Sitting of 28 January 1981

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

    British Railways (Investment)
    Mr. Stottasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will estimate the value to the private sector of those outstanding British Railways investment proposals which are currently awaiting his agreement, in particular rail electrification in East Anglia, new signalling in the West of England and new Jumbo ferries.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Transport what investment provision he intends to make for British Railways.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have maintained the ceiling on investment at the level set by the last Government, that is, £325 million in 1980 survey prices. The estimated value to the private sector of the board's investment overall is 75 per cent to 80 per cent. The House will wish to know that I am today approving the important scheme for resignalling in the West of England. This project, which is estimated to cost £28 million, is another big step in modernising the passenger railway and will produce faster and more reliable rail travel to and from the South-West.
    In addition, I have told the British Railways board that I welcome in principle the proposals for new train ferries. I hope that this can go ahead this year, but it is dependent on progress to recovery in the freight business. The electrification proposals in East Anglia were submitted in November and are still being studied.
    Mr. Stott: We welcome the Secretary of State's proposals about the West of England electrification. Is he aware that the package of proposals is worth more than £50 million to the private sector? Is he further aware that the companies in the private sector are very anxious to get this business because they want to maintain their levels of employment? When will he announce that he intends to back British Rail's proposals and introduce this package of measures immediately?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened very hard to what I said. I have just told the House about the proposals. A decision can now be reached on the time scale. Those are the proposals on which I am making an announcement. I am sure that the private sector will welcome what I have said, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister note the comments in paragraph 30 of the last annual report of the chief inspector of railways, in which he expresses concern about the deterioration of maintenance standards due to British Railways' problems with the permanent way? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that? What does he intend to do about the deteriorating standard of British Railways' diesel multiple units? Is he aware that many branch line feeder services are experiencing an increasing rate of failure—for example, between Keighley and Leeds—due to the age of the stock and the difficulties of maintaining it?
    Mr. Fowler: Obviously, we appreciate that British Rail has problems, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. I remind him that the investment ceiling to which we are working is, in real terms, exactly the same as that set down by the previous Government, namely,£325 million per year. In that, there is a very substantial programme of building new vehicles. Track renewal, of course, is extra to the investment ceiling. A great deal of resources is therefore being devoted to British Rail. I think that anyone who looks at the facts will agree with that.
    Mr. Neale: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the gratitude that will be felt in the West Country for his part in the efforts to improve passenger rail services to that part of the country, and also the great pleasure with which his announcement today will be received, in reaffirming his intentions for the West Country service?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that both sides of the House would wish to welcome this important measure, because the improvements will help passenger services between Taunton, Exeter, Yeovil and Torbay. Moreover, some of the signalling equipment that we are replacing was installed 70 years ago.
    Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is wide agreement in the country at large that further investment in British Rail would be very wise and opportune, not only in electrification and in the replacement of DMUs, but in a wide range of other measures? Is this not just the kind of constructive intervention that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister keeps talking about?
    Mr. Fowler: Again I remind the hon. Gentleman of what was announced a few moments ago. Of course, we accept that. But what the hon. Gentleman has to accept is that the kind of resources that we are making available are very substantial, and, as I have said, the investment ceiling has not been cut by this Government. It has been maintained in very difficult economic circumstances.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Delwyn Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with progress in improving rural bus services since the provisions of the Transport Act 1980 have been implemented.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Yes, Sir. I welcome the range of transport initiatives now being taken in this area to counter the decline of the past 20 years, and will continue to encourage them.
    Mr. Williams: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a bus is becoming a rare sight in Mid-Wales—almost

    909
    as rare as the red kite? Is he aware, further, that many small bus operators on market town routes are being squeezed out of business by local authorities giving school transport contracts to State operators?
    Mr. Clarke: The bus has been a declining feature in rural areas for many years. That is why we legislated last year to make it easier for new operators to enter the business and easier for less conventional forms of transport to be developed. I hope that local authorities in Wales will join many local authorities in England in collaborating with my Department in looking for ways to bring services to scattered and isolated areas.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that some of the provisions of the Act to which he referred, namely those which allow private operators to seek to cream off traffic in urban areas, will only redound to the detriment of the already inadequate services in rural areas such as Cumbria?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that there is any evidence that that has happened as a result of the Act. Nor do I believe that there is any sensible evidence that it will happen. What my hon. Friend the Member of Montgomery (Mr. Williams) referred to was the ability now for new operators to enter this area and to provide new services for the public, competing sometimes on fares and quality. That can only be to the advantage of the travelling public. It will change the status quo, sometimes in a very beneficial direction.
    Mr. Iain Mills: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider taking special measures to encourage parish councils to consider the provision of certain services?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that we are closely involved, through the agency of some counties, with parish councils because they are a valuable way of spreading information about what can be done with unorthodox transport such as car sharing, taxi sharing, community buses, and so on. I agree that parish councils are very well placed to be in touch with real local demand.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in the real world, in rural areas such as Cornwall, of the 80-odd bus routes that still exist in the county only three currently make a profit? Why does he believe that the private operator will move in a substantial way to take up the slack?
    Mr. Clarke: Private bus services in Cornwall cannot be attributed to the Act. The Act came into force only in 1980. Revenue support is still required, which is why we continue to give grants to counties to provide revenue support. The Act enables counties to make more sensible use of their resources and to bring on new operators and new resources where, perhaps, they might be better than the old declining, conventional, bus services.

    Heavy Lorries
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet reached any conclusion on the recommendations contained in the Armitage report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has now received following the publication of the "Report of the Inquiry into Lorries, People and the Environment."
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received following the publication of the "Report of the Inquiry into Lorries, People and the Environment."
    Mr. Fowler: I have received a considerable number of representations. As I told the House, last night's debate was not the final word on this matter, and I shall welcome future representations, which the Government will take into account in reaching decisions.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to act as quickly on railway electrification as he appears to be acting on the Armitage report?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that anyone who listened to last night's debate will say that I was acting all that quickly on the Armitage report. I think that both reports are in exactly the same position: the Government are currently looking at both, and no decision has been made on either.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is a need for a clear indication from the Government on where they stand on Armitage? Is he aware that the haulage industry, the commercial vehicle manufacturing industry and the vehicle body-building industry want desperately to know what are the Government's intentions? Will my right hon. Friend therefore assure the House that there will be some Government statement of policy before too long?
    Mr. Fowler: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Uncertainty would be harmful for the vehicle and trailer manufacturers. Clearly, we should try to reach decisions as soon as we can. However, I want to fulfil the other obligation, which is to have as full consultation on this as I can, because I know of the great public concern and the concern in the House about this matter.
    Mr. Prescott: In view of the BBC's parliamentary report of last night's debate on Armitage, which reported the Under-Secretary of State as suggesting that this House would have a further opportunity to express its view on the proposals for heavy lorries, does this mean that there will be a free vote, as there was in 1972, enabling this House to express its opinion on whether to accept heavy lorries, or will the Government just bring forward their own proposals?
    Mr. Fowler: I did not hear the BBC report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but what my hon. and learned Friend said last night was that, when regulations come forward, clearly the House will have the right to debate that question and will debate it. However, we are jumping several stages forward. I should like to finish the consultation period before moving to the next stage.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Armitage report is very clear about the environmental damage done by heavy lorries in a number of parts of the country? In respect of my own constituency, this damage is self-evident. When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to announced at long last the re-routeing of the A13 which will bring relief to Rainham village?
    Mr. Fowler: I hope to announce the re-routeing of the A13 as soon as possible. I agree that there are severe environmental problems which have been caused by the heavy lorry. That is why we want to take as much time as

    911
    we can—while clearly not making the debate go on for ever—in coming to reasonable conclusions upon which both sides of the House can agree.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: During the discussions, will the Minister be prepared to accept approaches made by those interested in transport services who allege that some lorries coming here from the Continent could not pass the MOT test but come in here with many faults and are not properly tested? Will he look into the problem, because this is also a danger to life and to the environment?
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about lorries coming into the country, I can tell him that in October we had a blitz on lorries coming in to South and East Coast ports. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a further blitz campaign will be taking place very shortly.
    Mr. Shersby rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The question tabled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has been grouped with question No. 3. Our theory is that a supplementary question arises out of the Minister's answer, which the hon. Gentleman did not hear. However, I shall call him.
    Mr. Shersby: I apologise for being late. It was due to unavoidable snags with traffic. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me.
    Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, when he is considering this difficult and sensitive matter, he will have regard to the views of the residents' and tenants' federation in my constituency to the effect that heavy lorries should be prohibited from residential areas and, secondly, that the M25 motorway should be completed as soon as humanly possible?
    Mr. Fowler: I am certain that the M25 is the number one road transport priority of this Government. It is a matter of agreement throughout the House that it should be completed as soon as possible. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, certainly we shall, through him, take account of any representations his constituents care to make.

    Main Line Electrification
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the joint working party on main line electrification.
    Mr. Bagierasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the joint working party on main line electrification.
    Mr. Fowler: I expect the report to be published very shortly.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vast industrial benefits which will accrue from British Rail's proposals for the electrification of the main line? Is he aware also of the benefits to industry, especially to the cable manufacturers which produce the cables for railway electrification contracts, since several hundred redundancies have been notified recently within the boundaries of my neighbour's constituency, affecting many of my constituents? Will the Minister take action to do something about bringing forward electrification contracts on the railways?
    Mr. Fowler: As I said, the report itself is due to be published. I hope that it will be published literally in the
    912
    next few days. The Government will then want to consider it. I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman said. In that consideration, we shall want to take account of the effect of electrification not only on the railway system but on the railway manufacturing industry in general. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a very fair and a very good point.
    Mr. Bagier: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great importance that BRB and the three railway trade unions attach to this matter? He will no doubt hear that at first hand when he meets them tomorrow. Does he not accept that in view of the clapped-out 25-year-old diesel multiple units, a quick statement of intention to go ahead with electrification would be useful for the railway system? Will he give an undertaking that he will use all his endeavours to convince the Cabinet of the desirability of spending that money?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly try to give the House a decision as soon as I can. I understand that it is important for the future of the whole railway industry, and it will be considered by the Government in that light.
    Mr. Adley: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that some of us feel that electrification of British Rail is a far greater national priority than that for which twice the sum of money is being poured into BL? Is he aware that the loss of Sir Michael Edwardes would be less hard to bear than the loss of Sir Peter Parker? Does he not recognise that improvement of the nations's infrastructure should be a vital criterion to be taken into account when assessing where public investment is to be made?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not wish to enter into the first part of my hon. Friend's question, except to say that I have the greatest confidence in Sir Peter Parker. I also have the greatest admiration for Sir Michael Edwardes. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we shall bear in mind what he says.
    Mr. Cowans: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is no good having electrification if at the same time we do not have the railway track? Is he aware that British Rail has already announced the first 20 miles of line to be closed because of lack of funds for track repairs? Is he further aware that at present an additional 3,000 miles of track fall into that category? Is the Minister prepared to do anything about that, because if he does not, he may find that he is in favour of electrification but has no track?
    Mr. Fowler: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is unanswerable, and for once I agree with him. The issue of electrification and renewal is one of the issues about which I shall talk with the Rail Council tomorrow. I welcome the opportunity of talking, not only with the chairman of the board but with the three rail unions on the future of the rail system.

    Transport Supplementary Grant
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Transport what reductions in bus services were contained in the submissions made to him by county transport authorities for the purpose of determining their approved transport expenditure for the calculation of the 1981–82 transport supplementary grant; what is his best estimate of the extent to which those reductions arise from the operation of the licensing provisions of the Transport Act

    913
    1980; and to what extent they arise from the fare increase brought about by the reduction of transport supplementary grant for 1980–81.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: County councils explain their policies to the Government as the basis for our decisions on transport supplementary grant, but the detail of these policies is for councils themselves. The Transport Act will help by giving low cost operators more chance to compete in running bus services. I have no evidence to suggest that the Act has caused or will cause any reductions in services whatever.
    Mr. Booth: Does not the Under-Secretary of State accept that all the evidence that I have is of reduced services and reduction in staff on bus services? If he is right, will he give one single example of a metropolitan or even a shire area in this country which has been able to organise improved stage carriage services under the transport supplementary grant regime and the licensing provisions introduced by his Government?
    Mr. Clarke: By way of examples of new services, I can think of a new bus service between Grimsby and Saltfleet in Lincolnshire, the five busmen at Bexhill who have opened up a new service, and there are two one-man operators in Leicestershire, one operating to Lutterworth and one operating to other small villages. Many councils throughout the country are working with us in planning new services. We are distributing revenue support to the counties, roughly at the same level as previously, and they are now in a better position to make sensible use of it. The decline of bus services that took place last summer took place under the old regime, which accelerated that decline rather than halting it.
    Mr. Dobson: Does not the Under-Secretary of State agree that, despite the myriad researches by the 13,000 civil servants at his disposal, he has apparently been able to identify only three new bus services, which spring from the allegedly revolutionary changes in the 1980 Act? Does he not further agree that, in view of his answer to this question, his answer to the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) was misleading?
    Mr. Clarke: We have a limited amount of time at our disposal, and a tour round the bus routes of England would probably encroach on the time of the House. The market for bus services has changed, and the ability of county councils to respond to it has changed. We shall now have a better ability to get value for money from the taxpayers' money that goes into bus services, and a better ability to match those services to real public demand.

    Experimental Vehicle Projects
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways in order to discuss progress on the experimental vehicle projects.
    Mr. Fowler: The lightweight railbus is an important development which I shall want to discuss fully with the chairman. I believe that the railbus could certainly prove to be a major innovation for the board's rural services.
    Mr. Heddle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that that will hasten the
    914
    introduction of low-cost rail service, particularly in rural areas in the West Midlands and the Birmingham commuter belt?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not wish to regionalise the matter, in spite of my constituency interest in it. The new lightweight railbus is cheaper than the diesel multiple unit, and a new DMU would cost twice as much as the new experimental bus.
    Mr. Maxton: In terms of experimental vehicle projects, will the Secretary of State say when the advanced passenger train will finally be introduced on the Glasgow to London line? Is he aware that I appreciate that it is not supposed to fully experimental, but the time that it has taken would imply that it is?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a question for the British Railways Board. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are three prototypes. It is up to the board to make a statement on when the service will be introduced.
    Mr. Peter Mills: While I welcome these new railbuses, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is very important to test them thoroughly in hilly areas such as the South-West of England? Will he see what can be done to introduce these experimental railbuses on the Exeter to Barnstaple line and the Plymouth—Bere Alston line? Is he aware that that would give them all the experimental work they needed?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for that suggestion. One of the proposals that we are considering at present is a demonstration project on a rural line, which would include not only the vehicle, but improvements in signalling and modernising the level crossings to see whether we can simplify the procedure, with the aim of achieving a more cost-effective service. That is the way forward, rather than some of the experiments that have been carried out in the past.

    London (Public Transport)
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for his Department to study the impact of new investment on public transport in London.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We already do so when allocating transort supplementary grant to the Greater London Council, considering proposals submitted by the British Railways Board and drawing up our own trunk road programme.
    Mr. Dobson: When the Under-Secretary's staff are studying the problem of capital investment in Greater London, will they bear in mind the comparison between the London Transport system and that of the Paris Metro, which has had four times as much capital invested in it over the last 10 years, and as a consequence has had one-fifth increase in user, compared with one-fifth decrease in user on London Transport? Is he aware that over that period, London Transport fares have risen more than four fold, while in Paris the real cost of travelling on the Metro has halved over the last 20 years?
    Mr. Clarke: Twenty-five per cent. of the total TSG goes to London now, half of which is spent on public transport. Paris obviously has an excellent system but, as I understand it, the French Government are trying to put up fares to recoup some of the losses which are incurred

    915
    on the system, and which are being carried by taxation on the employers in the capital. It is often suggested that we should have the same system here. We have a tax on employers in the capital—it is called rates. They are already rather high, and there is a limit to the amount of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that can go into a system in any one city.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend say why London Transport costs so much to run, bearing in mind that when British Rail offered its cheap fares to pensioners and the retired of £1 return to any place in the United Kingdom, it cost my constituents more to get from Euston station to Westminster than it did to get from Macclesfield to Euston and from Euston to Macclesfield?
    Mr. Clarke: The GLC, not the Government, is responsible for London Transport, and neither body has control over fares policies. The British Rail offer was a special one-month offer, but we encourage offers of that kind. We are anxious to get London Transport and British Rail to act together better in arranging their fare structures, and I am sure that anything which my right hon. Friend and the GLC can do to encourage their respective client authorities to improve matters will be done.

    Public Service Obligation
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will raise the public service obligation to the level required to meet the obligations placed on the British Railways Board by the Railways Act 1974, in order to maintain a passenger service at a level comparable to that provided in 1974.
    Mr. Fowler: I have already announced that the ceiling on the public service obligation grant in 1981 will be £678 million, which is £23 million higher than previously planned.
    Miss Richardson: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate—I cannot believe that he does—the strong feelings of hundreds of thousands of commuters in London and the South-East about the deteriorating services for travel to and from work in London? In spite of the increase which he announced, will he consider the matter yet again and recognise that the present provision will not be sufficient to improve the services and remove the frustration and the hardship felt by so many thousands?
    Mr. Fowler: Obviously, I appreciate the difficulties in general and, in particular, I appreciate the difficulties for commuters. But I must point out that we are at present spending almost £2 million a day on direct passenger support for the railways, and a vast amount of resources is going into the railways. I believe that, given everything else that is happening in the economy today, anyone who looks at the situation objectively will recognise that the railways have a fair deal. Perhaps the hon. Lady will consider also that the external finance limit for the coming year has been accepted by the board of British Rail as being a realistic EFL.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: If we cannot get improved services, as we now have "Mr. Ten per cent." presiding over 10 per cent. unemployed, why are the trains so filthy dirty? Is it not possible to wash them? They used to be washed once upon a time. If cattle instead of human beings were treated so badly, all the various associations would be working for them and there would be an outcry.
    Mr. Fowler: I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to the chairman of British Rail. It is obviously one of the complaints, and I think that on the general issue, if not on the particular, the hon. Gentleman will have the sympathy of both sides of the House.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: What constraints are there on how the public service grant can be spent by British Rail? In particular, will my right hon. Friend say whether the £23 million increase for this year has been earmarked to cover wage rises?
    Mr. Fowler: No, the intention for the £23 million extra this year is to help to maintain the fare level for a full 12 months. In other words, we have sought to help British Rail to maintain the fare level over the next 12 months instead of having two increases in the space of 12 months, which is obviously a blow to anyone using the commuter services.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. To hold the balance, I shall call one more hon. Member from the Government side.
    Mr. Cockeram: Since, by choice the majority of passengers and the bulk of freight travel by road rather than by rail, will the Minister subject British Rail to the same controls and cuts that the British road programme has had to suffer?
    Mr. Fowler: Both the road programme and the support which we have been giving to the railways have obviously come within the same general constraint. There is a balance to be struck, and I think that we have that balance about right at the moment.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept the conclusions of his own Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the London and South-East rail services, which showed that the decline in services was due to the severe financial constraints of Governments in the past few years, and that productivity alone would not pay for the deficiency? If that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman now look at the investment constraints on the services, as he specifically excluded examination of these constraints from the commission's inquiry?
    Mr. Fowler: That is one of the proposals made by the monopolies and Mergers Commission. We shall be talking to British Rail—indeed, I am talking to the British Railways Board—about how the proposals can be put into effect.

    Highway Code
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to make the Highway Code more easily available to the public.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The code is already widely available. Each year, well over 1 million copies are sold, and over 1½ million copies are distributed to all applicants for a first provisional driving licence and to children enrolling for the national cycling proficiency scheme.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a general view that the document is not as widely available as it ought to be, largely because there is a restricted outlet for it and it is not obtainable through

    917
    enough shops, such as stationers and others? Will my hon. and learned Friend think in terms of making it available perhaps through garages or in some other way?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly look into that interesting suggestion. The Highway Code is in fact available on sale through some of the leading national chains—I believe that W. H. Smith and Menzies carry it—but we shall see whether there is any need to improve the outlets. I fear that what happens is that very few people try to get it or read it once they have got through the driving test.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider adding a supplement to the Highway Code covering the deplorable practice of those drivers in the outside lanes of motorways who flash those in front of them who are themselves at the maximum speed limit allowed? Will he consider whether something could be done about this, in view of the great danger created by the absolute maniacs who, often in appalling weather conditions, pursue that practice?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall obviously take note of my right hon. Friend's strong views. Sooner or later the code will have to be revised and brought up to date, and I am sure that there will be many suggestions for improvements and inclusions in it. The practice which my right hon. Friend describes is obviously most undesirable.

    Coach Safety
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in formulating regulations for strengthening coach roofs, improving coach braking systems, providing emergency exits and generally in the setting and implementation of coach safety standards.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Our proposals for stronger coach roofs have been well received internationally and should be finalised later this year. More stringent provisions for emergency exits become mandatory for new coaches from October this year, and changes to braking requirements should be made within the next few months.
    Mr. Roberts: I welcome what the Minister says, but does he recognise that this matter has been under consideration for a long time and many people have been killed or injured in coach accidents in the intervening period? Will he assure the House at least that he will try to speed things up even at this stage?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent in pressing me on the question, and every time I answer we have gone a little bit further. We have almost got the new emergency exits, and we are about to have the better braking requirements. There is a difficulty in international negotiations, but the United Kingdom has taken the lead in all this. There are advantages for everybody if we can reach international agreement, which I think we are very near to now, on the important matter of roof strength.

    M25
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with progress on the construction of the M25.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: More than half the M25 is now open or under construction, and I am satisfied that the road is going ahead as fast as possible within the constraints of the statutory procedures.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. and learned Friend take it that all of us representing constituencies in London and the South-East are grateful for the special priority which his Department and the Government have placed on the construction of this road? Is he aware that constituents of mine are concerned that there are rumours about delay in completion of the section between Potters Bar and the A10 and from the A10 to the M11? Has he any comments to make on that?
    Mr. Clarke: There are no delays whatever on that stretch of the M25, I am glad to say, and those parts which are not under construction now will be under construction very soon.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Kent would much prefer the missing link of the M20 to be completed before the Darenth Valley section of the M25, as there is already—or in a few days there will be—a continuous motorway link M20-M26-M25, and it therefore seems to us daft to spend money on the Darenth Valley project when the soakaway, if I may so call it, to the East on the M20 seems to be obstructed, without any date for completion?
    Mr. Clarke: I am looking forward to my visit to Maidstone, at my hon. Friend's invitation, to see the problem on the ground, but perhaps I may give him my preliminary view before I hear what he then says. The M25 orbital route has a very high priority. A lot has been done to the route to Folkestone, so that most of the A20 will be the M20 very soon, and the part between Maidstone and Ashford is able to cope with the traffic for a few more years. But it is only postponed, and on my visit I shall discuss with my hon. Friend when we may be able to recommence it.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Under-Secretary accept that the almost total priority in motorway terms which is being given to the M25 as a London ring route is arousing the feeling in many other regions that this priority for London is being achieved at the expense of many highly desirable road programmes in the regions, including various bypass projects which we were discussing last night?
    Mr. Clarke: It is of national significance to provide a route which is a way round London from the northern industrial towns down to the Channel ports. In fact, we are continuing the same priority as the previous Government gave, except that we are getting on with it and the M25 is now appearing on the ground. In the rest of our programme there are important projects elsewhere in the country, and, once we get over the peak of the M25, work will progress more rapidly in other regions.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is it my hon. and learned Friend's view that unnecessary delay has been imposed on his Department by Parliament, and, if it is, what is he doing to correct that? Second, what is he doing to make sure that there is no undue delay in getting cases before the courts?
    Mr. Clarke: The statutory procedures are elaborate, and those procedures and some of the provisions of the law are used very skilfully by people trying to delay road

    919
    schemes. But people are entitled to exercise their legal and other rights to delay such schemes, and we have to comply with the law, as of course we shall. We expedite hearings before the courts when we have frivolous applications, and I assure my hon. Friend that, within all the proper procedures open to any litigant before the courts, we do not let the grass grow under our feet when we are faced with what is obviously a time-wasting tactic.

    A1-M1 Link (Missile Sites)
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether the decision to site cruise missiles at Molesworth was a factor in the selection of the route proposed for the A1-M1 link.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir. I had confirmed the route before that decision was taken.
    Mr. Fry: Although I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which clears up the point raised in The Observer, may I ask whether he can explain why there has not been greater progress on the less controversial part of the route? I refer particularly to the route to the east of Kettering and to the new bridge at Thrapston. Is he aware that faster progress could be made on this route, which is vital to the economy of the country?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is a vital route. We hope to publish the statutory orders in the near future. We shall then proceed to the inevitable public inquiry. There is some pressure to begin with the eastern section of the road, but the western section—which we intend to do first—is extremely important. It will provide the quickest help to Corby and will also provide a bypass for Kettering.
    Mr. Weetch: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the A1-M1 link is of crucial importance to East Anglia? Despite all the difficulties, will he give that link high priority as it will facilitate the smooth flow of traffic from the industrial Midlands to the Haven ports?
    Mr. Clarke: I can say "Yes" to both of those questions. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As this subject has been under discussion for so long, will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that the road will have been started by the time that I leave Parliament, even if I stand at the next general election? Quite honestly, I should think that the cruise missile will be out of date by the time the road is finished.
    Mr. Clarke: The map of England is littered with road schemes that have been held up for years and years, and that have been promised but never completed. In the past 18 months, we have devoted ourselves to trying to get on with the routes that everybody agrees are necessary. I hope that the road will be built by 1986. I am sure that my hon. Friend will still be here then. We might even have some nevers for him on the Stamford bypass soon. One never knows how lucky he might be.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that cruise missile sites will require new roads of considerable magnitude, because the launchers are so massive? Will not that involve a hidden additional cost? How do the Government propose to keep these new roads hidden from the Russians so that they do not know where the missiles are?
    Mr. Clarke: We could contemplate issuing out of date maps. However, we try to keep our maps up to date. Like
    920
    other important traffic, cruise missiles need roads. The piece of road required for the cruise missiles, like the bypass round Spaldwick, is very much needed by the inhabitants of the villages involved. Indeed, the inhabitants of Spaldwick are using cruise missiles as an argument to urge us to speed up the provision of their road.

    British Railways (Safety Standards)
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on safety standards performance in British Railways operations within the context of the investment programme and the current financial provisions.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad to tell the House that the provisional results show that in 1980, for the third time in five years, not a single passenger was killed in a train accident. The incidence of potentially serious accidents was the lowest ever recorded. This is a fine achievement, on which I congratulate all concerned.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that my question refers to safety in relation to investment and financial provision? Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Sir Peter Parker has expressed the gravest concern? Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that as recently as yesterday, the Newcastle divisional manager of British Rail addressed Members of Parliament representing northern constituencies and said that there was a desperate need for more investment in order to catch up with the backlog of work on both track and equipment? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the general secretaries of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and of the National Union of Railwaymen have expressed concern? Will he respond?
    Mr. Clarke: In reply to other questions my right hon. Friend stressed the importance that he attaches to investment in the railways and to the way in which we have maintained the investment ceilings at previous levels despite the economic crisis. We have taken track renewal out of those investment ceilings. Of course, we are anxious that investment should continue to maintain this satisfying high level of safety on our railway network.
    Mr. Flannery: Despite the fact that British Rail has a proud record—I believe the best in the world—for safety, is the Under-Secretary aware that many of the lines are in great difficulties? For example, the Sheffield to St. Prancras line is a disgrace. Trains are late and lack refreshment facilities, and so on. Is not lack of investment bound to make the situation more difficult? Ultimately, will it not have some effect on safety standards?
    Mr. Clarke: My constituents and I use the line from Nottingham, Midland to St. Pancras, which involves the same route as the hon. Gentleman mentions. My right hon. Friend has just announced that he is about to publish the results of the electrification survey, which was carried out by British Rail and our Department. That will have a bearing on the future modernisation of the line from Sheffield to St. Prancras.
    Mr. Bagier: Although the House welcomes the fact that British Rail has that safety record, is not some of the track in great need of repair and of the finance to carry that out? As we were told yesterday, the Eastern region still has

    921
    416 miles of jointed track with wooden sleepers. Many of those sleepers are rotting away. In addition, 63 speed restrictions are in operation on those sections of the line. Does not that call for the Government to make desperate attempts to find finance to speed up safety measures?
    Mr. Clarke: As I said, we have taken track renewal out of the investment ceiling. We have also had reports from British Rail about its track maintenance needs and the present state of the track. My right hon. Friend intends to discuss this matter with the Rail Council tomorrow. We are satisfied that within the range of resources that are realistically attainable it will be possible to maintain our rail system to the standard that we all desire.

    Southampton (Dry Docks)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, under section 27 of the Transport Act 1962, he will require the British Transport Docks Board to furnish him with information relating to and explaining the reason for its decision to close two dry docks in Southampton; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir. This is a commercial decision within the responsibility of the management of the Docks Board.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the decision to close the two dry docks in Southampton will put at least 1,000 jobs at risk, and probably many more? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that without dry docks, ship repairing in Southampton will cease to exist? Does the Under-Secretary realise that since the dry docks were closed at least six ships have been turned away and have probably gone to continental ports for repair? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman get the chairmen of British Shipbuilders and British Transport Docks Board together, and knock their silly heads together so as to get some decision?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course I realise that there is great concern in Southampton about the employment problems involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) shares that concern. However, the future of ship repairing at Southampton is initially a matter for British Shipbuilders. The British Transport Docks Board is also involved and must use its commercial judgment. It would not be right for the Docks Board to expect other port users to pay for the costs of the dry dock. The chairman of British Shipbuilders and the chairman of the British Transport Docks Board met, I believe, yesterday. Discussions are still going on. They are in the best position to take the commercial judgments required.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is general concern about the facilities for ship repairing in the United Kingdom? In those circumstances, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is not sufficient to leave this issue to the commercial judgments of individual enterprises? Perhaps the time has come for this issue to be submitted to the National Ports Council. A full statement could then be made on the Government's intent.
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is responsible for the future of ship repairing. I shall ensure that those views are passed on to him.

    Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of the State for Transport whether he proposes to review the fixed penalty treatment for certain traffic offences.
    Mr. Fowler: This is one of the areas which the working group on traffic law, set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself, have been studying. The group has now completed its report and we are studying its recommendations. I have, of course, already taken action in the Transport Bill to implement its recommendations that the totting up procedure should be replaced by the points system.
    Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many millions of motorists will thank him for his efforts in the Transport Bill? However, is my right hon. Friend also aware that they would go further and say that a simple system of fixed penalties would allow simpler, more efficient, more immediate and less bureaucratic solutions to minor traffic offences. Will my right hon. Friend pursue that with determination?
    Mr. Fowler: The report of the working party shows that that kind of system is possible. I refer to a ticket system rather than on the spot fines. The Government will consider it in the coming months.
    Mr. Tom Benyon: When my right hon. Friend considers the fixed penalty system, will he also consider penalties for jay walking? Is he aware that my constituents in Botley are being forced to jay walk at great risk to life and limb? Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that the subway at Botley on the A34 will be given urgent consideration by his Department before death occurs?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure whether the working party that we set up considered that problem. I shall get the Department to look into it.

    British Railways (Electrification)
    Mr. Garel-Jonesasked the Secetary of State for Transport what plan he has to discuss future British Railways electrification with the chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly wish to discuss this with the chairman, and no doubt it will form part of one of our regular discussions.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Watford will be most grateful to him for that statement?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that the whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question.

  Civil Service

    Manpower Costs (Private Sector Work)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Minister for the Civil Service if, wherever he gives figures for changes in the size of the Civil Service, he will at the same time state the job equivalents which have been taken on by the private sector and the cost to public funds of having the work so done.
    Mr. John Evansasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service jobs, in both the industrial and the non-industrial sectors, have been turned over to the private sector since May 1979; and at what cost.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Quarterly reports about Civil Service manpower are made to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. Work is transferred to the private sector only when it is commensurate with sound management and good value for money for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Marlow: Amongst the burdens being borne by our industry at the moment are the size and cost of the Civil Service. When my hon. Friend has good news on cutbacks within the Civil Service in terms of numbers, will he also let us know the net saving in costs as near as he possibly can in each case?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My predecessor undertook to give details to the Select Committee when work was transferred to the private sector, and said that the returns would be made available to the Select Committee. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be done. The best estimate that I can make is that less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the reductions in the Civil Service to date have arisen as a result of such transfers.
    Mr. Alan Williams: May I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and on his wisdom in adopting so cryptic a fellow Welshman as his PPS? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that privatisation in this sector has not been as successful as Conservative Party dogma would seem to require? Is it not true that in Bath a firm of contract cleaners has taken the Government to the cleaners by using different names for the same people as a method of evading national insurance contributions and income tax? Will he tell the House what investigations are in hand? Do these investigations cover the possibility that similar contracts will also be covering similar activities? May we know how soon the hon. Gentleman hopes to have the results of these investigations? Will he ensure that the results are reported to the House?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was really directed towards one of my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for those matters. When I was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence I investigated carefully a number of cases that I invited the unions to give to me in which they thought that the criteria that I have outlined again today were not being met. I considered the information with great care. There was no doubt that there were savings to public funds arising from the proposed transfer to private contractors of some cleaning work.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend on his new appointment? Will he accept that over two-thirds of the additional unemployment that has taken place since the Government came to office has come from the manufacturing sector rather than from the Civil Service? Does he accept that this is placing an unfair burden upon our reduced manufacturing sector? Is he aware that he must pay more attention to reducing the size of the Civil Service if there is to be a meaningful manufacturing sector in future?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend should not under-represent the achievements to date, which will reduce the size of the Civil Service to its lowest level since 1974. The
    924
    objective set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of 630,000 by 1 April 1984 would reduce the size of the Civil Service to the lowest level since the end of the Second World War.

    Open Government
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he intends to update the Croham directive on openness in Government.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on 16 January.
    Mr. Price: That is rather inconvenient as I do not have the text of that question in front of me. When the hon. Gentleman takes responsibility in Committee for the Freedom of Information Bill, which is coming up, what attitude will he take to a properly established code of conduct governing the release of documents, to which his Conservative colleagues committed themselves while in Opposition?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My predecessor made clear to the hon. Gentleman on 20 June 1979 that a code of practice was not appropriate. I am not quite sure to which Committee the hon. Gentleman is referring. In my experience in the House, which extends back only 10 years or so, it has always been the custom that Bills should obtain a Second Reading before they are considered in Committee. Hurdles have to be jumped one at a time.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his appointment, aware that a lot of nonsense is talked about openness in Government? Quite apart from the essential secrecy in Cabinet, surely advice from civil servants to Ministers, many defence matters and all foreign diplomacy must be handled in secrecy.
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, putting that in the balance, it was also necessary—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed this in her directive to Ministers—that Ministers should give close personal attention to ensuring that as much information as possible is made available, especially to the House. The Government's record on making information available to Select Committees is better than that of any other Government this century.
    Mr. Straw: As the Government are so committed to the Croham directive and to openness of Government, will the Minister confirm that the Scott report on index-linked pensions in the public sector will be published in full and without delay, notwithstanding that leaks from the Government suggest that it is highly embarrassing to the Prime Minister's prejudices?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that it has been made clear that the report will be published soon. As far as I am aware, it will be published without any change being made in it.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a vital distinction between information on matters of fact and information about the opinions of various people?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As so often happens, my hon. Friend has elaborated an important distinction. It would be wrong if the confidential advice made available to Ministers were

    925
    to get into the public domain. That would upset an important relationship to which all previous Governments have rightly attached considerable secrecy.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Would not more open Government be helpful to the Prime Minister? Would it not enable her to avoid the embarrassment of having to sack fellow Ministers for the sin of leaking information when she is the worst culprit in the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government have refused to publish the findings of the Pay Research Unit and why we are still waiting for the Scott report on pensions, although it was promised to the House before Christmas by the Prime Minister? Is that because, as rumoured, both items fail to confirm the preconceived conclusions that are sought by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President made it clear to the Civil Service unions towards the end of last year that pay research could not play any part in the determination of Civil Service pay increases in 1981. It is not the case, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that the reports of the unit are available to the Government but not to the unions. They are available neither to the Government nor to the unions. They are being retained by the Pay Research Unit. As I indicated, the publication of the Scott report will take place as soon as possible. The part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question that referred to leaks has nothing to do with me. The Government have a good record—
    Mr. William Hamilton: Of leaking.
    Mr. Hayhoe: —on openness and the presentation of information to Select Committees.

    Manpower
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the planned reduction in the number of non-industrial civil servants by 1984; and if he will make a statement on progress to date.
    Mr. Hayhoe: There is no separate target for the number of non-industrial civil servants in 1984, but, as the Government have already made clear, our intention is to bring the total number of civil servants down to about 630,000 by April 1984. At 1 October 1980, the latest date for which information is available, there were 543,200 non-industrial civil servants—a reduction of 22,600 since the Government took office.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that during the 1970 s there was a reduction in the numbers of industrial civil servants which concealed a great increase in the numbers of non-industrial civil servants by more than the overall figures would imply? Therefore, to many of us it is essential to separate non-industrial from industrial civil servants in this classification. Have not the Government, in their plan to reduce the total number of civil servants to 630,000 by 1984, some idea of the reduction in the number of non-industrial civil servants at which they are aiming?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Of the reduction of 35,000 which has occurred, 22,500 have been non-industrial civil servants. Therefore, 12,500 have been industrial civil servants. As I said, the targets and programmes announced in the House before Christmas do not at the moment separate industrial from non-industrial civil servants. Departments are looking at the matter with regard to their own employees.
    Mr. Speaker: I have had notice of two points of order I know the contents of one but not of the other.

  Times Newspapers Debate (Division List)
  Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to ensure that column 820 of yesterday's Hansard is amended, as I see that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Neil Thorne) is listed as being in the Aye Lobby, whereas I claim to have been in the Aye Lobby?
  Mr. Speaker: That correction will be in the interests of both hon. Members.

  House of Commons (Members' Secretaries' Pensions)
  Mr. Roger Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter concerns the arrangements that have been made for the payment of Members' secretaries' pensions. I believe this to be a point of order for you, Sir, rather than an administrative matter for the authorities of the House, for two reasons. First, it is essentially a question whether a clear resolution of the House is being properly implemented. Secondly, the arrangements have been issued in a document described as a Speaker's memorandum.
  On 21 July the House passed a clear resolution authorising the payment of certain moneys. The figure for this year is £786 and for subsequent years £800. In a subsequent memorandum we were advised that on that figure there would be an inner limit on that figure of 10 per cent. of whatever fees or amounts were paid to those secretaries. Nowhere in the original resolution was such a figure mentioned.
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who sent me a courteous reply in which he emphasised that these new arrangements had resulted from discussions with the 1922 Committee and with the Parliamentary Labour Party. He said that my suggestion that the intentions of the House were not being properly implemented was not sustainable because these discussions had taken place. However well meaning such intentions and arrangements, I suggest that discussions with other bodies do not necessarily conform with a resolution of the House. I shall not go into the merits of this point, but I suggest that a 10 per cent. limitation introduced in this way is less than generous to secretaries, many of whom have spent many years of non-pensionable employment in the service of hon. members.
  I ask you Mr. Speaker, to examine this matter and to consider generally whether, as a matter of principle, such resolutions should be fully and properly implemented and, if they are to be amended or changed, whether that should be done only by a further resolution of the House.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to direct your attention to column 180 of Hansard of 21 July last year, where this exact difficulty was predicted? The then Leader of the House—of whom most of us are fans, with one noticeable exception—was

  927
  urged to correct it in the motion. In the motions to come up shortly it may be possible to make the correction that should have been made last July.
  Mr. Speaker: Of course, I shall look into this matter to see whether there is anything that I can do. But hon.
  928
  Members will be aware that the House works by a weird and wonderful system of talks and relationships between both sides.
  I shall write to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about this matter.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter arose at Question Time, but naturally, in order to be helpful, I did not delay the House.
My question No. 6 was linked with No. 1. It is usual for the Department concerned, when linking questions, to notify the hon. Members involved. I imagine from the nonplussed appearance of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whose question was also linked, that he was not notified. I do not want that useful advantage to hon. Members to be denied by Departments in future.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted. If the hon. Member was not notified, I am sure that that was due to human error.

Public Education Costs (Report)
3.36 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the transfer of the whole cost of public education to a central fund financed by income-related contributions; to report to Parliament the results thereof; and to report to Parliament on the effects of proceeding further to introduce an education voucher scheme.
The Bill that I am seeking to introduce draws attention to the way in which we find the necessary funds to pay for public education; but my immediate reason for its introduction is that the reform of the rating system which is in prospect for the coming year is producing a crisis in inner London. In the borough of Kensington, which I represent, householders in many family houses, including some not very grand properties, may well find that their rates will increase by £300 or £500 in the coming year.
We already have a social problem in inner London because foreign elements, who do not mind what they pay for property or household outgoings, are tending to drive out the electorate. In the past 12 months the Kensington electoral register has declined by 4,500 people in the areas of more highly rated property. If the increase in rates is implemented, I am afraid that this rapid movement of people out of inner London will become an avalanche. This matter worries me greatly. Therefore, as the Member of Parliament for Kensington, I consider that it behoves me to make a specific recommendation about the way in which rate burden could be substantially reduced.
In general, we place too much pressure on assets through our tax system and not enough on current spending. After all, rates are a form of property tax. This tax has now become far too heavy, particularly in central London.
As regards the future payment for education, the House should look at the long-term evolution of social policy. Looking back to the welfare system in Elizabethan times, we find that almost the entire burden fell on the parish and virtually nothing on central funds. But gradually, in our provision for families, pensions, the unemployed and all other aspects of the Welfare State, we have learnt to depend on central funds. However, we are still attempting to finance education from a local tax. I believe that we should now reconsider that.
In the provision of welfare there is another secular trend, which I believe is right—that is, away from the provision of services in kind to the provision of cash benefits instead. I believe that this is the right time to require the Secretary of State to turn his attention to these matters and to come to the House with specific recommendations.
The object of my Bill is therefore to call for a Green Paper on the finance of education, drawing attention to the urgency of relieving ratepayers of this very heavy cost.
In my proposed Bill, I have made two specific requests. The first is that we should take the whole cost of education off the ratepayer and put it on to a central fund subscribed not only by householders but by all taxpayers falling within the necessary category and in proportion to their capacity to pay. One of the particular anomalies about the rates is that the housing market is not fluid. Often the

931
people with the heaviest family commitments also find that they have the largest rate bill, and there is nothing that they can do about it.
The reform that I am recommending would be far simpler to introduce than more complex schemes of local income tax, or other systems of local taxation which would provide finance for local authorities from activities within their own area. I see the attraction of such schemes; but the House needs to recognise why no progress has been made in introducing anything of that kind. The complexities, in administrative terms, are considerable.
I should perhaps point out to my right hon. Friends who have been trying to resolve the problems of the Inner London Education Authority that my recommendation would also solve that problem. It makes ILEA financially accountable to a branch of central Government rather than to the boroughs, which at present have no recourse. The boroughs must find the money somehow to meet the precepts handed down to them by the ILEA but are not able to contribute, in any effective supervisory way, to the spending of their money.
I recognise that many people have anxieties about the possible consequences, in terms of loss of local control, of removing local authority finance entirely from the provision of education facilities. But it has to be admitted even within local authorities that the wishes of many parents are not able to make themselves felt, particularly in areas of settled political persuasion. We need to consider the possibility of giving parents more say, by direct financial means, in the policy of the local education authority and also that of the particular school where their children are being educated.
The second purpose of my Bill is therefore to require the Secretary of State to report on proposals for proceeding to an education voucher scheme. I included a recommendation in favour of an education voucher scheme about 15 years ago in a pamphlet published by the Conservative Political Centre. I have not attempted to follow that recommendation further since that time. Many people have argued the case much better than I could. I believe that there are two particular recommendations for an education voucher scheme. First, it returns the power of choice to the parents. Secondly, it corrects the unfairness of a system that gives no help to those people who are educating their children privately, and, therefore, paying twice over for the cost of education and receiving no relief for it at all.
Because of the rules of order and also as a matter of prudence, I merely ask the House at this stage to endorse my view that these are matters on which the Government should now be required to state their policy clearly and to present a reasoned examination of the pros and cons. The time is ripe for this, and I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce my Bill.
3.44 pm
Mr. Jack Straw rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?
Mr. Straw: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
When I came into the Chamber I had not intended to oppose it. I thought that it was another hare-brained but entirely innocent proposal of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) which those who take
932
a benign view thought should go through. The truth is, however, that although this is a hare-brained and crackpot scheme it has dangerous implications for the education of children, not only in London but throughout the country. I speak as the hon. Member for Blackburn, but for three years I was a member of the Inner London Education Authority. I am concerned deeply about what happens to London's education.
I oppose the hon. Gentleman's proposition because it represents a twofold diversion from the way in which the Conservatives are seeking to wreck London education. They have diverted enormous funds from the education budgets in London to the much better-off shire counties. It does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members who have walked through the Lobbies in support of the massacring of the education budgets of London—
Mr. Tony Marlow: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the money spent on the primary education of a child in ILEA is twice that in my constituency and many of the shire counties to which he has just referred?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, who is familiar with the rules of the House, knows that on Ten-Minute Bills interventions are not generally permitted. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches had any idea of the problems of educating children in London and the massive social problems faced by the education authorities, they would understand why some additional expense is involved in that education system, just as it is in many other inner city areas.
The first objection to the proposed Bill is that it is a diversion from the consequences of the action of the hon. Member for Kensington and his hon. Friends in forcing funds away from London. Second, it is a diversion away from the chaos into which the Government have plunged themselves through their pledge to abolish rates. Only in 1976 the present Secretary of State for the Environment stated from the Opposition Dispatch Box that the pledge to abolish domestic rates was one of the wisest ever made by the Conservative Party. Despite that, the Government are in total chaos about what they mean to do.
Instead of seeking some long-term and comprehensive alternatives to rates and putting that before the people, we have from the hon. Member for Kensington a proposal to establish a form of local income tax which would be biased heavily against low-income people. The hon. Gentleman says that he objects to those who have their children educated privately paying twice. We understand the hon. Gentleman's view. He is paid twice over—as a Member of the House and as a Member for a European seat.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Disgraceful.
Mr. Straw: It may be disgraceful, but it is true. If the truth is disgraceful, I am sorry.
This proposal would load an even higher burden on to the families of the least well-off in inner London. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid the avalanche, as he described it, of people moving out of London, the answer lies in his hands and those of every Conservative Member—that is, to restore the inner city programmes established by the Labour Government with all-party support and to ensure that the rate support grant is based on a fair system of distribution and not on the politically biased system that the Secretary of State for the

933
Environment has set up. I hope that all hon. Members will take the opportunity to crush this proposal at the first opportunity.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 168.

Division No. 56]

[3.50 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Marlow, Tony

Alexander, Richard

Mates, Michael

Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Blackburn, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Bowden, Andrew

Montgomery, Fergus

Brinton, Tim

Myles, David

Brotherton, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

Bryan, Sir Paul

Needham, Richard

Budgen, Nick

Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

Chapman, Sydney

Pawsey, James

Churchill, W. S.

Pollock, Alexander

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

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cockeram, Eric

Rost, Peter

Costain, Sir Albert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Cranborne, Viscount

Shersby, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Sims, Roger

Eggar, Tim

Skeet, T. H. H.

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Farr, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Steen, Anthony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Thornton, Malcolm

Fox, Marcus

Viggers, Peter

Fry, Peter

Waldegrave, Hon William

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Gower, Sir Raymond

Waller, Gary

Greenway, Harry

Whitney, Raymond

Heddle, John

Wilkinson, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Lawrence, Ivan

Winterton, Nicholas

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Wolfson, Mark

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Mr. Matthew Parris and

McQuarrie, Albert

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

Marland, Paul

NOES

Abse, Leo

Allaun, Frank

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

Ashton, Joe

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

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

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Deakins, Eric

Beith, A. J.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

Dixon, Donald

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

Dobson, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Dormand, Jack

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Douglas, Dick

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Bradley, Tom

Dunlop, John

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

Eadie, Alex

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Eastham, Ken

Buchan, Norman

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

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

English, Michael

Campbell, Ian

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Canavan, Dennis

Evans, John (Newton)

Cant, R. B.

Ewing, Harry

Carmichael, Neil

Faulds, Andrew

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

Flannery, Martin

Coleman, Donald

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Forrester, John

Conlan, Bernard

Foster, Derek

Crowther, J. S.

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Cryer, Bob

Freud, Clement

934

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

George, Bruce

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Golding, John

Prescott, John

Graham, Ted

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Radice, Giles

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

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Richardson, Jo

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Haynes, Frank

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Heffer, Eric S.

Roberts Ernest (Hackney N)

Home Robertson, John

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Homewood, William

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hooley, Frank

Robinson, P.(Belfast E)

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Rooker, J. W.

Howells, Geraint

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ryman, John

Janner, Hon Greville

Sever, John

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

John, Brynmor

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Short, Mrs Renée

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Silverman, Julius

Kerr, Russell

Skinner, Dennis

Kinnock, Neil

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lambie, David

Spearing, Nigel

Leadbitter, Ted

Spriggs, Leslie

Leighton, Ronald

Stallard, A. W.

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stott, Roger

Litherland, Robert

Strang, Gavin

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Straw, Jack

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

McKelvey, William

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Maclennan, Robert

Tilley, John

McMahon, Andrew

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

McNamara, kevin

Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

Marks, kenneth

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

Watkins, David

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Watson, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wells, Bowen

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Welsh, Michael

Maynard, Miss Joan

Whitehead, Phillip

Mikardo, Ian

Wigley, Dafydd

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

Molyneaux, James

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Winnick, David

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Woodall, Alec

Morton, George

Woolmer, Kenneth

Newens, Stanley

Young, David (Bolton E)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Palmer, Arthur

Tellers for the Noes:

Park, George

Mr. John Maxton and

Parry, Robert

Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Penhaligon, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the queston of police control of the traffic on the road between the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey. Many of us have offices in Dean's Yard. At certain times of the day it is almost impossible to get to the House in time when we hear the Division bell if there is no policeman to stop the traffic. Today we did not have undue difficulty. However, the matter has been raised before and we have not yet received an intimation that a policeman will always be available to control traffic.
Mr. Speaker: I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. The police do their best to help us, and I shall see what has gone wrong.

Orders of the Day

  British Nationallity Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.1 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It has been common ground for many years now that our present nationality law is out of date and needs replacing. After the passage of the Immigration Act 1971 the Conservative Government of the time began work on the matter. The Labour Government who succeeded us also accepted the case for change. They published a Green Paper on British nationality law in April 1977.
  The present Government's White Paper, published last July, contained the outline of proposed legislaion. The basic principle on which both the previous and the present Government have proceeded is that—I quote from the Labour Government's Green Paper:
  "there must be a more meaningful citizenship for those who have close links with the United Kingdom."
  It is, of course, easy to state the principle but, as Governments of both parties know very well, it is far more difficult to put it into practice.
  Citizenship is inevitably a sensitive matter, about which people feel very strongly. They are naturally concerned about changes that they feel could affect them personally in important ways. It is understandable that in such a climate fears and anxieties, sometimes irrational, will be aroused. That is why it is very important that the House should adopt a constructive approach. For my part, I can assure the House that the Government will approach the Bill in that spirit. I very much hope that that will be reciprocated by right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. My duty in introducing the Bill is to deal with some of the anxieties that have been expressed. Where there is a case for making changes to the Bill in order to allay such fears, that can be considered as the legislation progresses. In many cases, however, as I hope to be able to show, the fears which have been expressed are wholly misplaced.
  The main reason why it is necessary to replace the existing law is, quite simply, that the citizenship created by the British Nationality Act 1948 no longer gives any clear indication of who has the right to enter the United Kingdom. Citizenship and the right of abode, which ought to be related, have over the years parted company with each other. One can be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Conversely, one can have the right of abode here without being one of our citizens. The Labour Government, in their Green Paper, said almost exactly the same thing. Paragraph 10 of that document begins:
  "The most serious drawback to the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is that it does not provide a ready definition of who has the right of entry to the United Kingdom."
  In consequence, holders of the present citizenship may, not unnaturally, be encouraged to believe, despite the immigration laws to the contrary, that they have a right of entry to the United Kingdom. We are doing nothing new in suggesting that our citizenship should give a better idea
  936
  of where people actually belong. The Green Paper once again put the position with admirable clarity. It said, in paragraph 15:
  "Arrangements must be made for those people who are now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies… but who do not have such close ties with the United Kingdom as to become British citizens … To leave those of them who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with that status when many of them have little or no connection by birth, ancestry or residence with the United Kingdom or any colony would prolong a misleading and unsatisfactory feature of the present situation."
  The Green Paper proposed that all citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who did not become British citizens should become British overseas citizens. Some of the dependent territories represented that that proposal did not reflect accurately their relationship with the United Kingdom. We were impressed by those arguments, and we therefore propose that besides British citizenship there should be two other citizenships—citizenship of the British dependent territories, and British overseas citizenship. That does not, however, mean that for practical purposes the position of any of those who would have been British overseas citizens under the Green Paper proposals will be altered.
  Mr. Enoch Powell: What will be the rights and duties—the content of citizenship—for the people in the category that the right hon. Gentleman has just been speaking of?
  Mr. Whitelaw: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Bill does not have anything to say—neither have previous Nationality Acts—about civic duties and rights. I shall come to the point later, but I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  I turn now to the apprehensions that have been expressed about the Bill. As I have already said, it is important to approach these constructively but at the same time to be clear about those which rest on misunderstanding. For example, it is claimed that clause 1 is racially discriminatory. Frankly, I do not understand the basis for that claim. Clause 1 says that a child born here shall be a British citizen at birth only if one of his parents is a British citizen or is settled here. The provision takes account of the increasing numbers of children born to visitors, students and others who are here only temporarily.
  It would also cover children of illegal entrants and overstayers. However, a person's racial origin is not relevant, and I fail to see any substance in the criticism of clause 1 on racial grounds. The clause introduces in that area much the same system as that which operates in most other countries in Europe. The Government's proposal is in fact more generous than theirs, since a child could be born a British citizen not only if one of his parents is such a citizen but also if one of his parents is settled.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This issue is crucial. For the first time in our law a person born here does not automatically obtain citizenship. In the past, many white immigrants came here and had children. Now many black people come here who may have children, even when they are under conditions of residence. That is what forms the racial content of the Bill.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The Bill will apply across all racial boundaries, so I do not see how it can be accused of being racially discriminatory.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Why does my right hon. Friend say that a racial distinction is not relevant? It might be one of the ways in which the matter is decided.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I was answering a serious criticism of the Bill that I believe is wrong and wholly misplaced. It is said that clause 1 is racially discriminatory. I was seeking to explain that, whatever else it may be, it is certainly not that.
  Another provision which has been described as racially discriminatory is clause 2. It says that a child born outside the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is a British citizen by virtue of birth in the United Kingdom. The present law enables citizens, by naturalisation or registration, to transmit citizenship overseas in the same way as citizens by birth. The Bill would change this. Instead, it provides, in effect, that British citizens by naturalisation or registration will not generally be able to transmit citizenship to children born abroad, they would be equated with citizens by descent in this respect.
  This is an important matter, and I can see that there is room for argument—and I have heard it already—about the principle involved. The provision is not racially discriminatory. Anyone who is a British citizen by descent would also be unable to transmit, even though he might be of United Kingdom ancestry. Indeed, if resident in a Commonwealth country he would be unable to transmit at present. All that the Bill is doing is to put citizens, by registration or naturalisation, on the same footing. The exception that we shall make for those in Crown service or with business connections will apply to them.
  The Government's position is reasonable. It has consistently been the aim of successive Governments, since well into the last century, to ensure that naturalisation was not being granted to people who had no real intention of living here. Some people would like to have our citizenship only or mainly because of the advantages that it confers if they go to live and work abroad. It seems right, therefore, that a person who acquires our citizenship by registration or naturalisation and then leaves and has children born to him, or her, overseas should not automatically be able to pass on that citizenship.
  Of course, if the family later returns to the United Kingdom, that is another matter. Clause 3(5) provides for an entitlement to registration of the child as a citizen where he or she has lived here for three years with the parents and both of them consent.
  The arrangements for transmission suggested in the Bill—
  Mr. Jim Marshall rose—
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. If I do not continue, other hon. Members will not get a chance to speak. I shall only occasionally give way, on major issues. Perhaps I should have said that when I come to a new point I shall give way if I judge it to be right. It is my right to decide, and I shall try to do so in the interests of the whole House, as many hon. Members wish to speak. Every intervention may mean that there will be fewer speeches.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? This is most important.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am Sorry.
  Mr. Faulds: I have a personal interest in this. I intend to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. At present the Minister will be heard.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to be heard. He does not seem to have difficulty in doing so.
  The arrangements for transmission suggested in the Bill are a good point from which to discuss a further serious criticism, that the Bill discriminates against women. I cannot see how such a suggestion can seriously be made. The Bill preserves, for a transitional period of two years, the entitlement of non-citizen wives to be registered. Otherwise, the Bill provides for equality of treatment in almost every area. Most important is, however, the right of women as well as men to transmit British citizenship. This is to be found in clause 2 and is an important and significant new advance towards sex equality.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has made this criticism, was, however, apparently referring to the proposals for acquisition of citizenship by spouses. Although he calls these sexually discriminatory, he apparently accepts that husbands and wives are treated equally. They are. I find it impossible to comprehend how it can be said that a provision which treats husbands and wives alike is discriminatory against women.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Since acquisition of citizenship is dependent upon a residence qualification, and since the right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to stop women entering this country and therefore beginning their residence qualification, it is by definition discriminatory against them.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that I have done that. I remain convinced that a provision which treats husbands and wives equally cannot be described as being sexually discriminatory.
  The right hon. Gentleman may, of course, be suggesting that women should continue to have an automatic right to citizenship on marriage. But the Bill's proposals are based on one of the options set out in his party's Green Paper. The right hon. Gentleman criticised us for invariably choosing the hardest option in that paper, so I should make it plain that we did not do that on this topic. Another option canvassed by the Green Paper was that husbands and wives should be treated no differently from other candidates for citizenship. We did not choose that alternative.
  The Bill has also been criticised because of its silence on civil rights. Paradoxically, the same people, including the British Council of Churches, also criticise it on the ground of the fear that people settled here might lose their civic rights. No provision in the Bill deprives people in this country of any of their civil rights, nor is there any intention of using the Bill in that way. Clause 47(1), ensures, in effect, that existing references in these areas to the meaning of "British subject" will cover the same people as at present. I do not see what more we could have done.

  939
  I should have thought that the suggestion that the Bill should also cover civic rights and obligations was self-evidently an unrealistic aim. The rights and obligations which people seem to have in mind—not that they are ever accurately defined—are covered already by separate legislation. This is often of very great importance and complexity in its own right. It is, in my opinion, wholly unfair to criticise the Government for doing what has always been done, which is to treat nationality as a self-contained area calling for its own separate legislation. The Labour Government's Green Paper dealt very briefly with civic rights. It said:
  "Such privileges do not stem directly from the law on nationality and so are not dealt with in this document"
  If the Opposition are going to depart from that, let them give their reasons, but that is what they said when in office.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene at this stage. He knows from our relationship over the years that I am the last to wish to misrepresent the Government's position.
  Why are the British Council of Churches and the Commission for Racial Equality, which was set up under the 1976 Act, so widely critical? The right hon. Gentleman supported the setting up of the commission under that Act and now takes no notice of it.
  Mr. Whitelaw: To say that I take no notice of it is incorrect. To say that I have to accept everything it says because I supported its establishment is a principle that would place all right hon. and hon. Members in a difficult position. All of us have from time to time supported the setting up of various bodies which we have later seen fit to criticise on a variety of occasions.
  Of course, I pay attention to what those two organisations have said, but if I am to be criticised on the reasons for leaving civic rights out of the Bill I am entitled to pray in aid what has been done in the past and what the Labour Government said in their Green Paper.
  I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).
  M. Jim Marshall: The Home Secretary is making great play of the fact that the Bill contains nothing about civic rights, but it contains a reference to the basic civic right, which is the right of abode. On two of the categories of citizenship to which the Bill refers it confers the right of abode. However, it confers no right of abode in any country on the third category—British overseas citizenship. That is the basic discrimination in the Bill, irrespective of what the Home Secretary said about clauses 1, 2 and 3.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has made a very broad point. I have been sticking to various criticisms of clauses 1 and 2 and of the lack of any reference to civic rights in this country. I think that I am entitled to show, as I have, the reasons for that. I am equally entitled to show that I find some of those criticisms wholly misleading and not based on a full reading of the Bill and the various positions surrounding it.
  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Very well; but it is no wonder that we make long speeches, about which people complain afterwards.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I want to raise this point before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of civic rights. He referred to clause 47(1), which mentions British subjects and Commonwealth citizens. Some of us are concerned about the civic rights of those who are neither—that is, those who are citizens of the Irish Republic. The problem that we still face is that they are apparently to remain in the position where, because they have voting rights, they are liable to be summoned to jury service although they specifically deny allegiance to the Crown. When we are dealing, under clause 47(1), with the civic rights of British subjects and Commonwealth citizens, surely we cannot ignore the position of those who fall into neither category.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it clear before, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we do not believe that the voting position and the civic rights of the Irish come within the provisions of the Bill, and to that I hold.
  I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the acquisition of citizenship by birth after commencement. At present anyone born here becomes one of our citizens unless, broadly speaking, his father is a diplomat. However, it is increasingly the case that children are born while their parents are here temporarily. The present arrangements lead to significant numbers of people acquiring the right of abode here although they have no real ties with this country. Clause 1(1) accordingly provides for a child to be a British citizen at birth only if one of his parents is a British citizen or is settled here. Of course, as the White Paper acknowledges, some practical problems are inherent in this proposal, but we believe that they can be overcome.
  I have already referred to clause 2. It provides generally for children born abroad in the first generation to become citizens by descent if one of their parents is a citizen by birth. Citizenship will not be transmissible as of right beyond the first generation except in carefully prescribed circumstances. A child will be a British citizen if one of the parents is a British citizen, although not a citizen by birth, and is in Crown service or service which is designated as being closely associated with the activities overseas of Her Majesty's Government. An example would be the British Council.
  Citizenship can also be transmitted for more than one generation by registration overseas within a year of birth where the mother or father is a citizen and is engaged overseas in employment which has a close connection with the United Kingdom This includes United Kingdom firms and companies with overseas branches and international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. This is set out in subsections (2) to (4) and (7) of clause 3.
  These provisions recognise that people can remain closely attached to the United Kingdom while spending long periods of their working lives abroad. I am sure that the House will welcome them. They will replace the present arrangements for consular registration and, unlike these arrangements, will apply to births in Commonwealth as well as foreign countries.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Very well.
  Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful. May I ask a question which involves a moment of family history? [Hon.

  941
  Members: "Oh".] This is most important. My mother and father were both born in Britain. I was born in Tanzania. I, married in Britain and have a lovely daughter, who has a full entitlement to citizenship. My brother was born in Edinburgh. He may marry a German. Their children may have full entitlement to citizenship. My sister was born in Blantyre, in Nyasaland. She married a South African. Some of the children were born in South Africa. Do they have entitlement under the Bill to come and live in Britain? I do not think so. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that, under clause 2 (3), the children of missionaries have full entitlement to settle in Britain if they wish to do so, and have equal rights with Crown citizens and business occupations abroad?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the sensible answer that I must give the hon. Gentleman is that it would be a very unwise Minister who gave an off-the-cuff answer to detailed provisions affecting particular cases. Of course, either my hon. Friend the Minister of State or I will give the hon. Gentleman a full answer in writing, but for me to give an answer on the Floor of the House in the middle of a general speech would be quite wrong, especially if it were misleading.
  Mr. Faulds: Why should such a trade, which is not in the service of the Crown, except another crown, be dismissed as having equal rights to Crown servants, business men and chaps in international organisations? Why should the people serving as servants of God not have the assurance that I am asking of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I make the same answer. The hon. Gentleman can make his speech. I have made up my mind finally that, except in the case of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench or in the case of major problems raised on my side, I will not give way again. I do not think it makes sense to do so. Obviously I have to preserve the position of some senior figures in my party and the senior figures on the Opposition Front Bench, but I am not prepared to go further than that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is discrimination.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, that is exactly what it is, and that is what it is meant to be.
  Clause 3(1) continues the existing discretion conferred on me by section 7 of the 1948 Act to register any minor child.
  Clause 4 deals with the acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation. Subsection (2) makes special arrangements, to which I have already referred, for the acquisition of citizenship by the husband or wife of an existing citizen. The arrangements are set out in detail in schedule 1. The main point to note is that a husband or wife of a British citizen can apply for naturalisation only after three years' residence whereas for other persons the requirement will be five years' residence.
  The present arrangements are that a wife, but not a husband, has an entitlement to acquire citizenship immediately on marriage. That would cease. There would, however, be a transitional period, during which wives would be able to apply for citizenship on the same basis as now. They would be entitled to citizenship if they were still married to the man concerned and if he had not in the meantime renounced citizenship.
  942
  Schedule 1 also sets out the basic preliminary requirements for naturalisation. These are five years' presence in this country; good character; a knowledge of the language; and an intention to live here or be employed in Crown service or some other United Kingdom-based employment. The schedule sets out guidelines as to the precise amount of time a would-be applicant for naturalisation must spend actually in the country. This will enable people to know where they stand.
  I recognise, of course, that there are those who argue that the criteria for naturalisation should be more specific—"objective" is the term often used—and that there should be a right of appeal against refusal. The Green Paper produced by the Labour Government and the White Paper, however, contained powerful arguments against introducing appeal rights in this area. Paragraph 60 of the Green Paper said that,
  "the judgments which have to be made in this area are essentially subjective, and matters of this kind are not easily justiciable … applicants who were refused on security or similar grounds could not in any case be given a right of appeal because of the difficulty of disclosing in public the information that had led to the refusal".
  I am bound to say that the arguments against an appeal system remain compelling. Such a system would certainly be expensive in terms of public service manpower and there would be long delays if it were grafted on to the existing immigration appeals machinery or if the burden were placed on our already overloaded High Court. Furthermore, because it would mean a system of objective tests, it is difficult to see how the existing criteria for citizenship could continue to operate.
  Clauses 5 and 6 would preserve for varying transitional periods the right to register at present possessed by certain categories. Clause 7 gives an entitlement to register to those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are at present initially subject to immigration control but become patrial after five years' residence here. Clause 8 confers a right to register on persons who are currently entitled to resume our citizenship, having previously renounced it.
  Clause 9 ensures that, with one exception, anyone who is at present a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies with the right of abode becomes a British citizen at commencement. Subsection (2) sets out the exception to which I have referred. It was mentioned in paragraph 19 of the White Paper. Basically the subsection corrects an anomaly. At present, if a woman who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has a child overseas, and that child is stateless, it has an entitlement to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. A side-effect of acquisition of citizenship in that way is to give the child the right of abode in the United Kingdom even if the mother does not have it. That is clearly illogical. So the Bill provides that such children will acquire the same status as their mothers, whether that be British citizenship or citizenship of the British dependent territories or British overseas citizenship.
  I come to part II of the Bill. There is no need for me to go into its clauses in detail, since they are broadly similar to the provisions for British citizenship. There are, however, one or two points of principle which I should make.
  The first is that the Bill provides for a composite citizenship covering all the dependent territories. I am sure that this is right. We are aware of the strength of feeling in Hong Kong on the need to maintain the ties between that

  943
  territory and the United Kingdom. I should like to reaffirm that the proposed legislation is in no way intended to weaken those links to which we attach great importance. I do, however understand the feelings of some of the dependencies which feel that their particular situation is special. We have taken with great seriousness the approaches which have been made to us by Gibraltar. It is obviously important that the Gibraltar House of Assembly has unanimously passed a motion asking us to reconsider the position so as to categorise them as British citizens. The position of the Falkland Islands also commands a great deal of sympathy.
  Nevertheless, it remains right that the citizenship of our dependent territories should apply in a uniform way throughout those territories. Unimaginable confusion would result if this were not so. What I want to stress, however, is that the Bill in no way alters the position as regards the United Kingdom's moral and constitutional responsibilities for the territories in question. Nor does it in any way affect the special position of Gibraltar as part of the European Community.
  On the Falkland Islands, I want to say this. In December 1979, following the publication of the White Paper on the revision of the immigration rules, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent a message to the people of the Falkland Islands assuring them that in the event of an emergency the problems of any islander who did not possess the right of abode in the United Kingdom and who was in trouble at that time would be most carefully and sympathetically considered. In the light of the concern recently expressed on behalf of the islanders, I wish to reaffirm that pledge and assure the islanders that in such circumstances they can depend upon the most sympathetic consideration of their position.
  Apart from those who want their special relationship with the United Kingdom emphasised in the Bill the provisions of the Bill for dependent territories are, I understand, broadly acceptable to those territories. The differing circumstances of the individual territories make it impractical to provide through the Bill for citizenship of the British dependent territories to carry with it the right of abode in those territories generally. The immigration ordinances of the individual territories are a matter for the individual territories.
  I understand, that what will happen is that the territories will review their immigration ordinances in the light of the Bill with a view, broadly speaking, to enabling those citizens of the British dependent territories who derive their citizenship from a connection with a particular territory to reside there. Although there may be difficulties in a small number of cases it is, I think, generally accepted by the dependencies that this should be done as far as is possible.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on an important matter?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that it is important, but it can be dealt with at the end of the debate.
  Part III of the Bill deals with British overseas citizenship. This is a residual category. Many of its holders indeed already possess another citizenship. The Bill does not alter their position in any material respect. They are at present subject to United Kingdom immigration controls and that will remain the position. Given the numbers
  944
  involved, it could hardly be otherwise. I want to stress, however, the continuance of the special arrangements for certain United Kingdom passport holders who are mainly in or originate from East Africa. The Government intend to continue the special voucher scheme for them.
  Clause 27 would ensure the continuation of the current provisions regarding British subjects without citizenship by virtue of sections 13 and 16 of the 1948 Act. Those are the people who in 1948 were regarded as potential citizens of other Commonwealth countries. Those countries, however, did not in the event cover them in their citizenship laws. The category is diminishing since it relates to people born before 1949. The clause also covers former foreign women registered as British subjects under the British Nationality Act 1965.
  Clause 28 covers another category of persons born before 1949. These are Irish citizens who were at that time also British subjects. They have been eligible to claim to remain British subjects by means of a written notice to the Home Secretary. As the White Paper indicated, the Bill would perpetuate this arrangement. The Government consider that it is justified by the long historical connection between the United Kingdom and what is now the Republic of Ireland. There are often, as the White Paper pointed out, close relationships between families resident in both countries.
  Clause 33 introduces a separate schedule—schedule 2—which contains provisions designed to ensure our continued compliance with the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness.
  Clause 34 provides who shall have the status of Commonwealth citizen. Apart from the citizens of other Commonwealth countries, listed in schedule 3, British citizens, citizens of the British dependent territories, British overseas citizens and British subjects are to have that status. But the converse—that Commonwelath citizens should all be British subjects—would no longer apply.
  Clause 35 continues the existing provisions for British protected persons.
  Clause 36 and schedule 4 set out the related amendments to the Immigration Act that are required. I have already touched on the need for these. Now that British citizenship, unlike the existing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is to carry with it the right of abode, the current provisions on right of abode need to be replaced. The most important feature is the replacement of section 2 of the 1971 Act by the new statement of the right of abode contained in Clause 36(2).
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I am grateful for his characteristic courtesy. A point of major importance arises in relation to clauses 46 and 47. Could my right hon. Friend add to his very clear exposition of the Bill by giving the House the benefit of some guidance as to the effect of the new code of citizenship on the right of freedom of movement of workers and the right of establishment within the European Economic Community?
  Mr right hon. Friend will know that these matters are referred to in the Treaty of Rome, where the test is nationality, which is not defined in the Treaty. I imagine that there will be a significant change in the arrangements under the new law. But it is not referred to in the Bill. It

  945
  is referred to in the White Paper, but only in the glossary, which of course has no legal effect. There is no reference in the interpretation clause—clause 46—or in clause 47.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend would address himself to this matter, or, if it is not convenient at this moment, perhaps the Minister of State would take the point on board and give us the benefit of his guidance as we approach the late hours of the night.
  Mr. Whitelaw: These matters are still under discussion with the European Community. I would therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to allow my hon. Friend to give a detailed reply on that matter—[Interruption.] I should have thought that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) would agree that, as these matters are under discussion, it is only sensible to have a detailed reply in the winding-up speech on a matter of considerable complexity, which I am sure that he understands but on which it is important to get a clear answer. I should hope that that might, for once, take the smile off his face.
  I need not, I think, go into the remaining clauses. I hope that my outline of the Bill's main provisions will have assisted the House. In particular, I hope that it will have demonstrated that, understandable though they are, there are no real grounds for some of the fears which have been expressed. I appeal to all those, including representatives of the churches who have expressed such fears, to consider further what I have said. I am most concerned to remove the basis for the existing misunderstandings and am anxious that people should not be alarmed unnecessarily. I emphasise yet again that the Bill will not adversely affect the position under the immigration law of anyone who is lawfully settled in the United Kingdom. We promised this and we have kept that promise. The Bill provides the comprehensive and logical overhaul of our citizenship legislation that has so long been required and which it has long been the absolute duty of the Government of the United Kingdom to introduce.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Opposition propose to oppose the Bill at all stages. We shall vote against the Second Reading tonight. We shall attempt to amend the Bill in Committee. When whatever remains of it comes back to the House as a result of the Government Whips and the Government's majority on Third Reading, we shall vote against what has been pushed through in the Standing Committee.
  The Bill should not go upstairs at all. It should not be considered in a Standing Committee. It should be considered by a Committee of the whole House, because it concerns some, though not all, of the fundamental rights of British citizens. Long-established rights are being diminished in some cases, and in other cases removed. If the Conservative Party, which talks so often and so glibly about constitutional propriety, had any respect for the House, it would have ensured that the Committee stage was dealt with on the Floor of the House, giving all hon. Members equal opportunity to make individual points.
  It is clear why the Government flinch from proper discussion. It is clear why they refused to allow the new Committee procedure to be used. That procedure would
  946
  have enabled experts and interested parties to offer their opinions on the Bill. Fortunately, the Government's omissions have been remedied, to a degree, by the Opposition taking evidence from interested and concerned parties. The evidence that we obtained made two points very clear.
  First, it was clear that in the recent past the Government have had scant negotiation and consultation with the minority communities in the country. Secondly, had the Government had the nerve to operate the new Committee procedure, they would have been faced with four solid sessions of complaint after complaint about the principles and content of the Bill. As the Home Secretary admitted, rather shamefacedly, at the end of his speech, the combined opinion of the Church of England and the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales would have been explained in detail—why they regard the Bill as wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I quote just one passage from their statement this week. The bishops say:
  "Any new nationality law should state as a matter of principle that our national identity is multi-racial, thereby avoiding the potential racial conception of national identity."
  The bishops conclude that the Bill fails in that particular and therefore goes on to devise policies which are in their nature and in their content racial. I must tell the Home Secretary that that is the Opposition's view, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman did the same."] Perhaps hon. Members will bear with me until I turn to the Green Paper. If they have read the Green Paper and the White Paper, they will be able to follow me when I take the House through the substantial differences in principle between the two documents.
  It is our view and the view of most outside commentators that this is not a nationality Bill at all, but an immigration control Bill. If the Home Secretary disagrees with that, although I note that some of his hon. Friends on the Conservative Back Benches are agreeing and rejoicing in the fact—
  Mr. Budgen: No, we are only hoping.
  Mr. Hattersley: —he has only to recall what was said by the Leader of the House as recently as last Thursday, when he made the case for the Committee stage not being taken on the Floor of the House. The Leader of the House said:
  "there is the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. That was the first occasion upon which we legislated to introduce immigration controls. That measure was taken on the Floor of the House. However, all subsequent Immigration Acts, of which the Bill is certainly of the same type, have been taken in Standing Committee, including the 1971 Act".—[Official Report, 22 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 422.]
  I am glad that the Leader of the House, if not the Home Secretary knows what the Bill is about. It is about controlling Commonwealth immigration.
  I do not suggest for one moment that a new nationality Act is not needed. The world has changed considerably since 1948, not least because of the wholly welcome process of colonies becoming independent nations. That process, as the Labour Government's Green Paper said, has left the law of nationality complicated and obscure. But what we need, as we redefine nationality, is a positive statement of nationality based upon objectively defined principles, clean of all racial considerations. From that statement of nationality, a non-discriminatory immigration policy could then flow.
  Mr. Budgen: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the Bill is a measure for immigration control, will he tell us how many people, and from where, he calculates will be excluded from this country if the Bill is passed?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman, predictable as always, wants to play the immigration numbers game, numbers can be provided. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that sort of point. Let me assure him that, as I go through the speech that I propose to make, I shall say who I believe will be excluded, who will not be excluded and the additional categories which, under the proposals which I have outlined, would be allowed in.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I do not think that I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: No. I am not giving way.
  We need a positive statement of nationality from which, then, a statement of immigration could flow without any discrimination between the races or between the sexes. As I propose to demonstrate, this Bill discriminates in both respects.
  I say again that we have before us an immigration control Bill dressed up to look like a nationality Bill. Anyone who reads the White Paper will see that, time after time, it talks about numbers, rates of entry and entitlement to settle here.
  Since the Nationality Bill is based on the Government's prejudices concerning entry and settlement, inevitably the Bill in itself discriminates. It discriminates against the black population in the Commonwealth and it discriminates against the black population already in the United Kingdom. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How?"] Believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I propose in a moment to give a very simple and obvious example which even Government supporters will understand.
  The Home Secretary asked us continually to accept his good faith and his good intentions. He said that he did not understand these criticisms. I believe that, and I believe that it is one of the difficulties that we face. But, when the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accept his good faith and his good intentions, let me tell him at once that I do. I have no idea what goes on in the right hon. Gentleman's head or in his heart. I am not entitled to make judgments about that, and I am not terribly interested to know. However, I can make judgments about what comes out of his Bill, and the outcome of his policies is that the Bill discriminates in the particulars that I have described.
  In fact, the Bill is racist. I make that grave charge, and I give an example at once.
  Mr. Budgen: Now we shall listen.
  Mr. Hattersley: In my constituency, there are very many examples of two families living in neighbouring, adjacent, related houses. They live side by side in the same row of houses. Both families are made up of British citizens, both of them theoretically enjoying equal rights under the law. After the Bill has been passed, they will not find that they have identical rights. If the mother of one of those families gives birth to a child when she happens to be on holiday in Spain, that child automatically will be
  948
  British. A child born to the other family if the mother happens to be with her parents in Islamabad will not automatically be British. Here are two families living side by side, theoretically equal under the law, and the rights of one of them will be changed as a result of this Bill. I do not know how Government supporters who are still mumbling that there is no racial discriminatory element in the Bill can justify their point. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is racist about it?"] What is racist is that the difference between the two categories always works out, or almost invariably works out—or 90 per cent. of the time works out—in a way which disadvantages the black community and gives corresponding advantage to the white. That is why I again describe the Bill, irrespective of the Home Secretary's good intentions, as racist in outcome. That is what the Opposition resent, and that is what we shall fight.
  The truth is that, on the example that I have just given, a child born to one family will be British under all circumstances. A child born to the other will be British only by courtesy of the Home Secretary.
  As that demonstrates, not only does the Bill discriminate against potential entrants into the country. It discriminates against British citizens already living here believing that they enjoy equality. It is no good the Home Secretary or anyone else preaching little homilies about the equal treatment of the ethnic minorities if this Government then pass legislation which, as its outcome, puts the ethnic minorities at a disadvantage. That is what the example that I have just described does, and I propose to give other examples.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I think that I have already given the hon. Gentleman a general indication of my intentions in respect of him.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to our question.
  Mr. Hattersley: It has been argued, and the Home Secretary has argued again today, that the Government have done no more than continue a policy which was begun by my right hon. and hon. Friends in 1977. Initially, I resented that suggestion, and then I saw that extraordinary apologia given at dictation speed to The Times and published last Thursday. I decided that, if the Government had to have recourse to that sort of propaganda, the Opposition should be more sorrowful and the Government should be more pitied than blamed for the other excesses of explanation and apology in which they had indulged over the past couple of months.
  The facts are clear. The introduction to the Green Paper was precise and specific in saying that that was, as Green Papers are, a discussion document canvassing a wide variety of possibilities. The then Home Secretary was equally clear in introducing it. He said:
  "I emphasise that the document is a set of ideas for discussion. It is not a set of proposals for legislation…The purpose of this document is to invite views."—[Official Report, 27 April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1227–8.]
  We know the Government's views. At best—I repeat—they have chosen the hardest options canvassed in the Green Paper, with one exception. But, much worse than that, what absolves the Opposition of any parentage of this Bill is that in one particular the Government propose to limit the rights of children born here in a way

  949
  which the Green Paper specifically rejected, and in another particular the Government propose to remove the rights of citizens by descent in a way which was neither privately contemplated nor publicly considered by the previous Government. Each of those two proposals, in no way associated with the previous Administration, is an issue of fundamental principle. Each of them denies to citizens the rights which the Opposition believe to be inalienable. Each, in our view, in itself would justify our voting against the Bill. In a moment, I shall take the two examples in turn.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's attack on this Bill upon the ground that it is really an immigration Bill, will he address himself to paragraph 29 of the Green Paper, which reads:
  "Some people who now have the right of entry to this country under the Immigration Act 1971 would not become British Citizens if the law were amended as suggested above."
  Does not that show, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, an illiberal approach in the Green Paper by the Opposition?
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman heard me say that the Green Paper canvassed a wide variety of options. That is the nature of Green Papres. All right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are prepared to shelter behind a discussion document had better decide, even if what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said is correct—and I believe his criticism to be fundamentally wrong—whether in these two particulars, where the Government are doing precisely what the previous Government would not have done, they are prepared to support these two items of discriminatory policy which I now outline.
  The first concerns clause 1:
  "A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is…a British citizen or…settled in the United Kingdom."
  The word "settled" is defined in clause 43 (3) and (4). It does not include persons living here with restrictions on their stay. It does not include people whom the courts decide are not ordinarily resident here. That means that a substantial number of children who in the future will be born in the United Kingdom will, for the first time in our history, be denied the absolute and automatic right to British citizenship. The Green Paper is specific in its support of automatic citizenship for every child born here. In taking quite the opposite view to that taken by the Labour Government three years ago, the present Government advance two arguments.
  The first is the high argument. There is the assertion in paragraph 42 of the White Paper that the opportunity of every child born here to be British might become "something of a handicap," a handicap to the child because the child might want to give up being British but forget to do so in time. Could there be a more pathetic argument in favour of the clause than what is actually said in the White Paper? I urge the Home Secretary to recognise this. He does not have to ask the Minister of State because it is in the White Paper. We are told that there might be some hardship if children forget to give up their British citizenship in time.
  950
  The low argument is described by the Government in paragraph 43 of their White Paper as the thing which causes their "main uneasiness"—that
  "the additional British citizens so created … would form a pool of considerable size."
  That has nothing to do with the principles of nationality. It has simply to do with numbers, with the size of the pool. We are even back to the same pathetic, watery metaphors, to "swamping", in the Prime Minister's phrase—talk about pools, about numbers, about size, about immigration control, and nothing to do with principle.
  I suspect that by last week the Home Office was beginning to get embarrassed about the "size of the pool," argument and therefore the article in The Times to which I referred, plainly dictated by some luckless PRO at shorthand speed, actually said that the "change", the change to deny some children British citizenship even though they were born here,
  "is made because of the large number of people travelling, with the greater likelihood of children being born here in transit …"
  The idea seems to be that the airlines, which do not allow travel by pregnant women, might allow themselves to be talked into bringing hundreds, a large pool, of potential mothers who would then leave London airport to give birth in Marks and Spencers or the National Gallery during their summer holidays here. Frankly, that is ridiculous. As the Home Secretary knows, the answer is that this was meant to make a reduction in numbers, it was a way of keeping some of them out, and it had nothing to do with principle.
  The second example relates to clause 2, and again it is an example of something which was totally rejected by the Labour Government. The clause provides:
  "A person born outside the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of his birth his father or mother … is a British citizen by virtue of birth in the United Kingdom."
  Citizens by registration—citizens equally British, I should have thought, because "British" should mean one thing and one thing alone—will not necessarily find that their children born when they have gone home or on holiday will have British citizenship.
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: Gone home?
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, gone home. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I mean by home. I have said, and I repeat, that while at least one person on the Opposition Benches believes that more ought to go home, the truth is that they are home already. Most of my black constituents are home already, home in Sparkbrook. But there is one habit which persists among the Asians in my constituency, namely a desire—they would say a need—to be with their mothers specifically when their children are born. Most of them would like their mothers to come here for the birth of their children, but most of their mothers are being kept out by the Minister of State. The alternative is to go to their family home and have their babies where their mothers are.
  That is what I meant and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) for giving me the opportunity to draw attention to one of the many shortcomings of the Minister of State.
  I return to the discrimination which is made, that one family's child born abroad is British by nature and the child of another family born abroad is British by courtesy of the Home Secretary. This can only have a deeply adverse effect on race relations.
  Mr. Marlow: It is the right hon. Gentleman who, by seeking to mislead, for his own ends, is having an adverse effect on race relations.
  Mr. Hattersley: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the reason why I did not think it right to give way to him earlier was that I was sure that whatever he had to say would exacerbate race relations in this country.
  I have spent the past 15 years telling my black constituents that they were equal before the law. I must now tell them that, if the Bill is passed, the law will discriminate against them.
  Mr. John Sever: Is it not significant that the Home Secretary, in a speech lasting almost 40 minutes, did not find it necessary to refer anywhere to race relations?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not do so, and I think that it is significant only in the sense that the Home Secretary does not understand the effect which the Bill will have on race relations. I do not for a moment doubt the Home Secretary's wish to improve race relations in this country. What I fear is that, despite his wish, the Bill will produce a result quite the opposite of that which is his general, proper and honourable intention.
  I imagine that the Home Secretary will say that some of the problems which I have described are mitigated by the fact that in both cases—the child born abroad to British citizens by registration and the child born in England to people who have been here for some time but are not defined in the categories that give it automatic citizenship—can be given British citizenship on the approval and with the agreement of the Home Secretary. I must say that the willingness to provide these conditional arrangements in no way improves the principles laid down by the Bill.
  It is impossible to rely on ministerial good will on these occasions. It is quite wrong that a family's future or the state of an individual should be decided by a civil servant's recommendation and the personal subjective judgment on the matter of the Home Secretary of the Minister of State.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I must get on. I have given way three times. [HON. MEMBERS: "To your own supporters."] I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) does not regard himself as a Labour Party supporter.
  I wish now to describe what I believe a proper Nationality Bill would include. We believe that such a Bill would contain a proper specification and precise definition of what nationality means. It would enshrine those conditions in law, and it would make those conditions subject to proper appeal by people who believed that they were entitled to nationality but had not been granted it by ministerial decision.
  The Bill before us makes no provision for any appeal concerning the right to nationality. In discussing its failure to do so, the White Paper again indulges in what I regard as a particularly squalid piece of double-talk. I fear that the Home Secretary fell for it this afternoon, and he ought to criticise whoever wrote that part of his speech for allowing him to make a statement which, on reflection, he will feel to have been less than fair.
  952
  Referring back to the Green Paper, the Government say in their White Paper that they share
  "the doubts expressed in the Green Paper on whether it would be apt to have an appeals system if good character is to be assessed subjectively…"
  That is true. The Green Paper does say that. But we do not want a good character scheme or assessment to be judged subjectively. We believe that a candidate for nationality ought to be able to demonstrate objectively whether he is entitled to it, because we do not believe that good character is something which is subject to a personal decision.
  Let me give an example. For my part, I do not believe that a West Indian in my constituency, unemployed and poor, who has smashed open the gas meter is necessarily of worse character than the Minister of State, who stopped that man's family joining him in this country. I do not believe that the conventional characteristics of good character are those which ought to be used in this way. They will be determined according to the prejudices of individuals, and that should not be the case. They ought to be enshrined precisely in law and they should be subject to appeal.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, regarding this in terms of someone who has committed a criminal offence, he has actually equated my hon. Friend the Minister of State with someone who committed a criminal offence. I think that that really is a squalid argument.
  Mr. Hattersley: I thought that the Home Secretary would say that. Let us assume that he is right. If he is right, if he disagrees with my judgment on good character, he must agree with my point that the likes of him and the likes of me have different opinions about these matters and should not make decisions about people's futures dependent on those different opinions.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked a point mentioned in paragraph 60 of the Green Paper. It states:
  "it is questionable whether it would be apt to have an appeals system if good character, assessed in each case by analysing all the factors involved, were to remain the criterion for citizenship."
  As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the final sentence of that paragraph states:
  "Applicants who were refused on security and similar grounds could not in any case be given a right of appeal, because of the difficulty of disclosing in public the information that had led to the refusal."
  Mr. Hattersley: I agree with that final point. A special security category could and should be treated differently by the Home Secretary's writ. The Home Secretary could say that a man was being excluded for security reasons, and not because of a language test or because of allegations about his character. I am prepared to believe that if the Home Secretary made such an application he would make it in good faith. There is no problem about excluding security cases.
  I turn to my next major objection to the Bill and to the attempts that we shall make to improve the Bill in Committee.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The right hon. Gentleman has just made a characteristically odious attack on me. He is apparently complaining about my decisions on immigration cases. In

  953
  about 90 per cent. of such cases an appeals system is available. Very often, such cases go through that system. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that point and accept that the existence of an appeals system does not necessarily solve all problems? In a sense, I would be delighted if it did. If people accepted the verdicts of the appeals system, it would make life much easier. Will the right hon. Gentleman think a bit more about the implications of an appeals system?
  Mr. Hattersley: We shall soon, if necessary on a Supply day—
  Mr. Marlow: Answer the question.
  Mr. Hattersley: I was about to answer it. We shall soon—if necessary on a Supply day—discuss the general question of immigration control and the appeals system. At present the appeals system is wholly unsatisfactory. The point that I was trying to make did not concern the appeals system, but the Minister's discretion in individual cases. The hon. Gentleman well understands my opinion on the way that he has used his discretion over the past 18 months.
  The Home Secretary said again today that the Bill removed all discrimination between men and women, because a woman's automatic right on marriage to British citizenship had been replaced by a three year rule, and the man's five year residence qualification had been replaced by a similar three year rule. The removal of the woman's immediate and absolute right and its replacement with a three year rule is a simple example of levelling down. There is an analogy to 1928—I think that that was the date—when discrimination against women having the vote was removed on the premise that it was wrong that men should be able to vote at 21 when women could not vote until they were 35. The argument continued along the line that equality would be achieved by giving everyone the vote at 30. It is an extraordinary way of providing equality.
  My main objection is not the levelling down, but the residence qualification. I feel very strongly about the way in which immigration control has been implemented during the past 18 months. It is impossible for wives and husbands to join their wives and husbands here. It often takes up to three years before a wife can get an interview in her country of origin. It often takes another two years before a judgment is made about whether she can enter Britain. After five years of waiting, she may then have to wait another three years before she qualifies for British nationality. The entry qualifications clearly discriminate against one of the sexes. Any basis of nationality that is dependent on residence, must, in itself, be discriminatory.
  I have described some of our specific criticisms of the Bill. They imply the type of citizenship or nationality Bill that we should like. The Government propose to create three major classes of British citizenship: British citizens, citizens of British Dependent Territories and British overseas citizens. Even allowing for the qualifications that I have given, the first would enjoy full citizenship, the third category would have virtually no citizenship rights. We should like to see the formulation of a principal main class of British citizen. That citizenship would, or should embrace everyone born or adopted in the United Kingdom, and everyone born or adopted overseas whose parents are United Kingdom citizens. In addition the wives or
  954
  husbands of British citizens would gain that right automatically on marriage. It would also include those who pass an objective test and who become naturalised or registered citizens. United Kingdom citizens, British protected persons and British subjects without citizenship who are resident here would also be included. The Government believe that we have a special obligation to immigrants under the special voucher scheme. Clearly that scheme should and will be continued. When special voucher entrants come into the United Kingdom, they should also have an automatic and immediate right to British citizenship.
  Those whom the Government would make citizens of dependent territories will—if the Bill is enacted—have a generalised citizenship. That is wrong. We should like individual citizenship to be granted to the individual dependencies. Gibraltar is a special problem. I look forward to discussing this issue tommorrow afternoon with the Gibraltarian Chief Minister and some of his colleagues. I hope that I shall be allowed to return to that special subject in Committee, as it would not be sensible—let alone polite—to offer an opinion until those welcome conversations have taken place.
  The third category is that of British overseas citizenship. It is not so much a status as subterfuge. The provision would include citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who live in former colonies. However, it offers them virtually nothing. Many of those who live in Commonwealth countries have rights of permanent settlement. The Government should take the initiative and should arrange discussions with the Commonwealth countries in which those people now live in security and happiness, in order to clarify and regularise their status. After those discussions, I hope that many of those citizens will acquire the full citizenship of their countries of residence. But I have no doubt that those who remain without adequate security should also be offered British citizenship.
  The policy that I have put forward would extend British citizenship. As a result it would have an effect on immigration. However, even in theory, it would not have a substantial effect. In practice, the additional immigration would be negligible. Some people—and perhaps some of those Conservative Members who sit below the Gangway—will seek to argue that it is virtually an open-door policy.
  What I have said would provide nothing of that sort. It is simply a nationality policy that is completely free from racial bias, and the immigration policy that flows from that. If, by enunciating that as clearly as we can, we lose some votes, so be it. We have no alternative but to describe what we believe to be true. As a result, our opposition to the Bill will be unremitting. Hugh Gaitskell described the reason why far better than I could, in a debate that took place nearly 20 years ago. He spoke about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and said:
  "the test of a civilised country is how it behaves to all its citizens of different race, religion and colour. By that test this Bill fails, and that is fundamentally why we deplore it."—[Official Report, 16 November 1961; Vol. 649 c.802.]
  We shall oppose the Bill. It fails by the same test, and we shall fight it in the same way.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should tell

  955
  the House that 30 hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate. There is no 10-minutes rule, but speeches that take more than 12 minutes will debar one or more of those 30 hon. Members.
  5.20 pm
  Sir Paul Bryan: I speak in my capacity as chairman of the all-party Hong Kong group. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his assurance that the Bill is not designed to weaken the links between Britain and Hong Kong.
  We in this House are not exactly agreed on what form this Bill should take. However, we are all agreed that something should be done to bring our nationality laws up to date. That may seem obvious to us, but I must tell the House that it is far from obvious to those in Hong Kong. I have frequently been asked there, "If, as you say, our status and rights are unaffected by the White Paper and now the Bill, why must the description on our passports be changed? There must be some hidden motive behind this legislation." The main purpose of my speech is to obtain from the Minister of State the assurance that no such hidden motive exists, as well as several other important assurances.
  Hong Kong is deeply interested in the Bill. That is, first, because any alteration in citizenship means a great deal to people in practical terms. It is hard for us, with our British passports, our unquestioned nationality and right of abode, to understand the strength and depth of the feeling of those who cannot take such rights for granted. Not for us the frustration of being channelled into separate and lengthy immigration queues. Not for us the tedium of having to apply for visas if we wish to visit a European country. Above all, not for us the uncertainty of not knowing where we shall be allowed to settle and to make our homes in future. So people in Hong Kong sit up and take notice when their rights of nationality appear to be threatened.
  Secondly, as my right hon. Friend has recognised, people in Hong Kong are sensitive to evidence of any weakening of the links between Britain and Hong Kong. That may seem curious to some hon. Members who are conscious of our long and, on the whole, successful administration of the territory, our evident commitment with our forces to the area and our long-standing investments in the territory. However, doubters can cite a chain of events that has in their eyes eroded the status of Hong Kong citizens over the past 20 years. It started with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. It was continued by the Immigration Act 1971 Act and it continues with the Bill. That is their view.
  Other recent policies of the British Government have reinforced these doubts—for example, Britain's leading role in the battle with Hong Kong over textile quotas in 1977; the policy of making Hong Kong pay 50 per cent. more last year towards our defence costs; and the designation of Hong Kong students studying here as foreigners. That last development, involving greatly increased students' fees, has caused the most lamentable impression in Hong Kong. It means that many of Hong Kong's future leaders will be educated in America and Canada instead of in Britain, much to the disadvantage of this country.
  With these serious doubts in the air, those of us interested in Hong Kong have taken the opportunity, ever since the introduction of the Green Paper on nationality,
  956
  to impress on successive Home Secretaries the importance of ensuring that the Bill, when finally introduced, would do nothing to add to the uncertainty over the British commitment to Hong Kong.
  In that we have been only partially successful. Had the Government followed the recommendations of the Green Paper, the people in Hong Kong now termed "British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" would have become "British overseas citizens." Whatever assurances might have been given that their present rights would be unchanged, that title would certainly have caused deep misgivings.
  We were therefore pleased when the Government did what was previously deemed impossible and introduced an extra class of citizenship, that of citizenship of British dependent territories, composed of countries with especially close relations with Britain. This would surely rank higher than the status of British overseas citizens, covering former colonies and territories with more distant connections with the United Kingdom. Hong Kong is by far the largest territory whose people can claim citizenship of British dependent territories.
  The introduction of the additional category of citizenship, largely for the reassurance of those in Hong Kong, has not succeeded in that objective. Paragraph 16 of the White Paper states:
  "The establishment of a separate citizenship for the British Dependent Territories would in no way alter the relationship between those territories and the United Kingdom, nor the Government's obligations and commitments to the dependent territories and to their citizens."
  However, the people in Hong Kong are still not entirely reassured. There is no doubt that they will be looking for a further firm and clear expression of Government assurance during the passage of the Bill, especially in Committee, and some concessions in clear evidence of the Government's recognition of the strength of their case.
  One of the groups most concerned about the Bill are officials and unofficials in the service of the Hong Kong Government. The combination of clause 4(1) and the provision contained in schedule 1 are more restrictive in terms of the conditions of naturalisation than paragraph 70 of the White Paper and present practice. I strongly recommend that the implications of schedule 1 should be examined carefully in Committee so that the claims of those who have faithfully served the Crown in dependent territories will not be overlooked.
  I recommend one small measure that would cost nothing and would not weaken the Bill—indeed, it would have no effect on the Bill. I recommend that the passports of Hong Kong citizens should carry the words "British (Hong Kong) Citizen", and that the passports of inhabitants of other dependent territories should similarly have the name of the territory inserted in the description of the passport. That would be appreciated by the people of Hong Kong and would be helpful in pointing out to officials in other countries that the bearer of the passport has closer links with the United Kingdom in terms of nationality than a British overseas citizen. I also hope that British missions overseas will be instructed to do their utmost to safeguard the existing freedom of travel by Hong Kong citizens.
  If at the same time Britain's bilateral agreements with such countries as West Germany, Denmark and Spain could be extended to British (Hong Kong) citizens, the new passport would bring an improvement in the present

  957
  situation, which would do much to restore confidence. It would be disastrous if any change in nomenclature were to lead third countries to require visas or other entry certificates in addition to those now required.
  I draw attention to two further clauses that are causing much concern. There is the feeling that the implications for Hong Kong of the strict provisions of clauses 13(1) and 46(2) have not been given sufficient weight. I hope that that will be considered.
  There is continuing concern about the provisions covering nationality of children of British business men born in Hong Kong. The Bill proposes that only if one parent is a British citizen by birth in the United Kingdom, or is a Crown servant, or is an employee of a British firm with headquarters in England, is citizenship granted automatically to children born abroad. There is provision for the Home Secretary to make exceptions and to grant British citizenship in other cases. However, many British business men whose families have been abroad for more than one generation were not born in Britain.
  It seems anachronistic to encourage business men to go overseas to establish companies that increase Britain's overseas trade and then, by introducing the clause, to raise a question mark over the citizenship of their children. It would be possible to overcome the problem by allowing in such cases the children to be registered as British citizens in the same way as the children of diplomats and Service men living abroad.
  I do not wish the comparatively narrow but important problems of the expatriate living abroad to distract from my main concern with the Bill, which is the reaction to it by the people of Hong Kong. Feelings are running particularly strongly among young people in Hong Kong, who believe, however mistakenly, that the prime intention of the Bill is to turn them into second-class citizens in the eyes not only of the British but of other nationalities with whom they come into contact.
  These young people clearly see the influence that we can have over their future. They wish to contribute towards the maintenance and strengthening of economic and cultural links between Hong Kong and Britain. They can play a significant role in building up Britain's trading position not only in Hong Kong and with China but in the Pacific basin as a whole, where economic expansion is on a scale unequalled in the rest of the world. In short, they recognise that their destiny is linked with that of Britain. Against that background it would be folly to risk the alienation of the citizens of Hong Kong in the course of what is meant to be no more than a tidying up of out-of-date nationality laws.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. David Steel: My colleagues and I consider this to be a thoroughly bad Bill and one that we shall oppose at all stages. I hope that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) will forgive me if I do not comment on the problems of Hong Kong. His speech illustrated the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others—that the Bill contains so many specific complexities that it should properly be considered by a Select Committee under the new procedure so that representatives of communities such as Hong Kong and Gibraltar can give evidence.
  958
  It was an unfortunate but perhaps, in some ways, a significant printer's error that the first copies of the Bill were issued with the title "Restricted British Nationality Bill".
  I thought that the Home Secretary, for whom I have always had a soft spot, was at his most sweepingly unconvincing in his speech. His fondness for categorising citizens in the Bill has extended to categorising Members of the House into major figures and problems. I was reluctant to intervene in his speech because I did not know whether to be offended or otherwise if he did not give way to me under either of those categories.
  The criticism of the Bill in principle, before I come to the details, is that it is the latest in a long line of rather shabby measures which are reducing basic rights and discriminating against ethnic minorities, stretching from the 1968 Act through the 1971 Act and various rules and regulations. It is no answer for Conservative Members below the Gangway to say that the Bill is not really racist because occasionally a white person is caught in the same unfair discriminatory net. That is the only argument that they produce to try to counter the charge that the Bill is racist, because it is racist in its effect and in the implementation of its terms. The people discriminated against are overwhelmingly from ethnic minorities. The Bill is an attempt to massage our nationality legislation to suit immigration policy. The statement made by the Leader of the House last Thursday, which has already been quoted, underlines that fact.
  I listened with great interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. In 1968, a number of members of the Labour Party, including, to his credit, the present Leader of the Opposition, voted against the legislation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not among those who voted against it. He voted for it. Although I admire, as I always do, his dialectic skill in analysing the difference between the Labour Government's Green Paper and this Government's White Paper, I am left wondering, given his consistent views in recent years, which I respect and admire, where he was in the Cabinet when that Green Paper was being concocted. It is no argument to say that it was a document for discussion. That is what a Green Paper is. But Governments do not put into documents for discussion policies which they have ruled out. Indeed, in parts of that Green Paper, specific proposals were ruled out. Some of the principles that have appeared in the Bill stem undoubtedly from the Labour Government's Green Paper.
  The Liberal Party produced a document in response to the Green Paper at that time. Our starting position was that there should be a positive assertion of what nationality and citizenship mean:
  "The guiding principle of any new statute should be that it preserves and wherever possible enhances the freedom of the individual. It should take as its starting point the needs of the individual rather than the convenience of the state. Nationality is a legal tie, conferring rights and obligations on the holder. It should not be entirely within the powers of the executive to confer or withdraw it on the arbitrary assessment of a person's degree of connection with the state. On no account should anyone be deprived of the citizenship he currently enjoys, unless he is given some other citizenship more appropriate to his needs."
  That is a direct quote from the document that we produced, and on that test the Bill fails.
  We welcome the provision which allows women the same rights as men to pass down citizenship and to give foreign husbands the same rights as foreign wives to

  959
  register for citizenship. However, there will still not be true sex equality until the immigration rules are changed; since they make it difficult for some British girls to bring foreign husbands into Britain for settlement, and settlement is a prerequisite for citizenship.
  We deplore the innovation, highlighted by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, that some people born in Britain will not automatically be British citizens. It is significant that the bodies opposed to that measure have not been confined to the ethnic minority organisations, but have included a wide canvas of concerned opinion. Those bodies include the British Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. When there is that weight of opposition to fundamental provisions, there is an obligation on the Government to listen to it rather than to say that they do not understand it.
  Now that the Government have conceded that mothers should be able to transmit citizenship, that should allow children born overseas to British mothers before the Bill comes into effect to become citizens if they wish.
  One of the main criticisms is that the rights of citizenship are not set out in the Bill. If we were to attempt to do that, we would say that citizenship of the United Kingdom should automatically confer certain rights upon the bearer of that nationality. Those rights should include the right of abode in the United Kingdom and territories—I accept that Hong Kong is an individual case that will have to be dealt with separately—the right to leave the country and to return freely, which implies, apart from exceptional cases, with the right of appeal, the right to a passport; the right to assistance abroad from embassies and consulates; the right to vote, to stand for public office and to sit on juries; the right to take employment, including employment in the public sector; and the right to be considered for such employment without discrimination on grounds of race, religion or sex.
  Another basic objection to the main features of the Bill is that it builds in more discretionary powers for the Home Secretary. The "good character" requirement is too vague and allows far too much discretion. A test must be found and set in statute based objectively on a person's criminal and financial record.
  In considering the extension of discretion to the Home Secretary or to the Minister of State one should remember the line that the Minister has taken with hon. Members on present immigration cases. I have had a number of letters from the Minister of State saying that he has too many letters to deal with. He has warned that any more letters written to him will push people further back in the queue. The impression that he has given in speeches and letters is that he has far too many cases to deal with—many thousands of them. Yet the Bill proposes a massive extension of discretionary power to the Home Secretary without any form of appeal.
  If the right hon. Gentleman has too much work in this area at the moment, he will have even more when the legislation has been passed. If one works out the number of letters that he receives with the number of hours that it is possible to work in the day, he will give very little consideration to each case that comes before him. He cannot do otherwise.
  The Government are making the concept of the Commonwealth less meaningful by ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to register automatically for citizenship after a certain number of years' residence. That
  960
  is an important new principle. I regret it for Commonwealth reasons. It is also regrettable because of the effect that it will have on people already settled here.
  In this instance we do not have to rely on theory, because we already have a practical example of the taking away of rights of people already settled here. The Pakistan Act came into effect in 1973. That Act gave Pakistanis settled here six years—until September 1979—to register as of right as United Kingdom citizens. After September 1979 they lost that right. That is what we legislated in 1973, and it is the precedent for this Bill. But the Bill proposes to give Commonwealth citizens only two years to register. After that those already settled here will lose their rights, contrary to the pledge given in the Conservative Party's manifesto at the election that those already settled here would not lose their rights.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steel: When I have finished this point, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I have made inquiries of the Pakistan embassy to find out the effect of the six-year rule in the 1973 Act. I am authorised to say that, despite the six years of publicity by the Pakistan embassy in this country, the Home Office, the JCWI and other organisations, it is doubtful whether all those eligible knew about it. Therefore, the two-year period is inadequate, especially in the light of that previous six years' experience. The embassy still does not know how many Pakistanis have lost the opportunity to register, which they had until September 1979, but the head of the standing conference on Pakistani organisations has said that "a few thousand" Pakistanis did not know about the provision until it was too late.
  I now give way to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) because I know that he specialises in this subject.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the distinction is by no means valid because, whereas Pakistan nationals had to register as United Kingdom citizens within a stipulated time if they were to retain their civic rights—to join the Armed Forces, to vote, to serve on juries, to join the Civil Service and so on—Commonwealth citizens will be in no danger of losing their civic rights if they do not register as British nationals within the time stipulated in the Bill?
  Mr. Steel: They lose the right to nationality. Otherwise, why is this provision in the Bill at all? If what the hon. Gentleman said is true, there is no need for this provision. We could retain the right and not put in this two-year limitation.
  You made an appeal for brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to observe it. I return to the point that I made at the beginning. The Bill is seen in the context of the apparatus for the control of immigration. That apparatus has already developed to the stage where not only are innocent travellers harassed and made to suffer inconvenience and rudeness at ports of entry, but considerable expensive operations, involving dozens of police and immigration officers, are mounted to root out a handful of illegal entrants and over-stayers. Black and brown people in this country are increasingly made to present their passports when seeking jobs or when seeking medical care under the National Health Service.

  961
  The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) referred to overseas students. Last night I heard a high commissioner make the point that all the savings of £3,000 per head that the Government hope to screw out of overseas students from now on will be wiped out if there is the loss of, say, one order for a steel strip mill that might have gone to Britain but does not do so because of the failure to train more Commonwealth people in our colleges and universities.
  The Liberal Party's objection to the Bill is that it is part of the Government's overall niggardly attitude. If they give the impression to the rest of the world that they attach high priority to excluding people from this country who are not of European origin while at the same time opening the doors wide to six millon patrials from the white Commonwealth and 200 million Europeans from the EEC, they will unwittingly set a bad example for racism in this country.
  The Prime Minister is fond of quoting St. Francis of Assisi and misrepresenting the parable of the Good Samaritan. I would commend to her an older text in the Book of Leviticus:
  "When an alien settles with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. He shall be treated as a native born among you, and you shall love him as a man like yourself".
  Because the Bill falls far short of that standard, we shall oppose it.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I listened, as did the House, with great interest to the leader of the Liberal Party the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) talking about the rights that his party would give to people in this country, but he was wholly silent about the duties that obviously must accompany those rights. His idea that we ought in one massive piece of legislation to have all the rights enjoyed by citizens in this country is difficult to assimilate without realising that we already have those rights in separate Acts, and they work very well. Those Acts have nothing to do with nationality as such. A person who enjoys the citizenship of this country enjoys the rights of that colateral legislation.
  I should like to address my attention first to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I cannot confess that I was surprised in any way by what he said. However, I must confess that I was somewhat shocked by the crudity of the way that he approached this problem.
  I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has decided that it must be in the political and electoral interests of the Labour Party deliberately to confuse the issues of immigration, nationality and race. There is nothing in the Bill that has anything to do with immigration.
  As I see it, and as I hope the House sees it, the Bill is being brought in for two principal purposes. One is to give us what at present we have not got—a nationality of our own—and the other is to provide what the 1948 Act of the then Labour Administration does not provide—a sound and firm understandable foundation on which to build immigration rules which will in turn be sound and just.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I am astonished at the hon. and learned Gentleman's lack of knowledge. If he has read the
  962
  Government's White Paper, he will have seen in paragraph 26 the argument for giving British citizenship to people who will become British overseas citizens. Perhaps I might refresh his memory, or tell him for the first time, what the last sentence of that paragraph says. It says:
  "But if this group, of which the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa form only a part, were to have British Citizenship the potential immigration commitment would be so large as to be quite unacceptable."
  That is the reason why we are to have the category of British overseas citizen.
  Mr. Gardner: Yes; but it is not the basis for British nationality, as it will become, after the Bill has been passed. I suggest that the Bill has nothing to do with immigration as such, and it certainly has nothing to do with race.
  Nationality and race are not two sides of the same coin. They are two different coins altogether. Those who try to introduce race into a debate on nationality are producing a dangerous mixture. They are like people who are prepared to risk pouring petrol into an oil stove. There is likely to be an explosion. Race is something that can be poisonous, harmful and damaging to a country. Nationality, with which we are now dealing, is a subject that can be of undoubted advantage to everyone living in this country.
  One of the reasons why we must have a new nationality Bill lies in the extraordinary fact that there are so few people in this country, born here and living here, who would be capable of answering the simple question, "What is your nationality?" I suppose that most of us, because nationality depends upon citizenship, would be tempted to answer, "Well, we are British citizens, aren't we?" But we are not. We never have been. The law does not recognise such a status. According to our passports, as most of us know, we are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, although most of us have had no connection or association, at any stage, with the colonies.
  If this appears a purely academic point, I should perhaps inform the House that a dear friend of mine, a distinguished writer and author, was going on holiday some years ago to Switzerland. The train was stopped at the German border by the German authorities, who, looking at his passport, said to him, "You will have to get another passport". They took him off the train and said, "Look, it says here you are a citizen of the colonies. Which colony? Malaysia? Kenya?" It was some time before he could proceed with his journey. This is a wholly unrealistic situation created by the 1948 Act. Forty times that Act has been amended, but it still produces the most absurd anomalies.
  The 1948 Act was brought in at the time when the British Empire was breaking up. One of the matters dealt with was the question, "Who should be a British subject?" A British subject was recognised as a person who owed allegiance to the British Crown. The Act said that all Commonwealth citizens should be British subjects. Almost before the statutory ink was dry, India declared itself to be a republic. Shortly afterwards, other countries followed India's example. By 1977, as a result of the British Nationality Act 1948, there were 950 million British subjects in the world. That was one of the reasons for taking a new look at this old law.
  The other anomalies are examples of what today will no doubt be described as outrageous examples of sex discrimination. The father could give his children his

  963
  nationality but the mother could not. A wife took the nationality of her husband but the husband could not take hers. Children born abroad in non-Commonwealth countries could be registered with the nationality of this country, but if they happened to be born in Commonwealth countries, they could not.
  I would have thought that the House as a whole would not only understand but would agree that we must have a new British nationality law. All Governments, it seems, have paid recognition in some way to this fact. This is the only Government who have had the guts to do something about it. It matters not what Government are in power. Any Government with the guts to touch this hypersensitive nerve, the political nerve and the social nerve of nationality are bound to get opposition. It is right that this House at all stages should look with the greatest care at what the Government at the moment intend shall be the provisions of the new nationality Bill. It is essential, I suggest, that this approach to the Bill should be a rational one. It should be done on the basis that this is a Bill that deals exclusively with nationality.
  The Bill contains provisions that are open to strong debate. However, it seems very peculiar that the Opposition, who, as the Labour Government, produced a Green Paper in 1977 with what appeared, at the time, to be a promise of reform of the nationality law, approaching that objective in a perfectly reasonable, and, in many ways, attractively phrased argument, should now seek to go back on what was contained in the Green Paper and should seek to use various provisions that are either adoptions of what was said in the Green Paper or reflections of the influence in the Green Paper for political and electoral ends. To hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, this is what seems to be happening.
  I give one example. I have submitted to the House, with great earnestness, that this Bill is concerned exclusively with nationality. I have also submitted, as did the argument followed in the 1977 Green Paper, that the new law is needed in order to give us what we have not got at the moment—a single and separate nationality of our own. It is also required in order to provide a foundation for immigration rules later on. Furthermore, this is a requirement that has been seen by many other countries in the West and the East. At the moment, it is fair and accurate to say that the confusion between our nationality laws and our immigration rules is greater than in any other country, East or West. It is obvious that we must do something about them, That is the conclusion in the Green Paper.
  In the preface to the arguments that are advanced in the Green Paper, there is an admission that
  "our present law of citizenship…as its name implies, relates both to the United Kingdom and overseas territories; it does not identify those who belong to this country and have the right to enter and live here freely".
  Then follow these words, to which I urge Opposition Members to pay particular regard:
  "it prevents the United Kingdom from basing its immigration policies on citizenship. Our citizenship is in these respects different from the citizenships of many other countries including our partners in the European Community."
  The 1948 Act has been the thorn in the side of every Government who have had to deal with nationality since 1948. Now that we have the chance of removing its worst defects and repealing those aspects of our present nationality law which are offensive, not only to us but to people overseas, we must make use of that opportunity to
  964
  provide ouselves with a nationality law which is generally viewed by people overseas as being acceptable both to people inside and outside our country.
  I am sure that it is well known by all hon. Members that many of those who belong to ethnic minorities in this country see a protection in the provisions of this new law which identify them as British citizens—a protection which would be of the greatest value to them as citizens of this country.
  The Bill deserves and I believe will get the full support of the citizens of this country who want to be what this Bill will make them, British citizens.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not suppose that there can be any greater subject to which the House could address itself than this, going as it does to the whole basis of our existence, the very definition of who we think we are.
  It is one-third of a century, a whole generation of men, since we last legislated upon the subject of British nationality. In those intervening years we have had full opportunity to realise how little the implications of that Act were understood by those who put it on the statute book, and how little they saw the seriousness of the consequences that would follow from the decisions that they took. We must avoid, if we can, a repetition of that experience. The Government's contribution is, above all, to ensure that the House has ample time not merely for debate but for reflection upon the Bill as it makes its way to the statute book that there is ample time between the stages of the Bill, and that the Committee stage is taken for what it will be, not a means of obstructing or advancing Government business, but something serious in itself, which affects our deepest responsibilities.
  When the House last legislated in 1948 there were still one status, and one basis for that status, known to our law. For all practical purposes, there was a single status, and that was British subject, and there was a single basis, and that was allegiance. Broadly speaking, to be born within the allegiance constituted the basis of British subjecthood.
  Until well into this century that equation of basis with status, and of status with rights and duties, remained effective. But there was a time bomb underneath it. For, as the dominions of the Crown successively extended over a quarter of the globe, the meaning of British subject extended far beyond the possibility of its being given any common meaning in terms of rights and duties. The consequences, not felt at first, came home to us when, after the Second World War, there was an immense change in the mobility of mankind, a change of explosive, revolutionary character, which made no longer tenable that acceptance of the growing anomaly of British subjecthood, which had hitherto been possible.
  In 1948 Parliament abolished allegiance as the basis of status. It substituted for allegiance an aggregation of separate citizenships. It took the citizenships of the then self-governing parts of the British Empire or Commonwealth and equated those citizenships with the status of British subject. But then, of course, in 1948–49 it was still left with many hundreds of millions of human beings within the dominions of the Crown who had no such self-legislated citizenship. By a disastrous error, it was decided to lump all that residue under one title called a citizenship, and to describe them as "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies". There could have been no more

  965
  crass offence against common sense than to create a citizenship to which no State, no reality, no actuality, corresponded.
  There was a further consequence of those fundamental changes made by the 1948 Act. It was that status, on the one hand, and rights and duties, on the other hand, came completely apart. What should have been identical—two sides of the same coin—became completely detached. In our law in this United Kingdom, unlike any other part of the Commonwealth, rights and duties were attached not to the new, however unsatisfactory concept, of citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies; they remain attached to the former allegiance-based concept of British subject. It was a contradiction of the reality in which we were living as the 1940s and the 1950s proceeded; and one of the consequences of the 1948 Act was that immigration into this country on a massive and unforeseen scale was able to take place within the parameters of our own nationality law.
  As the years went by, it was seen increasingly to be unsatisfactory that we should have a citizenship which meant nothing, and a content of nationhood—the status of British subject—which could not be offered, was not being offered, would not be offered, to all who were termed British subjects. It is to the resolution of that impossible situation, as it now stands after 30 years, that this legislation is devoted—to the business of reuniting status and reality, status and statehood, status and rights and duties.
  I do not think that the Bill in its present form has by a long way succeeded in doing that. I do not say it is incapable of being so remoulded that it does do so; but in its present form, I do not believe that it has solved—in some cases I do not believe it has tackled—the problems with which we are confronted.
  First, the Bill has retained what I might call the rag-bag principle, which landed us with citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Our complaint hitherto was of having, on the one hand, British subject and on the other, citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; but what do we have now? We have British citizens, citizens of British dependent territories, British overseas citizens, British subjects—almost the last grade—and right at the bottom of the sump, as it were—although indeed it is a series of sumps, one below another—Commonwealth citizens, who are not, as hitherto, to be equated with British subjects, but are to be a sort of residual designation.
  As I understand the Bill, to none of those categories, other than British citizens, do any real entities correspond. They do not correspond to States. The British dependent territories do not constitute a State. The Bill does not offer to those who will be their citizens any interchange of rights and obligations between them. They are merely a residuum that has been lumped together for purposes of convenience and designated as a citizenship. Unless I misread the Bill, the same, a fortiori, is true of British overseas citizens and of residual British subjects, as of Commonwealth citizens, in the cosmetic clause.
  I found myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he said he believed that we should have taken things as they are, faced the reality of the dependent overseas territories and, however difficult it might be, endowed them each with a citizenship of its own that would at least
  966
  have a definite and normal meaning in relation to each of the territories. I would not have thought it to be outside the scope of the Bill that that possibility could be considered in the later stages. Certainly it is unsatisfactory that as it were this debris of the past should be left as a result of an operation that ought to place us on a new basis.
  In the same way, the Bill has not succeeded in bringing together status on the one hand and rights and duties on the other. Of course, the Home Secretary says—and quite rightly—that this is a Bill about nationality and that rights and duties are defined in other legislation; but in our other legislation rights and duties are still defined on a different basis. In the case of voting, for example, they are defined upon the basis of British subjecthood. In the case of abode they are still defined on the complex basis, not entirely, as I understand it, replaced by the Bill, which is enshrined in the 1971 Act.
  So the House is being invited to consider a new status, that of British citizen, without any clear concept of what are the fundamental rights and duties that will correspond to it. By fundamental rights and duties I mean the right to enter or leave the realm at will and the right of the franchise; but I mean also the right—it is as well a duty and a privilege—of serving the nation in peace and particularly—the ultimate test of nationality—in war.
  What then is the basis of citizenship and nationality which the Bill is proposing instead of that which was done away with in 1948—for it is not now to be allegiance—and instead of that which was substituted in 1948—for it is not now to be a list of other people's citizenships? It is quite a remarkable basis; and I am surprised that the debate has gone so far without attention being drawn to the matter. It is to be found in the first subsection of the first clause. It is not wholly birth within the allegiance, nor is it wholly descent: it is a combination of the two. That is very curious, something that the House, here and in Committee, should ponder long; for here, indeed, is the philosophical foundation on which we are attempting to build everything else.
  There are countries that have a jus soli—a right of the soil—which is essentially, I believe, feudal: the product of the soil is the property of the lord. Other countries such as Switzerland have a jus sanguinis—a right of blood: a man is a Swiss citizen not by being born in Switzerland, but by being descended from a Swiss. Here, however, the Government have presented us, at any rate at this stage, with an imperfect combination of the two. It is not to be all who are born within the United Kingdom: it is those who are born in the United Kingdom of a particular descent—and a very peculiar combination is assembled in the definition of that descent.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The change is not that there is a combination of the jus soli and the jus sanguinis. Those were both present under citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What is so disturbing about the new Bill is the imperfection to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. Not all born of descent will get citizenship.
  Mr. Powell: I am not sure that I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman, but this I will concede to him. The old principle up to 1948 of allegiance as the basis of nationality did, indeed, in a curious way combine the two jura. As long as those born within the realm were likely to be relatively homogeneous, the problem was not

  967
  present. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger—or guided my finger—to the spot that is crucial not merely for the Government in drafting their Bill, but for us.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman define homogeneity a little more closely?
  Mr. Powell: Yes, indeed. It is what we all mean by common descent—the notion not of consanguinity, but of being the sort of people who have lived in that territory in generations gone by. I use the word in a less precise sense than the Swiss, who define exactly what they mean by descent.
  Let the House make no mistake: it was the endeavour to combine those two principles upon which the Government found themselves spitted in the drafting of the Bill. And their difficulty is only a reflection of the real difficulty that we all know exists in this country—however we care to denominate it, on whatever side we may be in the debates that swirl around it.
  What has happened to the Government and to the Bill is that the old principle of allegiance, which we turned out of doors in 1948, is found to be not dead but sleeping; for allegiance is the very essence of nationhood, there is no meaning in nationhood without allegiance. Nationhood means that a man stands to one nation, to one loyalty, against all others—that is what it is about. However, I do not believe that the attempt as at present in the Bill to combine birth within the territory with a certain limitation upon descent has satisfied the true test of allegiance.
  Let me give an illustration. One matter has not yet been mentioned at all, curiously enough, in the debate—dual citizenship. There is an immense quantity of dual citizenship in the United Kingdom at present, an immense range of possession of dual citizenship, dormant or otherwise. Is dual citizenship really compatible with nationality? Is it really compatible with the inherent obligations and implications of allegiance that lie at the foundation of national status and nationhood?
  The Government have introduced almost offhand—there was just a sentence about it in the Home Secretary's speech—another radical change in the law of nationality. Hitherto, despite the rules in the Immigration Act 1971 governing the right of abode, nationality was transmitted in our law by the male. Under the Bill, nationality is transmitted alternatively either through the male or through the female.
  That has two implications. One is that the scope for dual citizenship—for dual nationality, alternative nationality—is enormously increased. The second is that we touch something much deeper than nationality law when we—almost lightheartedly—replace the transmission of the duty of allegiance from father to son with a possibility of transmission of allegiance from mother to son, while the father can transmit, at the same time or alternatively, a different allegiance. I do not believe that Parliament can leave so profound a question—I was going to say undecided, but I think that there may even be a danger that we leave it undebated.
  The particular form which the right of descent has taken is—as hon. Members may see from a glance at the beginning of the Bill—to limit descent by residence—to create, as it were, the right or ability of transmitting citizenship by virtue of residence in this country. I wonder how that can be reconciled with the ultimate implications and requirements of nationality. Is it acceptable that
  968
  persons who have or have acquired the right of residence in this country and who are exercising that right perfectly peaceably and properly should thereby become qualified to create British nationality in their offspring in this country? That question has so far not been opened in the debate; but it is a question which we cannot leave on one side if we are going to provide for the next generation a workable basis of nationality, something which was not provided for the last generation in 1948.
  As I said before, I do not believe that any of these matters are incapable of being dealt with within the framework of the present Bill. I have tried to suggest to the House the immense profundity, the almost unbounded implications, of what we are doing by once again, in the Bill, changing the basis of our nationality. We should weigh what we are doing—weigh the implications of what we are doing—for the present and the future population of this country in a way that will require many months of work from the House and from its Committees.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am honoured to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whose eloquence always holds the interest of the House whenever he addresses it on any subject within his wide experience.
  I am grateful to have caught your eye at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will endeavour to get my views across in what is an important debate. It will have a considerable impact over a wide area if the Bill is enacted in its present form.
  I speak as chairman of the British-Gibraltar Group, and in that capacity wish to refer specifically to part II of the Bill, which seeks to create a new definition of British dependent territories citizens, and to schedule 6, which includes the dependent territory of Gibraltar among the colonies which will be required to accept dependent territory citizenship status after the passing of the Bill.
  The Minister is well aware of the considerable public and political concern that has been expressed in Gibraltar about the Bill, which is seen as downgrading the people of Gibraltar from their present position, which they consider to be Gibraltar British. They feel that this sense of belonging to Britain will be removed if the Bill is passed with schedule 6 in its present form.
  In his written reply to my parliamentary question on 15 January my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that although the proposals in the Bill laid down that birth in, or other close connection with, Gibraltar would qualify the holders for citizenship of the British dependent territories
  "this decision in no way alters the constitutional position of Gibraltar in relation to the United Kingdom."
  My right hon. Friend also indicated that the people of Gibraltar have the right as
  "United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes"—[Official Report, 15 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 612]
  to enter the United Kingdom to seek and take up employment. Such a citizenship right is useful as long as Britain remains a member of the European Community. But there is a grave danger to that right should we ever be unfortunate enough to have a Left-wing Socialist Government, who are committed to withdrawing from the European Community. While I do not see the electorate of this country being gullible enough to elect such a Government the people of Gibraltar are entitled to be

  969
  safeguarded against such an eventuality. Now is the time to do it, while this Government are in power, by removing Gibraltar from schedule 6 and giving every Gibraltarian the right to British citizenship.
  There is a strong case to consider the special factors which relate to Gibraltar. It is the only dependent territory which can never become independent, even if that was the wish of the people of Gibraltar. At present, no restriction is placed on the number of Gibraltarians allowed to enter the United Kingdom for employment, and to settle. They are subject to no form of control after entry, nor are they required to register with the police, as other aliens are required to do. They are eligible for any type of employment in Britain and their employment is not conditional upon there being no local labour available, which is the normal restriction on other persons entering Britain.
  These agreements were made in 1968 by the then Labour Government, following the Thomson report, and although assurances have been given by successive Governments that there would be no change in the future, the passing of the Bill will give this Government, or any future Government, the right to withdraw these concessions and to place upon the people of Gibraltar restrictions which do not exist at present. Therefore, what assurance can my hon. Friend the Minister give that if Gibraltar is not removed from schedule 6 its people will not lose the rights they enjoy now? I hope that that assurance will be forthcoming when my hon. Friend winds up the debate.
  There is also the question, in support of the Gibraltarians' wish to become British citizens, of the proposals of the Commission to the Council of the European Communities, dated 31 July 1979. It concerns a Council directive on a right of residence for nationals of member States independent of the pursuit of an occupational activity in the territory of another member State. If this proposal were to be approved by the Council of Ministers, Gibraltarians, as United Kingdom Community nationals, and as distinct from the people of any other dependent territory outside Europe, would have the right of abode in Britain. If they will have the right of abode by the 1968 assurances, and the 1979 proposals, surely the Minister should accept that this strengthens the case for the Gibraltarians to be excluded from schedule 6 and retain their position, or at least have the right of dual nationality, as referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
  Over a period of many years the national status of the people of Gibraltar as British subject citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies has been shared with the people of the United Kingdom, and has been a source of great pride to the Gibraltarians. The ties between the people of Gibraltar and the people of the United Kingdom have been stronger than anywhere else in the world. Gibraltar has been a British fortress and naval base for nearly three centuries, which has resulted in a deep sense of patriotism and identification with Great Britain. That is now threatened by the provisions in the Bill that affect the Gibraltarians. The ties with Britain are further strengthened by the realisation that at least 10,000 Gibraltarians have at present settled in the United Kingdom and that 30 per cent. of Gibraltarians now resident in Gibraltar are entitled to United Kingdom
  970
  passports, because of either their ancestry or their birth in the United Kingdom. The measures in this Bill will, therefore, create a most unfortunate divide among the people of Gibraltar, which would be a sad reflection on Great Britain, when the Gibraltarians' loyalty to Britain is so deeply felt by all who live there in difficult circumstances.
  What Gibraltarians cannot appreciate is that the Channel Islanders and Manxmen are being excluded from part II and schedule 6. I agree entirely that they seem entitled to feel slighted by the Government's proposals to downgrade them to what they consider will be second-class citizens, while other territories not so closely aligned to the United Kingdom will be allowed to continue their status of United Kingdom citizenship to the full.
  I should have liked to elaborate to a much greater extent on the reasons why Gibraltar should be excluded from schedule 6, but I shall heed the the wish of the Chair that speeches should be brief.
  If the Minister cannot see his way to make this gesture now and undertake to remove Gibraltar from schedule 6, when the Bill goes to Committee, hon. Members who are selected to serve there will table amendments which will be acceptable to the Minister and result in the Government agreeing to the request of the Gibraltarians in respect of their citizenship position. That will maintain the depth of trust which the people of Gibraltar have for the people of the United Kingdom. As dual nationality is being retained in the Bill, it should be given to the people of Gibraltar. We honoured Malta during the last war for its gallant effort against the enemy: Let us now honour the people of Gibraltar by acceding to this simple request—one which is paramount to the future of all who live and work in Gibraltar, and who trust this Government to give them a fair deal.
  I can only conclude by referring to a very simple, but impassioned, appeal that I have received from a group of ordinary people in Gibraltar. It is one of many that I have received. It states:
  "I am a Gibraltarian married with three sons. We are very proud to be British and to live in British Gibraltar, like the majority of Gibraltarians. I would like you to do all in your power for us please so that we can get the nationality citizenship of the United Kingdom when the White Paper comes out and keep Gibraltar British for ever. God bless our Queen. Your faithful servant."
  That letter, with others like it, has been sent to me because of the proposals in the Bill. Those who have written are like the 400 ex-Service men who stood by Britain in two world wars and the 105 members of the Honourable Order of the British Empire who live in Gibraltar. They are all begging the Government not to alter the existing status of the people of Gibraltar.
  Need I say more? The letter says it all. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will indicate that he will take the matter back for consideration and make amended proposals in respect of Gibraltar before the Bill comes back to the House on Third Reading.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: I take as my starting point in my concern about the Bill the interests of minority groups and of the individual citizens who are members of those groups. We must concern ourselves with the position of the Gibraltarians, of Hong Kong citizens, and of many other special minority groups. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie)

  971
  will forgive me if I do not pursue in detail the line that he was arguing, sympathetic though I may be to the position of individual groups. Instead, I shall turn to more general considerations.
  My first concern is that the Bill demeans us as a society, just as so much that has been done by different Governments in dealing with immigration in the past two decades has demeaned us as a society and as individual members of that society. People who are self-confident, upright and reasonably civilised would not have been obsessed with the irrational fears that have characterised so many of the actions of us who should have led. Nor would they have been led, with however much convolution, down the atavistic paths indicated, in spite of the quality of so much of his speech, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
  We should have led and we have not done so. The vast majority of people in this country are far more tolerant than many of the actions of their political representatives have suggested over the years, just as the success achieved by most Commonwealth immigrants is way ahead of what many people in the race relations industry have secured. This is in spite of the many problems still to be tackled.
  This is an illiberal, racist and discriminatory Bill with little to commend it. Once again a Government have pandered to fear, prejudice and racism, whatever declarations individual Ministers may have made on their own behalf. In recent years—perhaps belatedly—most, but not all, people in politics at all levels, nationally and locally, have moved away from these influences on decision-making. But since that infamous occasion three years ago when the Prime Minister spoke of the fears of being swamped, the hard line, authoritarian Right wingers in the Conservative Party have held ultimate sway on Government decisions in this area, as in other aspects of home affairs.
  There was that sick and sad occasion when the Minister of State the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) caved into them at the Conservative Party conference in 1979, in contrast to the brave and courageous stand by Lord Carr, when he was Home Secretary, against the same kind of people at the 1973 conference.
  There seems to be something of this quality, combined with much sloppy thinking, in parts of the Home Office, under all Governments, and that has influenced immigration law and administrative policy on and off for the past 20 years as it influenced aliens legislation before then. I know that there are others of different attitudes and understanding in the Department, but they do not often seem to dominate thinking.
  I have spoken so far only of immigration because, in spite of what was said by the Home Secretary and one or two hon. Members after him, the Bill is not really about citizenship. It is an attempt to build a nationality law—there is a distinction between nationality and citizenship concepts—on the present messy immigration rules. These are the latest moves in a shameful history of fear of so-called aliens, of black and brown immigrants. It goes back over generations. It did not start in the 1960s.
  Many of those families have greater delight and pride in the liberality, culture, liberties, and fair-minded tradition and history of the best in Britain than do many who treat these as "beyond the pale". That is why I feel such a love for this country. My grandparents were refugees from Tsarist Russia and I ought point out that, if the proposed legislation had been in operation after they
  972
  arrived, I would not be here—no doubt to the pleasure of one or two hon. Members. My parents or I would have had to apply to the Home Secretary for British citizenship. I have more pride in the best in this country than is reflected in the sort of thinking that has led to the Bill and much that has gone before. I fear for the future of this country, which has so much yet to give if only we would will it, if we continue with such attitudes.
  We should start by defining British nationality and its rights and obligations, attaching to it a right to enter the country. It is shameful and disgraceful that we should be missing an opportunity to think out calmly what should be British citizenship—a concept which should embrace rights and duties of citizens. It is something which the Bill fails to deal with.
  To my knowledge, not one organisation has welcomed the Bill. The White Paper on which it is based was criticised in detail by Justice, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Commission for Racial Equality, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the London Voluntary Service Council, local authorities and every community relations, immigrant and race relations body concerned, many of which I do not have time to list, which made submissions and examined the White Paper and the Bill.
  I have seen several of the submissions made to the Home Secretary. Copies were distributed and they included representations from my borough of Brent, where I have lived and worked in the community for many years—since long before being elected to the House they came from the Brent Community Relations Council, the Brent Indian Association and others, including the borough council.
  About 40 per cent. of Brent families hail originally from the Caribbean, Africa, India or Pakistan—88,000 people out of a total population of 268,000. I do not cringe at that or detect anywhere that I go in the borough—except among a few odd extremists of the Right and others—feelings of anxiety or fear that we will be swamped. We live in a civilised society and we must face up to our problems as a community and as individuals, seeking to do what we can for a decent life for ourselves and our neighbours.
  I and other hon. Members raised objections with the Home Secretary and urged him to give the Select Committee on Home Affairs time to consider the whole matter before the Bill was introduced. There might have been a possibility of avoiding party division if that approach had been adopted in the first instance. No one can claim that there was such an urgent need to introduce the legislation that such an approach had to be ignored. We should have had a comprehensive examination, through the Select Committee procedure, of the issues raised in the White Paper and of others on which it did not touch.
  Despite all the criticism and complaints, the Home Secretary has brought forward a Bill based almost word for word on a White Paper that talks of "privileges"—not rights—associated with citizenship. But privileges can be withdrawn by a decision of the Home Secretary. No wonder no rights are included in the Bill.
  The Bill is another example of how the Government are seeking to confer massive executive powers on Ministers. The Home Secretary is trying to emulate the Secretaries of State for Industry and the Environment in the industrial, local government and housing legislation that they have brought before the House. The Government are supposed

  973
  to be committed to reducing the power of the State, but the Bill gives the Home Secretary more power, not less, over the lives of individuals. It helps to destroy the myth. No doubt the Government, supported by their Back Benchers, will introduce other legislation to confer more executive powers on Ministers so that they will not have to refer their actions and decisions to Parliament. The myth has gone.
  It seems that, in many instances, one is British only if the Home Secretary chooses to say so. If he decides that a person is not British, there will be no appeal to the courts. I should mention here that I am dissatisfied with the way that the present appeals system under immigration law has developed. The time has come to look again at how that operates and to insert it into our system of law so that it is administered by the courts, rather than by tribunal.
  I should like to see an appeal to the courts provided for in the Bill. For many, citizenship by grant will involve the longer and more costly process of naturalisation after long residence and it will lead to long waits for many members of families. The success of an application can be denied by the Home Secretary on the ground that an individual is not of good character. What a power to lie with any Home Secretary‡
  Mr. Stanbrook: It already exists.
  Mr. Freeson: Yes, but that does not mean that it must continue. I am opposed to its continuance. It needs to be put into law and made subject to the courts and not the arbitrary decision of civil servants or Ministers.
  In view of some of the observations that I and others have made, inside and outside the House, it is no wonder that, despite the concern expressed by the Home Secretary, my constituents are telephoning and writing to me in great distress, wondering what will happen to them and their children. White as well as black and brown people are expressing concern about their friends and families.
  I represent thousands of people of many ethnic origins—Central European, East European, Irish, Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani and others. Many are naturally concerned about their future. For example, what would happen if an Indian couple who have lived here for 20 years had a child while on holiday abroad? Under the Bill, that child would not be entitled to British nationality and would have to apply to the Home Secretary for it. The right hon. Gentleman alone would have the discretion to decide and to assess whether the parents were "closely associated" with this country.
  Similarly, even children born here, though to parents who are not British, will lose their automatic right to be British citizens—something which will weigh heavily in the minds of immigrants who are worried about their status, including those from colonies that have recently achieved, or have yet to achieve, independence. And that is not to speak of the many thousands of United Kingdom passport holders who will be made virtually stateless by the Bill. How mean can a proud country such as this, with its international history and regard, get with this sort of legislation?
  The Bill has failed to rationalise our nationality law, which certainly stood in need of that. Instead, it institutionalises the racialist patriality concept of the
  974
  Immigration Act 1971. It fails to provide clear definitions of the rights and obligations of citizens and creates instead three types of citizen, two of the types being virtually valueless, and thereby perpetuates the misunderstanding, confusion and resulting miseries of the so-called non-patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. At the same time, it tries to maintain world-wide responsibility for people who have no connection with Britain other than a grandparent born here.
  The contents of the Bill should be viewed with grave concern across the House, not least for what it does to us as a so-called civilised society. As the years go by, we seem to sink lower as we try to accommodate prejudice instead of standing foursquare against it, exposing it for what it is. Instead, racial discrimination is tolerated and legitimised by successive immigration laws and practices. We speak of good race relations but then proceed to damage them by such legislation as this. We speak without care or thought for the effect which our words have upon individuals who happen to be members of ethnic minorities, as well as the effect that they have upon ourselves, the majority of the community.
  As was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) some of the language of the White Paper is of this kind. There was reference to the pool of people who will provide some kind of shadowy threat if they do not have citizenship rights automatically removed from their children. That is one element in the White Paper. It talks about people as though they are a pool of something. We are talking about individuals and their families and children.
  We disturb and damage our society when a Bill such as this is rushed through. The Government know that there is no urgent need for this legislation, but they have chosen to gratify bigots and racists. Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
  It is not yet too late. Instead of pushing the Bill through in its present form, it would be better for it to be withdrawn. At the very least, Ministers should provide for it to go through the new special Standing Committee procedure; if they cannot agree to it being taken on the Floor of the House, at least they should agree on that. Members could then examine witnesses before the Bill was considered under the usual Standing Committee procedure.
  The Bill should be drastically amended to provide that citizenship is based on equal rights and duties for all concerned, that there is no discrimination, that it is not based on immigration control and racialist criteria, and that the abitrary and frightening discretionary power of the Home Secretary is removed, along the lines that I indicated earlier. If this is not done, we shall be lowered in our own eyes and in the eyes of the international community. It is about time that the House as a whole took a stand, representing a civilised community, in matters of this kind.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. As I have only recently come into the Chair, may I add my plea for brevity to those which I understand have been made twice already. Otherwise a great many hon. Members will not be accommodated this evening.
  6.53 pm
  Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Until the right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell) spoke, I had not appreciated that there are at least five separate layers of category provided for in the Bill. I had appreciated that there were four, and that seemed to me to be not a very up to date or modern provision to make. It is worth repeating what those four categories are. There is British citizenship, there is citizenship of the British dependent territories, there is British overseas citizenship and there are British subjects. [Interruption.] Well, there may be six, but there are four main ones.
  I have a few general criticisms to make on the lines that, although nationality law is certainly within the competence of the country concerned, there is an obligation so to arrange one's nationality law that it is at least readily comprehensible to foreigners, and to foreign Governments in particular. When nationals get into trouble abroad, foreign Governments are entitled to know which is the State responsible for receiving them when they are deported. There is an obligation upon what is called the home State to accept nationals who have misbehaved when abroad. For that and for other reasons, it is essential, if we are to reform and update—whatever are the progressive verbs used—our nationality law that we should make it at least sufficiently simple for that obligation to be capable of fulfilment. I do not believe that the Bill does that.
  All those people with the word "British" in front of their category—whether they are British citizens, British overseas citizens, British subjects or citizens of the British dependent territories—are presumably entitled to the protection of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom—the London Government. If anyone in any of those four categories wishes to have the good offices of London, he is entitled to those good offices, even if he has never been anywhere near the United Kingdom. That applies to anyone who is a British subject, or even a British protected person.
  Therefore, since we presumably deserve, vis-à-vis third countries, the obligation and the right to intervene on behalf of such persons, we presumably have to accept the corollary, which is that we have to receive them, if they are deported to this country.
  According to the Court of Appeal case of Thakrah, we do not accept such persons if they have not a right of entry into this country, even though we have the duty and the right to intervene on their behalf with foreign Governments. Therefore, unless the various categories with the word "British" in front of them are rationalised—now that we are involved in a modernisation of our nationality law—the Government are in some danger of getting into an anomalous position vis-à-vis third States.
  The matter becomes peculiarly urgent in the case of the second of the categories, that is to say, citizenship of the British dependent territories. It is clear from clause 13 that this is a single citizenship. Even though it spreads through all the continents and oceans of the world, as can be seen from appendix C of the White Paper it is a single citizenship, because, as clause 13 of the Bill states,
  "A person born in a dependent territory after commencement shall be a citizen of the British Dependent Territories if at the time of the birth his father or mother is… a citizen of the British Dependent Territories".
  976
  That surely means that a father who originates from or was born in the Cayman Islands and goes to Hong Kong, where his wife gives birth to a child, knows that that child is a citizen of the British dependent territories. It does not matter which dependent territory the child's parents were members of as long as the birth occurs in one or other of them. It is a single citizenship. The only common factor about it is that it is British. But the United Kingdom is the one country to which the rule does not apply, of all the Commonwealth countries. It is, as it were, divorced from the United Kingdom. But the dependent territories are considered as having an entity and life of their own—at least, so one would have considered by reading the clause that I have just read.
  It would have followed from that clause, I should have thought, that if a citizen of one of the British dependent territories, at any rate, got into trouble in a third State, the country concerned—for example, the United States of America—could, if it so chose, deport that person to any other dependent territory and that other dependent territory would be obliged to receive him—if it is a single citizenship, as it is made out to be. This was deliberately chosen. As will be seen from paragraph 15 of the White Paper, the alternative arrangement was considered. The alternative of having separate citizenships for each of the dependencies, which would have avoided any such anomaly, was rejected on the ground that it was
  "not…really practicable to establish individual citizenships for each of the dependent territories"
  because
  "they vary in size and political organisation."
  I should have thought that that was a reason why they should have separate citizenships. If they vary in size and political organisation, the quality of their citizenship should surely be different.
  It therefore seems to me that this is a serious defect in the Bill. It will lead the Government into great anomalies vis-à-vis third countries. They say in one breath that this is a single citizenship, but in another part of the White Paper—though not in the Bill—they say that each of the dependent territories will have the power to keep out citizens of other dependent territories. Paragraph 102 of the White Paper states:
  "It will be necessary, because of the need of dependencies to impose controls on immigration, to restrict the right of entry to each of them to those Citizens of the British Dependent Territories who are such by reason of a connection with that territory."
  That must mean that although it is a single citizenship, nevertheless the chief quality of a single citizenship is totally lacking. A person cannot move freely between one territory and another, because each of the dependent territories is being invited—not merely allowed—to make rules to allow their fellow citizens, for so they are in every sense of the word, to be kept out.
  Anomaly may be piled upon anomaly as a result of this well-intentioned, natural—and, I think, somewhat sentimental—wish to preserve what the right hon. Member for Down, South rather unkindly described as the "debris" of the British Empire. I should not have used the word "debris", but I know what he means. Secondly, many of the dependent territories—Gibraltar, perhaps, or Hong Kong; what one might describe as the more sophisticated of them—wish very much to have the word "British" before the name of their territory.
  I thought that the suggestion that the name of the territory should be included on the cover of the passport

  977
  was a good one. Otherwise, one cannot expect third States to distinguish—particularly horizontally, but also vertically—between various forms of British citizenships. What they will in fact do will be to deport everyone to London, unless there is a clear indication of the place of origin or at least of the country or territory of origin on the passport. I do not believe that London would be able to refuse those people, even though they would not be entitled to come here voluntarily.
  For those and many other reasons, in what is really a one-point speech, I suggest that the Government should think again on their second category. To my mind, it is not sensible to create a new citizenship which spreads all over the world, into countries which vary in size and state of political organisation and which are totally dissimilar one from another. There can be no loyalty to an amorphous body of that kind. There can be loyalty to Anguilla. There can be loyalty to Hong Kong. There can be loyalty to Britain. But to create a second class of British citizenship over this amorphous area is to deprive people of the kind of loyalty to which they are entitled—the feeling that they belong. Nobody in Hong Kong feels that he belongs to the Pitcairn Islands, and nobody in the Pitcairn Islands feels that he belongs to Gibraltar. Unless people have a nationality which gives them a feeling of belonging, one is not giving them a proper nationality at all.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This is the only country in the world without its own citizenship. For us to take it now, at this late stage of our history, does not seem to me to be a racialist act, and I should not so describe the Bill in its central concept. It arises out of our history, which was briefly reveiwed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Before 1948, everyone within the British Commonwealth was a British subject. We moved away from that position because Canada, New Zealand and Australia wished to bring in their own citizenship control. To do that, they had to have their own citizenship. They therefore wished to abandon the common code.
  According to the White Paper and the right hon. Member for Down, South, British subject status was based on the concept of allegiance to the Crown. That is the statement of the leading authority on the subject, Professor Parry. In fact, it is a misnomer. Even at that stage different parts of the Commonwealth could determine who was a British subject by their own definitions of that concept. It was still part of the common code that people who would be regarded as British subjects in one territory would not be so regarded in another. It was based not on the definition of allegiance, but on the definition of where they were born or from whom they were descended.
  That is one of the central answers to the campaign being waged against the Bill by Mrs. Dummet and an number of others who take the same view. They say that before we establish the bases for a nationality Bill we must establish objective tests of nationality. There is no such thing. The only way to determine nationality is by the central precepts of the two laws referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South. We must take the jus soli or the jus sanguinis, or both, that is to say, the person was born in the country or is descended from somebody who was born in the country, or both.
  978
  The central criticism of the Bill is that, whereas since 1948 citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies has depended upon both those tests, the Bill tries to monkey about with the test of being born in the country in order to keep out some people who are thought not to be desirable, namely, children born of people who are not settled here. That has not been the case since 1948. From 1948 until now, if one was born in this country, one became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  It seems to me to be wrong to depart from that principle. Whatever the intent, the practical effect will be racialist, in that it will fall hardest upon black people, rather than on white people, although of course, it will affect the latter. The fact that we did not think it necessary to make that distinction from 1948 until now, when large numbers of white people were coming here and having children here, tends to emphasise that central thrust against the Bill.
  In 1948, when other countries decided that they would take their own citizenship, we should have done the same. We should have said that we were citizens of the United Kingdom. We should not have said that we were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What we did was to say that everyone else could take their own citizenship—Canada, India, Jamaica and the rest—and that we would take all the others. In other words, anyone who could not become a citizen of one of those countries would become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  That may have been a laudable objective of the Labour Government of 1948—backed, I may say, by the Conservative Opposition—but it was disastrous in its effect, because it meant that when we came up against the emotional problems of immigration there was no logical basis on which we could make a non-racialist test about who should be allowed in and who should not. What happened was that successive Governments applied distinctions to the same category of citizenship. Even today, we who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are in the same legal category as those who live in Malaysia, Hong Kong or anywhere else: we are all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  The only difference is that, in 1948, the Labour Government said that there were some kinds of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who would be allowed in, and some who would not. In 1971 the Conservative Government consummated that Act by calling some "partial" and some "non-patrial", but they were still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  We now have to rewrite our citizenship law from the start. To do that, if we begin with a virgin page, we still go back to people born here and people who are descended from people born here. Taking that as the basic test, we can move to a non-racial citizenship law. Of course, then we have to add people who were adopted and people who were naturalised, and that is included in any sensible concept.
  Then we find that we have inherited the heritage from 1948 onwards of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who do not fall into that category—the only sensible definition of a British citizen. That is the most emotional and deeply moral problem that we have to face in the Bill.
  It is easy for the people who live in the dependent territories. We can say that they should be citizens of individual colonies. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South, and with my right hon. Friend the Member

  979
  for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that that is the course that we should take, and it would be much easier to answer the objections of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong if we had done that. They would not be in any worse position internationally if we had done that. The very fact that there is a different immigration impact between those territories means, in effect, that we shall do that. Therefore, we ought to say that we shall do that, and I hope that in Committee we shall do it.
  That leaves the central moral problem which I have approached with anguish ever since I began to think about it as the chairman of a working party on the subject in the Labour Government of 1974–76. What do we do about the person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who lives in a Commonwealth country and who is not able to take the citizenship of the country in which he lives?
  We know this problem of old. That was the position of the East African Asians. Most of their problems have been met, because we have allowed them to come here under the voucher scheme. But there are still between 20,000 and 25,000 waiting for vouchers in India who ought to have been allowed in a long time ago, because the voucher scheme in East Africa has exhausted all the other commitment. However, we have not allowed them in, and they are there. If we gave them British citizenship, they could come immediately. I should not regard that as wrong. We have given them a commitment that they can come, anyway, and I think that we should clear that commitment.
  If that was all that it was, we could deal with the problem by giving them all British citizenship. But it is not all. There are people living in Malaysia and Singapore, amounting in all to about 150,000. Those are really the main group of people left in this category. Do we give them British citizenship, even though they do not realise that they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and may have no desire to come, but may want to come at some stage? Do we take the immigration potential of them?
  It is a brave act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook to say that we will. Morally, I agree with him. In practice, it may be difficult if we have to meet this commitment, especially if we have to meet it, as we did with the East African Asians, within a very limited period of time.
  I am convinced that in the Bill we should not make the mistakes that we made in 1948 and 1968, by giving assurances to people and then ratting on them when they come to be collected. If we are to say that we give them British citizenship, we give it to them in the full understanding that, when they want to come, we let them come.
  After a full debate in the House, openly understood, I am willing to come to that conclusion, and I support my right hon. Friend in that view. It is a brave act, but it may be that that is not the right way. The way that I took when I was responsible for these matters and presented the working party report to my Government was to say that such people should continue to be in a separate class. I classed them with all the others in British overseas citizenship. This Government took out the colonies from that concept.
  But there are other ways. We could do what we should have done in 1948 and at every stage since when we have decolonised a territory. We should say to the colony that
  980
  all the people who live in its territory will be its citizens. We still do not do that. I complained last year when we gave independence to the Solomon Islands that we still allowed them to say that they would not take these people and that we had to keep them as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We should never have allowed that in the first place. The reason why British subjects without citizenship exist is that we made the same mistake about India and Pakistan and told them that in due course they would have to take on responsibility for such people, and they never did. That is why they continue to exist in the Bill.
  We must clear up this mess now, if we can. Therefore, we should convene either a Commonwealth conference or, as in 1948, a conference of experts to see whether there is a way in which such people can take citizenship in the countries concerned—mainly Malaysia and Singapore. If, at the end of that, they cannot take citizenship, and they have no other citizenship, perhaps the right course is to give them British citizenship. British overseas citizenship has no rights at all. British overseas citizens do not enter this country. They have not been able to do so since 1968. If they have rights to enter Malaysia, it is only under Malaysian law. Some of them might be citizens of Malaysia or eligible to take citizenship of Malaysia. In that event, we would have to take much fewer than the 150,000 that I indicated. Whichever it is, we have to settle this matter properly in this debate.
  Having said that, and having nearly exhausted my 12 minutes, I can touch only momentarily on some of the central inequities of the Bill. Although the Government are right to say that in many ways the Bill follows the Green Paper, it is a long way from the central assumptions of the Green Paper in two major respects. It is even further away from the working party report for which I was responsible and on which the Green Paper was based in part. Anyone who had to read the working party report, which was never published, would see that there are marked differences and that one of the central differences between the Green Paper and the Bill concerns what happens to children born to British citizens.
  In 1948, Hartley Shawcross, when commending the 1948 Bill to the House, said that the incidence of citizenship must be common to all citizens:
  "they devolve on all ciLizens, kind or colour apart. That is the basic principle as I have always understood it, on which our Colonial Empire has been built up and no question of race or colour enters into it. That is fundamental."—[Official Report, 7 July 1948: Vol. 453, c. 503–4.]
  Under the Bill, if a citizen of this country goes abroad and has a child abroad, the outcome will depend upon whether that person was a citizen by birth of this country or a citizen who acquired citizenship in some other way. That cannot be correct, because it means that not all citizens have the same rights. Some do not have the right to pass their citizenship to a child born abroad, and since, as I say, the practical effect of that would be racialist, I believe it to be even doubly regrettable.
  The other matter to which I turn is perhaps not a racialist factor, but it introduces a distinction. I intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South on this point. As I said, someone can have citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he or she was born here. Under the Bill one can acquire British

  981
  citizenship only if one was born here of a person who was born here or was born here of somebody who was settled here.
  In my time, "settled" had a fairly clear meaning. It meant that the person had the conditions removed from his passport. He could produce his passport and that would be the end of it. But since then the courts have intervened to undermine the certainty of that concept. People may now be hauled before an immigration officer and be taken off to prison if it is thought that in some way they achieved their status by what is called deceit or misrepresentation, which may be no more than the fact that somebody came in at London airport and did not volunteer information to an immigration officer who never asked the question.
  Thus, a person may have acquired his settlement after five years, after that he may have achieved his citizenship, but then, after that, someone may come along and undermine the whole of his citizenship. The question whether someone is settled in this country is now very complex.
  As a matter of practice, how will that concept be administered? If a woman gets a certificate from the doctor that she has just had a baby and she goes along to the registrar, the registrar will not decide the question. He will send it to the Home Office to find out. The Home Office will say whether such people are settled here before citizenship can be granted.
  In those circumstances, every black woman in this country who has a baby will bring her status before the authorities every time she has a child. But a white woman will probably not be in that position. It is indefensible that that should be so. It will fundamentally undermine the stability of race relations in this country, and we cannot allow it to happen.
  The third major grievance against the Bill relates to marriage. I shall not go into that because it has already been covered. It turns upon the Government's trying to change the immigration law and therefore bringing in this citizenship law in order to meet their changes in the immigration rules. In this respect, they cannot deny that they have tried to make citizenship law equivalent to immigration control.
  I come now to the fourth objection, on which I wish to spend a minute or two. I agree that we ought to fuse naturalisation and registration. Registration was for Commonwealth citizens. Naturalisation was for aliens. In practice now there is very little difference. Since 1973 the rules have been the same. Therefore, we might as well call them the same.
  However, if we are to go to a new full-blooded naturalisation law, it ought to be one that is easily understood, is capable of being seen to be fair and is open to a system of appeal if bureaucracy is seen to be oppressive. This cannot be done with a good character test. Of course, the Home Secretary hides behind saying that this is a difficult problem because it may involve questions of security. I accept that, but most of the time it does not. I dealt with these cases regularly, and I was astonished at what was regarded as a breach of the good character test.
  Someone may think that he is a person of good character, but he may not be a person of good character in he eyes of a civil servant at the Home Office, and that is the deciding test. There is no other. The decision can be overruled by the Minister if it reaches his desk, but that
  982
  is all. Someone would be a citizen of good character if he paid his taxes. If on the other hand, he was behind in paying his taxes—if, for example, he had not put in his tax return for a few years and there was some difficulty in finding out his tax position—he would not be regarded as a citizen of good character. If it were rumoured in the neighbourhood that someone did not pay his debts, the police got wind of the rumour, and the rumour was passed on to the policeman who was investigating his claim to citizenship, he would not get citizenship because he would not be a person of good character.
  I do not want to give hon. Members on the Government Benches any more ammunition, but I remember one case that showed the ludicrous nature of the system. A man had been selling copies of Socialist Worker outside his place of work. He was thought to contribute to the funds of that periodical under an assumed name, so he was asked, when he was seen, whether he was a member of a political party. He said that he was not. So the intention was to refuse him on the basis that he told a lie. I refused to accept that nonsense, but the Home Secretary of the day insisted that we went back to the man again, and he still said that he was not a member of a political party. So he did not get citizenship.
  That is absurd. The subjective evaluations in all that inquiry are things that decent honourable citizens might differ about. We cannot have a citizenship law that is as subjective as that. Therefore, the only test must be a bad character test, with the conditions set out in the Act. Someone cannot become a citizen if, for example, he has been convicted of an offence which carries a sentence of imprisonment of more than a certain number of years. Someone cannot become a citizen if he has been declared bankrupt and has not had that lifted, and so on. But those conditions would be there in the Act, and if somebody was denied citizenship he could say that they did not apply to him, he wanted to appeal, and he could go to appeal.
  I agree with what the Government say, both now and in the Green Paper—that we cannot have a system of appeal based on a good character test, because a good character test is so subjective that no one would know on what basis one ought to overrule the Home Secretary. Therefore, if we want a system of appeal, it depends on bringing in a bad character test.
  I cannot deal with all the other points, but I hope that we shall discuss them exhaustively in Committee, because there are many detailed parts of the Bill that were never in the Labour Government's Green Paper—and which are fundamentally bad in a nationality system.
  What is certain is that we cannot chop and change on these matters very often. We cannot have Nationality Bills as we have Industrial Relations Bills and the rest, where one Government do one thing and the next Government do another. On nationality and citizenship, we must have common consent on both sides so that the law will stand for a long time. People's status throughout the world will depend upon it. Therefore, if we are to do it, we must do it now, and what we do must carry the conviction of the great majority of us before the Bill is passed.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) made a sensible and constructive speech. I did not agree with the whole of it, but it contrasted strongly with the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.

  983
  Hattersley), which I thought appalling. It was a mixture of half-truths and insults, and it bodes ill for the sensible discussion of this subject which I hope will be entered upon in Committee.
  The same indifference to the truth as was revealed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been displayed elsewhere, including, most surprisingly, by certain Church leaders. It is no wonder that the professional church is increasingly becoming separated from the British people.
  It may well be that the Bill follows the concept of patriality which was laid down in the Immigration Act 1971. But that was 10 years ago. If it was so offensive a concept then, why did not the Labour Government seek to alter it when they came to power? Why did the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility not press for its repeal when it had its own friends in power?
  The truth is that the present immigration laws, which we all agree are complicated by an obsolete nationality law, were evolved after years of public agonising, discussion and adjustments to meet our particular circumstances. Hon. Members of both parties have worked hard to find a fair solution to this most difficult problem. This Bill is part of that same progress. For it to be castigated and abused by those who should know better is the purest humbug.
  The very idea of nationality implies exclusion of all those not entitled to it. Every nation State is entitled to determine its citizens and to exclude those with no hereditary or territorial connection with it, if it so chooses. To say, with reference to a country that is inhabited predominately by people of one race, that this nationality law is racially discriminatory is to state the obvious. It is a truism, not an insult. It is the practice of every country in the world to prefer the interests of its citizens to those of outsiders. That is perfectly natural.
  The mischief that the Bill attempts to overcome has been referred to by previous speakers. That mischief arises from the mistaken view that the Labour Government adopted in 1947 as to the nature of the Commonwealth and the way in which it would develop. They thought—and we all hoped—that the new Commonwealth would want to continue in allegiance to the British Crown. The duty of allegiance should be inherent in the notion of nationality. Therefore, we proclaimed that every Commonwealth citizen was a British subject. The idea was stillborn. Foolishly, and to our immense cost we have gone on pretending that it is reality. We have no duty—moral or legal—to the inhabitants of those countries that were formerly in the British Empire, and which threw off our sovereignty and repudiated their allegiance to the Queen. It was their choice. They were entitled to do so.
  By their assumption of independence, those countries conferred independence on us. Let them—the Irish Republic, Pakistan, India and some of the West Indies—look after their own people and allow us to look after ours. That is not to say that I approve of everything in the Bill. Like so many other attempts to solve a difficult problem, this attempt is in many respects a compromise, which shirks the right answer.
  My main criticism of the Bill is that it dilutes our sense of national identity by drawing the limits of nationality too widely, and by abandoning the concept of allegiance to the Crown as the proper basis of nationality. I refer particularly to dual citizenship. Everyone agrees that that is undesirable. It complicates nationality law. It causes
  984
  friction between nations, it is condemned by the 1963 convention on the reduction of cases of multiple nationality. Paragraph 85 of the White Paper states:
  "Most other countries nowadays place restrictions on the holding of dual nationality, and in particular withdraw their citizenship from people who by their voluntary act obtain that of another country".
  It erodes the sense of allegiance to a common sovereign. It enables people to travel on two passports and, thereby, to evade immigration controls. Its retention by Britain will perpetuate many of the problems that this Bill attempts to solve.
  The only argument in favour of dual nationality occurs in paragraph 89 of the White Paper. Most people would disagree with that argument. The White Paper refers to the decision to allow people here to retain their British citizenship even if they have citizenship of another State. The last sentence of that paragraph states:
  "If the retention of that citizenship on becoming a British Citizen will assist them in the process of settling down in this country then the Government would see this as a good reason for our not requiring them to renounce it".
  I should have thought that most people would agree that the very retention of another citizenship would make it more difficult for a person to settle down in Britain. The retention of the whole basis of dual allegiance leaves millions of people round the world, who have no real connection with Britain, with the status of British overseas citizens.
  Paragraph 25 of the White Paper points out that about 1½ million people are potential British overseas citizens. Most of them are in Malaysia. The White Paper adds:
  "most of them also have Malaysian Citizenship."
  That means that we are deliberately conferring on about 1½ million people a citizenship that they do not need, because they already have their own.
  As many rights and duties—including the laws of treason and extradition—depend on national status, we should be foolish to confer British citizenship on those who already have the citizenship of another State. Therefore, I disapprove of the Bill's failure to deal with the citizens of the Irish Republic, who can claim to remain British subjects under section 2 of the British Nationality Act 1948. I do not refer to the right of citizens of the Irish Republic to vote in our elections, but to the 144,404—that is the figure that the Minister gave me in a letter that he sent to me on 11 September 1980—who are now also British subjects, and who have, or are entitled to, United Kingdom passports.
  In so far as those people have settled in the United Kingdom, I have no other complaint than that they should be British citizens owing allegiance only to the Queen. I understand that they are eligible for citizenship already. Therefore, there is no excuse for increasing the class of British subjects without citizenship. More importantly, there is no reason to continue to give British subject status to the eligible citizens of the Irish Republic who have not applied for it under section 2. If they have not bothered to apply during the past 30 years, why confer a right on them that they do not want? We should give them two years in which to apply and then bring that extraordinary privilege to an end.
  I have other reservations about the Bill, but some of them have already been mentioned. However, there is one aspect of the immigration problem that impinges on nationality. The British public is being kept completely ignorant of it. I refer to the thousands—perhaps hundreds

  985
  of thousands—of dependants of immigrants settled here, who are still on the Indian sub-continent, but who have the right to come here and to settle and, in turn, to acquire British citizenship. The Government have a manifesto commitment to set up a register of such people, and ultimately, to impose a quota on admissions. They have not yet done so. We should at least know the size of the problem if such a register were to exist. It is unfair to the British people that they should not know how many other people are entitled to take up not only residence, but British nationality. It is not fair on the British people that they should be left in the dark.
  Those are my main reservations about the Bill. However, of the need for it in the interests of the poor, much abused and much imposed upon British majority on these islands, there can be no doubt.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the spirited nature of his observations. I welcome the remarks of the Home Secretary. He referred to the examination of the Bill in Committee, and it seems that there is an open door to possible change. I have taken a consistent line in participating in debates on race relations, immigration and nationality over the years, and I hope that these issues will become non-party political and that the football will cease to be party political.
  That was my objective in working for agreement in the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee was composed of five Conservative Members and five Labour Members. It puzzles me that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—whom we all respect because of his experience as a predecessor of the present Minister of State—disowns the 29 recommendations of the Select Committee and says that they are not based upon evidence. I am especially surprised that as a lawyer he said that the evidence did not match the recommendations when, in fact, the evidence had not been printed.
  I am glad that many of my hon. Friends refused to reject the views of those of us who have worked hard and visited the Indian sub-continent, which I have done several times. I went there to examine the pros and cons with the British posts overseas. Many of the sensible recommendations contained in the Select Committee's report have emerged in the remarks of my hon. Friend the. Member for York and by others who have contributed to the debate.
  One of the recommendations was that all East African citizens with British passports who are still overseas should be admitted immediately to the United Kingdom, should they wish to come, with their dependant relatives without any messing about. It was, of course, a Tory Colonial Secretary who gave an option to the inhabitants of Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. That was done with an eye on the white population in those countries, the minority population. The option was given with a view to enabling that population to retain its British citizenship.
  It is no good crying over spilt milk now. Nor is it much good crying over the results of the British Nationality Act 1948, which I described as a starry-eyed concept in one of my books. That was the attitude of the leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, in 1961–62. He had to
  986
  make the choice between the EEC and the Commonwealth. He decided to retain the Commonwealth connection.
  Of course, the attitude and outlook in 1948 was substantially different from those that now obtain. The possibility of individuals travelling around the world was far less in 1948. That possibility was restricted to a few seamen who, for example, had absconded from their ships. There was no notion of quite ordinary people being able to travel across the world.
  The intake of workers from the Indian sub-continent stems from a shortage of labour, and our assessment must be based on that. We must take that view if we are to obtain and sustain racial harmony throughout our deliberations in Committee and into the future for our children, whether they are black, white, brown or yellow.
  The trade union movement, which is the underpin of the Labour movement, has a sensible and cohesive attitude to these matters. The TUC is notoriously an old cart horse and very slow off the mark in proclaiming itself. I was a product of the trade union movement before I came to this place. I was the TUCs London regional education officer. I know the spirit of the trade union movement. It stands for fair play and equal treatment among workers.
  That is why the TUC and my union in particular, the Transport and General Workers Union, have been generally opposed to the admission of work-permit labour, which is fettered labour. It is at the mercy of employers on a year-on-year basis. I am glad to see that that form of labour is on its way out. The year-on-year system destroys the possibility of such workers exercising their rights as workers.
  The Labour Movement has never been in favour of an open door into Britain. However, it is in favour of equal treatment for the rights of workers once they are here, and for family rights. That has been firmly in my mind throughout the years that I have had to deal with the questions and problems of immigration throughout the country, and especially in my constituency.
  The different nationalities become used to one another. In places such as Southall and beyond, there is now a great deal of understanding. It can be said that those who live in such districts are all experts on racial harmony. There has been some magnificent leadership in such areas which has disowned pressures for repatriation, in which neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party believes. Both parties have expressly disowned the concept, unlike the utterances of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who thinks that by some pressure, or by the offer of money, we can drive all the black people back to their lands of origin or to somewhere other than these islands.
  Life is not as simple as that. We now have third-generation black people. We have the babies of the babies. They belong here. They know no other country. In this context, I appreciate the strong remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for York, who has put his finger on the nub of the argument. He has argued that we must extract from the Government a change of front. We have every chance of getting it. My hon. Friend has addressed his mind to that possibility.
  The bishops and the leaders of the churches have expressed severe criticism of the Bill. That being so, we may be able to make some headway even in another place.
  I deplore the Government's decision to adhere to the normal procedure for consideration of the Bill. The Bill is a major contitutional measure and it warrants special

  987
  treatment. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that were advanced on an earlier occasion. I said to the Leader of the House that the Bill is an obvious candidate for the new procedure, which involves a Standing Committee taking evidence. It could have taken evidence from ethnic minorities, the Trades Union Congress and employers' organisations on how they regarded the Bill and saw the future.
  As the Home Secretary has reappeared on the Government Front Bench, I shall repeat what I have just said in the sense that I hope that these matters can blossom into non-party issues in Committee. None of us has a stake in racial disharmony. I always applauded the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for the way in which he faced the emergency of the Uganda exodus and the manner in which he dealt with the right hon. Member for Down, South. The right hon. Member for Sidcup acted without hesitation when the right hon. Member for Down, South stepped out of line by making inflammatory speeches outside the House and putting a match, so to speak, to the bonfire. He made that choice. I cannot forget that he said there were kids spitting on each other in Wolverhampton. The Select Committee visited that area at the time.
  I cannot understand why the bulk of Conservative Members voted for the Prime Minister's earlier changes in the immigration rules on the quality of spouses and other matters. We were informed by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) that if 50 Conservative Members had followed their consciences and voted with the Opposition, that measure would not have been carried that night. Because the hon. Member owed personal allegiance to the Home Secretary, the measure was carried. But it unnecessarily worsened the situation. If the Bill is not changed considerably, the situation will be worsened still further. I regard that as entirely unnecessary.
  I am puzzled that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Membei for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), seemed to be alarmed about the number of Asian children being born in this country. Who is afraid of babies? Those babies belong here. They will be an asset and a credit to Britain, especially if they have the benefit of the customs of an Asian family unit. My Asian constituents are a credit to Britain they work hard and are an asset to Britain's economy.
  However, I cannot understand the present role of the Commission for Racial Equality. The present chairman is a former Conservative Member. I believe that the Minister is on good terms with him. I have seen them together and they do not seem to row with one another. The Home Secretary is responsible for the selection of members of the CRE. No one elects its members. There is a racial balance among its members, but it is not a permanent entity. I do not know why the Government go on with this situation.
  The 1976 Act established the Commission for Racial Equality. I do not want it to be a permanent fixture. I want new blood to be brought in. But the Government have recently reappointed the present chairman. The CRE's submission contains the same attitude as that of the bishops, the churches and those who are closest to the ethnic communities. I hope that lessons will have been learnt from the past and that something better will come from it.
  The Race Relations act 1976 became almost a nonparty affair. In Committee, there was cross-party voting on the material aspects of the measure. I hope that such unity will be shown in Committee on this Bill so that we
  988
  can make fundamental changes, especially by protecting the interests of children born in this country and their patrial rights. In fact, we should get rid of patrial rights. We should also attempt to change the two or three-generation ancestral provision affecting the whites of Rhodesia and of South Africa. As long as that provision exists, it raises the racial characteristics in the Bill and in turn, the racial characteristics of the Immigration Act 1971 on which the Bill fundamentally leans.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. John Stokes: I agree with what a number of Labour Members have said about the Bill being connected with immigration. It must be. It has been found necessary to bring it forward as a result of 25 years of mass immigration into these islands. We must remember that about 3 million people are now living here who have come here in a generation. Those numbers were quite inconceivable at the end of the war.
  In 1970, on the return of a Conservative Government, people expected an end to this process. But, as we all know, the flow of immigrants continued and now there must be about 500,000 extra people who have come here since 1970. In the future, historians will note that as one of the most significant facts of our time, certainly more important than our economic decline, for immigration is steadily changing the character and identity of the nation.
  Clearly, the intention behind the Bill is that the United Kingdom should be a permanent multi-racial society, even though that is a fact only in certain areas of the country where there is a high concentration of immigrants. In millions of acres of our countryside, there are no immigrants. But where immigration has occurred, the immigrant penetration is against the clear wishes of the indigenous population. The ordinary Englishman still clings obstinately to his Englishness and to the old, known ways. He knows only too well that if immigration continues at the present rate the indigenous population will in time be supplanted by aliens and British people will gradually disappear from these islands. It has already started to happen in certain areas.
  I regard the Bill as a poor and feeble effort against that background. We must never forget that the ordinary people look to us to safeguard their interests and those of their children. There are, unfortunately, disquieting signs which the Bill does little if anything to alleviate. The Home Office seems terrified of pressure from the immigrant lobbies. Worse still, we know that the police hesitate to enforce the law against immigrants in the way that they would against English people. Even the press is circumspect in what it publishes about immigrants, and in the House immigration is rarely debated.
  What is the object of those who so passionately wish to change this old society to a multi-racial society? That aim is certainly not stated in the Bill. Is it because those people want a world revolution and so to weaken us that we become incapable of defending ourselves, or even of knowing what sort of nation we are composed of? Or is it a bogus and unthinking sentimentality that believes that all races should come to this overcrowded island to settle here?
  It is true that there are still vestiges of the older order in the Bill. There is still the oath of allegiance. But that oath would be difficult to keep with those who had dual nationality if there were a conflict between the United

  989
  Kingdom and the immigrant's country of origin, to which he still looks and will continue to look for many generations.
  The Bill seems to suppose that all or a large part of the human race is much the same in thoughts, habits, customs, religious beliefs and ideals as those who have lived here for centuries and have shaped their destiny on the world's stage. I do not believe that people are digits or are all the same to be dealt with in this way.
  That great English Jew, Disraeli, said that race was everything, and he was right. But race and racial origin are not mentioned in the Bill, and John Bull becomes a very shadowy figure indeed.
  Those of us who wish that this Bill were much stronger in defence of the nation's vital interests will not look to the intellectuals, nor to the media, and certainly not to the churches, for help—particularly not the churches, because they have failed or given up the idea of trying to convert the heathen immigrant to Christianity.
  I believe that we have to look beyond these walls. We must look, first, to our colleagues in the other place who seem to have a clearer idea of how ordinary people think and feel than we sometimes have. But, above all, we must look to those millions of English men and women throughout the land—some of whom will be listening to this debate on the wireless tonight or reading about it in the papers tomorrow if it is reported—who look to us as their trustees to safeguard the essential identity of the nation and to preserve its future.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I find some difficulty in following the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I am aware that the Bill could be said to be the product of promises made to the electorate in May 1979 regarding immigration, and to that extent I suppose that some of the hon. Gentleman's observations were relevant to the Bill.
  The speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) disturbed me somewhat. He referred at the outset to national identity. If national identity is what took us across the world to subjugate the peoples of India, Africa and the West Indies to obtain raw materials and to exploit the labour in those countries, I want little or nothing to do with it. But it is clear that that is what it means to some representatives of the Conservative Party.
  I do not believe that it is possible to argue about the debris of the past—a term used by the right hon. Member for Down, South—which includes a drive for conquest in the last century and then turn round in this century and seek to ignore the consequences of our activities. It is morally and politically indefensible to ignore the view that we can never repay the debt that we owe to the countries that we have exploited in terms of raw materials and labour. We are certainly not accepting our responsibilities with legislation such as this.
  The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge referred to the Churches. It is sometimes claimed from the Government Front Bench that this is a Christian country. There is nothing in our approach to the problems of immigration and nationality that could in any way be acceptable to the Carpenter of Nazareth. If Conservative
  990
  Members seek so to argue, they will merely illustrate that they use Christianity as a cloak for different types of activities.
  Some of the consequences of British imperialism are in the Bill. In Preston there are people from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies and Africa. Some are waiting for their dependants to be allowed to enter this country. Others are waiting for wives to be allowed to enter this country. Many face the problem of the nationality of their children and relationships within the extended families of Asians, but the Bill is put before us and them in a way that can only create increasing insecurity. We need to reassure them about their future in a multiracial society. Instead, we are clearly indicating that they will have to overcome many obstacles during the next few years before they can claim a permanent home in the United Kingdom.
  The Immigration Act 1971 underpinned the racialism pursued by the Conservative Party. I am afraid that the 1977 Green Paper was in many ways a racist document. Indeed, it is now being used to buttress the policy enunciated in the Bill.
  I shall put my comments on the contents of the Bill in the form of questions, to which I hope the Minister of State will be able to give answers. The hon. Gentleman will certainly have similar questions put to him tomorrow night when he visits the Preston community relations office if he is unable to give satisfactory answers tonight.
  It is suggested that there are about 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 dependants—the Minister can indicate which is the correct figure—waiting to enter the United Kingdom from the Indian sub-continent. The question that he should answer in the interests of the relatives of those dependants is: will the Bill in any way render void their applications for entry to the United Kingdom?
  I understand that Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 will lose their right to register as British citizens, unless they register within two years, and will have to seek naturalisation. We have already heard arguments about the meaning of "good character". My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) did us a service by illustrating some of the problems involved in that kind of approach.
  The Bill refers to a good knowledge of the English language. Many Asian women have difficulty in this respect. The Government are to some degree responsible for that problem, because public expenditure cuts make it virtually impossible to set up institutions to teach English to our ethnic minorities.
  One shudders to think what is meant by a decision to refuse nationality on grounds of inadequate knowledge of the language or not being of good character.
  I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and one or two other hon. Members, including myself, do not come into the category of those with a good character. From what has been stated in the past, it seems that our character might be seriously questioned, particularly in view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for York. Are we to have a series of investigative harassments of the black people in Britain? That seems highly likely under the terms of the Bill. I am particularly concerned about the married Asian woman with language difficulties who seeks to register as a British citizen.
  The Immigration Act 1971 is a piece of shabby racist legislation. The basis for the present Bill can be similarly described. The community organisations throughout

  991
  Britain, with few exceptions, have condemned the Bill. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches have condemned the Bill. They see national identity in terms of a multiracial society. They are opposed to discriminatory racist laws. I shall quote one of their statements. It says:
  "The Bill ignores principles on which a moral consensus might be based".
  Because of that, they rightly warn that there could be a reaction to the Bill if it became an Act. Many young people with black skins in Britain today will face a more questioning attitude to their status by the police. What will be their reaction? The Bill is in many ways a recipe for increased racial conflict. The Government will have to take full responsibility for the consequences that may emerge from it.
  Labour, when in office, must ensure that citizenship is based on equal rights and duties for all holders. If we want to clarify the concept of nationality, we could well look closely at what was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for York. I do not always agree with my hon. Friend's approach to this question, but he seemed to be saying certain things that at least represent a basis for a serious examination of this problem, free of the racial overtones that fill too many of the lines of the Bill.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the remark of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) that the debate should be essentially bipartisan. If any subject merits a bipartisan approach, it is that of nationality law. We are, after all, members of the same country. Our approach to the Bill should therefore be as objective as possible. The contributions of the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall and for York (Mr. Lyon) were particularly constructive, in marked distinction to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, I think, felt impelled to adopt a blustery and partisan tone, perhaps because he thought that there were votes in the issue. The right hon. Gentleman displayed a marked lack of knowledge of the detail of this important measure.
  The Bill should be inspired by three basic principles. The first principle, which I put first on purpose, is that the Bill should enhance the sense of community in our society. It is over-optimistic to imagine that we can become, overnight, one happy family. That is too much to ask. The process of pursuing good race relations is something that we shall have to keep at long and hard for many years, if not for a number of generations, to come. After the Bill becomes law, it should be possible to say that most of us, resident in this country, share a common legal identity and status. The Bill should minimise the distinction between fellow residents in this country.
  Secondly, because the Bill will enhance a sense of belonging in this country, it will give, I hope, a more evidently fair rationale for the process of immigration control. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed this well when he said that the hope behind the Bill was that citizenship and the right of abode ought, as a result, to be related. Inasmuch as the concept of patriality, defined in the 1971 Act, is to be subsumed in schedule 4 to the Bill by the principle of citizenship, that will be so.
  The third principle should be that the Bill will simplify our over-complex citizenship and nationality laws. Regrettably, at this stage at any rate, as the right hon.
  992
  Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) stated, it is something of a rag-bag Bill. There are six categories of citizenship in the measure—United Kingdom citizens, citizens of overseas territories, citizens of dependent territories, British subjects, British protected persons and Commonwealth citizens. I doubt whether all those categories will be retained in the Bill when it comes out of Committee.
  The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) were cogent in supporting the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that we should have individual citizenships of the residual dependent territories. For reasons of local immigration control and for reasons of deportation and so on, this would make more sense. It is possible that this is how the Bill will emerge from Committee.
  Although it would not be practical to legislate on the question of civic rights, it is, nevertheless, incumbent on the Government, I believe, to issue some statement of how they envisage citizenship's according with the question of duties and rights. For many years I have wearied the House with contributions on such measures as the Kiribati Bill, and the Tuvalu Bill, and the Zimbabwe Bill in this Parliament, as well as the Pakistan Bill in 1973. I have argued that the idea of British subjecthood, based upon the notion of Commonwealth citizenship, to which the hon. Member for York so eloquently referred, is totally outdated. In fact, it is retained in the Bill. In clause 34, for example, British citizens, citizens of British dependent territories and British overseas citizens are all regarded as Commonwealth citizens.
  Of course, we do not want people to be resident in this country, pay taxes and national insurance contributions, and wholeheartedly to contribute to the life of a community, without being able to enjoy reciprocal privileges such as the right to vote in elections, to serve on the Bench, to be members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service, and to take part in jury service.
  However, the present situation does not make good logic or common sense. Why is an EEC national who lives in Britain and is entitled to live and work here under the Treaty of Rome, not enfranchised for EEC Assembly elections, whereas a Commonwealth citizen, even after the Bill becomes law, will still be able to do so? There is a host of anomalies. Even after the Bill is enacted, we shall have to address ourselves to this problem.
  A related issue is the fact that we are giving Commonwealth citizens two years in which to register as United Kingdom nationals under the existing procedures for Commonwealth citizens. In the Pakistan legislation, a similar period of time was allowed for between 100,000 and 200,000 Pakistan nationals who could have lost their civic rights, as the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) pointed out, if they did not register as United Kingdom nationals within the stipulated time.
  I appreciate that there will be no compulsion on Commonwealth citizens to register. They will not lose any rights if they do not. Perhaps that is a good thing. None the less, many of them may choose to do so, and as there are a lot of people in this category it will involve a great deal of work for the Home Office. When South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth several years were allowed for South Africans to regularise their position and

  993
  register as United Kingdom citizens. The Pakistanis had about two years. So I think we could have been more generous in that regard.
  I turn to the status of children born abroad. The issue is raised in clause 2. Many hon. Members have referred to that provision. First, I cannot conceive, in all equity, why a distinction should be drawn on the grounds of birth between bona fide British citizens. If British citizenship is acquired by naturalisation or registration presumably the people involved think they belong in the United Kingdom and believe that this is the country to which they owe allegiance. Otherwise, they would not have taken the overt step of naturalisation or registration. Moreover, it is a prima facie injustice to draw that distinction.
  Secondly, as I said earlier, there is no good reason why Commonwealth citizens settled in Britain with no limitations on right of abode here should acquire British nationality, but find that their children, if born when they go abroad, are in a different situation. In my view, that is not entirely desirable. After all, those children belong here and will continue to belong here. It is their parents' home and they know no other.
  Then there is the category of the children born abroad of refugees to this country. It is possibly a more important category than one would imagine. After the Second World War, many thousands of refugees came to the United Kingdom from the Baltic States, the Ukraine and Poland. In 1956, there was the influx from Hungary. Many of those people have retained their nationality. They have not acquired British citizenship, because they hope that their countries of origin will return to a democratic rule and that they will be able to go back to those countries at some time in the future. If the provisions remain the same, I envisage that the children of such people, if they happen to be born when they were abroad, would not automatically, acquire British citizenship, which would be wrong. Those children would have known no other origin than an essentially British one, inasmuch as Britain was the ultimate home and refuge of their parents.
  There is then the purely practical argument of the straightforward anomalies that will occur—the British person who works in an American university for a number of years and has to get his child registered as a United Kingdom citizen by dispensation of the Home Office. I do not see why that need occur. It is unnecessarily complicated. I hope that the matter will be carefully reconsidered.
  There is then the vast issue of the United Kingdom and Colony passport holders overseas, which is in a sense looked after by the provision of British overseas citizenship. I am anxious about the status of United Kingdom and Colony passport holders overseas who will acquire British overseas citizenship inasmuch as the citizenship of their children is not defined under the legislation. The arguments of the hon. Member for York were right in that regard. At the first Commonwealth conference we should together work out our joint attitude; otherwise there is a danger of people in that category, and I mean the children, becoming stateless, which I am sure is not the intention of the Bill.
  The question of dual nationality has briefly been raised. I am chairman of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. A number of members of that society believe that we should do away with dual nationality, which may appear
  994
  surprising. Pakistanis, for example, can have dual nationality, following Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. Mr. Bhutto, the then Prime Minister, specifically gave Pakistan nationals dual nationality if they wanted it in order that they could retain civic privileges in Britain without losing their rights in Pakistan.
  We should once and for all try at the earliest opportunity to do away with the manifest anomalies and injustices that exist at an individual level. I conclude with a case from my constituency, which my hon. Friend has kindly and expeditiously undertaken to deal with. It concerns a 25-year-old woman whose father was Indian and whose mother was Burmese. She was born in Rangoon. The family settled in the United Kingdom in the mid-1960s. In essence, the United Kingdom for many a long year has been her home. She works for the Inland Revenue, and therefore has to be a British citizen or a Commonwealth citizen—a British subject—in order to continue in that occupation. She has been warned that unless she acquires that citizenship she risks losing her job. To their credit, her employers, after interventions, have said that they will not sack her while her status is being resolved. It is ludicrous and anomalous that a Burmese person should have to go to the special trouble that, let us say, a Bangladeshi person, living next door in the Commonwealth, does not have to go to. In this case, the Burmese person speaks perfect English, is good at her job and is of good character.
  Finally, we must consider the rights of Commonwealth citizens. I want everyone in this country to feel that they belong here and to have the incentive to acquire British nationality. I hope that that is the intention behind the Bill. I do not believe that the rationalisation of the registration and naturalisation process is inimical to that. It is logical and sensible. The members of my society welcome the move. The Government are undertaking a difficult task. They deserve the support of both sides of the House. If they have that, they can produce a statute that will stand the test of time and not appear to be an anachronism, as did the 1948 Act after only a relatively short period.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. George Morton: The one point of general agreement this evening seems to be that there is a need for a new nationality act. There is near-agreement that there are defects—and some major defects—in the Bill.
  The 1948 Act was overtaken by colonial freedom and by our structures of immigration law. The Bill is wrong because it is built on the foundations of the various parts of immigration law that have developed over the years. Therefore, there is not the intelligible structure that a Bill needs if it is to define basic principles.
  In introducing the Bill the Home Secretary said that he did not understand why there were objections to it. The major problem is that the Government do not understand people's concern about policies on immigration and the interpretation put on the Bill.
  There is much cause for people to worry about the Government's intentions when they introduce what appear to be unnecessary and deliberately offensive restrictions, as in the Bill. One might expect one objective of the Bill to be to simplify a complicated situation, but it seems that the Government have deliberately constructed their own complications.

  995
  There is an example of that in clause 1, which removes the existing standard by which anyone born here becomes a British citizen. I do not object to the principle of that. In many cases, people whose children are born here while they are not settled here have no intention of using that citizenship for their children. My worry is about the implication of implementing the clause.
  How will registrars establish the rights of parents wishing to register a child? Could registration of a birth be challenged years later on the ground that a parent has failed to give information, either at registration or at the time of entry? I fear that there will be a reaction from people who are legally settled here, but who feel worried that they might be interrogated or distrusted and therefore might not use the maternity services or register their child. The White Paper refers to the difficulties resulting from the clause and I am far from sure that they can be overcome.
  I am disturbed at the distinction between the rights of British citizens by birth and those by registration or naturalization—particularly, for example, in the nationality of their children if born abroad. Someone who has gone to the trouble of registering his nationality or becoming naturalised shows a commitment to this country which people who are merely born here do not show. Such people have chosen to throw in their lot with the United Kingdom and therefore deserve rights that are at least equal to those of people who were born here.
  A particular problem will arise from the custom of Asian women to return to parental homes to have a baby. The children of some Asian women who want to return to the sub-continent for the birth of their child could be placed in difficulty.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, our proposals for naturalisation need to be improved, particularly because of the reduction in the role of registration. There should be clear reasons for refusal and a move away from subjective judgments of good character and the reliance on the discretion of the Home Secretary. There should also be a right of appeal. That and the setting of objective standards go together, because there would be difficulty in challenging in the courts an open definition of something like good character.
  I find no reason for stopping the right of registration for Commonwealth citizens who have been here since before 1973. I do not see why it should not continue for their lifetime. People in Manchester have deferred action on registration for various reasons. They may want to keep open a connection with their country of origin, or they may simply be deterred by the cost of registration. I can understand that. It will land my constituents with increasing costs if they defer the proposal or intention to register beyond the specified date. It is difficult to persuade them that they should spend money on something that perhaps may not require action on their part. They could remain Commonwealth citizens and have the voting and other rights that go with that, but how can we be sure that there will not be changes in the future?
  With their plans for overseas citizenship the Government must recognise that they appear to be setting different standards of citizenship. It may be that different titles should be used for different areas of dependent territories, but it is necessary to reassure people that they have substantial rights in a country with which they have a connection. Particular care needs to be exercised in dealing with the categories of people who have relied on
  996
  promises by previous British Governments that their rights would be maintained. There is the danger that the title "British overseas citizen", given to people who have relied on past British promises, will give the impression of being just a nominal title for people about whom we do not wish to bother. Their rights should be established, and the Government would act most honourably if they gave them full British citizenship.
  The Bill has been seen as a means of entrenching this country's extremely restrictive immigration law. It should be an opportunity for the Government to meet the fears of minorities about their intentions. Instead, they have clearly fuelled those fears. The Home Secretary seemed surprised, for example, at the reaction of the five Archbishops of Great Britain. That surprise only indicates his lack of understanding. The Archbishops may not be conscious of the ingrained racial bias in this country, but the minority communities who are settled here know it very well.
  Let me give an example. Ten days ago I came back from a visit to India and Bangladesh. I arrived at Heathrow in the morning on a plane from Dacca. The planeload of people were greeted in the immigration hall by a solid, uniformed officer who firmly directed all Bangladeshis "Over there". Those of us who were not directed into the corner in question joined a queue at the United Kingdom and Colonies counter. I joined it behind a young man who was asked by the woman immigration officer "Do you speak English? When did you come to this country? Where did you arrive?" She barely looked at the passport. She was not really listening to his answers. The whole effect was of an insult. I do not think that she intended to be insulting. Her attitude seemed to be perfectly natural. When I reached her, I was not asked those questions, but then I do not have a brown face.
  That sort of attitude understandably angers black people settled here, who find themselves constantly distrusted. The attitude permeates the Bill and does immense damage to race relations. Unless the Bill is changed, it will do more damage.
  The Government seem to pretend that immigration has not happened and that we are a single group who have lived here for centuries. The speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was a good example of that sort of argument. If I am supposed to share common origins with the hon. Gentleman, I must say that I find it difficult to see a common culture between us.
  Britain has gained from large amounts of immigration over the centuries and has profited vastly from its connections with the Empire which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) pointed out, it exploited in the nineteenth century. We cannot cut off our links and dismiss our responsibilities in a purely selfish way. The Government need to recognise that we have responsibilities for people overseas and that this is a multiracial country. Without that recognition, the Bill will remain unacceptable.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton) because he and a number of his hon. Friends have made constructive comments about the Bill—in marked contrast to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who was aggressive and

  997
  truculent. As the right hon. Gentleman has only just returned to the Chamber, he will not be aware of the constructive role that his hon. Friends have played.
  It has been a manifesto promise of the Conservative and Unionist Party for more than a decade that we would seek to define in law who is, and who is not, a citizen of the United Kingdom. For any nation, the question of who belongs and who does not belong is a vital matter. I support the Bill in principle and its attempt to give this country what most other countries have enjoyed for many years, namely more or less clear-cut citizenship.
  The definition of my citizenship is something along the lines of "A British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is not subject to immigration control". I should prefer to be regarded as English, but I know that that raises complications in a United Kingdom.
  I turn immediately to the first complication—Ireland and the Republic of Eire. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Bill does not deal with the position of Irish citizens and their rights in the United Kingdom. Section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949, which is headed:
  "Republic of Ireland not a foreign country"
  states:
  "It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom".
  That reminds me of the change in the rules of the Travellers' Club in the eighteenth century. The original rule of the Travellers' Club was that one could be a member if one went as far as Italy or farther, but many applicants for membership were going only as far as Avignon, so the rules of the club were changed, and Avignon was deemed to be in Italy. Similarly, it seems that the Republic of Eire is deemed in our law not to be a foreign country.
  That is remarkable, because the Republic of Ireland should be treated as an independent sovereign State, which is how it wants to be treated. The removal of voting rights would require an amendment of the Representation of the People Act 1949. Many of us, I should like to think a majority in this House, would consent to that. But as the British Nationality Act 1948 declares Irish citizens not to be aliens—and further provides that
  "any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies"
  shall apply to citizens of the Irish Republic—I should have thought that some mention of the need for a commitment from our Government to phase out these absurd and non-reciprocal privileges was long overdue.
  Several of my hon. Friends have linked the Bill with the subject of immigration. Probably they meant immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. I believe that that view, in part at least, is shared, in regard to different aspects of the argument, on the Opposition Benches.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State said at the Conservative Party conference in October last year:
  "We have got finally to dispose of the lingering notion that Britain is somehow a haven for all those whose countries we once ruled."
  It is my belief—contrary to general opinion—that the Bill does not really address itself to immigration from the
  998
  New Commonwealth and Pakistan and its consequences for our country and people. It will do nothing effective to stop the motive forces which are at work here.
  The law defines only the categories of people who can enter the United Kingdom freely, as of right. The law does not define those who cannot enter. Home Secretaries, if they so wish, can let anyone in. They do, and they have done over 30 years. In the period of a decade since the 1970 election of a Conservative Government on the manifesto "A Better Tomorrow", containing a pledge that
  "there will be no further large-scale permanent immigration into this country",
  over half a million people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan have been accepted for settlement.
  Nor does the Bill deal with the effects of such a migration, which will lead, in my judgment, to a challenge to our values, our traditions, our heritage and our customs, culminating, regrettably, in the breakdown of law, order and authority and of tolerant and liberal government. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and others of my hon. Friends mentioned the question of dual nationality. I regret that the Bill does not attempt to deal with this matter. The White Paper indicates that there are thought to be about 3 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with dual nationality who are exempt from United Kingdom immigration control, of whom 1 million are in the United Kingdom.
  Like my hon. Friends, I believe that the Government should have given consideration to requiring citizens here with dual citizenship to exercise a choice within a convenient period as to whether they wish to opt for British citizenship or another country's citizenship. I do not believe that one can have divided loyalties. I do not believe that one can be loyal to more than one country at once.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Is it not important to distinguish two separate factors here? First, there are Commonwealth citizens who are patrials and have the right to enter this country. Secondly, there are those who are able, if they wish, to have dual citizenship. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many people who in theory could have dual citizenship but who, if they chose to exercise that right, would lose their existing citizenship. Existing Malaysian citizens, if they chose to exercise their United Kingdom citizenship, would lose their Malaysian citizenship. I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong in that sense.
  Mr. Proctor: I believe that a person has citizenship rights. Whether he wishes to exercise them or not, the choice is there. It is a matter for that person to decide.
  The highlight of the debate, to my mind, was the "debate within a debate" between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), with the early part of whose speech and the historical perspectives concerning the 1948 Act I fully agreed. That debate concerned the concepts of the jus soli, literally the law of the soil, and the jus sanguinis, the law of blood or kinship. The former, I believe, comes from the Anglo-Saxons in this country, while the latter is of perhaps more continental origin.
  There may be good arguments for changing from the traditional Anglo-Saxon jus soli to the jus sanguinis and the system which currently prevails on the continent. I believe that in France the jus sanguinis has been watered down in recent decades. Nevertheless, it probably remains

  999
  true that a person born in France of foreign parents does not necessarily acquire French citizenship. It is certainly not automatic. He or she has to take some kind of oath of allegiance on reaching full age, and must have been resident in France for a certain period since birth in order to qualify.
  As one of my constituents put it—rather crudely, as he readily admitted—"a dachshund born in a foxhound's kennel may remain a dachshund, but he may feel himself to be more of a foxhound than a dachshund, and if he remains long enough in the kennel may behave so much like a foxhound as to be accepted as such." That is acceptable, depending upon the numbers of dachshunds and foxhounds. The ratio between the two can severely impress upon this argument. But I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for York that the concepts of jus soli and jus sanguinis will have to be fought out and settled in Committee.
  The Bill as it stands is a helpful document, and I commend it to the House.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I represent a constituency in Bradford which contains many Asians, especially Pakistanis, and many East Europeans. Consequently, as the Home Office knows, I am in touch with it constantly about problems of the kind which will be affected by this Bill. The people who consult me would like a Bill which is simple to understand. Bearing in mind that sometimes their English is not perfect and that some have not had the advantage of great education, it is essential to have rules which are simple. The Bill fails that test because it is unduly complicated. In fact, for people whose parents were not born in Britain it is an exceedingly and unsatisfactorily complicated Bill.
  I want to deal with some of the practical effects of the Bill, as I see them. First, everyone who is involved in problems of this kind knows that the Home Office is overburdened already and has great difficulty in dealing quickly with many of the problems confronting it. People applying for naturalisation have to wait years for the resolution of their applications. It follows that any legislation imposing further work on the Home Office needs to be scrutinised carefully to see whether that work can be avoided.
  In the Bill, we have a recipe for a fantastic amount of additional work for the Home Office. First, there is a limitation of two years for applications by wives and others already in Britain who wish to register. One knows from experience of the Pakistan Act and from the current delays in the Home Office that this will not only produce a large swell of applications from people trying to get in within the two-year limit but that, although the Home Office is insisting on a two-year limit in the Bill, it has no hope of dealing with applications presented to it within any reasonable period unless there is a vast increase in its staff. Therefore, we need to know what the staffing proposals are for the Home Office in order that it may operate the legislation. It insists that people already in the country who wish to be registered or naturalised should apply within two years, but it cannot give any undertaking about dealing with applications in a reasonable period.
  In those circumstances, it would be to the advantage not only of applicants but also of the Home Office if a far longer time than two years were allowed for applications to be made under these transitional provisions order to
  1000
  avoid it being engulfed and to reduce the delay in the handling of applications, which could then be staggered over a longer period. Delay in itself is an injustice; it is not just an inconvenience. It is a denial of justice to impose delay on people who are anxious for their applications to be considered. For these transitional provisions, we should be thinking in terms of, say, five years in which people might apply and not of only two years.
  The next matter that I deal with concerns wives. At the moment, wives already here will have the two years in which to apply. However, if they fail to apply in the two years—and many of them will not even hear of their rights within the two years—they will have to fall back on another provision, which says that they may apply for citizenship if they have been in Britain for three years and they comply with certain requirements. At the moment, the wife of a United Kingdom citizen can apply virtually immediately upon arrival. That right is taken away from her by this Bill. What is more, if she does not apply within the allotted two years, she comes within a provision which says that she has to speak English to a reasonable standard. That does not apply at present to wives of United Kingdom citizens.
  Therefore, the effect of the Bill—let there be no doubt about it—is that wives from, say, Pakistan will not in future he able to acquire British citizenship if they do not apply within two years, since most of them do not speak good English. Therefore, if they do not put their applications in within two years, we shall be saying to all Pakistani men about their wives and to all Pakistani wives that, in practical terms, "For you citizenship is out for ever; we are stopping it dead." The effect of the Bill is for all time to deny British citizenship to Pakistani wives and others who do not speak English even if they are here until they are 75 years of age.
  Furthermore, because of the language qualification, not only Asians but many East Europeans, such as those in my constituency, who have been here since the 1940s, who fought in the Army against the Germans, will not be able to get British citizenship because they are aliens and there is the language qualification. No one would say after 30 years that the Poles and other East Europeans in my constituency did not have an intention permanently to remain in Britain. No one could argue that they do not feel intimately concerned with the well-being of this country. In truth, it is a prime consideration for them and they are extremely attached to Britain. Yet some of them will be denied British citizenship because they cannot speak English. I go to a Polish club and I know a lot of Poles who fought in the British Army in the desert, but some would not be able to obtain citizenship because their English is inadequate.
  I should favour the abolition of the language test but if it is to be there, there should be a provision that if the only disqualification is an inability to speak English well, those who have been here for 20 or 30 years, or some lengthy period, should be able to get citizenship. It may be remiss of someone that he is not able to speak English, but if people have been here for 25 years they should be entitled, irrespective of the language deficiency, to apply for and receive British citizenship. Yet East Europeans in this country are denied it, and there is no doubt that under the Bill a great many other people, including Asians, will likewise be denied it.
  What about aged dependants who come over here? Under the Bill, because of the language test, many have

  1001
  no chance of obtaining British citizenship. Moreover, it means that a wife with inadequate English who comes here at 19 years of age, lives here for 30 years, bears her children here and develops an intimate interest in the welfare of Britain, seeing her children attend school and being involved in Britain, will not be able to obtain citizenship. In my view, the language test should be examined extremely carefully.
  It is said that under the Bill husbands will for the first time be treated in the same way as wives, which means in practical terms that when they come to Britain they will be able to apply for naturalisation in three years instead of the usual five. That is said to be an advantage, but what is not pointed out is that they cannot get in now, or nearly all of them cannot, because they are not allowed to marry and immigration control will stop them coming in. So very few will be able to enter.
  Secondly, even if they do come here, the language test will prevent some from obtaining citizenship, but if they do manage to scrape through the language test, they will be confronted with enormous delay in the Home Office in dealing with their applications. They will apply after three years, and they will not get an answer until after five years anyway, because the Home Office is already overburdened and will be inundated as a result of all the additional applications flooding in.
  I am not blaming the Home Office officials. The Minister's own officials are exceedingly helpful and I give them credit for it. But they know that they are overburdened and will not be able to deal with this additional burden unless there is a vast increase in the bureaucracy.
  What is more, because of the time limits and the value judgments which will be made by the officials about who gets what under the Bill, Members of Parliament will have far more work as people come to them to ask about this problem and that. Therefore, not only will officials at the Home Office be overburdened but Members of Parliament representing constituencies where there are many Asians, West Indians and so on will find a constant additional stream of people coming to them for help.
  The subject of children born abroad is interesting. If a child born abroad has one parent who was born in Britain, all is well. However, if neither parent were born in Britain but one nevertheless has British citizenship, an application for registration can be made, provided that it is made within 12 months of birth. The child has no say about the application, because it is under 12 months old. Therefore the child's future citizenship depends on whether the parents make that application within 12 months of the birth.
  If the parents are out of Britain for more than 12 months—the provision will not only apply to coloured people—they will not even think of making an application. How will they know about the provisions? They probably will not know that an Act has been passed. If they fail to make an application, a different application can be made for the minor if both the parents and the child return to Britain for a consecutive period of three years prior to the application. An exception can be made if the parents are divorced, or if one parent is dead. However, let us suppose that the parents are only separated and that the father lives abroad. If the mother returns to live in England with a one-year-old child, and if the child lives here for several years,
  1002
  it will not—if the Bill is enacted—obtain British citizenship because the father has not been divorced, and lives outside Britain. That is inequitable.
  Even if the father works outside Britain for just above 270 days in every three-year period, the child will never be able to obtain British citizenship although, at the time of its birth, one of its parents was—although not by birth—a British citizen. The provision is inequitable and the Bill should be reconsidered.
  The Bill is not only highly complicated but also grossly unfair. Under clause 41 no reason need be given for a refusal by the Home Office. That is a dangerous prerogative because the Home Office has to apply subjective tests. For example, if one of the parents is a British citizen at the time of the child's birth abroad, but is not a British citizen by birth and the parent then dies the Home Office must be satisfied upon an application for citizenship that at the time of birth that parent had an intention to maintain a close connection with this country. The Home Office has to decide what was in the dead parent's mind at the time of the birth—that is, whether the parent wanted to maintain a close connection with Britain.
  To try to obtain reliable evidence is a chancy business. Although the Home Office would no doubt try to be fair, it could go wrong. What could be done if the Home Office did go wrong? Under the Bill, the Home Office takes power to itself to give no reason for any refusal. We need never know why a child has been refused. Under clause 41, the Government have taken power to deny access to the courts. That is what the South African Government do when legislation is sensitive. Therefore, a person will not be able to apply to the courts, nor will he be given a reason for refusal by the Home Office, unless—in its benevolence—the Home Office decides to do so. There is no adjudicator or any other forum of appeal.
  At the very least the Home Office should provide the reasons, except in sensitive areas connected with good character—I understand that it might not want to provide reasons in those circumstances or in circumstances connected with the safety of the realm. However, if there is a Home Office refusal concerning a small child, it should give its reason so that, if thought appropriate, someone can argue the case. If it will not give the reason, how can an argument be developed? There is a huge increase in the discretionary powers of the Home Office arising from the Bill.
  For all those reasons, I submit that the Bill will need careful scrutiny in Committee. It should be opposed on Second Reading. Bearing in mind the complications that will arise through the inequities of treatment between children whose parents were born here and children whose parents were not, I must say that the Bill is a racist measure.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Nick Budgen: I am able to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) that the Bill must be considered carefully. However, I did not agree with him when he said that he hoped that we would have a simple Bill. He made a plea that is similar, for example, to that made by those who are neither lawyers nor accountants when talking about legislation imposing taxation. They ask "Why cannot we have a simple tax?" In the same way, it is impossible to have a simple piece of legislation when dealing with the accumulation of many years of legislation

  1003
  about both citizenship and immigration. We cannot quickly sweep away all our imperial past. We must take account of the various compromises and, no doubt, anomalies that have arisen in the past.
  It is inevitable that there will be perhaps five or six various subsidiary forms of citizenship that give rise to most anomalous conditions. I agree with part of the careful and extremely helpful speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), namely, that the most important thing is to understand the rights that we wish to confer upon those from other lands—people who might in a broad sense be not immediately identifiable as British citizens of any category. In that part of his speech the hon. Gentleman was talking about subsidiary forms of citizenship.
  Let us not give those who are not immediately identifiable as British citizens any rights that may not be honoured subsequently. Let us not, for instance, take up the trick of the 1930s of entering into alliances that we have no serious intention of honouring. Let us understand what we promise, and let us have a public debate so that we have a serious intention, when conferring rights, that they shall be honoured later.
  I confine the main part of my short observations to the principal form of British citizenship. It is a most unfortunate reaction from the Labour Party that it objects to the Bill principally because the new Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic community finds itself in an uneasy state of mind because British nationality is being discussed. Anyone who discusses his or her nationality feels uneasy.
  I was thinking of my own reactions. There may be those who say that I have racial prejudices but I do not have, perhaps as strong colour prejudices. In my constituency there is quite a large Polish community. I see the members of that community about once a year. They speak to me in the most vibrant terms. They make my political views seem the wettest of the wet. At the end of the conversation I usually ask them "Are you going to vote for me?" They reply "No. We are Poles." I tell them how much I admire them and they say "We love your country second to our own". I respond by saying "But we betrayed you in the 1930s, we patronised you in the war and we sold you out at Yalta, yet you are still able to say that about the British people". They say "Yes, but I was born a Pole, and I shall die a Pole". What could be more honourable than that? What could be a better demonstration of allegiance to a nation State?
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend has given a fine example to the House. It is one with which many hon. Members are familiar. But does he agree that he, I and others ought to instigate a movement within this place to ensure that fine people such as the Poles do not continue to be disfranchised? They have lived, worked and paid their taxes here, and made a marvellous contribution to our society. For example, Commonwealth citizens who do not speak a word of English are able to vote, but Poles who speak good English and have a good understanding of our way of life—perhaps greater than that of recent arrivals from the Indian sub-continent—cannot.
  Mr. Budgen: Their attitude is the most wonderful expression of nationhood. There should be no legislation to force them to be British when they wish to be Polish. As I discuss their nationhood I find myself deeply disturbed, because allegiance towards a country is one of the most important factors in one's being. Of course, I
  1004
  understand that new Commomwealth and Pakistan ethnic communities inevitably feel disturbed as we discuss nationality in the House. Here I disagree with my hon. Friend the member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He said, in what was a generally excellent speech, that the concept of nationality should enhance our sense of community. It should, but it should also define our sense of community. That means that those who feel themselves to be somewhere near the border, wherever that border may be, will inevitably feel uneasy.
  We cannot baulk at the disagreeable duty that arises from both our imperial past and the consequence of the high level of immigration that has occurred during the past decade. Perhaps it will be obvious because of my passionate admiration for the Poles that I feel we should, most of all, attach to our concept of British citizenship the old idea of allegiance.
  It will perhaps be difficult to go nap on either the jus soli or the jus sanguinis. We may be left with an uneasy compromise between the two that will give neither clarity nor certainty that the acceptance of either principle would give. If we wish to retain our sense of cohesion as a nation, we must return to the concept of allegiance.
  Let us consider an intelligent Pakistani doctor serving on a jury. If he feels a sense of allegiance it is allegiance to the good order and justice that are necessary parts of the British way of life. Having accepted the concept of allegiance, one would hope that he would not have any prejudice in favour of or against a black accused person being tried for assault on the police. One would hope that he would see it as his duty to consider the evidence as fairly and objectively as any other juror would.
  Again, taking the concept of allegiance, it would be unwise to create in the Army circumstances similar to those that existed at the time of the Curragh mutiny in 1914. If we are to retain our cohesion, we must surely grasp at the concept of allegiance.
  It follows from that that I believe that something must be done to abolish the idea of dual nationality. I found my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood helpful on this point. One of the best ways for the new immigrant community to demonstrate its adherence to this country is to say "I have given up my citizenship of Pakistan or Bangladesh. In the event of the United Kingdom declaring war upon Pakistan, I am prepared to fight with the British Forces against Pakistan." What better way could there be of demonstrating that this was home? What better way could there be of demonstrating that they were British black people?
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have been following my hon. Friend's speech closely, but I have some difficulty in following him in this respect. I understood his admiration for the Polish community to be founded on their intense national pride. I find that general admiration difficult to reconcile with his latest suggestion that Pakistanis should renounce their Pakistani nationality.
  Mr. Budgen: If they wish to become British citizens, if they wish to enjoy the benefits and shoulder the obligations of British citizenship, they should owe allegiance to no other country. That is in no way inconsistent with what I was saying, with great admiration, for the Poles in my constituency.
  It follows that I profoundly regret the Home Secretary's unwillingness to grapple with the problem of the Southern

  1005
  Irish. It seems wholly wrong that that problem has not been tackled. I understand that in 1922—in the aftermath of the Black and Tans and much that was no doubt regarded with abhorrence and guilt in this House and elsewhere—there was a sense that we would create yet another anomaly regarding the Republic. But we do not need to feel that any more. It is profoundly wrong that in some constituencies the decision may rest with a large group of citizens of the Republic who may actively wish to see the downfall of the policies of the British Government and people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, they may make inquiries about the loyalty of individual candidates before casting their votes. I believe that in our discussions on the Bill the House should express a very firm view on that matter.
  9.25 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: The Conservative Party election manifesto said that the Conservatives would introduce a British Nationality Bill to define entitlement to British citizenship and to rights of abode in this country and that none of this would affect the rights of anyone now permanently settled in this country. That statement, which I have checked carefully, has to be set against what is contained in the Bill.
  It has been demonstrated that one way in which people in this country are likely to be affected relates to the question of citizenship. It seems incredible that if someone has passed the test of citizenship and has acquired citizenship, and has gone through all that is required to achieve it, he can be told, at the end of the day, that although he is a citizen of this country his citizenship is different from the citizenship of someone who acquired the citizenship by birth, and that his child, if born abroad, or his right of passing on that citizenship, will be affected because of the status of the citizenship and the way it was acquired. I have heard no explanation from the Secretary of State about why this is necessary. It does not seem logical.
  I should like to tell a story which illustrates the confusion. Two years ago, I was in India, along with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who also knows this story, a number of journalists and other people, studying customs and problems in relation to immigration. We came across a couple of Indian origin, resident in Britain, who had passed all the tests of adoption in Britain through the social services. They had gone to India to adopt a child.
  They had heard of our presence through the press and came to us in great consternation because the British authorities were saying that they would have to obtain an entry certificate to bring the baby into Britain. The baby, according to the authorities, had no legal rights of entry. We created. I came back prior to the couple, who were returning on a scheduled flight, to clear entry for the child into this country. The immigration authorities told me that they would grant temporary admission pending the sorting out of the documentation.
  Those to whom I have related this story have described it as appalling. They stressed how dreadful and awful would have been the situation if the woman had given birth naturally, but prematurely, in India. Would the same difficulties have been encountered?
  1006
  If we have particular classes of citizenship which mean that rights are denied to a group of people according to where their child is born, that position will be repeated time and again. The problem for ethnic minorites in this country is the insecurity that this sort of provision brings about.
  I find it inconceivable that the House should be presented with a Bill on nationality without taking account of the relationship of nationals and the European Economic Community. There is a tremendous gap in the proposed legislation. It leaves out of account the confusion that exists in relation to this matter. In fact, the Bill makes the confusion even greater. I have raised previously in the House the contradiction relating the children born in Britain of people who are permanently settled here but who are not EEC nationals. They are not covered for reciprocal medical treatment within the EEC, unlike other children born in this country whose parents are EEC nationals. I am told that this matter, which concerns an EEC regulation, is constantly discussed within the EEC. It is to be hoped that it can be rectified.
  The Bill does not deal with the contradictions in relation to nationality and the Treaty of Rome. That is amazing. When we signed the treaty to enter the European Economic Community, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told the House in December 1971, in exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that he had been required by the EEC to give a definition of nationals and one did not exist because the concept of nationals of a country was pertinent to all the discussions and arguments in relation to the EEC. He said that he had given a definition. That definition was never accepted by the House. It never went through any legislative process. The definition of citizenship that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was:
  "Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or British Subjects not possessing that citizenship or the citizenship of any other Commonwealth country or territory, who, in either case, have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and are therefore exempt from United Kingdom immigration control."
  That definition was given to the House.
  Six weeks later the definition changed. At no time was anything written into statute. The definition changed in order to meet the point made about Gibraltar. The following line was added to the definition:
  "persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by birth or by registration or naturalisation in Gibraltar or whose father was so born, registered or naturalized".
  During that time, someone had discovered that Gibraltar citizens, under the Treaty of Rome, must be included in the free mobility of labour.
  There has always been a contradiction in the relationship between nationality in this country and in the EEC. At the time of our entry, the declaration that was made—it was accepted, but never debated in this Chamber—defined United Kingdom nationals for the purpose of EEC law so as to exclude United Kingdom citizens who had no rights of abode here and who were subject to immigration control. As a result, they are worse off than people who are United Kingdom citizens by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar. Gibraltar was added and specifically included because of a contradiction that exists regarding rights of free mobility of labour of people in British territories.

  1007
  In seeking to define nationality, we must bear in mind, on the one hand, that we are members of the Community and that all those people who are nationals of this country or of other member countries have the right of free mobility of labour. At the same time, however, we must write into this Bill the fact that many people permanently settled in this country who would not be nationals in the sense understood by the EEC will be excluded from the rights afforded to those who are nationals of the EEC.
  Let us consider the history of the EEC since 1971, when the matter was first raised in this Chamber. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that he had to give a definition. He said that he had been asked for a definition, but that none existed. A definition was given which will make it more difficult now for the people who are being given second, third or fourth-class citizenship because they are being excluded from nationality except in certain circumstances to be included in the nationality relationships and the rights of nationals within the EEC. That is a shocking omission.
  One difficulty in debating immigration is that whenever we raise doubts—and both Governments have been guilty of appalling errors and misconceptions—we are always assured that the difficulties will not occur. But they always do. I remember it being said many years ago that it would be much easier if we stipulated that people coming here had to have entry certificates. We were told that that would solve everything. People would have their certificate, show it at the port of entry and be admitted, and all the problems at ports of entry would disappear. Rights of entry, visas and certificates of entry were introduced. They did not solve anything. People who have their visas are still being detained at airports and sent back or told to furnish further information. All the problems that we foresaw have occurred. Doubts therefore remain in the minds of ethnic minorities.
  However, leaving all that aside, as a fundamental principle of human rights we cannot tell various groups of people that they are citizens of this country but that they have different rights, some have more rights than others and their children have different rights. That is not citizenship. A person is either a citizen or he is not; a citizen's child either has the right to citizenship or it does not. The matter cannot be decided by where a person or his child is born. If a person has fulfilled the conditions laid down for citizenship, is of good character and has lived in the country for the set time, we cannot then say to him that his next-door neighbour and his child have more right to citizenship. That is no way to make people equal under the law. We already have many inequalities written into United Kingdom and EEC legislation.
  There is much in the Bill that needs changing, but I hope that, above all, the Minister will carefully reconsider the question of citizenship. We should have one kind of citizenship, with equal rights for all citizens.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. R. McTaggart: I oppose the Bill on behalf of ethnic minorities and Gibraltarians, but above all, on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are coloured immigrants. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has taken a positive stand against the Bill. He states that he will oppose it at every stage.
  We have excellent race relations in Glasgow. Many of our coloured brothers and sisters have proved themselves
  1008
  to be hard working and an asset to the community. Glasgow is criticised by many, but our race relations are among the best in the United Kingdom. Some of my countrymen may be tempted to add that the only race that we Scots have problems with are the English, especially over tickets for certain football matches.
  Just before Christmas I attended a meeting of the immigrant community to discuss the Bill. A great number of people were there because of their concern about the Bill. Immigrant communities in Glasgow and throughout the United Kingdom will not quietly accept the proposals. They will organise themselves to lobby Parliament to ensure that we are aware of their anxieties.
  No one can say that the Act does not need to be changed. It is 32 years old and much has changed in the country in that time. Many former British colonies have rightly gained their independence. Therefore, the Act is out-dated.
  In addition, in nearly every other country, rights are accorded to citizens on the basis of a clear nationality law which defines exactly who is and who is not a citizen. We lack such a law. Since the British Nationality Act 1948 established that every citizen of any Commonwealth country or colony was a British subject, different laws have produced different definitions for different purposes. It was said earlier that the immigration legislation is the most notorious example of that.
  The notion of belongers and non-belongers, later given a degree of respectability by being changed to patrials and non-patrials in the Immigration Act 1971, has been seen throughout the world as an attempt to discriminate among British subjects who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on thinly-disguised racial criteria.
  The Opposition welcome changes to the nationality Act, but any change must be positive and must enhance people's present position. It is only natural for people to need more rights and to want to feel more strongly that they are members of our society. It is only natural that when existing rights are taken away, that leads down the road to hardship, confrontation and conflict. I strongly suggest that the proposals in the Bill go down that road.
  The Bill is based on the present immigration law. Conservative Members may deny this as much as they like, but the present immigration law is effectively racist, and if any new law were based on that, it would also be effectively racist. Furthermore, the White Paper on the Bill admits frankly that some children will be born stateless to British parents overseas, although the United Kingdom is a party to the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness. That is useless and hypocritical and should not be tolerated. The effect of ignoring the international aspect of nationality is that nationality is not defined in the Bill in the terms now universally accepted by other countries.
  We have heard repeatedly that the existing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is to be split into three categories: British citizenship, citizenship of the British dependent territories and British overseas citizenship. In addition, two old categories will remain for a short time—British subjects without citizenship of any Commonwealth country, and British protected persons. In total, that is five different kinds of British nationality, only one of which establishes any substantial rights.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the rights of British citizens, and whether all British citizens will have the same rights. We know that that is

  1009
  nonsense and will not be the case. The Bill is ambiguous on that matter. Any Bill worth its salt should contain a clear definition of citizens' rights. If it is to have credibility the Bill will have to do the same.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) that the omission of the EEC is incredible. The EEC was not mentioned in the White Paper. Anyone who is a national of a member country has the right of freedom of movement, with employment and settlement for the workers' dependants in the other member States. That means that the definition of nationality in any country in the EEC affects the other member States. It also affects British people who want to seek work in other member States.
  The definition of British nationality for EEC purposes is attached to the Treaty of Accession to the European Community. That will no longer be valid when the new law has been passed. Our legal names for our nationality will have changed. We do not yet know what new definitions the Government will propose. It cannot be simply "British citizens" because Gibraltarians will now be classed as citizens of a British dependent territory, and they must have freedom of movement under Community law. In addition, any new definition will have to be approved by the other member States because that will constitute a change to a treaty to which they are parties.
  The proposals should be rejected. The Bill cannot deal adequately in a fair and just manner with the people who will be most affected by it. If it is to mean anything it must, therefore, be changed. It should contain in clear and precise terms what citizens' rights are attached to it. The rights of people affected by the current Act should, if anything, be expanded. At the least they should remain the same. It is intolerable that existing rights could be taken from them. The Bill should leave aside the Immigration Act. A new Bill that is based on anything that is racist becomes tainted with racism also.
  The EEC should be mentioned. Like it or lump it, we are for the moment in the EEC, and while we are, as we have been told so often, we must conform to the rules of the Community.
  I am pleased that the Opposition will be voting against the Bill tonight and at every other stage. If any Conservative Members want to do something positive about the Gibraltarians they should join us in the Lobby tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member I should point out that six hon. Members wishing to speak have been waiting here nearly all day. If I call other hon. Members who have not been here so long I hope that they will not take up too much time.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps I may begin by commenting on a remark by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Mr. Mc Taggart). I understood one of his criticisms of the Bill to be that it did not contain a full recital of citizens' rights. The Bill is not essentially concerned with citizens' rights, but with defining nationality, which is a wholly different concept.
  1010
  When we talk about citizens' rights we talk about rights which each person has in his daily life—the right to vote, the right to participate in jury service, the right to serve in Her Majesty's Forces and so on. This Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking to define that category of right. If the hon. Member's opposition to this Bill is founded on such narrow grounds I simply say to him that the ground is unsound and he had better leave it.
  I agreed very much with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is important that the concept of nationality at least be derived from and founded upon some notion of allegiance. The arguments that have been advanced in support of that proposition are compelling.
  I understand at present that anyone who is born in this country whose parents are not here for some special purpose—for example diplomats—have a right to claim British nationality. That must be, in a world in which we have much travel, complete nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is entirely right to stress the close identity that should exist between the right of nationality and the concept of allegiance. No society can be homogeneous for any period unless that proposition is accepted. I have looked at clause 1 with great care and it seems to go a long way towards establishing the relationship that ought properly to exist between nationality and allegiance.
  When my knowledge of the complete terms of a Bill is limited, I hesitate to criticise the details at length, but there are one or two aspects that I wish to mention in a slightly critical frame of mind. The first is a serious one relating to the special problems of some of my constituents. I represent many Service families, and such families tend to marry among themselves. Frequently, two or three generations of Service families have married other such families. If a child is born abroad to Service parents who are the children of Service families and were born abroad themselves, their child may be denied nationality under the Bill. That may be a misconception. If so, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me.
  Another matter flows from the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) who said that we should not commit ourselves to any obligations that we are not prepared to honour. I agree with the hon Gentleman. One embarrassment that has afflicted all Governments since the war is that we have been lumbered with a residue of commitments that are difficult to fulfil, if not undesirable. We do not want that to happen in future. I hope that there is nothing in the Bill that future Governments will not feel able to honour.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There are no commitments.
  Mr. Hogg: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be bouncing up and down in Committee making such points. I am laying down an important general proposition. We should not commit ourselves to obligations that we are not prepared to honour.
  The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) referred to the effects of clause 41. My detailed study of the clause suggests that the Home Secretary, governors-general or viceroys, if we still have any viceroys, are not obliged to state the reasons why they have chosen to exercise their discretion in a particular way. I am against Ministers, viceroys or anyone else

  1011
  clothing their decisions in secrecy. As a general rule, we should not allow Ministers to dodge the issue. If there are reasons for excluding someone from the United Kingdom or denying him nationality, we should not be ashamed to say so and we should allow a challenge in the courts. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will give that narrow point further consideration in Committee.
  In view of your injunction, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude shortly. It is unfair for Opposition Members to criticise the Bill on the ground of complexity. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who said that, with our imperial past, it is inevitable that there will be commitments and anomalies that cannot be cleared up in a one-clause Bill. If they could be tied up in a one-clause Bill, every hon. Member here would have read it, which I fancy is not the case.
  Finally, I echo what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he introduced the Bill earlier today. This is terribly important. It is a statute that goes right to the nature of our society. It is constitutional in its importance. That being so, one hopes that it will receive a generally sympathetic approach. By all means criticise it in Committee. There are imperfections in the Bill; there are bound to be. But let us not adopt a narrow partisan view, because matters of this kind are far too important for that.
  9.55 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: I am very glad to have the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate at this late stage, particularly in the presence of the Secretary of State, because I wish to make a particular plea to him. I do so having had some experience in the post held by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and in the post held by the Minister of State, Home Office, who is to reply to the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that there cannot possibly be a simple Bill, but I do not believe that the Secretary of State would want to introduce a Bill that could clearly do damage to race and community relations in this country.
  I agree with every word that was said by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). My conviction, from many discussions that I have had, is that unless there is a good deal of further consultation on the Bill we shall find that race relations and community relations will suffer partly because of the proposal to introduce, in a sense, a new distinction between British citizens who were born here and British citizens who were not.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham that the more we can divorce party politics from this issue the better. However much we may have argued among ourselves and between ourselves on immigration policies, it has been held on each side of the House that all those who are in Britain and who are citizens of Britain should have the same rights, whatever their colour, whatever their race and whatever their background. The Bill has introduced a change in that position.
  I give a personal example. I have a daughter, and because I am her father and was born in Britain, if she has a child overseas, that child will be a British citizen. I also have a child living with me who is a refugee from Vietnam. I expect that eventually he will get married. If he were to go abroad, then, because his parents were not born in this country, a child of his born abroad would not
  1012
  be a citizen of this country. Yet he is part of my family, in the same way that the people who are living in this country are all part of our family, and our responsibility is to try to see that every person who is properly settled in this country feels a sense of confidence that his rights will not be taken away from him.
  My plea to the Home Secretary is not to put the Bill straight into Committee, whichever of the procedures is followed. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will deal with the degree of consultation that there was with the people who will be affected by the Bill. The Commission for Racial Equality has spoken out strongly against many aspects of the Bill that it feels will worsen community relations in this country. I shall not go into the arguments that have been used, but they are very cogent. Arguments have also been put forward by representatives of organisations who have come to see the Parliamentary Labour Party. We have seen representatives of the Indian community, the Pakistani community, and the Bangladesh community, as well as West Indians, Cypriots and others.
  I should like to know the extent to which the Home Secretary, and his ministerial colleagues have discussed the Bill with those who speak for the people who will be affected by it. What consultation has there been?
  Of no less importance is the fact that there have been clear and concerted attacks on the Bill.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the British Nationality Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock—[Mr. Thompson.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Ennals: No less important are the clear and concerted attacks on the Bill by the Church of England, by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
  I mention just two of the six points made by the five archbishops. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and also like the Commission for Racial Equality, the archbishops want it stated
  "as a matter of principle that our national identity is multiracial".
  I agree with that. Secondly, they want the retention of what they call
  "the fundamental principle that anyone born in Britain should acquire British nationality regardless of race or culture or background."
  I agree with that, too.
  It is a matter of considerable importance that the Secretary of State should consult, listen to and take note of the views of those who speak for large sections of the community in this country, and who genuinely care about good community relations in Britain. The archbishops said that, in a sense, they were trying to speak on behalf of the minorities who feel insecure and vulnerable. They said that
  "far from responding to this concern, the Bill will sharply increase these feelings of insecurity and uncertainty."
  Those are the archbishops' words, and I agree with them.
  I therefore ask the Minister of State to tell the House, first, what representations—I and other hon. Members have mentioned a number of them—have been made to him against certain parts of the Bill, and secondly, what support he has received for the Bill, and from which

  1013
  organisations. There has been criticism from both sides of the House. What consultation have the Government had with the minority groups in this country?
  I repeat the plea made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Government should think very carefully before they take final decisions on the Bill. After all, although there was a White Paper and a Green Paper before it, the Bill was published only nine or 10 days ago. We are trying to tidy up our nationality law after 31 years. It is essential that we get it right this time. My plea to the Home Secretary is to take time, to have more consultations and to try to get a wider consensus in Britain in support of the Bill, rather than try to push it quickly through Committee and Report, with all the uncertainty and division that that could create.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Today marks a watershed in the discussion of immigration and nationality in this country. Despite the abuse that has been heaped upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I believe that his speech indicated that watershed. Indeed, I believe that the vast majority of Labour Members welcome that break with the past. I gathered from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) that he, too, agrees implicitly with that, even if he did not explicitly state that intention. I see my right hon. Friend nodding his head. So the then Minister of State at the Home Office responsible for the 1968 Act also wishes to indicate his assent to the proposition that today is a watershed in nationality and immigration.
  There is also unanimous agreement in the House that, as it stands at the moment, our nationality law is a mess. But how we clear up the mess is a matter for discussion and for philosophical dispute between the two sides.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) received praise today from both sides of the House, which perhaps is a new distinction for him, though I am not sure what it will do for his reputation outside. I agree with him to the extent that if, to use his word, we were starting with a virgin sheet of paper, we would define nationality in terms either of descent or country of birth or a mixture of the two. I agree with my hon. Friend in theory, that that is what we should do, but we in the United Kingdom cannot do that. We cannot just throw out of the window the inheritance—perhaps some people consider it an unfortunate inheritance—of Britain's past empire.
  Because of those difficulties the Bill falls into the trap to which reference was made in the Green Paper—and which was more explicitly expressed in the White Paper—of mixing citizenship with immigration control. Despite what the Home Secretary said to the contrary, the Bill seeks to marry citizenship to the needs of immigration control.
  The Bill represents the final insult to those groups of people to whom we offered citizenship of the United Kingdom. They accepted that citizenship. By accepting it, they indicated their close relationship with the United Kingdom. They accepted that citizenship when their countries became independent. Thus, the Bill is the final insult to those people, and it is an insult that was started by the 1968 Act, introduced when my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was at the Home Office. It was continued, ore fiercely and vehemently in the
  1014
  Immigration Act 1971. The House will recall that those two Acts withdrew from those groups of people the basic rights of citizenship—the right of entry and the right to settle in the country of which they are nationals.
  The 1971 Act went even further than the 1968 Act, because it led to the odious and immoral position in which nationals of this country were denied entry and settlement rights although millions of others—many of them non-nationals but white—were granted the right of entry.
  Despite the flaccid remarks of the Home Secretary, the Bill represents the final victory for racists in this country.
  Mr. Marlow: Rubbish.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is quite entitled to say "Rubbish", but he is well known for his views, which are not radical on any issue. The Bill represents the final victory for racists because it takes away an existing citizenship from the groups of people to whom I have referred and replaces it with a meaningless citizenship.
  Mr. Marlow: Nonsense.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. He is probably as knowledgeable as his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who wasted seven minutes of debating time and had not even read clause 1.
  The Bill seeks to take away an existing citizenship and to replace it with a meaningless British overseas citizenship for the groups of people to whom I have referred. It confers on them the right to live nowhere except at the discretion and with the good will of the host Government in the country in which they happen to be at present. It is a citizenship that cannot be transmitted to children except at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and that could in some cases lead to the possibility of statelessness. But the final solution, if I may use that emotive expression, is reached on the death of the holder of British overseas citizenship, because, fortunately for the Government, it is non-transmissible, and dies with the demise of the holder.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to admit that the vast majority of the people to whom he is referring are citizens of other countries in any event.
  Mr. Marshall: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to listen, he will hear me define the groups of people to whom I am referring. The Bill represents the final disgrace in the United Kingdom's withdrawal from empire.
  In order to establish what a nationality law ought to be if it is to ensure justice and fairness, one can enumerate at least four simple principles on which it ought to be based. The first is that it should create a citizenship for the United Kingdom that is based on equal rights and duties for all the holders of that citizenship. From what has been said in the debate today it is clear that the Bill does not do that. It differentiates the rights of citizens according to whether their parents were born in this country or overseas.
  Secondly, the law should create a similar situation for the peoples of the remaining overseas dependencies. I accept the need for citizenship of British dependencies. Whether it be a general citizenship or one based on a particular dependency is a matter for argument, but I accept that division.

  1015
  Thirdly—perhaps the Home Secretary will listen to this, because it answers his question—our nationality law should restore to existing citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with no right of abode elsewhere in the world the right of abode in this country. Fourthly, it should replace the existing system of immigration control by one based on objective and non-racial criteria. In my view, the Bill falls down on those four basic principles.
  Many other things are wrong with the Bill, but in my view it is rotten at the core. No matter how one may try to improve it, one cannot remove the basic overtones of racialism implicit or explicitly stated in it.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend was worried about my image. I have always thought that image was a misleading concept in these matters—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
  Mr. Lyon: Surely, the position ought to be that we tell the black community the truth. My hon. Friend said that he agrees that we take citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies away from dependent territories—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The occasional glance behind is in order, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend's speech took about 22 minutes, which was far longer than the time taken by other hon. Members.
  I do not believe that the basic principles of the Bill can be improved, but in Committee I shall certainly seek to obtain some small improvements. First, I hope to establish the right to hold a passport, which does not exist at present. Secondly, I shall try to ensure that there is an appeal system on the refusal of naturalisation. Thirdly, I shall try to eliminate the need for someone to pass a language test as a qualification for British citizenship by naturalisation.
  Nevertheless, I repeat my basic point—it is one that I have made to my hon. Friend the Member for York many times over the past weeks and months—that there is an inherent rottenness at the root of the Bill which cannot be cured by any kind of cosmetic treatment on language, good character, or whatever it may be. I shall oppose the Bill tonight, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a perhaps overdue, but very good, well-thought-out and complete Bill. However, the irresponsible attitude of some people, both inside and outside the House, saddens me. There seem to be those—we have heard from some of them this evening—who take great care to misrepresent the Bill. In particular, they say that it is an immigration or racist measure. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  We should look at the category of people and at the sort of people who are making such remarks. Normally, at this time in the eveing, one is prepared to be charitable, but it is difficult to be charitable to the person who is in a category of his own and who is head and shoulders above—perhaps I should say feet and ankles beneath—the rest of the field, namely, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Today he made the most disgraceful speech that I have ever heard
  1016
  since I have been in the House. The sole objective of his speech was to stir up fear, anxiety and almost despair among the ethnic minorities that live with us and are very welcome within the country.[Interruption.] As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said from a sedentary position, he made that speech purely to advance his career. I was about to say that he did so for Machiavellian reasons, but Machiavelli was, I understand, an intelligent person. He made it for his own devious reasons.
  Socialist activists—the minnows that follow the whale that opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition—will also misrepresent the Bill and use whatever distortion or inaccuracy comes to hand as they unscrupulously trawl for support and for votes among the ethnic minorities. The racial politicians—I do not use the word pejoratively—of the community relations councils and, to a certain extent, of the CRE—tend to make an enemy of the Government, no matter which Government are in power, in order to sustain their own interests and influence among those whom they seek to represent.
  We have heard quite a lot about woolly minded clerics whose adherence to impractical posturing is inclined, on occasions, to overcome their powers of rational analysis. This misrepresentation must be disabused. The Bill is not about immigration, but about nationality. Whatever nationality Bill the Government had introduced, a smattering of Opposition Members would have said that it was an immigration Bill, and a racist Bill.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure must—as the Labour Government pointed out in the Green Paper—take into account immigration pressures? Does he agree also that when the Labour Party was in Government it was right to make that clear?
  Mr. Marlow: I agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) should have rude things to say about the Welsh. My wife is Welsh.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not say rude things about the Welsh.
  Mr. Marlow: The Bill is not concerned with immigration. Nevertheless, there are great immigration pressures which I will come to later.
  It has been said that the Bill is discriminatory on the ground of colour. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to make us weep tears over the problems of a Pakistani mother who was careless enough to give birth on the Costa Brava. Had that Pakistani mother, who was born in Pakistan, been white, Indian, black, green, Chinese or even descended from stock from the planet Jupiter, the same situation would have applied. The measure is not racist or colour-prejudiced. The measure applies to anybody, whatever his background or colour.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Far be it from me to answer for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). However, did not the right hon. Gentleman refer to a mother from Pakistan who returned to her country of origin to give birth in her family home, where her mother would be present? It was not a matter of giving birth on the Costa Brava. My hon. Friend should at least be honest enough to say that.
  Mr. Marlow: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but perhaps he did not hear everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. If he looks in the Official Report tomorrow, he will find that as well as referring to mothers in Pakistan, he made some remarks about holidays in Spain.
  There are two reasons why the Bill must be introduced at this stage. First, we have reached the end of our period of shedding the empire. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, our nationality laws are in a mess and something has to be done about them, and I am glad that something is being done.
  Secondly, there are massive pressures—here I refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South—in the world today, in a world that has got smaller, in a world of relatively cheap air travel, from the people in the poorer parts, be it the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, or North Africa, to come to the bright lights, the hot spots, the relatively wealthy Western European economies.
  This pressure has been building up and will continue to do so. In the last year alone, 1 million people visited this country from those parts of the world. Having visited, having seen, having relatives and friends here, having realised the advantages of living in our country, and having set all that against their own backgrounds, there will be real pressures from them to come and settle here if they can, or to come illegally and stay if they can.
  I think that it is in that context that it is vital that we have a clear, fair and strong nationality Bill. I think that this is a good Bill. I am very pleased to congratulate my right hon. Friend. I wish it well, and I wholly support and endorse it.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. John Sever: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept your strictures on the length of speeches. About 40 per cent. of the electors who sent me to this place are within the ethnic minority commuunities in central Birmingham. I can justifiably claim fairly to represent their views in this place. They have lost no time in telling me how disturbed they are by the Bill. They have told me how worried they are about the implications of its poorly spelt out provisions in what I consider to be a scratched-together document that is not worthy of the Home Secretary.
  The ethnic minority communities in my constituency are reflecting to me what I believe to be genuine fears, worries and apprehensions about the future of many of their friends, relatives and dependants. Especially worrying to them are the proposals that seem to affect elderly dependants who are not able to have a strong command of the English language. One of the proposed measures that most concerns them is the language test, which has already been referred to by one or two hon. Members.
  It is a fair argument that many of the elderly Asian women in our community—those who are likely to seek naturalisation and, thereafter, British citizenship—will find it difficult to meet the demands of even a reasonable test of their command of the English language. I urge the Home Secretary to do everything that he possibly can to take into account wider and more far-reaching representations from the ethnic minority groups, who are
  1018
  more than willing to see him or to make representations to him. It is an issue that is causing them considerable difficulty.
  In this squalid measure the right hon. Gentleman has missed a valuable opportunity to bring before the House a meaningful and widely acceptable statement on British nationality. He could have seized the opportunity—I accept that it is a difficult problem—but he has not done so. That is regrettable. It is something that he will regret in years to come, because he will be criticised for not having done something positive that would have been welcomed throughout the country. To some extent he still has the opportunity to rescue his own position and to bring to the House and to take through Committee a document that would be of wide appeal to all concerned.
  It is not beyond the realms of human achievement to put together a valid document that a would not exacerbate racial tension and would not lead to a wide criticism among those who are deeply affected, but would be recognised as a fair statement of what we ought to do.
  During this long and worthwhile debate many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the legislation is unacceptable, that it is a mess, that it is confused and difficult to understand, and that it needs amending. Most of those comments are true. At least there is some common ground between us on that. Therefore, I do not see why the Home Secretary should not seize this opportunity to put things right, to allay the fears of thousands of people within the ethnic communities throughout the country, and to say "We are aware of your fears. We are aware of the difficulties that many of you face regarding immigration and nationality matters. We are going to put them right for you."
  I hope that in Committee the Home Secretary will accept some of the representations that will be reflected to him by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by representatives of the minority communities. It is not difficult to ascertain their views or to understand what they have to say. Therefore, it should not be difficult to put things right.
  Earlier today there was discussions about the difficulty of dealing with the legislation and with the question whether we could have simple legislation to put a difficult matter right. I do not think that the legislation need be simple. It is arguable that there are complicated matters with which to deal. Nationality and birthright are not simple matters. However, I think that the measures to put them right could be relatively simple. Regrettably, the Home Secretary has not taken it upon himself to do anything about those matters. As I said earlier, I think that he and his colleagues will long regret not doing so.
  10.26 pm
  Miss Jo Richardson: It will be a sad day when the Bill becomes law. We know that it will become law, because the Government have a majority in the House. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said and as many of my hon. Friends have reiterated, we shall oppose it and do everything possible to try to amend it to make it better.
  The creation of three types of British citizenship has caused an enormous outcry, as hon. Members on both sides will know from their postbags, let alone from press reviews. The Churches and all the other religious organisations have protested vigorously and a large

  1019
  number of local and national organisations representing ethnic minority groupings have also protested, with almost one voice, saying that they object to the division of black and brown people in this country into three separate classifications, all of them different from the category of white people.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who has just left the Chamber, made a racist speech, in which he said that this was not a racist Bill. I beg him to discuss the matter with black and brown people in his constituency. It seems clear that he does not have any communication or meeting of minds with them, or he would know what they thought about the Bill. It is certainly a racist and sexist Bill, and it is about immigration, as every speaker in the debate has pointed out.
  I want to make two fairly small points only because all the major points have already been deployed and will be further deployed in the winding-up speeches.
  I am particularly concerned about the qualification of good language. It is almost a joke. How will the powers that be judge whether people speak good English, or are able to communicate between themselves and with the host community? Who will be the judges, the arbiters, the makers of decisions whether people shall become citizens of this country in one of the three categories, on the basis of how well they can speak our language? We do not all speak our own language, even if our families have been born here for generations, in the same way. It is right that we should not all necessarily speak copybook English. I hope that the matter will be explored sensibly in Committee.
  I should like to mention one point that I do not believe has been raised so far, although I was absent from the Chamber for some time, attending a meeting. It seems that the Bill creates a new class of statelessness for the children born to single foreign mothers who happen to be resident in this country. Under present law, a child can claim British citizenship if he or she is born to a foreign mother who is living in Britain at the time. Under the Bill, the child would not be able to do so even if the father was British.
  By contrast, the child of a foreign woman married to a British citizen—the operative word is "married"—would be able to claim to be British by birth. This seems to complicate even more than it is already complicated the whole question of illegitimacy. It seems a further discrimination against children who are born outside marriage. That is shocking. The implication should not be allowed in the Bill, especially at a time when the Law Commission is preparing to publish its final proposals on illegitimacy, which, it is hoped, will call for the removal of all legal discrimination between those born within and outside marriage. This is a matter that the Government should clarify. It causes concern to organisations, both national and local, representing one-parent families.
  In 1964 my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) introduced a Bill that became the British Nationality Act 1964. The Bill, which was widely supported at the time, enabled the children of single British mothers, born abroad, to claim British citizenship if they would otherwise have been stateless. Ideally, the Bill that we are now debating should be amended to allow children born in this country to be British without causing worry and distress to their mothers, which the fear of their child being stateless will
  1020
  cause. At the very least, if we cannot achieve the ideal, the Bill should be amended to allow children born here to foreign mothers the automatic right to British citizenship if they want to claim it and if they would otherwise be stateless. I should like some clarification on this matter.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the representations that they have received about the Bill from their constituents and national organisations. It is loudly and clearly understood, at least by Labour Members, that those within the ethnic minorities, black or brown, do not want the Bill in any shape or form. They recognise the need for a British Nationality Act of some kind but not one that is thought out in this way. In spite of all the papers and the well presented documents provided for hon. Members, the most moving that I received came from the Pakistan Muslim Association in my constituency. It is handwritten, as hon. Members sitting near me can see. It states:
  "It is with very great concern on behalf of the Muslim community that it is considered essential to put forward the feelings and restlessness of our community living in Barking regarding the proposed new British nationality law."
  I hope that the Government will recognise that that anxiety and restlessness can do great damage to good race relations if the Bill becomes law. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: It is not for me to comment in detail on the two specific criticisms made by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), but I should like to use one as an example of the dangers of exaggeration to which the Bill has been subjected. The hon. Lady mentioned fears about the effect of the English language test, but the concern that she legitimately raised was dealt with in paragraph 62 of the White Paper, which stated:
  "The intention would be to continue to take account of the age and general ability of the applicant… the Home Secretary should have power in special circumstances to dispense with the language requirement altogether."
  That intention is reflected in schedule 1. The hon. Lady's fears are well taken care of.
  Few of us would suggest that the Bill is without weaknesses or blemishes, and we hope that in Committee it can be improved. However, like many hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Benches, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on grasping a nettle that for so long has been left growing in this wilderness of British law.
  From 1948 onwards, through Governments of both complexions, our nationality law has developed into a morass—to mix my metaphors—that no other country would tolerate. We as politicians and our political predecessors must accept the ultimate responsibility. However, civil servants in the Home Office, many of whom are now retired, bear a major element of blame for allowing us to reach such a condition. We staggered on, year after year, decade after decade, knowing the nonsense that we were creating—the legacy of our imperial past and other historical problems.
  The Labour Government also knew the problem well. It is my impression that they came to office in 1974 determined to put it right. They took a long look at the matter. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was closely involved. The result was not action, but a Green Paper, which, although it took no action, covered the

  1021
  ground fairly and intelligently. To a large extent it now seems to have been desowned by Opposition spokesmen, although not by all Opposition Members.
  This Government have had the courage, for they are renowned, to deal with the problem. It is a difficult act of delineation. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out that the mere act of defining citizenship necessitates drawing a line. We have to say "This side of the line or the other side of the line". Painful decisions have to be taken. Difficulties will be created in a highly complex area.
  Sadly, the debate that has continued in the country has been singularly ill-informed. It is with great respect that I offer criticism to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I accept how complex and difficult this issue is, but the projection of Government policy in this area could have been more effective and clearer. Undoubtedly, for reasons good and bad, the atmosphere that has been developed, particularly in the immigrant communities, has been highly regrettable.
  I speak not only from a background of living overseas in various parts of the Empire, but, I am glad to say, as one who has about 15,000 members of the ethnic community in his comstituency. I well know their concerns. I also know that most of those concerns are ill-founded. I recall one young man, a West Indian of about 19 years of age who was born in High Wycombe, asking me whether I knew that he and 20 per cent. of the people like him would see their fathers carried to the airport and deported. Of course, that is nonsense, but that is the climate that has been created.
  Sadly, some of those who ought to know better have not played the part that they should have played in encouraging an intelligent, informed and balanced debate on an issue of such great difficulty. I recall a meeting that I and a few hon. Friends attended at the Commission for Racial Equality, at which we discussed the commission's paper on the Bill. It was submitted to the Home Office in October. We discussed that part of the document in which it warned about the problems of those who would be given British overseas citizenship. It said:
  "Some of them will have another citizenship or nationality, but others will have no right of abode in any country and some of their children may be born stateless. Many of them have direct and close connections with people lawfully resident in this country and their plight has been a constant source of racial tension."
  Those are very serious words for a very serious situation. I therefore invited the experts at the commission to give me an example of the sorts of people that they had in mind. It took them some time, and having thought they gave the following example. They had in mind the offspring born in Malaysia of people who were themselves Malayans as were, who had served the Crown and had obtained through the mechanism that existed the right to British nationality. Their offspring were said to be those who would be damaged by this provision. I failed to see that it could create racial tension in Kuala Lumpur. It was not so.
  This is, therefore, an area in which the greatest care must be exercised. Sadly, the greatest care was specifically not exercised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), whose contribution tonight was the most disgraceful that it has been my misfortune to hear in nearly three years in this
  1022
  House. I beg the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, to pay no attention to his leader. I invite him to listen carefully instead to the number of constructive contributions from the Opposition Benches.
  I mention in particular that by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) with whom, on many other issues, I frequently disagree. I acknowledge at once, however, the great depth of his knowledge on this subject and his balanced and measured contribution to the debate this evening. I hope that the many ideas he advanced can be explored in Committee.
  That is the spirit in which we should approach the Bill. As many hon. Members have pointed out, we are talking about nationality. The nationality of this country is, perhaps more than anything else, an issue that must transcend the pettiness of party rivalry and of party gain—whether it is within the ethnic community or even within the ranks of one party—with the elbowing and struggling for advantage. It goes far beyond that. It is a subject with which we must all deal with the greatest responsibility. Many hon. Members have done that. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was the glaring exception.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central on his promotion and I look forward to his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench, but I beg him to ignore the voice at his shoulder and listen instead to the wiser voices of his other colleagues. We are dealing with an issue of the greatest sensitivity, which is important to all of us in a multiracial society. We must strive for an Act that will reflect the genuine will of the country and the genuine interests of all the people in this country, wherever they may have been born.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and therefore I shall not follow him down the path that he chose to tread.
  One major purpose of the Bill is to ease the task of immigration control in this country. Since that control is undeniably racialist and sexist, the Bill is inevitably tarred with the same brush—despite the honeyed words of the Home Secretary in moving the Second Reading. In its present form the Bill will alarm many in the black community in Britain and many more overseas who have so far had some hope of settling here.
  Coming on top of the new racialist and sexist immigration rules that we debated a few months ago, the police dragnet raids for illegal immigrants, which net the innocent as well as the guilty, the acceptance by officialdom that black people should carry their passports to prove their eligibility for NHS treatment, and the tighter medical inspections proposed by the chief medical officer in a recent report to the Home Secretary, the Bill is a further blow to harmonious race relations in this country.
  I am particularly concerned about the international implications. The Bill says nothing about civic rights and the obligations of citizenship. We are one of the few countries that do not link citizenship directly with civic rights and obligations, including the obligation to undertake military service. The concept of citizenship and nationality in the Bill is meaningless in terms of international law, and that ought to be put right in Committee.

  1023
  There has been virtually no consultation with Commonwealth countries, particularly India and Malaysia, that have groups of people who will be adversely affected by the Bill. Furthermore, there has been no consultation with the people whose interests will be most adversely affected—those whose nationality status will be changed for the worse. They may have made representations, but the White Paper is coy about who has made representations or what those representations were. We know that most were unfavourable. The White Paper states:
  "British Overseas Citizenship in this context was seen as a second class citizenship, and concern was expressed that some children of British Overseas Citizens might be stateless."
  The White Paper and the Bill contain no answer to the criticisms, so we must assume that the Government accept them as valid.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to the position of the EEC. A declaration in the Treaty of Accession of January 1972 defines our nationals for the purpose of free movement of labour within the EEC, but that definition will shortly be out of date. Why is there no new definition in the Bill, particularly in clause 47? The Home Secretary said that discussions were going on with the EEC. The Government have had seven months since the publication of the White Paper in which to sort out this matter with the EEC. Why is it not defined in the Bill? What is to be the new definition? Further, will it require an amendment to the Treaty of Accession? If so, will such an amendment need to be made by Order in Council or under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972? If the Minister of State cannot answer these questions, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who has been here during most of the debate, will be able to help him.
  The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) implied at the beginning of the debate, represents a dishonourable chapter in the long saga of our retreat from our imperial responsibilities. It cuts our links with British citizens in the rest of the developing world at a time when our future as an industrial nation is increasingly bound up with the rest of the Third world. We are giving a damaging impression in the Bill, as at present drafted, to people throughout the world. It will be one more nail in the coffin of our reputation as a liberal world Power. Coming as it does on top of savage cuts in our overseas aid programme—cuts that are quite unprecedented among the industrial nations of the world—and on top of the large increases in overseas students' fees, the basic message from the Government to the rest of the world is "Stay away, we don't want you."
  It is part of a pattern that one has seen during the 18 months of life of the Government—that we should conduct our own affairs to suit ourselves and no one else, and to hell with the outside world. That attitude is not merely unfortunate; it is potentially disastrous. The Bill is intellectually shoddy and morally disreputable, and I hope sincerely that the House will reject it tonight.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Alf Dubs: Just before the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) spoke, we had the contemptible display of the Government Whips rushing round, desperate to find speakers to take part in the debate. They apparently managed to get two of their Back
  1024
  Benchers to speak, one of whom had read clause 1 and no more and the other of whom had apparently not read the Bill at all. It is not right that on a Bill of this importance the Government should treat the House with such contempt.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet rose—
  Mr. Dubs: I shall not give way. It is perfectly clear that the eyes of the world are on us in terms of the way in which we treat the Bill—more than in the case of most Bills that come before the House. The eyes of the world are on us partly because other nations want ro see whether we are treating people genuinely and equally as part of the multiracial society that we now are and partly because the Bill affects the futures of people living beyond the shores of this country.
  I turn first to the impact on people living here. I accept that the Bill is not in all respects fully understood, but in one or two major respects it is well understood in this country, especially by people who will be particularly affected, namely, members of the black and Asian communities living here. They are quite aware that there are discriminatory elements in the Bill and that some of the people in our communities are threatened by its effect. They see it as setting the seal of approval on many of the racist immigration measures that we practise. The fears of people in our communities are genuine, because they are based upon an understanding of the serious effect that the Bill will have on them.
  I do not have time to go through them all, but I shall mention one or two. In particular, I refer to one that has been mentioned to me on numerous occasions and has come before the House this evening—the position of children born here. In the White Paper the Government conceded that they saw some administrative and practical difficulties, but no one has explained to us how these administrative and practical difficulties are to be overcome.
  Secondly, what will be the position of East African Asians who are now living here but are not yet settled here, and who have children born here? What will be the position of those children?
  Thirdly, what will be the position of refugees from Cyprus who are living here, not settled in this country, and who have children born here?
  The Government may argue that these are points of detail, which should come up before the Committee that will be dealing with the Bill, but I argue that they stem from a basic flaw in principle and that therefore we have the right to expect an answer.
  Fourthly, cases in the courts such as the Zamir case, are changing the position of people who originally would have thought that in law they were settled here. What is to happen to children born of people whose position is put in doubt as a result of such cases?
  Above all, these instances highlight the basic flaw of the Bill—in respect of which, again, the Government have not given a satisfactory answer—namely, that having established a new form of British citizenship it is then subdivided into two categories. One category comprises white people, who will retain the basic rights, and the other comprises people who happen to be mainly black or Asian, who will have lesser rights. That is surely unacceptable and it should be dropped from the Bill.
  I refer briefly to the language test. Will the Government explain their intentions with regard to this? It may well

  1025
  play a key part in the future determination of naturalisation. I understand that at the moment the language test is not particularly onerous and is based upon a conversation with the police officer who calls. If he feels that the conversation is clearly understood, the test is passed. May we have an assurance that that will be the case in the future?
  I support the plea that the "good character" test should be replaced by a "bad character" test—an objective test, which could be subject to a right of appeal. After all, even potential Members of Parliament, before being eligible to stand for the House, are subjected to something that I would describe as a "bad character" test. I do not see why something similar should not apply to people applying for naturalisation.
  I turn to the impact of the Bill overseas. There can be scarcely a newspaper on the Asian sub-continent that has not expressed its concern and criticism about this measure. I quote from a leading article in The Times of India on Monday 19 January, under the headline "Racialist Measure":
  "A recent article in our columns on Britain's nationality bill said that the terms of the bill, when it is finally laid before parliament, would indicate 'how Britain now sees the moral obligations of an imperial past and its own multiracial future'. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the bill now introduced in Westminster shows that the British government does not wish to fulfil these obligations. Furthermore, it seems to feel that Britain's interests are best served by pandering to irrational fears about the 'influx' of non-white immigrants, when in fact the number coming in does not add up to more than the merest trickle."
  That is but one among many items of press comment from the Asian sub-continent of which the Government Front Bench will be aware.
  I turn finally to the position of British overseas citizens. I add my voice to those who have asked for Commonwealth consultation on this, because I believe that we are dodging an issue. Let us consider the position of people in Malaysia who at present have United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship and no other. They number, apparently, between 100,000 and 150,000. Do we have a responsibility to those individuals, or do we run the risk of making them stateless if the Malaysian Government refuse to accept the consequences of the Bill and do not grant their own citizenship to those people or to the next generation of such people? Surely we have a greater responsibility to people who have held United Kingdom and Colonies passports, and it is not a responsibility that we can easily duck.
  Paragraph 110 of the White Paper states that
  "the Bill, by establishing a British Citizenship, will make available a ready definition by which those duties or entitlements may be re-defined in the future."
  Do the Government intend to move in that direction? Do they intend to relate the holding of British citizenship in the future to a clearly defined set of duties and entitlements? If they do, when shall we be told what these duties and entitlements are?
  The Bill contains too many reprehensible features to make it acceptable to this House. It has elements that are racially discriminatory. It has illogicality. It runs the risk of making a new generation of stateless people. I hope that the House will oppose it.
  11 pm
  Mr. John Tilley: I want, first, to thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) for his remarks, but I fear that I might disappoint him.
  I agree with many right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill is about only a part of nationality in the full sense of the word. Nationality and citizenship are concerned with the full relationship of the individual with the State—duties and responsibilities balanced by rights and privileges. But the Bill does not even mention those matters, even though there is an urgent need in Britain today to define the role of the individual within our constitutional structures.
  The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) pointed out what many right hon. and hon. Members have noticed, namely, that the Bill, as printed, is entitled "Restricted British Nationality Bill". That can only be described as a Freudian printer's error, because it is a restricted Bill. It is restricted in clarity, compassion and justice.
  The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardiner) genuinely and sincerely wished that this was not a Bill to do with race and immigration. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I refer him to the Home Secretary's speech in Leicester on 7 April 1978, when he gave a long list of proposed measures that an incoming Conservative Government would enact and said:
  "A Conservative Government will therefore seek to introduce a new nationality law early in the next Parliament. This will remove some of the possible sources of future immigration."
  The case is proved by that quotation as well as by the substance of the Bill. It is an immigration Bill, because it assumes all the way through that the only important aspect of nationality is simply whether a person can come into Britain.
  That is an important aspect, of course, but it is not the only one. Nor is it the most important one. In many ways, the Bill devalues the British passport by treating it as little more than an admission ticket to Britain for those who are abroad, and a pass-out ticket for those born here who want to be able to get back when they go abroad.
  The Opposition's first objection, which has been echoed by many right hon. and hon. Members, is that the Bill misses the opportunity to spell out the details of the contract between the British nation and its citizens.
  We agree with the Government that a new nationality Bill is needed, but this is a shabby little immigration Bill. It is a poor substitute for what should have been proposed.
  We shall oppose the Bill because it will create injustice for many individuals around the world—in this country and in others—and because we believe that it will do severe damage to the cause of racial harmony in this country.
  There are a few of the Bill's provisions that the Opposition accept. It proposes, for example, that our surviving handful of colonies should have a separate citizenship—citizenship of the dependent territories. We would prefer each colony to have its own separate citizenship, but to have citizenship of the dependent territories, separate from British overseas citizenship, is a step forward. Although the issue has not been raised very fully in the debate, we endorse the views of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) about the need for separate citizenships for the remaining colonies.

  1027
  The only exception to our general acceptance of citizenship of the dependent territories relates to Gibraltar. Gibraltar is in an anomalous position in that it is a colony that is part of the EEC. Gibraltar cannot be treated as just another colony, especially when and if Spain joins the Common Market.
  We are, as the Government are, in touch with various Gibraltarian groups. I understand that Ministers and others representing all parties in the Gibraltarian House of Assembly are in London at the moment. We hope that a satisfactory solution for Gibraltar can be hammered out in Committee. We hope that the Government will table suitable amendments. If they do not, we certainly shall.
  We agree with parts of the Bill. It is a curate's egg—good in parts. That is a good metaphor. Like an egg, if a nationality Bill is not good throughout, it is no good at all. We are glad that some of the suggestions in the Green Paper have not been adopted. I cannot prove it, but I believe that a Labour Government would have dropped all the proposals in the Green Paper that were thought to be racist.
  Let us contrast that with the Government's actions. They have introduced further measures that were not advocated in the Green Paper. Let us take two of those measures. First, the idea that children born here should no longer automatically become British citizens was specifically ruled out in the Green Paper, but reintroduced in the Government's White Paper. It will have a deeply racist effect. The White Paper clearly states that the measure is intended to exclude the children of those not legally or permanently settled here, including the children of students, those on work permits and alleged illegal immigrants. Those whose immigration status is in some doubt will not know—if the Bill is enacted—whether their children are stateless. It may act as a disincentive to black pregnant women to attend ante-natal and post-natal care clinics and may have effects on the neo-natal and perinatal mortality rates.
  It will be a bureaucratic nightmare for registrars if they have to determine the immigration status of every parent before issuing a birth certificate. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, registrars will tend to assume that white parents are more likely to meet the required conditions. As a result, they will be more insistent that black parents should produce documents.
  If the nationality of a child is not fixed at registration, many children will grow up not knowing their nationality. Some may not realise that they are stateless until it is too late for them to do anything about it. There is an extra problem. The ever-widening definition by the courts of "illegal entry" means that a child who was eligible for citizenship at birth would later lose that citizenship if his or her parents were judged, retrospectively, to have entered illegally.
  The full horror of the measure is illustrated in clause 1(2). I refer to the part that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) did not quite reach. It says that an abandoned new-born baby will be deemed to be a British citizen. That means that parents who have any doubt about the nationality of their new baby can resolve that doubt only by leaving the child in a basket on the doorstep of the registrar of births, marriages and deaths.
  We cannot accept that all this is necessary because of some alleged baby boom in the departure lounge—perhaps
  1028
  I should say arrival lounge—of Heathrow airport. This mean little measure is desired—I quote from the White Paper—because:
  "The additional British entrants so created, with the right of abode here, would form a pool of considerable size and they would have little or no real connection with the United Kingdom."
  A pool of considerable size already exists of those who have never seen this country, although they have full rights to come here. I refer to the patrials in the old Commonwealth whose grandfathers were British born. That pool is several million deep. Why have the Government not legislated to abolish their rights? The answer is that that group are mostly white. Why are the Government destroying the centuries-old principle of British law, namely, that a child born in Britain is British? They are doing so because the handful of babies involved—the tiny pool of which they are so afraid—is largely black. We have heard no other explanation.
  It is proposed that citizenship by descent should be passed on only by those born in the United Kingdom, and not by those registered or naturalised in the United Kingdom. That was not even contemplated in the Green Paper, yet it is brazenly proposed in the White Paper and the Bill, without any explanation. It means that if a British couple born here go to work in the EEC—as they have a legal right to do—any children born there will be British.
  But what is the position of a British couple who have lived here since childhood but are registered as British citizens because they were born, for example, in Trinidad? They and their patents have taken that conscious act of commitment to Britain. They have paid British taxes and observed British laws as British citizens for decades, but if they exercised their right to work in the EEC and had a child there, under the Bill the child would be stateless because the parents would be registered British citizens and would not be able to pass on their citizenship by descent.
  Belgium and the Netherlands, for example, have not signed the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness. The Bill is creating a new and unnecessary category of what are literally second-class British citizens. The vast majority of registered British citizens are black. That is why we think that this part of the Bill is racist.
  Those who now have the right in various ways to register as British citizens will lose those rights and will be able to apply only for naturalisation. That is discriminatory, because the majority of those who will lose their rights are black. The Conservative party manifesto stated:
  "We shall introduce a…British Nationality Act to define entitlement to British citizenship and to the right of abode in this country. It will not adversely affect the right of anyone now permanently settled here."
  There are people settled here who, until the introduction of the Bill, had the right of registration. They also had a right, once they had registered, for their children, wherever they were born, to be British. Those rights will be removed. That pledge in the Conservative manifesto is broken by the Bill.
  Discrimination is made worse because the Bill intends to preserve the arbitrary and secret way in which naturalisation decisions are taken. As more and more people have to go through the process, its iniquities become more outrageous. To adapt a famous parliamentary resolution, we believe that ministerial and Civil Service power in this area has grown, is growing and ought

  1029
  to be diminished. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have expressed the view that we want an open system, with objective tests and criteria for naturalisation, and a system of appeals against refusal.
  The White Paper confirmed all our fears about the current system. On page 13 it says:
  "There can in the Government's view be no doubt that it would be generally offensive to public feeling if someone with recent criminal convictions were to be able to claim British Citizenship as a matter of course"—
  I agree with that—
  "and the same would apply to people of dubious reputation in other ways."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said, we do not trust Home Office Ministers to decide in secret whether our constituents are of "dubious reputation". We believe that Ministers might take into account matters such as trade union activity and involvement in various protest groups, which we regard as a perfectly legitimate exercise of democratic rights. This is an issue that must be brought in to the light of day. Ministers cannot pontificate about various matters being offensive to public feeling when in the same sentence they declare that they will not give the public any information on which to base those feelings.
  The Home Secretary always looks puzzled—that is when he is paying attention—when we say that the Bill is sexist.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain the allegation.
  Mr. Tilley: I will explain what we mean. The Bill removes some serious sexual Inequalities. It gives equal rights to women in the transmission of citizenship abroad by descent and by adoption in this country. We acknowledge that and we welcome it, but that makes it all the more regrettable that the Bill goes out of its way to create a new disadvantage for married women. At present, a non-citizen woman who marries a citizen man has an immediate and automatic right to register as a British citizen. The Bill proposes that in future she should merely be able to apply for naturalisation, which is at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and that she may apply only three years after the marriage. That means that a woman newly arrived here will not know for at least three years whether she is a citizen, even though she has established her family here and may have citizen children born here.
  The justification for that—and it is being echoed from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—is that it creates equality by putting women on the same footing as men. We do not accept that this levelling down process is any sort of progress. Taking rights away from women would not be acceptable, even if they had equality in every other sphere, which clearly they do not have.
  There are many aspects of the proposed British citizenship that we cannot accept, but we support and welcome the Government's decision to allow dual nationality. That issue has been raised by several hon. Members, mainly on the Government Benches, but also by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in terms of allegiance. I believe that the word "allegiance" has been used by those Members as a subtle, but clear, smear on the loyalty of black British people who still have
  1030
  another citizenship. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I ask them not to try to convince the House, but to come to the meetings of the West Indian ex-Service men's association, which thrives in London and in other parts of the country, and to tell those people that they are not loyal. Many of those people came halfway round the world to fight for a country that they had never seen. Many were wounded. Others lost friends and relatives. Many stayed on to live here and, as well as being British citizens, have the citizenship of the island from which they came.
  Mr. McQuarrie: What about Gibraltar?
  Mr. Tilley: I have already dealt with Gibraltar, as the hon. Gentleman would be aware if he had been listening.
  If the hon. Members to whom I have referred manage to convince the West Indians, let the right hon. Member for Down, South then convince the families of the black British soldiers who have died on the streets in Northern Ireland.
  We are broadly in support of citizenship of the dependent territories, but we are deeply opposed to British overseas citizenship—the third of the new categories of citizenship put forward here. It is little more than a British overboard citizenship by which we cast adrift the embarrassing jetsam of the Empire. These include people who were promised that, when the colonies in which they lived became independent, they would be able to keep a British passport and come to this country when they wanted to do so. They had that right taken away in 1968. The disadvantage that they suffered in 1968 is now being made even worse. They became known then as United Kingdom passport holders. Now even the passports that they hold are being taken away and replaced by worthless ones.
  I say to those hon. Members who supported the 1968 Act that much has changed since then. I also say that just as the leader of the Labour Party voted against that Act, so did no fewer than three members of the present Cabinet. It would have been four before the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was butchered to make a Finchley new year holiday. The Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Lord Privy Seal—whose name, spelt wrongly, appears on the back of the Bill; another printer's error—voted against the Act. I am sorry that the Lord Privy Seal is not present. I am sure that it is because he has engagements elsewhere. I am not being critical, but in Committee at that time he said:
  "I voted against the Bill last night because I thought that it treated the Kenya Asians uniquely badly."—[Official Report, 28 February 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1585.]
  Why does he not think the same of this Bill? Perhaps he will tell us in Committee. As I said, a lot has changed since 1968, just as all Members acknowledge that a lot has changed since 1948 when a Labour Government passed the Act that we are about to replace.
  I thought that the right hon. Member for Down, South made a profound Second Reading speech, but I felt that it was a speech which, with hindsight, he would have liked to make on the 1948 Bill, and that he was regretting the decision taken then rather than commenting in detail on the decision being proposed now.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do, indeed, regret that I was not in my place in the House in 1948 to oppose the Bill, but I opposed it as best I could in the advice that I then tendered to the Conservative Party against supporting it.
  Mr. Tilley: And they are still ignoring it. In this country there is now a greater maturity and understanding about race relations and immigration. The East African Asians, whose arrival was feared in 1968, have proved to be model citizens—hard-working and law-abiding. In many of our cities, they alone have the tenacity and commitment to keep open corner shops, sub-post offices and many other small firms.
  Let me make it quite clear that we do not suggest—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was not suggesting—that every person who would become a British overseas citizen under the Bill should be a full British citizen with entry rights. Most of the 1·5 million in that category are already citizens of the country in which they live. As many hon. Members have said, that country is Malaysia. Those people have a right to live somewhere. Their children will have that nationality, too. For them, a British overseas citizenship passport would be just a useless curio to remind them of the last days of the Raj. It would not give them any rights. It would afford them British consular protection if they get into trouble when they travelled but they would not be able to use it as a travel document in the first place. We believe that the new British overseas citizenship is really old statelessness writ large.
  We are primarily concerned about those United Kingdom passport holders—those potential British overseas citizens—who have no other nationality, with no right to live anywhere, whose children will be stateless under this Bill, because this citizenship cannot be transmitted.
  Let me give an example to the hon. Member for Wycombe, who said that the Commission for Racial Equality was not able to give him specific examples. In Malawi, where there is purely the jus sanguinis—the transmission of citizenship by descent—it is probable that children of East African Asians who have only British overseas citizenship will be stateless. Those people total about 150,000. The Government should mount a major campaign to persuade the Government of each country where they live to offer them citizenship and full rights there. There may have to be a full Commonwealth conference if bilateral discussions fail to produce a solution. A major diplomatic initiative could resolve this problem fairly for most of the people. My hon. Friend the Member for York endorsed the view of the Front Bench in saying that that was brave. We recognise his own bravery on this and many other race relations issues in the past.
  Some people will not be covered by the Bill. It is impossible to say how many, but if they have no legal right to live anywhere, and if their children will be stateless, we should give them the full British citizenship passport with rights of entry.
  The previous Tory Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), showed great magnanimity by allowing in the Ugandan Asians expelled by Amin. We acknowledge that. The current Prime Minister agreed last year—with some persuasion from the Foreign Secretary—to take in 10,000 Vietnamese boat people. Could not the Home Secretary persuade her to act with even greater magnanimity and statesmanship on this issue? But that will not happen. We do not believe that the Home Secretary will even try to persuade his Cabinet colleagues on this issue.
  1032
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said, the Government seem to be determined to continue their policy of appeasing the racists in their ranks and in the country. We have heard from some of those hon. Members tonight. Some gloated over the Bill and some said that it was not quite racist enough. That was the policy of the Tory Party before the general election. There were remarks about "swamping", which have never been withdrawn by the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. That is the Tory Party's policy, as shown by the new immigration rules and the Bill.
  The Tories pretend to find justification by claiming that only rigid control of the entry of black immigrants will enable racial harmony to develop in Britain. They do not realise that by institutionalising racism in our immigration system they are sanctioning the views of those who want to entrench it in all our other institutions.
  It is impossible for lasting progress on eliminating discrimination to be made within British society if the rules for admission to that society are based on the racial origin of the applicants.
  Mr. Marlow: They are not.
  Mr. Tilley: We do not advocate an open door—
  Mr. Marlow: Racist.
  Mr. Tilley: Immigration control is necessary for a small, heavily populated island. But what we must ensure, what we can ensure, and what the Bill does not ensure, is that the decision about who can come in and who cannot is not taken on the basis of race or sex. We must stop playing the numbers game. We believe that racial tension in this country is not caused by the number of black faces; it is caused by the number of racists.
  I ask the Government tonight to consider the road that they are going down by continuing to appease the racists. I wish that they would realise that, instead of pandering to what we sincerely believe to be a racist few, they should give a lead to the majority, black and white, who want to live in harmony.
  The Bill represents a tragically missed opportunity. It could have provided the basis for a newly found British unity, in which differences of race were seen not as a problem to be swept under the carpet, but as a strength of British society, in which the variety of cultures and ethnic origins was seen for what it is—a great national asset to be shared by all and to be used for the good of all. A good nationality Bill could be the foundation of a successful and united British society, yet the Government have chosen to lay that foundation stone on the treacherous quicksand of racism and sexism instead of on the bedrock of equality.
  Mr. Marlow: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Bill?
  Mr. Tilley: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary comments, which put another nail in the coffin of the theory of Aryan superiority.
  I believe that the Home Secretary and his fellow Ministers do not fully realise the effects of the Bill. They will be made to realise them, not particularly by our speeches, but by the uproar of protest that is starting in this country, not only from black groups, but from all organisations concerned about equality, harmony and decency. The British Council of Churches and the Catholic Commission for Racial Justice have already begun that campaign.

  1033
  Our criticism is fundamental, but it is not just destructive. We have an alternative policy. The Bill should have introduced a citizenship based on non-discrimination on grounds of sex and race, on the safeguarding of family life, and on a judicial framework preventing arbitrary administrative action. That citizenship—
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Tilley: I shall not give way. I always prefer the hon. Gentleman's comments from a sedentary position. That citizenship could then have become the basis of a fair immigration policy, with all citizens having the right of entry.
  The Bill could still be improved out of all recognition if the following changes were made. I list the six most important ones: first, preservation for their lifetime of the entitlement of many Commonwealth citizens living here to register as British citizens; secondly, objective criteria for granting nationality and a right of appeal against refusal; thirdly, a guarantee that no child could be born stateless as a result of the Bill; fourthly, a commitment to continue the existing civic rights of Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident here; fifthly, a citizen's right to a passport, which none of us has at present; sixthly, that all children born in Britain should automatically be British. We shall press for these changes in Committee.
  The House carries a heavy responsibility if we get this wrong, because a nationality Bill lasts for a generation. It is worth noting that the first children to be born when this measure comes into force in January 1982 will also be the first Britons to reach adulthood when a new century, a new millennium, begins. They will be the first new British citizens of the twenty-first century. We owe it to them to vote against the Bill, so that the Government will be forced to bring forward a nationality Bill which those children—our children—and our children's children deserve.
  11.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I think that everyone will agree that we have had not only a long and interesting debate but a most important one. The House will understand that I cannot possibly answer every point that has been raised during the course of the debate, but I shall do my best to cover the ground and deal with the most important points.
  I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) on his promotion and, I think it would be fair to say, on a certain competence. I do not congratulate him on the ranting tone that he introduced into his speech when dealing with racism. I utterly refute the allegations of racism that he made. They are totally contrary to all of my beliefs.
  This has been a fascinating debate, which has ranged from the philosophical—as we would expect from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and many others who have talked about fundamental concepts—to the severely practical. What I would say is that by and large the tone of the debate has been reasonable. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) asked us to adopt a constructive approach to this subject. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central made the important point that we are talking about a
  1034
  measure that will have to endure for at least a generation. It may well endure long beyond that. It is, therefore, correct that we should approach this matter in a constructive way.
  The Home Secretary made it clear that it is our intention to be constructive. Certainly in Committee I shall attempt to be. The one thing that has stood out as an exception to any idea of a constructive approach was the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He went out of his way to defeat, so far as he could, the chances of a constructive approach. He declared his intransigent, unalterable opposition. It seemed from what he said that whatever we did, and whatever happened in Committee, he would still oppose the Bill tooth and nail, to the best of his ability.
  The House realised that it was listening to a mixture of bluster and wriggling on the part of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I could not help thinking that those of us who watched or heard the right hon. Gentleman at the latest Labour Party conference know that he has had plenty of practice at blustering and wriggling. We saw him blustering and wriggling in the way that he tried to approach the question of the Green Paper. He pretended that the ideas put forward in the Labour Party's Green Paper were merely for discussion. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) destroyed that point when he said that if the ideas were racialist and unacceptable they should not have been put forward for discussion in the Green Paper.
  Moreover, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that at every point we took the hardest options of those put forward in the Green Paper, with one exception. As the Home Secretary made clear, we certainly did not take the hardest option on citizenship by marriage. To give another example, we did not follow the Labour Party in tinkering with the idea of abandoning dual citizenship. That shows clearly what weight to attach to what the right hon. Gentleman says.
  The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that the right of children of British citizens born abroad to acquire citizenship after three years was by courtesy of the Home Secretary. Again he is wrong. It is an entitlement in the Bill. He wriggled again about the whole question of objective tests, about security, and about my comments on the appeals system in relation to immigration. But I will admit that he was bold about one thing, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out. He was bold, although his boldness seemed to be qualified by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, in his willingness, if need be, to admit to this country all British overseas citizens, although at the same time, for some mysterious reason, he also said that the Opposition would retain the voucher system.
  We have to find a way of solving this problem which will endure—the problem of how to find a citizenship structure for our times. We have to find a way out, and I want now to turn to some of the more serious arguments made in the debate.
  One argument, which has also been put forward by outside bodies, is that the Bill should contain some sort of statement on rights and duties. A number of hon. Members argued for that, and it has also been asked for by the churches. But I ask the House to consider what this would mean in practice.
  It is a fact that this kind of generalised statement is contrary to the whole style of English law-making today.

  1035
  There is the old Bill of Rights problem, for example, if I may put it in those terms—the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors. But for years past in drawing up our statutes we have taken the view that there is no point in having these great generalisations, however much we may agree with them. What we try to do in our laws is to be precise; we try to meet the problems that actually exist.
  Again, is there any real reason to add to the Bill a series of provisions that are perfectly well covered in other statutes? "Abode" is defined in the Bill, but other rights and duties, civic rights and employment, commercial definition and tax benefits, are contained in a whole series of laws, ranging from the Act of Settlement of 1701 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. They are all in the statute book. What point is there in repeating them in this new legislation? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde dealt with this point very well.
  The Bill therefore says nothing about civic rights and it proposes no changes in them, but of course we accept and know that our country and our citizenship will be made up by citizens of many ethnic backgrounds. There can be no doubt about that.
  On one point in the debate there was agreement that our present pattern of citizenship is clearly out of date. It reflects an imperial idea, which no longer exists. The idea of a common citizenship, with freedom of movement within territories, really came to an end with the era of decolonisation, and more particularly with the introduction of restrictions on Commonwealth and colonial immigration into this country nearly 20 years ago.
  This led to what the Labour Government's Green Paper, on page 4, called the
  "main defect in our present law. This is that our present citizenship Of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as its name implies, relates both to the United Kingdom and overseas territories. It does not identify those who belong to this country and have the right to live and enter here freely; in consequence it prevents the United Kingdom from basing its immigration policies on citizenship. Our citizenship is in these respects different from the citizenship of many other countries, including our partners in the European Community."
  That is the particular weakness of the present scheme. It does not rest on a British citizenship that confers the right, of abode on those who hold it. Nor does it convey the status of those who belong to our dependent territories.
  Those who go into our third category, of British overseas citizenship, will also recognise that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies hardly describes their present situation, when they may not be admitted to either the United Kingdom or the colonies. So the break-up of the United Kingdom and Colonies into the three new categories therefore broadly reflects what has happened.
  It is entirely right that those who at present have United Kingdom and Colonies or British-protected person status without abode should not be left high and dry in terms of citizenship, but it does not make sense that this link should be perpetuated from generation to generation. As my right hon. Friend made clear, we shall continue to take the United Kingdom passport holder voucher holders under the present scheme. In due course, however, British overseas citizenship will die out and the successors of those who held it will expect to belong to the countries where they live. It is worth adding that the present CUKC status of those who will become British overseas citizens also cannot be transmitted indefinitely by descent except in those cases where they live in foreign countries and can use consular registration. British overseas citizenship is
  1036
  essentially the same as that referred to in the Labour Party's Green Paper scheme for British overseas citizens without abode. Any attempt to argue otherwise can easily be disproved.
  I turn to what has been an important part of the debate, citizenship of the British Dependent Territories. A number of my hon. Friends raised important points. As expected, arguments for special treatment of one sort or another on behalf of individual territories were put forward. Some hon. Members asked for separate citizenship for each territory. The Government recognise the strength of these sentiments. We affirm our commitment to the territories and the great importance of maintaining our links with them. For nationality, however, we believe that the scheme proposed in the Bill is the most satisfactory way of dealing with the subject. No doubt the first choice of the dependencies generally would be to retain a common citizenship with that of the people of the United Kingdom itself, if that was possible. If we are to have a distinctive citizenship for the United Kingdom, carrying with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom, there must be other arrangements for the dependencies.
  We believe that the citizenship for the dependencies should be a composite one. In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke), I do not believe that it would be satisfactory to give each dependency its own citizenship. I doubt whether many dependencies would wish to have their own separate status. My hon. and learned Friend must recognise that some of them are very small countries. The idea of giving them citizenship would pose considerable problems. The proposed citizenship emphasises the British connection, which is basically what the dependencies want.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will it be the case, as now, that these colonies will be issued with a passport that says "British Dependent Territories (Hong Kong)" or "British Dependent Territories (Anguilla)"? If that is so, is there any difficulty in giving them an Anguillan passport or a Hong Kong passport?
  Mr. Raison: I shall return to the question of how we see the passport evolving under the new scheme.
  I wish to refer to Gibraltar, a subject raised by a number of hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and also the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). They referred, understandably, to the close link—all share the sentiment—between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom and asked that Gibraltarians should become British citizens instead of, or in addition to, being citizens of a British Dependent Territory.
  We have considered carefully the representations received to this effect. We recognise the strength of these sentiments and sympathise with them. However, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary we have concluded that citizenship of the dependent territories should apply in a uniform way throughout those territories. I want to refute completely the suggestion that citizenship of the British Dependent Territories is a second-class citizenship. It is a parallel citizenship. It does not materially affect the present position of Gibraltarians in relation to the United Kingdom. The rights arising from Gibraltar's membership of the European Community will not be affected by the Bill. Nor is there any question in

  1037
  present circumstances of the administrative concession for entry into the United Kingdom, arising from the unique circumstances of Gibraltar, being withdrawn.
  As the House might expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) spoke of his special concern for the problems of Hong Kong, about which he knows so much. He stressed the desire of the people of Hong Kong to contribute to the links with the United Kingdom. He asked for an assurance that there was no hidden motive behind the Bill. I am glad to give that assurance. I stress that the proposals are in no way directed particularly at Hong Kong. As my right hon. Friend reaffirmed, the proposed legislation is in no way intended to weaken our links, to which we attach great importance.
  My hon. Friend asked particularly that the terms of schedule 1, which deals with naturalisation, should be carefully examined in Committee. We can, of course, examine the matter in Committee. My hon. Friend also asked that the Government should endeavour to avoid any stricter entry requirements to foreign countries being imposed on citizens of British Dependent Territories as a result of the proposals. We should certainly press any such countries to ensure that existing freedom of travel is maintained.
  The hon. Member for York asked about passports. It is envisaged that, as at present, all passports will bear the inscription "British passport" on the front cover, no matter where they are issued. Passports issued in the dependencies will, again as at present, additionally bear the name of the issuing dependency on the front cover. The citizenship or status of the holder will appear on page 1 of the passport.
  Mr. Lyon: Does that mean that the citizen of a British Dependent Territory and a British overseas citizen will carry the same passport as a British citizen full and proper?
  Mr. Raison: All passports will be marked "British passport" on the front cover. Where they refer to a dependency, they will carry the name of the dependency. If there is any uncertainty remaining, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
  I want now to deal with another important point that featured prominently in the debate. We have been accused of racism. I reiterate that that is a ridiculous claim. Clause 1 makes a substantial change to the automatic acquisition of British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom. The new provision has been attacked on various grounds. We recognised in the White Paper that there were practical difficulties to be overcome.
  Nevertheless, there are strong arguments in favour of confining the acquisition of citizenship by birth to children who have parents who really belong to the United Kingdom, in the sense of either being British citizens or being settled here. The present arrangements mean that citizenship is acquired by many children whose parents are here only temporarily, as students or visitors, for example, or who are working here for short periods or are here illegally. Any child who obtains our citizenship in this way and then leaves with his parents will at present transmit that citizenship in due course to his own children born abroad. With air travel and much greater mobility, the situation today is very different from that which existed
  1038
  when concepts like jus soli grew up. The arguments for continuing to confer citizenship in the present indiscriminate manner are clearly weak.
  Let me say, too, that although we have hitherto adopted the so-called jus soli or automatic entitlement to citizenship by birth, continental countries have generally adopted the jus sanguinis, which means that citizenship is conferred on those born in the country concerned only if they have a parent who is a citizen. We are not, however, proposing to go as far as that. The child of someone lawfully settled here will be eligible for British citizenship by birth.
  There is no intention of requiring proof that a child is entitled to citizenship when registration of birth takes place. There is no question of someone walking in the footsteps of the registration officer in the hospital asking people that sort of question. The remarks of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central about perinatal mortality are therefore clearly even more absurd than they seemed at the time that he made them. We are a signatory to the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness, and that will have an important bearing on any problems that might arise from this provision.
  Mr. Tilley: I made it clear that the matter could be handled in one of two ways. If it is not to be done at birth by the registrar, how shall we avoid the situation in which many children will grow up with themselves and their parents not knowing their nationality, or whether they are stateless? When will it be done?
  Mr. Raison: In many cases there is no special reason why it should be examined, but it may happen when the child reaches the stage of requiring a passport, although even there we shall basically be relying on the declarations of applicants for passports and their parents, and on those who act as sponsors to passport holders. I repeat that we realise that there are difficulties. I believe that in Committee I shall be able to explain how we intend to resolve these difficulties, and I believe that our scheme will work.
  In designing our citizenship we are clearly looking for some kind of commitment on the part of those who seek to acquire it. Citizenship is a mixture of rights and duties. The country that grants it needs to protect those to whom it gives it, but at the same time the citizen has obligations to the country of his choice. Thus, we are looking for commitment in the proposal that those who have our citizenship but were not born here will not automatically be able to transmit citizenship to their children if they are born overseas, although Crown servants whose commitment is obvious will be able to do so.
  Once a minor born in such circumstances returns to the United Kingdom with his parents for a period of three years he will be entitled to acquire citizenship. I know that there is concern about the problem of people working for firms abroad. Clause 3(3)(a) enables a child born overseas to be registered within one year of its birth if one of its parents is a British citizen working full-time for a company or association established in the United Kingdom. Subsection (3)(b) goes a stage further and extends the right to register a child in this way if one of the parents is working in a firm that is established outside the United Kingdom, provided that the employee is on secondment from the United Kingdom-based firm.
  I recognise that some people feel that we ought to go still further and extend the right to register children within

  1039
  a year of their birth in any case where a British citizen is working abroad. I am not convinced that that should be done, since it might well involve building up large numbers of citizens born overseas whose future is not demonstrably with the United Kingdom. However, in many cases the new provisions for transmission of citizenship for women will ensure that the children are British citizens. There is also the three years return provision, and in exceptional cases there is a discretion to register any minor under clause 3(1). That is likely to be used where the child's future clearly lies with the United Kingdom.
  Hon. Members have particularly asked about the transmission of our citizenship to children born overseas to citizens by grant, that is to say, by naturalisation and registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was one. It may be that in some cases children are born overseas for very good reasons. For example, as has been pointed out, a woman may wish to return to her parents' home to have her baby, or the father may be working overseas temporarily. Clause 3(5) allows for that. It provides a perfectly adequate safeguard for any child who comes to this country and lives here with his parents for three years. By and large, however, we have felt that people who have been granted our citizenship after a stay here and later go overseas to live, other than for employment by a British organisation, and who do not return to live in the United Kingdom, with their children born overseas, do not seem to show the commitment to our country that was implicit in their acquisition of citizenship. The citizenship of consular registration in foreign countries alone is clearly anomalous.
  Having listened closely to the debate and the discussions outside, I am aware of the strong feelings aroused by the difficult question of citizenship by descent. We wish to approach the matter constructively in Committee—even though Labour Members may not wish to do so—and no doubt it is one matter that we can thrash out then.
  I turn to the acquisition of citizenship by Commonwealth citizens. The Bill will make a formal reality of what is already, in effect, becoming the case, namely, that Commonwealth citizens will as a rule go through the same process of acquisition of citizenship as will foreigners, though there are reasonable transitional provisions for those who have a special position in that respect—wives and Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973.
  The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) raised that point. The House will realise that for the past eight years Commonwealth citizens who have settled in this country and have wished to apply for citizenship have had to go through virtually the same procedure as the alien has had to go through for naturalisation. We are providing that Commonwealth citizens who had an entitlement to be registered under the nationality law before it was amended by the Immigration Act shall continue to have the right to apply for, and be granted, registration, provided that they apply within two years of the new Acts coming into force.
  As the right to apply is already limited to those who were settled here before 1973, it will be clear that anyone who has the right has already had a great deal of time in which to decide whether to take advantage of it. By the time the Act comes into force and the two-year period begins, he will have had considerably longer. We think it
  1040
  reasonable that the time for taking up the entitlement should be limited, as proposed. I should also inform the hon. Member for Preston, South—as he asked specifically about this—that nothing in the Bill affects the ability of dependants to come to this country.
  Foreigners seeking naturalisation have long had to pass the tests of language, good character, residence and intention to live here. There is nothing discriminatory in applying the tests to Commonwealth citizens. The power of the Home Secretary to refuse citizenship on those grounds, without right of appeal, is also an old one and does not seem to produce many accusations of injustice. How many problems has the hon. Member for Preston, South had on that score?
  We are looking for commitment as well as convenience, and that is why we will normally ask of those who positively seek our citizenship that they can speak our language and intend to make their home in this country. To speak a country's language seems necessary if one is to play a full part as a citizen. We recognise, as is clear in the Bill, that the old and the handicapped may not be able to pick up a new language, and we shall treat them exceptionally. I should tell the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) that no change in the fairly easy-going existing language test is proposed.
  I said that I would try to cover as many points as I could. I know that there are some that I have not had time to tackle. Let me make a final point. Our aim is to produce a piece of legislation that will endure. It is said that it will create uncertainty. That is not so. In particular, the new status of "British citizen" is a far more clear-cut definition of the right to be here and to belong to our community than is the existing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, with right of abode.
  Moreover, no one who is lawfully here will lose the right to be here as a result of the Bill. Those who are settled here but do not choose to acquire our citizenship will, of course, continue to be able to live here.
  I firmly believe that, when our critics look back at the Bill in five or 10 years' time, nearly all of them, if they are honest, will find themselves saying "It was not such a bad Bill after all. It made us, for the first time, British citizens."
  We have had the guts to bring forward this long-needed measure. I call on the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 242.

  Division No. 57]

  [12.00

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Andrew

  Alison, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Ancram, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Arnold, Tom

  Bright, Graham

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

  Brittan, Leon

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brotherton, Michael

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Best, Keith

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Budgen, Nick

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Blackburn, John

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Blaker, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Body, Richard

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  1041

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

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

  Hooson, Tom

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hordern, Peter

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Corrie, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kellet-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kimball, Marcus

  Crouch, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Knox, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Denshore

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lee, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Loveridge, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Luce, Richard

  Farr, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  MacGregor, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

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

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Forman, Nigel

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Major, John

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Marland, Paul

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Marlow, Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall Michael (Arundel)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawby, Ray

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mellor, David

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Greenway, Harry

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Monro, Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Myles, David

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Richard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Tony

  Henderson, Barry

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  1042

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stanley, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Steen, Anthony

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Stevens, Martin

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Pawsey, James

  Stokes, John

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Porter, Barry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Donald

  Proctor, K, Harvey

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raison, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Renton, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waddington, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wakeham, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Walters, Dennis

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Ward, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter

  Watson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spence, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sproat Ian

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cartwright, John

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  Cohen, Stanley

  Alton, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cook, Robin F.

  Ashton, Joe

  Cowans, Harry

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crowther, J. S.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Dewar, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Dixon, Donald

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Dormand, Jack

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Douglas, Dick

  Canavan, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Cant, R. B.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dunnett, Jack

  1043

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Magee, Bryan

  Eadie, Alex

  Marks, Kenneth

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

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

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  English, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meacher, Michael

  Field, Frank

  Mellish, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fitt, Gerard

  Mikardo, Ian

  Flannery, Martin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Ford, Ben

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Newens Stanley

  Freud, Clement

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Ogden, Eric

  George, Bruce

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ginsburg, David

  Orme, Rt Hon stanley

  Golding, John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Gourlay, Harry

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Graham, Ted

  Palmer, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Park, George

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Parker, John

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

  Parry, Robert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pendry, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Penhaligon, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Haynes, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Race, Reg

  Home Robertson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Homewood, William

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Howells, Geraint

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Gwilym (Connock)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rooker, J. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Roper, John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Ryman, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sever, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kerr, Russell

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Shore, Mrs Renée

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lamond, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ronald

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Litherland, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Stoddart, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stott, Roger

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Strange, Gavin

  McElhone, Frank

  Straw, Jack

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  1044

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tilley, John

  Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  Winnick, David

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Woodall, Alec

  Watkins, David

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Weetch, Ken

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Welsh, Michael

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  White, Frank R.

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mr. George Morton and

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Michael Cocks]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 293.

  Division No. 58]

  [12.14 am

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dubs, Alfred

  Adams, Allen

  Dunn, James A.

  Allaun, Frank

  Dunnett, Jack

  Alton, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alex

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ellis, R. (NED' bysh're)

  Ashton, Joe

  English, Michael

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Beith, A. J.

  Ewing, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Field, Frank

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Fitt, Gerard

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Flannery, Matrin

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ford, Ben

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

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Foster, Derek

  Buchan, Norman

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

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

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Campbell, Ian

  Freud, Clement

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Garret, John (Norwich S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Cant, R. B.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ginsburg, David

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Golding, John

  Cartwright, John

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Graham, Ted

  Cohen, Stanley

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Cook, Robin F.

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Cowans, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Craigen, J. M.

  Haynes, Frank

  Crowther, J. S.

  Healey Rt Hon Roy

  Cryer, Bob

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Homewood, William

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Davidson, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Howells, Geraint

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Huckfield, Les

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

  Hudson, Davies, Gwilym E.

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dixon, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dobson, Frank

  John, Brynmor

  Dormand, Jack

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Douglas, Dick

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  1045

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Robertson, George

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Lambie, David

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ryman, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Sever, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Shore, Mrs Renée

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  McKelvey, William

  Silverman, Julius

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  McTaggart, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Magee, Bryan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stoddart, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stott, Roger

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Straw, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Solon Itchen)

  Throne, Stan (Preston South)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Tilley, John

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Torney, Tom

  Morton, George

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Newens, Stanley

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Ogden, Eric

  Watkins, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, Frank R.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Park, George

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Parker, John

  Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

  Parry, Robert

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Penhaligon, David

  Winnick, David

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

  Woodall, Alec

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Prescott, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Race, Reg

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Mr. Austin Mitchell and

  Richardson, Jo

  Mr. Hugh McCartney

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Alison, Michael

  Best, Keith

  Ancram, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arnold, Tom

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

  Blackburn, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Blaker, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  1046

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm' th N)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grist, Ian

  Bradford, Rev R.

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hannam, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brown, M. (Briggand Scun)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Budgen, Nick

  Heddle, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Henderson, Barry

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

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

  Hooson, Tom

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hordern, Peter

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Corrie, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine,

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kimball, Marcus

  Crouch, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Knox, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Denshore

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Latham, Michael

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lee, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Loveridge, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Luce, Richard

  Farr, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  MacGregor, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mackay, John (Argyll)

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

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Mc Nair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Forman, Nigel

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Major, John

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Marland, Paul

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Marlow, Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall Michael (Arundel)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawby, Ray

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mellor, David

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  1047

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Silvester, Fred

  Monro, Hector

  Sims, Roger

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Moore, John

  Speed, Keith

  Morgan, Geraint

  Spence, John

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Sproat, Ian

  Mudd, David

  Squire, Robin

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Myles, David

  Stanley, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Steen, Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Stevens, Martin

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Newton, Tony

  Stokes, John

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard (SE Herts)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Parris, Matthew

  Thompson, Donald

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Percival, Sir Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Pollock, Alexander

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry

  Waddington, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wakeham, John

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Waller, Gary

  Raison, Timothy

  Walters, Dennis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ward, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Watson, John

  Renton, Tim

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wheeler, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roberts, M. (Conway)

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rost, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Anthony Berry

  Shepherd, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  Northern Ireland (Judgments Enforcement)
  12.25 am
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move,
  That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 1 December, be approved.
  It may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if I deal also with the second order.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that that is the will of the House. So be it.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that there will be only an hour and a half for the two orders?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this is a strict consolidation measure and is therefore not debatable. Is that the case?
  Mr. Speaker: The first one is consolidation. It comes down to an hour and a half if common sense is exercised.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not suggest that we would go for three hours.
  The Attorney-General: This is a strict consolidation measure, consolidating the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the provisions amending it. It makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order.
  The second order is purely consequential. It is partly consequently on the first order and, for the rest, on earlier enactments dealing with the same subject.
  12.26 am
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I rise only to say that we are in agreement with what the Attorney-General said. We support the measure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 1 December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 1 December, be approved.—[The Attorney-General.]

  Village Schools
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  12.27 am
  Mr. Edward du Cann: Shortly before Christmas I took part in an "Any Questions" broadcast in Cranborne, Dorset. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is likely to be in the Chamber shortly and I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It transpired that the charming people of that very pleasant place were deeply troubled by

  1049
  a proposal to close their village school. A question was asked and, with other members of the team, I gave my view.
  My constituency has lost a number of village schools over the years and it may lose additional schools in the near future, because closure notices have been issued for the schools at Stawley, Brompton Regis, in my constituency, and Selworthy. Therefore, I know something about this problem and I care deeply about it. I said then that I was opposed in general to the closure of more village schools and that it was time for the process to stop.
  I have had considerable mail ever since. Because I have become aware of the widespread and deeply felt anxiety about this problem, and because I object to the local closure proposals in my constituency, to which I have referred, I am raising the subject tonight.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, for being here this evening. I regard him as one of the most able and conscientious of our colleagues in the Government. He always has my warm support, and I know that this is a subject that is very dear to his heart.
  I seek a single assurance from the Government, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give it. Although the system under which the Government must give authority for closures was sensibly altered and simplified in the Education Act 1980, which in common with my colleagues I supported, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to declare plainly that henceforward no village school will be permitted to be closed where there is a well-proved objection on the part of a majority of persons and parents living locally. Thereby, local democracy will become more relevant than many people feel it is today.
  Too often in the past, consultation has meant only information—mere chatter about a decision that has already been made; a decision that will not be altered by authority, never mind the local arguments. The centre where decisions are made seems increasingly remote from local interests. When that is the position in counties, it is a tragedy.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put it well a little time ago. I quote from a written answer that she gave in the House last May. She said:
  "We recognise the special place which village schools occupy in the community"—[Official Report, 15 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 637.]
  "Special place" is right. They are indeed a precious asset to be cherished and kept.
  Already we have lost too many. Between the ending of the Second World War and 1974–30 years later—we closed 139 out of approximately 500 schools in the county of Somerset. That is too many by far—an appalling decimation of local educational effort. Nationally, the rate is as follows, and I am sure my hon. Friend will confirm my figures. In 1978, proposals to close 49 rural primary schools and four rural secondary schools were approved by Ministers. In 1979, 26 rural primary closures were approved. None were refused. In 1980, 41 approvals were given to close rural primary schools and one to close a secondary school. That was a total of 122 nationally—about one a week in each of the last three years.
  1050
  The problems for the Government and local education authorities are recognised. They are not easy. I have nothing but praise for these devoted people, the elected members of the Somerset authority, and most particularly for the officials. We have an outstanding chief education officer in the county of Somerset, and I know how devotedly the authority tries to solve the problems on its table—problems that are indeed not easy.
  There is a shortage of money, although I believe that the statistics show that the cost of educating a child at a village school is not necessarily so much more than the cost of educating a child elsewhere when everything is taken into account. There is the difficulty of establishing priorities when there are so many demands for funds. Last, but by no means least, there are falling rolls. In primary schools it is expected that the number of children will fall from 4·2 million in 1979 to 3·2 million by 1986. As we all know, about 750,000 places at schools will have to be taken out by 1982.
  Not every closure of a local school is occasioned by falling population. That is the trouble. In the case of the school at Brompton Regis the population may increase. I hope that as we build more houses in that remote and lovely part of Somerset, and perhaps even get industries there, that will happen. At Stawley, the proposal that has been on the table for some time to close the school has cast a blight upon its future. Although there are 40 children available to go to the school, unfortunately, because people believed that it would be closed, a number of the children eligible have gone to other schools. So it seems to me that some of the problems are of our own making. The point that I am trying to make, which I am sure my hon. Friend will accept, is that a number of the closures that may be scheduled to take place in the immediate future are not inevitable and should not be regarded as inevitable.
  To be fair, there are sometimes disadvantages in small schools. If the teacher is bad, there can be a deleterious effect that is entirely disproportionate. Children in a local area can vegetate. Staffing may present problems. Staff who are remote and isolated may become a little stale. There is no argument about those potential disadvantages. But there is not one of them that it is not possible, through leadership and determination, to overcome.
  The disadvantages are small by comparison with the outstanding advantages of the smaller school: the caring atmosphere, the opportunities for individual attention, the fact that school premises are often a focal point for the community, the ease of physical access for the children, and the easy regularity of social contact between the parents and teachers.
  Alas, as we all know—it is a matter of fact—village life is often in steady decline in the United Kingdom, sometimes including Somerset. There is a strong need to reverse that trend. It is the duty of our Conservative Government to lead.
  What are the chief characteristics of a thriving local community? They are a local church or chapel, a public house, a village green, a cricket team, prospects for good employment, young married people—right hon. and hon. Members may choose their own recipe. I would say without any fear of contradiction that a local school stands high on that list.
  I view with some cynicism the devoted efforts that so many people make, and which the Government so rightly encourage through bodies such as the Council for Small

  1051
  Industries in Rural Areas. They are worthy and good, recognising the need to import a new vitality into local life, village life, community life, but I view those efforts with cynicism if at the same time we are careless about the future of our village schools.
  I speak of what I know in my constituency. The school at Stawley, for example, is in my home village. I should like to quote from a letter that I received from the people of the village of Brompton Regis. They said:
  "We are very much opposed to requiring small children to travel upwards of 10 miles daily in all kinds of weather, leaving home at an early hour and returning seven or eight hours later."
  Brompton Regis is on the Brendon Hills. I do not know how many hon. Members know it. It is at an altitude of 1,000 ft., and sometimes the village is cut off for periods in the winter. Such journeys are likely to be impracticable in hard winters. They could be injurious to health as well as to the children's capability of benefiting from education. Surely that is undoubted.
  My correspondents conclude:
  "Finally, the closure of the village school would be damaging to the viability of the village as a balanced and cohesive unit, and could as a result contribute to rural depopulation at a time when the contrary should be the objective of national policy. The school at Brompton Regis has played, and can still play, an important part in our community life."
  Those quotations speak for themselves. As to the first point that my correspondents were making, I believe that bussing will become an even dirtier word than it did in the United States over a period, and for better reasons.
  There is a need for a new initiative. I hope that my hon. Friend, with his determination, wisdom, and capacity for imaginative hard work, will give it. The Government and the counties must give a lead. I recommend my hon. Friend to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the publication of a circular on this specific subject. Its theme should be that the maintenance of village schools on social and educational grounds is infinitely preferable to their closure almost exclusively on mathematical or statistical grounds. Let my hon. Friend launch, if he will, a "Keep the Village School" campaign. I assure him that he will have universal support.
  One of the things that might be done in this circular, if my hon. Friend thinks it a good idea, is to provide a list of the constructive proposals that might help to keep village schools open. I have in mind such ideas as bringing in visiting teachers, grouping schools together to improve facilities, their use as projects centres and the encouragement of PTAs, local groups such as Rotary, the Lions, even the skittles team, to play a larger part in the life of the schools by helping to keep them clean and using them as places for local activities. There is a host of ideas that could be proposed that would involve financial saving and undoubtedly help to enhance the position of schools in the community.
  These village schools are a precious inheritance. It is the duty of our generation to preserve and enhance them. I remember as a boy at school—and that was a long time ago—being educated to read Cobbett's "Rural Rides". I remember that Cobbett wrote of how necessary it was to keep alive the traditions and the manners of the countryside, which he complained were in constant danger of corruption by the morals, the manners, the outlook of the cities. Perhaps that is an over-cynical view. There is, however, still some truth in it.
  I recommend to my hon. Friend another quotation from Cobbett's "Political Register", written 150 years ago:
  1052
  "From a very early age I had imbibed the opinion that it was every man's duty to do all that lay in his power to leave his country as good as he had found it."
  This is my hon. Friend's opportunity, and I raise this issue tonight in the confident hope that he will live up to those inspiring words.
  12.42 am
  Mr. John Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for giving me a minute of his time to add a word of support. Like him, I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for being here tonight, because I know that if anything can be done he is the sort of person who will see that it is done.
  My complaint concerns a school in my constituency upon which the axe has fallen in the last few days. Like my right hon. Friend, I believe that the village school is the heart of a thriving rural community. Remove that and to a large degree that community dies. That is why, in December, I took a deputation to see the Minister—a deputation representing all grades of political representation in the area—the local county councillor, the district councillor, and the chairman of the parish council. We all pleaded with the Minister to keep open Medbourne village school, in Leicestershire. Unfortunately, in the last few days the Minister has confirmed that this ancient and well-preserved school must close. This closure is occurring despite the fact that there is a growing pupil roll, and despite the fact that the school is housed in admirable buildings and has a pupil potential in the immediate future of 25 to 30, due to increased housing development in the area.
  I shall not trespass any further upon the time of my right hon. Friend except to say that I am intensely dissatisfied with what is going on and look forward to my hon. Friend doing something to help keep open that invaluable heritage of Britain—the village school.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: The gratitude of my constituents to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute very briefly to the debate, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), will last much longer than my remarks.
  I believe that village schools play a unique part in the life of the community. Certainly the closure of village schools is a very important issue in Dorset, and in my constituency in particular. My constituents are very worried about closures in the Tarrant and Winterborne valleys, and in Cranborne they, too, are disturbed about the prospects for their schools.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to put three points in any general directive that is put out on this subject. First, parents and people in the villages should be encouraged to participate, both by providing financial assistance and by time and any other services to help these schools survive.
  Secondly, I hope that local education authorities will accept that rural and urban community needs are different. The standards of curriculum and finance that are applied to schools in different types of community are different and should be regarded as such. Thirdly, I question the role of education advisers. When we are looking for savings in education, because of the question of finance that is uppermost in the closure of village schools, let us

  1053
  look hard at the administration and its cost. I urge my hon. Friend to do all he can to preserve this very important part of rural community life.
  12.46 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I am sure that the Irish business went through so quickly because it was realised that the Adjournment debate was so much more important.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has introduced a debate which, judging by the attendance, demonstrates the concern throughout the country as well as in the villages of England. I was also struck by his quotations from Cobbett. It shows what a good rural education can do. Twenty thousand copies of Cobbett's letters to the countrymen of England were sold in my native Lancashire, all within five years. Sometimes, when one wonders about the State education system in those days and learns that 20,000 copies of that pamphlet were sold in Lancashire, one goes on to wonder where we have got today.
  My right hon. Friend not only has a national reputation for his work in this House; he has a reputation as a good constituency Member, looking after the interests of his people. His constituents will join with the public at large in their enjoyment of "Any Questions", in which this topic came up.
  I am also grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friends the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and Harborough (Mr. Farr), who share the concern about the village school.
  I should declare an interest. I went to a village school. It was a small Church of England school in Lancashire. People say that it did not do me any harm. I am sure that I got a good, firm basis of education there. There was a sense of continuity and honour.
  I remember that at the age of 6 I got into the only fight that I have ever been involved in. As usual, in good, healthy, rural life, a ring was formed by the older boys; they had their own rules. I think that the fight was about a girl. I cannot remember who it was, or what happened to her. Nor do I remember what happened in the fight. I remember that I got thumped by my father when I got home because of the state that I was in. I am sure that that was the basis of good political life. In many towns children never had the privileged beginning that I had there.
  The advantage of the village school lies in the identification of the pupil with it. He knows where he belongs. He is not wasting a lot of time travelling backwards and forwards, particularly in difficult weather. There is also the question of teacher commitment. I should not be surprised if research showed that teachers stay longer when they become part of a community instead of moving around as they do—or did until recently—so rapidly in our city schools.
  There is also parental commitment. In the raising of money for maintenance or extra facilities, the village schools seem at least to be equal to, if not ahead of, schools elsewhere.
  The point made by my right hon. Friend about the effect upon the village itself is particularly important. It is part of the way of life; that is why my right hon. Friend's Cobbett quotations were so apt. It is part of a way of life
  1054
  which, if we lost it in England, would mean that we had lost something very dear to our heritage and to our present and future.
  There are comments from Her Majesty's inspectors from time to time that disadvantages can occur with classes up to 25, or 25 and more, bridging three years of teaching. Again, children often gain academically if brought into contact with children of similar abilities, which is sometimes not possible in a village school.
  The question of finance has been raised. If special advantages are given, this can mean spending a disproportionate amount of money per pupil compared with the town school. That is a decision to be made by the authority. I feel that sometimes there is a place for the part-time teacher. The vicar's wife is often a trained teacher as well as a voluntary social worker in the area. An imaginative local authority—this is obviously the case with the authority concerned—can introduce part-timers in order to diversify the curriculum.
  Over the next 10 years there will be 29 per cent. fewer children in our schools—a falling-off almost unequalled since the first census, I believe, in 1811.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: It was 1841.
  Dr. Boyson: I must not start an argument with my hon. Friend. We can agree on village schools. I have an idea that there was a census in 1811. We must find the right answer. If this goes into Hansard there will be concern throughout the length and breadth of the country that we are not masters of our facts.
  This is a matter that authorities have to examine to ensure that within the money available, at a time of restraint, they can provide the facilities in all the schools. My right hon. Friend was right about the number of schools closing. In 1978, the figure was 49; in 1979, it was 26; and in 1980, it was 41. It is interesting to note the rise in the number of small city schools being closed as a result of depopulation of the cities. Twenty-eight primaries closed in 1978; the figure reached 39 in 1980. At the same time, 29 secondary schools have been closed. In many cases the depopulation factor in the inner cities is much more intense than the depopulation of the countryside.
  My right hon. Friend stressed that consultation should mean consultation. I also feel strongly on this matter. It seems to me that there have been times in the past—I am not referring to any particular instance—when people have gone round a county, having made up their minds what they intend to do, and the meetings have simply been a whitewash. If there is to be consultation it should be genuine consultation among parents, teachers and governors.
  A circular was issued by the Department in June 1977 saying that before a closure order was put out there should be full consultation with parents and teachers. By parents, I also mean potential parents who represent the school's future. I believe that closure notices have gone to two of the schools mentioned by my right hon. Friend. There are two months, from 15 December in this case, during which people can object. In the case of a voluntary school, the matter goes to the Secretary of State in any case, even if there are no objections. In the case of a county school, objections are considered by the Secretary of State. I imagine that in the second of these cases—a voluntary school—it will come to the Secretary of State. In so far as the matter may go to the Secretary of State, I have to be careful about what I say tonight.

  1055
  The Secretary of State considers such matters carefully. He has to take account of education provision for the children. He receives reports from HMIs. He considers whether the school offers the children a full curriculum. He has also to consider finance.
  In passing, I should say that I have received information that the first census was in 1801. Honour is satisfied on both sides. My guess was a little nearer.
  The Secretary of State will consider carefully not only the two particular schools but schools throughout the country. He will consider the effects of closures on village life, county finances and the education of the children.
  From the costings, we expect about 750,000 school places to be taken out up to 1982–83. Several small schools in one area can be expensive to run. Although each classroom costs the same, the basic structure has to be heated. Each case must be carefully considered on its merits. All objections will be carefully scrutinised.
  1056
  Closures will not be merely stamp transactions. I know that from my own experience. What has been said tonight will also be taken into consideration.
  The future of the village school must be in the balance. The village school is central to the continuity and completeness of village life, like the public house and the village green. However, we are under financial constraint. We must be fair not only to village education but to education in the towns. We have to balance the two. It is not an easy decision. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take careful note of the debate. He will endeavour to save money, but also to save village schools where they can be saved, where they are fulfilling a financially viable commitment and where they are providing an excellent education.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.

Trade
  Indonesian Textiles
  Indonesian Textiles
  European Community (Anti-dumping Unit)
  European Community (Anti-dumping Unit)
  Air Displays (Accidents)
  Air Displays (Accidents)
  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Building Firms (Bankruptcies)
  Building Firms (Bankruptcies)
  European Community
  European Community
Employment
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  John Bright and Brothers (Rochdale)
  John Bright and Brothers (Rochdale)
  Manpower Services Commission (Trainee Allowance)
  Manpower Services Commission (Trainee Allowance)
  Non manual Workers (Pay)
  Non manual Workers (Pay)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Closed Shops
  Closed Shops
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Heavy Weights (Lifting)
  Heavy Weights (Lifting)
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Health and Safety Inspectorate (Warrants)
  Health and Safety Inspectorate (Warrants)
  Divers (Training)
  Divers (Training)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
  Disabled Persons Register
  Disabled Persons Register
  Scotland (Urban Programme)
  Scotland (Urban Programme)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
Civil Service
  Leicester (Office Accommodation)
  Leicester (Office Accommodation)
  Career Development
  Career Development
  Accountants (Qualifications)
  Accountants (Qualifications)
  Pay
  Pay
  Jobs Dispersal
  Jobs Dispersal
  Scott Committee
  Scott Committee
  Pensions
  Pensions
Home Department
  Matrimonial Maintenance Orders
  Matrimonial Maintenance Orders
  Custodial Remands
  Custodial Remands
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Detained Persons (London)
  Detained Persons (London)
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Special Vouchers
  Special Vouchers
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Canada (Constitution)
  Canada (Constitution)
  Hong Kong (Bus Fares)
  Hong Kong (Bus Fares)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
Defence
  Rapid Deployment Force
  Rapid Deployment Force
  Advanced Early Warning Aircraft
  Advanced Early Warning Aircraft
  Vulcan Bombers
  Vulcan Bombers
  Nuclear Weapons (Accidents)
  Nuclear Weapons (Accidents)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Lightning Aircraft
  Lightning Aircraft
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  EH101 Helicopter
  EH101 Helicopter
  JP233 Bomb
  JP233 Bomb
Social Services
  Special Hospitals Patients (Leave Arrangements)
  Special Hospitals Patients (Leave Arrangements)
  Sanitary Protection
  Sanitary Protection
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Medical Consultant Posts
  Medical Consultant Posts
  Hospital Doctors
  Hospital Doctors
  Widowed Mothers' Allowance
  Widowed Mothers' Allowance
  National Health Service (Wages and Salaries)
  National Health Service (Wages and Salaries)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Cosmetic Surgery
  Cosmetic Surgery
  Dental Strategy Review Group
  Dental Strategy Review Group
  Homoeopathic Medicines
  Homoeopathic Medicines
  Oxford Area Health Authority
  Oxford Area Health Authority
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Surgical Treatment (Package Tours)
  Surgical Treatment (Package Tours)
  Blood Plasma
  Blood Plasma
  Hospital Services
  Hospital Services
  Benefits
  Benefits
Wales
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Animal Health
  Animal Health
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Welsh Language Education (Grants)
  Welsh Language Education (Grants)
  Employment (Dyfed)
  Employment (Dyfed)
INDUSTRY
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Steel Foundry, Distington, Cumbria
  Steel Foundry, Distington, Cumbria
  Redundant Steel Workers (Grants)
  Redundant Steel Workers (Grants)
  Engineering Council
  Engineering Council
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
Transport
  Private Bus Operators
  Private Bus Operators
  Commuter Services
  Commuter Services
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Trucks (Type Approval)
  Trucks (Type Approval)
  British Railways (Investment)
  British Railways (Investment)
  British Railways (Electrification)
  British Railways (Electrification)
  Road and Railways (State Support)
  Road and Railways (State Support)
  Road Maintenance
  Road Maintenance
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Vehicle Excise Duty Licence
  Vehicle Excise Duty Licence
  Motor Cyclists (Accident Statistics)
  Motor Cyclists (Accident Statistics)
  Motorway Signs
  Motorway Signs
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Woodhead Tunnel
  Woodhead Tunnel
  Roads (Maintenance Survey)
  Roads (Maintenance Survey)
  Rolling Stock
  Rolling Stock
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Car Sharing
  Car Sharing
  Liverpool Inner Ring Road
  Liverpool Inner Ring Road
  Road Safety (Engineering Measures)
  Road Safety (Engineering Measures)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  "Policy for Roads: England 1980"
  "Policy for Roads: England 1980"
  Motor Cycles (Radio Interference)
  Motor Cycles (Radio Interference)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
Scotland
  Rural Schools
  Rural Schools
  Housing Authorities
  Housing Authorities
  Mulwharchar Inquiry
  Mulwharchar Inquiry
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Torness Power Station
  Torness Power Station
  Stodart Committee
  Stodart Committee
Environment
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Water Authorities (Structure)
  Water Authorities (Structure)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Lead (Biological Screening)
  Lead (Biological Screening)
  Enterprise Zone (Dudley)
  Enterprise Zone (Dudley)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  Journalists (Facility Trips)
  No. 1 Sheldon Road, London (MIND Project)
  No. 1 Sheldon Road, London (MIND Project)
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
Education and Science
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  School Educational Records
  School Educational Records
  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
Northern Ireland
  Car Thefts
  Car Thefts
  House Building, County Armagh
  House Building, County Armagh
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
National Finance
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inland Revenue (Payments to Informers)
  Inland Revenue (Payments to Informers)
  Building Societies Accounts (Income Tax Relief)
  Building Societies Accounts (Income Tax Relief)
  Flat-rate Unemployment Benefit
  Flat-rate Unemployment Benefit
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Value Added Tax (Charities)
  Value Added Tax (Charities)
  Value Added Tax (School Journeys)
  Value Added Tax (School Journeys)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Capital and Land Taxes (Administrative Costs)
  Capital and Land Taxes (Administrative Costs)
  North Sea Licences (Gains)
  North Sea Licences (Gains)
  Beer
  Beer
  Value Added Tax (Horse Shows)
  Value Added Tax (Horse Shows)
  Taxation (Corporate Sector)
  Taxation (Corporate Sector)
  Independent and Grant-aided Schools
  Independent and Grant-aided Schools
  Share Ownership Schemes
  Share Ownership Schemes
  European Community
  European Community
  Value Added Tax (Bridge)
  Value Added Tax (Bridge)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  French Eggs
  French Eggs
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Cane Sugar
  Cane Sugar
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Poultrymeat
  Poultrymeat

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

Textile Industry: USA Imports
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the disruption caused to our textile industry by cheap imports from the USA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in my Statement to your Lordships on 15th December I stressed that Her Majesty's Government were extremely concerned about the damagingly sharp rise in the import of textiles from the United States. I am happy to say that on the following day my honourable friend the Minister for Trade secured the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities that a new and urgent initiative was needed. The Commission was accordingly invited to pursue discussions with the United States Administration over the whole range of problems and possible solutions and to report back to the Council as early as possible, with a first report in February.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and very pleased to hear that meetings are taking place. Will he confirm that the February meeting would be of an interim nature, and that it is essential that in the March meeting we come to some firm and positive action?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the report to be received in February will be of a preliminary nature. I cannot promise that the matter can be resolved as early as March, but I know that the officials concerned are well aware of the need for urgency.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these subsidised exports from America have already destroyed two-thirds of our carpet industry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord over-states the position somewhat. On the point of subsidy, we understand that the new American Administration plan to deregulate oil prices, and that will certainly have an effect in this area because that is of course an essential feedstock in this industry. Also, penetration of the British carpet industry by the American carpet manufacturers is not as great as some people have supposed.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while many of us from the North are deeply concerned about the plight of our textile industry, many of us are utterly opposed to tariffs and protectionism but believe that unfair competition is a very different matter? Does the noble Lord agree that subsidised supplies of energy are a form of very unfair competition, and that the fact that we took too little action over unfair competition from Portugal and other places in the past does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to what our American friends are now doing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord in his earlier remarks reflected the Government's position precisely. We certainly do not seek any form of protection in this matter, but we do seek to correct any situation where unfair competition appears to arise.
Lord Hale: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that no approach has yet been made to America and that the whole of the negotiations are to be carried on through Brussels, as we would expect? But has it not been possible to make some contact on particular aspects such as the carpet industry which are in a sense a special case? Does the noble Lord realise that the matter is one of imperative urgency, and a statement in February to be followed by approaches after that may not be immediate enough?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that there is a considerable degree of urgency in this matter, but we certainly have no power to act unilaterally with the United States, which is what I think the noble Lord was suggesting. It is perhaps worth getting this matter in context, particularly in relation to carpets which the noble Lord and another noble Lord mentioned. Imports of man-made fibre tufted carpets from the United States in the first 10 months of last year amounted to 7.2 million square metres, representing an import penetration of only 9.8 per cent. This is only slightly higher than the import penetration at the end of 1979, and it was on that basis that our application for quotas last year was rejected by the Community.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is reported that the new American Administration will within the next few days do away with controls on the prices of domestic petroleum products. Can my noble friend confirm that that is due to happen very shortly, and have the Government yet calculated to what extent the subsidy to American manufacturers will be reduced by that change?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. I understand the deregulation is likely to occur even sooner than my noble friend suggests—in fact this very day, so I am informed. On the question of the percentage, there is some difference of opinion between ourselves and the United States authorities on this matter, but our calculation is that their energy policies result in a price advantage of between 8 and 16 per cent.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the Minister taken up with the Commission and with our friends in Europe the necessity to speed up the procedure?

733
It is all very well to say we are now making some progress, but the energetic people who have invested money, for example in the polypropylene process, have been suffering from this situation for well over a year, and only now do we see some signs—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I was explaining exactly what I meant and going into some detail because of the need to do so. What action are the Government taking to do something to speed up the procedure, from which able and energetic people are suffering and have suffered for some time?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the decision in the Council of Ministers to take action in this matter was made on 16th December. Since then, as the noble Lord will know, there has been a change of Administration in the United States and officials are expecting to resume discussions just two weeks from now. I do not think that that is a bad record.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as regards actions in international organisations, the interval between references to the Council of Ministers, or whatever it may be, and relevant action is so long that action ceases to be relevant? These references are no substitute at all for action by Her Majesty's Government, which is what I gather is being asked for.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier, Her Majesty's Government cannot act by themselves in this matter. We have to act through the European Community. But in the short time that I have been working both in the Foreign Office and more recently in the Department of Trade I have come to realise what a great deal of preparatory work is necessary for these negotiations to be successful.

Gas and Electricity: Economic Pricing
2.46 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: 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 steps they are taking to give relief to industries which are large users of gas or other fuel.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, British Gas are already charging only 75 per cent. of the full gas oil equivalent price for renewed contracts for firm supplies, and are reducing the price for new customers to this level after the first year of supply. The electricity boards will advise their customers on how to obtain the maximum possible benefit from the available flexibility in their tariffs. International action includes a United Kingdom initiative within the European Community to press the United States to correct its underpricing of
734
oil and gas. In addition, the Secretary of State for Energy has asked the British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry (in the context of its review of the bulk supply tariff) to consider whether further assistance is possible within the framework of our economic pricing policy.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, which is very helpful so far as it goes. However, is he aware that it is seven months since the Government started the monitoring process and we are really no nearer a conclusion of the matter that was raised then than we were seven months ago? It has been a further seven months in which British industry has been severely affected by the high price of energy in relation to its competitors. Is he further aware that in respect of this argument there seems to be little difference between the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State in another place last week, the CBI and the TUC that it is the big users of fuel, particularly gas, that are affected? Would he not, therefore, encourage the introduction of discounts for volume, which are common in most other countries, and help British industry to get back to profitability and to maintain high levels of employment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I gave a rather longer initial reply than is my custom because I wished to indicate to the noble Lord exactly how much we have done. It seems to me that we have done a very great deal within the context, which, as I say, is so necessary, of overall economic pricing.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the price of gas to the North Staffordshire pottery industry is having a terrific effect on that industry? For example, as regards one of the most famous firms in that area, the increase will cost that firm three-quarters of a million pounds more and thus put it in a disadvantageous position with the rest of its competitors throughout the world. The pottery industry should receive particular attention from this House and we cannot be dragged along by laws over which we have no sovereignty.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that it is a question of being dragged along by laws over which we have no sovereignty: it is a question of being dragged along by the international prices of energy which this country, like all industrial countries, cannot altogether escape. However, as I said in my original Answer, we are monitoring closely where there may be a direct competitive disadvantage and that seems to be the right way to proceed.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he would regard it as another Question entirely if I were to ask him what relief the Government are proposing to give to ordinary users of gas and fuel who are finding the prices quite exhorbitant?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, technically I think that it would be another Question, but it is always difficult to resist the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.

735
The answer is that domestic consumers are already paying well below clearing prices for energy.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, are not the large users of electricity in the energy-intensive British chlorine industry now having to pay between 50 and 100 per cent. more for their electricity than their Western European competitors? Does that not account largely for the fact that in some cases they are able to maintain exports only by selling at a loss? Should not the Central Electricity Generating Board, as a state monopoly, forthwith reduce the prices that are charged to such consumers without awaiting the outcome of the NEDC energy task force that has just been set up?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as my original reply indicated, the electricity boards will advise customers how to take advantage of existing and flexible tariffs. But, on the question of the chlorine industry, I should point out that that industry, like the pottery industry, cannot escape the consequences of increases in energy prices worldwide.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind always the overriding interest of the British housewife in the conservation of supplies and the non-depletion of our reserves, and that anything done to cheapen the price of industrial gas and to promote its largescale use is directly contrary to the interest of the domestic consumer?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for a subtle point, which I hope the House will study carefully.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, on that subtle point, may I say that the domestic housekeeper will not have the money to pay the rent if her husband does not get a job in the pottery industry?
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I do not want to appear ungrateful to the noble Earl because he put himself out to give a great deal of information, but what is important is the conclusion of the monitoring process. Can he give any indication about when the task force will conclude its work, and how quickly after that the Government can come to a conclusion?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think it is right that the task force should try to cover definite differences of view between industries and between some industries and the Government. I am advised that it will come to its conclusions by 4th March, so I think that we are getting on with it.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that it is still the Government's intention to increase the prices of gas and electricity by 10 per cent. in excess of the going rate of inflation for the next three years?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the going rate of inflation and the prices of energy are not linked, as—and I say this with respect to him—the noble Lord very well knows.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I think the House will agree that it is time we moved on.

The Victoria and Albert Museum: Slide Loan Service
2.52 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that their proposal that the National Slide Loan Service of the Victoria and Albert Museum should close in the interests of retrenchment is causing dismay, and if implemented will undermine educational opportunities.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the value to the education service of the slide loan arrangements at present operated by the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts that an alternative means should be found of continuing the loan service when it ceases to be operated by the museum after March.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, although I am not quite clear about what that means, first, who will take over the museum service? Secondly, is the amount of saving commensurate with the damage to educational opportunities that the taking away of these sides would mean? Finally, is the noble Earl aware that those of us who have been involved in the area of adult education and other education most of our lives considered this service excellent and worthy of being kept alive by whatever Government may be in power?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, first, perhaps I should explain that the closure of the Victoria and Albert Museum slide loan service is not directly related to the shortage of funds. The Victoria and Albert staff are part of the Civil Service, and because of the reduction of the Civil Service the museum will operate with fewer staff. Given that all the options for staff savings were difficult, the director decided, with regret, to close the slide loan service, which is a self-contained unit.
The previous Minister for the Arts announced his intention that the service should continue after March in Answers to two Written Questions in the other place. The intention is shared by the new Minister for the Arts, my right honourable friend Mr. Paul Channon.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister agree that if the staff must be cut it should not be the loan service which should suffer; that extravagant exhibitions, like those of court jewels of the Renaissance, the work of Fabergé, and so on, should not continue at the expense of students in art colleges and teacher-training colleges over the country, where, in many

737
cases, those interested cannot get to London? I think that that is a point of vital importance.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that it must be left to the director of the V and A to deal with his staff and his organisation as he thinks fit. However, the Government agree with the noble Baroness that this loan service is extremely important. As I have already stated, it is intended to continue it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, although I have a great respect for the director of the Victoria and Albert and I think that he is very good at his job, none the less I wonder whether he has his priorities right. Now that we teach art in all the schools, more and more education is needed in the national museums. Further, anyone who has used that service knows that it is alongside the V and A library, which is the best art library that one can use. It is not right to divorce the slide service from the library.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I do not think that I can comment on it, but I am sure that the director of the museum will read what he has said with interest.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, the noble Earl has told us that a substitute service is promised. A substitute service will have less experience and I am sure be more expensive. Is the Government's saving policy to substitute a more expensive service for a less expensive service in order to make a cut? It seems very mysterious.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there are a variety of interesting and constructive suggestions for operating the service in the future. These have not been costed out and it would be prejudging any costings to reply to the noble Lord.

Belize: Independence Proposals
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give details of the discussions with the Prime Minister of Belize, held in Jamaica, concerning proposals leading to the possible independence of Belize.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had discussions with the Premier of Belize on 22nd January in Kingston to review progress in the negotiations with Guatemala and constitutional steps towards independence.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is it not the case that the United Nations agreed that Belize should be independent as
738
soon as possible? In fact, there has been a settlement there since 1638; a commander-in-chief was appointed in 1786, and the colony was recognised in 1862. Surely by now it is time that some action was taken with Guatemala to reach a settlement. Have the Opposition been consulted?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right, and that is what the constitutional conference is about. The Opposition are being consulted.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there would be widespread support for the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on this rather difficult and dangerous point; that in particular there would be general support for any attempts by the United Kingdom to resolve the difficulties in the area, relating mostly to frontiers, and also to ensure the viability and the security of the area, whatever constitutional forms are decided?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, yes. Once again the noble Lord opposite is quite right. Over the years the difficulty as regards the independence of Belize has been the Guatemalan claim to Belizian territory. It would obviously be better if we could reach an agreement with Guatemala before independence, and we are still seeking to do that.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in view of the character of the Government of Guatemala and the uncertainty in that territory, will the Government be careful not to sign a treaty with that country which would be contrary to the view of the people of Belize?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the noble Lord can be quite sure that whatever we do about the independence of Belize, we shall be very careful.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, vizt.:—

Clause 1

Clause 18

Clauses 2 and 3

Clause 19

Clause 4

Clause 20

Clause 5

Clause 21

Clause 6

Clause 22

Clause 7

Clause 23

Clause 8

Clause 24

739

Clause 9

Clause 25

Clause 10

Clause 26

Clauses 11 and 12

Clause 27

Clauses 13 and 14

Clause 28

Clause 15

Clause 29

Clause 16

Clause 30

Clause 17

Clause 31

Schedule 1

Schedule 2

Clauses 32 and 33

—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gibraltar
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to call attention to the April 1980 British-Spanish Agreement on Gibraltar especially in the light of Spain's application for EEC membership; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It gives me very great pleasure this afternoon to move this Motion about the agreement of last April between Spain and the United Kingdom as regards the future of Gibraltar. It gives me particular pleasure as this afternoon we have in our Gallery distinguished visitors from Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Peter Isola, the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Joe Bossano, and other members of the House of Assembly. There are also representatives of other Embassies and representatives of the Gibraltar-in-Europe Representation Group, Members of the European Parliament—
Lord Soames: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I think that it would be more advisable if he addressed himself to the subject rather than to who actually is sitting in the Gallery. I believe that that is not within the general form of address in this House.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg the House's pardon. I remind the House that this agreement which was signed by my noble friend the Secretary of State provided that the restrictions which have existed in Gibraltar since 1969 would be lifted, and that immediately upon that event there would be talks between the British and Spanish Governments on any proposal that might be put forward by either side. It was also provided that there would be full reciprocity of rights between the people of Spain and the people of Gibraltar during these talks.
Since then however nine months have passed; there has been no progress on these talks, and during this long gestation period nothing seems to have been produced—not even a mouse. There have been the
740
same restrictions on the Gibraltar people. Even over Christmas they were unable to communicate with their relatives and friends 500 metres across the frontier. The necessity was still upon them to communicate with one another through walky-talky radios, through loud hailers, or else to take the expensive journey to the other side via Tangier, a matter of 24-hours travel and something that costs a lot of money.
It is not my intention here this afternoon to castigate the Spanish Government or the Spanish people. I am one of those who strongly support the entry of Spain into the EEC and the consolidation of the Western Alliance with Spain's participation and closer relations between this country and Spain. It is a great pity that this matter of Gibraltar is casting a shadow over British-Spanish relations.
I realise that the Spanish Government have their problems, and of course Spanish public opinion is very important in this respect. I know that there are many Spanish people with goodwill towards Gibraltar. The mayors of the Campo area behind Gibraltar have expressed their conviction that the frontier should be opened without delay in accordance with the Lisbon agreement. However, particularly after the visit of the Lord Privy Seal to Spain a few weeks ago, it has emerged that a precondition is now being put on the implementation of the main provision, the opening of the frontier.
It has been decided apparently in Madrid that the frontier cannot he opened until the same rights are given to Spanish people in Gibraltar as are now available to EEC nationals. This, I suppose, would be something that could be discussed at the talks envisaged in the Lisbon agreement. Already it has been agreed that Spanish citizens are entitled to visit Gibraltar just as any other foreigner is allowed to do. There is no question of banning Spaniards from "over-nighting" in Gibraltar. They can stay in Gibraltar as visitors, as tourists, on the same basis that any other non-Gibraltarian can do so; but I ask myself, where is the reference to EEC rights in the Lisbon agreement'? I see no mention of it.
I cannot believe that it would be right for the Government to concede this point until the frontier has been opened. The precondition is unacceptable. Once the frontier has been lifted then anything can be discussed. That is in the agreement. Even the long-term future of Gibraltar can be discussed. That is in the agreement. But until the frontier is open I submit nothing can be given away as a precondition. I hope that my noble friend the Secretary of State will make that clear when he winds up this debate.
The problem about the Spanish line is that it strengthens the worst suspicions of people in Gibraltar, as I discovered when I was there at the beginning of this month. Even last April, when the agreement was signed by my noble friend and Mr. Marcelino Oreja, there were some in Gibraltar who were already suspicious. They felt they were going to be invaded demographically or economically by the 30 million people of Spain over a period of years and conquered by these means. That was not the view of the Gibraltar Government, who approved the Lisbon agreement. It strengthens, though, the suspicion of many other people that Spain in fact wants to recover Gibraltar not by consent but by coercion—to say to the

741
Gibraltarians, "Join us, or else we will make your lives not worth living. We will strangle you economically. We will prevent you from travelling outside your small two square miles, six square kilometres of space, and eventually we will bludgeon you into reuniting wit Us".
I do not need to emphasise the danger of such an approach from the point of view of the Gibraltarians, or even from the point of view of the United Kingdom which has looked after the destiny of Gibraltar since the Treaty of Utrecht, since 270 years ago; a longer period than most members of the United Nations have been in existence. But I want to emphasise four difficulties that will be created if this situation is allowed to continue for much longer. I do this not in the way of uttering a threat, but more in sorrow than in anger because I see the difficulties arising principally for Spain—for the Spanish people and the Spanish Government—unless a way out can be found to this problem.
The first possibility is that the hearts of the Gibraltarians will harden and that people there in a majority will decide no longer to approve the Lisbon agreement. Then they might start making various requests to the British Government. Perhaps a request to negotiate in a slightly different way Spain's accession to the EEC; perhaps mentioning Article 2 of the Luxembourg protocol which provides for special provision in the treaty to be made for the demographic situation of Luxembourg. There could be a case for putting forward such a clause in the Spanish accession treaty. This is something that might be urged on the British Government and on the British House of Commons and on your Lordships' House, should this situation continue.
The second possibility is that the hearts of the British will harden. It could be that until the frontier is opened it might be decided that there should be no talks, and if there are no signs that the frontier is going to be opened the British Government could decide that there will be no talks, and Spain would then lose the chance of discussing any other point in the Lisbon agreement. They would lose the chance that they have negotiated to talk about Gibraltar's long-term future. From the Spanish point of view, that would be a significant minus.
The third possibility is that the hearts of the other nine members of the European Community will begin to harden. The EEC Commission has already associated itself with the statements made by the Lord Privy Seal 18 months ago that it was inconceivable for the frontier to remain closed after Spanish accession to the EEC. If this agreement remains unfulfilled, the danger is that it could become a serious issue in the negotiations now being carried on between the Commission and Spain. It could make it even more difficult for Britain to support Spain's application for entry, and this at a time when Britain is perhaps the most enthusiastic member of the Community pressing for Spanish accession. Other large member states of the Community are less enthusiastic.
The fourth difficulty—again I am speaking from the Spanish point of view—is that it puts off until the Greek calends the day when the people of Gibraltar might perhaps in a future generation decide that they want a closer relationship with Spain. I suggest
742
that for every day those restrictions remain in force, a year will elapse before there can be any closer political unity between Gibraltar and Spain. So if any Spanish Government have it in their mind eventually to regain Gibraltar territory, the one way of making sure they will not fulfil that objective is by maintaining those restrictions.
I suggest therefore that this agreement is very much in the Spanish interest as well as that of the United Kingdom and of the Atlantic Alliance and European Community. I was delighted when it was signed last April. I am greatly disappointed it has not been implemented, and I hope the Secretary of State will say, if there is an agreement, whether it still stands and, if so, what chance he sees of the talks getting off the ground, the frontier being opened and progress being made.
My second question is a little more difficult but I hope he can answer it. For how much longer is he prepared to see the present situation continue, to permit an agreement to remain on the books without the main provision being followed up by one of the signatory states? For how long will he let the agreement lie on the table without the first step being taken by the Spanish side? That is the difficulty faced by the British Government and the people of Gibraltar who have come to this country hoping for an answer to that question.
It is a sign of Britain's role in the world nowadays that our continued possession of Gibraltar depends on the will of the people who live in that territory. Should they at some time in the future wish to unite with Spain or take upon themselves some other form of Administration, I do not believe for one moment that any British Government would stand in their way. But the first step towards any development of Gibraltar's position vis-à-vis Spain must depend on the implementation of agreements freely signed between the two other main participants in the dispute. For this it is essential that Spain begins to talk to the people at the southern tip of the Iberian peninsula as friends and relatives; they must use the language of democracy, for Gibraltar is a democracy, in speaking to the few dozen thousand people who live as neighbours with them. It is only by adopting such a friendly approach that the good of Europe and the Western Alliance can be maintained, that the good of Gibraltar can be maintained, and that the good of Spain in the final analysis can be brought forward. For that it is necessary to use not the behaviour and language of Franco but the language of democracy and the new Spain which has developed in past years otherwise with such tremendous success. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, the House will have listened with pleasure and respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the temperate and balanced way in which he treated a very difficult and possibly dangerous question. His Motion divides itself naturally into two parts, as he will agree: British-Spanish relations, a very important aspect of what we are discussing, and, as he reminded us, the question of Gibraltar. Both are related, unfortunately, and I shall first address myself to a few observations on British-Spanish

743
relations, coming to Gibraltar later by a circuitous route.
British-Spanish relations have historically been close. They have been interrupted from time to time by people like Sir Francis Drake and General Franco, but on the whole for four, five or six centuries the two countries have shown that they are congenial, two proud European countries drawn from the same fount of civilisation, two imperialist countries, adventurist in the best sense, pushing to the furthest ends of the world and taking with them some cruelties but a good deal of culture—their origin, their law and indeed their language. I was told as I was coming into the Chamber today that, while English is the most widely spoken first language in the world, it is followed by Russian and then by Spanish; and when we consider that usually rather disregarded part of the world, South America, we realise how far Spanish culture and the Spanish language has penetrated. Thus, we have made our contribution as two proud members of the European community over the centuries.
Moreover, the successful re-emergence of Spanish democracy after the long nightmare of Fascist repression has served to reinforce the friendship and understanding between our two countries. There is a fundamental comradeship and congeniality between us. Indeed, not only have both put together, temporarily, wide-flung empires; they have also extricated themselves from the temptations and trials of colonialism, in their different ways perhaps, and in the event successfully.
Further, speaking perhaps as a Gaelician, as they would say in Spain, these are two countries which have always striven to combine a regard for the natural and reasonable aspirations of their component nationalties with the need for a strong united state. That is the meaning of the United Kingdom, which has striven to combine four nationalities with due regard for their distinctive rights but also necessary regard for their needed unity. The same is true of Spain, and when we come to consider the question of Gibraltar I hope my Spanish friends will perhaps remember that it is important to handle local minority feelings with more than geographical, legal and historical nicety—with a touch of understanding and looking forward to the larger needs of the state as a whole.
Both in their different ways have made their contribution and now they are poised to enter the European Community; the Spaniards are poised to enter perhaps in 1984, and of course there are a few difficulties on the way. After all, the Pyrenees have always presented a certain difficulty between the Spaniards and the French; it is not merely between the British and the Spanish that such difficulties have arisen, and perhaps by 1984 they will have vaulted the Pyrenees and joined the European Community. They will, in the splendid phrase of the noble Lord, more and more have consolidated themselves into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the general security and peace of the West and therefore of the world. They will also have co-operated bilaterally and multilaterally in easing the flow of trade, so that the recovery of Europe in the first place, then North America, and the world from the present recession will have been achieved.
744
All that will not be without difficulty. Spain has its difficulties with its immediate neighbours. It is not for us in this House to go into those difficulties, but they are a fact. It also has its difficulties with us, but before we examine those difficulties—and I shall not detain the House unduly—let us see what Spain can contribute. Culturally, in the arts and the sciences, there is no need to itemise its contributions in the past, nor its likely future contributions. Geographically, with Portugal, and strategically Spain has always been of the utmost importance to peace in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, and everything that we do and say in this country must keep that fact in mind, so that we do not unwittingly upset the balance of security—I shall not say of power—along the vital sea route of the Mediterranean. Spain, together with Turkey—the resolution of whose differences with Greece would be a major move towards the strength of the West and therefore the peace of the world—stands in an extremely important geographical and strategic position.
There is also the fact that in this country there is a warm welcome among our people and our Government to the people and Government of Spain, as there is to Greece and Portugal, too, to join the Community. We look forward to their becoming part of their natural habitat, politically and economically—the Western democracies—and we want to do everything that we can to smooth their entry into the Community.
What are the difficulties? It is not just Gibraltar. There are others; but quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked us to consider Gibraltar as being the major difficulty. I do not regard Gibraltar and the Spanish accession to the Community as being linked. Generally I feel in favour of linkage in matters such as disarmament. One must not be too dogmatic about these things. I have sympathy with the noble Lord in his approach, but these are two separate questions, though they are related. Like members of a family, they have personalities of their own, though they are related; and I would put it somewhat like this. While we wish to do everything to smooth the entry of Spain into the community of the Western world, and indeed to welcome it, we cannot envisage even the possibility of our agreeing to a constitutional change in the status of Gibraltar without the full, free acquiescence of the people of that state.
The two questions are not related. All power to those who are working for the integration of Spain, and indeed of Greece and Portugal, into the Common Market. Indeed all power to those who are beavering away at the remarkable problem of how to integrate three substantially agricultural, and substantially marginally agricultural, countries into a community of nine which is already grappling with the complexities of its own common agricultural policy. From time to time I have asked whether the Government are satisfied with the preparations for the integration of three such countries—countries which, broadly speaking, depend as to a third of the economy on agriculture, much of it marginal, some of it, paradoxically enough, capable of creating unwanted surpluses. What progress has there been in cohering the facts of life in these three countries with the facts of diminishing life in the CAP already in Western Europe? I hope that that work is going on; otherwise instead of helping to solve

745
the problems of the Common Market, the accession of these three agricultural countries may well serve to exacerbate them. However, we shall all do our best.
The point is that while we are willing to do our best to smooth their entry into the Community, the question of Gibraltar stands on its own. There is no doubt about the feelings and views of the people of Gibraltar. The only way in which you can find out how people feel is to ask them, and to ask them without any question of duress. That was done by my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am delighted to see him here, and I understand that he is to intervene in the debate. He knows more about this than any of us, and he will correct me if I am wrong. In, I believe, 1965 he instituted a referendum on the rock in which 90 per cent. of the people took part, and 12,000 said that they wished to remain attached to Britain, and I think about 30 or 40 said that they did not. That was 15 years ago. I do not want another referendum, because I do not want to stir up even statistical rows between ourselves and such good friends as the Spaniards. But those are the facts of life.
The noble Lord was quite right. As I have said this from this Box about, for instance, the Falkland Islanders, in relation to the claims of the Argentinians to those islands, you cannot bludgeon, bully communities into formal constitutional attachment to another state; you can only win them. The history of the world is full of the blood and misery which has been caused by trying to force people to stifle their essential feelings, their loyalties. There have also been many examples of countries which have been able to persuade their neighbours to join them in a communality, to work with them, while in no way shedding any essential of their distinctive nationality or culture. Surely this is the way of the future. It is not the way of the communist past. It is the way of—I almost said the social democratic future.
A noble Lord: Careful!
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: Perhaps I should not say that. I believe that it is the way of the future, and I believe that my own race, the Welsh, have shown that this can be done; always outnumbered, never out-manoeuvred. Throughout our history we have striven to face the facts, to make our contribution, to insist upon our distinctive personality, and at the same time to be an essential part of the British unity, at least from the times of the Tudors onwards. My noble friend who had the good sense to marry a Welsh wife can hardly disagree with that.
So we come to the Lisbon agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who puts these matters so well—sometimes I wish he preceded me on these occasions—and I both congratulated the Foreign Secretary on the success that he achieved in Lisbon; and I retract not a word of what I said then, about 11 months ago. What happened was this—and I have the Statement and communiqué before me. I will not quote formally, but every word I draw from these two documents will be seen to be part of them. In a spirit of friendship the two Governments reached an agreement—these are the actual words—on the re-establishment of direct communications in the region. It is essential to tolerable life in the general area of La Linea, as the noble
746
Lord knows.
Then they went on to say—and I will quote this paragraph, paragraph 5, in its entirety:
" The Spanish Government, in reaffirming its position on the re-establishment of the territorial integrity of Spain,"—
this is their way of putting it—
restated its intention that in the outcome of the negotiations the interests of the Gibraltarians would be fully safeguarded ".
That is fully understood. We understand how the Spanish Government and the Spanish people feel about Gibraltar, and they put it quite fairly in that paragraph.
But the paragraph went on—and let us remember that this is a jointly agreed communiqué:
"For its part, the British Government will fully maintain its commitment to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the Government of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution".
No undertaking that nothing will be done to change the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their full agreement could have been put more clearly than that; and I am quite sure that when the Foreign Secretary rises to reply to this debate he will repeat those words and that intention in the best possible spirit to our Spanish friends, urging them to go about the task of winning over, if it is possible, the Gibraltarians to their state in a way utterly different from that which they have been pursuing in the past.
What has been happening? What, indeed, was it the purpose of the meeting to stop? It was the most vexatious and in some cases the most dangerous restriction on the movement of Spaniards, Gibraltarians and other people across La Linea; petty as well as practical difficulties about moving even to work; the penalising of those least able to bear the pretentions of national Governments—people who wanted to cross a line to work, to earn their daily living.
In the air space—and this is where the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been of extreme importance in this House—there have been restrictions which have forced our pilots to add to the hazards of flight which normally attend them and their passengers. They have had to take a circuitous route instead of the safest and most direct. How can action of that sort—and one could instance others—help to create, first, the best possible feeling between the two countries and, secondly, the best possible basis for the reconciliation of the Spaniards and the Gibraltarians?
So, in opening this debate, and in speaking in the way he did, which made it possible for me in my own way to support practically all he said, I think the noble Lord has done a service. It is a message of the most genuine friendship to an old friend; a message of our intention to do everything we can, commercially and culturally, to improve bilateral and multilateral relations with them; and a message to a substantial European power like ourselves (if no longer a world power, certainly a substantial European power) that we look forward to sitting with them and standing with them in the joint concerns of the civilised world—the defence of freedom and the promotion of prosperity for all concerned. It is the message that we hope that a proud, accomplished nation like this, led so well these days, will be able to look at this issue of Gibraltar in its historical, in its inevitable, connotation. The British can do no other than to listen to what the Gibraltarians themselves wish to happen to what they

747
regard as their homeland, and any other request will not be acceded to by any party in this country, in this House or the other, or, indeed, outside in the country itself.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, in view of the programme, and as this debate is due to close at 5.28, I regret that our time will not allow more than 10 minutes for each speaker, so that my noble friend can have a full 20 minutes.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I speak with great diffidence on this subject because I am in no way an expert on Anglo-Gibraltarian-Spanish relations, and I am not sure whether there is any very definite Liberal Party view on the matter. Certainly I can confine my very brief remarks to 10 minutes, and I suspect that I shall not speak for more than about five minutes. Indeed, I hope to make only a few general remarks.
I myself would not disagree in principle with what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, broadly speaking, when introducing his Motion. Neither would I necessarily disagree with much of what Lord Goronwy-Roberts said, except that I rather doubt whether you can apply to Gibraltar the same sort of confederal or regional criteria which can be adopted by the Government of Spain in regard to Catalonia or Andalucia or the Basque country. The situation seems to me to be a little different from that. I would hope, of course, with the noble Lord, that the Gibraltarians will remain Social Democrats whatever happens! I suppose that may be a solution because the future here may, so we are told, lie in that direction, too. But, of course, no Liberal would be in favour of the Gibraltarians being made (as it were) forcibly to become Spaniards, which they are not, after all. If not British by race, which they certainly are not, they are, as it were, British by adoption, and the idea that they should be forcibly converted to being Spaniards seems to be an almost inconceivable suggestion. I am not even sure that the Spanish Government itself would be in favour of such a thesis as that.
On the other hand, if Spain should join the Economic Community—and I believe there is every reason to suppose it will in about three or four years' time—it must be clear that the whole future of Gibraltar (this hot potato, as it were, now between us and the Spanish Government in our relations) must be regarded and considered from a European point of view. There is no other alternative, for, if Spain joins the Community, Gibraltar will be a part of the Community as a part of Great Britain—Britain is part of the Community and therefore Gibraltar is part of the Community—and Spain will be part of the Community.
Therefore, in those circumstances there must be and there will be, I suppose, complete freedom of trade between Spain and Great Britain and Gibraltar. If that is so, then the barriers are down to a large extent and we must contemplate a situation in which Gibraltar, if it so wishes, may still continue to be part of the United Kingdom but the United Kingdom and Spain are both part of the greater whole. Therefore, to that extent, if Spain does join the Community—and
748
I hope and believe it will—the problem must be considered as solved. If you believe, my Lords, as I do, that the European Community will eventually—I say "eventually"—become some sort of political community, then clearly Gibraltar could not be physically separate from Spain.
That seems to be a statement of the obvious. I do not know whether the Government accept that. But there is another consideration that has not come up so far. What about NATO? At the moment the Spanish Government is against Spain becoming a member of NATO, for reasons which we can well appreciate. But, in three, four or five years' time, who knows? It might well be that Spain will then apply to be a member of NATO. In that case, since Great Britain has more or less withdrawn physically from the defence of the Mediterranean, the great base of Gibraltar will still be of very great importance to the Western world and it will have to be—and I hope will be—a NATO base. If it is a NATO base and Spain is a member of NATO, then Spain will have to take part in the administration of that base along with ourselves, the Americans and everybody else. This must surely be recognised by the Spaniards, ourselves and by the Gibraltarians.
So during the interval before Spain becomes a member of the United Nations and possibly also of NATO—and it may be in three, four or five years' time—the situation is not desperate, the negotiations presumably go on, every effort must be made to think what will happen from the point of view of Gibraltarians, ourselves and the Spaniards in the event of Spain becoming a member of two bodies of which we are all members. This consideration must dominate the negotiations now going on and which I hope will go on with the Spanish Government. I cannot see why, if all of us have that firmly in mind, some kind of compromise situation will not be achievable. The Gibraltarians surely in such circumstances could have local autonomy; they could administer their own affairs. They need not be Spanish citizens, and they would not be. They would not, I suppose, pay Spanish taxes. They could be an autonomous body in a greater whole. Why not, my Lords? I cannot see why the Spaniards, ourselves and the Gibraltarians should not agree on some solution in the future, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that my noble friend Lord Bethell has done a very good service to this country, this House, Spain and of course to Gibraltar, by raising this matter this afternoon. It is a matter that is riddled with disappointments. Many of us hoped when the unlamented Franco regime departed that the liberal-minded successor Government of King Juan Carlos would withdraw these measures against Gibraltar which were of course initiated by the Franco regime and no doubt represented an aspect of its policy. Unfortunately that opportunity was missed.
Then again, in April, it seemed that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary had achieved yet another of those diplomatic triumphs with which his career has been adorned: we thought that this matter had

749
been brought to an end. It is clear—and it will be interesting to hear what my noble friend says about it—that the Spanish Foreign Minister appeared to agree to raise these restrictions (I think by June was the date indicated) and yet here we are in January and they arc still in full effect.
The sad and disappointing fact about this is that from the Spanish angle these restrictions are purely futile. As the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, no British Government of any colour could conceivably hand over 25,000 loyal Gibraltarians to any foreign or other rÉgime which they themselves are not prepared to accept willingly. Any British Government that tried to do such a thing would be swept out of office. That being so, one then sees what the effect of these restrictions has been on the thinking of the people of Gibraltar. When I used to visit the Rock as a comparatively young man it was at a time when 8,000 Spanish workers came in from La Linea and the adjoining villages to work in the dockyard and in Gibraltar. Gibraltarians went out freely at weekends to picnic and swim on the beaches of that lovely part of Andalucia. There was a constant social movement between the people in the country, and the attitude of the Gibraltarians to Spain was very relaxed. Indeed, a friendly approach at that time might well have led to an agreed closer relationship.
My Lords, what has happened now? Every time one visits Gibraltar one sees how opinion has hardened. The attempt by Spain to impose these restrictions has—as it surely could have been foreseen with any people of spirit—hardened the reaction of the people of Gibraltar against Spain and all it stands for. Therefore when these restrictions are withdrawn—as I hope they shortly will be—there will be a hard and long job of work before the Spanish Government and the Spanish people (in an effort which I hope and believe they will try to make) assuage the harsh feelings which their own actions have done so much to create. We start on the basis that these restrictions are from the point of view of those who impose them utterly futile and self-defeating.
Particularly in view of what my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, I shall not waste time on the vexed subject of the historic claims of Spain. I do not believe that they have any validity. We have been the sovereign in Gibraltar for longer than Spain ever was. Indeed, the only competitor in that respect is perhaps His Majesty King Hassan of Morocco who, so far as I know, has not put forward any claim. Even if historic claims had any validity, in the penultimate decade of the 20th century one cannot hand over a live and living community to people to whom it does not want to be handed over, even if the historic claims were excellent. This is wholly contrary to the prevailing and very proper spirit of the age. I am sure that those who now govern Spain who are liberal-minded and in many ways attractive people, must realise this.
But these restrictions continue. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, referred to my interest, due partly to a fairly recent past capacity. A restriction about which we hear least in practice is that of access to Gibraltar airport. It is worth a word because not only is it a peculiarly unpleasant restriction but it is perhaps indicative of an unhappy state of mind of those who impose it. I say at once that in the ordinary
750
way this restriction does not make access to Gibraltar airport dangerous. If it were, I am quite sure that the Civil Aviation Authority would not allow British airlines to operate into that airport. In words which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne used some little time ago (in response I think to a question of mine) these restrictions tend to erode the margin of safety.
May I put it this way, my Lords. The runway for Gibraltar runs, broadly, East to West and the prevailing wind is westerly. Normal landings are from the East and normal take-offs are towards the West. In both cases, in order to keep clear of Spanish airspace, this involves a sharp turn at relatively low speed and relatively low altitude. With an efficient aircraft and qualified pilot there is no particular danger in that, provided nothing else goes wrong. But should there happen any of the multifarious things that can go wrong in an aricraft, such as turbulence, which exists in the vicinity of the Rock under certain wind conditions or a deficiency in the aircraft engines or controls, and should this supervene at the moment that the manoeuvre is being undertaken, the consequences could be serious. Every pilot flying into Gibraltar knows that. Not very long ago I sat alongside a pilot when we were landing at Gibraltar and I noticed that by the time we were taxi-ing in, the perspiration was pouring from his face. It is not an operation that is particularly easy, though in skilled hands it is as safe as most things, provided nothing else goes wrong.
What makes these restrictions so peculiarly silly is that aircraft on the run from London to Gibraltar fly over the whole of Spain. They come in generally on the airway of Bilbao and they come out over Malaga into the Mediterranean. They are forced to make these manoeuvres over the airport. The aircraft has therefore been flying in Spanish airspace on that very flight for over an hour; yet there is a restriction in going into that little bit of Spanish airspace mostly over territorial waters near the Isthmus leading to Gibraltar. The pilots are forbidden to do it. Eroding as it does the margin of safety and serving no Spanish interest whatsoever, that seems a peculiarly mean and unpleasant restriction.
Also, let your Lordships remember, it is a restriction which may one day be not the cause of but may contribute to a serious accident. Obviously the longer it continues, statistically, the greater is the chance of that happening. Were that to happen, I am sure all those concerned would have in mind that it would produce in this country a reaction of public opinion against the Government imposing these restrictions which would be very serious indeed and which might well cause problems over Spanish entry into the EEC.
Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said, it seems as though it is in the interests of everybody, but above all of the Spanish Government, that these restrictions should be withdrawn. I know it is difficult, when restrictions have been maintained for some time and do not appear to have served their purpose, to execute what in this country is sometimes, slightly offensively, called a "U-turn"; but Governments of all sorts have to do this from time to time and it is remarkable how quickly they are forgotten. Therefore I hope that very quickly now these restrictions will be withdrawn. I say that with particular confidence that they will be because I have, together with pro-

751
bably most of your Lordships, an enormous admiration for the skill, negotiating power and tact of my noble friend. We wish him all the best of luck in the exercise of those splendid qualities.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Lee of Newton: My Lords, when we are looking at an agreement such as this, I think we should try to put ourselves in the position of the people of Gibraltar. The only point on which I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is that he said the restrictions started at a date in 1969. They have gone on far longer than that. Therefore we must now look at how the people of Gibraltar look at an agreement which the Spanish Government are now refusing to implement. It is the case—and Gibraltarians know this as well as I do—that the Spanish Government's ultimate objective is to change the sovereignty of Gibraltar, and the longer this procrastination goes on the more the anxieties of the Gibraltarians will in fact increase. It is that determination by the Spanish Government to effect the change of sovereignty which has been at the heart of their activities ever since 1964.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that among these restrictions was the closing of the gates at La Linea and refusing to allow British subjects living in Spain to get to their work in Gibraltar. The restrictions also included the withdrawal of Spanish labour from the dockyard in Gibraltar. They even discovered that the Spanish ladies working in cafés and restaurants in Gibraltar were in moral danger and they withdrew them as well. This kind of thing is ridiculous towards people with whom they have lived for hundreds of years, and the anxieties and fears they have created will last for a very long time indeed. They then downgraded the customs post at La Linea so that no vehicles were allowed from Spain into Gibraltar, and they refused to allow tourists to start tours of Spain from Gibraltar.
When I went out there, in late October or early November 1966, the Council of Ministers, led by my good friend Sir Joshua Hassan and my friend, Peter Isola, had already determined that they were going to change the whole economic base of Gibraltar because they knew that the restrictions placed upon them were not temporary. The only way that those restrictions could be raised was by their surrendering to the demands of the Spanish Franco Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in feeling disappointed that when we got rid of the Fascist Government we did not get rid of the demands on Gibraltar: that is absolutely right. But the Council of Ministers then in Gibraltar were quite determined to make themselves economically independent of Spain and this must be very much taken into account when we arc discussing the future.
After close discussions with Sir Joshua and his colleagues, I was convinced that their development plans were sound and proper. I was able to offer them £600,000 as the initial payment towards beginning their plans. That was to be the first tranche of some £2,200,000, which would enable them to build a great many more houses, to make the Rock far and away more attractive for tourists and to help them to divert
752
tourist traffic across the Straits to Morocco. Incidentally, my wife and I were able to go the following year as tourists and saw the success of that.
So there was an attempt to create an economy in Gibraltar which could stand independently of what Spain does to them and afford a decent living standard to the people of Gibraltar. At the invitation of Sir Joshua, I walked down Main Street to a reception that he gave me at the Town Hall. I discussed with the traders and other people on Main Street what would be the effect of the Spanish blockade. Trade had slumped by about 50 per cent. and people's living standards had been reduced; and yet I do not think I found one who did not demand the right to retain a close affinity with us, no matter what the Spaniards had done.
I hope, then, that we shall take into consideration that when that economy has been built on the basis of independence from Spain it is hardly feasible that the Gibraltarians should switch it back to dependence on Spain after all the travail through which they have gone. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter: when you have had 17 or 18 years of this kind of thing it is not new, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to think that the iron may enter into your soul and your heart. That has happened, and it happened because of what the Spaniards have done. Therefore we must take that into consideration when we look at what the future may be.
I hope, even at this late stage, that there can be a rapprochement and that the Spanish Government will realise that the brutalities of Francoism have no place in the democracy which now rules in Spain. I hope they will see that they can have a desirable neighbour, a neighbour which wants to be on the best possible terms with them if only they will allow it. As my noble friend Lord Goronwy—Roberts said, when the referendum took place the number of those who wanted to go to Spain was derisory—about 40, I think. I have been in most parts of the British Commonwealth and indeed in many parts of the world and I have never seen such enthusiasm, warmth and friendship as I received in Gibraltar: astounding to anybody. Not only is personal honour at stake for those of us who try to help them, but the honour of this Government and of Britain depends upon our continued efforts to show the Gibraltarians that they are part of us.
There can be no divorce while they overwhelmingly demand affinity with this nation. I hope that that will be the attitude which the Government portray to the Spanish Government when the negotiations resume. In that sense, the Government will carry with them the wishes of the whole of the British nation, for there can be no doubt now that Gibraltar is part of us. I am a Lancastrian and it is as much to me as part of Lancashire. The thought that we can be driven apart by anything that Spain can do is positively anathema to me.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, according to a Conservative Party research department publication of 22nd December 1980,
"The British Government has long been an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement of the Community, to include Greece,

753
Spain and Portugal, since their return to democratic forms of government".
Fair enough! But that document goes on to say,
"Negotiations between the Community and Portugal and Spain are progressing, but Spain, with a population of 35 million, a large agricultural sector and a fast expanding industrial sector, presents far more difficulties for the Community in terms of integration".
But I understand, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that Spain does not realistically expect to join the Community until the beginning of 1984 at the earliest.
However, a further difficulty in terms of integration must surely be our differences with Spain over Gibraltar. Bearing this in mind, I am very concerned about the lack of goodwill, to put it no higher, on the part of the Spanish Government in this matter, in spite of their return, as is recognised by Her Majesty's Government, to a democratic form of government. For, if one refers to the joint Anglo-Spanish agreement on Gibraltar of last April, that states that the British and Spanish Governments, for reasons stated in the document, intend in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions to resolve in a spirit of friendship the Gibraltar problem. Both Governments also agreed to start negotiations, with a view to overcoming all differences between them on Gibraltar, and the Spanish Government decided to suspend the application of the measures which are at present in force.
At this stage, it might not be inappropriate if I refer to a few words which I said in your Lordships' House on 9th March 1966, just on 15 years ago. I said,
"I am conscious of the fact that next month there are to be negotiations with Spain on the question of Gibraltar, but abnormal restrictions over the last sixteen months have existed on the frontier of Gibraltar ".—[Official Report; col. 1195.]
Your Lordships will no doubt recall that the talks opened on 18th May 1966, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who was Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs at the time, said on 11th July 1966 that the talks would resume the following day. He added:
"But I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the opening of the talks on May 18 that we wish the restrictions at the frontier to be removed".
He went on to say:
"We shall continue to press this point ".—[Official Report; col. 6.]
That was 15 years ago. We are now in January 1981, and June 1980 passed by with no suspension of the application of the measures in force; not even, I understand, the imposition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred, by an order published in Madrid on 12th April 1967 of a zone in which all flying will be prohibited, this zone being in the immediate vicinity of Gibraltar.
As noble Lords are aware, the establishment of this zone considerably reduced, and reduces, the payload of aircraft using the airfield at Gibraltar. This may even have been a contributory factor in the 1976–77 decision by British Airways to discontinue the Gibraltar-Madrid air route, which had been in operation since 1958. What goodwill, what spirit of friendship, can exist between this country and Spain? What credence can be placed even on their democratically
754
elected Government's words, when there has been no implementation whatsoever of last April's proposals and agreements, when it was, in effect, then envisaged that the preparations would be completed no later than 1st June 1980.
Furthermore, the following month—that is, July last year—Gibraltar Airways, with a Civil Aviation Authority licence, applied to the Spanish authorities for permission to resume flights on the Gibraltar-Madrid route. But I understand that no reply has been received up to date and, even more, that the Spanish Government object to the resumption of these air services. Therefore, there is a further restriction.
I must say how delighted I am that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be replying to this debate, one reason being that I am convinced that he is dedicated to the concept that nothing should be done which might weaken in any way the existing ties that link Gibraltarians to the United Kingdom and its people. The second reason, as was stressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is that I believe in his great talents as a negotiator.
Having said that, I am sure my noble friend Lord Carrington will recognise the great strain which has been placed for so many years upon the Government and people of Gibraltar, on their two and a quarter square miles of rock. I believe that it is approximately 20 years ago—in December 1960 and in November 1961—that a United Nations General Assembly resolution affirmed that all peoples have a right to self-determination. That was at the time when the Special Committee of 24 was set up. If these people have that right, surely, too, they have a right to normal communications. Again, as I understand, both the British and Spanish Governments reached agreement last April on the re-establishment of direct communications in the region, but no implementation has been forthcoming.
Finally, bearing in mind the stress and strain of these last two decades on all Gibraltarians, I much regret that Her Majesty's Government have decided in their British Nationality Bill not to include Gibraltarians in their definition of a "British citizen". For Gibraltar, too, has a special position in Europe, with the international status of Gibraltarians as Community Nationals, which can never be aspired to by the peoples of other dependent territories. Furthermore, the White Paper, Cmnd. 7987, which came out in July 1980 under the heading British Nationality Law, says in paragraph 39, below the title British Citizenship—Permanent Arrangements for Acquisition, etc.:―
"The Government accept that after a definite period people whose stay in the country is free of conditions ought to be enabled to apply for our citizenship; but they think nonetheless that applicants should be expected to demonstrate a real intention to throw in their lot with this country".
As an administrative concession, Gibraltarians are allowed unconditional entry into the United Kingdom. I understand that the Bill will not affect this. Her Majesty's Government have no intention, I am advised, of withdrawing this concession. So in effect the Gibraltarians are all potential applicants. For I am sure that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will agree that throughout the years the Gibraltarians have shown their loyalty to this country—for instance, as proven during the last war, by the referendum to which the

755
noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, referred and during all the years which have since elapsed.
Over the years I think that the Gibraltarians have demonstrated, to use the words of the White Paper, a real intention to throw in their lot with this country. So would it not be more equitable to confer British citizenship upon Gibraltarians by including them in the Bill rather than to confer upon them, in the words of Her Majesty's Government, parallel citizenship which I know they consider, and which I am sure other people consider, to be a second-class sort of citizenship? The Gibraltarians—this is important—are to retain the rights which follow from European Community membership, which they possess uniquely among the dependent territories. Therefore would it not be more logical and practical, as they are of a dependent territory within the Community, uniquely to make them British citizens?
It may be that this evening my noble friend Lord Carrington will not be in a position to answer some of these points, but I hope that he will look upon them very favourably.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Greenwood of Rossendale: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for having introduced the debate. I am also indebted to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in spending part of an over-full day taking part in the discussion.
To me, this is a most important subject. I am constantly worried about the status of Gibraltar and its citizens. I have a great deal of sympathy with the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has just made. I never cease to marvel that so small a community should produce so many capable and responsible leaders as the Crown Colony of Gibraltar. We are wedded to the Colony not only through our history but through our personal regard for men like Sir Joshua Hassan and the other political leaders of the country.
I admit that this is one of my King Charles's heads. The other is the Falkland Islands. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I intend no personal criticism of him or of Sir Ian Gilmour when I speak on this subject. They are—I hope I shall not embarrass them by saying so—outstandingly impressive Foreign Ministers who would grace any Government of which they were members. They have many achievements to their credit. However, in the case of Gibraltar I think one has to admit that they are to some extent the prisoners of policies evolved by previous Administrations. In the circumstances, they did well in the Lisbon talks, but I hope most seriously that they plan no concessions.
I would suggest very modestly to them that all they need to do is to say clearly and repeatedly that we are there and that we stay there until the people ask us to leave. I do not think we can go any further than that, especially in the light of Spain's failure to make progress over the Lisbon agreement. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will say that what I have suggested is their policy and I am prepared to accept that that is true, but I do not believe that the people of Spain and of Gibraltar will wholly accept that so long
756
as we go on having discussions on this subject and so long as there is no progress on the implementation of Lisbon.
Our rights under the Treaty of Utrecht are absolutely clear. The wishes of the people of Gibraltar are just as clear. I believe, and I think most of your Lordships believe, that their dignity and their patience should be rewarded. They are bound to be anxious, so long as we as a country seem to confirm that there is something to discuss.
I was impressed by the speech which Mr. Latham made in another place, in which he said that there may be a Spanish problem but there is no Gibraltar problem. That wholly sums up my point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, reminded us of the way in which Spain is now hastening to the support of the free world by joining us in the European Community. Irony of ironies: she hosted the Helsinki Conference. Like Lord Bethell, I should like to be able to help the Spaniards: a lovable people with high cultural achievements. But I have no confidence that 10 or 15 years from now Spain will still be a democratic country. I hope that the Government and noble Lords will bear that in mind. Behaving like a bunch of bar-room bullies is certainly no credential for joining the free world. So let us say, once and for all, that we in this country have not the slightest intention of appeasing in any way the enemies of our British friends on the Rock.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, my own contribution this afternoon will be more economic in character than political for I, like others in your Lordships' House, prefer to rely upon the excellent skills of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Also, having, as I do, many Spanish cousins, if our discussions privately in our homes on the subject of Gibraltar bear any resemblance to those which take place at the conference table, I would prefer to be well out of them.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton. Apart from any political negotiations, surely one of the greatest services we could do Gibraltar at this time would be to help it in whatever way we can to develop and build an economic independence. The removal of the blockade and the opening of the frontier could be the biggest single thing that would benefit the economy of Gibraltar. But if Gibraltar's economy were to become once again totally dependent upon the Spanish relationship, that could be a dangerous position for the future. Thus one asks oneself: Is it possible for Gibraltar to have an independent economy? From the inquiries which I have made I should have thought that the answer, over time, was, yes. But to do so she needs financial resources and relationships other than the historic ones of the past.
About a year ago I asked a Question in your Lordships' House as to why Gibraltar could not get more benefit out of membership of the Common Market. I took that up with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I did not get a very satisfactory reply so I thought that prior to this debate I would consult with the institutions of the Common Market, with the

757
Commission and with other governments and others who might be interested in this affair. While a humble back-bencher is not entitled to an official reply from the Commission, if 1 had been entitled to an official reply it might have gone something like this: first of all, as concerns the Spanish blockade of Gibraltar, the Commission not only hopes but is convinced that it will be lifted before Spain becomes a member so that conditions can be created for the harmonious development of relations within the enlarged Community. The Commission—and presumably therefore the rest of the Common Market—would be totally on the side of the British Government, who are, of course, responsible for Gibraltar's external relations.
I said that I would not talk of politics but more of economics and the question 1 would ask first is, surely if one is a member of the EEC—and Gibraltar is a member—and one is a relatively poor part of the EEC, one should be entitled to receive benefits from that membership, particularly if those benefits are financial. Recognising, too, the vast contribution that the United Kingdom makes to the EEC budget, surely it would be right and proper that the Government should take what steps they can to ensure that Gibraltar receives financial support from those institutions.
Had I received an official reply on that, surely it would be something like this: if we come to Gibraltar's present situation, it has been recalled that, unless otherwise provided for, the provisions of the EEC treaties apply to Gibraltar, for whose external relation s the United Kingdom is responsible.
As for the financial opportunities of the Community, with the exception of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, these financial opportunities apply to Gibraltar under exactly the same conditions as to other parts of the Community. It is, however, the British Government which has to introduce the request. So in a letter to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne a year or so ago I asked why it was that, while the French territories such as Reunion and others benefit from Common Market funds and the long-term capital at low interest rates that could help Gibraltar, our territories did not. My noble friend, who was extremely courteous, wrote back to me and said that, in contrast, the French territories which receive funds are French overseas departments which constitute part of metropolitan France and which receive French aid and therefore qualify for ERDF support.
It was suggested that perhaps a way round this would be for the Government to designate Gibraltar as an assisted area. When I consulted with the Community officials, they were all very enthusiastic about the concept of providing finance to assist Gibraltar, but they said that it was the British Government who were dragging their feet. The Government quite rightly said that Gibraltar does not have a high level of unemployment and therefore cannot qualify, but because Gibraltar does not have a high level of unemployment that does not mean that it does not need economic help. Surely, Luxembourg, one of the richest countries in the Community, is entitled to such help. The Community officials want to help. The Government of Gibraltar want help. Other countries around the world would be willing to invest in Gibraltar, parti-
758
cularly in the tourist field, if there was financial support from institutions, because the involvement of the Community in Gibraltar would give outside investors, particularly those in the private sector, a feeling of political stability.
So the question to my noble friend is whether, if we cannot describe or define Gibraltar as an assisted area, we might in the French parlance call it part of metropolitan Britain, since, under the Community legislation—though I am not quite sure whether my noble friend Lord Merrivale would agree—I think the Gibraltarians are deemed to be United Kingdom nationals for Community purposes: under Community legislation they are British nationals irrespective of any new legislation which we may put through Parliament.
I know that this is a difficult area but it is one in which help should be given because we are not asking for our own money as we already provide aid to Gibraltar, as much as we can reasonably afford, and I know that it is very much appreciated by the Gibraltarians. So we are really talking of mechanisms. However, there are two other areas where growth could take place. Tourism I have mentioned, but, secondly, there is the importance of Gibraltar as a possible financial port of entry to the Community itself. Under current Community legislation, Gibraltar does not have to pay VAT. There are other financial advantages in many non-European territories and I think particularly of those in the Middle East who have been investing considerably in Palma, Majorca and other places in the Mediterranean, and people from Africa who would be willing to contemplate investment in various fields in Gibraltar, as I believe would British companies.
Therefore, my theme is that of course we will do all we can to help on the political front, but surely, even though these political negotiations may take time, there are certain steps which could be taken by the Department of Industry, the Department of Trade or whichever department of government it is, which could enable some form of economic growth in Gibraltar to be accelerated, thereby helping them to move towards economic independence, which would give them far greater freedom in the future.
4.26 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate, really for old times' sake and out of regard for my friend, Sir Joshua Hassan, who, with Mr. Isola and other political colleagues, hope to meet some of us from both Houses of Parliament later today.
It is often said that Gibraltar has been blockaded from 1969, which was when the frontier was absolutely closed, but as my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton rightly pointed out, the restrictions started considerably earlier than that. I know because I was the junior Minister in the erstwhile Colonial Office which, during my brief tenure there, was presided over by Lord Lee of Newton, by Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and by one or two other Secretaries of State who came and went. But the first turn of the screw, which has continued up to the present day, and is still operative, occurred of course some 16 years ago—and 16 years is

759
a large slice of anybody's life.
As some commentators, including the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out last spring, when the very welcome joint Anglo-Spanish statement was made, over this period of time, following the first really claustrophobic shock of the closing of the frontier, many Gibraltarians have become accustomed to their enclosed life. Let us be frank about it: some of them have undoubtedly profited by it, and have sound commercial reasons for wishing to keep potential competitors out. This is a factor of the situation of which I am sure the Foreign Secretary is well aware, and it is entirely understandable. All living creatures try to adapt themselves to changes in their environment; naturally enough, the commercial interests in Gibraltar have done so with the full support of the British Government. The Gibraltar Government itself has made the most strenuous efforts to make the very best of the situation in which it finds itself. One must admire the ingenuity and the persistence with which it has done this.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I agree with him in that the more that can be done on the positive side to engender confidence in Gibraltar in its capacity to provide a good life and a good living for all who live on the Rock, the less difficult I hope it may be to contemplate some of the wider issues into which I think one really must place the Gibraltar situation. The first of these is surely our parallel desire to see the continuing successful progress of Spain as a democratic country. For a few days last summer I had the privilege of representing your Lordships' House at a gathering in Madrid of presiding officers from almost all the legislatures of Western Europe. Even in such a brief visit one had the opportunity to consider and to discuss with Spanish parliamentarians and others some of the problems facing the Spanish Administration.
As we know ourselves—not least those of us in the Labour Party at the present time—democracy is an exceedingly demanding form of government. Without going into details, it is clear that its success in Spain, while far greater than some of us, certainly including myself, really believed possible, is still subject to stress. One must recall that for many years before his demise General Franco used the Gibraltar issue as a lightning conductor to direct attention from the failings of his own Administration. Emotions were whipped up and national pride was aroused. A one-sided view of history was widely promulgated in Spain with such vigour that most Spaniards even today fully believe what they were then told. The Spanish regime, in my humble opinion, is possibly even now not firmly enough in the saddle to be able to afford to risk losing too much face. Gibraltar is still a highly combustible issue for Spain and it is only realistic to acknowledge this.
There are, of course, other wider issues which have been touched upon in the debate, not only the internal condition of Spain, which is what most concerns me personally, but also the entry of Spain into the European Community, which should—and it would be the prayer of all of us, I am sure—do a great deal to stabilise and encourage the democratic endeavours of the Spanish Administration. There is also the question of the
760
possible entry of Spain into NATO, though frankly this is an area with which I cannot profess to be familiar.
Saying all this in no way detracts from one's loyalty to and friendship for the people of Gibraltar. I was delighted that within a few weeks of his accession to office the Foreign Secretary, and the Lord Privy Seal in the other place, reaffirmed the absolute pledge of the United Kingdom Government that there should be no change in the status of the people of Gibraltar without their democratically expressed desire. I did not discuss Gibraltar last summer in Madrid. It seemed to me tactless to do so. It was May, and one assumed—at least I did in my innocence—that by the beginning of June we really should at long last see some movement on the frontier. It was even reported, I noted, on the Gibraltar side that they were refurbishing the custom house in readiness for the change. So it seemed to me better to keep quiet. But, as we know, nothing has happened. I understand that in fact the Spanish Government offered to put the long drawn out stage by stage restrictions into reverse, by allowing as a first stage pedestrian access only across the frontier, but I gather that this was rejected on the Gibraltar side.
So where do we stand today? We all know that no one has greater powers of persuasion than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. But one has the feeling that possibly last April he over-persuaded his then Spanish opposite number. It was a gamble no doubt worth trying. But the complexities of the Spanish-Gibraltar saga will, I think, take more than one joint communiqué or one seminar in Segovia to resolve. Had the Spanish Government been sufficiently sure of itself in the very early period after the death of General Franco there might have been a moment for a quick solution; the emotions might have flowed that way. Be that as it may, the moment passed. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Foreign Secretary or the Lord Privy Seal had any illusions when the communiqué was issued last April that there was going to be a quick solution, that the matter was straightforward. They both made it clear that on the contrary they recognised that it would be a long haul. To put into reverse the consequences of Franco's arrogance and stupidity in bludgeoning and blackguarding the Gibraltarians over all these years has been made extraordinarily difficult.
Meanwhile, the susceptibilities of the Gibraltarians —I was almost going to say "islanders" because under this blockade that is whateffectively they have become—have been further deeply disturbed by the matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, which is their interpretation of the British Nationality Bill which is coming now before the other place. Their rights under EEC legislation, as I understand it, will remain unaffected; but as your Lordships' Select Committee on EEC matters—a committee which I have the honour to chair—have noted, these rights are not yet fully comprehensive for certain classes of persons. Perhaps we could be given a full statement by the Foreign Secretary as to exactly how the inhabitants of Gibraltar may be affected. I have studied the series of Answers to Questions in another place, but they did appear to me, not for the first time with Foreign Office Answers, designed to conceal as much as to reveal.

761
My personal view for what it is worth is that until a moment comes when there is a real political drive in Spain behind the desire to resolve the problems of Gibraltar a satisfactory solution is going to be very difficult to attain. There is the prospect of their failing, without this settlement, to get reasonably early EEC membership—granted there are other difficulties which have to be taken into account. Only when they fully recognise that these matters must be related as far as Great Britain is concerned will they revive the Spanish will to succeed which briefly flickered last April. If this happens, I can only plead with my friends in Gibraltar to take a statesmanlike and long-term view rather than the short-term and perhaps rather narrow one. Because for the sake of Western democracy and civilisation stability in Spain is at least as important as prosperity in Gibraltar. We must get these things into perspective, however dedicated we are—and I would yield to no one in my devotion to the future of the people of Gibraltar; but there are wider issues in the Western world which have also to be taken into account.
The basic United Kingdom pledge to the people of Gibraltar must remain firm; that goes absolutely without saying. But on matters of reciprocity and other negotiating points statemanship will surely be needed. Meanwhile, Spain should surely accept that to assume that all rights which would ultimately be achieved under EEC membership should be granted forthwith, without any further discussion and without any relaxation on the frontier, is a completely unrealistic stance. Some real generosity on the part of Spain and some touch of imagination, so utterly lacking in the previous Spanish regime, is obviously required when dealing with the Gibraltarians, who have been subjected to so many years of restriction. Earlier still, as some of us remember, they had to be evacuated to London during the last war in the struggle in which we were both engaged. If the Spanish Government—which has done so extraordinarily well in such very difficult circumstances, but still has very great difficulties to overcome—could simply realise that there are situations in which nobility may be the best policy, there might be some hope.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate my fear at having to follow the most statesmanlike contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady White. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for moving this Motion. I believe it to be most timely. However, I must express regret that he saw fit to word his Motion in the way that he did, for I believe that no person could be blamed for interpreting the Motion as suggesting that a stick should be held over the head of the Spanish people; that settlement or part settlement of the Gibraltar question should be a condition precedent upon the Kingdom of Spain's accession to the European Economic Community. I entirely agree, with respect, with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that to suggest that is at least tactless and undoubtedly wrong, for it should never be forgotten that no part of the Gibraltar problem was made a condition precedent upon the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community.
762
No person who has studied this complex problem in depth could, I most humbly suggest, come to any other conclusion than to describe the situation as born of an historical myth, that it is a defence anachronism, an economic liability and a hideous diplomatic embarrassment. Be that as it may—and your Lordships will no doubt be delighted to learn that I have no intention of developing these premises—I am most concerned as to why the stated agreement of both Governments involved appears not to have been implemented. We have heard in part the text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement and it really is quite clear. I should like to read two sentences. It says that the Spanish have
"decided to suspend the application of the measures at present in force. Both Governments have agreed that future co-operation should be on the basis of reciprocity and full equality of rights".
Those two sentences lie back to back. Indeed, just before that statement they passed, in the lower House of the Spanish Parliament, a motion which read, in part, that they invite the Government, that is the Spanish Government:
"to open the border as and when the progress of negotiations allow".
So we immediately see—and I am not being narrow and legalistic about this—that it appears that the Government of His Majesty the King of Spain have taken the two sentences together. However, as it reads, they are both separate. That is most unfortunate. But I cannot personally believe that either the Gibraltarians or the Spanish Government could be quibbling on so narrow a point of interpretation.
Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, suggested—if I may say so, in uncharacteristically vigorous language—that the sole responsibility for apparent inaction lies with the Government of His Majesty the King of Spain. I most seriously question that fact, and in so doing may I ask my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government are entirely satisfied that every encouragement, from all sides, has been received in order to implement the stated agreement to re-establish direct communications? And if there has been any hindrance, what is the nature of that hindrance?
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for opening this debate. I think that he was the right person to do so because I understand that he is an MEP. I should also like to hope that this debate will strengthen the hand of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary because he has seen, from all sides of the House, that he has support in his negotiations.
May I say a few words in regard to the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. The other day we had a debate in this House on the Social Fund. I noticed that Luxembourg is eligible, and therefore I presume that the Gibraltarians may be eligible for this fund. That would be very advantageous for them as regards re-training, other occupations and helping with their industries. So perhaps my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will be able to help me about that matter.

763
I believe that this debate has given us all an opportunity to say to the Gibraltarians that they can definitely trust this Government to look after their welfare. Their wishes are paramount. I understand that in the other place in a Written Answer to a Question on 15th January this year in regard to the Nationality Bill it was stated at column 612 that:
"Gibraltarians also have the right, as United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes, to enter the United Kingdom to seek and take up employment. That will remain the position".
That was a definite reply by the Home Secretary in the other place.
Also, the Minister, in replying to the Adjournment Debate raised by the honourable Member for Melton, said, at column 1599 on 10th December last:
"Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
That is one of the matters that it is perhaps difficult, at present, for the Spanish Government to understand.
Gibraltar has free elections and it is interesting to see that there are eight members of the Labour Party; six members of the Democratic Party for British Gibraltar—which I think speaks for itself—and one other. There are also—and this has not been mentioned previously—extremely well-organised trade unions which ensure that there is no cheap labour. They have the help of the Moroccans who I think they appreciate very much because they are very good workers. Furthermore, it has been mentioned that there are Royal Naval Dockyards and when we consider the money that is given to Gibraltar, I understand that the £15 million is mostly spent on the dockyards. At present they have two frigates, which they are repairing, and a warship.
There is a memorandum which has been signed by over 400 Gibraltarian servicemen, ex-servicemen and/or war veterans which was handed to His Excellency the Governor for transmission to Her Majesty's Government. It states among other matters that in the referendum held in 1967 at the instigation of the United Kingdom Government, an overwhelming majority of the people declared their wish to retain their links with the United Kingdom, and any change in the national status of the Gibraltarians is a breach of the terms of the referendum of 1967.
Ever since 1703, when the British took the Rock from the Spanish, the Gibraltarians have been most loyal to the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth. They have, as I think has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady White, given us great help in two world wars. I understand that the British gates remain open and although it would be a convenience if the Spanish gates were also open, Gibraltarians have shown that they can manage well as they are at present. So, when my noble friend replies, I should like to know when the report dealing with 'the prospects of a commercial port will be ready. I understand that it is due in early 1981. Perhaps we can discuss it in connection with help for future industry and use of the port.
In conclusion, I should like to point out that Gibraltarians have always shown that they are very good Commonwealth members. They are members
764
of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, both the regional and the area, and they send their MPs to national conferences and they attend courses here. They are well-liked and respected by the rest of the Commonwealth. I think that they would have the support of the Commonwealth in this debate if the Commonwealth members were here.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down on the list, but having listened to the debate one thought has occurred to me. There is no doubt that Spain, in taking actions which are against Gibraltarian interests, has also taken actions which are against British interests. Can the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary tell us whether there is anything in the Treaty of Rome or in EEC regulations as a whole to prevent one member state from taking action which is against the interests of another?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary will allow me to make two remarks. If I did not do so, I think that I would find myself in trouble with many of my friends in Gibraltar who have written and asked me to speak in support. I negotiated the constitution under which they now live, which contains the very important words that the people of Gibraltar are part of Her Majesty's Dominions and will not be handed over to anyone else without their agreement. I want to remind the House of those words because my anxiety in all debates concerning Gibraltar is that, when we start talking, "if", "we should", or "we ought" to maintain our support for Gibraltar, in Gibraltar it undoubtedly creates an element of doubt which I know is not intended. I hope that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary will make it very clear that the preamble of the constitution is there, and that those words cannot be removed without an Act of both Houses of this Parliament.
I should like to make one other comment. I very much support what my noble friend Lady White said about Spain. What has happened in Spain since the death of Franco has indeed been remarkable. All democracies are fragile and we should always treat them as fragile and not as something that is always certain. But the progress in Spain, and the recognition by the Government of Spain of the need to devolve responsibility into certain of the regions in that country, should give us cause for some hope. With regard to Spain and Gibraltar, my own belief is that one day they really will have to live close together. It has nothing to do with their constitutions or their sovereignties. But if progress is to be made, I believe that it must be found from Spain. If Spain could only make one great act of generosity towards Gibraltar, a great deal could be achieved for the good of Gibraltar in the future.
It is no good talking of the past. Many young people are growing up in Gibraltar who want a different life from that which is solely within Gibraltar today. But for Spain to make that act requires a degree of caution by Parliament itself in the way in which we express ourselves. If Spain is to make this gesture, it would need to be in a period of quiet. So let us ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to maintain a quiet pressure upon the Spanish Government—not one of threats, but one of statesmanship and friendship.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I join with all your Lordships who have spoken to say that we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for having put down this Motion on the Order Paper and enabled us to have the debate that we have had this afternoon. Indeed, I think that I would be hard put to it to say that I disagreed with much of what has been said in the debate. The speeches from noble Lords opposite seem to me, in a way, rather more like old boys' day and old girls' day (if the noble Baroness will forgive me) than anything else. I know that one of the old boys, in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, has had to leave to go to another meeting which may perhaps have a closer bearing on events opposite than my reply.
My noble friend Lord Bethell is very well-qualified to introduce this Motion because he is a Member of the European Parliament, and from that position he has a particular insight into the issues raised by Gibraltar's position in the Community and by the prospect of Spanish accession. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend and some of his colleagues in the European Parliament have formed, with the endorsement of the Gibraltar House of Assembly, a group called the Gibraltar in Europe Representation Group, to watch over Gibraltar's interests. This was on their initiative and nothing to do with the British Government. But it is a tribute to the concern for the people of Gibraltar which is felt by my noble friend and others in the European Parliament, and which is certainly shared by your Lordships and by Her Majesty's Government.
I think that the timing of the debate is rather happy because a Gibraltar Parliamentary Group has been reconstituted here at Westminster. Its revival doubtless owes something to the visit to Gibraltar last October by a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The group's first formal meeting will, I think, take place later today.
The Government very much welcome the increase in the interest in Gibraltar and its problems, evidenced by these developments, on the part of both Houses of Parliament and the European Parliament. As has been said earlier today, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from Gibraltar are here for a meeting of the new Parliamentary Group, and so is the Leader of the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party. They are, as usual, most welcome in London. If they were to come to observe this debate in your Lordships' House, they would be very welcome too, though it would be quite improper for me to suggest that they are or are not here at the present time! I look forward to seeing Sir Joshua and Mr. Isola on Friday. I believe that they are right to maintain a bipartisan approach to the Gibraltar question, where they give strong and effective leadership. We keep in close touch with them and value the mutual trust and esteem which has marked our dealings over the past rather difficult year.
Before answering the particular questions which have been raised by noble Lords in this debate, it might perhaps be useful if I reported very briefly on the developments over the implementation of the agreement made in Lisbon, made—as a number of your Lordships have reminded the House—over nine months ago; but the frontier remains closed and negotiations have not started. Meanwhile the people of Gibraltar have borne the disappointment and delay with their cus-
766
tomary fortitude and good humour, and they continue to prosper, despite the difficulties which have been put in their path.
I feel a little unwilling to intervene in what obviously has been a fascinating dialogue between my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Trefgarne. From what my noble friend Lord Selsdon has said this afternoon, it appears a bit complicated. But it seems to me that it would be rather difficult for the British Government to designate Gibraltar as part of metropolitan Britain when it quite clearly is not. It is a Crown colony. As such, I think that it would be very difficult for the Government to do that. I also think that there is some difficulty in the suggestion—when, alas! there is a very large amount of unemployment in this country—that we should devote regional funds for that purpose to Gibraltar, where there is not a large amount of unemployment. However, that does not mean that we do not think that it is necessary to help Gibraltar. On the whole, although I would like to look at the point which my noble friend has raised, I think it is better that the help should come direct from the British Government than from the ways that he has suggested.
Quite apart from developments on the social and political side, the growth of the Gibraltar economy demonstrates what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said; the barrenness of the policy of restrictions both economically and politically—and the Gibraltarians have clearly shown that their skill and resourcefulness is as strong as their loyalty. The agreement concluded at Lisbon in April last year was to start negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between Britain and Spain on Gibraltar, and to re-establish direct communications. It was agreed that future co-operation should be on the basis of reciprocity and full equality of rights.
The Spanish wish to restore the territorial integrity of Spain, and that wish was recorded. So was the intention of the British Government fully to maintain their commitment to honour freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the constitution, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has reminded us. Perhaps it is as well for the record just to spell that out a little more clearly.
Under the agreement anything could be discussed in the negotiations. But the British Government's commitment is clear and as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. The preamble to the constitution cited in the Lisbon agreement, says this:
"Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democractically expressed wishes".
Nothing could be clearer than that.
What then has happened since it was envisaged in Lisbon nine months ago that preparations for implementing the agreement would be completed not later than 1st June? All was ready on the British side of the frontier. A great deal of work was put in hand in the six weeks following the conclusion of the Lisbon agreement, so that Gibraltar would be able to cope with an open frontier in circumstances very different from those of 11 years ago. Indeed, the gates had anyway stood open since the Spaniards shut theirs in 1969.

767
The administrative difficulties on the other side were doubtless much more complicated. The problems were examined at three sessions of technical talks held in Madrid in May and June. Officials from Gibraltar took part in these as members of the British delegation. The main hold-up in recent months has been over the clarification of the Lisbon agreement itself: the implications of its wording for the regime to apply each side of the frontier once communication is restored. My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal visited Madrid earlier this month. His visit was not primarily concerned with Gibraltar—Spain is, after all, as so many of your Lordships have said, a major European country of great importance to Britain, with whom we have close relations and share a great many interests in various fields.
Like their predecessor, the Government support Spain's application to join the European Community. We have made no formal link with the lifting of restrictions on Gibraltar. Enlargement is in our interest, as well as in Spain's, now that democracy has been fully restored. We would also welcome it, as other noble Lords have said, if Spain wished to join NATO. It is very much in the West's interests that Spain should take her rightful and full part in Western Europe. It is gratifying, incidentally, to note that our trade has been increasing rapidly: British exports to Spain were worth about £1,300 million last year, an increase of over 19 per cent. on the previous year. In short, we have much in common and many shared interests with this major Western European country.
The Lord Privy Seal took the opportunity of his visit to Madrid to review with the new Spanish Foreign Minister the technical exchanges over Gibraltar. The commitment of both Governments to the Lisbon agreement was reaffirmed. The Lord Privy Seal stressed our hope that it could be implemented without further delay, making the point that that was every bit as much in Spain's interest as in Britain's or Gibraltar's. I reiterate again how much I agree with what my noble friend below the gangway has said.
He also of course took up my noble friend's point on the question of the Spanish Prohibited Area, of which my noble friend has spoken on a number of occasions before. The prohibited area restricts the movement of aircraft landing at and taking off from the airfield at Gibraltar. Although, as he says, it is not a direct hazard, I entirely agree with him that it interferes unnecessarily with aircraft movements and should be modified or removed. We have left the Spanish Government in no doubt over our views.
Here perhaps I might answer a point made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, who talked about British Airways' decision to discontinue their Madrid-Gibraltar service. I think the noble Lord will find that this was entirely on commercial grounds, and I have no reason to suppose that the prohibited area influenced their decision. I do not think it is true to say that the application lodged by GibAir to fly that route has been objected to by the Spanish Government. I think what has happened is that we have not had an answer and the facilities have not been accorded. I very much hope that they soon will be.
No one would deny, or indeed could deny, that we have run into difficulties over the implementation of
768
the Lisbon agreement. But it is not dead, and there has not been a breakdown. We certainly are ready to implement that agreement in the terms that we signed it, and have been ready to implement it since June last year. I hope we shall not have to wait much longer, and certainly the agreement should be implemented long before Spanish accession to the Community. Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, if I got the burden of his question aright, that I think there is no doubt that a closed frontier between two members of the European Community is not something which could be accepted under the obligations which every country assumes when it signs the Treaty of Rome.
I do not think at this particular moment that it would be in anyone's interest, and certainly not that of the people of Gibraltar who have patiently put up with harassment for some 16 years, to whip up active dispute about who is to blame for the delays, or why. I have already referred to the loyalty and resourcefulness of the Gibraltarians. These are qualities which have been cited, among other reasons, for criticising the proposals in the recently laid Nationality Bill, which several of my noble friends and the noble Baroness opposite mentioned in their speeches. I do not myself believe that the close ties between ourselves and the Gibraltarians are going to be weakened by this measure. Nor, incidentally, will the position of Gibraltarians be in any way adversely affected in practice. They are losing nothing.
The Government, however, recognise that the strength of Gibraltarian loyalty is reflected in a passionate depth of feeling on the nationality issue. The memorandum which all leading Gibraltarians addressed to me was very carefully considered by the Home Secretary and myself. The present rights of access to the United Kingdom for Gibraltarians will not be affected by the new legislation. I am satisfied that Gibraltarian interests are being safeguarded.
As in other important matters, we have kept in very close touch over this issue with the Governor of Gibraltar and Gibraltar's elected leaders. I do not think I would ask them to endorse the proposals in the Bill, but I hope that their main anxieties have been met. The fact that Gibraltar is part of the territory of the European Community is very relevant in this context, as in others. Gibraltarians have free access to this country, as they do to all other Community countries, to seek and take up work, and there is no question of such rights being curtailed.
To return to the question of the frontier reopening, I am afraid I can only counsel further patience, without at this stage wishing to inspire either great optimism or great pessimism. Much fortitude and good sense have been shown by the people of Gibraltar over the years. I cannot give them or your Lordships any guarantees over timing. But I have no doubt that sooner or later patience will be rewarded, and certainly we as the Government will continue to work to see that it is sooner rather than later.
The future for both Gibraltar and Spain, as for Britain and Spain, must lie in close co-operation. Only through working together in restored confidence can the history of the past 15 years or more be effaced and solutions of the various problems found. I think all your Lordships would agree from what we have

769
heard this afternoon that the area would be a very prosperous one if Gibraltarians and Spaniards worked together. I hope, as does the House, that they will soon be enabled to do so.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting, well-attended and vigorous debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, and in particular to my noble friend the Secretary of State for finding time in an extremely busy schedule to reply at the end of our remarks. It is particularly appropriate that he has been able to do so, since it was he who signed the Lisbon Agreement last April. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for adding with his usual eloquence a valuable contribution to our debate and for making it clear how much we want to smooth Spain's re-entry into the Western world, and I believe he said also the European Community.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: I did, my Lords.
Lord Bethell: Perhaps he was not speaking entirely for his party on that.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: I was.
Lord Bethell: I am delighted to hear that, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, indicated that he thought a solution might lie in autonomy provisions eventually being laid before Spanish communities. I cannot of course speak for the people of Gibraltar, but it is my impression that any such idea at the moment would not be acceptable to more than a handful of people in that territory, but of course that is for them to determine.
I was particularly interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and his extremely astute analysis of the risks inherent in the present restrictions on overflying of the Algeciras region, a valuable point which I am glad was taken up by the Secretary of State. There will shortly be a new airport built in Gibraltar and I hope that that will enable tourism in the whole region to be expanded, once the frontier is opened. Of course it would be absurd for any tiny element of risk to be brought into more aircraft traffic flying into and out of that rather irregularly constructed landstrip.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale and others mentioned the question of British nationality which is now going through another place. I take the point made by my noble friend the Secretary of State, that in practical terms the Gibraltarians will not be affected by what is proposed. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that British citizens for EEC purposes, as Gibraltarians are, should remain as British citizens, and speaking personally I hope your Lordships will amend that Bill when it comes before this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, mentioned the Helsinki Agreement and it may well be that the Government will see fit under certain circumstances to raise the question of the frontier restrictions in Madrid —what better place?—when the Helsinki Agreement talks reconvene.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke of the possi-
770
bility of EEC benefits for Gibraltar and suggested that perhaps Gibraltar might be designated a development area. That would be an excellent proposal and I do not see that the fact that there is full employment in Gibraltar should necessarily rule out that possibility. The income level in Gibraltar is lower than that in the United Kingdom and that too should be a criterion. My noble friend seems to have no difficulty in gaining unofficial answers from the European Commission, but, if ever he wants any help from the Gibraltar in Europe Representation Group, we should be glad to give it to him, having special expertise in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, suggested it was possible that the Spanish Government was afraid of losing face by doing a volte-face over the frontier restrictions. She may be right, but with great respect to her and the Spanish Government, it is my impression that if they do not lift these restrictions now they will have to do so anyway in a short space of time, and then they will lose even more face. My noble friend Lord Morris suggested that the lifting of restrictions was not a precondition to EEC entry for Spain. As the Secretary of State indicated, it is not a formal precondition and has never been made so by the British Government. However, it is my impression that to all intents and purposes it is a precondition, and I think the letter, which was carefully phrased and which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Selsdon, makes that abundantly clear; they cannot come in with a closed frontier between Spain and Gibraltar.
I was delighted to hear the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who negotiated the new constitution, and to have the point made absolutely clear by him and by the Secretary of State—the cardinal point to come out of this debate—that whatever may happen in the next generation, we in this country have a responsibility to protect subjects of Her Majesty and we cannot abandon them at the request of another power. I am delighted that that point came through loud and clear from the Secretary of State's speech. We want closer relations with Spain—no one is a keener proponent of that than I am—but Gibraltar is a stumbling block which I hope will be overcome, the sooner the better. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

English: Simplification of the Language
5.19 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to call attention to the benefits which would flow from a simplification of the English language; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the beginning of last Session, on 21st November, 1979, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, opened a general debate on the English language. Your Lordships will be delighted to hear that we are again to be favoured with a contribution from him today. I intervened in that debate, but on a very much narrower issue, the issue I bring before the House today; namely, the desirablity of a simplification of the English language and the benefits that would flow from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, replying to the debate, was rather curtailed by the volubility of those of us

771
who contributed to it, and she could deal only quite shortly with the matters that were raised by individual noble Lords.
So far as I was concerned, I suggested that the matter might he dealt with by a language commission, rather on the lines of the highly successful Law Commission that we have had. The noble Baroness replied to that suggestion merely with the word, "quango," and said that we cannot conceive of having more Quangos. I think that since that time the Government have recognised that there are Quangos and Quangos, and that many of them are valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, the other day made that very point and so, emboldened by that, I ventured to put down this Motion, and I am encouraged by the number and the distinction of the noble Lords who propose to contribute to today's debate. Your Lordships will in particular be looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich, who brings great juristic gifts to your Lordships' House, and I think that after hearing him today, your Lordships will be assured that his contributions go wider than that.
I am asked by the noble Lord the Chief Whip to draw attention to the length of the debate and to the number of speakers, and to point out that the ration works out at about nine minutes for each speaker. The noble Lord did not give me that figure, and I am barely numerate, but that is what I make it. The noble Baroness will tell me if I am wrong. I shall try to improve on that myself by curtailing the introductory remarks that I propose to lay before your Lordships.
The importance of the English language hardly needs emphasis. It was brought out by the debate of 21st November 1979. I think that over 340 million people speak English as their first language, and there must be almost as many who speak English as their second language. It is even more important than that. In many of the developing countries there has been an attempt to have one of the vernaculars as a national language—for example, Hindi in India, but that is unacceptable to the Tamil—speaking people in the south of India, and English remains the lingua franca. The same applies in many places elsewhere. I think that in Uganda, with all its native languages, no single first language is spoken by more than 16 per cent. of the people, and again English is the lingua franca; and so on in many other places.
So I think that your Lordships will be assured that we owe a duty not only to those who speak English as their first language, and who therefore have to learn it as their first language, but also to those who with greater difficulty learn English as their second language. In many respects English is a superb language to learn, a remarkably easy language to learn, owing to, for example, the rubbing away of inflection by the inter—penetration of various people who have come to these islands. But for years it has been recognised that English presents one very great difficulty. The grammarians have technical names for it, but we describe it as the difference, the discrepancy, between spelling and pronunciation. The Bullock Report, A Language for Life, drew attention to that. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, cannot be here today. He wrote me a letter apologizing
772
and saying that he hoped that the Motion would be carried. My only trepidation about that is that the Motion ends with a Motion for Papers, and I do not know what I would do with any Papers that were vouchsafed as a result of the passing of the Motion. Nevertheless, again and again in the Bullock Report one finds the problems that are aroused by the discrepancy between spelling and pronunciation.
There is one very easy reform that we can make, and that is to adopt the American spelling where it differs from ours. We read it almost every day in American books which are reproduced in this country by various technical methods. For example, nobody has any difficulty in spelling honour "honor". It is etymologically right. That is the way that it was spelt by the great leader of the noble Baroness's party, Lord Beaconsfield; and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is on the Back—Benches, proposing to speak. He was, I think, Grand Master of the Primrose League—I see he nods—and so I hope that he will favour that simple improvement. It is not just that one word—there are also, for example, the words, "favour" and "ardour". Every time one of those words is typed by a typist, every time it is printed by a printer, time is wasted, material is wasted. Can we really afford such waste these days? Is what I have suggested not the simplest possible reform and improvement that we can make quite painlessly? There are similar examples, such as the spelling of the word "traveller" with only one 1, and the word "travelled" with only one 1. So that is the first reform that I would venture to urge on your Lordships that could be consummated without the smallest difficulty.
Then, again, I think the only respect in which our own usage is superior to that of the United States is in the word "wilful", for which I think they use two "1"s; but if in the word "wilful" we can use one "1" for the "will" and one "1" for the "full", why can we not spell "will" as "wil" and "full" as "ful"? That was the way that Robert Bridges spelt it in his great poem, The Testament of Beauty, which your Lordships will have read without the smallest difficulty, without the smallest adverse reaction. Can the noble Baroness point to anywhere within her sphere of responsibility where a 25 per cent. saving, economy, could be made without the smallest pain, without any difficulty and without offending anybody except the most inveterate obscurantist?
My Lords, I think that is enough to say about spelling, because others of your Lordships will no doubt wish to expatiate on that, but then there is grammar. The tendency of our language has been to eliminate irregular verbs. I suppose that most your Lordships will, as children, have had the Schoolboy's Diary, and the noble Baroness will have had the equivalent Schoolgirl's Diary with the tables of irregular verbs, and will remember how we used to puzzle over them. A child says "teached" as the past participle of "teach". He says "reached". Formerly, the past participle of "reach" was "raught", but without difficulty we now say "reached". Why should we not eliminate all those irregular verbs and make them regular?
The only reason why the English language, so far as I know, has not developed in that way is because of the advent of printing, which has crystallised spelling and

773
crystallised grammar. In one respect in grammar there has been a development, and your Lordships may well think it an adverse one. In the 18th century one said, "I was, we was, they was". We now make it much more difficult and say, "We were, they were". That is what we have to teach our children, and that is what we have to teach those who honour us by learning English as their second language. So that, in general, is the sort of simplification that I would venture to urge in this debate.
How should we do it? Obviously, there are some of the improvements that stand out so clearly, that are so uncontroversial, that they could be done by statute. A Bill was recently, a few years ago, introduced in another place. I am sorry to say it was blocked by the noble Baroness's department. But at the end of the last century, when Germany was in its great creative era, they had a verb "to do" which was spelt "thun". For centuries the "h" had never been pronounced, and quite simply by legislative effort they decided that "thun" should be spelt "tun". A lot of people—they are the people I venture to call obscurantists—objected, but now everybody takes it for granted; and, again, 25 per cent. of type and of the time of typists and type-setters are saved. Can the noble Baroness suggest another area within her departmental responsibility where 25 per cent. can be saved?
The Bullock Committee drew attention also to the fact that children have to learn two sets of alphabet, the ordinary lower case alphabet and capitals; and of those capitals, 17 give no idea at all of the minuscule, the lower case, which they represent. It is not merely a question of a typist or a printer here: there are literally hundreds of thousands of pounds at stake. I heard the other day of somebody who had to decide on the installation of computers into his concern, and one of the questions he had to decide was whether the computer should process upper case letters, capital letters, as well as lower case letters. They decided, in fact, in favour of capital letters because all their secretaries had been trained to recognise and differentiate between upper and lower case. But that cost them thousands of pounds; and if one thinks of the number of companies which are now installing computers, should one not look at that problem?
So that is the next solution that I was going to venture to lay before your Lordships. Why should we not have an inquiry into this? We have had Royal Commissions on this, we have had departmental committees on that and we have had working parties on the other. The one thing we have not looked into is the simplification of the English language, although people have been agitating for the past 100 years on the subject. People as diverse ideologically as Bernard Shaw and Robert Bridges were at one on this. I am sorry to have to say this, but what has stood in the way is the tradition in the Ministry of Education and its successors. I am all for a department having a tradition and sticking to it, as long as it does not do the sort of damage that this particular obstruction is doing.
Finally, I come to my last specific—I do not apologise for repeating it—and that is a permanent Language Commission. Now that the Government have admitted that some Quangos are beneficial (and no doubt the noble Baroness has heard from my noble and learned
774
friend the Lord Chancellor how valuable the Law Commission has been) should we not have a Language Commission to look into this—perhaps a Royal Commission first, but then a Language Commission as a permanent institution? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, chose this subject when he was lucky in the ballot for a short debate. I certainly have listened to his speech with the greatest of interest. I shall also try to speak for only a short time since the debate has attracted a number of speakers and f know that we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke about the difference between spelling and pronunciation; but just as important, in my view, is the structure of sentences and the correct meaning of words. I shall hope to show how important this is during my speech. Our language, which is after all a method of communication, must be and indeed always has been in a developing state. Usages which are current in one generation pass out of favour in the next. What was not acceptable to a previous generation may well become current and acceptable later on.
The split infinitive was not considered correct English when I was a boy. I remember that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I were at school together at Gresham's, there was a contest among the boys to count up the number of times that the masters split infinitives. Now, I gather, it is acceptable to split an infinitive, just as it is acceptable to use the objective pronoun "me" after the verb "to be". Indeed, to reply, "It is I", in answer to the question, "Who is there?", would be rather pedantic today. On the other hand, my Lords, one must I think be concerned at some modern tendencies: the use of more words than are necessary, and the general sloppiness of sentence structure.
Is this the fault of the way English grammar is taught in our schools? The best way to learn English grammar used to be through the discipline of Latin. But now Latin is rarely taught in the public sector and one must ask, what is being done to ensure that English grammar is properly taught? Perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, will have something to say on this when she comes to reply.
In France, where they have, of course, a better and more democratic system of education than we have, French people in all walks of life usually have a healthy respect for their language, they construct their sentences better in conversation and they still write letters in elegant French. The French, of course, have their Academy. I was interested in what the noble and learned Lord said and his proposal for a permanent language commission. The Scots, Welsh and Irish also have the advantage over us. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is to speak today. With two languages—their own and English—they have a richer vocabulary and more command of sentence structure. I believe also that in Elizabethan times English had a much richer

775
vocabulary than it has now. We only have to read Shakespeare to realise that.
English is subjected to various influences, particularly television and American, which has become almost a different language. The noble and learned Lord touched on the matter of American and spoke about the different spellings. But in my opinion the structure is just as important, and here American is becoming very, very different from English. For example, in American the verb "to protest" is now often used without a preposition: "He protested Vietnam war", "He protested Algeria", instead of "against" or "about" or whatever it is. This of course can lead to complications once one starts telescoping a language in this way.
Then we have, in English in this country, the flight from the verb. This means using at least three words where one will do. People today never confer, they have a conference. They rarely meet, they hold a meeting. A simple adverb such as "now" on television has become "at this moment in time". The subjunctive is all over the place with usage such as "I would agree" instead of the simple indicative "I agree". And in written English, certainly in commerce, "should" and "shall" are rarely used for the first person. "Disinterested", which means unbiased, is used when people mean "uninterested". "Less" is used instead of "fewer"—sometimes by Government spokesmen, I regret to say—and we hear that something is "almost unique", which means of course that it is not unique at all.
The lack of appreciation of the meaning and impact of words can sometimes lead to trouble and embarrassment and this is why in my humble view it is more important really than the way words are spelt. It can lead to embarrassment, such as the occasion when an Englishman asked a Moslem Arab for a note of his Christian name.
Therefore, my Lords, while I agree that we must not be too pedantic, I think that there is concern at the way English is taught and used today. Now that Latin has almost disappeared, how is the basic meaning of words and the structure of the language being taught to the younger generation? I hope that the noble Baroness will have something to say on this when she comes to teply.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, we are indeed very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving us this opportunity to discuss this very interesting question. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has given me the opportunity to mention something which was going to be my last point in our last debate about English which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, initiated, but time prevented me from doing so on that occasion. I was going to relate to your Lordships a conversation that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, about the use of the word, "unique" and how one cannot say, "very unique". The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said: "Well, no two apples in this world are identical. Such is the miraculous power of the Almightly, no two apples are made identical. Therefore, in a sense you can say that every apple is unique. But if you came upon an apple in the shape of Hampton Court
776
you could surely say that that one was more unique than all the others"! I leave that matter, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to have remembered it.
I think it was Cecil Rhodes who said, "So much to do and so little time". This evening there is so much to say and so little time. There is no question that if there is to be a world language it is going to be English. Whether it is going to be English English or American English I do not know. I suppose that it will be a mixture of the two. I suppose that I am prejudiced in favour of English English, and I would say under this heading to the noble and learned Lord that although the Americans economise a little in their spelling, they undo this good work by always preferring the longer word to the shorter. The Englishman leaves his flat by the lift and he goes in his car to see a film. The American leaves his apartment by the elevator and he gets into his automobile and goes to see a motion picture. If I were a foreigner struggling to understand the language, I would know which version of that sentence I would prefer to hear.
If we are going to foist our language upon the world as its world language, we certainly owe the world a duty to provide them with a form of English which is easily teached as we have just been teached to say!
I do not think this is necessarily peculiar to English, but it is our idioms which are so horrifying for foreigners to understand. Supposing you were introduced to a professional footballer from South America with a rudimentary knowledge of English and you said to him, "How do you do?", he might say to you, as Sir Noel Coward used to say, "How do I do what?" After that unpromising start you may say to him, "I used to play football quite a lot". He might say, "Used to play—what does that mean?" then you say, "I meant that I once played". He would say, "How could you once play football quite a lot?" Then you might say, "I mean that once upon a time I played football". He might then say, "'Once upon a time' does not seem to mean anything at all"—and so it goes on.
I do not think there is any cure. Our idioms are so ingrained in the language that we could not get rid of them, however hard we tried. I think foreigners simply have to struggle away and try to understand them. But there are things we can do. Surely we can get rid of those ugly "ough" suffixes, which look so ugly on the printed page and which are no guide to pronunciation. An "ough" word can rhyme with "low", with "now", with "off", with "who", or with "cuff". I applaud the good work being done by the English Speaking Union and by the BBC World Service in trying to do what we are seeking this evening to achieve; but they lapse from time to time, as we all do. It is quite common on the BBC World Service to hear that some event, "has got under way". The other day the BBC—I think it was on the World Service—told us that some conference, after a certain delay, finally "got off the ground".
I have been in communication with Mr. Douglas Muggeridge, the Managing Director of BBC External Broadcasting, and he points out that the BBC feel themselves in some difficulty because they address themselves in the World Service not only to people with a rudimentary understanding of English but to many professional people and diplomats with a perfectly good

777
command of the language, and they do not wish to be thought to be talking down to them.
I think it is possible to have the best of both worlds. If your Lordships read the collected lectures to law students by the noble and learned Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, you will find there a delightful simplicity of language without any suggestion at all of talking down to his audience.
There are many speakers and I think my time is about up. Let me finish by quoting a sentence from the Managing Director of External Broadcasting, reminding me of the work being done by the English-by-Radio and Television Department. I quote:
"They have, for instance, produced programmes teaching the simplified standard formulae devised for communication in international air transport and others teaching the Standard Marine Navigational Vocabulary…".
Finally, I would say, "Good luck" to the English Speaking Union and to the BBC World Service.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the quite undeserved, flattering remarks with which he was kind enough to commend me to your Lordships. My only fear is that after such a glowing "commercial" you will be sadly disappointed in the product! I understand, of course, that as a maiden speaker I am not expected to be controversial. That I find rather daunting because my experience in life has been that I can hardly ever say anything without being liable to provoke somebody to disagree with me; so if I transgress in that respect I crave your Lordships' forgiveness in advance. At all events I shall start by sitting decorously on the fence and saying of the proposals so brilliantly expounded by my noble and learned friend for the simplification of the English language that I see that they could yield enormous advantages, but at the same time I see them confronted by formidable obstacles—and I hope nothing could be less controversial than that.
One minor problem occurs to me and it occurs to my mind because of something that happened some years ago when I was trying a criminal case on the Western Circuit. I had just concluded my summing-up and sent a West Country jury out to deliberate on their verdict. I had not been in my room for more than a few minutes when I received a note from the foreman of the jury. It read:
"Would your Lordship be kind enough to give us a further explanation of what you mean by the onus of proof'?"
The note was written in what looked like a quite well-educated hand, but unfortunately "onus" was spelt "owners". I am not quite sure how my noble and learned friend's proposals for assimilating spelling to pronunciation would be able to grapple with that problem!
I hope I do not digress on to something which is irrelevant to the main topic of this debate if I say there is one field where the cry for simplification of language is by no means a new one: that is in the field of legislation itself; and, of course, foremost among those raising such a cry have been none other than Her Majesty's judges. The complexity of statutory language is a favourite target for judicial sallies of wit and sarcasm. May I quote what I always regard as
778
a classic instance of this kind? It comes from a judgment of the late Lord Justice Harman, delivered in a case in which I appeared before him in the Court of Appeal, unsuccessfully— and unsuccessfully, I fear, again in your Lordships' House. It was a case concerning the meaning of some provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1961, and Lord Justice Harman began his judgment in this way:
"To reach a conclusion on this matter involved the court in wading through a monstrous legislative morass, staggering from stone to stone and ignoring the marsh—gas exhaling from the forest of schedules lining the way on each side. 1 regarded it at one time, I must confess, as a slough of despond through which the court would never drag its feet but I have, by leaping from tussock to tussock as best I might, eventually pale and exhausted, reached the other side where I find myself, I am glad to say, at the same point as that arrived at with more agility by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls".
It is at this point where I have to confess myself to be something of a judicial heretic. Here it may be that I am trespassing on a potentially controversial area but, while that kind of sally is immensely entertaining, I sometimes cannot help thinking that the criticism it implies is a little bit unfair because, of course, the criticism is directed primarily at the parliamentary draftsman, whom I have always regarded as an unjustly maligned character, and it is directed indirectly against the legislature itself.
The answer to the criticism is that when Parliament is legislating on many subjects, of which the fixing of compensation for compulsory acquisition is a very good example, 90 per cent. of the complexity of language which finds its way into the Act of Parliament is really inherent in the legislative process itself. The draftsman is required to embody in statutory terms some highly sophisticated social policy, articulated in great detail and required to be imposed on an already complicated social structure. Above all, the statutory terms must—if language can achieve the object—be proof against judicial misconstruction. Of course, that is an unattainable ideal, but is it any wonder that in those circumstances, in pursuit of his object, the draftsman sacrifices simplicity and lucidity of expression for what he hopes will achieve certainty of meaning?
What is the alternative style of legislative prose which can be adopted to avoid such complexity? I think the only style which can be suggested is that Acts of Parliament should confine themselves to broad and simple statements of principle, leaving the elaboration of the details of policy to the courts. But whether that would be a wise move I doubt, for it seems to me that it would carry the danger of imposing on the courts—or allowing to the courts, if you prefer it—a breadth of essentially legislative discretion which the courts are not really well qualified to exercise.
The fact of the matter is that the adversarial process of the courts does not equip us to look at questions which are essentially questions of policy, in the light of the wide spectrum of considerations which ought to influence the decision on every question of policy. That is essentially a matter for the deliberative process of your Lordships' House and the other place.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, it is clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, did not exaggerate when he told us with what pleasure we should listen to

779
his noble and learned friend Lord Bridge. Happily, it is my task to congratulate him warmly on a most interesting maiden speech. I hope to take up one or two of the points that he raised in the course of my own few remarks. He and I have one thing in common. We were both called to the Bar by the Inner Temple but there, I am afraid, the likeness ends, though I vividly remember appearing before Mr. Justice Harman, whom he mentioned, at the Chancery Bar. He was the first judge that I appeared before. My clerk said to me, "If you think the judge is talking nonsense, by all means tell him so, but don't do it too quickly." Fortunately, I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, has been talking arrant common sense and I hope that we shall hear him do so on many occasions in the future.
I was slightly puzzled when I read on the Order Paper the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, as to what was the Government's responsibility, because I was always told, as a beginner, that one must not put down Questions or Motions which are not the responsibility of a Minister or a member of the Government. But now, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, has made matters perfectly clear. It is the Government and Members of your Lordships' House and another place who are responsible—if I may use a charming Americanism—for so much of the gobbledygook that creeps into our legislation and into our debates, and which we are trying to remedy in this debate here today.
I myself am responsible for one example. I vividly remember standing at that Dispatch Box many years ago, when we were trying to put the ill-fated Shops Bill through your Lordships' House. I was then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, and I spent a long time trying to explain to your Lordships why it took 19 lines of the draftsman's deathless prose to establish the principle that only a Mohammedan or a practising Jew could operate as a barber in Scotland on a Sunday. Your Lordships, rightly, would have none of it.
We are all guilty of misuse of our beautiful language. If your Lordships doubt me, I ask you to turn to today's Minutes of Proceedings, which you had on your breakfast tables this morning, but which I have in my hand. If you look at page 395 you will see, "Die Martis 27º Januarii 1981". That is gobbledygook, if you like. Most of your Lordships can, I think, cope with "Die Mortis". I wonder how many of you know what the small "º" after "27" stands for, and why is it "1981" and not—since we are speaking Latin here—"MCMLXXXI"? I hope I have got that right. It took me nearly a quarter of an hour to work it out.
On another page, there is a further example of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, was hinting at. On page 409, under "Special Procedure Orders in Progress", there is the sub—heading,
"Waiting for expiry of Resolution Period…
M25 Motorway (Leatherhead Interchange Section) Compulsory Purchase Order (No. CSE 7)".
I am not making fun of that. It is very important—not to all your Lordships, but I am certain to the good citizens of Leatherhead, the man on the Leatherhead omnibus. We too often forget in this House, when we are legislating, that we are legislating for the man on the Leatherhead omnibus.
780
It is, of course, impossible to make the Finance Bill understandable to every man on every omnibus. I very well remember Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, speaking from exactly the same place as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has just been speaking. He told us that he had been the whole way through four clauses of the Finance Bill which we were then discussing and had not understood one single word—and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest was no fool. If he could not understand it, what were we doing passing legislation in such incomprehensible language? As I said, the Finance Bill is something which it is very difficult to draft simply. I therefore beg the noble Baroness who is to reply to encourage her colleagues to proceed further with their present admirable habit of producing small pamphlets and explanations in the papers, which can be understood by the man on the Leatherhead omnibus. The matters are usually very important to him. Although Lord Morris could not understand them, they are about rents, about specific benefits to which people are entitled, about pensions and such like.
If you go into any small village post office, the postmaster will tell you that most of his time is spent in trying to explain to innocent and bewildered people what are their rights and privileges and what they are missing. That is something which we should bear in mind when we are trying to put into legislation something which has to do with ordinary people.
Your Lordships will remember that George Bernard Shaw once wrote a letter to a friend and said:
"I apologise for the length of this letter. I have not the time to write a short one".
It is not easy to put complicated legislation into simple language that people can understand. It is something which any Government should do. The language need not be absolutely perfect. Sometimes the most imperfect language can provide a perfectly vivid example of what you mean. Your Lordships may remember the great German conductor, Hans Richter, who once turned to a recalcitrant second trombone in the orchestra at Covent Garden and said:
"Up with your damned nonsense twice or once will I put, but sometimes, always, by God never".
Your Lordships know what he meant. I therefore beg the noble Baroness to put the idea further around among her colleagues that we need more simplification and explanation for people who have their rights, which ought to be explained to them.
There is a second point about which we can help. Your Lordships will remember the appalling shambles which our timetable got into at the end of July and August, necessitating our coming back here two weeks before the other place returned. Why was that? It was because we had crammed far too much legislation into the programme, as a result of which neither the Ministers, nor the civil servants, nor the draftsmen involved had time to go through the Bills, sit back quietly and see whether mistakes had crept in. Many of your Lordships of an older generation will remember Lord Simonds who occupied the Woolsack with such distinction. From time to time I used to assist him, in a very junior capacity, on the Front Bench. I remember one wonderful evening when we discovered that he was moving on Report an amendment which was diametrically opposed to one which he had moved

781
a few days before in Committee. It was discovered just in time.
In order to reduce the standard of gobbledegook, can we not allow our timetable to expand a little further so that we have time at the end of a long and complicated Bill for the draftsmen, the civil servants and the Ministers to look back—not to change the policy or the politics of the Bill; that has all been settled in debate—and see whether or not the gobbledygook can be amended, removed, changed or improved and the English of the Bill put in such a way as will not cause the trouble which Lord Harman had and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, described to us so vividly.
Those are the two points I want to make: simplification of legislation and time within the timetable to look at Bills much more carefully. If the noble Baroness wants any help in the drafting of simple leaflets for the man on the Leatherhead omnibus, all she has to do is to bring it to me. If I can understand it, anybody can.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, this is a short debate. Therefore, much as I should like to, I shall not elaborate my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, on his quite delightful maiden speech. My congratulations are none the less sincere.
I expect all noble Lords will agree and be in sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and with the general idea of the simplification of our language. Broadly I agree with the spelling changes which the noble and learned Lord advocated. But transatlantic improvements in spelling, however welcome, are in my view—and, I gather, in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—utterly negated by the appalling prolixity which has developed in the United States both in the written word and in the spoken word and which has already crept across the Atlantic, even into the speech and writings of our most intelligent contemporaries.
A person for whom I have the greatest possible respect—indeed one of the ablest men I know—in writing a report for a committee on which I sit, the other day wrote:
"I am hopeful of obtaining",
when he could have written, "I hope to get". That is a percentage improvement even better than the 25 per cent. which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, demonstrated for us.
Despite the impact—I hope that there was an im-pact—of the debate in November 1979 to which the noble and learned Lord referred and in which the noble and learned Lord spoke so very effectively, we are still talking of "missions" instead of "jobs"; we still make "value judgments" instead of "judgments"; we still look at people's "track records" instead of "records"; and we still send "naval task forces" instead of "naval forces" to the Shatt-el-Arab. We must learn to be briefer and, when we have learned, we must try to teach others to be briefer, too. As has already been indicated to your Lordships' House, the benefit would be manifest.
I believe that to develop brevity, to develop concise-
782
ness, is really more important than to reform spelling. If a policy of brevity were seriously implemented by teachers—if they could be convinced of its merits I suppose they could implement it—they would find that it would be greatly helped by adopting as often as possible the Anglo-Saxon alternatives to the many words we use which are of Latin origin: our Norman French heritage. We should "start" rather than "commence"; we should "leave" and not "depart"; we should "end" rather than "conclude"; and we should "spit" rather than "expectorate".
Anglo-Saxon has since 1066 been greatly neglected. When we have wanted new words, we have built on our Norman French, our Latin. Many of us even think that it is not possible to build new words from Anglo-Saxon with the same facility as from Latin. I believe that it is. I often recall the Anglo-Saxon alternative to the "impermeability of matter". It is the "ungothroughfulness of stuff". That is just as descriptive and it has three syllables fewer. I believe that the result of the Battle of Hastings dealt a blow to brevity from which our language has never recovered. It is time we went back to 1065.
6.16 p.m.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, I want to concentrate on a very few facts. 1 shall possibly say something controversial because I want to put in at least one word for English as it is spoken or written at present, while allowing full scope to many of the reforms which the noble and learned Lord has suggested.
There is a certain confusion in people's minds between what is brief, or short, and what is clear. One noble Lord mentioned Bernard Shaw. He is a good example. He wrote the longest sentences but it was always possible to understand every word, whether or not one agreed with him, because of the rhythm in which those sentences were written.
Language has to do two things. It has to have sound and it has to have sense. One of the reasons why 1 believe that the English language is particularly difficult to simplify is because, as has been said, it is a young language compared to, say, Chinese or to Hebrew, or to many other languages which have kept their individuality. Our language has been invaded by the Romans, by the Saxons and by the Angles. Much later it was invaded by Norman French. It was not until 1400 that English as a language came into existence. Before that, there were a number of separate languages.
I shall be corrected by the noble Lord who is to speak later, but I think that there is something called Boyle's Law of Chemistry, due to Robert Boyle, known as the Father of Chemistry. I think he was the brother of the Earl of Orrery. There is also something called Chaucer's Law. Geoffrey Chaucer produced a new language. It happened to take the form of verse but Geoffrey Chaucer was the first person, I think, who combined French words with English words in a way which could not be bettered. Some of his lines are absolutely perfect: for instance, "Up rose the sun and up rose Emily", or the description of treachery as "The smiler with the knife beneath his cloak." He managed to get a great many thoughts into short words. However, he also used long words.
Many people reasonably think that Latin words

783
are always longer and harder to understand than Anglo-Saxon words. Anybody who attended the debate on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill will regret some of the names which are given for clarity only to some of our most beautiful flowers or animals. It seems to me that the only creature which got it right was the corncrake; in classical language this is known as the Crex crex. Both the name Crex crex and the word "corncrake" suggest to me, without a musical ear, the sound of the corncrake. However, the Latin word is slightly shorter than the Anglo-Saxon word.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, had a Latin name, he would be named Lord Pons. That is a slightly shorter word. May I take this opportunity, because it is almost the only thing I have left to say, to congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech which I shall read with the greatest interest tomorrow. He was speaking about the law. I will not, as I would have done had there been more time, go in to some of the loss which I think there would be to people learning English if nobody took any account of English poetry, which is one of the gifts which this country has given to the world, and it would be very difficult if one went extremely far in simplifying the language.
An attempt was made by Milton to make it more classical. His greatest poem, of course, ran to 12 books, each of enormous length. That could certainly be shortened, and I know that it has been shortened to eight lines, of which seven lines are Milton's own, and they tell the story clearly
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal tasteM
Brought death into the world, and all our woe,"
Those lines tell how, when our first parents ate that fruit
" The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow
From Eden took their solitary way".
I think all those words are perfectly clear. The only long words, of which "disobedience" is one, are familiar to children of about 6 years of age. But of course it leaves out a good deal of the substance of the poem while telling the story. Among other things it leaves out the most glamorous figure of the anti—hero of the whole poem as well as everything that the poem is read for.
I believe one of the great difficulties about simplifying English is that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that one has to understand some very difficult idioms. For instance, when one says that it is "quite simple" to simplify English what does the word "quite" mean? Does it mean more or less? When one says that someone is quite pretty, that is rather modest, rather under-valuing; but if we say that she is "quite beautiful" that means more. This happens over and over again. If one says "quite cool" does that mean very cool or only slightly cool? The more words that one thinks of to which "quite" is applied, the more one realises that it is a fairly subtle rule. If the word is a superlative one, "quite" makes it more so; if not it makes it less so. Those are things which are very difficult to simplify, however much one simplifies spelling.
784
I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in wishing very good luck to all attempts to simplify the language, but I do not believe it is as easy as many people think; and as the language goes out, not only into the world, but possibly into other worlds in their different forms, I think it is important that it should not only remain a language but that it should remain English.
6.24 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I looked forward with great interest to hear what the noble and learned Lord who initiated this debate would have to say upon this subject. I found myself cast into a great cloud of wonder as to what advocacy he could put forward in favour of simplifying the English language. My wonder is not totally dispelled now because, if I may say so with respect, he has not made much in the way of recommendations for reforming the language beyond doing away with a certain number of irregular verbs.
Spelling—yes, because surely spelling is the method by which the language is communicated rather than the language itself. However, that would be a rather pedantic and niggling sort of remark to make. It would also debar me from saying what I think of his remark about American spelling, which is very much to the point so long as it is confined to words ending in "or", but as other noble Lords have pointed out, there are several others. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned that American spelling forms are highly undesirable. Also it seems to me there is a risk that if we were to adopt American spelling we might even go so far as to adopt American pronunciation. It occurs already in fact, and I am thinking of the word "kilometre". "Kilome-ter", I suppose, is euphonies and sensible to an American but really to an Englishman it is (or ought to he) purely illiterate, a "kilome-ter" being presumably an instrument for measuring kilos and nothing to do with a "kilo-metre" which is 1,000 metres. However that is slightly by the way.
It seems to me that we have already one of the simpler languages. I would deplore the idea of setting up a commission to interfere with it at all. I am not very keen on commissions anyway. But think of what we miss, to our own advantage, compared with other languages. We have no case endings, no conjugations; we have irregular verbs, certainly. We do not have to think, as we might have to when speaking French, whether "day" is masculine and "night" is feminine (or the other way round.) In German a "girl" is feminine, which is reasonable even for a German. But if she is a little girl, with a diminutive suffix put on at the end, she suddenly becomes neuter. That may also be reasonable from the German point of view but I personally find it rather complicated.
Again, still on the subject of German, it is possible for us English to refer to the man who yesterday was seen walking across Hyde Park wearing a green overcoat. But a German would have to describe this chap as the "yesterday walking in the park in green overcoat see man". You have to wait until the very end to find out what a person is talking about anyway. It is all

785
very well for Germans, but we have our own particular logic and, whether it is good or not, I hope very much that we shall stick to it.
There are other complications which other people have. The languages which I have in mind at the moment have words of particular simplicity—mono-syllabic very often—and have reduced their vocabularies to such an extent that they can practically say nothing without the greatest circumlocution; they become more complicated. In Burmese, for example, you have to speak of "the time when brothers would not know each other" instead of the simple word "midnight". In that same language, incidentally, you cannot "smoke"; you have to "drink a tobacco roll". That is simplicity carried too far.
To return to our own language, it becomes both more simple as time goes by and also more complicated. Mention has been made already of the frequent use of three words for one. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned that and it was very much to the point, but also strange words keep coming in. I received a letter last Friday, and I daresay other noble Lords received a copy of that same letter, the writer of which said that the firm that he represented "operated two retail outlets". I do not know why, unless of course it is a more classy way of saying that he ran two shops. Why do we have to do that? I do not think we can get rid of that sort of nonsense or gobbledygook by legislation or by a commission. I think people have to be allowed to grow out of it by example—the example of reading or listening to good English; perhaps listening to some of the better speeches which fall from the lips of your Lordships in this House.
Yesterday morning I heard on the wireless a reference to "school dinner ladies". I do not actually move in a world in which there are school dinner ladies but I think I grasped the idea. I suppose if a man were to be employed he would be a "school dinner gentleman". Would he?—I do not know. In these egalitarian days perhaps he would. But does that have any correspondence of any kind with the sandwichzman or sandwich gentleman?
Let us leave the language as it is, I beg. Let us read the good examples; let us read the supreme master of writing, clear, simple and unambiguous English, P. G. Wodehouse, who imposed no hardship on anybody to read. Let us listen to and look forward to listening as often as we can to those lucid speakers, Her Majesty's judges, and particularly, if I may say so on this occasion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, this is a fascinating debate. I should like to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken by paying a tribute to our learned judges, to the Prelates, and particularly to the Lord Chancellor, who is not on the Woolsack now. When his English is at its best it is a beautiful piece of oratory at times, but much better than that, it is purposeful and the selection of the language is superb. That is particularly when he is not dealing with campanology, if I may make a crack; some noble Lords will remember that he once rang a bell at a Conservative conference. But forgetting that, the depth of his knowledge of
786
language and his learning in Greek and everything else helps to make his English very beautiful.
As a Welshman, I was taught to parse and analyse and worked hard in school, and we were forced to do it. I do not think there is a child today who can analyse or parse a simple sentence. They do not know the difference between a preposition and a leg of pork. You get them reading comics. If you want simplicity of spelling, I can buy comics every day that the kids read, full of American spelling and full of some of the most vulgar spelling in the world. It hurts me when I look at it. But, nevertheless, it is simple and, nevertheless, it is part of the culture of the world in which we are living. It is part of a move towards man getting a universal language. As one interested in Esperanto, you can use it, but I cannot see linguistics and the depths of philosophy being used in Esperanto.
There is an absolute need in the pharmaceutical and medical profession to have words that can mean only one thing. So you are bound to build up a language with Greek and Latin roots that can only mean one drug. The chemist and the doctor and the surgeon know the gamut of this language. Is it English? Anyway, it is a complete vocabulary. If you have the misfortune some time to be cut open by one of these men who have this marvellous vocabulary and discuss philosophy or Welsh or English poetry he is out of his depth, but I am out of my depth when he is dealing with his profession. In other words, when we are talking about the English language we must remember that the gamut of the English language is greater than any other language in the world.
It results from conquest by outsiders, campaigns that built empires. We have brought into our language Malay words, Indian words, Greek words, words from all over the world. Used beautifully it is, apart from Welsh, one of the most colourful languages in the world.
I should like to pay a tribute to the maiden speaker and thank him very much, because we have a typical example of the mix—up with homonyms, words that are spelled differently but sound the same owners and onus, shoot and chute. We used to play a game as children called coffee pots, guessing what the homonyms were. What are we after in our simplicity of language? I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for opening it up. We are after clarity of diction; we are after, too, the need for sonority and the beauty of sound. Sometimes the words are not so important. The sound can create a mood in poetry and in oratory; all these things are part of the tingling necessity of a beautiful language, and English has it. When I get to the seven minutes which I am going to take I will read one verse to prove that. May I remind your Lordships that Sir Ernest Gowers did a job of work second to none. He was invited by that aristocratic bunch of boys in the Treasury to do it, so that letters from the civil servants were legible and could be understood. Sir Ernest Gowers wrote a book to help officials in their use of written English, to simplify and clarify their use of language. I suppose all noble Lords have his works on their study shelves, the ABC of Plain Words and Plain Words, the use of good and simple English. This was a first-class job of work done by Sir Ernest, because of the kind of thoughts that have been demonstrated in this House and all areas of education this last 20 or 30 years, to get simple and good

787
English. Writing and speech, he says, are instruments for conveying ideas from one mind to another. As Cervantes said in his Don Quixote:
"Do but take care to express yourself in a plain easy manner, in well-chosen, significant and decent terms and give …"
this is the lovely bit—
"… a harmonious and decent turn to your periods;"
That is what the Lord Chancellor can do.
"… study to explain your thoughts and express them in the truest light, labouring as much as possible not to leave them dark nor intricate but clear and intelligible".
That is a problem for judges often, but the jury have to interpret it.
We suffer from "televisionese" and "journalese" and sometimes it is pathetic. There are fashions. When I was a child Trafalgar was good enough. Now it is Trafalgar and it is Himal ayas. I believe in Anglicising foreign words to make them clear, especially if you do not know the language properly; for Heaven's sake try to get a correct English pronunciation of foreign words. I do not run up and down the street shouting "Paree, paree". These are points that one should take into view; the other is a sort of kitsch, which is stuff and nonsense.
The English sentence at its best is one of the most lovely and there is a natural process going on that will please the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, Words change; words can become obsolete and their meanings change. Simple words powerfully used are shown in all our best writings. Shakespeare used 15,000 different words. Nobody has used such simple words. There was a beautiful example given me yesterday over tea by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of a beautiful line from Shakespeare with no more than three or four letters in a word. I could find other examples. The Bible uses 8,000 words, Milton 6,000, beautifully put together.
Finally, using English, I would quote Dylan Thomas. Nobody would know what he was meaning but the effect made mood, and mood is important in the use of language and mood is paramount if one wants to get one's meaning across very well. I will finish with two verses from the Reverend Eli Jenkins prayer in Bethesda House as he gropes his way out of bed in the early morning when the dew is there but the air is beautiful.
"Dear Gwalia! I know there are
Towns lovelier than ours,
And fairer hills and loftier far,
And groves more full of flowers,
And boskier Woods more blithe with spring And bright with birds adorning,
And sweeter bards than I to sing
Their praise this beauteous morning.
By mountains where King Arthur dreams,
By Penmaenmawr defiant,
Llaregyb Hill a molehill seems,
A pygmy to a giant".
You understand that, and it has got you in the mood for the "Bible black" Under Milk Wood. I am grateful to the noble Lord for getting us in the mood to look into our own beautiful language.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord
788
Bridge of Harwich, on a truly model maiden speech and, also, of course, to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for providing the opportunity for it and also for the rest of us to express our views.
While conceding the importance of spelling I think that one must put it into proportion. It has been called "the graphic dress of language". I think that that is fair. Graphics are important but, of course, they are not everything. There is one other point on which I should like to take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and that is the question of the regularisation of verbs. I have a small son, aged nine, whose first native language was Spanish so he learnt English as a second language and he is firmly convinced that all verbs in English are regular. The result is that I hear practically everyday of my life— perhaps not every day, but certainly every weekend—" putted as the past participle of "put" and "gotted" as the past participle of "got". On the percentage basis I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will find that there is a 100 per cent. additional gain in letters on those verbs, if they are made regular. I agree that we come out roughly equal between "wreaked and" wrought and "teached" and "taught". However, I think that that is a point we should bear in mind if we are to aim at the exclusive regularisation of all verbs in the language.
One of the difficulties in talking about the English language stems from the many variants that are in use. Obviously there is mother English—the tongue of Shakespeare, first codified by Dr. Johnson in his great dictionary of 1755 with its 43,500 root words and 118,000 illustrated quotations. Then there is American English which we have heard referred to in some cases slightly disparagingly this afternoon. But there is another variety that I should like to refer to and which I can best describe as "Euro" or "UN English", which might also be called "Conference English". It is one of the five official UN languages in which most reports are written, and that includes the reports of United Nations bodies and agencies; the World Bank; the EEC; and the Brandt Commission, and many British Government reviews and reports are tending to be couched in this language. I happen to believe that the greatest threat to clarity and understanding in our tongue in fact comes from that quarter. I fear that it is making constant inroads into mainstream English and sapping our language's native strength.
Of course, we all have our pet aversions and most of those can probably be found in Sir Ernest Gowers's Plain Words which, incidentally, was revised—really rewritten—by Sir Bruce Fraser. The last edition, which makes very good reading indeed, was issued by the Stationery Office in 1973 at the price in those days of only £l. I do not know what would be the cost of a new edition now, but it is still very good reading.
Gowers follows Fowler and some other noble Lords this afternoon in preferring the Saxon word to the Romance. He deals severely—but with not much hope of killing it—with "hopefully" on page 162. I recommend page 162 on the subject of "hopefully". He gives a useful list of vogue words to be avoided on pages 204 to 206 and among them are, of course, "capability", "dialogue", "dichotomy", "extrapolate", "parameters" and "syndrome"—just to take only a few out of a fairly lengthy list.

789
Also, I think that I might recommend to your Lordships page 223 in which he gives us an entertaining version of the "gobbledygook" game which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others. This version is called the "buzz-phrase generator" and it is said to originate from the Canadian Defence Department. It is three columns of nine words each and one is required to combine a word from each column and one can do it across the board—if that is the right phrase— and come out with exactly the same mixture of sense or nonsense whichever way you do it. So you can get "compatible logistical projection", or "integrated reciprocal flexibility"; "functional digital concept" or "responsive logistical time-phase" et cetera. This game was recommended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Willis and I was glad to be able to find it in Gowers also.
We all have our pet aversions and among my own are "strategy" which has a misleadingly grand and sweeping ring about it. You feel, wrongly, that any organisation with a strategy knows what it is doing. "Transfer of resources" is the common euphemism in international affairs for "gift or loan of money" —I suppose because we cannot bear to recognise what we are really talking about. I imagine that we must also feel that "educational provision" is somehow more painless than straight "teaching". What on earth are "perceived needs"?—which I read in a Government report this afternoon. It sounds reassuring but who perceives them and were they perceived correctly? Then, in a desperate attempt to correct these tendencies we lurch into the pseudo-vernacular with phrases like "cope with" or "take on board". I also—and I accept that this is a personal quirk—dislike the pervasiveness of business terminology where it does not belong, giving us, for example, "client groups" in a free public education system, where no semblance of any market transaction takes place. Children will shortly become "customers" for the services of the state and so on.
What can we do about this? What are the remedies? Should we have an academy on French or Spanish lines? Despite Matthew Arnold's enthusiasm for the French academy, I think that most of us here should be more inclined to Dr. Johnson's view that
"language is the work of man, from whom permanence and stability cannot be derived".
So an academy, I think, is not appropriate in this country. Should Gowers become obligatory reading? I think that there is certainly no reason why it should be confined to the Civil Service for whom it was intended. I think that it would be a good idea if the Stationery Office contemplated a further edition and a wider distribution.
I cannot see whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is present. However, I do not think he will mind my saying, as he is not speaking this afternoon, that he has a preference for someone called Vallins who apparently wrote three books: Good English; Better English and Best English. I do not know them, but they may also be worthy of your Lordships' consideration.
Finally, I should like to make a suggestion to the Government—a modest proposal of my own. I should like to suggest that they set up a small quango. This suggestion has already been made this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of
790
Glaisdale. I want to set up a rival Quango to his. I dare to hope that the noble Baroness, who was such a doughty Quango hunter in the last Parliament, will not wish to push her campaign to the point of complete extinction of this endangered species.
The one that I propose might be called the English Language Monitoring Service or possibly the English Language Review Board. Its main job will be to read, digest—or digest where it could—and comment on the reports of international agencies written in English; Government circulars; White and Green Papers; reports and reviews of Government departments and NGO's (which, incidentally are non-governmental organisations)—in fact, anything issued in English by people in responsible positions using language to the detriment of understanding and the perversion of meaning.
In these days of unemployment it should not be difficult to engage a corps of part-time readers on the lines of publishers' readers, who take their work home, thus stimulating a useful cottage industry. A quarterly report would be issued, chiding, correcting and praising, where praise was due. It would be circulated to all Government departments and local authorities, chambers of commerce, NGOs, international agencies, branches of the British Council and would be compulsory reading in schools up and down the country. The central office would require only a secretary-general, one administrative assistant and a couple of secretaries. In order to save Her Majesty's Government the expense of advertising this post I should be happy to offer my own services as the first secretary-general at a very modest salary, as is proper to a modest proposal. I am sorry that I did not have time to give the noble Baroness advance notice of my suggestion, but I have no doubt that she will pass it on to the proper people, and I hope for a favourable response.
6.50 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for the opportunity to discuss this very interesting subject and, if I may, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, on what I thought was an extremely elegant and a model maiden speech.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that English spelling is in need of attention, but I would go very much further than him in that I think that finally there is an unanswerable case for wholesale reform. I start with the premise that the purpose of writing to is to record words, and that is really the only purpose. It seems to me to be self-evident that a system of recording words should be as efficient as possible. I think that we may, very rightly, find excuses for inconsistencies in language, although I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, would be quite so enthusiastic about that proposition as I am. But I do not think that we can find any excuses at all for inconsistencies in the way in which these words are represented on the printed page.
We have arrived at a system which is both highly inconsistent and quite unnecessarily complicated. In fact, I think that our system of orthography is quite

791
uniquely bad. We have a possible rival in France, but that country's system lags behind quite a bit. One could give all sorts of examples and many have been given, so I shall not delay the House with many. I think that the height of absurdity is reached by the spelling in the same way of both the present tense and the past tense of the verb "read ", although again the noble and learned Lord might prefer us to say readed" for the past tense.
Our system of spelling means colossal wastage of time for foreigners, and for us, at least when we are children, although many of us continue to have difficulty throughout life. Abroad, at least in Europe, I think that it is true to say that logical systems are the rule rather than the exception. I know that German is rarely inconsistent although it is somewhat prolix. Italian and Spanish are, I believe, highly consistent. I hope that this will not be too obscure for the House, but in Yugoslavia their system of spelling is so consistent that anyone who knows one of the two alphabets—a point to which I shall come later—can spell without any difficulty at all.
Perhaps I should give some indication of what I think should replace our present, highly messy system. I do not believe that a new alphabet is necessary or even desirable; not even a highly modified Latin alphabet, such as the initial teaching alphabet. That was conceived primarily as an aid to learning and it seems that in setting it up conciseness was a matter of first concern. There are certainly plenty of possible schemes using only the Latin alphabet, with possibly the introduction of a few accents if we came to the conclusion that dipthongs could not be rendered very elegantly using combinations of vowels.
I should like to see the adoption of a scheme which was entirely consistent—that is to say, that each sound in the language would be rendered by one letter or a group of letters; and, secondly, a system which was as concise as possible—that is to say, with as few letters as possible per sound.
Of course, a number of objections can be raised to this, the first of which is that one might say that this would result in our language looking like Finnish, Swahili, pidgin English or God knows what. I do not think that that would matter a great deal; in fact, I do not think that it would matter at all. In all probability it would end up looking much more like Anglo-Saxon than anything else, which is where we started.
Secondly, there is the objection that we would need worldwide agreement on pronunciation. But I do not think that this is true either. If American pronunciation of the word "tomato" would require a different spelling from ours, so be it, there would be no problem. There would be no objection to my mind either to Scots spelling their writing in a different way from ours. In fact, this would have a desirable side-effect in encouraging dialect. Elizabethan writers spelt as they felt appropriate to the utterance and anyone who has looked at Donne's poems, for example, with the original spelling, will I think have to agree that they knew what they were doing most of the time.
A third objection is that it would be difficult to change. But I think that the people who say that underestimate the ability of people to cope with different linguistic systems. Perhaps I could give a couple
792
of examples. The Scandinavian languages—by which I mean Danish, Swedish and Norwegian—are very similar but they employ different spelling systems in the various countries. However, a Dane has absolutely no difficulty in reading a Swedish newspaper, or, for that matter, a Norwegian one. Perhaps I may quote Yugoslavia as an example. Its two alphabets, the Cyrillic and the Latin, are both in widespread use for the same language. All educated people can read both alphabets and I can vouch for the fact that at least a working knowledge of the Cyrillic alphabet can be gained in a matter of a few days.
But one need not to go so far afield. I understand that in the transition that has to take place between the initial teaching alphabet and normal English for children who are learning to read, very few problems have been encountered. Therefore, I think that there would be much less difficulty than is commonly supposed. We would, of course, need a transitory period, such as we are still having with metrification, and we do not seem to be doing too badly.
The fourth objection is that it would upset the overseas book trade. I think that this is the best argument against it. Briefly, the argument is on the lines that we would be putting ourselves at a disadvantage as against the Americans who, it is supposed, would not be adopting a new system. Indeed, I think that we ought to have reformed our spelling a hundred years ago, before English became a world language and before widespread literacy. But it seems to me to be fairly certain that one day the matter will have to be tackled, if not by us, presumably by the Americans. It might well be that overseas buyers would, after getting used to the idea, be delighted at the new-found ease which they encountered on reading English. I think that we, rather than anyone else, ought to give the lead in this matter.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, I should like to start, as other noble Lords contributing to this debate have done, by thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for giving us this opportunity. I have found it a most fascinating debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, on an excellent maiden contribution.
On the matter of spelling reform, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and others have referred, I am a little doubtful. But I am sufficiently broadminded to feel that, if it will help make English, which is a wonderful language, into a more useful world language and be more helpful to young people, then I should be very happy that that should go forward, if anyone can decide how to do it. I believe, though, that there are some problems involved.
However, having started my own education in a grammar school in the north of Scotland—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would be in agreement with me here—I have always thought that I was rather good at spelling and, indeed, at parsing. As one of the older generation now, I think that on the whole, even if these changes do take place after careful thought and examination, I should like to phase myself out, as it were, on the old system. I am not

793
going to pursue the spelling point any further than that, however, because time is short.
Words change their meaning of course and always will and always should, and new words have to be invented. When a word changes its meaning almost imperceptibly over a long time that can be rather a charming process. One thinks of the word "chivalry" which started by meaning something quite concrete, a lot of armed men on horseback, but over a long period came to mean the code of knightly or gentlemanly conduct, and that is quite an interesting and charming development.
Equally, there are long changes over time which completely change the meaning of the word, and I am thinking of the word "liberty", which meant something concrete at the time of Magna Carta and now means something rather abstract, and in fact really quite opposite things. In that sense that excellent little book 1066 and All That I always thought captured the spirit of Magna Carta a good deal more successfully than some more serious historians have done since. It was a charter of liberties; that is, privileges being transferred from one place to another, and not a charter of liberty in the sense of the word as we know it now. I shall not go further into that now. Words are always doing that.
I do not want to go into my pet hatreds this evening except to refer to them briefly because it is in connection with the meaning of words. Words get murdered and turned about very rapidly in the modern world. One thing that I dislike intensely is the tendency there has been to take words that have had quite clear and precise meanings and turn them into indiscriminate, ready abuse to be thrown about and meaning nothing very much. One hears that all the time, and that is something that I deplore. There are many cases of that sort of thing. I also dislike the meaningless adjective, which is thrown about a great deal. If I had to pick out one that happens to come into my mind as I am speaking, it is the use of the word "diabolical". Pretty well everything, so far as I can recall, in the last week or two has been called "diabolical" on television, and I have become very sick of that word indeed. It does not mean a thing in that context.
I want to finish, as I do not want to go on long this evening, by referring to two points which all of us, particularly as legislators and politicians and so forth, could do something about ourselves, without setting up commissions or doing anything else, though commissions and things may be necessary—I am not madly keen on them—to look into, say, spelling and other more complicated suggestions that have been made in this debate.
I do not think that it has been due to malignity on the part of any individual or group, but, arising out of the intense specialisation of the modern world, we have tended, rather as the medieval guilds were called "mysteries", to turn ourselves into mysteries, and turn our particular speciality into something that, on the one hand, has a convenient jargon and shorthand which means a great deal to those of us who are in the mystery but nothing at all to some perfectly well-trained and well-educated human being who is not in the secret. On the other hand, if you like, it can also become a convenient restrictive practice to see that the mystery remains a mystery and not too many people
794
join it. That is something we could do more to change.
After all, certainly as legislators and politicians, one of our prime objectives must be to communicate with people. It is one of the objects of language. It is not the only object of language: language has many other objectives as such; to charm; to do many other things. However, communication is one of its main objectives, and certainly one of our main objectives whichever party or whatever group we may belong to. To break down the lack of communication between people with different expert knowledge is most important.
Added to that, there is of course the terrible rash of initials. I came across a good instance of this. There again they are a convenient form of shorthand. They can sometimes become a complete language when you hear two specialists talking to each other. It goes almost as far as total understanding in some levels of the Civil Service where they never finish a sentence but understand each other so well. These initials are another very damaging aspect of communication. If only everyone who was going to make a speech, or particularly to go on to the mass media, would look through the last draft, or whatever it is, of the script or preparation that he has been making, and, without necessarily taking Dr. Johnson's advice if he found a fine passage to strike it out, at any rate if he found too many initials to strike them out and find some other way of explaining, he might be very much more widely understood and appreciated.
7.6 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailesbury: My Lords, unless my watch has stopped, which I do not think it has, it is time that we pedants began to congratulate ourselves upon our exemplary brevity—so unlike those who previously debated the comparatively minor matter of Gibraltar! Therefore, in order to keep my vow to be always one of the briefest speakers, I shall cut down my speech. It gives me no pleasure to intervene in the noble and learned Lord's debate and totally to disagree with him. I can only hope that he will shrug his shoulders and say, "Well, with enemies like Ailesbury who needs friends?".
My difficulty is that I fear that simplification may come to mean abbreviation. That is important because some of my worst enemies are abbreviations. Some of my more saddening moments came immediately after my father died, chiefly for obvious reasons but partly—and I do not want to be unduly frivolous, but I know that my father's ghost will forgive me for saying this—because of my ordeal when I tried to insert appropriate notices into top people's newspapers.
I found to my intense disgust that I was not permitted to speak of, for instance, Wednesday, 4th October. It was obligatory to say, "Wed. Oct. 4". In vain did I flourish my cheque book and offer to pay for the many words which the telephone persons on these newspapers were so insistent on cutting out. Of course they did not bother to explain. They simply said, "niet". So when I had buried my father and recovered my composure generally, I wrote to a director of one of these newspapers who had the misfortune to be an acquaintance of mine, and I gave him the inestimable benefit of my views on this subject.
He sent my letter down to the commissars in the

795
engine room, from whence it rebounded smartly with a memorandum attached. Since this memorandum of course had been written by these butchers of the English language its prose style was naturally somewhat impure. It was headed, I recall, "Lord Ailesbury's beef". Its message was that all aspects of Lord Ailesbury's beef were covered by the plain fact that Wed. Oct. 4 was part of the house style. Can you imagine a more revolting euphemism?
When I close my eyes and conjure up the emotive words "house style" in this context, I see an elderly scribe seated on a high stool with a quill pen lovingly illustrating something of exquisite beauty. It is really intolerable to use this phrase to describe a process of murdering the English language, foisting jargon on to the unwilling customer, following that with a large bill, and printing it in a somewhat blurred manner on paper of such quality that reading the newspaper has to be interrupted by visits to another room to wash one's hands.
I do not want to claim too much credit for the old roast beef of Ailesbury, but whatever the cause the commissars have relented and nowadays one is graciously permitted to say "Wednesday, October 4th", and long may it continue. But, to be realistic, I cannot help feeling that people who have committed such atrocities may one day return to a life of crime, and that is why I summoned the family doctor and instructed him that in future all members of my family are to breathe their last during the month of May.
I apologise for ending with another tale of jargon but I regard this one as a collectors' item and I feel it should be zero rated for VAT and capable of being passed down free of capital transfer tax as part of the heritage. It occurred recently in the Jersey Evening Post nd took the form of a message inserted by a rather self-important shop; the shop shall be nameless because I still have relations living in Jersey and I fear victimisation and reprisals. It said that such and such a shop at such and such a number,
"Bar Street, wishes to thank our customers for such extreme loyalty in patronising us during the recent precinctisation of the above Street".
Noble Lords will appreciate that after reading that I found it difficult to get to sleep that night. In fact, I might have gone sleepless had it not been that I hit on the happy idea of counting not sheep but brickbats passing in an endless stream through that shop's window, but even then I had nightmares. I do not know what happened in the real world during the hours of darkness, but the next day the black clouds rolled away and that evening I read that so and so of such and such a number,
"Bar Street, wishes to thank our customers for such extreme loyalty in patronising us during the recent conversion of Bar Street to a precinct".
So, while we may often feel we are drowning in a sea of jargon, I feel able to end on a note of optimism, for surely while there is deprecinctisation there must be hope.
7.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord
796
Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate. He referred in opening to the fact that we had a debate on a rather similar subject on 21st November 1979. That was on standards of written and spoken English, and I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, took part this afternoon. First, however, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, on his maiden speech. I am sure we all enjoyed it and we look forward to what he will have to say on some of the complicated matters of legislation that we have to discuss.
As I knew the noble Lord was a judge, and in preparation for this debate, I read in The Times Law Reports on Friday 23rd January of that very interesting case, which seems relevant to this debate, in which the point at issue was whether or not the word "Exxon" was an original literary work entitled to copyright protection under Section 2 of the Copyright Act 1956. The report was enormously interesting and in summing up his Lordship came to the conclusion that "Exxon" was not an original literary work within Section 2. I felt on reading his remarks that he rather regretted that, although of course the report did not say so, and that he regretted even more that he was unable to use the American case Life Music Company v Wonderland Music Company (1965), in which the word "Super-calafrajalistickespeealadojus" did not assist in his elucidation of the facts.
On the occasion of the debate in November 1979 there were many views as to what constituted good English. Those views were necessarily subjective, but there was agreement about the fundamental importance of language, and at the risk of some repetition I would say that on that occasion I spoke about the need to distinguish between usages which were wrong and those which were merely different. I drew attention to the fact, particularly relevant to this debate, that English was now a multinational language. I suggested then that it would surely be unreasonable to support the proposition that we could attain a standard pattern of usage in England and that it would be difficult to impose on language standards and simplified forms of spelling or a more logical system of grammar.
In that debate many points of view were put forward, but no reasons were given to fear a catastrophic decline in standards. At the same time the House felt there was no room for complacency and expressed the view that coherent, consistent, intelligent and correct speech forms were important, and said that standards should be upheld by our major institutions. With all those points I am sure we would agree. The question before the House is whether a simplification of English would advance the cause of standards or result in confusion. Would we find ourselves with a universally accepted, logical, elegant form of English, or would we be inviting linguistic chaos? Would we find ourselves like Humpty Dumpty, who said:
"When I use a word it means no more and no less than I want it to mean".
Language is a means of communication and that is its essential, perhaps only, function, whether we are discussing poetry or a technical thesis. We must ask ourselves whether English would be more easily learned by foreigners or by young children, and become a

797
more effective instrument of communication, if it were to be simplified.
In this debate nearly all noble Lords have referred to the questions of the reform of spelling and grammar. Some have argued that our children face particular difficulties in learning to cope with a system of spelling that is complicated and frequently inconsistent. But the history of spelling reform is not encouraging, perhaps partly because of the proliferation of contending schemes. Noble Lords have referred to Robert Bridges, Bernard Shaw, and the initial teaching alphabet, and indeed it was Robert Bridges who wrote his last poem, The Testament of Beauty, in a form of spelling noted particularly for its ommission of mute letters. Shaw, on the other hand—the great reformer of this century—proposed more thorough-going changes, including a new alphabet with between 40 and 50 new letters.
Sir James Pitman's initial teaching alphabet, although not designed as a reform of spelling as a whole, owes something both to new spelling and to the Shaw alphabet, and for those who are not entirely familiar with it, the new spelling was published in 1948. To give a typical sentence, in—
"We instinctively shrink from any change in what is familiar"
"change" is spelt "chaenj" followed by "whot iz familyar". There is a failure of reformers to agree among themselves and the result is that none has really taken root. The fact is that these reforms, so long as they are phonetically based, face the problem of the wide variation in speech patterns from one part of the country to another, not to mention the differences between different parts of the English-speaking world.
Speech varies over the passage of time, too. Dr. Johnson called the attempt to accommodate spelling to pronunication "measuring by a shadow". Even within the same sentence the same word can be pronounced differently. Thus, there are formidable problems, some of which were drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who gave a number of good examples, to which I would add the word which is frequently used, "meet" meaning to meet somebody, which can be "meat" or "mete"; it makes a difference how the word is spelt. I can, however, I believe, help my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery on one point. He asked whether the dinner lady would be replaced on some future occasion by the dinner gentleman. I think the answer is, no, she will not; the dinner lady will, I think, I regret to say, be replaced by the dinner person.
I shall of course draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to this debate, and I am certain he is not at all hostile to the idea of language reform. However, that is not something which could be imposed, and if one were seriously thinking of language reform, it would have to win the support of the general public and of those in our schools—teachers, parents and governors. The initial teaching alphabet has been successful in introducing many children to reading, but it would not be right for me to advocate its use everywhere, and I think that it would be wrong to suppose that there is some simple way to the teaching of reading. The most important factor is the dedication and the experience of the teacher.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also
798
referred to American spelling and suggested that we might look to the American example in this respect. He said that he preferred "color" and "favor" on grounds of economy. Indeed, I listened with great care to what he said on this important need to save money, and obviously I shall draw this to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am sure will be very pleased. This is something which we should have ever more before us, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that it is very dangerous to prescribe in these matters. I suspect that, as in other matters of this kind—dare I mention anything so controversial as metrication? —the cost of the change will be greater than the savings to be made.
Certainly neither Webster, who uses "color", nor Johnson, who spells the word with a "u", can claim phonetics on his side. Etymology favours Johnson, though Webster believes that he was historically correct in deriving these words directly from the Latin. There is of course British inconsistency—for example, the two words "author" and "terror", for which we cannot blame Johnson. But perhaps one of the reasons why the Americans so readily adopted Webster's changes was to cement their unity and mark out their differences from us.
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the possibility of a national language commission. He will be interested to know that this is not the first occasion on which such an idea has been mooted. In preparation for the debate I looked again at the extract from the diaries of the late Sir Alexander Cadogan, who was then the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. In 1943 it was suggested that there should be a committee which would look at basic English. In preparation for that committee—which never actually met—Sir Alexander prepared a memo, which began:
"Bargee English—Preliminary Report of the Lord President's Committee".
It stated:
"Much thought was being devoted to the debasement of English to a point where it could serve as a medium of communication between Anglo-Saxons and other races, known as OR. For this purpose of keeping the foreigner in his place was required a limited range of forceful and easily memorised admonitions".
Sir Alexander then went on to say:
"Prolonged experimentation with what may be called the raw material of bargee English shows that the number of nouns can be reduced to 1,163 and the adjectives to one. A considerable number of verbs would have to be retained, together with their participles, but the mixed sub-committee, which has not yet completed its study of this particular subject, says in an interim report that the less said about some of these verbs, the better".
With that we entirely agree.
However, I find the idea of a national language commission intriguing. I have no doubt that many noble Lords would be well qualified to sit on it. The debate has brought out many differences of view, even on the relatively straightforward matter of spelling. Would agreement on a programme of reform be possible? How could the commission seek to persuade others with ideas of their own? Would they be able to achieve international acceptance, in the United States and in the countries of the old and new Commonwealth? These are not easily soluble problems. I am certainly not convinced that a commission, even if a need could be demonstrated, would work,

799
given our traditions.
I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for his most valuable suggestion of a smaller Quango. I think that he called it the English Language Monitoring Service, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack, would have said, it would rapidly become known as ELMS. I am sure that we would all support the noble Lord's position as I believe a principal administrator of this particular service. I could not help reflecting that if we were looking for people to serve on this Quango, we might bear in mind the fascinating dispute which is currently going on in the columns of the press among the English dons at Cambridge. It is of course a situation worthy of the late Lord Snow himself. Would not the unemployed dons be very suitable to serve on this particular Quango?
I should like to end on a rather more serious note, and turn to a matter to which many noble Lords have referred; namely, gobbledygook. I have much sympathy for those who have banded together to form a society against the proliferation of gobbledygook, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is its president. Official documents which fail to explain themselves properly to those whom they are intended to assist not only serve to alienate the individual from officialdom, but can have serious consequences.
I believe strongly that education today needs to explain itself and its aims clearly if it is to gain the friends and indeed the resources that it needs at a time when there is fierce competition for every available pound. We in education, through clarity and directness of approach, must speak with equal force and equal relevance to the layman and to the professional alike, and through this clarity we must show that we truly understand ourselves what it is that we are seeking from others. I believe that only in this way can we be sure that the message will be correctly interpreted by our audience, whoever they may be. The use of educational jargon does not impress; it does not even blind with science. In my experience it merely serves to alienate and to hinder the proper delivery of whatever message the education service is trying to give.
There is, moreover, a further danger. Too free a use of jargon may not only confuse the outsider; it may also affect the thinking of those who use it. There is a tendency in the social services, and indeed I believe in many Government services that are concerned with people, to use jargon terms, such as "client groups", which is used to describe those at whom a particular service is aimed. In using such anonymous language it is all too easy to forget that "client groups" are made up of people—parents, pupils, patients, the old, the young, the disabled. I believe that it is very important that all of us in public life should therefore be very careful how we use language and we should always remember that it is designed to help the people and not to make things more complicated and more difficult.
During the course of the debate I have looked to see whether it is possible to find some good examples of leaflets produced by my department which are easy to understand. I shall of course show them to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Looking at it quite quickly, I believe that the leaflet which sets out details
800
on pay and pensions for teachers—which is itself a very complicated subject—does so very well, in a form which is intelligible to people. The same applies to the leaflet on grants to students; one might expect students to understand something more easily than many other people. The leaflet sets out in very clear English what students can have by way of grants.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, what we do about English in schools. I was rather surprised that he felt that we had much to learn from the French system of education. It is true that there is the French academy, but I should have thought that he would not himself be in favour of the highly-centralised system of education in which, it is always alleged—even if it is not exactly true today—that the Minister of Education knows what every child is doing in France at 10 o'clock on a Monday morning—
Lord Strabolgi: I agree with that.
Baroness Young: Our devolved system may at first appear to be more confused, but I believe that it is an extremely good system. It is a national system, locally administered, in which responsibility is shared between local government and the teachers and governors of a school.
I am certain that the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read the document which my department issued last January called A Framework for the School Curriculum. In that he will see—and I quote from it—that the Secretaries of State
"… consider that English and mathematics should form part of every pupil's course throughout the whole period of compulsory education. These subjects are essential both in their own right and because of the importance of language and mathematical skills for many other curriculum uses".
The department will be issuing a follow-up document before too long, and, again, the importance of English in the school curriculum will be stressed. I think this is a matter on which we can all agree, and perhaps on that note of what I hope will be agreement I can once again thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate for us, which I am sure we have all enjoyed and will re-read later with enjoyment as well.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, at this hour I certainly should not be justified in doing more than thanking those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate for what I think will be agreed to have been a most informative as well as a most entertaining discussion, and I am truly grateful. This is not a topic on which I think we are likely to make much rapid progress, but I thought the noble Baroness's speech tonight was more forthcoming than on the last occasion we debated this subject. As of course I do not propose to comment on the individual speeches beyond thanking your Lordships, I content myself by associating myself, if I may, with the tributes that have been paid to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend.
The only other matter I wanted to mention arises out of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who, in the old Chinese fashion, let off fireworks with his gunfire. I entirely agreed with what he said, and I venture to think it might be well worthwhile exploring

801
whether, instead of the Report stage in the second House which discusses a Bill, we should not devote the time to the scrutiny of the language of the legislation. Having said that, I merely thank your Lordships for taking part in this debate and, in spite of Lord Bullock's encouragement, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Licensing Amendment (Off-Licences) Bill [H.L.]
7.34 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, I submit, is not just short in length but is also big in merit. It contains just two proposals, one in each of its two clauses, and it follows the line of a debate in this House in October 1979. It is designed to tidy up a small corner of the jungle of our licensing laws, and I shall explain in a minute in more detail. It is not the intention to swing sales of drink from one set of outlets to another. May I say, too, at the beginning of this short speech, that since the Bill was printed I have had letters from individuals, including the chairman of a well-known football club, and organisations, all in support, and I have heard very little from the other side.
It is true that these proposals have been among the recommendations put forward by the Licensed Victuallers' Association for some little time, but I am introducing this Bill not as anyone's agent but because I am convinced of the merits. Here, may I say that I am not hostile to alcohol in moderation, nor to younger people enjoying a drink as much as their elders. I drink my share, I do not disguise it; and, further, I buy my drink where I find it is the best value, as no doubt we all do. In passing, it is a coincidence that we might notice that today in the Grand Committee Room there was a well-attended meeting—in fact, the Grand Committee Room was full—where there were people from different walks of life discussing, under the chairmanship of a Member of your Lordships' House, the results of alcoholic excess. That meeting had the privilege of being addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who I am glad to see is going to speak in this debate this evening.
For a long time this country has had special rules and safeguards for the retailing of alcoholic drink as against the retailing of other general lines. The law today is not uniform as between sales in on- and off-licence premises and the increase in the number of off-licence premises is something which is well-known to us all today; the number has increased greatly over the last few years. I am glad to say that no-one can fault the management of the great majority of these outlets, whatever the law may or may not require of them; but there is need for some amendment of the law, and I am looking forward to Government support since one Home Office Minister has spoken in this vein several times and he, like many knowledgeable social workers, has deplored how easy it is for people, particularly drop-outs and the younger element, to obtain drink from certain laxly-managed outlets.
Now, my Lords, the Bill itself. Clause 1 deals with
802
off-licence premises where the sale of intoxicating liquor is ancillary to other business. The Bill provides that such a drink shall be sold from an enclosed department reserved exclusively for that purpose, as frequently happens today, or from over a counter. This all seems simple and reasonable, but I have heard that the smaller businesses see some difficulty in this. I think myself that it is exaggerated, but if it can be shown to be material we can certainly consider other wording if we come to the Committee stage. What the Bill wishes to prevent is a layout where a shopper can take from the shelves everything that he needs, including alcoholic liquor. That is not something that can be found everywhere, but it does happen in many cases. In fact, I went to two not so very far from your Lordships' House yesterday, and found it was easy to put in my basket a bottle of spirits together with cornflakes and the rest, and to pay for the whole together. The Bill wishes to prevent that; to prevent a layout where a shopper puts his bottle of wine or spirits and his baked beans and cornflakes, and all the rest, into the same basket and pays for them all together.
It is not generally realised that magistrates today, when granting or renewing an off-licence, have no power to impose conditions such as they may on on-licences. believe there are occasions when an assurance is asked for, but I very much doubt whether such assurances could be supported if it came to arguing their validity in court. Whereas magistrates have considerable responsibilities when it comes to the granting of on-licences, they have no powers to impose conditions when they are granting off-licences; and, further, in practice today—and any magistrate would bear this out, I am sure—it is difficult for them to refuse an application for an off-licence, and a number of applicants who have recently been refused have in fact had the decision reversed in the Crown Court.
Let us turn to Clause 2. We have been dealing with premises, now we are turning to persons. Clause 2 provides that a person employed selling intoxicating liquor in the premises that we are considering must be 18 years old, which is the minimum age for the legal handling of alcoholic liquor. It brings the law relating to minors employed in off-licence premises into line with that covering on-licence premises, where persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to serve behind the bar. That seems to me a wholly responsible thing to require. In holiday times it is not unusual for teenagers to work in such stores, and in the smaller shops they could find themselves alone under pressure from schoolmates. Today at this meeting I referred to in the Grand Committee Room I heard a Minister of the Crown say that a growing proportion of our young people are drinking more than a few years ago and that the convictions for drunkenness among young people are also going up. That means that they are drinking more than is good for them.
In conclusion—I do not wish to expand on this because the two points in the Bill are simple, short and I am sure your Lordships can understand both-I cannot see that there will be many people in the country who will be opposed to the provisions of this Bill. As I have said, it is in line with the discussions in this House in October 1979. It is exactly in line with the resolution passed by the magistrates at their conference in December 1979. The wording was that they urged

803
that licences should be granted to supermarkets for the sale of intoxicating liquor only where there is a secure separate licensed area staffed at all times when the area is open by an adult cognisant of the licensing law.
The wording of the Bill is not quite so precise as that, but it shows that what I am proposing is in line with the opinion of the Magistrates' Association. Further, it has the general support of all the police officers, senior and junior, who I have asked. I understand too that the Association of Chief Officers of Police is in favour of the proposal, although they say they are not able to comment on the administrative consequences that might be required in certain businesses under the provisions of this Bill.
It could be said that there is a need for much bigger reform of the licensing laws. I can see one noble Lord already nodding in agreement. Be that as it may, it is well known that we can wait a very long time in this country for major reform of any law, and frequently there is a good case for taking the smaller step when it can be done without great difficulty in a reasonably short time and with wide approval. This straightforward short Bill meets a real need and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading tonight. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Inglewood.)
7.43 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Bill. I would first declare my interests. In common with 10 million of my fellow countrymen, I am a member of a co-operative society. In that society I have a small investment and receive a fixed rate of interest and, so far as they are able to, my family buy their requirements from that society. I think that the House will agree that my financial interest is negligible. On the other hand, I have to admit to a substantial professional interest. I have not only been in the management of retail distribution pretty well the whole of my working life, but I was involved in the initiation and development of the first self-service stores in this country and I wrote a booklet on the subject. I have continued my interest on the subject and I therefore admit that I have a very strong professional interest.
I want to give the House some background data which I think will help them to put this Bill, and what might be said about it, in its proper perspective. The figures that I am going to use have been taken from the Economist Intelligence Unit. Seventy-five per cent. of alcoholic drink in this country is sold from on-licensed premises; that is, premises where the alcoholic drink is consumed on the premises. Of that 75 per cent., 57 per cent. is consumed in public houses, 3 per cent. in restaurants and 15 per cent. in clubs. The balance of 25 per cent. is the off-licence trade.
The off-licence trade can also be analysed. Fourteen per cent. of the 25 per cent. is in specialist off-licence shops, and only the balance of 11 per cent. is the off-licence trade of grocers. Even that 11 per cent. can be broken down. Seven per cent. is by the national multiples; 2 per cent, is by the co-operatives and 2 per cent. is by the independent grocers.
Not all the grocers sell by self-service. I would
804
say that the majority do not. It is, on the other hand, true that some of the specialist shops have developed self-service; but by and large it is fair to say that fewer than 10 per cent. of the alcoholic drink which is sold is sold on self-service. We all abhor excessive drinking and the supply of drink to the young who are below the age. But that is not what this Bill is about. If it were about that it would be an entirely different Bill, and I will show the House in due course how it would be different.
This Bill is a move by one section of the trade against another section of the trade. The impetus for the Bill comes from the licensed victuallers—that is the people who have the pubic houses. It is a move against the off-licence trade, particularly the self-service shops, both large and small. The reason for the Bill has nothing to do with young people, nothing to do with excessive drinking; it is because the public houses are losing trade to the off-licence trade. They are losing trade and, consequently, they are trying to protect themselves.
The reasons why they are losing trade is well known. First of all, the housewife likes one-stop shopping. She likes to be able to buy a bottle of wine with her groceries rather than have to go along to a public house to buy the wine after she has finished buying her groceries. That is the first reason. The second reason is that in the past decade or so many more of our fellow countrymen have spent their holidays on the Continent, and on the Continent they have enjoyed a drink of wine with their meals. When they have returned home they have on occasions had the enjoyment of wine with their meals, and wine is predominantly sold in the off-licence shops.
Furthermore, the housewives who purchase the wine are not, and do not profess to be, connoisseurs. They like to browse among the labels free of any assistant and to decide for themselves which of the wines would suit their taste and palate. We claim they should be free to do that. But by the adoption of the most economic methods of retailing, the self-service shops in retailing have been able to cut their costs drastically and to pass on part of that reduction in cost to the consumer by reduced prices. That is really where the rub comes in. What the public house licensed victuallers, the public house managers, are complaining about is that the consumer is getting a benefit from the self-service shops which the public houses cannot find their way clear to give.
But there is a final reason why the balance of trade has tended to go to the off-licence. Up and down the country there have been campaigns by the police against drinking and driving; consequently there has been less drinking in pubs and more drinking at home. I would claim that is a good thing. I would claim that the environment of the home is more likely to be conducive to the control of drinking than the environment of the public house. I would give in support a quotation from a report entitled Drinking in England and Wales: an inquiry carried out on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security. The report was prepared by a Mr. Paul Wilson, and among other things he says this:
"Among both men and women the heavier drinkers did more of their drinking in public houses or hotels whereas the lighter drinkers did more drinking in the home. The results suggest

805
that people who mainly drink in bars may be more vulnerable to developing a higher drinking style".
There is the evidence—
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? How on earth, in one's own home, do you find out whether someone is drunk or sober, whereas you can see whether they are drunk or sober in the street or in a public place?
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I am not concerned as to whether you can see A or B. What 1 am saying, and what is supported by the report from which I have quoted, is that the environment of the home is more likely to be conducive to controlled drinking than is the environment of the pub and anyone with experience of both I think would verify that, whether they are in favour of this Bill or not.
So far as drinking by those under age is concerned, this does not originate in super-markets. A recent market survey, analysing the customers of supermarkets according to age, found that only 1 per cent. of customers were under 18 years of age. Consequently it cannot be said that supermarkets are crammed with juniors who are trying to purchase or steal liquor.
The magistrates are quite capable of looking after the conduct of the off-licence trade; and here I speak from personal experience both as a magistrate and as an applicant for licences. The first step magistrates take is to call for a plan which shows where and how the liquor is going to be sold. I have also found by experience that what they often do is to visit the premises and see for themselves. If need be, they ask for assurances. For example, they often ask for an assurance that the display of liquor will be under the supervision of an experienced and responsible person who has been specially trained for the purpose and is over 18 years of age. I have seen those assurances and have had to give them, and those assurances are generally attached to the licence.
So far as theft is concerned, the shopkeeper does not need any incentive to ensure that there is no theft because he has already paid heavy licence duty on the products, and consequently, because of their considerable value, he keeps them in a position where they will be under the most careful supervision.
Because of my interest in retail management, I keep my eyes open when going into retail establishments. I have found that in self-service stores, which are usually well lit and in which the customers are walking about, it is comparatively easy to detect those who are likely to be under 18; but in the public house, which is only partly lit, which has dark corners and in which the customers are often sitting down, it is very difficult to distinguish who is and who is not under 18. That is where the trouble arises—in the public houses. I will quote again from the report, Drinking in England and Wales. Here they say that of the men they interviewed 40 per cent. admitted they had drunk intoxicating liquor on licensed premises before they reached their 18th birthday. Similarly 30 per cent. of the women they interviewed said they had drunk intoxicating liquor on licensed premises before their 18th birthday.
The trouble with the sale of drink to people under 18 arises in the public houses: it is those who are just under age imitating those who are over the age. That is the
806
trouble and that is the problem you have to deal with. In an all-party committee this afternoon, when this Bill was discussed, I heard a very good example of what can happen. A Member of your Lordships' House said that he went into a public house when 15 years of age and, while he was at the bar, he got a nudge in his back and when he turned round he got a fright—it was his grandfather. He was asked: "What are you doing here?" and he said "I was going to have a pint." The grandfather said: "Well, get me one as well." That is the problem you have got.
Now let us look at the effects of the Bill. The first effect will be to frustrate the housewife. The Bill provides that if the shopkeeper wishes to sell liquor on self-service it must be in a separate, enclosed department used exclusively for that purpose. Just let us look at what that is going to do. It will mean that the housewife, when she buys her groceries, will not be able to buy her bottle of wine and pay for it at the same time as her groceries. She will have to go through the check-out with her groceries and then go to another part of the store beyond the enclosing wall, collect her bottle of wine and go through the check-out again. We have no right to insist upon a trader inconveniencing his customers in that way unless we havevery good reason, and I suggest that no good reason has been given to us. Also, suppose that her husband goes into the supermarket. He wants a bottle of gin and half a dozen bottles of tonic water, and therefore he would have to go into one part of the store and buy his tonic water, go to the check-out and pay for it, and then go to another part of the store to get the gin—because the enclosed department where they sell intoxicating liquors cannot be used for any other purpose.
Furthermore it is the custom and practice in many self-service stores to sell tobacco and cigarettes at the check-outs, but you cannot do that in the enclosed department because that department must be used exclusively for liquor. Furthermore, there would be an enormous waste of space. The off-licence trade is one in which there are great fluctuations throughout the year. At the present time the trade is relatively small. In the summer when we get warmer weather it is somewhat greater, and in the months before Christmas it is very great. Consequently, the space you need for self-service of wines and spirits varies throughout the year, and if you have to have an enclosed department you will give the trader the choice: either he has to have a big department which is used only at Christmas and is idle space throughout the year, or he has to have a smaller department in which there is congestion at Christmas; and if there is congestion at Christmas there will be more young people who are under age getting wines and spirits and there will be more thieving because of the congestion.
In all seriousness I submit to the House that if you put a wall through a self-service store and say: "You are going to sell wines and spirits on one side, and all the other goods on the other side", it will make no difference whatever to the youngster who wants to go into the store to buy wines and spirits. It will not affect him one little bit.
You are tackling the wrong problem. The problem you have to tackle is supervision. If you are not satisfied that the magistrates are getting firm assurances

807
on the standard of supervision in self-service stores, then there is a justification for a Bill dealing with supervision, but not for a Bill that puts through the middle of a store a wall which will serve no great purpose whatever, and will increase the cost to the retailer which he will have to pass on to the consumer.
This Bill will increase costs and prices. But it goes further. The Bill insists that even the young lady who takes the money shall be over 18 years of age. It is based upon the fact that people who are behind the bars have to be over 18 years of age. But the people who are behind the bars are doing an entirely different job. They are handling loose wines and spirits, and bottles and cans that are already open and available for drinking. But in the case of the supermarket, the assistants are handling unopened cans and bottles, and a can of beer is no different from a can of vegetables or a can of food so far as the shop assistant is concerned, while a bottle of wine is no different from a bottle of detergent. All the shop assistant is concerned with is finding the price and charging for it, and to insist that she must be over 18 years of age is pure nonsense. Furthermore, this Bill would affect the employment of school-leavers. Two in every 10 school-leavers go into the retail trade, and if you hamper the retailer in this way, then he will be able to give less employment to school-leavers, which at the present time is a significant question.
All sections of the retail consortium, which is a very wide organisation, are opposed to this Bill. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury has asked me to apologise for his absence and to say that, unfortunately, he has prior commitments abroad. But had he been here, he would have spoken on the Bill and voted against it, in the same way as I shall do.
Social habits change. Methods of retailing change. As a consequence of these changes, the balance of trade changes. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the words of the Erroll Committee:
"In the final analysis, it must be left to the public to demonstrate what type of outlets they prefer and the licensing law cannot, in our view, be used to control these market forces".
I ask your Lordships to follow the Erroll Committee in your decision upon this Bill.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has in all good faith brought this Bill to the House. But I will, nevertheless, ask your Lordships to oppose the Second Reading on two grounds: first, because it has no basis of proven fact; and, secondly, because it seeks to use an emotive subject to handicap one section of the trade in favour of another section of the trade, and those who would be favoured are the people behind the Bill.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I also rise to oppose this Bill, and I am helped in doing this by the very strong case put forward, with all his experience behind him, of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. But before I develop a slightly different argument against this Bill, I must declare an interest in that I have for the last few years been a consultant to a large, well-known retail organisation—not at all, I hasten to add, on this aspect of their work. But they would be seriously hurt if ever this Bill got on to the statute book, and it is only right that I should refer to it.
808
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on the detailed effects on retailers, but I want to oppose the political aspects of this Bill and to challenge, as he did, the aim of the legislation. Despite the assertion to the contrary of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I really must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. In my view, this Bill is a very thinly disguised attempt by the public house owners, the managers and the tenants, to recover some of their off-licence business which they have lost to the high street shops.
But this is not at all the way to tackle this problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, the high street shops have less than 10 per cent. of the trade, in any event. But this is not the right way to do it. This is trying to use legislation to advantage one vested interest against another. To seek to do this by imposing severe restrictions on the way that high street shops operate their sales of alcohol to the public is quite wrong and, in any case, it is a business which is subject to strict control by the licensing magistrates.
Furthermore, I do not believe it is right to say that licensing magistrates—and I know many—have no real control at all. In the end, they can refuse a licence, they can ask for conditions to be imposed and they can ask for assurances. I do not find that a well-found argument. This Bill would place a very severe burden, too, on the enforcement authorities and I should like to ask who would be the enforcement authorities in a case such as this, if you are to police the Bill as a measure of this kind would demand.
It is suggested that the increase in under-age drinking is largely because of the sale of liquor by supermarkets and general stores. But I have searched in vain for any evidence to support that claim, or even any evidence to disprove it. This is a field in which there is very little evidence. But such evidence as I have found points the other way. The statistics published in Appendix L to the Erroll Report in 1972, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, referred, show that the number of people prosecuted for knowingly delivering intoxicating liquor to someone under 18 for consumption off the premises, between 1967 and 1970, varied each year from a high of 15 male and female in 1967 to a low of five in 1969. The latest figures for 1979, which I got from the Home Office, show 13 prosecutions in this field and eight convictions.
In contrast, the number of people under 18 who were convicted of buying or drinking in a bar in 1979 was over 4,000. This is a tremendous contrast. It seems to me to be quite wrong to seek to place a very heavy burden on a particular section of commerce, without a comprehensive study of the whole problem of youth and alcohol in our society. Certainly, it would be extremely unwise to jump to the conclusion that selling arrangements in the high street were to blame, and that public houses were the epitome of virtue in this matter.
I believe—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is to reply will confirm this—that a Green Paper on alcoholism is to be produced in the next few weeks by the Department of Health and Social Security. That Green Paper will, as I understand it, deal with the problem of youth and alcohol. Those of us-and there are many-who are worried about teenage drinking and under-age drinking, look forward to the publication of a paper of that nature,

809
and to the public debate which it will generate. This is an area in which we could begin to get some evidence on which to work, and I do not believe it is right and proper for this House to pass a Bill of this nature, without having much stronger evidence on which to formulate the legislation.
It may well be that this House itself should, on an important problem of this sort and as part of the public debate, set up a select committee to go into all aspects of this matter, to call for witnesses, to call for papers and to do a proper investigative job. We shall see, when we get this Green Paper, whether that is necessary. But at the present time we have totally insufficient evidence on which to make up our minds one way or another and, in my view, this is the worst form of legislation. The idea that you should, without reliable evidence and without reliable statistics, engineer an advantage for one commercial section of the community against another is absolutely wrong.
There is, in my view, nothing which indicates that this measure would have any beneficial effect on the problem of under-age drinking. The Bill is totally misconceived. I shall certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, if he takes it into the Division Lobby, and I hope we shall be fully supported.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in the last session of Parliament I was asked to promote a Bill similar to the one which my noble friend Lord Inglewood is promoting today, but largely through lack of parliamentary time and as a result of the high and responsible advice which I sought from people in the licensing profession, lawyers and so on, to the effect that the drafting was not entirely adequate, I decided not to pursue the Bill further.
Today my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who has had distinguished experience as a Minister in another place, has made out a very convincing case for the Bill. Nobody is going to pretend that it is a solution to the problems of our licensing laws, least of all a solution to under-age drinking or under-age drunkenness. All noble Lords and Members of another place, indeed all those who have young people's welfare at heart, will be concerned about this problem.
I have two very close relatives who are magistrates. One is the chairman of a bench while the other is a member of a licensing committee. Only a few moments ago I spoke to the chairman of the licensing committee of our local bench in Surrey. They wholeheartedly support the Bill. It is arguable whether supermarkets should sell intoxicating liquor. There are those who believe that this should never have been allowed. Off-licences have grown in number and are subject to very strict control.
I would not challenge what has been said about drunkenness in public houses. My reading of the Bill is that it does not challenge the fact that there is drunkenness in public houses. However, I challenge the view that a youngster taking a bottle of whisky or gin or whatever into his or her home, whether for father, uncle or somebody else, would not necessarily consume some of the alcohol. In other words, there seems to me to be no convincing proof that drunkenness in the home is any less a hazard than drunkenness on licensed premises. I do not know the
810
figures. I certainly agree that if figures were available they might show that in public houses, particularly on a Saturday night or after a football match, there may be more people in various stages of intoxication than could be found in the home.
Supermarkets have a prime duty to sell food, toilet requisites and items of that kind. In America, supermarkets sell almost everything, including lawnmowers and cars. I do not think anybody would wish supermarkets in this country to go that far.
I think that the provisions of the Bill are not unreasonable. It may well be true, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who made a very persuasive speech from his own tremendous experience in the retail business revealed, that in some supermarkets there are problems of space, particularly at Christmas-time and at Easter. When relations or friends come to stay, one needs more alcohol or drink of some kind in one's house. At those times there is obviously going to be much more demand.
As I see it, this Bill is seeking to do something to prevent young people under the age of 18 from going into supermarkets to obtain alcoholic refreshment without adequate supervision safeguards. The checkout points are very often manned by youngsters. I believe that they are supposed to have a supervisor with them, but the supervisor, particularly on a Saturday morning, may be under great pressure. The person at the checkout point may not be able to tell whether a youngster is under 18. And if the person at the checkout point is under 18, he will have still less influence over the matter.
The provisions in my noble friend's Bill will do something to curb the sales of alcoholic refreshment to people under age. As the Bill stresses, if it is sold over the counter it will mean that people of a more mature age can be brought along to be on the counter and to supervise the sales of this liquor.
Another point is that it is argued that in some areas there are insufficient off-licences and other places where such drinks can be obtained. This may be true in rural areas, but in that part of Surrey where I live there is no shortage of off-licences. All of them operate under a very strict code.
The question of price has been mentioned. I wonder whether there is much of a saving as between going to a supermarket or to an off-licence like Peter Dominic or Augustus Barnett. I wonder just how much money the housewife or the father who goes into a supermarket to buy a bottle of gin or whisky, or whatever, saves.
Clause 1 (1)(b) of the Bill is especially welcome. It may be that in Committee some points will need to be tidied up. However, many of these establishments are not necessarily managed by our own people. There are places in London which seem to be open day and night. I should like to ask my noble friend under what licensing laws they come. I am thinking particularly of places in the Fulham Road and such places run by people of foreign communities. Are they subject to these strict licensing laws? People can go in there and buy this kind of drink almost ad lib—at least that is my understanding of the situation and surely that needs looking into. The fact is that in Scandinavia in particular there is an enormous amount of teenage drinking, and from what I have seen there I would go so far as to say teenage alcoholism. Teenage

811
drinking is on the increase in this country and I think any magistrates' court would confirm that.
I would be the last to deter people of the right age from drinking. This is not an anti-drink Bill; it is not an anti-supermarket Bill. It is a Bill to try to ensure that licensing regulations apply in reasonable condition to all outlets of those who sell alcoholic refreshment. I believe that, as an attempt to do this, the Bill has been well thought out; it has the support—as my noble friend has mentioned—not only of the licensed victuallers but of the police, which is most important and I think also of many magistrates. I believe that it deserves its place on the statute book.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I am attracted to the question raised by this Bill. The propositions attached to that question form a very single-minded background and I share with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the purpose, however fragile and small, that such a Bill as this will do something to improve the situation—a situation which has got steadily worse with regard to alcohol and now presents, as I see it and as I think your Lordships will see it, a major problem for the community in which we live.
Therefore, the question I ask myself is: Will this Bill improve that situation? However small may be its measures, is it going in the right direction and therefore does it deserve support? I find the answer is in the negative on those three counts. I am not of the opinion that the retail consortium is a complete and total ally of such a proposition as I have advanced. I do not think we both belong to what John Wesley would have called a "holy club", but I am quite prepared and ready, and in fact willing, to accept them as co-belligerents—as Winston Churchill described the Russians after the Nazis attacked them. I would regard their claim that this is internecine strife, that is discriminatory, as proven and that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is unanswerable. In other words I do not really believe that this has anything to do with the question of improving an alcoholic situation, but is an attempt to recover trade by a particular outlet and that trade has been impaired by the provisions of off-licensed premises.
I do not necessarily identify publicans and sinners, but ethics, I think, would suggest a very close connection. Therefore, I am not going to weep any tears about the licensed victuallers. I believe they are doing something to recoup their losses and from a purely commercial standpoint I have nothing against that; from an ethical standpoint, inasmuch as I believe they are dealing with a highly dubious commodity, I am against it.
I would take a more positive line with regard to the effects of this Bill as it now stands. I believe it will necessarily advantage the public house to the disadvantage of the store and of the off-licence premises. There was a time when I was by no means satisfied that the extension of the sale of liquor to off-licence premises was a desirable proposition, but I am bound to say that on the evidence the various evils which might have accrued from such a proposal and such a practice have largely proven themselves to be enlarged or exaggerated. Indeed, if I had to choose as a
812
compromise between the evils of drinking in the public house or the evils of drinking in the home, for a number of reasons I think drinking in the home is preferable. In the first place, it is much more likely that drinking in the home will be accompanied by eating. That is much less likely to happen in public houses. I understand from the document which has already been quoted that the rate of intake of alcohol over a period of time in public houses is much faster than at home, which again I would regard as a very dangerous proposition.
Thirdly, from the evidence which, as a social worker for many years, I have been able to accumulate I have no doubt whatever that the provisions of regulation in public houses are grossly unfair in the sense that it depends in so many cases on—as has already been suggested—the lighting and the quality of the care of supervision and indeed of the way in which that particular public house is regulated. It is beyond any question, as I see it, that quite a number of youngsters of 14 and 15, to my personal knowledge, regularly attend public houses and have no sense of danger of being arrested or being prevented from indulging in the habits of alcohol. This has come to such a point that in the last 10 years there has been a 40 per cent. increase in young people's drinking.
I will quote just one other piece of evidence which to me is minatory and it is this: in this particular survey of the age group of 18 to 24, 23 per cent. volunteered the information that over the last three months they had been intoxicated and got drunk on at least three occasions. When one thinks of what is likely to be the cumulative result of the practice of getting drunk three times in three months, or whatever it may be, I regard that as evidence that our real problem is with the public house and not with the off-licence premises.
Therefore, I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood; if, as I firmly believe, it is his intention to reduce an evil-and I for one go very much further than many others in your Lordships' House in my estimate of what is required if this evil is not only to be abated but to be controlled and conditioned and contained—then at least it should be a very different Bill from this one. It should put its firm emphasis first of all on the evils which are associated with the public house. That is a Bill which would attract the support of Members of your Lordships' House who take very similar views to those which I have expressed tonight. I know that I can speak for the right reverend Prelates who are not here but who have given me their assent in this particular regard.
I should like to make one other point before I sit down. I do not know how many of your Lordships drive cars late at night in the heart of London. I suggest that, if you do, you are increasingly aware of the amount of drunken driving which is a danger alike to those who drive and to those who happen to be in their way. It is much more likely that the carnage on the road will be increased by the public house drinking than by drinking in the home, which, after all, if it is domestic is not likely to be followed by long journeys by car. That is just one piece of evidence which I think should be adduced and added to what has already been said.
I would appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that here is an opportunity to do something big and

813
practical about an ever-increasing evil about which he and I were given concrete evidence only a few hours ago in another part of these premises. It is in this regard that I hope that this Bill will go no further. It is a wrong Bill because it is looking in the wrong direction, doing the wrong thing and failing to appreciate the opportunity of doing something constructive in this problem of alcohol and in the containment of it, particularly with regard to the youth who will be the citizens of tomorrow and who are being regularly incapacitated in large numbers from fulfilling that post and that opportunity because of the menace of alcohol in our present society.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I think anyone who is intending to drink too much at home will do so regardless of this Bill. I do not think this Bill makes any contribution to stopping that, and I do not think anything in this Bill has been proved to have any benefits in other directions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he says that most alcohol is consumed at pubs, or people at pubs consume most alcohol. Obviously, we all know that once you have one drink you give somebody else one and the camaraderie makes you have one drink and then another. I am sorry he did not take as an example a report in today's press. A man went along to the pub and had a drink; he rang his wife to say he would be just 10 minutes, and a quarter of an hour later rang again and asked her to come and join him; she explained that the dinner was on. An hour and a half later, after many more drinks, she came along and emptied over his head a complete plate of egg and chips. This indicates the amount of time that he must have spent there.
It has been said that there should be no sale at supermarkets, and yet this clashes, because there is great inconvenience, with the hours of opening of off-licences. And this should indicate that they should be allowed to continue to sell alcohol. Scandinavia has been mentioned as being a place of great drunkenness. Yet in many parts of Scandinavia where I have been—I do not know if it is so all over, but it certainly is in parts—it is not only difficult to get wine and alcohol, but it is extremely expensive. In Finland, and I think in Norway, it is actually rationed and people are only allowed one bottle a month or whatever it is. In spite of that restriction there is a lot of drunkenness. Restricting alcohol does not stop drunkenness.
I think there may be some relevance in this Bill with regard to large supermarkets. Indeed, many supermarkets at the moment have exactly what the Bill requires; that is to say, a separate counter with somebody serving; you do not help yourself. I think it is a very good thing. But one notices that these are all fairly large supermarkets with large staffs, perhaps 10 or more, where it is always possible to find one person who is of age who can man that particular counter. Also there are so many people in the shop that there is a reasonably brisk trade to keep the counter occupied.
But there are huge numbers of self-service stores. I think I know the same one the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, knows; I am thinking of one in Fulham Road also. I should like to draw attention to these
814
small self-service stores and small grocers, in London and in towns and villages. These have just a few shelves and they sell groceries and wines on a very small scale. They have very limited space. It would by physically impossible for many of them to have separate counters from which to sell their alcohol. Where they have a staff of perhaps only one person, this in itself would not allow for a person to be selling alcohol; the one person obviously has to have his eye on the till and be collecting money from people buying other goods. At the same time this one person would be unlikely to be a child, if he is left in charge of the shop. It being a small shop, unlike a supermarket, supervision is fairly easy, because somebody at the till with half a dozen people in the shop can perfectly well control that shop, whereas they cannot control a large supermarket. Furthermore, these small shops work on extremely minute margins, through the competition of multiples, and even if it were physically possible to have the separate counters it would be financially crippling. This is at a time when there is compulsory payment of sickness benefit. The expense would be disastrous.
Finally, there is always the problem of defining these shops, where you have a grocer selling alcohol or a shop selling alcohol which also sells groceries. I think that might present a problem. I cannot support this Bill unless it is redesigned to suit the small traders. I think that those who wish to misbehave with drink will always get it regardless; even if it is rationed they will still get it and get drunk. I do not believe the problem is all that large. I think that in the small shops there is the supervision that is required. I do not feel that we should necessarily reject this Bill, but I think it should be severely amended to help the small retailers.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if I may start my contribution to tonight's debate, which is apparently turning into one on alcoholism rather than on the Bill before us, perhaps I may, with great respect, chide my noble friend on the Front Bench for the way in which the Government, not only this Government but other Governments, have not in fact tackled this whole problem in what I might describe as the round, the whole problem. While I noted with great interest what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said with regard to the report that is to come out shortly, it is my understanding that this is a report on drink in respect of work; it does not cover the whole problem of alcoholism.
I stand totally and fully for a free enterprise situation. I like people to be able to buy goods that they want to buy and sell goods that they want to sell in the best way they think it possible. However, society decided many years ago that alcohol was one of those products which had to be regulated, and regulations have been made. We have now seen the growth of—and I do not use the expression "supermarkets"—self-service stores, designed primarily to reduce price. Wines and beers and hard liquor can now be sold in those stores. Some licensing magistrates seek assurances from the licence applicant. As my noble friend, Lord Inglewood, quite correctly, pointed out, conditions cannot be applied; assurances may be sought, and I am told by

815
self-service store operators whom I know that you do not challenge those assurances; otherwise on renewal you are likely to find yourself in difficulty. On that point, different magistrates, different licensing authorities, apparently seek different assurances. This seems to me rather wrong and a little unfair, for the on-licence applicant has to comply with the full rigours of the law.
With regard to offering a free enterprise situation, I mean by that where there is fair competition. I have no brief in my pile of papers; I do not know anything about what the Retail Consortium have said. I do not believe for one minute that the pub keepers, those represented by the National Association of Licensed Victuallers, are seeking, if indeed they re seeking anything at all, anything more than the same competition, the same elements of competition that they have. They have to have of-age persons to serve, and they have to serve within certain physical bounds. And as for the nonsense—if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will forgive me for using the expression—of the brick wall down the middle of a supermarket, I think that the noble Lord was pulling our tails a little tonight on that matter. Certainly when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill there is little doubt that we may want to know what is meant by an "enclosed department". I do not think that the definition of my noble friend Lord Inglewood is too good in that regard.
However, in Waitrose in Romsey—which is a food store belonging to the John Lewis partnership—there is a wine, beer and liquor store within a store. There is no hardship for the frustrated housewife. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, called her the housewife who was going to be frustrated by going to two checkouts—she would not like an enclosed space because she wanted to walk around the shelves and make her choice from the exciting array of labelled bottles to see which would suit her palate and, no doubt, her purse. She can also do that by being served and saying, "What's that?" and "What's that?"
I do not believe that very many people who buy wines in supermarkets or self-service stores have a very great knowledge of wines nor a great desire to be absolutely satisfied by a particular wine or beer. The connoisseurs go to the shippers and the specialist shops. I am told—and this is information which I believe to be totally reliable—that the hard liquor taken out of a self-service store is a very small proportion of what is called the "pick-up sale", where somebody just goes along and picks up a bottle of hard liquor, probably because of the pricing factor.
Quite frankly, I see the self-service sale of liquor, wines and beers as the sprat to catch the mackerel—the one-stop shop. Underneath the same roof one can get all that one requires on the grocery list, whether it includes wines, beers, tomato sauce or whisky. That is what it is about. So they bring in this additional range with the wish and hope that, by filling the shelves with as many of the products as might be anticipated, they will sell all or most of those on the shelves: butter, biscuits, cornflakes, beans, beer, wine, tomato soup and so on. That is why people go.
I part with my noble friend Lord Auckland when he suggests what a hyper- or supermarket might or might not sell. Let them sell everything, motorcars included,
816
as they do elsewhere. They are in business to satisfy a market. The only point is that they must operate under the same constraints as anybody else. When Sainsbury's, for example, sell petrol, they have to operate under the same constraints as I had to operate under as a petrol station operator—namely, the same licensing; the same number of staff; the same age of staff; the same records; the same books and the same inspectorate. That is exactly what should happen in the self-service store in so far as selling wines, spirits and liquor is concerned.
I have concentrated my argument on that side of the case because that is where I felt most of the argument against my noble friend was coming from. I believe that the problem of alcoholism starts very early in life. I know a man, sadly, who confesses now that his alcoholism started as a young schoolboy nipping across to the pub at lunchtime for a quick half. As the years went by it became a necessity. It is as difficult to tell an under-aged boy or girl under the bright lights of a supermarket as it is under the lesser lights of a pub. It just is difficult to tell the age of anybody. When one asks, as Clause 2 of my noble friend's Bill asks, that the staff should be of some maturity, 18 at least, there is a better chance that, if challenged, somebody younger is likely to give way. But if one is challenged by a 16 year-old—and one knows that there are 16 year-olds at the checkouts in multi-checkout stores—there is not much chance of success.
I believe that we should give my noble friend's Bill a Second Reading. I think that we should seek from him, by way of amendment, answers to a number of the questions and problems which have arisen tonight. That is what the Committee stage is for. There is only one other matter that I should like to mention that would reduce my support: that would be if my noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said: "Ah yes, but in x period of time we propose bringing in a new piece of legislation which will cover the whole area of alcoholism". I fear that he will not be able to offer any of us that, so I think that we shall have to make do with the rather piecemeal way in which we treat the whole matter.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood really is to be congratulated for his single-mindedness of purpose over a number of years in bringing to Parliament very modest Bills that, in total, may make some kind of an impact on the one thing which all of us are worried about, which is the growth of alcoholism and its dangers. I was so delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Soper, speak in that context in terms of drunken driving. He will know, of course, that in the other place at present the Transport Bill is under discussion, a part of which I hope will take care of that very problem. I am quite sure that it has the overwhelming support of the country. Therefore, perhaps this modest Bill ought to have very much greater support than your Lordships have so far shown it this evening.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I rise to oppose the Bill and I speak in the capacity of a magistrate. The cases that come before us in the Birmingham courts arising from excess alcohol normally fall into three categories: first, the driver who is driving under the influence of drink, more often than not having

817
done the rounds of the pubs and clubs in the city before he has decided to go home; secondly, the unfortunate category which comprises more often than not the middle-aged or elderly man who tends to come before the court normally for a nice weekend in the local prison where he gets a rest and a good feed and then sets off again; and thirdly, of course, that category of young people which attends football matches. Those are the three categories that I normally deal with when I sit as a magistrate.
However, I also speak as a housewife who has considerable knowledge of using supermarkets. I do not want to criticise noble Lords about supermarkets, but I am always a little worried when men speak as though they have the greatest knowledge of what goes on in supermarkets. The majority of men who go shopping in supermarkets are the younger men who accompany their wives. I bow to the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because I first met him as a very active co-operator myself, working in the Co-operative Movement.
But if you go around supermarkets at the beginning of the week, you find in the main the middle-aged and the elderly shoppers because they have received their pensions at the beginning of the week. The middle-aged tend to shop on Wednesdays and Thursdays because they then avoid the week-end crush. Then on Thursday late night shopping, Friday and Saturday you normally find the young marrieds, up to the age of 45 or so, with the husband and wife both shopping together, filling their trolley with everything that they will need for the coming week. You very rarely see a young person shopping in the supermarkets. I do not know whether Waitrose is different from Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Sainsbury, or the Co-operatives, but statistics show that it is very rare to find young people shopping in supermarkets, for the reason that the supermarket aims at a particular category of people, which is not the young people.
Supermarkets are trying to sell food and other commodities which are not for the young people. I speak from experience. If noble Lords can tell me where I can see crowds of young people shopping for alcohol, I shall be only too pleased to go with them to witness it. But when the boys go by train or coach to football matches, from where do they get their cans of beer? They are not getting them from the local co-operative; they are not getting them from the local Tesco.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way because I should like to answer her. On many Saturdays, whether or not there is a home game at Southampton, quite early on in the Upper Street precinct, where there are no motor-cars and where there is a Tesco, I have seen with my own eyes young men and women going in and coming out with handfuls of chips, bottles of whisky and containers of beer. They sit on the benches in the precinct, drink them, drop the bottles—plop-which smash on the ground, and throw the cans wherever. I have seen that happen.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I do not dispute that the noble Lord has seen it; I am just
818
saying that I have not seen it. That is the difference. Southampton and Birmingham may perhaps be entirely different cities in that respect. Perhaps the magistrates in the City of Birmingham are much tighter in their control over the selling of alcohol in supermarkets. I speak with a vested interest as a magistrate.
Many noble Lords have brought forward instances tonight with which I fully agree, but I do not think that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, or the noble Lord who has just spoken, any proof at all that the self-service store is not carrying out its duties in a proper and responsible way under the Licensing Acts do not think that the courts can prove that they are not doing their job in a responsible manner. I do not think that we have had any proof that the supervision is less rigorous in the supermarket and all the other places than it is on licensed premises. If we had that proof I should be willing to listen to it, but we do not have any statistics on it.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has left the Chamber, he said—and I agree—that we need statistics if we are to prove a case. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that he did not want to speak too long, therefore he might answer this point. But he did not produce any statistics to show that supermarkets were being brought before the magistrates or that their licences were being revoked because they were less rigorous in their supervision concerning selling to under-age teenagers.
I want to speak for only a few minutes because I think that one noble Lord said that this was not an anti-drink Bill or an anti-supermarket Bill. I appreciate and accept that there is a problem with under-age drinking, but I do not think that this Bill goes any step forward to combat that problem think that we are starting from the wrong place. As the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, young people go to public houses for companionship, for convivial and enjoyable drinking under what they think are enjoyable, dim lights—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. It is a different form of enjoyment compared with sitting, drinking out of a can on a bench in a park. Therefore, although I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is trying to achieve, I cannot support the Bill because I do not think that it goes any step forward in cutting under-age drinking. I do not think that the source of the problem lies in the supermarkets and the self-service stores.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support this small Bill. It is not a world-shaking Bill; and I am the first to admit that it is not a Bill which will cure. But at least it points in the right direction. I speak as a social worker; indeed, I am proud to ally myself with the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I speak as an ex-Director of Social Services. As such I have moved in the circle of the most vulnerable in our society, and it is concerning the most vulnerable in our society that I wish to speak.
I and my colleagues seek to protect the most vulnerable, and it is that protection about which I also wish to speak. In my experience there are those who in no circumstances would transgress the law, who would not indulge in excessive drinking. There are those

819
who will always seek ways to get round the law, to transgress the law, and who will indulge in excessive drinking. There are those who will transgress the law who will indulge in excessive drinking if the opportunity arises. Very often they are the most vulnerable people who need protection.
I believe that this Bill will go some way towards helping those people who need protection. Like other noble Lords, I have consulted the police, and they welcome the Bill. I have consulted a warden of a well-known community offering shelter to the homeless and, what one might term in modern parlance, the drop-outs. He states that the men and women in his hostel would be helped if they could not easily remove bottles of drink from shelves in supermarkets and put them in their capacious pockets. I make a plea for some of those who have been in mental hospitals or who are attending clinics which help them with their problem of drink, who are placed out in the community, who go round the supermarkets and find that they are able to remove bottles from the shelves.
I speak also of the juveniles whom we are trying to rehabilitate within the community rather than putting them into custodial care. We want them to be kept in the community. We want them to be helped to sustain life in the community, and therefore we want to make life easier for them so that they are not able, and do not have the temptation, to transgress the law.
The first clause of this Bill has been well described by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and therefore I shall not go over it again. In any case, it is well known to your Lordships' House. I listened with the deepest interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who, as has been said before, made a persuasive speech, and one listened carefully to it knowing of his great experience. The noble Lord seems to me to have great experience of the supermarket and the stores, but I wonder whether he has quite such experience, although I hesitate to say this, of people and of the vulnerable people.
I agree with him that many more people have travelled, many more people are drinking these days. But my experience is different from his. My experience is that women who do not quite know what bottle of wine to drink, what bottle of port to drink, what it is that they really need and want, prefer to have a counter; prefer to have someone to talk to. I have spoken to many women who have bought things off the shelves and then it has not been what they wanted when they got home, and there has been a waste of money. Therefore, I would have said that many housewives want to have a counter and want to have an older person with whom they can discuss the purchase of their drink, their alcohol.
As to waste of space, I am surprised at this argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because there is no more space taken up in having a shop within a shop. There is no question of any great wall—the East-West wall. The space is exactly the same whether you have a shop within a shop or whether you have the product on the shelves. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, also talked about depriving school-leavers of jobs. I spent Saturday morning in a big supermarket, and I went to one shop where the drink was sold off the shelves and to another shop where there was a shop within a shop. It did not seem to me that there would be any depriva-
820
tion of jobs for school-leavers because the shop within a shop had two experienced people behind the counter, but the shop selling drink off the shelves had simply standing by the check-outs four supervisors to whom a girl could call if she wanted to. It seemed to me that this was really quite an extravagant way of using labour, and in any case there was no question of school-leavers not having jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, talked about the very little amount of research into this matter, and I absolutely agree. This is astonishing. There has, however, been some research. I think that there was some particularly good research in Scotland, but it was some time ago and therefore could not really be mentioned in this debate today. The noble Lord mentioned the Erroll Report, which of course was in 1972. We in your Lordships' House must all admit that conditions have changed quite dramatically from 1972 until now. The noble Lord felt that the Bill was misconceived because it was not based on research. I would only say that when you have the police agreeing with the Bill, and some social workers—perhaps not all —agreeing with the Bill, there must be surely some merit in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, is a supporter of the Bill. He said with great honesty that he was not anti-supermarkets; that he was not anti-drink, but that he wanted to safeguard the interests of those who might go to the supermarket and might in fact take drink that they might not otherwise have had. I listened, as we always do, with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Soper. He bases his opposition to this Bill on the fact that it is just one part of the industry fighting another part of the industry. I suppose that the noble Lord would say that it is the greatest treason to do the right thing for the wrong reason. All I would say is that I have absolutely no interest in the supermarkets, I have no shares, and I have no interest in pubs. I enjoy both places. I drink in pubs; I go into supermarkets. I like them both. I drink, I hope, in moderation. Therefore, there is no war in my mind as between the supermarkets and the pubs.
I speak as a social worker and, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I speak for those few vulnerables. I hardly like to say this to Lord Soper, but there was that little parable about the one black sheep. I find in my work as a social worker that my time is not taken up with a number of people; it is taken up with just a few people who commit offences and who cause the most enormous amount of trouble.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would allow me to remark that the parable is not about a black sheep but one rather helpless lamb that got lost and was discovered by the zealous shepherd.
Baroness Faithfull: I bow to the noble Lord's greater knowledge, my Lords. I speak about the one lost lamb and, so far as I am concerned, the one lost lamb is the delinquent boy or girl who longs for drink, goes into the supermarket and manages to nip round and come out. I hardly like to call my drop-out friends lost lambs, but as the noble Lord has corrected me perhaps I might do so. It is the few drop-outs who cause an incredible amount of work and trouble.

821
Though they number just a few, they cause a disproportionate amount of work and trouble to society and those who are their friends, and in any case we cannot always talk in terms of numbers when speaking of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, spoke about small self-service stores and the limited space available in them. I can think of two very small grocers' shops in a small Cotswold town which have separate counters with separate people serving drink. In this connection, although I have never personally run a supermarket, I wonder why we denigrate the shop within a shop concept, inasmuch as many shops, Waitrose and others, have shops within shops. As so many of them do that, they cannot operate at such a loss. I listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whom I agree that one can get assurances; but they may not always be carried out and it may he difficult to prove they are not being carried out. As for the choice of the housewife and the fact that a sprat is used to catch a mackerel, while many housewives do not necessarily go to supermarkets to get drink, I have been told by many that they have had sight of drink as they have passed by and, although they had not meant to get drink, they had in fact purchased it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and I are on the same ground, but strangely, although I know Birmingham extremely well, we seem to differ in our view. She did not make it clear from where she thought the football crowds purchased their drink. My experience is that while some of those who take drink on the trains and into football grounds purchase it at pubs before making the journey, most of them purchase it at off-licences and supermarkets.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, from my experience in Birmingham I would say that they buy it from pubs near the ground, and in the last two years those pubs all close on Saturdays when matches are being played in those areas.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should be interested to know, from what the noble Baroness said—perhaps she will tell me later—whether that means they now go to football matches without drink. I very much doubt that. This is a small Bill. If I thought the Minister intended to call for a complete reorganisation of our licensing laws I would support my noble friend Lord Lucas and withdraw my support for the Bill, but I do not think the Minister will be so recommending. Therefore, in fairness to the most vulnerable members of our society who need our care and protection, we should give this small Bill our support.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name in advance. I had to attend a board meeting in Plymouth earlier in the day and could not guarantee being back in time to take part in the debate, and therefore originally, my programme being what it was, I did not intend to speak tonight. However, I am, as the noble Lords, Lord Peart and Lord Jacques, know, a member of the Retail Consortium Parliamentary Group in this
822
House. May I also say that I have not been approached by any licensed victuallers or publicans, and I have not received a brief from any source, other than the brief which arrived on Tuesday morning from the Retail Consortium. I thought that that brief went right over the top and missed the point of this little Bill. I thought that it was making such a martyred case for itself that I immediately rang the director-general and told him that in no circumstances could I support him.
I have read of recent statistics relating to Glasgow and London, and I know of the problems that there have been in the South-East of England and in London, particularly when there is an influx of people arriving at mainline stations on their way to football matches. They arrive early in the morning long before the pubs and off-licences are open. They arrive at Wembley at 10 or 11 o'clock and line up with the loads of drink which they have bought in supermarkets; and many of them are under the age for buying liquor.
I am glad to be following my noble friend Lady Faithfull, because I think that she has brought the Bill back to its original purpose. It is a very small Bill. It makes a modest effort to counter the ease with which young people can buy alcoholic drink when they are under age.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made a very spirited speech, and I should like to emphasise that nothing in the Bill prevents supermarkets from selling drink to people who are entitled to buy it. If it is said that the Bill would present a monstrous embargo, I would say that it is possible to have an enclosed department for selling drink within a supermarket. Woolworth can do that, so can Waitrose, Tesco and Fine Fare. All the supermarkets in Victoria can do it, and so there cannot be such a burden for the housewife. I go to Woolworth's in Oxford Street, near my office. I nip in and buy my butter, bread, bacon and meat, and then I go to a separate drinks counter. If I buy a bottle of sherry or whisky, there is a responsible counter man, who is not under age, and I pay separately for the drink. It is put in a bag and a receipt is clipped to it. I place it in my wire basket with all my other purchases, and at the main cash desk the girl takes out the bag containing the drink, which she knows I have paid for, and she tots up the rest. There is no hassle or agony of having to go to another department, which the noble Lord so graphically described. If Woolworth, Tesco, and Waitrose can do it, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the others to do it.
I come to another point that concerns me, and I do not for a moment doubt the record of experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, who had her dig at gentlemen who do not go to supermarkets. With her great work in Europe she is away from England even more often than I am, and I can assure her that I do all my own shopping and I go to the supermarkets—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Baroness give way? May I point out to her that I have not been going to Europe since the direct elections took place.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: The noble Baroness established a record for herself, but I apologise, and stand corrected. Be that as it may, I too have to do all my own shopping, and I, too, go to the supermarkets. I

823
live very near Victoria Station and I see people using supermarkets. I see the supermarkets being used by people who come up for Cup matches and by tourists who arrive on the first morning train from France—some of them are very young—for a day in London. Quite often, when we have great Wembley matches, they will come down to Euston, they will then go and see the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, and then they will pour into Victoria Street and collect the booze before they catch the Tube off to Wembley. I also see, well after the pubs have closed, at the supermarket in Victoria, youngsters going in and buying liquor from the little girl at the cash desk, who quite often is well under 18 and would be too frightened, anyway, to stop some of these burly youngsters, who have bought a couple of cover items and have also bought the drink.
With the greatest respect—and I shall be madly unpopular for this among my colleagues in the Retail Consortium—I think this is a genuine attempt on the part of my noble friend in a small way (and he would be the first to admit it) to limit the ease with which young people can obtain drink. You can read in the London Metropolitan Police report, you can read the welfare officer's report, you can read the Alcoholics Anonymous report and, above all, you can read publications about Glasgow, which is at the head of the league table, of the deep concern at the increased sale of liquor and the ease with which young people are obtaining it. That is the reason, my Lords—because I sincerely believe it will make some contribution to reducing the ease with which young people can get it—that I support my noble friend Lord Inglewood in the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood for his very clear explanation of the reasons which prompted him to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and for explaining to us the Bill's intentions. As an almost total abstainer, I have found this short debate extremely interesting; and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend, therefore, for the clarity with which he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill.
I wonder whether I could say just a word to your Lordships about the very serious concern with which the Government view the growing problem of alcohol misuse in this country. I am afraid I cannot respond to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, this evening about any possible publication from the Government; I am not in a position to do so.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I do not press the noble Lord. I merely got that information from his office—the Home Office.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am simply responding to the noble Lord by saying that, whatever may have been said from my right honourable friend's department (which is always, in everything, helpful to those who inquire of it), I, nonetheless, am not in a position to respond to the noble Lord this evening, and I know he will not think I am being deliberately unhelpful.
824
Instead, let me say a brief word only about the Government's concern, and, to illustrate the rate of growth of alcohol misuse, let me give only a figure or two. In the 10 years from 1967 the number of admissions to mental hospitals for the treatment of alcoholism in England and Wales almost doubled, and there are indications that the numbers are still rising. In the same period, the number of deaths reported from chronic alcoholism increased by 150 per cent., and deaths from sclerosis of the liver have risen by about 40 per cent. The number of convictions for drunkenness offences in 1968 was just over 79,000; in 1979 there were almost 118,000 convictions. I will not go on, because all noble Lords, in one way or another, have recognised this increase in the statistics which concerns us all.
It is undeniable, of course, that men figure more prominently in these statistics than women, but a disturbing feature of all these trends is the rate of increase in the number of women involved. The number of women convicted of offences of drunkenness has indeed risen very considerably, as has the number admitted to hospital for the treatment of alcoholism. It is a sad picture. Among the severe problems which may result from excessive drinking are family breakdowns, accidents and of course loss of output at work. It contributes also to crime and vandalism. There are many other problems which my noble friend Lady Faithfull could no doubt tell me about.
Against this background the Government are always willing to consider any constructive proposals which may help to reduce levels of alcohol misuse. We have examined my noble friend's Bill very carefully. As my noble friend has said, it has been prepared in consultation with the licensed victuallers who have first-hand experience of the problems involved in controlling the sale of alcoholic liquor, and they are also people who stand much closer to the tragic effects excessive indulgence may have.
The main provisions of the Bill are to require supermarkets and other self-service stores to establish specially designed self-enclosed areas for alcoholic drinks and to ban those who are under 18 from working as assistants in areas where drink is sold. My noble friend has argued persuasively in his speech that the ready availability of drink on the shelves of supermarkets, and the employment of those under 18 at check-outs, can be factors which facilitate the purchase of drink by under-age drinkers. There is also the point which I think my noble friend mentioned that women who might not wish to be seen buying drink in considerable quantities in an off-licence or a special area of the supermarket would be prevented from doing so by the provisions of this Bill.
If the Government believed that the Bill would contribute significantly to a reduction in drunkenness and alcoholism among these two groups, we would warmly commend it to your Lordships' House. But we are not convinced that it will achieve this desirable objective. I am not sure that I am so entirely certain that everything is black and white, as perhaps some noble Lords may think. It is a very difficult area on which to reach the right conclusions. One of the reasons, as many noble Lords have said, is that the statistics are not easy to unearth and not conclusive when one has found them. All I have been able to

825
find which has convinced me in one particular direction is that recent figures for the number of findings of guilt for offences of drunkenness for persons under 18 shows that since 1973 the number of offences has remained fairly constant at about 165 per 100,000.
As I have already said, we all know that the overall figures for drunkenness offences have been going up much too fast. But there is little evidence so far as I know for a direct link between excessive consumption by young people and women and increases in the numbers of off-licences granted. This was certainly the view which was taken by the Erroll Committee. My noble friend is quite right that that was eight years ago. The survey mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, carried out by the OPCS last October into people's drinking habits in England and Wales did not find any evidence, either, that off-licence sales were a major factor in increasing levels of alcohol misuse, particularly among the young. While the provisions of this Bill, if it is enacted, may go some small way towards reducing the sale of drink to those who are under-age, the Government wonder whether the overall impact would be sufficient to justify the creation of new criminal offences, not to mention the additional inconvenience to shopkeepers and to the shopping public. On balance, I have to say to the House that we do not think it would. That is not to say that we are not concerned about these sales.
We hope that the off-licence trade will respond to some of the criticisms which have been voiced in this debate this evening by intensifying its efforts to eliminate sales to those under 18. In this respect, I should like to say that I have managed to get hold of a copy of a booklet called You and the Rules of Selling Drink which has been put together by the Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain in collaboration with the British Multiple Retailers Association for use in staff training programmes. I think it is clearly and simply written and should be a very great help in this way in setting standards for those who are actually selling in retail stores.
So, in conclusion, although the Government have some reservations about the effectiveness of this Bill in countering alcohol misuse, we shall certainly study carefully the points raised by noble Lords in this debate. We welcome the opportunity that this Bill has given for a debate on the important subject of alcohol misuse and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for having provided the opportunity.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Second Reading debate on this small Bill has developed into a general debate on alcoholism and, although many of the speeches had very little reference to what was actually in the Bill, they have all contributed to what I hope will be considered by others who are not here tonight, if they read this debate, to have been a useful occasion.
I think that I must answer several points, my Lords. I believe that many speakers have read too much into this Bill and, if I may say so, they have spoken about many things which are very wide of what is in the Bill. For instance, I made no attempt to deal with alcoholism in general, although we all agree that it is a real and pressing problem, as we have just heard from the noble Lord the Minister. Nor are all off-licences referred to in this Bill: only some. I never mentioned the names
826
of any of the well-known retailers at the beginning of this debate because I have no wish to be represented as standing up for one section of the trade against another.
The noble Lord, Lord Jaques, did, I think, make the perfectly fair point that this Bill could be seen in that light, but I thought as time went on—he will not mind my saying this—that it was just a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I would submit that the proposals in this Bill are not likely to be a heavy burden, as was suggested, and this idea of great big walls being built right through the middle of retail premises was an amusing exaggeration, but that is not something which is required under the Bill. Also, as was said by my noble friend at my side, in the vast majority of well-run places today you find a separate "compartment" already in operation. Therefore there is no novelty here. We are dealing not with the well-run premises but are thinking of those few whose standards could well be raised.
I avoided introducing any emotion into my speech, I hope, because alcoholism always seems to raise all sorts of emotions on its own. Very few statistics are available. The noble Baroness who asked that question about statistics knew, I am certain, that very few are in fact available. I would tell her that over recent months I have spent more than a little time looking at the problem of alcoholism in and around Victoria Station, where plenty of unfortunates can be seen of all ages and types—but how you are going to discover where they got the alcohol which brought them to this pass, I just do not know. I think it will be a very long time before we have many statistics which we can accept. We have to use our own intelligence and our own "hunch", as it were.
I mentioned at the beginning that I would be happy to consider amendments, and one amendment in particular. I should like to suggest, in that spirit, that I would happily look at any amendment which is going to improve this Bill. So, of course, I agree that social habits change with changing times. Let us see what improvements we can introduce in Committee. My Lords, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading tonight. I beg to move.
9.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8: Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller]

Faithfull, B.

Gisborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Northfield, L.

Amherst, E.

Oram, L.

Blease, L.

Peart, L.

Brooks of Tretnorfa, L.

Soper, L.

Byers, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kissin, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Maelor, L.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 I declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon stands adjourned.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  INQUEST PROCEDURE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES
  INQUEST PROCEDURE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES
  POULTRY MEAT: HYGIENE REGULATIONS
  POULTRY MEAT: HYGIENE REGULATIONS
  CEREALS: EXPORTS TO POLAND
  CEREALS: EXPORTS TO POLAND