times as high rather than, say, twice as high. That is the measure of the situation.
I therefore have no doubt at all that every newspaper in Fleet Street could be profitable, and some of them extremely so. I have no doubt at all that the TUC paper, which has been mooted now to my knowledge for at least six years, could also be profitable if it were properly manned and if it had the right editorial flair. But how do we achieve this, my Lords?
Five years ago during the last Fleet Street crisis, a joint standing committee of trades union general secretaries and newspaper managements, under the chairmanship of Mr. Bill Keys, negotiated a comprehensive package dealing with procedures for introducing new technology, voluntary redundancy, pensions, disputes procedures, and so forth. It was wide-ranging, imaginative and generous and it was put to the trade union members by ballot. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the production workers. It would be nice to think that another attempt would fare better. But there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it would. All the events of the past five years—and The Times stoppage in 1979 is a good example—suggest that while general secretaries may propose, the chapels dispose. I therefore see no reason to suppose that, for example, the proposed merger between SOGAT and NATSOPA will have any effect on the situation. I see no solutions, I am afraid, other than the chipping away by managements.
Every so often, as we have seen twice this winter, a parent company will get fed up and pull out; and every so often a new organisation will step in to try
1228
its luck. But it is a chancey business, and one of these days a major title will disappear, a title which in even a modestly rational world could have been profitable. If the British disease is a reluctance to accept change, the Fleet Street variety—Fleet Street 'flu if you will—must surely have few peers in virulence. Such is our fourth estate.
6.33 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I echo what every speaker has already said in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for initiating this debate. There have been authoritative contributions concerning the performance, the economics and the general distribution of the press. I do not propose to attempt to traverse ground which has already been covered so admirably. I intend to spend a few minutes discussing what seem to me to be two major threats to the freedom of the press at the moment.
A free society is easier to recognise than to define; but liberty of expression is a distinctive element in every definition. That liberty rests upon the opportunity to speak, write and publish whatever we wish without fear of punishment or penalty, save that the rights of other citizens must not be infringed. Newspapers are central to the exercise of this freedom. I do not mean only the national newspapers or the regional newspapers to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred. I include also the periodicals—some 4,000 to 5,000 of them—as well as hundreds of community newspapers and the so-called "alternative" newspapers; that is, alternative to the established press.
These latter alternative publications range from the more extreme forms of politics and the more esoteric schools of philosphy to the more liberated forms of sexual expression. This branch of the press demonstrates that there are no ideas, however seemingly grotesque, absurd or offensive to ordinary folk, which cannot and do not find their way easily and cheaply into print. The right of minorities to publish and to circulate their views is at the heart of the freedom of the press, and the alternative press testifies to the maintenance of that right in Britain today.
Not all publications have to incur heavy costs of production. But we think mostly of newspapers in terms of their contribution to democratic politics. The great English editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, Frederick Greenwood, wrote in 1890:
"to suppose that in any country the influence of the press was ever a delight to the Government would be a complete mistake. It is a rival influence, often a conflicting influence and sometimes…a commanding and destroying influence … The press is sometimes a nuisance to Ministers because it preaches triumphantly from imperfect information; at other times because it discovers too much of the truth, and makes inconvenient exposures of neglect, error, fraudulent pretence and false principle. How should it be loved by those who suffer from the operation?"
Indeed, it is not loved. Relations between the press and politicians in democracies are, all over the world, always uneasy, suspicious and fretful. Another editor of great experience and repute, my noble friend Lord Jacobson, once observed in this context:
"relations between politicians and the press have deteriorated, are deteriorating and should on no account be allowed to improve".

1229
That we may think is the proper circumstance in a democracy.
When I was chairman of the Royal Commission on the Press I quickly learned that many politicians were dedicated in principle to a free press but regarded existing newspapers as a conspiracy against them and their party. Indeed, I was astonished and much influenced by the intensity of dislike that I found among politicians for the press when revealed in private conversations. Of course, I recognise that this dislike sometimes stems from genuine grievances. James Margach, sometime political correspondent of the Sunday Times, has analysed the relations between 12 Prime Ministers and the press during the past 50 years. In his view, nearly all of them subscribe to Lloyd George's maxim that,
"What you can't square you squash, and what you can't squash you square".
He cited only two exceptions to this generalisation: Mr. Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. But he also described parts of the press as indulging during the past 30 years in "screaming irresponsibility".
Citizens in a democracy must reckon with two facts of public life. First, some politicians, though paying lip service to the indispensability of a free press, would shackle and control it if they could. Secondly, a free society which expects responsible conduct from a free press must go on tolerating some, often shocking, irresponsibility as the price of liberty. Independent newspapers must be as free to behave irresponsibly within the law as to behave responsibly.
The secret of a free press must always remain the courage to resist encroachments in a conflict which can never issue in a final victory. New threats to freedom arise constantly, and I shall mention two which I see as sinister omens today. Over much of the world denial of freedom of expression is the ordinary condition, news and information are suppressed and distorted, and deviant journalists are harassed, imprisoned, tortured and killed. There is nothing new in this. What is new is the role which UNESCO has played for 10 years, during which the politics of communication have become one of its chief concerns. Angry debates have resulted from resolutions put down by the Soviet bloc, urging the extension of state and international control over the means of communication. At the same time the resentments of third world countries over the control by advanced countries of communications and much of the packaged entertainment of the world have burst out as denunciations of a new colonialism manifesting itself in the form of cultural imperialism.
Many developing countries regard governmental control over the press as an indispensable means of promoting their national identity, cultural integrity, economic growth and political cohesiveness. They see these supreme aims as being undermined by the open criticism of Governments which exist in democracies. Such countries seek to redress what the Director-General of UNESCO described to the General Assembly of the International Press Institute two years ago as:
"the first and most fundamental imbalance which exists today in communication of separating the small number of over-developed
1230
and over-informed countries from the vast majority of the others".
It is a remarkable indication of the outlook of senior officials in UNESCO that they add the sin of "over-information" to the catalogue of wickednesses for which they hold accountable the countries who contribute the bulk of their budgets.
However, with the approval and support of UNESCO, the third world now demands a "New World Information Order". Five years ago some 80 Governments of the Non-Aligned Movement stated that the object of the new order was the emancipation of development of national communications media, which is an integral part of the overall struggle for political, economic and social independence. In their view, emancipation and development should provide a more equal distribution of the means to communicate which is in itself highly desirable and would recognise the sovereign rights of Governments to control the flow of information about themselves and their countries to the outside world, and would harness the media to the cause of national development by ensuring their loyal support for Government policies—a prospect, my Lords, which I find terrifying.
These aims explain why many developing countries, though by no means all of them, link a worldwide reform of the media with the North-South dialogue on economic co-operation to find ways of reducing inequalities of wealth between poor and rich countries. They hold that a new international order in matters of information and the mass media is as important as a new international economic order. These developments in UNESCO have received the full support of the Director-General, Mr. M'Bow, and it is therefore most encouraging that Britain has taken the lead in opposing his policy of imposing by ukase what has come to be known in UNESCO double-speak as:
"a free and balanced flow of information throughout the world".
This is no party matter. The responsible Ministers in this Government and in the previous one have made their voices most effectively and eloquently heard in the last two UNESCO general conferences in support of the virtues of a free press in all parts of the world. I understand that the Government have pressed the need for a co-ordinated Western policy upon our partners in the Community, who are now more fully aware than they have been in the past of the political aspects and political implications of this question. I understand also that similar steps have been taken within the Commonwealth, both at governmental level and by such bodies as the Commonwealth Press Union. Nevertheless, it would be heartening if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, could reassure the House about the Government's future intentions concerning this question.
Unhappily, I discern similar authoritarian tendencies of thought at home, although their sources and settings are different. I began by stressing the inevitable conflict in a democracy between politicans and the press, and the great importance that this situation attaches to the maintenance of the press entirely ndependent of Government. Broadcasting and the press are the two chief sources from which the public obtain news, information and comment. The Royal Commission was strongly influenced by a comparison between the press and broadcasting. In the case of

1231
the press, no legal restriction is placed on the right to buy or launch a newspaper. Consequently, there is no specific obligation on editors or proprietors to have regard in what they publish to the need to meet either the public or the individual interest.
The case of radio and television is very different. The notion that people should be free to set up their own television services would be fanciful because, under present technology, broadcasting frequencies are scarce national resources. Consequently, the law places specific duties on a television authority, which has to be appointed and controlled by the Government and is accountable to Parliament. Moreover, the broadcasting authorities observe strict conventions governing the way they handle political and controversial topics. Such authorities do not exist in the free-market world of newspapers. However, the press and broadcasting overlap greatly in their functions and especially in their sources of information.
The Royal Commission throught that the necessity for governmental regulation of broadcasting greatly strengthened the case for a press which owes nothing to the policies or favours of Governments. However, pressure for governmental intervention in the press has been growing steadily in recent years. Four years ago, for example, Mr. Moss Evans, at a conference on the press organised by the TUC, outlined an unpleasing programme which Mr. Wedgwood Benn and many of his friends have since been advancing. Mr. Evans said—and I am largely quoting from him:
"The problem of the mocha from the trade union point of view consists of establishing a means of monitoring the output of the media to establish balance, or lack of balance, devising a practicable code of objectivity, fairness and accuracy to govern the presentation of news and opinion and a means of policing"—
observe, my Lords, Mr. Evans' choice of words—
"and enforcing any such agreed criterion".
These and other tasks, such as issuing the operator's licence which Mr. Evans would require all publishers to obtain, and setting up a National Press Finance Corporation to enable, among other duties, trade unions to launch a national newspaper, would be discharged by a Standing Commission for the Media, which would be responsible to a Minister.
I am sure that everyone will welcome what my noble friend Lady Birk said about the feasibility study which is now being conducted, at the end of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said was a six-year programme, for filling the gap created by the death of the News Chronicle, and the long absence among the variety of the national press of a left-of-centre quality newspaper. But I am glad to see that the Trades Union Congress has, at last, decided that it may be possible for it to find the finance for such a newspaper from its own resources, rather than from public funds. Such thinking as I talked about earlier is dangerously prevalent among democrats who wish to liberate the press from the thraldom of capitalist ownership. In reality, they would hand it over to a Ministry of Truth and tell us that we had been granted a new freedom.
Schemes for Government intervention in the press, by way of subsidies from public funds or by reallocating advertising revenues from successful to unsuccessful newspapers, were rejected by the Royal Commission,
1232
because, among many other reasons, they were satisfied that such schemes would inevitably be a threat to the independence of the press, as a Government appointed body or agency would have to exercise what would, in effect, be the functions of a censor when choosing between applicants for assistance. And, again, in reaching this decision on such schemes, the Royal Commission attached the highest importance to avoiding any type of protection or assistance to the press, which would give Governments access to the possibility of manipulating the press by withholding, threatening to withhold or offering to continue such subsidies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, made clear in his lucid and wide-ranging speech, there is great promise in the future of the press, and I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that there is no cause for deep pessimism. But there is also a great peril in the future. The procedures of UNESCO, which are resulting in the legitimation of state control of the press in a number of areas of the world, are echoed here in proposals for similar types of control for similar purposes. I have spent time in discussing them because I think our best defence against such developments is exposure and discussion.
6.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, today's debate has, once again, been both timely and useful. As it has shown, any discussion on the newspaper industry raises issues and principles which lie at the very heart of our society. It is therefore most appropriate that your Lordships should debate the industry from time to time, and we are indeed indebted to my noble friend Lord Birdwood, as every noble Lord has said, for giving us the opportunity to do so today. The debate provides a fitting opportunity for me to express my great regret at the recent untimely death of Lord Barnetson. A lifetime's experience in the newspaper world enabled him to speak with authority on many aspects of the press. He will be greatly missed by his colleagues in the industry and, doubtless, he would have taken part in this debate today had he still been alive.
When one talks of newspapers, the majority of people automatically assume that one is referring to the national press. But we should not, however, forget or neglect our flourishing regional and local newspapers, to which so many noble Lords have referred this evening. While the provincial press may not be as glamorous as the national press, it is nevertheless equally important and indispensable.
Today's debate has, however—inevitably, I suppose—concentrated on the national press and some mention has been made, both here and, indeed, outside the House, of its financial problems. The national press cannot blame its current difficulties exclusively on the recession. The industry's problems are deep-rooted, long-standing and, indeed, well-known. In the final analysis they will not be solved without major improvements in its industrial relations.
Industrial relations in the national press have long been the subject of much criticism. The most exhaustive recent study was conducted by the Royal Commission on the Press—chaired, of course, with such distinction by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor—

1233
which commissioned two reports, published in 1976 and 1977, from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. While ACAS found industrial relations in the provincial press to be reasonably good, they saw urgent need for reform in the national press. Traditional problems—demarcation disputes, overmanning, the progressive collapse of management authority, the extreme fragmentation of the bargaining structure—had been further complicated by the challenge of new technology. Little appears to have happened since 1977 to modify those conclusions.
Unfortunately, the Programme for Action, agreed by management and unions in the industry in 1976, which contained many badly needed reforms, was rejected in ballots by the union members in 1977; and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to that. All too often, worthwhile changes agreed at national level proved impossible to implement in individual newspaper plants.
None the less there remain some hopeful signs. There are discussions under way for union mergers which should do something to improve industrial relations. There have recently been some encouraging increases in realism among those primarily involved—reflected, for example, in agreements to reduce manning levels. The provincial press is showing that the challenge of new methods of production can be successfully met, without the catastrophic results predicted as inevitable by many critics of the introduction of new technology. On the contrary, disastrous consequences will occur if the challenge is not taken up. The future of the newspaper industry holds out much promise. It is, however, one in which outmoded and antiquated production processes have no place.
Several noble Lords have raised questions about the Government's response to the recommendations of the 1974–77 Royal Commission on the Press, which was set up by the previous Government to consider the state of the newspaper industry. There has been no Government response to the final report as a whole.
The Royal Commission's final report contained 70 recommendations, the majority of which were addressed to the industry itself. Of the 25 addressed to Government, these cover a wide range of issues and each must be considered separately and in the light of any opposing views from other interested bodies. For example, the Government are considering the Royal Commission's recommendation on the law of innocent dissemination in conjunction with an opposing recommendation from the Faulks Committee on Defamation which reported in 1975. I can however assure the House that the Royal Commission's recommendations are taken fully into account wherever action is contemplated on any issue to which they have given their attention.
For example, the recommendations relating to the involvement of the press in broadcasting were studied in drawing up last year's Broadcasting Bill. Section 36 of what is now the Broadcasting Act removed the right of a local newspaper to be offered a shareholding in a local radio contractor as recommended by the Royal Commission.
Noble Lords have referred to the freedom of the press and some have expressed concern that commercial requirements for success or survival have not been necessarily conducive to the true diversity of editorial
1234
opinion. Successive Governments have regarded an independent press as a fundamental feature of a democratic society and have recognised that restrictions on its freedom are undesirable. The editor of a newspaper, like any individual, is free to publish what he wishes, provided that he does not breach the law on such matters as defamation, official secrets, obscenity or contempt of court. The restrictions imposed by such laws apply no differently to the press than to all other citizens.
The Government support the view of the 1977 Royal Commission that questions of press conduct must be left to the influence of the Press Council, the industry's own self-regulatory body, and should not be subject to Government regulation. The Press Council lists among its objects preservation of the established freedom of the British press and the maintenance of its character in accordance with the highest professional and commercial standards. Some have suggested that to ensure the presentation of as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible the Government should actively encourage new publications. The Royal Commission rejected proposals to introduce special schemes of financial assistance for new newspapers, principally on the grounds of risk to the freedom of the Press, and the Government endorsed that view.
Noble Lords have indicated their concern at the growing concentration of ownership, particularly in the national press. Views have been expressed on the inadequate nature of the newspaper mergers provisions of the Fair Trading Act and on the recommendations of the Royal Commission with respect to monopolies and mergers in the newspaper industry. This was particularly a matter which was worrying the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Perhaps in a moment I can develop that theme a little more. The Government are continuing their review of competition legislation in general, including of course the special provisions which relate to newspaper mergers.
Many would consider the future of the newspaper industry a rather gloomy one. However, there are even now encouraging signs that its future will confound present pessimism. A new Scottish Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Standard, was launched last Sunday, and I wish it well. Associated Newspapers is planning the launch of a new national Sunday newspaper. The Sunday Express Magazine which was launched on 12th April has made other Sunday newspapers seriously consider following suit. I gather—and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, confirmed this—that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is currently heading a feasibility study on the prospects of a new national daily newspaper which, as I understand it, would "reflect the interests of the Labour movement". This is hardly a picture of a dying industry. The increasing number of so-called "free sheets" to which my noble friend Lord Birdwood referred, now being distributed locally, is an interesting development, although I have to agree that it is not one which is universally welcomed by the existing provincial press.
May I turn now to some of the points which have been made this afternoon. First I should like to refer to the question of the Times Newspapers acquisition to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, specifically referred. In a debate in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade fully

1235
explained his decision to give consent to the acquisition of Times Newspapers by News International without referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He explained that he had an established preference for newspaper mergers to be referred to the Commission so that there should be a full and independent investigation of the implications for public interest, but in this instance he decided that there was a real risk that a reference would lead to closure and that it would therefore be appropriate to give his consent forthwith, but subject to conditions designed to safeguard the editorial integrity traditional in Times Newspapers.
I have noted the suggestion made by the noble Baroness that in cases of urgency a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on a proposed merger could be completed in just a few weeks. However, as I have said, the Government's review of competition legislation includes the newspaper mergers provisions. We shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness has suggested. May I be allowed to point out that if such a procedure were devised there would inevitably have to be some trade-off between the speed of the inquiry and the rigour with which it is conducted, bearing in mind that the final report would need to command general confidence.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he would comment on the fact that the Times Newspapers acquisition was not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The London evening dailies merger, of which there is a complete monopoly in the London area, was not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and there was an immediate increase of 20 per cent. on the price of that article, while the Lonrho acquisition of the Observer, which by no standard represents a monopoly situation, was in fact referred to the commission. I wonder what is the logic of references to the commission.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have to consider each and every case on its merits. As the noble Lord knows, under the existing legislation there are procedures for these mergers to be allowed to proceed where the Secretary of State decides in a particular case that it is appropriate for this to happen. That is what happened in the cases to which the noble Lord has referred. As I have said, this is a matter which we wish to keep under review and we are doing so. I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of the consideration that is being given to that particular matter.
Several noble Lords referred to the proposed purchase of the Observer by Lonrho, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, just now, which has now been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission who are conducting their inquiry. On that particular matter I can say that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have undertaken to report as quickly as possible. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if in the meanwhile I do not comment in further detail.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in his most informed and interesting speech raised the threat to press freedom posed by developments, largely in the UNESCO forum, towards a so-called "New
1236
World Information Order". This is a subject of great importance. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government are concerned about it. My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr. Blaker, set out the Government's position on these issues in his reply to the Adjournment Debate in another place on 8th December last. As my honourable friend indicated, the Government are actively pursuing with Western partners the question of coordinating a more effective Western response to these developments. We are already, and will remain, in close touch with the United Kingdom press interests concerned. Certainly the Government's serious reservations about some of the proposals that have been made in this context remain as valid now as they were when they were made by my honourable friend in another place, and indeed I have referred to the reservations that we have on this matter, in this House and from this Box from time to time in the past.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood expressed concern about the problems of the supply of newsprint and perhaps I may deal with that matter in a little detail. Indeed, some have criticised the lack of Government assistance to prevent the substantial reductions in the United Kingdom's newsprint industry. I regret that Bowater has closed its mill at Ellesmere Port with consequential redundancies in an area already suffering heavily from unemployment and that Reed has found it necessary to reduce its capacity and declare redundancies at Aylesford and Gravesend.
There has been no lack of Government concern about the problem of newsprint. The Government had full discussions with Bowater and indicated that substantial financial assistance could be available for new investment at Ellesmere Port, for which the company had been making outline plans, to improve their performance as a genuine alternative to closure, but it was for Bowater to consider whether to invest against the cost to them of closing the mill. As the House knows, the company decided not to take up the investment alternative but the Government did all they could to help.
Concern has also been expressed at the uncertainty surrounding the operation of the EEC newsprint quota from 1984 onwards, when EFTA countries will enjoy full free trade with the Community. The Government are aware of the newspaper industry's reliance on imported newsprint and the need to maintain the present diversity of supply. The future operation of this quota system is under consideration by the European Commission which in due course will make a formal proposal to the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the Government's decision on this issue must await action by the European Commission. In arriving at our decision we shall take fully into account the views expressed by my noble friend and others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also referred to the problem of recycling newsprint. It is true that some Government support has been provided for this in the past. The present problems are rather those of supply and demand. The fact is that the demand for old newsprint for recycling purposes has dropped very sharply recently and I believe that is at the heart of the present difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the

1237
closure of Now! magazine. I must confess that I personally rather enjoyed reading Now! every week and the closure is a disappointing end to a brave attempt to establish a new national publication, but the fact that the attempt was made is further evidence of the continued vitality of Fleet Street.
My Lords, today's debate has once again shown the great importance which your Lordships attach to the newspaper as a means of communication, notwithstanding competition from other information media. I sincerely hope that the newspaper industry, too, will take note of the issues raised and the recommendations made to it.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, it only remains for me to say a personal thank-you to the speakers today and to reiterate what I said in my opening words, that I was in the presence of experts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned the TUC newspaper study, as indeed did the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord McGregor of Durris. It was interesting to me that in a recent article in the New Statesman the writer of that article came down firmly against this concept and in a piece of self-mockery, relatively rare in that particular periodical the accompanying cartoon showed a newspaper vendor with his box of TUC papers and behind him five others, all saying, "Paper, paper".
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the excessive preoccupation of Fleet Street and that Fleet Street is basically a London local writ large is very well taken and I would commend individual Fleet Street editors to have that part of the noble Lord's speech hung above their desks.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also mentioned the regional concentration of ownership. When he spoke about his recent experience with the management study on The Times, I felt that he had a lot more stories up his sleeve about over-manning and I should love to hear some of them sometime.
Coming now to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I could not be more grateful to him for bringing up the appalling UNESCO—I should like to say fiasco, but it is not. It is serious, indeed unbelievable, in its implications and thoroughly unpleasant, and anything that this Government can do to block it I think will be approved of by any freethinking person.
In this country we love our newspapers: they are rumbustious, raucous, irreverent—sometimes just silly. Alternatively, they are grave, articulate, earnest, or merely dull. They are financially healthier than people are led to believe and, as to their future, we wish them well. It only remains for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Marriage (Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger).
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I invite the noble Baroness to consider recommitting this Bill? The extent of the amendments make it almost a completely new Bill. This is not a particularly full House but I have to say that the amendments tabled in respect of Scotland are not acceptable, and I have authority to say that from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Archbishop of Glasgow for the Roman Catholic Church, and the acting Primate of the Episcopal Church. We had a very thorough examination of this whole question in 1977 and, so far as I am aware, nobody in Scotland wishes to change the existing situation. I should have thought that it would be better and easier for the noble Baroness to recommit this Bill in order that the new clauses might be more thoroughly examined.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, if this Bill is further delayed there will be no prospect of its getting through Parliament this Session and therefore I should be extremely reluctant to recommit the Bill. I think adequate notice has been given on this occasion although amendments were tabled at a very late date. I am not prepared to recommit the Bill.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Report shall be now received?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Maelor, L.

Birk, B.

Mountevans, L.

Blease, L.

Northfield, L.

Boothby, L.

Oram, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Robbins, L.

David, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Dowding, L.

Stone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Vaizey, L.

Jeger, B.

Vickers, B.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McGregor of Durris, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Barrington, V.

Hylton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ingleby, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Lawrence, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

de Clifford, L.

Milverton, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Mottistone, L.

Ferrier, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Galpern, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

George-Brown, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Spens, L.

Halsbury, E.

Torphichen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly: Report received.
Clause 1 [Marriage between relations by affinity not to be void]:
7.29 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich The Lord Bishop of Norwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("and
(b) neither party has at any time during the previous 10 years been accepted by the other party as a child of his family.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, may I make one preliminary observation before speaking briefly to my amendment. That is, in the name of all of us, to welcome back the noble Baroness, to say how glad we are that she is better again after being unwell and that she is back here to continue her doughty work on this, as I see it, attack which I believe underlies this Bill on the stability of marraige and the family. But it is lovely to have her back well and strong and doughty as ever in the House, though, using the carefulness of our language in this House, I do not agree with her.
Having said that, as a preliminary remark, if I may make it, I speak not on behalf of the Bishops' Bench, because each of us by custom speaks for ourselves, but after consultation with a number of bishops who would have liked to be here but cannot be, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester who spoke so well on Second Reading and in Committee. The right reverend Prelate is in the Channel Islands. This is, of course, nothing to do with holidaying; the Channel Islands is part of his Lordships' See, and once he gets to the Channel Islands it is almost impossible to get back again. But I have gathered from conversations with right reverend Prelates that there is very strong general opposition to this Bill, and we speak to amendments today reserving our position to speak and divide the House, if it seems wise, even on Third Reading.
Having said that, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("and
(b) neither party has at any time during the previous 10 years been accepted by the other party as a child of his family.")
Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, speaking on behalf of the Government, for the Home Office, but maintaining a judicial balance in his speech, made two points in Committee. At column 1233 on 25th March, 1981 he said:
"The Government fully understand the concern which is felt in many parts of the Committee about the effect of the Bill in relation to stepchildren to whom a stepfather had acted in loco parentis, and the desire of some of your Lordships to limit the application of the Bill in such cases".
Your Lordships will remember that in the next column, column 1234, he went on to say that if the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and myself was agreed and accepted by the Committee:
"…the amendment of the right reverend Prelates would place persons who had at any time been a child of the family during minority in much the same position as a child by adoption, inasmuch as a marriage between parent and stepchild would therefore be prohibited for all time".
The noble Lord, Lord Boston—whom I erroneously had called "the noble and learned Lord", and I
1240
apologise for that remark, but I notice that it was heeded in the highest quarters and within a week of that statement he was immediately made a Queen's Counsel so I am encouraged in saying that—also made the point that this would make a prohibition for all time.
Therefore, my amendment is simply an attempt to do something about the very real danger in which, for instance, stepdaughters of a young age would find themselves. Admittedly, I am glad to say that owing to the good amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, calling for an age of 21 years, they would not be in danger of being persuaded into a hasty marriage by an avaricious or even lascivious stepfather. We have to legislate for real situations and not just for comfortable and sentimental ones.
Therefore, my amendment is an attempt to deal in, I think, a fairly gentle way with that particular point. It seeks to suggest that a 10-year period should be provided. A 10-year period means that at the outside only 10 years, from the age of 18 to 28, would be needed but if, in fact, the stepchild was anything of 23, 24 or 25 years of age, a mere four, five, six or seven years would be provided. So the amendment which I propose today is less severe in that it would not make such a marriage impossible for all time; it would simply delay it.
My amendment, therefore, seeks to put a term of years between when the child-of-the-family stage ends, which happens at the age of 18, and such a marriage taking place, and the number of years is set at 10. Therefore, in effect, a stepdaughter would have to be aged 28 before she could marry her stepfather. Surely that is the least that we need to do in order to meet the very real fears that have been expressed about the danger to family life which would occur if this Bill is ever passed into law.
As we have had to spend some time in which nearly half your Lordships' House have expressed a general desire for the Bill in toto to be recommited, I shall not speak further to this amendment, because it seems to me to be such an obvious one and it meets so fully the general feeling of our debate in Committee that I hope it will be the sort of amendment that would be accepted by this House without division. With confidence, I ask your Lordships' persmission to move the amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill a number of amendments were proposed which were, I think, not unfairly described as "wrecking amendments". Therefore, I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate that on this occasion he has produced an amendment which is moderate in scope and which definitely could not be described as "wrecking". Nevertheless, I see great difficulties in accepting it. I think that it ought to be clear to people without dispute whom they can marry and whom they cannot. I was willing to accept, though with a little reluctance, that the minimum age for marriage in these cases should be 21, because that is definite and you cannot have a dispute about it; either you are 21 or you are not 21. But whether you have been accepted as a child in a family is by no means so clear, and cases will arise—and I shall presently quote a case of which I know which will be

1241
very much in point—where it may be very difficult to decide whether or not a particular young person falls within that category.
The right reverend Prelate might also like to consider what will happen if someone protests a decision that he or she—and in the kind of case he envisages it is more likely to be she—was not accepted as a child; she appeals the case and it goes to court. Almost certainly what will happen is that the stepfather and the stepchild will live together as man and wife, though they cannot sanctify that relationship in marriage because, if she is over 16 and not married to anyone else there is absolutely—and this seems to be generally ignored—no barrier in law why they should not cohabit as man and wife. This will be a direct inducement to them to do so until the necessary period has elapsed, when they may or may not decide to get married. That may be one of the obvious consequences of the amendment.
Perhaps I could quote the actual case, which is extremely relevant in this context. A man whom I know personally, at the age of 25, married a divorced woman who had a little girl of 13. He played no part in the divorce and he had never met the woman's previous husband. Five years later the wife died. The child was left in the care of guardians and was at boarding school, and five years later she was approaching the age of 18. She left school and she wished to acquire further professional qualifications, so she came to London. As far as I know, but I cannot say for certain, she lived in her stepfather's house under her stepfather's roof. She was accompanied by another student from the same school, so that the two girls were together. After a year or two the couple—the stepfather and the stepdaughter—announced their intention to marry, and the child's guardians gave consent. None of them was aware of the bar in law, neither was the vicar, and the church wedding was duly arranged. Only at the last moment was it discovered that the marriage would be void.
Now supposing that girl had been one year younger, or two years younger, the question as to whether she was still a child would surely be open. According to the estimates that the right reverend Prelate gave, childhood would seem to continue for a long time, as he spoke of children of 22 and 23. A child in law is a child at different ages for different purposes. A child is a child at one age for going to school; at another age for appearing at a juvenile court, and so on. One would have to settle the age at which childhood would cease for this particular purpose, and the point in time at which this young person might, or might not, have ceased to be accepted as a member of the family. I do not know what she did in her school holidays, for instance; whether that would make her a member of the family. I should therefore not he willing to accept something so vague, because in order to establish it—whatever definition of childhood is taken for this purpose—it would be necessary to make very intimate inquiries as to the relationships of the parties over a period of years. I think this is one thing that is greatly to be deplored, and the one thing that we ought at all costs to avoid.
Then there are procedural difficulties. There are procedural difficulties because the amendment which I am to move next, which is a substitute for Clause 1, and a rather more elaborate substitute, does not take
1242
account of this particular amendment, and it would be necessary to re-amend the amendment that I am about to move if that should be accepted. There would be further procedural difficulties with a number of the other later amendments. I have not a list of them to hand at the moment, having only just woken up to this. On these two grounds—that I think that we ought not to impose conditions which involve intimate inquiries and that there are procedural difficulties—I would resist this amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, we have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, who is always so much quicker to take up difficult points than some of us. I found this a difficult thing to follow so I am in some difficulty about the way to answer what she said. Taking the last point first about the procedural difficulties, surely there is nothing in our procedure which would make it impossible, if this amendment is carried, for the noble Baroness to bring forward at the Third Reading stage her substitute Clause 1, suitably altered to take account of this. That is a perfectly legitimate procedure so far as I am aware.
She has fallen back—I have to say, as has been commonly the case in the many debates we have had on this Bill and its predecessors over the past several years—as usual on a familiar hard case. I beg your Lordships not to be influenced by the sentimentality of the hard case. We all know that hard cases make bad law. She has asked what happens if this hypothetical couple are denied a valid marriage? She says, "Oh, they simply live together". I should like to make the point that that may in her view be the alternative. It is not the view of all of us.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? If I have always used the hard case, I have always used the actual case. My opponents have always used, so far as I can see, the hypothetical case.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Well, my Lords, we will let that point go because I am not an expert in this subject and I do not go around finding actual cases. I have not the leisure for that purpose. But there are in the noble Baroness's arguments—and we have had this over and over again—two alternatives. A couple want to marry and for some reason are refused a valid marriage, and the alternative that she presents is that they live together. There is a third alternative; that they live in continence. This point has not been made often. I think it should be made repeatedly. It is from that standpoint that I believe that her argument is fallacious. Just because two people cannot marry does not mean that they must, or should, or necessarily even will, live together. Even if in terms of human probability and human weakness the likelihood is that they will live together, that is no argument for sanctioning as a pretended marriage what would in fact be void.
The noble Baroness has put her finger on one point, not directly but by inference, which is that there is, or there can be, a great problem of ambiguity. She did not ask, although I thought she would, "How do you define 'child of the family'?" I am advised by legal friends—and one or two of them cannot be here to

1243
night but wanted this said—that, as a matter of fact, the term "child of the family" is well known in law. If a marriage is proposed, and it comes to the ears of the registrar that there is an impediment, then it is up to the registrar to make inquiries. If the result of those inquiries is negative from the point of view of the applicants, they can then apply to a family court. I am advised that such matters are well within the competence of a family court, and therefore one need not really be too disturbed about the problems of ambiguity in that case.
The noble Baroness said just now before we voted on the question of whether to go into the Report stage that if there is any further delay on this Bill she might lose it. May I say to her with the very greatest respect, and in as friendly a way as I can, that if she does not accept reasonable, moderate, compassionate amendments she will find a lot of trouble on Third Reading—a lot of trouble—and she may find more trouble tonight. If she really wants to get the Bill to another place for the possibility of consideration there despite all the hazards of their procedures, I wonder whether she may not feel that it might be in her interest to concede this amendment, and I very much hope that she will do so and not force us to divide on it.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, there is one point to begin with on which I would agree with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on this amendment, and that is the point at which he said that the definition of "child of the family" is one which is known to the law: indeed it is well known. I think that references were made to the fact that it is well known to the law in our last debates in Committee by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when we were considering similar matters.
Before coming further to the substance of the amendment, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his kind remarks about me. I should also like to join him in welcoming back to these proceedings on her Bill my noble friend Lady Wootton. Not only am I in the position of being pleased and delighted but I am also immensely relieved that she is back in charge of her Bill. It is clear that this amendment has been tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich with the very best of intentions. As he has explained, it seeks to limit to the 10 years prior to a proposed marriage the period during which neither party has been a child of the other's family.
I think it is right and fair to say that to this extent it seeks to meet a criticism that was made at Committee stage of an amendment proposed then by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, which would have prevented anyone from marrying a person who had been a child of the family of the other party at any time. Because it sought to meet one objection which was made by those of us who found themselves unable to support the earlier amendment, one approached this amendment with a very sympathetic attitude. Unhappily, like my noble friend Lady Wootton, I am afraid that I do not find myself able to support this amendment either.
1244
In the first place, I believe that this amendment seeks to impose a time limit which is an arbitrary one, despite the explanation which has been given by the right reverend Prelate in his speech. In my submission we are bound to ask ourselves, what is the basis for a limit of 10 years? I must confess that I do not find myself persuaded that there is any substantial or logical argument in support of that, or indeed of any other particular time limit. As we have heard in the debate so far, such a time limit could still prevent marriage in some of those cases which are felt to be particularly deserving.
Perhaps I could take the case of a proposed union between a stepdaughter and a stepfather. She may have become a child of the family half way through the 10-year period. There may be other, very much younger, children. Their mother and her mother died, let us say, soon after she—the stepdaughter—became a child of the family. And she—the stepdaughter—has helped to bring up those other younger children. After a while, perhaps a few years, the stepdaughter and the stepfather decide that they would like to marry. I cannot believe it is really right that those younger children should be denied the loving care, of those who were already caring for them as parents. The young children may be at a particular stage of their lives—in their schooling for example—where it may be especially helpful for them to have parents once again.
Again, a person may have become a child of the family for only a very short time and then have gone away. After the death of that person's parent, the stepchild and the stepparent may decide that they wish to marry. There seems to be no real reason why they should be denied that chance, while in a similar case outside this proposed time limit those concerned would be allowed to marry.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether he is talking about hypothetical cases of the kind which I cited, or whether he is talking about actual cases of the kind cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I am trying to examine the sort of cases which we might well find would arise.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Then, my Lords, the noble Lord is talking about hypothetical cases?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we are talking about a proposed amendment to a Bill which is not yet an Act. Therefore, if we are to do justice in debating this Bill we have to contemplate cases which have yet to arise. We must try to do justice to hypothetical cases and I am trying to join your Lordships in doing both—that is to say, to acknowledge the very real and quite sizeable numbers of actual, practical cases in being of the kind which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has placed before your Lordships on previous occasions as well as tonight, and also to try to do justice to the other half, the hypothetical cases, as well.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I have an actual case of precisely the type which the noble Lord has just described.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, once again, I am delighted and relieved. We should not overlook the fact that a child—and this has been touched upon a little in tonight's debate—may be or may become a child of the family at any age at all. There may be a tendency for people outside your Lordships' House to imagine a child of the family as being essentially a minor, which would of course be a mistake. There is no doubt that a time limit of this kind could prevent from marrying some of the very couples who my noble friend's Bill is designed to help—some of the cases which we have felt to be especially deserving.
In my submission, there is another fundamental objection to this amendment. Let us look at the definition of a child of the family, and I return to the point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, about the definition. In Section 52(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—and the same words are repeated in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Court Act 1978—it is stated:
" 'child of the family' in relation to the parties to a marriage means—
(a) a child of both those parties".
We are not concerned with that category, of course, but it goes on to state:
"and
(b) any other child, not being a child who has been boarded-out with those parties by a local authority or voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both of those parties as a child of their family".
The question of whether a child has been accepted and treated as a child of the family may be open to dispute, as I and other noble Lords ventured to point out in Committee. If that is open to dispute the courts will have to be brought in to resolve such a dispute; there is no provision in the Bill proposed here—either in this amendment or elsewhere—as to how that should be done. As the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has mentioned, it is quite true that this particular definition, and an attempt to interpret it, is not something that is foreign or unfamiliar to our courts as they stand. But, with respect, I would say that that is not the question which arises here. The question which arises here is whether a dispute and the courts should be allowed to be brought in at all on matters of the kind which are being dealt with by my noble friend's Bill.
Here, as in other matters witnesses may need to be called; the parties may need to be represented; if there has been a divorce it is possible that old wounds will be reopened on these matters as on some of the others which we were discussing and contemplating in Committee. If one looks at the actual wording of the right reverend Prelate's amendment it states:
(b) neither party has at any time during the previous 10 years been accepted by the other party as a child of his family".
Of course the fact that those words "by the other party" are included in the amendment would not prevent an earlier spouse of that other party or indeed that earlier spouse's family, from intervening in any dispute and court proceedings with the necessary representation which would have to arise as a result of that.
For example, he himself may say that his proposed spouse has never been accepted or treated as a child of the family. On the other hand, his deceased wife's family may say that she has and may therefore enter
1246
into this dispute and be called and represented at court proceedings. Alternatively, the man's divorced wife or his divorced wife's family may wish to intervene and give evidence as to whether or not he is right in saying that his proposed spouse has never been accepted or treated as a child of the family.
We can immediately see just the sort of situation arising which so many of us saw arising if the courts were to be brought into this matter. There would of course be costs and the likelihood of delays. Again, where as the result of court proceedings the child is found not to have been a child of the family, one is bound to point out that such a dispute, with its accompanying court battle involving the families, is hardly the best way to start a marriage.
I hope, especially with the safeguard now in the Bill that both parties must be over the age of 21, which my noble friend Lady Wootton accepted, that we shall not encumber the Bill with further restrictions but will adhere to what I believe to be the clear, understandable and indeed sustainable and justifiable principles embodied in it. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, under the Adoption Act 1958, when a child is adopted by a family, think I am right in saying that the wording of the Act says the child is "of the family". Does that come into this category?
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am not sure how the two statutory provisions line up, my Lords, but the point I would make on that in connection with this measure—one which on earlier occasions has been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Mishcon—is that for these purposes an adopted child would anyway be in precisely the same position as a natural child of the couple concerned; that is to say, neither in the case of that natural child nor in the case of an adopted child could there ever in any circumstances whatever be any question of a marriage of that kind arising. Indeed, the question of adoption is perhaps something which could be used more frequently to avoid difficulties arising in the future.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who seemed to make very much a point for not having the Bill at all, let alone, in his opinion, not making this amendment. One wants to relate the complicated picture he presented on the one hand to the real cases which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, told us about, because I suspect that the real cases are all from what one might call honest, sensible Christian people. One should remember what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said; namely, that we need to see the outcome of this in the real world.
We must accept that there are avaricious and lustful people, and we must see how the children will benefit against that framework. Against that background—though there may be technical difficulties which perhaps can be put right on Third Reading, particularly if the next amendment is accepted—the principle of what the right reverend Prelate said is in my view a sound basis to protect persons who have been brought up as

1247
children in a happy family and who suddenly find themselves transformed. I should have thought we should accept the amendment with a view perhaps to having it further amended on Third Reading should that prove necessary for technical reasons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, concerning the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, it may be necessary, if the amendment is agreed to, to look at its wording again. I shall not express a view on the merits of the amendment, because the Government have all along maintained neutrality on the merits of the Bill. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made it clear that the effect of the amendment would be to prevent, for instance, a stepdaughter marrying her stepfather, provided she had been as a member of his family before the age of 28, I would say that I am not convinced that the wording of the amendment would actually achieve that objective. That is the first technical point I would put to the right reverend Prelate.
The second is that the expression "child of the family" occurs in the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred to this aspect and the noble Lord, Lord Boston, referring to the Matrimonial Causes Act, explained the different definitions of "child" to be found in that legislation. If one looks at the Matrimonial Causes Act in, for instance, Sections 29 and 41, one finds that it is possible for a child to be defined as an adult person. Therefore on that ground, again, I think it would be necessary, if the amendment were agreed to, for its wording to be looked at at the next stage of the Bill.
As the House will recognise, it would be undesirable for legislation to be enacted in a form which required an application to the court to be made to ascertain with confidence whether or not a particular couple had the legal capacity to marry one another, and I felt it was right for that reason to point out those two technical points to the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for those remarks, may I ask whether he can help us a little further? I gather that since Committee he has been able to discover other and newer ways in which other English-speaking countries are dealing with the particular problem that underlies the amendment. I hope the amendment is clear, in that it is meant to protect people until the age of 28. I can understand the problem the Minister raises about whether the wording is effective or defective. However, I gather that the research he has been doing—and we are grateful that he has been doing it—may help us, because I gather that there are better ways in other English-speaking countries than we have so far heard of, although I appreciate that without notice he may not be able to answer that question or comment.
Lord Belstead: I have with me a wealth of information about foreign law, my Lords, but I do not think I have anything which would help the House in regard to the amendment, and I therefore do not feel I can add to what I said.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, in the light of the full discussion that we have had, I wish to press the amendment.
8.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Ingleby, V.

Barrington, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Crathorne, L.

Milverton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Norwich, Bp. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Hereford, Bp.

Spens, L.

Hylton, L.

Torphichen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Blease, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boothby, L.

Northfield, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Byers, L.

Collison, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Robbins, L.

David, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Dowding, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Vickers, B.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Listowel, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Lockwood, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of provisions of Marriage Act 1949 relating to marriages within prohibited degrees
.—(1) In the Marriage Act 1949—
(a) the following subsection shall be inserted after section 1(1):—
"(1A) A marriage solemnized between a man who is under the age of twenty-one and any of the persons mentioned in the first column of Part IA of the First Schedule to this Act, or between a woman who is under that age and any of the persons mentioned in the second column of the said Part IA, shall be void.";
and
(b) there shall be added at the end of Part I of Schedule 1:—

PART IA
Prohibited degrees of affinity for persons under 21

Mother of former wife;

Father of former husband;

Daughter of former wife;

Son of former husband;

Former wife of father;

Former husband of mother;

Former wife of son;

Former husband of daughter;

(2) There are hereby repealed—

(a) in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Marriage Act 1949—

(i) in the first column, the words from "Wife's mother" to "Daughter's son's wife"; and

(ii) in the second column, the words from "Husband's father" to "Daughter's daughter's husband"; and

(b) the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. I should like to say first of all that, as your Lordships will appreciate, the Government have always maintained an absolutely neutral attitude in relation to the objectives of the Bill, and I am most grateful for that. But there is one thing that no Government can stand; that is, that there should find its way on to the statute book any Bill which is expressed in the vulgar language of the ignorant layman. Therefore I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who have consulted me, and on my behalf have drafted amendments which will be couched not in the vulgar tongue, but in the specialist and select vocabulary and syntax used by parliamentary draftsmen. Therefore before going into any detail about the amendment—I do not propose to go into much detail—I should like to assure persons who are interested in the future of the Bill, who are anxious that it should succeed, and who might have a personal concern in it, that all these numerous words amount to exactly the same thing as the short formula that I had in my original Bill.
With a little tear for my simple original Bill as it emerged from Committee, I have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 2. I do not think that I need read out the words of the amendment, nor say anything other than that the amendment is desired, first, because it makes clear, which is indeed important, that the age limit of 21 applies only to this particular group of affinities which would be legalised by the Bill, and not to those that are already legalised. The table in the amendment shows what are the affinities. Your Lordships may feel that we have been a little overcautious, and that if someone wishes to marry his grandfather's widow, it is rather unnecessary to insist that both parties must be over the age of 21. So when your Lordships look at the list of affinities that are involved here, you will see that we have gone through it with very great care, not omitting grandfathers' widows, or grandfathers' divorcees, come to that.
The reason for doing this is that the 1949 Act is the umbrella under which it is desired, and would be convenient, for subsequent changes in the marriage law to be brought, since that really contains the substantive
1250
law on the solemnisation of marriage as it is at present. There is one other reason why the amendment is necessary: that it makes it clear that the provision applies only to marriages solemnised in this country. Otherwise difficulties might arise for persons not domiciled here who chose to come here in order to take advantage of a privilege which they might not have in their own countries. With those few words of explanation, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said concerning the advice which we have offered to her on the drafting of this amendment, but I should like to make it clear again that this does not mean in any way that the Government depart from their line of being neutral on the policy of this Bill. The only thing I should like to add as an explanation as to why the Government support this amendment at the technical level is that we think it is very desirable that any general alteration in the law relating to marriage, even if it is an alteration unlikely to affect many people, should be made in the main Act affecting this branch of the law in England and Wales. That, of course, is the 1949 Act; and this is what the amendment achieves. This, we believe, is the best way to change the law in this area, so that those concerned can most easily find out what the law would be if this Bill becomes an Act. That is all I would wish to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
8.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich The Lord Bishop of Norwich moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
("Marriage according to rites of the Church of England or the Church in Wales
. The following section shall be inserted after section 5 of the Marriage Act 1949:—
5A. No clergyman shall be obliged—

(a) to solemnize a marriage between persons who are of the age of twenty-one or over which would be void under section 1(1A) of this Act if either of the persons to be married were under that age; or

(b) to permit such a marriage to be solemnized in the church or chapel of which he is the minister.".")

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in previous discussions and debates on this subject in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on behalf of the Government, drew attention to a possible defect in Clause 2; namely, that it would apply to people already permitted to marry by both statute and canon law. It is the old "deceased wife's sister" situation—I quote from Hansard, Lady Day 1981, column 1253. This new draft, which I have the honour to put before your Lordships and for which I hope to win your Lordships' approval, is really the conscience clause reshaped.
It has, your Lordships will notice, no reference to the Church in Wales, even though your Lordships should know that there is strong and growing opposition

1251
to this whole Bill in the Church in Wales as in the Church in England, as in the Church in Scotland, among the Deputies of the Jewish faith and in the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Nonetheless, there is no specific reference here to the Church in Wales, for this reason. It is because Section 78(1) of the Marriage Act 1949 defines "clergyman" as
"a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church of England",
and Section 78(2) brings the Church in Wales within that definition. Thus, the Church in Wales is covered by the clause without it being necessary to refer to England and Wales specifically. I felt it right to make that point to your Lordships.
The only other alteration that the draftsmen have suggested to me is to change the word "compelled" in the original clause to "obliged", because the latter word is used in Section 8 of the 1949 Act. Your Lordships will not, therefore, want me to make a further speech on this. We have been most helped by the Home Office, and we are grateful to the Home Office for the help that they seek to give us when certain drafting defects appear. They have truly thought as I did, and we are grateful for it. I must say in passing that the Church is most grateful to Lord Belstead and his department for the assistance which has been given to us in the drafting of this particular amendment; but I propose it for the reasons that I have adumbrated, particularly the growing opposition to this whole Bill—and the Bill has had so little general publicity that, of course, the opposition is growing only slowly, because I think people had not fully realised the seriousness of it. But they are beginning to realise it now, and I am glad.
This is, therefore, a conscience clause of exceptional importance. As far as I know, the noble Baroness has not yet attempted to make official contact with the Church of England in its General Synod, nor with the official bodies of other Churches and religious organisations who are called upon and given permission to solemnise matrimony. It is particularly important, therefore, that we should give the fullest possible support to such a clause as this, which I hope and pray is now without defect so that the consciences of clergy are safeguarded.
It will also help to meet the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has made—so that people really know the seriousness of the danger of entering into a marriage through ignorance which they then find is void, with all the distress and sorrow that could come from that. So in one way I rather welcome the fact that the speeches have been so full and clear from those who are in support of this Bill, because it is helping to alert many people to the serious problems which may be raised if this Bill ever becomes an Act. With that, and without taking further time, may I have permission to move the amended Clause 2 as it appears on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, so far as I am concerned there is nothing that I should deplore more than that any clergyman of the Church of England, or any minister of any other religious body, should be
1252
compelled to act against his conscience, and therefore I most gladly accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of provisions of Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 relating to marriages within forbidden degrees
.—(1) Section 2 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 (marriage of related persons) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the words "column 1" there shall be inserted the words "of paragraphs 1 and 3"; and

(ii) after the words "column 2" there shall be inserted the words "of paragraphs 1 and 3";

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) A marriage between a man and any woman related to him in a degree specified in column 1 of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act either of whom is under the age of 21 or between a woman and any man related to her in a degree specified in column 2 of paragraph 2 of that Schedule either of whom is under the age of 21 shall be void if solemnized—

(a) in Scotland; or

(b) at a time when either party is domiciled in Scotland."; and

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "person" where secondly occurring there shall be inserted "(i)"; and

(ii) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted—"; or

(ii) where neither person is under the age of 21, in a degree not specified in paragraph 1 or 3 of that Schedule".

(2) Nothing in this section shall affect any marriage solemnized or contracted before the commencement of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is the first of a number of amendments relating to Scotland. I should again like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for having coped with the drafting of all the succeeding amendments in which Scotland is involved. So far as I am personally concerned, I should like to see this Bill become law in Scotland just as much as in this half of this island. I think that in these matters of purely personal behaviour it is very inappropriate that the boundary between England and Scotland should be the boundary between what is legal and what is not legal, marriages that are valid and marriages that would not be valid.
It is only a very few weeks ago that this House passed an amendment to a Scottish Bill which made the law relating to homosexuality in Scotland the same as it is in England. So long as the two laws were different, very unsatisfactory results followed, one being that homosexuality was still in all circumstances a crime in Scotland, but that, since it was not a crime just across the Border, the practice of prosecuting fell into disuse. It is very unsatisfactory, I think, to have on the statute book an action which is a crime but for which prosecutions are not undertaken. That, however, is merely by way of illustration, because there is no question of crime in this particular matter. I therefore wish to declare myself in favour of the principle of the application of the Bill to Scotland, and I

1253
hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will explain the detail of Amendment No. 4, which is, I think, somewhat beyond my competence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment, and I want to say why. The right reverend Prelate said just now that people have not quite realised what are the implications of this Bill. Heaven knows! Nobody in Scotland has even heard of it; it only appeared yesterday. I object in principle to just appending something to a Bill at Report stage and saying that it applies to Scotland without there being the slightest opportunity to find out whether it is wanted or what the feeling about it is at all. This is a totally wrong principle. I know it has been done previously to some extent, but I have never seen such a blatant case as this before on any occasion, and I think it is quite wrong. The noble Baroness mentioned homosexuality. In due course we adjusted it; but with consent. But there is a grave objection to adding something to an English Bill which has never been discussed. We have had no opportunity to examine it.
I have tried to glance through this. Nobody can glance through it without going to the legal library. Reading this Bill as it stands means nothing. It is unfair to expect people to know what this Bill means without the opportunity of examining it. The noble Baroness said that we have a wonderful Lord Advocate. I agree; but this is not the way to pass legislation. We do not employ a couple of Lord Advocates and dispense with Parliament. Parliament must do this; and we ought to have a reasonable opportunity of seeing what is meant. This is the wrong way to do it. On that principle, we should ask the noble Baroness not to press it. She mentions the Gretna Green situation. This is a minor matter; there is not an awful lot of damage done there.
I will say something else. I am going to ask whether the drafting is right. I am asking in this sense. If you look at Clause 5 it deals with criminal law. I do not know why in Scotland you must enter into criminal law and in England you do not. I know nothing about English law, and not much about Scots law. In the proposed new Section 13(c) one reads:
"a man and any woman related to him in the degree specified in column 1 of paragraph 2…is not incest".
What stands in paragraph 2? The son of a former wife. What is the son of a former wife? That is your son, possibly. I do not know. The law may say that this is not right if you take together paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1, but if you single out paragraph 2 that can be given a separate interpretation. It is a ludicrous interpretation; but I do not think we should accept this amendment without further examination. I asked that we should go into Committee for this purpose. The noble Baroness did not want to do so. I appreciate her reason but we should not accept this. If there is a demand—and it is clear from the quotation I made from the three major Churches that there is no demand—we are well satisfied with a quite recent Act, the 1977 Act. This whole question was closely examined then. I have no reason to believe there is not satisfaction with that Act. For those reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as we plod along with this Bill which delights some and is distasteful to others, we must respect the noble Baroness's continuing and granite firmness of purpose—which we can only admire. I think we are in a position where a beautiful and gracious lady has dimples of iron and her charm looks fair to beguile us into an enchanted quagmire. The fact is that we are now presented with a new Bill. First of all, we are presented with it without a Second Reading relevant to the matters now proposed. A later amendment which is relevent to the points arising under this amendment will change the Long Title and, if the noble Baroness gets her way on that later amendment, the Long Title will be altered radically and yet this will happen when this Bill has almost finished its course. Yet the Long Title sets out the purpose of the Bill and is what the Second Reading is supposed to be about; but we do not have a Second Reading.
Instead of a Bill of two clauses we now appear to have one of not less than five clauses and very much more than twice as long. Much of it is unintelligible. It is legislation by reference. How these poor young people spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who are in this terrible emotional difficulty at the age of 22 or so are going to wade through this Bill and discover whether they are safe or not, I do not know. More serious still, Scotland is now being brought in overtly in place of what I am bound to say was a very unsatisfactory phrase (and I do not know why we let it go through):
"in or out of England and Wales".
But these are revolutionary amendments as far as the Bill is concerned as we knew it up to a few days ago. Such revolutionary amendments on such a scale, at such a late stage, have certainly evoked surprise in many quarters and real anger in Scotland. Tampering with Scotland's marriage laws before Scottish opinion has had the time to digest the proposals and make itself heard may be a bold undertaking but hardly a wise one.
Aside from the Scottish Office, who has been consulted in time to make anything different from what is being done or proposed now? Has the Scottish Kirk been consulted? Has the Moderator of the General Assembly been consulted? Has the General Assembly's continuing structure been consulted? Has the Church and Nation Committee been consulted? And what about other facets of Scottish life? More than half of all marriages in Scotland take place within a church. That is true of the whole of the United Kingdom, but in Scotland it is well over a half. Has the Roman Catholic hierachy of Scotland been consulted? Has the Episcopal Church of Scotland been asked for its views? Has the Jewish community in Scotland been approached? What evidence is there that Scottish opinion wants this?
There is a facile argument—and I will bet anyone here tonight a pound that we shall have it from the Front Bench; and my bet will apply to only one person and not to everybody—that it is better to have the marriage laws the same North and South of the border. No doubt, in an ideal world, that would be so; but what is now suggested is that the Scottish marriage law should be adjusted to what was conceived in an

1255
English setting. Surely, it would be just as logical and fair to suggest that English law should conform with the highest standards of Scottish law. Why not? Or is it a question of numbers, that the English can vote down the Scots at any time? The argument that the purpose of this amendment is to bring Scotland into line with England is an argument which is shameful in the ears of every Scotsman. At this moment the principal Scottish newspaper is not printing. By gum! if it was, there would be columns about this. We have the Glasgow Herald, which is short of space plus the Aberdeen P and J; but at the moment the most important section of the Scottish press is silent. When Scotland is half denied at this moment its normal means of expression, it is proposed by Englishmen that Scottish law should be brought into line with the English. I would rather see English law brought in line with Scottish.
But in any case, the Scottish marriage law has done very well up to now. There has been no clamour to amend it. It has not reached my ears, and I have not met any Scotsman to whose ears the clamour has been borne. It is much to the contrary. There is evidence that the main Scottish Church leaders, who are widely divided on some points of theology—not, happily as greatly as they were and who, despite their theological differences, are greatly united in Christian love—have come out strongly indeed on this matter.
I have just had sent to me a copy of a telex—a statement put out on Monday evening. They only heard of this on Thursday night. That is pretty quick work for Scotland, where people take time to answer letters. This statement was put out on Monday evening and I quote from parts of it as it would be too long to read at length. The telex was sent to me issued jointly through the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Press Office and the Press Officer of the Scottish Episcopal Church. I quote:
"Spokesmen for three Scottish Churches, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, and the Scottish Episcopal Church have expressed concern over the social and moral implications of the Marriage (Enabling) Bill…In a joint statement issued on Monday night the right reverend Dr. William B. Johnston, Moderator of the Kirk's General Assembly, Archbishop Thomas Winning of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the right reverend Michael Hare-Duke, Bishop of St. Andrew's in the Scottish Episcopal Church, deplored the Bill's undue haste and 'the attitude which treats Scotland as an appendage to English legislation'.".
There is more of the same sort, but I shall not weary your Lordships too much. The statement goes on:
"Quite apart from the social and moral implications, which this Bill raises, as leading members of our three Churches, we deplore the attitude which…allows no time for a proper expression of opinion by the Churches or any other concerned bodies. Scottish views on family life are not necessarily the same as those South of the Border and need careful consideration".
I hope that when I lose my £1 bet to whoever is going to take it up, and we hear from the Front Bench that it is convenient that Scottish law should be brought into line with England—convenient of course to the English proposers—that will be said with a muted voice and downcast look, because such an argument is unworthy.
I want to make a very serious suggestion to the noble Baroness. It would be far better to withdraw
1256
these amendments—indeed, far better to withdraw the Bill—if she really wants to avoid a humiliating clash on Third Reading which might dash the hopes of reviving the Bill in the next Session. If she were to withdraw the Bill now she could return in the next Session with a properly drafted Bill, allowing decent time for consideration and, above all, make possible next Session a realistic Second Reading on a coherent context, which we are denied at the present time.
8.44 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I agree with every word of the magnificent speeches which the noble Earls, Lord Selkirk and Lord Lauderdale, have just made. They have taken most of my words out of my mouth. This Bill was, I believe, originally conceived by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, as a Bill applying to England and Wales only. Then, on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at Second Reading, it has been amended to apply to Scotland as well.
The Scots in the main know nothing of what is to be foisted on to them through this Bill. They have not had time. The amendment of the noble Baroness reached me only on Saturday and I do not suppose that it reached most other Scots Peers any earlier. That is four days ago. Ever since I can remember—and long before I can remember—British Governments have been in the habit of treating Scotland as a backward province of England inhabited by backward savages who dressed in tartan and woad. The result has been Scottish nationalism. This amendment is God's or the Devil's (according to your opinion) gift to the Scottish nationalists. Surely the way to deal with this situation is to see what happens to the Bill as applying to England and Wales without this amendment. Then, if it becomes law, bring in a separate Bill concerning Scotland which the Scots will have proper time to consider. My Lords, I beg all of you to oppose this amendment.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I think that I can claim that I yield to no one in respect for the Scottish legal system and its distinctive principles. There is no question of this amendment having been drafted to bring Scotland's law into line with the law in England and Wales. The present position is that no part of this Bill is the law of England and Wales nor of Scotland. The suggestion that the Bill might go ahead so far as England and Wales are concerned, and then the matter should be considered whether it should be applied to Scotland, would, I should have thought, lead to exactly the situation that is being described: Scotland being treated as an appendage of England and Wales which should follow in the light of what happens here. Surely it is right that in considering whether you should have this Bill at all your Lordships should consider whether it should apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales.
So far as the Government are concerned—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, made clear and my noble friend Lord Belstead has made clear on many occasions—they are, as is traditional in matters of this sort, entirely neutral on the merits of this Bill. This assistance to draft these amendments has been given to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, because we

1257
believe that on a matter of this sort it is important that the law of England and Wales and Scotland should be the same. However, we are not suggesting that it should be in accordance with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is proposing. That is a matter for your Lordships to decide. But we say that in a matter of this kind it would be highly inconvenient, and indeed very wrong, that the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales should be different.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Is it not the case that the laws of the two countries are different now? My noble friend has been a distinguished practitioner in the law. The laws are different now and we have got on very well.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the situation is that on the prohibited degrees arising from affinity the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales are at present the same. There is only a very marginal difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales on the prohibited degrees altogether.
As the noble Earl knows very well, there are many differences between the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales—differences in concept, structure, and so on. In some areas it may not be very important that the effects of the law should be the same. In certain other areas it is important. So far as we are concerned, the way that we see it is this: if this Bill were passed in the form in which it is proposed without what I call the Scottish amendments, couples who are permitted to marry in England and Wales as a result of the provisions of the Bill would find if either of them was domiciled in Scotland that their marriage in England and Wales would be void in Scotland by virtue of Section 2(1)(b) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred. That is one obvious difficulty. Persons domiciled in England and Wales who are entitled to marry under the Bill would not be entitled to marry in Scotland because such a marriage would be void under Section 2(1)(a) of the 1977 Act.
It seems to us that from the point of view of technical drafting these are difficulties with which it would be right for the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, to cope in her Bill and the purpose of these amendments is to enable her to do that. But I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that we are in no way committed to having this as the law of Scotland, nor are we committed to having it as the law of England and Wales. That is a matter for your Lordships and one on which the Government take no stand.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend one question? Why was not this question brought up on Second Reading in the first place? What I am objecting to is the "tagging", and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is supporting "tagging" at Report stage. I am surprised that he does.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I want to make it as clear as I can that I am not supporting anything about this Bill at all, but am pointing out what
1258
the difficulties are in relation to the Bill if some amendments of this kind are not put into it. I am not supporting this at all. It is the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and we have given her certain assistance in relation to these particular clauses because of the difficulties to which I have referred.
Before doing so, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State took the precaution of inviting the views of the three largest Churches in Scotland—the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church in Scotland—by a letter which I think went out about the 13th of March. We understood it was unlikely that the views of the Churches could be made available much before the end of April, but in the light of that situation we felt it right to provide this assistance to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, in order that this particular point should be focussed at this stage in your Lordships' House and not left treating Scotland as an appendage. We felt that your Lordships should realise now what the problem is and should have in mind that, unless you are going to create difficulties of the sort here referred to, then either there is no such Bill, or, if there is such a Bill, the Scottish position should be taken into account.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am sorry to ask my noble and learned friend to give way again because he is so gracious in giving way, but he says that the invitation went out on 13th March and the Scottish Office learned that the Churches could not formulate an opinion before 30th April. I must ask him: then why the hurry? Why not wait until they had got the consultations and then table amendments or recommend amendments to be tabled? There is no great hurry about this. What is the hurry? What my noble and learned friend has said merely underlines an unseemly haste which does not do credit to the situation. It is something which, if I may say so, is quite unlike the Scottish Office—usually the Scottish Office is very slow. Now they are rushing ahead like a racing motor car and really I cannot see why they could not have waited for the reaction of the Churches.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I remind the House that this is a Report stage and, strictly speaking, noble Lords can speak only once on an amendment although there is provision, provided it is not abused, to ask questions. Only the mover of an amendment may speak twice.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am obliged. I have taken it that these interventions were intended as questions and have tried to treat them accordingly.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, it is a long question.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, some questions are longer than others but it does not make them any less questions. So far as haste is concerned, may I say that when the principle of the Bill was approved by your Lordships on Second Reading, the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland thought it right to take some action. The Bill is not in our control. I have said more than once, and I say it again, that it is the noble Baroness's Bill and here we are at the Report stage. We thought these matters

1259
should be focussed at this stage rather than later and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Selkirk and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale have said, prominent leaders of the Churches have made their views plain. Your Lordships have these views now and possibly the tabling of these amendments by the noble Baroness has brought this matter very sharply to their attention so that the matter of whether this should be the law in the United Kingdom is one which is now being actively considered in Scotland.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for giving way and I hesitate to intervene in his speech along with others, but I wonder whether he has considered the fact that your Lordships were forewarned of the possible need to consider amendments of this Bill because of the differences between Scottish law and that of England and Wales, during the Second Reading speech by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on 25th February last. The noble Lord referred specifically to the possible need for amendments, and indeed he referred not only to the marriage laws but to the law of incest as it differs in Scotland from the law in England and Wales as well. So I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would not agree that it is the case that your Lordships were forewarned about these matters long since and were also forewarned about the possible need to consider matters of this kind as long ago as February 1979, at an earlier stage of one of my noble friend's Bills.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, if I might answer that question, certainly I was well aware that my noble friend Lord Belstead drew to your Lordships' attention on Second Reading the question with regard to the effect of this Bill as distinguishing the position in Scotland from that in England and Wales. These amendments, as I think is clear from what has gone before, have certainly focused attention on this point in a way in which my noble friend's speech on Second Reading, with all respect to him, does not appear to have done—because the addresses by my noble friends on the matter have been fuller perhaps on this occasion than they were at Second Reading.
May I also say a word or two about the method of draftsmanship that has been used?—because it has been suggested that these are amendments by reference. The situation is that in this respect the Scottish legal draftsmen have endeavoured to follow the recommendations of the committee of my noble friend Lord Renton on the Preparation of Legislation, and the idea has been to prepare amendments which fit into the existing statute. Therefore, if they became law the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, as amended, would be a free-standing statute with these amendments in, and the young couples who have been referred to would have the whole of the relevant provisions in front of them in the statute's revised form. Therefore, from the point of view of drafting, I think that these amendments, with the user in view, are very much drafted in the proper way.
The only other thing I should like to say is that my noble and learned friend Lord Selkirk drew attention to Amendment No. 5 and its effect on the law of
1260
incest. Perhaps I might take the opportunity of seeking to explain that in due course rather than dealing with it now, but it seems necessary to have regard to the effect of this Bill on the law of incest and to make some provision for the avoidance of doubt in that direction. Perhaps, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, I should emphasise that, although I have become involved in this discussion in a way that appears defensive of the amendments, I certainly do not wish to do that. These are the noble Baroness's amendments, which have been prepared with our assistance—
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down finally, may I ask him one question? He told us, I think, that on 13th March the Scottish Office wrote to the Established Church of Scotland. Could he, or his noble colleague who is sitting beside him, let us know the date—because it so closely affects the Established Church of England—on which the Government wrote to the general secretary of the Church's General Synod, to inform him of this Bill and to consider the advice of the Church of England?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry, my Lords. I do not have the information, and I think that my noble friend also does not have it at hand. I think it may have been anticipated that, because of the right reverend Prelates' position in this House, differing from the position of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the right reverend Prelates would know about the Bill, without the necessity of the Home Office communicating. But that might not be the explanation.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I would remind the noble and learned Lord that the Church of England is not as prelatical a Church. It is now a very synodical Church.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, in case the intervention of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale cannot be construed as a question, I, speaking for the first time on this amendment, should like to say that I feel as he did in his question, and inquire why we could not have waited after 30th April. I feel rather as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, felt on the subject of this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I may, I should like to ask my noble friends on the Front Bench, or somewhere else, this question. All the arguments which have been put for including an amendment relating to Scotland would, surely, apply equally to Northern Ireland. I am a little puzzled as to why that has not been included also in this Bill, for the same tidying-up reasons.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I should like to make one or two points. I consulted the Government Front Bench about amendments that would be necessary, and was advised that the amendments relating to Scotland would be more conveniently introduced at Report stage than at Committee stage. I was prepared to have them at either stage. That is why the amendments have appeared at Report stage.

1261
I had to wait upon them for the drafting of the amendments.
I should also like to say that the law relating to marriages with relatives of one's spouse was extended for the first time in 1907. It was then extended in 1930 or 1931 and extended again in 1960. On each of those occasions, Scotland was included with England and, so far as I know, without any protest at all. My Bill sought to add the two outstanding lines of affinities, to which the prohibition of marriage still obtains. All these others were acceptable in Scotland and it was, I think, quite reasonable to assume that these extensions would also be acceptable. Therefore, I merely asked that I might have advice about the drafting of the appropriate amendments.
9.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS

Blease, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Northfield, L.

Brockway, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Hale, L.

Robbins, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McGregor of Durris, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barrington, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

de Clifford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Norwich, Bp.

Faithfull, B.

Saltoun, Ly. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gainford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Greenway, L.

Vickers, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Law of incest in Scotland
. For section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1938 (amendment of the law as to incest) there shall be substituted the following section—
"13. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that sexual intercourse between—

(a) a man and any woman related to him in a degree other than one specified in column 1 of Schedule 1 to the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977;

(b) a woman and any man related to her in a degree other than one specified in column 2 of that Schedule;

(c) a man and any woman related to him in a degree specified in column 1 of paragraph 2 of that Schedule, neither of whom is under the age of 21;

1262

(d) a woman and any man related to her in a degree specified in column 2 of paragraph 2 of that Schedule, neither of whom is under the age of 21,

is not incest.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. It is chiefly concerned with the law of incest in Scotland which differs from the law of incest in England. I do not propose myself to go into details, as my learned colleagues will doubtless do so better. However, I should like to express my regret that I cannot deal with it, because I ought to be an expert. Not so long since I received a letter from one of the many students who ask me to assist them in the preparation of their theses for their degrees. It is true that this student was of Asian origin and that therefore his command of the English language may not have been perfect. However, the letter began:
"Dear Lady Wootton, I hear you are very much well versed in incest".
On that ground I feel that I ought to apologise twice over for not dealing with the details of this new clause, although I have studied it. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before other noble Lords speak perhaps I might have an answer to the question which I asked in relation to the last amendment: Why, if all this argument is advanced for amending the law of Scotland, is there no provision in the Bill for amending the law of Northern Ireland? It seems to me that exactly the same arguments apply, particularly over the "Reverse Gretna" argument. I do not see why Northern Ireland is not given treatment equally as unfair and unreasonable as that for Scotland.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: The difference between statutes that relate only to England and Wales and statutes that relate also to Northern Ireland is very substantial. Each case is considered on its merits, but normally new statutes of this kind are not extended to Northern Ireland, my Lords.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, forgive me for wearying your Lordships late in the evening, but this is an even more important amendment than the last one, and although I take the point that it may not be entirely proper for an English Prelate to talk much about Scotland I must remind the House that on Second Reading the noble Baroness made a very clear commitment on this matter. I quote from Hansard of the 25th February. The noble Baroness said:
"It is important to emphasise that this [Bill] has nothing to do with incest. I have been accused by people who ought to know better (since they are apparently in charge of a local radio station) of doing propaganda for the legislation of incest. There is nothing in this Bill which affects the present law about incest".—[Official Report, 25/2/81, col. 1115.]
That is the clear statement of the proposer of this Bill on the 25th February, which appears to be entirely negatived by this amendment. Therefore it seems that the amendment should be not only resisted but that it is apparently improper.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness was complaining a little earlier that at a later hour of the night her memory sometimes forsakes her; but I think she is jolly good and I should like to give her

1263
three cheers for the way she battles on. However, having said that, I must also say that no doubt she has now learned that problems worthy of attack have a knack of hitting back. The tabling of this amendment confers one positive, if countervailing advantage, which is that by seeking to amend and ease the Scottish law on incest she has now focused on the heart of the matter. I was going to read out the quotation which my noble friend the right reverend Prelate has just read out, so that need not be repeated. The noble Baroness did say that there was nothing about incest, and she did say that her opponents and, by implication, unfair critics were accusing her, as it were, of dabbling in incest and of legalising it through this Bill. Now, of course, she is forced to admit that the crime of incest does lie at the heart of what she is trying to do. The tables of kindred and affinity in fact mark the outside boundaries enabling the desexualised circle within which sexual relations are legally incestuous or sexual desires are morally incestuous in their approach in the wider sense.
Therefore this Bill is about easing those boundaries, and, no matter on what eminent advice she is acting, by proposing to ease the Scottish law of incest, when there is not even any known desire in Scotland for this to be done, her case that the Bill has nothing to do with incest collapses altogether. So this is a Bill about incest, which is a nasty subject. It is about pretending that some of what was incest hitherto is no longer to be so. As a Bill about incest it is a Bill about shame. My Lords,
"Man is a beast when shame stands off him
Modesty once banished, never returns".
Once again I would appeal to the noble Baroness, unless she wants to go down to a really humiliating defeat on Third Reading, to reconsider what she is doing. The Divisions tonight have shown that the two sides are almost neck and neck, and since we have had since only last Thursday we have not had time to rally the support that her noble friends spontaneously give on her side; but that will not be so if the Bill goes to a Third Reading.
So I appeal to the noble Baroness, if she wants to see this Bill get a fair run, that she should withdraw at least this amendment or, better still, withdraw the Bill, to come back in the new Session in the autumn and allow us to have a proper Second Reading on a proper Bill, but not to inflict this monstrosity upon us just now. If the noble Baroness does not withdraw this amendment I hope noble Lords will support me in the Division Lobby. We should like to remember the noble Baroness—and I am sure we shall—as a great and gallant champion of sober and farsighted reform, but on the showing of this Bill I am afraid we might have to remember her as one born to make chaos cosmic.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this matter concerning Scottish law, and I do not intend to do so on the details of Scottish law because those, I am quite sure, will be explained to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who is so familiar with Scottish law. But I do feel it is necessary to intervene to make this one point. I think that those noble Lords who
1264
have criticised my noble friend for the reference she made in her Second Reading speech on 25th February this year about the question of incest do so, if not unfairly, certainly misguidedly, because, if I may say so, it is perfectly clear from the context in which she was speaking that she was referring to the circumstances as they apply under the law at the moment in England and Wales. Indeed the Bill at that stage, as it then stood, said, and the Bill which is before your Lordships at the moment still says, that it does not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I do not want to weary your Lordships by making an extensive quotation from my noble friend's speech, but I do think it is necessary just to refer to this part. She said in her speech, as noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned:
"There is nothing in this Bill which affects the present law about incest".
But she went on to say this:
"Incest, as your Lordships know…"—
I leave out some words which are unnecessary—
"is a crime carrying a very heavy penalty. It is only applicable to persons having sexual intercourse with persons who are blood related. Persons who are not blood related, even if they were stepfather and stepdaughter, and who engage in sexual intercourse are open to no legal action whatever; and they can go on like that (as the law now stands) just as much as can any two persons who are totally unconnected in any way by matrimony or otherwise—total strangers".—[Official Report, 25/2/81; col. 1115.]
It is perfectly clear—and I do feel that it is necessary to emphasise this once again—that the context in which my noble friend Lady Wootton was speaking was that of the law so far as it presently stands in relation to England and Wales, and relating to blood relations.
There is the further point to which I have already referred on an earlier amendment, which was made in his Second Reading speech on the same day by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the Government, where he said at col. 1139:
"I am told that it would be necessary to amend the Scottish law on incest, which is somewhat more extensive than that obtaining in England and Wales".
So I do, with great respect, feel that the position was made quite clear to your Lordships on that occasion.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for clearing up that point. May I appeal to noble Lords to make their speeches as short as possible. I have myself been ill and I am not able to continue very much longer. Most of the remaining amendments are in fact consequential. If speeches could be shortened, I should be grateful.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I shall certainly try to respond to that invitation. The situation is that under Scottish law sexual intercourse between certain people related by affinity, for example stepparents and their stepchildren, is within the crime of incest. Yet people of that category will be permitted to marry, provided they are at least 21, if this Bill is approved with the provisions that have already been discussed. While it is unlikely that a court would hold that anyone who marries in pursuance of the Bill would be guilty of incest in consummating the

1265
marriage, there is more room for doubt as to the position of people who have sexual intercourse when not married. I am sure the House would agree that this is a matter with which, if the Bill is to apply to Scotland, the Bill should properly cope.
The principle of this clause was previously given statutory effect in Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1938 in relation to the alterations in the prohibited degrees that had been made by the statutes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred earlier. The new clause which has been drafted would amend the 1938 Act to square with the law of marriage in Scotland as it would be if this Bill were passed. This seems to be a proper consequence to take into account. Again, I am not commending it; I am simply saying to your Lordships that this is an issue with which the House requires to deal if it is to consider this matter properly.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I might ask him a question. Do I understand from Section 13(c) that at the age of 20 it is incest and at the age of 21 it is marriage? Is that the right interpretation of Section 13(c)?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as I understand the position, the Bill as amended allows people in the particular relationship with which the Bill deals to marry, provided that they have attained the age of 21; that is to say, if they are 21 years or over. The provision with regard to incest just mirrors that and says that they are permitted, if you like, to have sexual intercourse without being guilty of incest if they are within these degrees but are 21 or over. So it is a mirror image of the provision with regard to the power to marry.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I take it that under the age of 21 it is incest?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, yes, for these people so far as it would be incest now; because under the age of 21 they are not empowered by the Bill to marry.
Lord Boston of Faversham: In Scotland, my Lords.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, they are not empowered by the Bill to marry and as regards Scotland it would be incest, and therefore, the provision of the Bill requires to deal with it in that sense.
Lord Torphichen: My Lords, that is what is commonly termed a "lash-up".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short Title, citation and extent]:
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("1981") in line 25 and insert ("1981.
1266
( ) This Act and the Marriage Acts 1949 to 1959, the Marriage (Wales and Monmouthshire) Act 1962 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970 may be cited together as the Marriage Acts 1949 to 1981.
( ) This Act and the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 may be cited together as the Marriage (Scotland) Acts 1977 and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on what we have already passed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is passed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is an amendment for the Act not to come into force until two months from the date on which it is passed. The reason for that is administrative convenience in order to enable the registrars throughout the country to be informed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("Scotland or")
In the Title, line 1, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 2 and insert ("make further provision with regard to the marriage of persons related by affinity; to amend section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1938; and for connected purposes.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc because they are both consequential on what we have already passed. With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

  BRIXTON RIOTS: BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  BRIXTON RIOTS: BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES: REVIEW
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES: REVIEW
  AL HALAL MEATS LIMITED
  AL HALAL MEATS LIMITED
  THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: LICENSING POLICY
  THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: LICENSING POLICY
  HEATHROW AND GATWICK: NIGHT FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS
  HEATHROW AND GATWICK: NIGHT FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS