Sitting of 3 June 1981

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

    Dipped Headlights
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory in built-up areas.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): No, Sir.
    Mr. Knox: As there is evidence that dipped headlights are safer than sidelights in built-up areas, especially for pedestrians, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision?
    Mr. Fowler: When road lighting is inadequate, motorists should use dipped headlights. As a matter of practice, the Government want to introduce the minimum of new restrictions and not the maximum. It is best to rely on motorists' common sense.
    Mr. Carmichael: Have there been any results from the work of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on the photoelectric control of dipped headlights? There have been many objections that in most built-up areas the standard dipped headlight is far too bright.
    Mr. Fowler: I understand that no system has yet been developed that meets the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend accept that even dipped headlights may dazzle, whether from oncoming or from following cars? Does he appreciate that that is especially dangerous in wet conditions? Is he aware that some of us think that a reduction in the use of headlights rather than more of it in well-lit areas would contribute to road safety?
    Mr. Fowler: That is why I suggest that it is best to leave these decisions to motorists' common sense. A considerable study in the 1960s showed that there was no great difference in road safety in areas where dipped headlights were used and in those where they were not.

    Armitage Report
    Mr. Mylesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the publication of a summary of the evidence given to the Armitage committee.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in his consideration of the recommendations of the Armitage committee report.
    Mr. Fowler: I am still considering the report of the Armitage inquiry and all the representations that have been put to me. The evidence submitted to the inquiry is available in my Department's library.
    Mr. Myles: I accept that most organisations supported the concept of heavier lorries, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that, to accommodate heavier lorries, roads will be improved to an adequate standard—especially the A95?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure whether I can enter into a commitment for the A95. We are considering all the proposals that are set out in the report of the Armitage inquiry and not merely one or two of them. It is clear that roads will be one of the major issues.
    Mr. Foulkes: Would not it be extremely dangerous to have any increase in lorry weight, especially when there is a severe cutback in expenditure on road maintenance and road building and when there is the danger of gas main explosions and severe collapses because of the use of heavy lorries? If there are to be economies in transporting goods, would not it be better to carry more goods on the railways?
    Mr. Fowler: We want to see the railways gain for themselves the maximum amount of freight. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have maintained the level of road investment in motorways and trunk roads. The money that is being spent on the maintenance of motorways and trunk roads is greater than ever before.
    Mr. Emery: When my right hon. Friend is considering the action that he will take on the Armitage committee 's report, will he realise that many small communities and towns, especially in the West Country, are massively concerned about heavy articulated transport passing through? Will he consider granting them extra powers to ban lorries that are over 32 tons, for example, from passing through villages and towns?
    Mr. Fowler: That is one of the issues that we shall want to consider in our consideration of the report of the Armitage inquiry. I know from the fact that my hon. Friend has contacted me on this issue that there is concern in villages in the West Country and especially in his constituency. That is why we want to place as much priority as we can on building bypasses. I realise that that cannot be done immediately in all instances, but that is one of the main aims in our road building programme.
    Mr. Alexander: Bearing in mind the extent of the objections to which my right hon. Friend has referred, particularly in rural communities, including my constituency of Newark, will he consider publishing the objections which have been received, as well as his conclusions on the report, with an indication at least of their quantity, if not necessarily of their quality?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall seek to examine that point. We shall try to publish the maximum information on the subject. It is very much the Government's aim and intent

    911
    to obtain maximum information on the whole issue, including, as my hon. Friend wants, the views of those people who are opposed to the Armitage inquiry.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some drivers are taking long vehicles along narrow roads? They are a danger not only to pedestrians, but to domestic property. What is he prepared to do about that?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is correct in a number of areas, but there is no way that we can cure the inadequacies of the road system overnight. One of the proposals of the Armitage inquiry is a limitation on size of the lorries. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about length, that is taken care of. For all those reasons, I believe that it is wise for the Government to take their time in considering all the aspects of the Armitage inquiry.

    Concessionary Travel
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will conduct an investigation into the different schemes of concessionary travel in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Fowler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister afraid that such an investigation might reveal that some of the meanest local authorities in that respect are Tory-controlled? In view of the unfair anomalies and the wide discrepancies between different areas, will the Government consider funding a national scheme of concessionary or even free travel for all pensioners and also disabled people, especially as this is the International Year of Disabled People?
    Mr. Fowler: There is a balance in the matter. As a nation we are already spending about £120 million a year on concessionary fares. A half-fare scheme would raise the annual cost to £200 million. A free fare scheme would raise the cost to £300 million. Frankly, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances that is not something which we can afford.
    Mr. Trippier: While I appreciate the natural reluctance of the Government to circumvent the powers given to local authorities to determine the cost of concessionary bus passes for the elderly, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to make a direct appeal to the neighbouring local authorities where significant anomalies exist, in the hope that a more uniform system could be applied, which would be more equitable to those who cannot avoid cross-boundary travel?
    Mr. Fowler: We should be prepared to do anything we can to make possible a closer co-ordination of those schemes on a local basis. The responsibility lies with the local authorities. The vast majority of district authorities provide such schemes. I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's proposal.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not ludicrous for a progressive council such as the GLC——
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The previous one.
    Mr. Lewis: The previous one and the present one, to give concessionary fares, and now impose higher rates to allow free or cheaper travel for all when the sick, the disabled and old age pensioners, who already have
    912
    concessionary fares, are to be taxed to allow Members of Parliament and people earnings £10,000 or £20,000 a year to have cheap fares? That cannot be right.
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been strongly putting that case for the last few months. I agree that in London it would be wrong to have such indiscriminate subsidies. The fact is that the people who will pick up the bill are the ratepayers of London. Many will regret that when the bill comes through later this year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is not my right hon. Friend entirely right that the path to pursue is to make services available, particularly on a more informal basis, which helps in rural areas where there is no service at all, even if one has tokens? That must be the right path to tread.
    Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Many local authorities will take the view that it is better to provide support for a service than to talk in terms of concessionary fares. That is why the policy which we are pursuing, and which the previous Government pursued, is right.

    British Railways (Sale of Subsidiaries)
    Mr. Prescottasked the Secretary of State for Transport what current statutory provisions permit the sale of British Railways subsidiaries in whole or in part; whether his instruction or consent is required; and what conditions he has required for any sale now under consideration.
    Mr. Fowler: The British Railways Board has certain existing powers under section 14 of the Transport Act 1962 to dispose of assets without my consent. I can now tell the House that under these powers, the board plans to transfer to a new private sector company as going concerns the Gleneagles hotel and the Caledonian and North British hotels in Edinburgh. Two-thirds of the equity would be placed with private investors. The board wishes to acquire a one-third shareholding in the new company so that it will retain a continuing interest. A shareholding of this kind, however, requires my consent and on the material available to me, I am ready to consent to such an acquisition. I welcome this step for bringing private capital into the development of the board's subsidiaries. I hope the plan will be to the benefit of its customers, its staff and the tourist industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Prescott: That reply was substantially a separate statement. Will the Minister make it clear that the estimated five-year investment of £7½ million could be raised by mortgages or leases without the ideological requirement of private shareholding? Will he assure the House that this rushed deal was not the decision of the company or that the company was not pressurised by the Government? Is it true that the company's advisers have stated that a sale now will be at a discount price of £4 million and a loss of income of £1½ million a year to the company? That may be good for the Tory city gents or for the Tory Party conference, but it is bad for the taxpayer and the company concerned. It is worthy of investigation by the Public Accounts Committee of the House.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should calm down a little. First and foremost I stress that the proposals have been produced by the board on the advice of British Rail

    913
    Investments Ltd. and British Transport Hotels. The proposals are at the board's initiative because it sees clear advantages of this course for the hotel business. Therefore, there is no question of my having pushed the board. My role is confined to consent for the shares purchase which is taking place. Anyone who knows anything about British Transport Hotels will confirm this. The reason why this course has been taken is that, not just over the last two years, but over the last 25 years, hotels in the British Transport Hotels group have been starved of investment. This is a practical and constructive way of dealing with that situation. Given that the board supported the plan, I should have expected that the Opposition would do so also.
    Mr. Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly welcomed his decision will be in Scotland? However, has the Scottish Tourist Board been consulted? What has been the procedure of sale to ensure that the sale takes place to the best advantage of Scottish tourism?
    Mr. Fowler: I confirm that the plan will be an asset to Scottish tourism. One of the main objects of the exercise will be to bring badly-needed investment into the North British hotel. British Rail wants to see Scottish institutions taking part in that investment. I believe that the plan is to the benefit not only of Scottish tourism, but of those who work for the hotels.
    Mr. Cowans: Is the Minister aware that by giving his consent to the sale at this time he has deprived British Rail of at least £5 million, which is the asset value compared with the price? Will he confirm, as he said during the passage of the Bill, that all the money from the unfortunate sale will be reinvested in British Transport Hotels and will not be hived off when he makes grants to British Railways, as that would gainsay his argument that the money would go to British Rail? Can he give that categorical assurance and will he stand by it?
    Mr. Fowler: The proceeds of the sale will go to the owners—the British Railways Board. Part of the purpose of the sale is to enable the board to use the money to invest further in the hotel business.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: It has no initiative in the matter.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I repeat that the initiative comes from the British Railways Board. As I understand the figures provided for me by the board, the proceeds will be over £10 million, part of which will be used to pay for shares in the new company. The board will not only have a capital sum but a continuing one-third interest in the new company. It is a good deal for the board and for those working for British Railways.

    Passenger Line (West Cumbria)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any proposals from British Railways regarding the closure of the passenger branch line in West Cumbria.
    Mr. Fowler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that if West Cumbria is successfully to attract industrial development money, it will have to reassure industrialists that the West coast branch line will not be closed? Will he consider introducing protected routes in areas of industrial decline?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by protected routes, but no proposal concerning the line has been made to me. The hon. Gentleman knows my policy concerning such tires. I should have to grant permission for the line to be closed, and my decision would be made in line with my general policy of not wishing to see substantial closures in the system.

    Railways (Electrification)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the findings of the railway electrification review.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State. for Transport when he expects a decision to be made on further railway electrification.
    Mr. Fowler: I hope to be able to make a statement on railway electrification in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the Minister answering question No. 14 with question No. 6?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister also answering question No. 21?
    Mr. Speaker: No, I regret to say that he is not.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the nation waits anxiously for a statement on electrification, as do the workers and management of BICC where recently a further few hundred men were put on the scrap heap? As electrification of the main line makes good sense and will give us a far better transport system, will he make a statement urgently?
    Mr. Fowler: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's request. Electrification will affect not only British Rail but the private construction industry. As I said, although I cannot be categorical I hope to make a statement by the end of the month.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that enthusiasts for electrification earnestly await the decision, although we recognise the Government's role as guardian of the taxpayer's interests? Does he agree that the task of those who support electrification, and of Sir Peter Parker, who needs and is worth every penny that he is paid, is made immeasurably harder by excessive wage claims, which tremendously damage the prospects of the Government coming to a favourable decision?
    Mr. Fowler: Our considerations include the commercial prospects of the inter-city and freight business. Productivity and the cost of labour must come into our examination.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State ensure that a statement is made by the end of the month? Is he aware that, like other hon. Members, I already have layoffs in one factory in my constituency, where the rate of unemployment is over 12 per cent., and electrification would help enormously?
    Mr. Fowler: I am conscious of the demands, bat we are talking of substantial sums. Even the small option would cost £282 million over 15 years and the large option would cost £750 million over 20 to 30 years, so it is

    915
    reasonable that the Government should have time to consider their position, although I hope to make a statement in the next few weeks.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Has the Minister seen the report in The Times this morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a Neddy meeting this very day, is to take a hard and rigid line against increases in public investment? Will he please not allow his statement to be influenced by the Chancellor's silly, stupid rigidity?
    Mr. Fowler: I have not seen that report, although I have read a number of reports in The Times and one in particular. I would not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the Chancellor. The Treasury and the Chancellor are involved in the examination. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few more weeks.
    Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the cash limit announced this week for British Telecom, apart from entirely disproving the representation of the Chancellor given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), is a valuable precedent that my right hon. Friend can use in his arguments with his colleagues to support rail electrification?
    Mr. Fowler: I am always grateful for additional ammunition.

    Coach Services (Delicensing)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of delicensing of coach services on inter-city fares; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The Transport Act 1980 came into effect in October last year. All road service licensing restrictions came off inter-city coaches, and the result has been an unprecedented growth in coach services. In many cases, fares have been halved. For example, a single fare now costs £2·50 between London and Birmingham, when it used to be £5·40, and £4·50 between London and Liverpool, when it used to be £9·20. Such reductions have been the direct result of free competition.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting figures, but how many people are now able to travel who previously could not do so because they could not afford train fares?
    Mr. Fowler: I can give a general answer. On some major inter-city routes the number of passengers has increased by over 150 per cent. National Express tells me that in 1980 it carried 8¼ million people and expects to carry 12 million in 1981, so that is the scale involved. In addition, there are the British Coachways private consortium and other operators. In other words, the improvement is the most dramatic that we have seen in coach travel since the war.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware of the absurd consequence on the other side of the coin—the reduction in passenger receipts on HST British Rail, which on the South Wales to London route is 10 per cent. and which is largely due to the Government's delicensing? Did he expect such consequences, and, if so, will he compensate British Rail?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a classic operator argument. The policy is best described by saying:
    916
    "Provided the terms of competition are fair, if people choose to travel by coach rather than rail or air because lower fares are more important to them than speed, they should not be prevented from doing so."
    That is a direct quote from the previous Government's transport White Paper. We are simply putting the principle into effect.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: What can my right hon. Friend do about local authorities that are not prepared to allow facilities in their bus stations for private coach operators?
    Mr. Fowler: I know that problems have been caused and obviously we should like to help as much as possible. If my hon. Friend gives me details of any individual cases, I shall take them up.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not one of the main reasons for the increase in the number of passengers using the so-called inter-city services operated by National Express and the other companies and for the greater than expected growth—about 4 million extra passengers next year—the massive number of demonstrations that have been taking place against the Government? On Sunday, I came down to London and passed more than 100 coaches which were full of demonstrators. That will continue for the next three years unless the Government are removed.
    Mr. Fowler: That is one of the hon. Gentleman's sillier interventions.

    National Bus Company (Mileage Cut)
    Mr. Booth:asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will take steps to avert a cut of 60 million miles in the bus service mileage operated by the National Bus Company in 1981 involving 4,000 redundancies.
    Mr. Fowler: Over recent years the National Bus Company has faced a decline in demand on stage carriage services. It has, therefore, carried out a series of market analysis projects which are enabling it to reshape its services in line with current demand. It would be wrong for it to operate services where there is insufficient demand and local authorities do not consider that revenue support to it is the most cost-effective way of providing essential transport.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the combined effect of his transport supplementary grant regime and last year's legislation is that the biggest bus company will have to slash the number of passenger service miles operated? It will be the most massive cut that has ever taken place in a single year and will throw thousands of bus workers out of jobs. In addition, it will deprive hundreds of thousands of people of their bus services. The right hon. Gentleman has already acknowledged that inter-city coach services are expanding. Therefore, those cuts will affect rural areas and off-peak urban services. His policy will damage those areas that have no alternative to the bus.
    Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I accepted the revenue support bids from the shire counties with only one exception. The National Bus Company operates in the shire counties. There can be no correlation between that and the transport supplementary grant.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the financial burden on the National Bus

    917
    Company might be eased if we were to reconsider the interest that it pays on its historic debt, which runs at about £17 million per annum?
    Mr. Fowler: The National Bus Company feels strongly about that. Neither the Labour Government nor this Government have felt able to agree to such a request. We are unertaking an independent appraisal of the financial effect of the allocation of debt between particular subsidiaries. That appraisal resulted from a meeting with the National Bus Company and the unions involved. I hope to make a statement on that in due course.
    Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow private bus operators to offer cheap fares on the most popular routes prevents the public operator from subsidising less popular services from the receipts that he would have obtained? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's policy bound to result in the cutting of more and more services in rural areas and on less popular routes?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the policy. On stage carriage services the traffic commissioner system—which has a 30-mile circumference—continues. Therefore, the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's case is based is false.

    Nationalised Industries (Disposal)
    Mr. John Townendasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the Government's policy of disposing of parts of nationalised industries which are within the responsibility of his Department.
    Mr. Fowler: The Transport Act 1980 gave powers to return the National Freight Company Ltd. entirely to the private sector and I intend to do so as soon as practicable. The current Transport Bill will enable me to dispose of a 49 per cent. stake in the British Transport Docks Board undertaking. The Bill also opens the way for the introduction of private capital into British Rail's subsidiary businesses. I have also announced today my agreement in principle to proposals from the British Railways Board which would place three of its Scottish hotels in a private sector company in which the board would retain a one-third shareholding.
    Mr. Townend: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not he agree that the higher the proceeds from the sale of assets to the private sector, the more resources there will be available for investment? Would it not be better to maximise the proceeds by selling British Transport Hotels and Sealink lock, stock and barrel? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be disturbed by his statement today to the effect that British Rail intends to invest the money from the sale of the shares in its hotel company in other British Rail hotels? Might it not be better to use that money for investment in the renewal of rural lines, such as the Hull, Bridlington and Scarborough line?
    Mr. Fowler: That would not be a sensible course for British Rail to take. We have told British Rail that it has the discretion to put forward such proposals. British Rail has come to the conclusion—I stress that it is its conclusion—that it is to the benefit of the British Railways Board to sell the interest in the hotels. However, it wishes to maintain a continuing interest in the hotel business. I
    918
    should have thought it reasonable to allow it to do so. Control in the business will pass and that is the most important factor.
    Mr. Cook: Is not the nub of the matter that it is impossible to conceive of a more depressed market on which to launch the sale of a major asset than the state to which the Government have reduced the economy? Given the Secretary of State's earlier statement, will he give an assurance that neither he nor the board has received any advice to the effect that it would be against the public's financial interest to sell now? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless he increases the external financing limit on British Rail by the amount gained from the sale, not a single new penny will be released for investment in British Transport Hotels or in any other part of British Rail?
    Mr. Fowler: We want to achieve something that is to the benefit of the British Railways Board. The proceeds will go to the board. It will then have discretion as to what they are used for. Some of the proceeds will clearly be used for the hotel business. I confirm that the British Railways Board took the advice of hotel valuers and acted upon it.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: How far have British Rail's proposals gone as regards the disposal of Sealink? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier decision to sell the operation as a whole and give permission to split up at least some parts of it, particularly the routes to the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Fowler: The decision about Sealink is before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I can say nothing useful until a decision has been reached.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his decision in respect of Scottish hotels will be welcomed by all in Scotland—[Interruption.]—with the exception of the lunatic Left? Does not he further agree that the development of the hotels by private capital might be of considerable benefit, not only to tourism, but in giving a proper impression to visiting business men of the facilities available in Scotland?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. The decision is important for Scottish tourism. Given the increased development in the group, I look forward to the fact that the assets and attractions of Scottish tourism will be increased.
    Mr. Booth: If the proceeds from the sales go to the British Railways Board, how can they be used to reduce its call on the National Loans Fund, as was claimed in the financial memorandum to the Transport Bill?
    Mr. Fowler: The funds will go to the British Railways Board and it will use its discretion as to how to make use of them. The proceeds will amount to over £10 million. British Rail will wish to maintain a continuing one-third interest in the hotel group that is then set up.

    Seat Belts
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of methods of enforcement of legislation on the wearing of seat belts.
    Mr. Fowler: We have made no specific study, but I have some information on experience in other countries

    919
    where compulsion has been introduced. The main conclusion which I draw from it is that there would have to be a continued enforcement effort by the police if such a law was passed in this country.
    Mr. Heddle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is an issue which divides parties and indeed families throughout the country? Will he be kind enough to share his own views with the House today and confirm that if an amendment to the Transport Bill were carried in another place to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory there would be a free vote on the issue in this House?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, of course. There will certainly be a free vote on this issue. There will be a free vote of the House and a free vote of Ministers, and the Government will respect the decision of Parliament.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the Minister noted those studies which have shown that in countries which have introduced compulsion the actual results by way of reduction of casualties have borne no relation to the theoretical projection which was made before the legislation was introduced?
    Mr. Fowler: That is the Adams thesis. It is something which I think that the House will wish to bear in mind when it considers any amendment that may be made in another place.

    British Railways (Suburban Passenger Lines)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment has taken place in British Railways suburban passenger rolling stock, track and equipment in 1979, 1980 and 1981 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: I understand from the British Railways Board that actual expenditure on new rolling stock for suburban rail services amounted to £27 million in 1979, £50 million in 1980 and will probably reach £43 million in 1981. Most track and equipment is used jointly by various services, and investment in these items for suburban services is not readily identifiable.
    Mr. Cryer: Has the Minister seen the current issue of Railnews in which the chairman of British Rail says that there will be no new rail investment in 1981 and that this is a most critical time for British Railways? With a projected decline in investment in 1981, is it not time that the Government took action to provide British Rail with large funds in order to inject new investment particularly for suburban rail services—the replacement of the diesel multiple unit fleet, for example—to attract new passengers to British Rail? With 2½ million people unemployed, is not it the Government's duty to attempt to reduce the dole queue by action of this kind?
    Mr. Fowler: The investment ceiling of £325 million is the same as it was under the Labour Government and has been maintained. As a nation, we are providing direct support, both nationally and locally, of more than £700 million. There is, therefore, absolutely no question about the Government's commitment to the railway industry. As I have already said, we are making important decisions concerning future investment in some areas of British Rail. I hope to be able to make a statement on that in due course.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that much of the rolling stock, at least in the Southern Region, is hopelessly out of date? Will he have talks with the British Railways Board to see whether something can be done about this urgently?
    Mr. Fowler: I am always willing to talk to the British Railways Board on specific matters. About 23 per cent. of British Rail investment goes to the London commuter services each year, but I shall of course discuss any specific points with the chairman of the board.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Sir Peter Parker has informed him that, in his view, it is crucial that the rail investment limit should rise to £567 million per year? If the Secretary of State shortly reappoints Sir Peter Parker to his present position, may we take it from that that he has reached broad agreement with him on this point?
    Mr. Fowler: The implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that there is some connection between the reappointment of Sir Peter Parker and investment levels. That is not the case and it has certainly not been raised by Sir Peter Parker at any stage.

    Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalty)
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress towards a fixed penalty system for minor traffic offences.
    Mr. Fowler: The report of the working party on traffic law set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself was published on 20 May. The Government welcome the recommendation that the fixed penalty system should be extended to the less serious moving traffic offences. We have not, however, accepted the proposal that the carrying of driving licences should be compulsory. We have proposed instead that the fixed penalty procedure should be available to a driver only if he produces his licence.
    Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many millions of motorists will welcome this second innovation in his short term of office and will welcome him as the motorist's friend, bringing simple justice for simple offences? Has he made any estimate of the amount of time and the burden on the courts that will be saved as a result of this simple and better system?
    Mr. Fowler: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The estimate made by the working party is that the extension of the fixed penalty system to minor moving traffic offences would take about 600,000 cases out of the courts. I think that that is one of the great merits of what is proposed. The expected saving is between £3 million and £10 million per year.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the Government's obduracy over Civil Service pay means that many people are unable to drive with a valid licence and that many thousands of people—those who are disabled, those who become disabled, who need to have a renewable one-year licence, and those wishing to begin driving again after being banned for a year or so—cannot obtain a licence? Is he aware that his system would be inoperable at the present time because of the Government's obduracy on Civil Service pay?
    Mr. Fowler: That takes us considerably further than the present question. I am, of course, well aware of the problems being caused by the industrial action taking place at the Swansea vehicle licensing centre. I think that that is a great pity, not only from the point of view of the public, which is pre-eminent, but also for the reputation of Swansea, which had been improving over the past two years.

    Transport Policy (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the leader of the Greater London Council to discuss the co-ordination of a transport policy in London.
    Mr. Fowler: I have written to the leader of the GLC to suggest a meeting.
    Mr. Townsend: Does the Minister recall that last time Labour controlled County Hall its transport policies led to a fares increase of 130 per cent. and a rate increase of 235 per cent.? Will my right hon. Friend discuss damage control with the new leader of the GLC and will the Government recommend a PTA for Greater London as suggested by a Committee of this House?
    Mr. Fowler: The second part of my hon. Friend's question is clearly a matter to which we would have to give much closer thought than would come from a snap answer at the Dispatch Box today. The issue which causes most concern at the moment is that, if the GLC were to implement the kind of proposals that it put forward, it would cost the ratepayers about £90 million merely for the rest of this year. The cost to London ratepayers, both domestic and industrial, would be £200 million in a full year. I believe that the GLC would do well to think twice before introducing a policy costing that much money.
    Mr. Prescott: When the Minister meets the leader of the GLC, will he bear in mind that in the last election the alternative of a Labour low fare transport policy was posed against years of Tory high fare transport policy and the electorate voted for the Labour low fare policy, even when it was paid for by themselves as ratepayers? Will he bear in mind that the new leader of the GLC fought and won the election on that very manifesto?
    Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls, as he supported them, that the last Labour Government fought tooth and nail against exactly the policies that he now advocates.

    Recessionary Effects
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the recession on the transport of goods by (a) roads and (b) rail.
    Mr. Fowler: Freight transport is a service industry and both rail and road carryings have inevitably fallen because of lower economic activity. Rail freight traffic was about 11 per cent. lower in 1980 than in 1979, although some of this fall was due to the effects of the steel strike. Provisional figures for road, which was less affected by the strike, show a decline of 8 per cent. between 1979 and 1980.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should realise what their
    922
    policies are doing, not only to industry and commerce, but to the transport system in this country? When he next goes to a Cabinet meeting, will he stand up and tell the Government that it is time that more money was put into the public purse so that the purchasing power of the nation will increase, more goods will be produced and a better transport system will result?
    Mr. Fowler: My colleagues would be a little surprised if I stood up to make a speech of that kind, but I am conscious of the demands of transport, and particularly of transport investment, which is the crucial issue. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
    Mr. Foster: Is it not time that the Secretary of State redoubled his efforts to divert traffic from road to rail? Does he realise that if he were to pursue these policies more vigorously and to increase investment, particularly in British Rail Engineering, he would be safeguarding up to 5,000 jobs in the Northern region?
    Mr. Fowler: The only system one can have in the freight area is one of fair competition between road and rail. That is the policy of the Government. It was the policy of the previous Labour Government. Any policy that sought to direct freight would be bound to fail.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Ministry of Defence
    Mr. Viggersasked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will institute a study of conditions of service of those civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): No, as I do not believe one is required.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of industrial and professional civil servants respect their special position and the special duty they have to Government, and believe that the Government's attitude to their pay is fair? Does my hon. Friend further agree that under the previous Labour Government the pay restrictions held back the pay of those working for the Ministry of Defence to a shameful degree, and that they have benefited to a lesser extent than most civil servants from pay increases since that time? Does he accept that other civil servants should bear that in mind in the making of a global settlement of Civil Service pay?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The House would do well to note that the vast majority of industrial civil servants—and, indeed the vast majority of all civil servants—are working normally and keeping the work of their Departments and the Government going. In the Ministry of Defence, only a very small minority of people are taking disruptive action, and I hope that they will soon totally desist.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister feel that he needs to initiate a study of the whole Civil Service? How much longer is the dispute to be allowed to drag on, particularly when the unions are crying out for a reasonable settlement, and, due to the Government's obstinacy, moderates are being turned into——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating other questions that are on the Order Paper and will, I hope, shortly be answered.
    Mr. Neubert: If it is unacceptable for our Armed Forces to go on strike, is it not equally unacceptable for civil servants, employed by the Ministry of Defence and capable of reducing our defences, also to go on strike? Should not a no-strike agreement be negotiated with them before very much longer?
    Mr. Hayhoe: There is a clear distinction between civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence and members of the Armed Forces, and many different conditions apply to their work. I have already made clear to the House that I can see the desirability in principle of no-strike agreements. The Government are ready to discuss with the unions the possibility of achieving no-strike agreements.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister recollect that, after the sacking of the Ministry of Defence cleaners at Bath, the contract cleaners who were taken on were subsequently accused of defrauding both the national insurance authorities and the Inland Revenue? Will he tell the House why the outcome of the Government's investigation into that allegation has never been revealed—in particular, not to this House—and why the company has never been prosecuted? Does it not seem an odd sense of justice that people have rightly been prosecuted for drawing social security benefits while working for contract cleaners in Birmingham, whereas the company which has been working for the Ministry of Defence in Bath has not been prosecuted for defrauding two Government Departments?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I told the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion he asked this question, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Entry and Promotion
    Mr. Dubsasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she is satisfied that women and members of ethnic minorities have equal opportunities of entry to and promotion within the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Civil Service has a long standing policy that there must be no discrimination, either before or after entry, against any person on account of race, ethnic origin, sex or marital status. The policy is widely known throughout the service and I am determined that it shall be rigorously applied.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that, without monitoring, he cannot enforce the equal opportunities policy, because he does not know whether it is being carried out? Given that he has the co-operation of at least some of the trade unions in following these policies, has he not a responsibility to set a good example to other employers?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are not convinced that censuses and the like are the most appropriate and effective ways of following matters through, using scarce resources and doing everything possible to ensure that discrimination is not taking place.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Minister able to assure the House that his Department is using the newspapers representing the ethnic minority groups for the purpose of advertising vacancies?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am unable to answer that question without notice. I do not know whether ethnic group newspapers are being used. If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a question I shall ensure that it is answered.

    Pay Dispute
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will make a statement on the current Civil Service dispute.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she will make a statement about the Civil Service pay dispute.
    Mr. Woolmerasked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will report the latest position on the Civil Service pay dispute.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in talks with the Civil Service unions concerning future machinery for the conduct of pay negotiations.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Discussions with the Civil Service unions to see whether a basis can be found on which the present dispute can be brought to an end are continuing. The Government hope that they can be brought to an early and successful conclusion. I am sure that the House will understand if I do not go into any detail about the discussions at this stage.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tactics of the unions have alienated rather than gained public support? Is he aware that most people recognise that it is the unions that have gone on strike or are taking industrial action, not the Government? Will he therefore accept a brief message from my constituents which would sum up the position, namely, "Don't give 'em the money, Barney"?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that message from his constituency. It is not an entirely novel comment, but at least it is the first time that it has been used in the House on an occasion of this kind. I believe that the House would probably wish to express its concern about reports that militants within the Civil Service are proposing extended action. I hope that they will desist.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the three other hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the 18 per cent. increase for Members of Parliament—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Six per cent."]—how can the Minister possibly expect lower paid civil servants to settle for 7 per cent., which, with inflation still at 12 per cent. because of the failure of the Government's economic policies, is a reduction in real terms? Will the Government stop being so intransigent and stubborn and make a fairer offer to the civil servants that will help bring an end to the dispute, which is causing a great deal of inconvenience to the general public?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the instance of the pay of Members of Parliament there is 6 per cent. new money on the table, compared with 7 per cent. new money on the table for civil servants.
    Mr. Woolmer: Are the Government prepared to negotiate genuinely, to reach an honourable settlement and

    925
    to avoid a further escalation of industrial action and a worsening of industrial relations? Bearing in mind the origins of the dispute—the unilateral tearing up by the Government of a pay agreement and the right of arbitration—and the deep and genuine anger among hundreds of thousands of civil servants, will the Government now give an assurance that they will negotiate properly and show a degree of flexibility so as to avoid the escalation and a severe worsening of industrial relations that will be the result of the Government's obduracy?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman makes part of the case deployed by the union leaders. As I said earlier, genuine discussions are going on with the unions at present. I do not propose to say anything here today which could jeopardise the results of those discussions.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that two-thirds of the civil servants involved receive less than two-thirds of average earnings? In those circumstances, does he think it reasonable to ask those men and women to accept a vicious cut in their standard of living by taking a 7 per cent. wage increase when we all know that inflation is about twice that rate? If the hon. Gentleman believes that his case is justified, why does he not refer it to arbitration?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept that two-thirds of those involved in the action are earning what the hon. Gentleman claims. I have said before in the House that two-thirds of civil servants receive less than average earnings.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: In the interests of fair play, I will call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the striking air traffic controllers that RAF people working alongside them at West Drayton and other places earn about two-thirds of the wages of air traffic controllers and are not allowed to strike?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not want to say anything that could be interpreted as intervening in the discussions that are taking place, but I am certain that the point made by my hon. Friend will be noted by those concerned.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not clear, three months into the dispute, that it was absurd for the Government to enter negotiations with a position of such rigidity that the only options available to the Civil service unions were to capitulate—which their members would not permit—or to fight the Government? Since next Monday's escalation to affect the Departments of Employment and Health and Social Security and the intensification of action at airports will result in a more direct impact on the public, will the Government accept at this late stage that arbitration offers an honourable way out for both sides, and a way out that has been accepted by the unions? If the Government are so convinced of the validity of their case, why are they afraid to argue it before an impartial body?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Government have made it clear from the start that the 6 per cent. cash limit for Civil Service pay will not be breached. I am sorry that in referring to the possible extension of action to affect social security and unemployment benefits the right hon. Gentleman did not ask those concerned not to take such action, which will cause considerable hardship to people in great need.

Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland)
3.32 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the existing practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers.
It is more than a year since I attempted to introduce a similar Bill which would have placed an embargo on the use of warrant sales in Scotland, pending the long-awaited report by the Scottish Law Commission on the law of diligence. I said at the time that warrant sales were a form of legalised intimidation whereby sheriff officers may, without the permission of a householder, enter a person's house and threaten to sell the furniture, often at a mere fraction of its real value, in order to clear a debt. The sale usually takes place at the debtor's home and is advertised in public, either in newspapers or by the door-to-door delivery of leaflets in the neighbourhood of the debtor.
Most of the debts that we are talking about are less than £100 and most of the individuals and families concerned are on low incomes. There is no legal obligation on the courts or anyone else to take into account the financial circumstances of the debtor.
Defenders of the status quo, who seem to include the Solicitor-General for Scotland, claim that the number of warrant sales in Scotland is only about 300 a year. I say that that is 300 too many and should point out that more than 3,000 sales are advertised every year and that more than 20,000 poindings take place. A poinding is an official valuation and earmarking of goods for a warrant sale and the poinding takes place in the debtor's home. Poinding and advertising can be distressing experiences for individuals and families, even if the sale is eventually called off.
Last year the Government refused to support my Bill and would not grant it any time beyond the First Reading stage. But much has happened since then. In October the Scottish Law Commission, after dragging its feet for the best part of a decade, eventually came out with some provisional proposals which would be an improvement on the status quo, though they fall short of the abolition that I propose.
The Scottish Law Commission proposed, for example, an extension of the list of articles that would be exempt from warrant sales. The list was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) in a Private Member's Bill in 1973 and includes essential articles such as bedding, clothing, and heating appliances. The extension of this list would be an improvement, as would the proposal to take account of the financial circumstances of a debtor, and the provisional proposal to hold sales in auction rooms rather than in debtors' homes. That would at least help to respect the anonymity of the debtor and would help to achieve more realistic prices.
Some of the prices realised at warrant sales are ridiculously low. For example, a three-piece suite may fetch only £60, a radiogram £20 and a fridge £5. The carpet, vacuum cleaner and television set of one of my constituents were recently valued at a total of £37. It would have cost more than 10 times that amount to replace those articles.
928
The Scottish Law Commission is not the only body to have made recommendations about warrant sales. Earlier this week, the Faculty of Advocates came out in broad agreement with the commission. I understand that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is still a member of the Faculty of Advocates and, therefore, he appears to be at loggerheads with his own trade union on this vexed matter of warrant sales.
I should like to quote from a document in my possession:
"The Warrant Sale is a distressing and obnoxious procedure which has become socially unacceptable in its present form and whose immediate reform is therefore desirable."
That quotation does not come from any Left-wing, radical, revolutionary literature. It comes from a memorandum on warrant sales published by the Scottish Tory Reform Group, the vice-presidents of which include the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for home affairs and the environment.
That is evidence of the groundswell of opinion among all shades of political views, with a few notable exceptions. I should add that four Conservative Members have agreed to sponsor my Bill. Many bodies and individuals throughout Scotland advocate reform and some would go even further and agree with me in seeking abolition of warrant sales.
The Labour-controlled Stirling district council has decided not to use warrant sales and many other local authorities are following its excellent example. The Scottish conference of the Labour Party favours abolition, as does the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. The print union SOGAT took direct action to stop the printing of newspaper advertisements for warrant sales, and they no longer appear in many Scottish newspapers. Unfortunately, one of the more unenlightened sheriffs in Scotland, sheriff principal John Dick of North Strathclyde has tried to get round the SOGAT ban by having a door-to-door delivery of leaflets in the neighbourhood of the debtor.
The whole coercive system is a form of public humiliation and punishment rather than a constructive attempt to get a debt repaid. My Bill proposes the abolition of warrant sales in all cases of personal debt and their replacement by a debt arbitration service which would provide the opportunity for the debtor and the creditor to come to a mutual agreement on repaying the debt by instalments, taking into account the financial circumstances of the debtor.
Failing a voluntary agreement, the arbitrator would be given the power to issue repayment orders payable, if necessary, at source from the wages or other income of the debtor. This seems to me a reasonable proposal. There seem to be only two major reasons behind the reluctance of some people to accept it. One is what can only be described as the vested interest of the legal mafia in Scotland, some of whom are making a fat living out of the whole system. Debt collecting is big business. A minority of people are exploiting the misery, the fear and the unfortunate circumstances of the debtors.
There are in many cases connections between firms of sheriff officers and private debt collecting agencies. It is not like the English bailiff system where the bailiff is a full-time court employee. Sheriff officers in Scotland are

929
often allowed to act more or less like private enterprise. My Bill would separate the functions of sheriff officer from that of private debt collecting agencies. A sheriff officer would become an employee of the court and therefore more accountable to the court and to the general public.
I also propose in my Bill a code of conduct for sheriff officers. Some high-handed bullying tactics and threatening behaviour have been used by sheriff officers, sometimes, but not always, in the execution of warrant sales and poindings. Not long ago, three children were dragged from their beds at half-past four in the morning by sheriff officers in the execution of a child custody order. More recently, a flat occupied by three young women in Glasgow was invaded by sheriff officers. The women were not even in debt. It appears that the debtor was the landlord but the women were served with the arrestment notice. The sheriff officers brought along joiners who used hammers and chisels to smash down a door. A newspaper cameraman who arrived to take photographs was prodded in the stomach with a screwdriver. It is time that these Gestapo tactics were outlawed in a civilised society.
The last principal objection to my proposed Bill would seem to come from those who say that my debt arbitration service would be expensive. In my view it would reduce the burden and therefore the expenditure of the courts. Most of the debts about which I am talking are not even contested. The debtor admits the debt and there is no need
930
to go to court to prove the debt. An arbitration service would help to get the debt repaid. Public expenditure would be kept to a minimum by putting a levy on some of the big credit companies that encourage people to get into more debt than they can afford.
Even if some public expenditure is necessary, it would be worth while. The pursuit and administration of justice cost money. Members of any society claiming to be civilised should be prepared to put their hands in their pockets and to rid Scotland once and for ever of a barbaric, inhuman and medieval relic that has caused undue hardship and misery to countless thousands of people and their families.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. James Dempsey, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. David Myles, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John MacKay, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Bill Walker and Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.

ABOLITION OF WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND)
Mr. Dennis Canavanaccordingly presented a Bill to abolish the existing practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
Orders of the Day

  British Nationality Bill
  [2nd Allotted Day]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

  ACQUISITION BY BIRTH OR ADOPTION
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'citizen' to end of line 12 and insert
  'unless

  (a) his father or his mother is a member of a mission within the meaning of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964; or

  (b) his father or mother is a member of a consular post of any State, as defined in section 7(2) of the Consular Relations Act 1968;

  and in either case the child acquires the nationality of another State at birth.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, to leave out from "unless" to the first "the" in line 7, and amendment No. 77, in clause 9, page 8, line 44, at end insert
  'unless at that time he holds another citizenship'.
  Mr. Hattersley: The object of the amendment is to re-establish the principle that with the sole exception of children born to foreign diplomats serving in this country every child born in the United Kingdom should enjoy British citizenship automatically, unquestioningly and without the need to demonstrate any other qualification other than that the child was born on British soil. The principle that every child born here should automatically and unquestioningly be British has been at the heart of the definition of British nationality ever since the concept of British nationality has had any meaning. It was generally agreed in Committee that the principle goes back at least 700 years. The Government now seek to change that principle by limiting British citizenship to children one of whose parents was
  "ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom … without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain."
  Clause 1 offers citizenship only to the children of settled—that is the term of art—parents. Clause 46(2), as amended in Committee, defines "settled" in the way I have described. Parents are settled if they are ordinarily resident here without being subject to any immigration control or
  "to any restriction on the period for which"
  they remain.
  We propose, as an alternative to the limitation on the principle, the simple reassertion of the established idea and, I might almost say, the established ideal. Putting aside the necessary exception of the children of diplomats, clause 1, if the amendment is carried, will read:
  "A person born in the United Kingdom …shall be a British citizen."
  That assertion seems to us to be right in principle and in practice. To qualify the principle in the way proposed by the Government has two highly undesirable and, for some families, I would argue, disastrous effects.
  932
  It disqualifies from citizenship a number of children who will, in consequence of disqualification, suffer certain disadvantage and possible hardship. Secondly, it creates among a much larger number of children who, with the passage of time, will turn into British adults and British citizens, with all the rights of citizenship, a quite intolerable uncertainty about their status and their place in society. In practice, it will create a situation in which a large number of British citizens by birth will be required at some point in their lives to prove that they are British citizens by birth in a way that no British citizen has been asked to prove before.
  Those hon. Members who understand these problems will realise that where proof is required, where proof is necessary and where proof is demanded, that proof will invariably be demanded of black British or British children of Asian parents or grandparents. It will not be the children and grandchildren of hon. Members, if the amendment is defeated, who will be required at some point to demonstrate their British status. It will be the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who came here in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s who will be required to prove and to demonstrate that they are free and equal citizens.
  Since the Bill, if it is not amended, will have that effect, it is another example of how this measure, whatever the intentions of its authors and no matter how honourable or noble their purpose, will cause specific problems to the ethnic minorities and their families. It is therefore another example of how the Bill is racial in effect whatever the intentions of its sponsors.
  I justify that serious allegation by examining the way in which the disqualification from citizenship under clause 1 as it stands and under clause 46(2) will work. Its intention, according to the Minister of State, speaking in Committee, is to disqualify from British citizenship the children of students, visitors, overstayers, and other illegal immigrants. In Committee, the Minister of State dissociated himself from the press briefing that was given by the Home Office shortly before Second Reading, which largely concerned temporary visitors to this country. He said that the proposal was not aimed at births in transit lounges or at public monuments, though he slipped into the old briefing about the temporary visitor who came here frequently because of additional travel facilities by talking about births to mothers who were en route elsewhere. The airlines which fly to Britain are still perturbed and puzzled to think that a Minister of the Crown should regard births to mothers en route elsewhere as possible, since their international regulations preclude the transit of pregnant women. However, that is by the way.
  The Minister's real argument was not about the fear of births in the Tate Gallery or the National Theatre, but about people here illegally whose children born during their stay here would subsequently accept and be granted British citizenship. He relied on the justification for this qualification which appears in paragraph 43 of the White Paper. It says:
  "the Government's main uneasiness on this score"
  —that is, allowing people not permanently settled here to transmit British nationality to their children—
  "is that allowing birth to confer citizenship on such a child"
  —that is, a child whose parent is not normally resident here—
  "means … that after he returns with his parents to their country,"
  —the country of his parent's birth—

  933
  "his own children, born years later, will be British Citizens by descent"
  and would
  "form a pool of considerable size".
  I shall paraphrase that paragraph, because it contains an extraordinary contention—if it means what it says. The Government's main unease that causes them to break the 700-year-old principle that every child born here is British is that a number of children will be born here to temporary residents, they will go home with the parents who were temporary residents, they will then give birth to children who will become British by descent, and those third generation children will then flood back into the United Kingdom. One has only to paraphrase the paragraph to see how absurd it is.
  If one reads the paragraph again, one realises the preoccupation that has prompted the Government in this direction. It says that to allow the potential entry of these almost inconceivable categories of persons
  "would form a pool of considerable size"
  —that is, a pool of immigrants. We are back to the watery metaphors so enjoyed and exploited by the Government. The Prime Minister talks, wrongly, about immigrants flooding in. The White Paper talks about pools. They both demonstrate that the Bill is concerned not with nationality but with restrictions on immigration. The basic principle of nationality that everyone born here is automatically British is being eroded, because the Government fear that not to erode that principle would be to allow in people the Government feel should be excluded.
  That is an example of the immigration base of what claims to be a nationality Bill, and it is also an example of the divide between the two parties. The Labour Government's Green Paper three years ago said
  "a child born here by accident is not likely, by and large, to exercise his claim to our citizenship."
  That is surely true. Following that conclusion, paragraph 34 of that document said, quite firmly, that a Labour Government would maintain the principle that every child born in Britain should be British without question and without qualification. The Labour Government said that because of the hardship that would be caused to children who would be excluded from British citizenship by this proviso.
  In Committee, I gave an example from my constituency of what might have happened to a family in Sparkbrook had the Bill been law over the past 10 years. It concerned a married couple who were citizens of Pakistan and who were in this country, wholly legally, reading medicine at a British university. During their undergraduate years, they were staying with their parents in my constituency who had been born in Pakistan and who had acquired British citizenship and the right to reside here. During the first year of their student life in Britain the couple gave birth to a son who, under the Bill, would not be British because his parents were not ordinarily resident here.
  The child remained in the United Kingdom for the subsequent four years of his parents' undergraduate career. When he was five, he entered a British primary school, even though his parents returned to the country of their birth, Pakistan, and practised medicine in Islamabad. He remained with his grandparents, as many children have done throughout the ages, to obtain the benefits of the superior education that his parents believed were available to him in the United Kingdom. He stayed with his grandparents for the subsequent three years, but, before going to another school at the age of 12, he went home to
  934
  visit his parents for a year. By spending a year with them, he was disqualified from the Government's one concession that a child, although born to parents not resident in the United Kingdom, may achieve British nationality if he lives here for the subsequent period without long periods of absence from the country.
  The child had one period of absence and reached the age of 14, having spent 13 years in the United Kingdom, having no experience of any country other than the United Kingdom, having no education other than that of the United Kingdom, and having no language other than English—an unusual fact—only to discover that under the Bill he was not a British subject.
  I put that case to the Minister, who answered in three parts. First, he said that the child would not be British, despite the length and depth of his British experience. Second, the Minister could not give a clear assurance as to what nationality the child would possess. There was a real chance that he would be stateless. The third part was the catch-all on which all beleaguered Ministers depend when they attempt to justify such Bills, that the Secretary of State has the power and discretion to make a specific allowance in such hard cases.
  To say that as long as there is a reasonable Home Secretary everything will be all right is not an adequate justification or defence. Hard cases—of which Labour Members can give examples time after time—will involve individuals who know no life other than the British life and who discover that because of this simple qualification they are no longer British and, indeed, never have been British.
  The suffering that arises from such a scheme is largely the result of the Government's obsession with overstaying and illegal immigration. No one doubts the existence of overstaying and illegal immigration. No one does other than deplore overstaying and illegal immigration. If there is control of immigration, as there has to be, the illegal immigrant and the overstayer prejudice the chances of the people who have a legitimate right to enter. I in no way defend illegal immigration, but I know, from my experience, that it does not exist to the extent which justifies its being used as the basis for a British Nationality Bill.
  Already the Government's obsession with immigration overstayers and illegal immigrants is preventing the entry into Britain of bona fide visitors, separating wives from husbands and preventing children from joining their parents in Britain. That the wrong application of that obsession has such practical consequences is bad enough. That it should be extended into a principle that determines how nationality is defined is more than deplorable: it is a disgrace. It is a particular disgrace in its practical application because of applying it in the way that the Government do and by saying that a child is British if its parents are normally resident here, but not British if its parents are subject to the paragraph 43 qualification, the Government are introducing a major uncertainty into the lives of tens of thousands of immigrants.
  4 pm
  The case that I described is hypothetical in a sense because it relates to existing law. Under the Bill the consequences that I described will apply. In that case at no time will the boy of 16 know or be told that his nationality or citizenship status is in doubt.
  On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister gave an assurance which we welcomed and applauded. He

  935
  said that when a child is born in the United Kingdom and its mother or father registers the birth there will be no question of the registrar requiring a demonstration that the parents are normally resident here and stamping the birth certificate according to the status of the parents and therefore describing the nationality status of the child.
  The Minister and I are at one in believing that it would be intolerable if the registrar or his officials carried out such an inquiry when every registration was made. The registrar is right to do that. However, there is no escaping from the question at some point during the lives of many British citizens.
  I can give three examples in terms of my constituency because such problems arise there. The citizenship status and nationality of many children in my constituency will be questioned at three stages in their lives: first at the age of 14 when they apply for a passport to go on a school trip to France; secondly, when at the age of 16 they want to join the Army; and, thirdly, at the age of 18 or 21 when they are no longer children, when they want to enter the competitive examination that may result in entry to the Civil Service.
  On each occasion it will be necessary to demonstrate citizenship status. If the Bill is passed unamended, two things will happen. First, some young people—and in the case of the Civil Service perhaps not such young people—may suddenly discover that, despite what they believed about their birth, condition and citizenship, they are not British after all. They might discover that their parents were immigrant students or overstayers and stayed with friends or relations in the innocent belief that they were entitled to do that. Eventually they could discover that they were not British and that the Government did not know or even care about their status. That would be the tragedy of individuals who after inquiry discovered that they did not enjoy British citizenship.
  I do not know how many people will be involved. Everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. On 12 February the Minister said that no figures existed but that we were discussing a matter of principle. Perhaps a substantial number of people will discover to their astonishment that they are not British.
  I regard as more important the equally certain fact that a much larger number of people who are British by birth will be required to demonstrate their British status. That is my major objection. By differentiating between the classes of child born in Britain and by making a distinction between children's nationality status, many people will be asked to demonstrate that they are British.
  Let us not be mealy-mouthed about who such people will be. If the sons or grandsons of hon. Members go to the passport office and ask for a passport they will not be asked to demonstrate that they are British because they are white and have British names. The people who will be asked to demonstrate their bona fides will be the black British. They are absolutely British because they were born here and their parents were resident here when they were born. There is no question of their going home because they are home already. This is the only home that they have known. However, because they fit into the category of doubt and suspicion, they will be asked to prove that their parents were ordinarily resident here at the time of their birth.
  936
  I have no way of knowing how easy or difficult it will be for children to demonstrate their British status. In many cases it will be extremely difficult. The Minister brushed the difficulties aside in Committee. He said that careful and prudent parents would establish their children's citizenship at an early age. He demonstrated how little he understands the problems in the areas and communities involved. He said that school records might be a help. He gave bland assurances about the ease with which a true British status could be demonstrated. I quarrel with him about the ease with which that can be done.
  Even if that demonstration were as easy as the Minister says, my main objection to the Government's proposal is that some people will have to demonstrate their citizenship.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Proving residence here for 10 years might be helped by school records. However, the real difficulty is not that the child has to prove what happened to him because he can produce a birth certificate to show that he was born here. The difficulty is in proving his parents' immigration status when he was born. The child might have no knowledge of that and it might be difficult for the parents to prove their status at that late stage.
  Mr. Hattersley: I agree.
  Proof might be required in two areas, in both of which it will be difficult. First, the child who is British because his parents were ordinarily resident here at the time of his birth will have to prove his citizenship. A man of about 21 about to enter the Civil Service may find it difficult to prove the status of his parents 21 years before. The second category involves the Government's concession—that, even if a parent was not normally resident here, a child who has been resident for 10 years and not been absent for 90 days in any one of the 10 years shall be allowed British citizenship.
  That a man or woman of 18, having demonstrated that his or her parents were not ordinarily resident here at the time of his or her birth should have to prove residence for 10 years without being out of the country for 90 days, is difficult to understand. I hope that the Minister will explain whether the onus of proof will be on the applicant or whether the onus of disproof will be on the Home Office.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seem to suggest that when a child seeks to establish residence for 10 years the parents' status is also involved. That is not so. The parents' status does not have to be established.
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) did not say that. When I answered his intervention, I carefully distinguished between the two categories. In one case there is a necessity to demonstrate the parents' status—British by birth—and in the other there is a necessity to demonstrate behaviour in the last 10 years. They are different demonstrations, but equally difficult to demonstrate—or they will be for many of those involved.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: While the former category mentioned by my right hon. Friend—those who have to show their citizenship by both

  937
  birth and the status of parents—will be discriminatory in the way that my right hon. Friend made clear, is it not also clear that that qualification and necessity will be imposed on every future British citizen, irrespective whether he be white, black or yellow? Although in practice it may be discriminatory against the black community, it is nevertheless an obligation on every one of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Hattersley: I want to dwell on my hon. Friend's point. While the Minister and I may argue about the need and ability to demonstrate British citizenship, the real objection to the clause is the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. There will be a theoretical obligation upon us all to demonstrate that we are British in a way that will he more detailed than in the past. Previously, if one was born in Britain there was no question about status. In future, in theory we must all demonstrate more than the simple fact that we were born in Britain.
  If the Minister wants me to be precise, the fact is that people born after the commencement of the powers contained in the Bill will have to demonstrate their British status by proving more than that they were born in the United Kingdom.
  My hon. Friend was right to say that a theoretical obligation would be imposed on every new British citizen born after the Bill comes into effect. But I repeat—and I know that my hon. Friend agrees—that in practice the questions about status, the obligations to provide proof, the demands to show the parents' status and behaviour during the past 10 years will always be applied to British citizens whose parents or grandparents are West Indian or Asian. It will not be applied to those who look British as commonly imagined. It will be applied to those who do not look British, as prejudicially conceived. That will be disastrous to community relations in Britain.
  It is no good me, or anybody else, saying to the ethnic minorities and to immigrants' children and grandchildren—by definition, we are talking not about immigrants but about those who are British by birth—that they are as British as anybody else because they were born in Britain when their parents were properly resident here, because they know that in practice their status will probably be questioned by every official office, on every official document, and whenever an important matter arises about their relationship with the State. That would not be the case if they were British and white.
  The need for the clause has not been justified by anything that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary have said. The Minister of State said that no figures were available. He cannot tell us how many undesirable immigrants might be allowed into Britain if he returned to the old principle that everybody born in Britain is British. He has no idea of what the additional immigration load might be. However, he can give figures about illegal immigration, which are wholly irrelevant, and figures about temporary stays in Britain, which are equally irrelevant. He said in Committee that it is a matter of principle. It is also a matter of principle to the Labour Party. It is a matter of principle about the nature of British society, about the definition of who is British and about our attitude towards those who live in British society. I regard distinguishing between them as both absurd and squalid.
  I hope that even now the Government will repent. On behalf of the small group who will be penalised, and the
  938
  much larger group who will be made uncertain—and therefore penalised also—I hope that even now the Government will change their mind and, will accept amendment No. 1.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. David Steel: I want to intervene briefly as one of the sundry persons referred to by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as having signed the amendment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I have not done so in any casual way. Members of both the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party decided to sign the amendment because it is not a technical amendment but one of profound and basic principle, affecting the attitude of our society towards those who live in our midst.
  Having read the exchanges in Committee, one basic question still baffles me. The overwhelming majority of children born in Britain to immigrant parents will be British citizens on birth. Yet after the Bill becomes law a birth certificate will no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship. From that simple fact many administrative and human problems will flow. So far, the Government have failed to give the reasons for such a fundamental change.
  The Government are introducing uncertainty and complexity into a highly sensitive area of law. They are introducing cumbersome administration and additional cost. They may well unwittingly increase statelessness. The Government gave twin reasons for the proposed change. First, they say, the objective of the Bill is to define British citizens as those with close connections with the United Kingdom, and that that should not extend to a child born to parents staying temporarily in Britain.
  As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was careful to point out, the original argument produced in support of that submission—the increased use of air travel—was nonsense because people do not come to Britain temporarily simply to have children. Even if they did, presumably they can come by land or sea and stay for a considerable time. The numbers who come to Britain deliberately to have a child born here must be minimal.
  The second Government argument is more worrying. They say that children having acquired British citizenship may then live abroad and transmit British citizenship by descent. Paragraph 43 of the White Paper states that such people
  "would form a pool of considerable size".
  That is already the case. If the Government believe that that is a problem they are duty bound to demonstrate why it is a problem under existing law. I am not convinced that there is a problem.
  I endorse the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the certainty of a child born here, irrespective of parentage, that he is a British citizen has been an important factor in encouraging the security of the ethnic minorities. Even a limited departure from that basic principle undermines that security, which is already undermined enough. It has aroused the fear that, in the hands of a different Government or a different Home Secretary. such a change could pave the way to a future denial of citizenship to children born of immigrant parents.
  Perhaps the most direct and permanent effect of the change is that it will be necessary not for those affected by the Bill in law, but for the entire non-white community in our midst to be prepared to produce documents or

  939
  evidence of their citizenship at various points in their lives. I am already disturbed by the cases now occurring. For example, people are being required to produce evidence that, as citizens, they are entitled to treatment under the National Health Service. I am sure that the House deplores that. But that sort of practice will increase if we approve the proposal. There will be other problems, and not only in the hospitals.
  What will happen in schools where there is a substantial ethnic minority? When school trips are organised and a collective form of passport is taken up, will the school teachers have to investigate the rights to citizenship of every child, because a birth certificate will not be enough proof of citizenship?
  We seem to be in grave danger of paving the way to a pass law society where certain people will have to carry evidence of citizenship, perhaps not in the form of an identity card—we would all react adversely to that—but in the form of a letter from the Home Office, as was suggested by the Minister in Committee. I still find the principle repugnant. It is for that reason that we support the amendment. We hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will have a change of heart and that they will find some Government Members who have resisted the attractions of Derby day to turn their attention to an extremely important change of fundamental principle which is being proposed in British law.
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: This group of amendments is important and crucial to the Bill. I cannot support the proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because it would weaken the Bill considerably. It would extend the rights to British citizenship far wider than it would be wise to do. I note that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) talked about the black British and about matters of principle. Most Opposition amendments, both in Committee and on Report, are in some way tied up with supporting the so-called rights of the immigrant community. Hon. Members who tabled the amendments tend to forget or to overlook easily the rights of the indigenous white population.
  There has been much talk about a multi-racial society. That has occurred in a way not wanted by political parties in the past and certainly not wanted by the indigenous white population. The question whether there should be a multi-racial society has never been put before the electorate. If the electorate had ever been offered the opportunity to give an opinion I know what the result would have been. It would not have been in favour of the position in which, unfortunately, we find ourselves, with an immigrant community in our midst ranging from 2½ million to 3 million.
  The answer would have been that there should be firm immigration control. That has been the view of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party at successive general elections, although not of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned once again his support for firm immigration control. We should pay a little more attention in the debate to the effect on the indigenous white population of amendments that would weaken the Bill by widening the right to citizenship.
  I wish to support amendment No. 77 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends on the question of dual
  940
  nationality. It relates to clause 9, which deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are to become British citizens at the date of commencement of the measure and proposes that that should not occur if at that time they hold another citizenship. I raised this subject briefly on Second Reading. My worry was that the Bill did not deal with dual nationality.
  I understood from the White Paper that was issued before the publication of the Bill that there were thought to be about 3 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with dual nationality who were exempt from United Kingdom immigration control, of whom 1 million were currently resident in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that it was a reasonable contention that when we are looking at British nationality and citizenship we should look also at the question of dual nationality. The matter was raised in vain in Committee. Therefore, the amendment seeks to redress the balance.
  Citizenship is a question of loyalty—loyalty to one's country in the basic analysis. It is difficult to have divided or dual loyalties. Therefore, it would be a good idea, especially at this time of recasting the nationality laws, to look at dual nationality. Amendment No. 77 seeks to provide that people who have nationality of another country, whether it be the West Indies, Africa or the Asian Sub-continent, should not automatically gain British citizenship.
  Mr. John Sever: I am happy to support the amendment that was moved so admirably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As a fellow Member of Parliament for Birmingham, he is well acquainted with the situation in that area, where members of ethnic minority communities undoubtedly feel uneasy, to put it at its simplest, about the matters that the House is discussing this week.
  One thing that disturbs my right hon. Friend and myself is that the Bill, which is crucial not only to representatives of ethnic minority communities, but to many others, pays scant regard to future race relations in Britain. It is a matter of deep concern to those of us who take an interest in the Bill that the Government should have provided an opportunity for those who wish to oppose them to argue that they are not concerned with race relations or racial harmony, particularly in areas such as Birmingham where these matters are important.
  The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) referred in passing to the fears that substantial numbers of the community have about the way in which the Bill will operate when enacted and whether it may be seen, as many see it, with justifiable concern, as the introduction to a system that will eventually lead to members of ethnic minority communities having to carry identification passes or a wallet full of documentation to prove who they are, where they come from, how they got here and who their mums and dads were. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would develop his argument, because I am sure that he would have done a good job on it. The fears to which he referred are fears of the sort that a wise Government would have taken steps to avoid in the presentation of a Bill of this importance.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Raison: It is nonsensical to talk in those terms. The only occasion on which a person might have to

  941
  produce documents would be when he was applying for a passport or on a limited number of other occasions during his life. Nothing in our scheme could possibly lead anyone to believe that people would have to carry documents and passports all the time. Such an argument is fallacious. Nothing in the Bill justifies it.
  Mr. Sever: At the moment it may be possible to argue that the ethnic minority communities have nothing to fear, but the concern is that at some time in the not-too-distant future there may be an extension or development of the proposals in the Bill that would lead to a worsening of the position, the introduction of the measures I have described, and would mean that people would have to carry passes, identification papers and all the rest.
  Mr. David Steel: Surely the Minister does not disagree that, unhappily, this is already happening in some cases. I gave examples. Surely he does not dissent either from the proposition that his proposal will lead to a greater number of occasions on which that will happen. It is no good his shaking his head. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) listed a number of occasions when such documentation will be required, and the Minister has admitted that there will be such occasions. When I used the phrase "pass law" I was arguing that the Bill was leading us down a dangerous slope.
  Mr. Sever: That is right. As I suspected, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has made a better job of putting over the argument than I did. The fear exists. The difficulty is that many people in the ethnic minority communities feel that the Bill is the first step down the slippery slope to which the right hon. Member referred. The Government could have been bold and forthright. They could have produced a Bill that would have tidied up the nationality laws, something that many hon. Members on both sides of the House concede is necessary. They could have done that without introducing any element of fear among the ethnic minorities. The Government have not done that, and that is why they are encountering so much hostility towards their proposals, both within the House and outside.
  The burden of my argument remains that we have missed an opportunity with the Bill to tidy up the nationality laws and produce a measure that would be widely accepted throughout the various communities and would not create worry among those who may feel threatened by the Government's proposals.
  The Government seem to be going against world opinion, which is that all Governments should reduce the amounts and threat of statelessness. The Government have paid a degree of lip-service to the international conventions aimed at reducing statelessness, but they are now seeking to enact a Bill that will lead to an enormous increase in statelessness and jeopardise the future of many people. They are doing that while appearing to agree that the threat to those whose statehood may be in question should be reduced. They cannot have it both ways. Either they must take positive steps towards reducing statelessness or they must not introduce measures such as the Bill, which will undeniably increase the risk of it.
  Those points are crucial to the way in which the ethnic minorities view the Bill, but the Government have been less than helpful about them. Heaven knows, the quality of race relations in Britain is not good enough, but by their action the Government are creating fears in those
  942
  minorities that it will decline. I therefore hope that the House will express its views today on this difficult and delicate matter by supporting my right hon. Friend's amendment.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: I wish to say a few words about amendment No. 77 One of the saddest aspects of the Bill is that it has not grasped the difficult nettle of dual nationality. Those who are most likely to be disadvantaged by that failure are the members of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic group. If they had been able to say that they had given up their allegiance to their country of origin and had irrevocably become citizens of the United Kingdom they would have made it plain to all that they were here to stay. They would have demonstrated their common allegiance to the customs, traditions and loyalties of our country.
  The disadvantage to those people was perhaps best illustrated yesterday by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) when he complained eloquently during the speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he had been held to be ineligible for service in the Royal Navy because, he said, his father had been refused naturalisation after living here for 30 blameless years. I expect that in law there was an absolute bar against his father serving in the Armed Forces. It is probable that the hon. Gentleman encountered a discretionary bar.
  It is now fashionable for all of us to consider the reintroduction of some form of national service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House talk in terms of some form of youth or national service, or service to the State, to help alleviate the problem of youth unemployment and channel the undoubted idealism of our young people into a worthwhile cause. The great virtue of the old national service was that it was compulsory. Any selective form of national service that could be seen as punishment for those who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed would, I believe, be highly divisive. But what would happen if some form of compulsory national service, directed primarily towards service in the Armed Forces, were imposed now? A substantial minority of people in this country now enjoy, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would put it, the advantages of dual nationality. But would it be possible or even desirable to compel the members of that minority to serve in the Armed Forces?
  I recently attended a meeting in Wolverhampton at which the various groups representing those who were formerly described as immigrants, but who rightly no longer are so described, were giving their views about what they called "mother tongue education". We had a long discussion about whether that would create further divisions in the community. During that discussion I was handed a document by the Indian Workers' Association. I did not obtain it by any subterfuge. The intention was plainly that I should read it carefully.
  I find at the back the aims and objectives of the Indian Workers' Association. They are:
  "To organise Indians to

  (i) safeguard and improve their conditions of life and work;"

  —there is nothing of great interest in that—[Interruption.] There is nothing objectionable in that. It is perfectly understandable. I appreciate that the association makes that its first objective. I hope that the House will listen to its second objective in the light of what I said about allegiance and possible national service:

  943
  "(ii) seek co-operation and unity with the Indian High Commission in the United Kingdom towards fulfilment of its aims and objects"
  —I am sure this will be of interest to many hon. Members.—
  "(iii)promote co-operation and unity with the trade union and Labour movement in Great Britain"
  We hope that the objectives of the British Government, as the Government change from time to time, will always coincide with the objectives of the Indian Government, but we cannot be sure that that is so. We would put our Armed Services in a difficult position if, for the sake of argument, we were to recruit by compulsion large numbers of persons whose principal allegiance is to——
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I listened carefully to the second object which my hon. Friend described. I wonder whether that second object is more objectionable than the perfectly understandable attitude of many United Kingdom Jews who seek to promote Zionism. I do not think that we would regard that as objectionable. If that is right, I do not see why we should regard the second objective as objectionable.
  Mr. Budgen: If there are those who wish to promote Zionism, it is better that they should have citizenship only in the United Kingdom; then they demonstrate in their advocacy of Zionism that it is in no way inconsistent with their loyalty to the British Crown. That is a perfectly reasonable position for them to hold.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to encourage the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to make one of his over-long speeches——
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Who is talking?
  Mr. Budgen: I have nearly finished.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West show the relevance of amendment No. 77 to Indian citizens living in this country? He may be unaware, as he usually is unaware of the most important point, that Indian citizens are not eligible for dual citizenship, so that amendment No. 77 is not applicable either to Indian citizens living in this country or to the the vast majority of members of the Indian Workers' Association in this country.
  Mr. Budgen: They cannot in their own country have dual nationality, but they can here.
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  Mr. Budgen: Even if in respect of India I am wrong, and I do not believe I am wrong, it still illustrates the general proposition that I am making.
  In objective (iv) the Indian Workers' Association makes plain the difference between allegiance to India and allegiance to this country. The fourth objective is to
  "strengthen friendship with the British and all other peoples in Great Britain and co-operate with their organisations to this end".
  There is a world of difference between strengthening friendship, which is a proper objective in our attitudes towards the Indian Government of the day, and seeking cooperation and unity with the Indian High Commission.
  Mr. David Steel: I wonder whether, in his travels overseas, the hon. Gentleman ever had a chance to look at the constitution of, say, a Caledonian society in Canada or a St. George's society somewhere in the middle of Africa. He would find similar provisions there.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Budgen: If the Caledonian Society is in the United States of America, where there is no dual nationality, the fears I am pointing to cannot sensibly be put forward. I am simply saying that, so long as we retain a system of dual nationality, the fears I put forward can sensibly be considered and raise real problems.
  Mr. John Stokes: An even more serious point is that if the United Kingdom should unfortunately ever be involved in a war, would the people over here who have dual nationality be prepared to fight, and if necessary to die, for this country?
  Mr. Budgen: Perhaps they would. By continuing the system of dual nationality we deny them the right to make their allegiance plain. We do them a great disservice. Although I know that it is done out of a spirit of kindliness, it is also done because we are not prepared to face a most disagreeable issue.
  Mr. J Enoch Powell: I have not hitherto sought to catch the eye of the Chair in this debate because, as amendment (a) to amendment No. 1 which stands in my name and is being considered in connection with it, raises a substantially different issue, it seemed to me right that the debate on amendment No. 1 should develop to a certain point. But there is this that is germane both to the substance of amendment No. 1 and to my amendment (a) and also to amendment No.77 to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) has been speaking: It is that they all draw attention to aspects and consequences of the change in the basis of nationality which is what the Bill is really about.
  It is the second revolutionary change which has been enacted in the basis of our nationality within a generation. A generation separates those two revolutionary changes.
  In 1948, although it was modified by the principle of citizenship basically the old doctrine of jus soli continued. We maintained the principle for which the official Opposition have contended throughout the proceedings on the Bill—I was no more than teasing when I described it as the feudal principle, although indeed it is feudal in origin—namely, that birth within a place determining citizenship derives historically from the old concept that whatever grows upon the soil is the property of the lord of the soil, an aspect of the concept of dominion.
  Our nationality by birth within the allegiance, which was altered by the 1948 Act, was essentially nationality by jus soli. It was birth within territory, albeit birth which attracted allegiance by virtue of being born within the dominions of the Crown. That had been the system and the essence of our nationality before 1948.
  In 1948 we did a remarkaable thing. We shifted the basis from allegiance to citizenship. We stated that the whole body of British subjects was the total of those who enjoyed one or more various citizenships—the citizenships of the then already independent former dominions and a new citizenship comprising the residuum, described as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. To that extent we altered, although we did not abandon, jus soli. We altered it to the extent that citizenship had to be the gateway through which the basic status of subjecthood was, in the eyes of United Kingdom law, attained.
  Unfortunately at that time, and for many years afterwards, we did not base the attributes, rights and

  945
  privileges of nationality upon citizenship. Indeed, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies which we had artificially created was so wide and so diffuse as not to afford a rational basis for the conferment of rights and duties. Instead of that we persisted with the old universal British subjecthood as being the essence of nationality in the law of this country and the key to the exercise of the characteristic rights of a national. It was because we did so that the immense change in our population structure came about that has been experienced in the past 30 years.
  Whereas all the other parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth continued to restrict the rights of citizenship to their own citizens and to do so—I make no criticism of this—in a highly restrictive manner which in many instances was a continuation of what had been the policy of the colonial or imperial Government, we did not do the same. We did not, for example, restrict the right of entry to this realm to the possessors of citizenship. We attributed it, as before 1948, to the possessors of British subjecthood.
  The result of that is the present situation, for example, in the metropolis. In Greater London as a whole, 20 per cent. of the births that occur year by year are to new Commonwealth ethnic parents. In inner London those births probably account for a third of the total, and in some parts of inner London they probably account for more than a half. That tremendous change, with all its consequences, whatever they may be, arose as a result of what we did and what we failed to do in the enactment of 1948; and stating that, as has been frequently said in the course of these proceedings, I find myself entirely at one with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
  We are now, after the revolution of a generation, to make another fundamental change. We are now to shift the fundamental basis from jus soli to jus sanguinis, as anyone may read in the first few lines of clause 1, which state that a British citizen is a child born to a British citizen. However, there is still an admixture of the old principle—for the child is one who is born in the United Kingdom—and there is included an alternative qualification, namely, that of the parent being settled in the United Kingdom at the time of the birth.
  Thus we have not moved to a new and self-consistent principle of jus sanguinis, where the credentials of the citizen by birth are essentially the credentials of his parent or parents, as in other countries where the law of nationality is jus sanguinis. Instead we have a mixture.
  Amendment No. 1 draws attention to one of the inconvenient consequences. There are apt to be inconvenient consequences in a blend, almost any blend to choice, of two inherently different principles. In admitting the jus soli, we have had to face the question of birth in the United Kingdom to parents who are not themselves British subjects; and on the definition adopted for this alternative qualification the Government have run into real difficulties.
  I do not think that the Opposition's arguments can be treated lightly. If, under the second qualification, British citizenship depends upon the status of the parents in respect of their settlement here at the time of the birth, problems of documentation are created which did not exist under the unadulterated jus soli and which would not exist in the same form or to the same intensity under the alternative principle of sanguinis. I do not believe—I think I listened to everything that was said on this subject in Committee—that as yet the Government have addressed
  946
  themselves sufficiently to this problem of documentation. The Minister of State intervened today to say that it will only be occasionally that the question will arise of the status of the parents of a citizen qualifying under the alternative conditions. So be it. I do not think that one would be disposed to doubt that, and the hon. Gentleman is obviously right when he says that we shall not be stopped in the street every other day and asked to prove our citizenship.
  However, it is at crucial times and at crucial moments, often at unexpected times and perhaps in emergency, that a person has for certain necessary purposes to prove what his nationality is.
  I do not believe that the Government have so far come to grips with the problem, and I regard that as justification for the narrower debate raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The Government have not brought forward any unequivocal description of the manner in which they would expect those qualifying under the alternative condition normally to provide themselves with the means of proving their status when necessary and wherever necessary.
  So the Opposition have said "Let us return to the jus soli. Let us go for simplicity. Let us have a clean solution. Let us return to the old principle that everyone born here is ipso facto a British citizen." That is where the debate on the first principle drifts, as it were, into the debate on the second principle. For if, as things now are in this country, we endow with British citizenship all who are born in the United Kingdom, we shall endow with citizenship a large number of persons who are by birth citizens of the country of origin of their parents. That is why the issue of dual citizenship, which is a material one and is a matter of debate and difference between the nations of the earth, comes to be considered at this stage, as it has been previously, in the study of the Bill.
  The amendment that I have proposed to amendment No. 1, like amendment No. 77 that is being taken with it, raises straight out, though it does so in a different context, the question whether dual nationality in this sense is advisable.
  If my amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted, no one born in the United Kingdom would be stateless. That is certain and clear. I make no apology whatsoever for that consequence, because I believe it to be inherently monstrous to accept statelessness on the part of a person who is born in the United Kingdom. But if that person would not otherwise be stateless, it would provide that the nationality which he had by birth under the laws of the country of origin of his parents should prevail, at any rate until the person concerned or his parents availed themselves of the other provisions of the Bill in order deliberately to acquire British nationality.
  I admit that this does not display the whole issue of dual nationality. Probably, no single amendment to the. Bill could do that. I am content to treat the matter upon the narrower ground of the amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment which stands in my name.
  It has been said throughout and said, when one has translated the conventional expressions, correctly that race relations or community relations dominate much of our consideration of the Bill. That is perfectly correct; and they dominate our decision on the matter which is now raised before the House by the amendments being discussed.

  947
  Of the persons being born in this country today to new Commonwealth ethnic parents, a large majority are by birth citizens of the country of origin of their parents. It is true that that majority gradually and slowly diminishes with the effluxion of time, as the second generation born here becomes more and more perceptible. However, for the time being and for many years to come, it will still be true to say that the majority of such children hold the citizenship of the countries of their parents.
  My contention is that we ought not by our legislation to impose upon those children the citizenship of this country, especially as in any case it is available to them at their or their parents' option under later provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the statement which he made regarding the nationality of children whose parents were born in New Commonwealth countries would not apply to the children of East African Asians, of whom some 50,000 or 60,000 live in Leicester, part of which I represent?
  Mr. Powell: I am well aware of that. Those people form a minority amongst the births which I am mentioning. I had thought that the hon. and learned Member was not going to say East African, but East European; for the same would be true. In many cases where people have come to this country from Eastern Europe as refugees or otherwise, their former countries have denied to them, and certainly would deny to the next generation, the citizenship of their countries of origin.
  I return to the general case why I consider that we are making the wrong choice. I preface this by saying that in my proposition there is no sort of disrespect for other nationalities or those who hold other nationalities. I am prepared to apply to my proposition what is known as the Golden Rule:
  "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
  Let us invert the situation and see how it looks the other way round. Here is a child born, let us say, in China or in Peru—either will do—to British parents. Under our law, including the law which we are here making, he is a British citizen. Does anyone suggest that it would be a ground of outrage or indignation or would be regarded as insulting that that child should not have conferred upon it Peruvian or Chinese citizenship? Should we say that in that case we are devalued if, living in China and having a child who is a British citizen—is of our own nationality and citizenship—this country, where we have been admitted to settle, does not recognise him as one of its own citizens? I believe in most cases the attutude would be that, of course, the children we have in this foreign country shall be British citizens: that is what we desire, that is the status of which we are proud.
  A great deal of the argument in the Chamber yesterday afternoon was on behalf of those, not of the first or second, but of later generations, who were not interested in the citizenship of the countries in which they were settled, but maintained as a claim of honour that they should be able to retain by descent, through more than two generations, the citizenship of the country of origin of their parents or grandparents.
  Therefore let no one say that by choosing to eschew the dual citizenship which is automatically produced on a
  948
  massive scale by the Bill in its present form, we place any stigma upon those concerned or upon the nations or the countries from which the parents come. It would be easier to sustain the opposite proposition. I have noticed that those who have argued in favour of dual nationality have not done so on the basis of white parents from European countries. They have not said what a shame it would be for a little German born in this country not also to be a little Briton from birth. Instead they have cited the New Commonwealth countries and their nationalities.
  It was claimed by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) in Committee that noblesse oblige from the days of Empire requires that we should confer upon them, whether they want it or not, the citizenship of this country. I ventured to suggest to the hon. Member—who is not at present in the Chamber, but the view is not restricted to him—that a sort of prejudice lurks behind that attitude, as if the nationhood and nationalities of the citizens of those new countries were not to be compared with those of the older States, and that therefore we were obviously withholding something from them which they ought to value, if we did not automatically superimpose our citizenship upon that of their countries of origin.
  On what criteria, then, ought we to decide the question? I believe that there are two. One has been canvassed already by speeches in the debate, namely, that if one can avoid creating unnecessarily and involuntarily dual allegiance—I will substitute "dual citizenship", if the word "allegiance" causes any offence—it is desirable to do so. The doctrine about God and Mammon may not hold good 100 per cent. for the holders of dual nationality; but I believe most hon. Members will agree with me in regarding it as, generally speaking, undesirable for a person—I know that the hon. Member for York dissents from this, but I speak not only as I would feel, but as I think a great many people feel—if a legitimate and legal claim can be urged upon his loyalty by two nations; and I would still say that, even if those two nations were friendly and were not nations with a tradition of hostility or located at the opposite ends of the earth.
  My general proposition, then, is that dual nationality in itself—although one would be prepared to admit exceptions—is not a desirable feature of nationality law, especially when it does not arise through a voluntary act—of naturalisation, for example—but is imposed automatically at birth, rather like baptism with the hose by the celebrated Chinese general.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: In his usual persuasive way, the right hon. Gentleman may be having a great influence on the way hon. Members view dual nationality. Will he say what it will mean for people who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and who, if he had his way, would be citizens of India, Pakistan or other Commonwealth countries but not of this country? With his usual fairness, in Committee he elaborated on what the proposal could mean for the immigrant population.
  Mr. Powell: A little while ago, rather unfairly, the hon. Gentleman accused another hon. Member of making a lengthy speech; so it was a little hard of him to intervene in my speech before it was drawing to its conclusion. I assure him I had no intention of overlooking serious and practical factors that too often remain unstated because of the inconvenience and even unpopularity of referring to

  949
  them. However, to answer the hon. Gentleman's immediate point, this amendment, and my amendment to it, do nothing retrospective.
  Mr. Marshall: No.
  Mr. Powell: I thought that a comment that fell from the hon. Gentleman carried the suggestion that one or the other might have an effect on the status of children already born. Clearly, it does not.
  I say then that it is preferable for the future that a German or Pakistani who is born such under the law of those countries in this country should not automatically, under the law of this country, be made a British citizen from birth; but I will not conceal the fact that this is important in 1981 when, so far as I can recollect, it passed without debate in 1948, because of the change in the composition of our population meantime and the consequences and dangers that that change involves.
  There are two views as to the likely consequences of that changed composition of the population of the metropolis, to which I alluded earlier. I take the example of the metropolis, although, of course, it is not unique in this respect. Two views can be legitimately held as to whether a London of the future—of which the population will be constituted as a result of the birth proportions that I mentioned— will or can be a peaceable, well-governed city, integrally part of this country and its metropolitan head and centre. One view is that it can and will happen—that it will be found possible for an inner London, 50 per cent. New Commonwealth ethnic, diminishing as one goes towards the boundaries of Greater London to 25 per cent. or 20 per cent., to be something with which all concerned will learn to live. The other view is that the tensions, conflicts and mutual fears—not fears on one side only, but mutual fears—that will result from the inexorable movement towards that eventual picture portend a future damaging and dangerous to all concerned.
  Among those who take the latter view, there is again a divergence between those who believe that the consequence can be averted by persuading people to behave differently from the way in which, in human experience hitherto, they have tended to behave and those who believe that human nature will remain true to the experience that we have of it.
  What no one can say of this latter view, namely, that conflict on a large scale is portended by the prospective future composition of the population of the metropolis, is that it is an unreasonable, irrational or improbable 'proposition. It can be said that it is a disagreeable or frightening proposition—the Prime Minister said that—but it cannot be said that it is inherently irrational or improbable. We ought, therefore, to take it into account in framing our law.
  I wish we had been more far-sighted when we framed our law in 1948, and had endowed, as other nations in the Commonwealth did, our citizenship with the rights and appurtenances of citizenship, instead of trying to go on living a dream of empire by pretending that British subjecthood meant anything outside the shores of these islands.
  5.15 pm
  I bring that prospect to bear upon the alternatives proposed by my amendment and the clause as it stands.
  If the worst comes to be realised, people will seek to avoid and diminish its impact, and one way in which they
  950
  will seek to do so is by reducing the size of the New Commonwealth ethnic population through re-emigration in various forms. That is one measure that is bound to present itself as rational and humane. If hon. Members believe that those reflections are restricted to an occasional politician here and there on the fringes, they are greatly mistaken. I was interested to read in the Wolverhampton Express and Star—by which I used occasionally to be misreported, as no doubt the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is now—an article on 15 April which started with the paragraph:
  "Young black people born in Britain would favour voluntary repatriation, according to a startling survey in Birmingham."
  Mr. Reg Race: Because of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Powell: Whether because of me or not.
  "The poll was carried out amongst teenagers in the Handsworth and city centre areas this week, in the wake of the Brixton riots."
  Many of those questioned
  "disclosed that they would like to 'go back'—even though they do not have a country to go to."
  As was noted in the debate yesterday, they may in some cases be mistaken in that—they may find that they do have a country to go to, in the legal as well as the natural sense.
  "Handsworth Labour Party youth officer"
  —who will no doubt be known to one or two hon. Members present—
  "Mr. Michael Laity, who organised the survey, said: 'Some of these people feared that a similar situation to Brixton could develop in Handsworth, as they were tired of poor housing and job prospects and being treated as third-class citizens.
  Even though they are British subjects they say they would like to live in the West Indies or Africa."
  None of us would make too much of one individual survey, but what was discovered in Birmingham—and found startling by the Express and Star—was something that those concerned know well to be in the minds of hundreds and thousands of people who look with apprehension to what the future portends.
  In demographic terms we know what lies ahead. In those circumstances, will whatever measures and choices have to be taken be assisted if we have imposed British citizenship on those who had the citizenship of their countries of origin—in many cases, such as that of India, thereby effectively depriving them of the citizenship of that country—it has been made clear by the Government and by the Indian High Commission that if they should exercise British citizenship conferred under this legislation it would be incompatible with the citizenship of India—will that be a more favourable background? Or will the background be more favourable if the citizenship of the country of origin is retained and recognised as the due status of those legally here as a result of decisions taken in past years?
  By maintaining this pretence, by insisting on the water-hose method of conferring citizenship, we are acting contrary to the Government's claims. They say that they mean thereby to give an assurance of permanence to the New Commonwealth ethnic minority. I assert that they are doing nothing of the kind. They are maximising the anxieties of the rest of the community and doing nothing to remove the anxieties of the ethnic minority.
  Once again, after 33 years, we are engaged in legislation on British nationality and once again we are engaged in a game of make-believe. The make-believe we engaged in 33 years ago has come home to men, women

  951
  and children with its dire consequences. When make-believe is indulged in by legislatures, that is always the result.
  I would sooner that the Bill reached the statute book without the make-believe which is involved in conferring dual citizenship upon the large and increasing numbers of children born in this country with the citizenship—no doubt they will rejoice in it when they come to the years of discretion—of their parents' countries of origin.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move his amendment now?
  Mr. Powell: I understood that it was not possible to do so now as it was merely being considered and debated together with the amendment that stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be in order to move the amendment now.
  Mr. Powell: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should prefer to take the decision later.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has illuminated an important facet of the debate. The amendment put forward by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) imposes British citizenship on all those born in the United Kingdom. In other words, it is an imposition. It is important for the House to bear in mind the fact that possession of British citizenship also confers certain positive obligations.
  If a person possesses dual nationality, he owes not one obligation, but two. He owes an obligation to the United Kingdom, and an obligation to the other country. It is to state the obvious to say that the time may come when the interests of the two nations of which he is a national are no longer reconcilable. By imposing British citizenship in the way suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, we are imposing an obligation on people—by definition, not of their own choice—that may become extremely distressing.
  Most hon. Members will agree that the possession of rights and privileges—particularly the privilege of British citizenship—also confers obligations. Rights, privileges and obligations run together. I suggest that the converse is also true. If it is wrong in certain circumstances to impose obligations on individuals, it is at least arguable that it is wrong to give such persons the rights and privileges of British citizenship.
  Let us consider the example of a child born in the United Kingdom of parents who are not British subjects and who are not settled in the United Kingdom. That child may leave and go to another country, where he becomes an adult. Let us suppose that that other country indulges in hostilities with the United Kingdom and that war is declared. Let us suppose also that the person, who lives in the country with which he is naturally associated, plays a part in the conflict. There is no doubt that in law the Government could, at the conclusion of hostilities, charge him with treason.
  If the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook prevails, that child will be a British citizen
  952
  although he will have been raised abroad and may have lived all his life there. He will owe the Crown of the United Kingdom all the obligations of a British citizen. An extraordinary situation would arise. In theory, he would be guilty of treason although there would have been no real connection between him and the Crown. Is that reasonable or just? Does it make sense? The answer is manifestly "No". Why does it not make sense? The answer is that there is not the degree of affinity and allegiance that should sustain not merely a charge of treason, but the right to call oneself a citizen.
  Therefore, if it would be wrong to attribute to that person the obligations of British citizenship, it is difficult to see how it can be argued that such a person should, as of right, have the rights and privileges of British citizenship. Those things run together. If it is not right to impose obligations, it is not right to confer rights and privileges.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to take up the legalistic argument advanced by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Instead, I shall comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Those who served on the Committee will recall that the speech that we just heard was the last speech that the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee during discussion of the availability of dual citizenship.
  In essence, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks, from the commencement date, to strip those born here—who enjoy the rights of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and the right of abode here—of their British citizenship and to make them foreign nationals. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
  Viscount Cranborne: No.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member says "No". If he is not prepared to read what amendment (a) says, I am not prepared to listen to any intervention that he may make from a sedentary position.
  5.30 pm
  I have described what the amendment of the right hon. Member for Down, South seeks to do. He is very good at making comments whereby people misunderstand his position, but I understand his position to be this. Whereas at present children born in this country are United Kingdom and Colonies citizens with the right of abode in this country if their parents were nationals of, say, India, Pakistan or any other New Commonwealth country, if amendment (a) were passed, children born after commencement would automatically be nationals of the New Commonwealth country.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What the hon. Gentleman attributes to me requires modification in only one respect. He referred to the right of abode. The right of abode does not come into it because obviously the parents, who by definition are not British citizens, also by definition have right of abode, so that is not attributable to me. But it is quite right that if the amendment were carried children so born would not automatically at birth thereby become British citizens.
  Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) now also accepts the basic position that I have stated. The right hon. Member for Down, South

  953
  seeks to create within this country a category of people who in essence and in effect would be foreign nationals. If the right hon. Gentleman's further views were adopted by any future Government, it would enable that future British Government to remove from those foreign nationals any civic rights in the United Kingdom and could eventually result in legislation which could lead to repatriation.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Cyril Smith: It not only could, but would lead to repatriation.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) says that it would lead to repatriation. I am convinced that if the right hon. Member for Down, South had his way it would indeed lead to repatriation. If the amendment were passed, it would have a grave effect upon race relations in the United Kingdom at the present time.
  Contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may have, and even, with due respect, the right hon. Member for Down, South, Indian citizens in this country at present, many of whom have been here for 10, 15 or 20 years, are so afraid that their civic rights may be undermined in the future that they are falling over themselves to take British citizenship. So many are seeking British citizenship that there is a waiting list of up to two years. If they are keen to show that they have thrown in their lot with the United Kingdom and to show their affinity with the United Kingdom and, because of the threat which they envisage in the future, are prepared to show that in the only way that they can by taking British citizenship, if amendment (a) were carried—I am sure that the House will not pass it—it would further undermine race relations in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is now being very courteous. I wonder whether he would consider this point. Is it not possible that, by retaining this ambiguity about the loyalty of a significant minority of the people in this country, he is actually making it easier for some people to advocate their compulsory repatriation in future? If they had in a significant way chosen the citizenship of this country, it would be far more difficult compulsorily to repatriate them to their country of origin.
  Mr. Marshall: My last word on this is that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the right hon. Member for Down, South are using a device, under the umbrella of dual citizenship, to persuade the House to pass an amendment which would enable a future Government easily to pass legislation leading to the repatriation of people who under the existing law are full citizens with full civic rights in the United Kingdom.
  Viscount Cranborne: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore advocate that British subjects living in, say, South America or India should enjoy the full civil rights that citizens of those countries enjoy there?
  Mr. Marshall: Personally, I would, but I am not sure to which particular British subjects the hon. Gentleman refers.
  I find it very sad that in this debate, in Committee and on Second Reading, the Conservative Party—I include the right hon. Member for Down, South in this because he will remember the debates in the late 1940s when the argument about the disintegration of the British Empire was at its
  954
  zenith—a party which was once proud to be the party of Empire and to say that a large percentage of the world's population were British subjects should now be the party to bring in a new citizenship which has the following two main effects.
  First, it removes any meaningful form of citizenship from a quarter of a million of a people who will be British overseas citizens from the commencement of the legislation. Secondly, it defines British citizenship in terms of birth in the United Kingdom so narrowly as to exclude children born to students, to people on holiday in the United Kingdom, to people on work permits, other visitors, overstayers or illegal immigrants. I do not wish to get involved in the numbers game, but the numbers involved in those categories are very small. The Home Office cannot quantify the figures. Yet citizenship is being defined in terms of birth in such a narrow way as to remove any possibility for the children of a large majority of that category to become British citizens.
  This leads to many strange devices which the Government have had to arrange to cope with people who fall foul of the new system. Clause 1(2), for example. deals with the foundlings' charter, which provides that if any new-born infant is found in the United Kingdom after commencement it shall be deemed to have been born in the United Kingdom and of parents who were either British citizens or were legally settled here. Under the present system of citizenship by birth, irrespective of the status of the parents, a ridiculous provision of that kind would rot be needed.
  To cover the children of illegal immigrants or overstayers, there is the so-called 10-year rule which the Minister, donning his Liberal cap for a short period in Committee, looked upon as some kind of generous concession to the pressure from ethnic communities in this country. It means that the child has somehow to evade capture by the many public authorities in order to be able to qualify under the 10-year rule. Even if he is able to take advantage of the 10-year rule, in order to prove that he had not been out of the country for more than the requisite period in any 12 months, school records, medical records and any other records available to the public authorities would be scrutinised. That was explained by the Minister in Committee.
  It is disgraceful that we should need this kind of clause to cover up the difficulties which are being created by the Government's refusal to maintain the present position whereby every child born in the United Kingdom would from commencement be a full British citizen.
  What annoys me is the way that the fear of future immigration, the immigration potential, the flood of immigrants, is always used in this context to underpin and reinforce the Government's arguments. I hesitate to use for the third time in five or six weeks in the Chamber a word that I have already used twice, but it is hypocritical to advance arguments of that sort when the Government are not able to quantify the numbers of children involved in the various categories to which I referred earlier.
  It appears that the Government find it easier to get the support of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for the Bill if it is cloaked in the language of immigration. That is one of the most despicable aspects of the Government's policy on nationality.

  955
  The Government have said time and time again that this legislation is not racially discriminatory. My view is that it is racially discriminatory in principle, and that beyond any shadow of doubt it will be racially discriminatory in practice. How will that discrimination arise? If I wish to prove that I am a United Kingdom and Colonies citizen by birth, I have only to produce my passport. If I wish to obtain a passport for the first time, the only proof that I have to send to the Passport Office is my birth certificate. I do not have to prove anything about the citizenship of my parents or the settlement status of my parents at the time of birth. That is just as well, because I would be unable to produce proof of my parents' citizenship.
  My father, who is no longer alive, did not bequeath his passport to me. I presume that he was a British citizen at the time of my birth and that he was legally settled at the time of my birth. But it is not the custom and practice of working class families to pass down through the generations documents proving citizenship status or settlement status.
  In future, for any of us in the community, irrespective of our ethnic origin or our colour, to prove our citizenship, we shall have to produce a birth certificate and evidence of our parents' citizenship or settlement status in this country. In future, the only proof of citizenship—as has been said by the Leader of the Liberal Party—will be a passport. In Committee I asked the Minister of State whether he would have sufficient civil servants at the various passport offices throughout the United Kingdom to cope with the flood of applications for passports—not only those in the pipeline but those which are likely to follow in consequence of the passage of the Bill. There will be pressure on all of us—but particularly on those in minority ethnic groups—to obtain a passport in order to prove citizenship.
  5.45 pm
  In what ways will the legislation be discriminatory in practice? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that if the sons or daughters of Members of Parliament were in future to write to the Passport Office asking for a passport, the probability is that it would be issued without further question. I put that point in Committee when I referred to any grandchildren that I might have in the future. If the name is Marshall or Powell, the likelihood is that no further questions will be asked. But if the applicant's name is Suli Mohammed or Abdul Sattar—a mentally retarded child who was kicked out of this country by the Minister of State—the probability, not the possibility, is that further questions will be asked. Not only will that applicant be asked to produce his birth certificate; he will be asked to produce strong evidence of the citizenship of one or other of his parents at the time of birth or their settlement status at the time of birth.
  Inevitably and inexorably, the legislation will be racialist in practice. For that reason, if for no other, I urge the House as a whole to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on amendment (a) to amendment No. 1 convinced me that I could not support his amendment, and his succinct
  956
  definition in the course of an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) put the matter beyond doubt.
  The House always listens with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, who contains in one personality so many disparate and different attitudes. I am sure that we all follow his logic and the way that he develops his argument from point to point, but I usually part company from him when he gets to the purple passages at the end, and suggests that doom and disaster threaten my constituency.
  I believe amendment No. 1 to be the most important amendment that we are discussing today. Ten years ago the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of suggesting that the greatest number of black babies were being born in the area that I represent in this House. We are still top of the league, as one in every three of my constituents comes from the New Commonwealth.
  In spite of what was claimed 10 years ago, I am proud to represent a multi-racial intergrated area of London. I say that in particular to the hon. Member for Basildon, (Mr. Proctor). Despite the differences of culture and background, we have secured in schools, factories, and generally throughout the area an integration that is second to none in Britain.
  We do not need to look into a crystal ball or to consider the hypothetical cases outlined by Conservative Members and by the right hon. Member for Down, South. We can read the book. Representatives of areas that include ethnic minorities do not say that there are no problems. There are some problems in all areas, but this disastrous Bill will make it far more difficult for us to cope with them. I support amendment No. 1, because it goes to the heart of one of the difficulties, namely, the uncertainty facing so many families. The amendment would remove some of that uncertainty.
  Integration is important in schools, especially junior and primary schools. I have not followed the minutiae of the debate in the Standing Committee on the Bill and I shall be glad if the Minister of State will explain how the Bill without the amendment proposed by the Oppostion will affect families that have three or four children covered by previous legislation and have another child after the Bill becomes law. Will there be any difference in the status of those children?
  Mr. Raison: On the assumption that at least one of the parents is a citizen, or is legally settled in this country, the new-born child will have citizenship in the same way as the other children.
  Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I was not clear on that point. However, uncertainty will arise in the Home Office and in our constituency surgeries, because the Bill will create an enormous queue in addition to the queues of people who already come to see us on matters affecting the ethnic minorities. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister of State's personal staff, who help me by dealing with at least four or five matters a week concerning ethnic minorities. Sometimes I have to contact them at midnight on a Saturday over what are known as Heathrow cases and they always respond.
  I do not know how the Minister's staff and I will manage with the additional problems concerning nationality rights that will arise when the Bill becomes law. The Government are asking for fewer civil servants

  957
  and less public expenditure, but the Bill will require more public and civil servants and greater expenditure by local authorities. It is nonsense.
  The Government do not seem to have learnt from their errors. The nationality rules and regulations are in a mess and need to be cleared up, but the Government's proposals are parallel to the action of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on the reorganisation of the NHS. Integration of the NHS was necessary, but the right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1973 produced a result that was much worse than the previous situation. We now need to clear up nationality matters, but the Bill will make things much more complicated and difficult.
  There has been fear among ny constituents, even though they are legally settled here, about their entitlement to local authority social services, particularly school buses, and concern about the recent announcement of the Secretary of State for Social Services on the possibility of charges for NHS services. It is interesting to note that within a short time of the right hon. Gentleman making that statement of intention to charge at St. Stephen's hospital passports were being demanded at that hospital from people who were legitimately seeking free treatment.
  I do not suggest that the Bill will immediately take us into apartheid, but it will start us on that road, and my constituents and I fear that it will inevitably result in discrimination on the basis of recognisable differences in communities. The obnoxious "sus" law has already been a problem in Harlesden, where the ethnic minority group comes mainly from the Caribbean.
  Family life in communities will be affected by the uncertainty. I have already raised with the Home Office one or two cases of people waiting more than two years for British nationality. There is a long queue under the present law, as I know from my weekly surgeries. That queue will be more than doubled.
  My local borough council and nine other London boroughs concerned about the Bill held a meeting at Brent town hall last week. A statement issued after the meeting said:
  "The Bill will not only undermine the council's past efforts, but will make it imperative for more resources to be devoted to counteract the disastrous effects the Bill will have. For the Government to do this at the same time as it is pressurising councils to achieve economies is plain nonsense."
  That statement could be echoed in any area where there are large ethnic minorities. The Secretary of State for the Environment told me yesterday that my area is likely to face another drastic, penal cut in its rate support grant, yet the Bill will make more demands on local authorities to deal with problems.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South said that he wanted to see communities that were peaceable and well governed. I assure him that my constituency is such a community. We now have third-generation immigrants in the area. The right hon. Gentleman said that Gujeratis who have come from East Africa were in a minority among those from the New Commonwealth, but in Alperton in my area they are the majority.
  The people who came here originally, whether from India or the Caribbean, have already shouldered obligations. We called on many people from the Caribbean islands to do work that released people from this island to fight in the Second World War. The obligations were always accepted, and it does the House no service when
  958
  hon. Members suggest snidely that because people have a different ethnic background they do not accept the rights and responsibilities of being British citizens.
  I hope that the House will support the amendment. My view remains that the Bill is a disaster. The sooner that a Labour Government repeal it and put something sensible in its place, the better will he the life of every family in the area that I represent.
  6 pm
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Without wishing to question the selection of amendments, I regret that the debate has become confused through the acceptance for discussion of the amendment to the proposed amendment of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). In many ways, the issues are not inter-related. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to relate them by arguing that dual nationality arises out of the application of the jus soli with the jus sanguinis. So it does. However, it operates both ways. It would be possible not to have dual nationality if one only operated the jus soli. That is the impact for Indian members of our community who are not allowed to pass on their citizenship to their children who are born here because India frowns on dual nationality and thereby sets emphasis upon the jus soli in relation to children of Indian descent born in this country.
  It is possible that, if the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were carried, the practice of India would be applied throughout the New Commonwealth to ensure that their decendants, who came from their territories who were resident and settled here and who intended to stay here, would not be citizens of that country. If that was the case, the irony of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has put against dual nationality is that they would have nowhere else to go. The right hon. Gentleman's argument that we should repatriate them in some humane way would be stymied by his own argument.
  What the right hon. Gentleman stated, whether inelegant or not, is the same tired red herring that he has dragged across the debates on race and immigration for years. No Government of this country now, in the foreseeable future, or probably ever would conclude that we should repatriate any section of our community to the country of origin, not just of themselves but of their forebears. The more that we have to consider the origin of their forebears, the less likely it becomes. The situation that the right hon. Gentleman is always prophesying for our inner cities is the kind of situation that obtained, in Watts and in Washington and other parts of the United States in the late 1960s. No one in the United States argued that the blacks in Washington should be sent back to Sierra Leone or Ghana because their forebears came from there. The reason was obvious. It would have been intolerabe so to argue, and no one would have considered it practicable.
  The argument that the right hon. Member for Down, South puts for repatriation gets weaker with each year that passes. An increasing number of the black population of this country were born here and this is their country. it is probably the case already that over 50 per cent. of the black community of this county was born in this country. This is their country.
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted a report from Handsworth. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of race relations, has never heard of the Rastafarian cult, which is strong among West Indian youth in Handsworth. I have no doubt that those who were

  959
  answering the inquiry were Rastafarian by belief. The Rastafarians are about as crackpot as the right hon. Gentleman in their extremity about their relationship with the country in which they were born. They take the view that the real spiritual home of Rastafarians is Ethiopia and that their God was Haile Selassie whom they also believed would never die—but he did. They take the view that this is Babylon, as, indeed, it was believed that America and the West Indies were Babylon. Their belief is that they have to get back to their country of origin.
  All these arguments sound so familiar that they might have dropped from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. They did not. They came from the descendants of Marcus Garvey. They stem from the same kind of intolerance that manifests itself when the right hon. Gentleman gets down to his gut feeling about race—the idea that a community cannot exist if it comes from various areas of the world, from various cultures and various ethnic origins. This country exists precisely on that basis. It has been stated over and over again. There is not one person in this country who is pure British. We are all mongrel, descended from generations and waves of migration over the years—and here is another entering our debate now.
  Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of history is weak. Those who came to this country in the past arrived in small numbers. They included the Huguenots, the Poles, the Hungarians and the Jews. What has happened in the past 30 years is quite new in our history. Millions of people are involved. That situation cannot be compared with the small numbers who came previously.
  Mr. Lyon: I am sorry to take the hon. Gentleman's classical history back as far as the Celts. They were invaders. The Romans were invaders as were the Anglo Saxons and the Normans. This country is a great melting pot of waves of migration. The only difference between the waves of migration of that generation or, indeed, of the Huguenots or Jews of the last century is that the present generation of migration is black. It is argued that they cannot mix with whites. That is nonsense. It must inherently be nonsense. If a man who is black is born by the side of a man who is white and they live in the same street, attend the same school, meet the same friends and go to the same place of work, the background and origin of the black man, by the time he is mature, will be the same. The pigmentation of his skin will not make the slightest difference to his approach to life, save for only one thing. The right hon. Member for Down, South, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will have created a kind of attitude to the blackness of his skin, which says "You are perpetually different because your skin is different". That is nonsense.
  Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that an Indian doctor, listening to a Rastafarian expressing the views that appeared in the report in the Express and Star, might wish to dissociate himself from those views. What better way exists of doing so than to say that he chooses this country and that he wants no dual nationality?
  Mr. Lyon: Of course, that is so. A Glaswegian docker might be talking to a Surrey stockbroker on the train from Edinburgh to London. The only place where they would
  960
  meet is the bar because they come from different classes of carriage. They would have differences of view about a whole range of matters, including the kind of country and the kind of attitudes that we should have. There would be cultural differences of a most general kind. There would be cultural differences between people descended from different migrants. There would be cultural differences between those of Jewish origin and those who came to this country in the last century. That is not to say that all this cultural divergence cannot be encompassed peaceably within one country.
  The great virtue of Britain is that its cultural diversity has given it a sense of tolerance and a breadth of vision that make up the whole nature of what we mean by being British. That will be passed on by our children, who will also learn from the new migrants. The intervention of the right hon. Member for Down, South is beside the point. The right hon. Gentleman stresses that it is dangerous for the Minister of State to have introduced this reduction in the jus soli for the purpose of the Bill. It was never suggested in any previous document that manifested itself before the White Paper last year that the jus soli would be reduced in this way. A nationality provision does not, of course, have to encompass the jus soli. The right hon. Gentleman is right. In some countries, it is not the case. I do not know that any country has only the jus soli. There are, however, many countries besides this with a mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
  The great virtue of the jus soli is its simplicity and assurance that the person's status is clear from the moment he is born. The person is here; therefore he is British. The person might be something else. It is argued that dual nationality in some way leads almost to schizophrenia on the part of those who hold it. But, if that were true, not only Pakistanis and West Indians would be affected. It would affect Americans and Australians.
  The hon. Member for Basildon said that the White Paper stated that there were 3 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had dual nationality, of whom 1 million were living in this country. Two million people living outside this country are not black; they are white. They are people who are descended from British citizens who are living in America, Australia, Canada and South Africa—all over the world. They have dual nationality, but they do not come back here and say "We have dual nationality, you must take one of them away. We are suffering from the awful schizophrenia described by the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West".
  That does not happen. They express, through the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), the desire to keep dual nationality. They should not be robbed of their Venezualan or Argentinian citizenship, and they should also have their British citizenship. They have no difficulties. They do not feel that they have to fight for the present dictator in Argentina against Britain if Britain goes to war about the Falkland Islands. Such difficulties can arise, but they can be overcome in a sane world.
  The only difficulty that could arise would be if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were to prosecute them at the Old Bailey for treason, and I should have thought that the defence to that charge would be easy. The number of cases that he has prosecuted at the Old Bailey for that offence over the years must be infinitesimal.

  961
  So let us talk sense. There is no reason why we should not have dual nationality. Its great virtue is that the people who have to decide never have to make up their minds about what they are before they want to. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to say "You must tell me now whether you are British or Indian or Pakistani". It is up to them to decide as they go along. Many first generation migrants—not only blacks—never know until the end of their days whether they intend to stay in this country, die in this country, or go back to their country of origin. Many Jews from Russia thought that they might go back to Russia in due course. Many West Indians think that they may go back and spend their declining years on West Indian beaches. They put down their roots in this country, their children are born here, they go back and find that things have changed, and they then decide what they are.
  I concede that the great difficulty in race relations is that people should be able to establish their own identity. One of the difficulties that we impose upon them at present is that they can find an identity only within a group. They can only be West Indian or Pakistani. They are not yet themselves as individuals. However, that will come with time. Moreover, it will come a lot quicker if we do not prod them into it and constantly undermine their status, as this provision will do.
  The provision is not about the small minority of people who will be born in this country of parents who were not settled here. It is about the great bulk of people who are born in this country who are descended from someone who was an immigrant here. In every case, they will have to prove their status when they apply for passports.
  6.15 pm
  The more I think about this clause, the more repugnant I find it. It is repugnant in principle that people who are born in this country should not be able to say "I am British". It is repugnant that at some stage in their lives they will be denied that right because of the status of their parents, even though they wanted to remain in this country and to be British.
  The administrative difficulties boggle the mind. The Minister sought to allay our anxieties about the 10-year provision, saying that it would be possible to consult school records and produce passports to prove that one had not been out of the country during the 10 years. Perhaps we overestimate the difficulties about the 10-year provision.
  However, the difficulties about the status of parents is something else. No doubt the Minister would argue that this would apply in only a limited number of cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that all of us would have to prove our status. For most of us it would not be difficult because most of us would be able to produce our parents' birth certificate when applying for passports. Those certificates—those of our parents and our own—would be sufficient in normal circumstances to assure the passport office that we were entitled to citizenship.
  What is the position when that certainty is more and more undermined by descent from someone who arrived here as a migrant, and one applies to that person the difficulties that have arisen in court judgments over the past five years? Unless the Government eradicate the monstrous principles that have been established by the
  962
  courts about fraud and deceit—when a person has not even been asked a question and has not volunteered information which, had it been volunteered, would have meant that he could not come in—the status of every migrant here may be questioned. The mere fact that the person can produce a passport from which the conditions have been removed is no safeguard for him. It is no safeguard that he has acquired citizenship. The courts have argued hat, if citizenship is acquired because status was originally achieved as a result of deceit or fraud, that citizenship can be removed.
  So, years after the event, when the child applies for a passport at the age of 18 and says "My parents were settled here, and I can produce their passport from which the conditions were removed", the Home Office is entitled to say "That is not good enough. What questions were your parents asked when they came here? Did they volunteer information to the immigration officer on which, had we known about it, we might never have allowed them in?" It is no answer to say that they obtained their citizenship, because that citizenship might have been obtained by deceit.
  Thus, every case that is put forward in that way is a possible minefield for the people putting it forward It will not affect the people who are most concerned, the people who came through immigration control. It will be their children, born in this country years afterwards, who will be seeking to prove that.
  It is a monstrous proposal. It is so detestable that, if the Minister had thought it through, I am sure he would not have accepted it. He has been led into this perversion of what was a simple, sure and safe way of achieving nationality only because of his fear that there may be a few more immigrants in years to come who may be descended by birth from people who were not legally here. That is an absurdity, given the fact that we have had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by jus soli since 1948, and we had British subject status for years before that and we always allowed the jus soli. No one has ever argued that a great crowd of immigrants could come to this country simply because of jus soli.
  I suggest that the Minister takes this proposal away and thinks about it again before it goes to the Lords. It is a bad idea. The more I think about it, the worse it gets. The consequences for race relations could be enormous. If, when the Bill is enacted, every child who goes for a passport years after his birth is asked to establish the status of his parents just because they came into this country—more often than not they are black—it could go on for years.
  The awful prophecies might be proved, not by the blacks but by the Minister of State. There is more than a ripple of fear. We face an undetonated load of dynamite that might blow up in our face in any year because of the anxiety. By then the people will have been here for many years and many of them will have been born here. Many others will be born to people born here. I can imagine the Minister of State jumping up and saying "In that case they would be able to assure the passport office of their parents' status". That is not so. The difficulty about the provision is that such children, because they are born to people here as a result of migration, will also be subject to scrutiny. Such scrutiny could apply for generations.
  I hope and believe that that will not happen, even if we approve this silly provision. I hope and believe that a future Government will put the matter right. I hope that

  963
  we shall put it right after the next election. Even if the practice were to continue, I hope that eventually the fatuous fear about migrants coming here, when the country is built on migration, will disappear. I hope that a future community will be sufficiently tolerant and stable to be able to say that it is nonsense.
  Viscount Cranborne: I did not intend to take part in the debate, but I was stimulated to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). When he argued that immigrants should be given the time to make up their minds whether they are Indians, Russians, English or Peruvian, he advocated a remarkable idea. In his populist way he was advocating the spread of one of the most undesirable features of international life, the café society—or what is known as international white trash.
  The hon. Gentleman argues that people who settle in Britain should decide whether they like it and, if they do not, should be able to reject the obligations as well as the privileges of being a citizen. That is a negation of one of the advantages of being a citizen of any country.
  We have heard a great deal about the dangers or advantages of dual nationality. Despite Britain being a melting pot—whether or not that is on balance an advantage—countries which have grown by virtue of being a melting pot have recognised the manifest dangers of allowing dual nationality in nationality law. The United States is perhaps the greatest example this century of a melting pot. It does not allow its citizens to have dual nationality. The reasons have been explained in another context by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I accept the reasons.
  I welcome many aspects of immigration. When I go shopping to find food after a late night session in the House the only shops open are run by Asians. I do not know why, but they provide a useful service.
  Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend recognise the magnitude of immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan over three decades?
  Viscount Cranborne: I accept what my hon. Friend implies about the danger of the magnitude of immigration. Nevertheless, I should recognise the dangers less if the home population were a little less sceptical about the dangers. For instance, if there were a more obvious readiness to mingle and inter-marry among black and white in Britain the explosive dangers that are beginning to emerge and which are so often prophesised by the right hon. Member for Down, South would be less. Because of the prejudices and habits of the British people, the dangers to which my hon. Friend refers are infinitely greater.
  Let us suppose that the existing white population of Britain showed such a readiness to intermingle, similar to the readiness to intermingle with the Polish, Jewish and German immigrants of the last century. The dangers then would be much less. To a certain extent I must accept what my hon. Friend implies. However, that does not deter me from my illustration. The country has benefited over the centuries from immigration. The hon. Member for York took us back to Celtic and Iberian times. We benefited demonstrably from the immigration of Jews in the last century. We also benefited from the immigration of the Huguenots as a result of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. No hon. Member would deny that.
  964
  I cannot go along with the hon. Member for York in his contention that it is desirable that Britain should countenance dual nationality for its citizens. By implication, Britain would then say that any member of the British community can give himself time to decide whether he wants to be British, West Indian or Peruvian. That is a nice and handy privilege. It is a privilege which the rich members of society in Paris, all over Europe and the West Indies enjoyed. The sad disintegration of that dubious society is one of the consequences of that privilege. Members of that society enjoyed all the splendid privileges of being able to go to London or Paris, but they did not take on their shoulders the responsibilities of being citizens of the community in which they lived. That is one of the great dangers of dual nationality.
  My doubt about the wisdom of the amendment is not so much that it modifies or reintroduces the question of jus soli but more that it countenances the possibility of dual nationality. That is a strong disadvantage.
  If we are to assert that being British is a privilege and desirable and if we are to welcome citizens of whatever race as part of the community, by implication they should not only enjoy the privileges but the obligations attendant upon British citizenship. The obligations are as important a part of life in Britain as the privileges. Therefore, the House has no alternative but to reject the idea of any form of dual nationality. Such a thing cannot be consistent with a harmonious future for the inhabitants of Britain. I urge the House to reject the amendment without hesitation.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) spoke eloquently of the problems created by those with dual nationality, but there is a greater problem for those who have no nationality at all. In a moment of brightness that illuminated an otherwise dark speech, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) correctly referred to the scourge of statelessness and the fact that the Bill would result in children being born in Britain who, because of the law, would not be British citizens or citizens of any other country.
  We talk about the problems of choice, to which the hon. Member for Dorset, South referred. But a child has no choice of its place of birth, of its parentage, or the citizenship of its parents. Whether a child can prove where its parents have settled is a matter not only of documentation but of language and of intelligence.
  I represent part of a city which has happily absorbed about 60,000 immigrants, mostly Asian from East Africa. That has required tolerance, understanding, kindness and courtesy on all sides. It is a credit to the people of Leicester. It has not been made any easier by the customary speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South—one of which he made this evening—nor by the comments from Conservative Members which show that they do not understand the problems of those less fortunate than themselves. It is not a child's fault that he happens to be born in Britain of parents from overseas.
  Such people are not in the position referred to in that marvellous Gilbert and Sullivan epic of the person who might have been a Russian, a Frenchman, a Prussian or an Italian but in spite of all temptation to belong to other nations he is an Englishman—not a Welshman, Mr. Speaker, but an Englishman. The people we are discussing

  965
  had no choice. They were turfed out of countries into whose soil they had sunk their roots. They received refuge in Britain.
  That is not unique to them. I listened with care to the whole of this debate, including the many, and mostly kindly, allusions to the Jewish people who have come to Britain over the centuries. I wonder what all my four grandparents would have thought had they been able to listen to the debate, remembering that they emerged from Russia.
  Unlike the choice offered by my hon. Friend the Member of York (Mr. Lyon), there was no question of my grandparents returning to Russia because they came to Britain to escape from pogrom and from conscription into the Czar's army. It was a similar flight to that which has evicted so many of my constituents from East Africa. But the essential for my grandparents and for new citizens of Leicester and other parts of Britain has always been that once they are British citizens they are treated no better and no worse than anyone else.
  While we may argue between one side of the House and the other, and even within the same side, about policies of immigration about how many should be admitted and under what circumstances—there has never been any doubt that once people are in Britain and are British citizens, there should be no difference between them.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I think my hon. and learned Friend and I agree that Britain showed great moral courage when it accepted refugees and aliens from different parts of Europe. He referred to refugees from East Africa. Will he make it clear that those about whom we are talking in Leicester are not aliens or foreigners but citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? Britain has a legal as well as a moral obligation towards them. It is made doubly difficult for those people when Conservatives Members point fingers at them and question their loyalty to Britain.
  Mr. Janner: I was not aware that I had suggested anything to the contrary. I said that as British citizens they are entitled to live here. They are part of our country. They have the same rights, responsibilities and duties as anyone else. No distinction should be made between them and other citizens, whether or not they were born here.
  Many of us will remember a remarkable Indian High Commissioner called Apa Pant. The first time that I attended a large Asian gathering in Leicester I was accompanied by him. He said to the Asian community, "You are citizens of Britain. You have duties to this country. You should take part in its political and civic life. That does not mean that you give up your Indian culture and background. You do not serve Britain better by trying to be the same as everyone else". That has always been the basis of our democracy and of our citizenship.
  I know of no way in which any Government have sought to make a distinction between citizens, as is now being done in this Bill. We discussed yesterday a distinction based on the differences between the rights of those born in Britain to pass on citizenship by descent. We are now talking about rights that will differentiate between those born here, depending upon the citizenship of their parents.
  The Bill is a most divisive, evil, unkind and relentless measure. It can cause only harm to good race relations at a time when many hon. Members on both sides are spending vast amounts of time trying to build up good will.
  966
  Instead of all children born here having the same rights if a child is born in Britain and—through no fault of his own—his parents are not British citizens, he must now prove that they were settled here, if he is to acquire citizenship other than through the excercise of a benevolent ministerial discretion, which is sometimes excercised and sometimes refused.
  Proof of "settlement" is not easy to give in practice. The right hon. Member for Down, South spoke about the future problems of documentation. I suggest that those problems are here already. Hon. Members who deal with the anxieties and wretchedness of people who are genuine visitors, stopped at Heathrow and elsewhere without proper documents, and who do not understand the language of their interrogators, know that that reality is upon us. It is not a matter for the future.
  Those who try to help people from overseas to obtain their rights appreciate that documentation problems already cause enormous difficulties—for this generation who come as visitors, for those who live here and for the next generation, who, if we closed our eyes as we listen to them talk, we would not know had origins anywhere else. They do not have the documents available to them because they come from countries where people are neither trained nor educated to prepare such documentation.
  People born in this country bitterly resent being called "immigrants" because they did not immigrate; born here, they should be entitled to precisely the same rights in law as all other people born here—and so they were until the advent of this divisive clause which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is trying to put right through his amendment.
  In his intervention, the Minister said that it is only on rare occasions when people want passports to go abroad that this problem of proof will arise. I have here a memorandum from the National Union of Teachers which takes a wider view. It says:
  "the Bill hangs a question mark over the citizenship status o f a number of pupils in schools. One practical effect of this will be that pupils applying for a passport to travel abroad with a school party or applying to be included in a collective passport might find the status of their family subject to enquiries. Parents of these pupils might mind difficulty in producing adequate proof of their status, especially as the courts have widened the definition of illegal residence in the United Kingdom with the result that some adults are declared to be illegal immigrants years after they were settled."
  I would add that some children do not know who their parents were. That is again no fault of theirs. Some parents leave their children; some die; some separate. The number of broken families in indigenous homes, never mind immigrant homes, is vast. It is the children who will suffer, not the parents.
  This wicked clause creates problems not for the parents who may or may not deserve what they have imposed on themselves but for the children. It creates agonies for the children who bear no responsibility whatever for it. It is the view of those who represent the teachers that their role will become much more difficult as a result of this legislation. They will have great problems in explaining to children that they cannot, for instance, go on the day trip to France and that they are not to be treated in the same way as others in their class or school because, although they were born here, they cannot show that their parents

  967
  were citizens or do not know who they were or cannot prove that they were "settled" here, whatever that may mean.
  Perhaps the Minister will say something about the problems of adopted children, abandoned children, children from broken homes and those who know not their parents or whose parents do not wish to, or cannot, supply proof to them of their settlement. The Minister may say that he has a discretion. I pay tribute to him for the occasions when he has been kind enough to exercise that discretion on behalf of individual constituents. Alas, there have been other occasions when he has not done so and there is no appeal against his decision.
  Clause 1 says:
  "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) a British citizen,"—
  then the onus of proof will rest upon him—
  "or

  (b) settled in the United Kingdom."

  Presumably, that, too, he will have to prove. How he would do it in the circumstances I have described is beyond me. The answer may be that the adoptive parents, the children's home, the foster parents or the school will have to ask the Minister to exercise his discretion. In a decent society that discretion may have to exist as an ultimate resort but it should be the main path for a person acquiring rights which he should have by the simple process of having the same rights as other people who are born in the same place.
  The times for concern are when the child is in school, when others may know what it is about or when he is applying for a passport. The time for concern for all of us is when a provision in a Bill causes division when we want unity, when it causes anxiety when we want good relations and when it causes ill-feeling, especially in inflammatory times when above all we need good feeling. That hon. Members should throw up the Brixton riots at this time as a reason for the Bill is an amazing contradiction. When the community is under pressure that is a time for introducing legislation to bring us together, not legislation to split us further apart, as this does.
  6.45 pm
  Arguments flow back and forth as to how the Bill will affect citizens and their loyalties. Perhaps that is the right place to end. Today I had the pleasure of meeting one of the diplomats at the Indian High Commission who is especially concerned with good relations between citizens of Indian origin and the rest of the British community. There is no question in his mind or in the mind of anyone else that people who have settled here or whose parents settled here are British citizens with undivided loyalty to this country. There is no question of that loyalty being diminished in any way by their retention of their own customs, ways, religion and background or that their integration is in any way less valuable because they retained their links with the homelands whence they came—any more than it is for the millions of Americans who trace their ancestry to Denmark, Poland, Germany and other countries.
  When one tears up the roots of people one does not increase their value to the country in which they are living and on whose soil they are settled. When their roots are gone they are inevitably less able to serve that country. It
  968
  is in the belief that the clause harms those roots that I oppose it and invite the Minister to consider whether in all conscience he can refuse the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: The debate has been wide-ranging. We ought to remember that for many years every child born in Britain has been British and that the purpose of clause 1 is to eat away at that right by providing that in future one will have to apply tests before deciding whether a child who is born here is British.
  One point about which there is no argument is that a child born here of parents one of whom is a British citizen should be British. There are arguments about other categories. The Bill provides that a child born here of parents one of whom is settled here at the time of his birth shall be British. Then we come to an argument on that as to what is meant by settlement, because settlement is determined by what is meant by ordinary residence.
  Another class consists of those who are born here of parents neither of whom is British and neither of whom is settled here. Those children do not obtain British citizenship unless they live here for 10 years from the date of their birth and are not out of the country for more than 90 days in any year up to the age of 10. There is room for argument on these considerations. The Government have decided to replace a simple law to determine citizenship, namely, the law that says that if one is born in this country one is British, by a superstructure of other ways of becoming British and a bureaucracy to determine who shall be British in future.
  Let us take the category of settlements. Upon application for a passport by a boy or girl of, say, 20 or 21 the Government must decide whether the parents or one of them were settled in Britain if neither was a British citizen at the time of the child's birth. That involves the child in having to prove to the Home Office his parents' circumstances 20 years before. That may be impossible for him. He may want a passport three months after the date of application but be unaware of the difficulties that will be encountered. He will find that the Home Office, in its usual fashion, will take two years to determine whether either of his parents was settled here, and he will have to consider taking out a temporary passport, always assuming that such a passport exists and that the Government would be prepared to issue it in the interim bearing in mind that it was not clear which citizenship the child enjoyed.
  There is ticking away here a time bomb that is likely to explode not immediately after the Bill becomes law, but 20 years later when many people, unaware of the intricacies of the law, want passports, and encounter a whole series of problems in seeking to establish their citizenship. Of course, one may say that parents should take steps to protect the position of their children. However, we are dealing with babies and infants who have no means of protecting their position and who cannot know the law or know that they should be advising their parents to retain documents and to provide statements by their solicitors and notaries about their intentions at the time of the child's birth.
  Ordinary residence depends on a number of factors. It depends on where the person is living and for how long he has lived there. It depends also on how often he has taken a business trip abroad, on future intentions, and on such matters as whether he owns a house. It is impossible

  969
  in many cases to know at any given time in respect of persons who are not British citizens whether they are settled here.
  The Government have said that, none the less, they will introduce this new category of children who will be British only if they can prove settlement. If the Government could say that in recent years they had found that the old system was not working well, that thousands of people were coming here for holidays and were having children specifically in order to give them British citizenship, thus enabling them subsequently to re-enter the country without the usual immigration impediments, that might justify their action. But they have produced no statistics of the births of children of persons settled here but not British, or of persons who are neither settled here nor are British but are here temporarily.
  The Government recognise the difficulty and tell us that all is not yet lost. They say that if a child stays here for 10 years he can obtain British citizenship automatically by registration upon application. The problem is that the child must not leave the country for more than 90 days. If the child is unable to make his own decisions and is taken abroad by a well meaning parent for a holiday lasting 100 days in only one year out of those 10, even if he does not leave the country in the other years he loses the right to automatic citizenship.
  The parents should be studying the Bill. They should be aware that they must bring the child back not later than the eighty-ninth day. But how many parents will do that? How many will be able to make that choice? The father may have to go away on business or because his mother is dying abroad. He could not always calculate the number of days. In Committee the Minister said that if the parents took the child away 90 days before his birthday and kept him away for 90 days after, he could stay out of the country for 180 days without losing his rights. Does that mean that the father must solemnly work out that if he has to go away on business for six months he should go 90 days before the child's birthday in order to obtain the necessary time? If he miscalculates, the child will lose its automatic right to citizenship.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: How could the parents that the hon. and learned Gentleman has described go to such lengths? The people who will qualify under the 10-year rule—if the child is here for seven or eight years the adults will be here illegally—would be unable to undertake the perambulations around the world in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Lyons: The answers are simple. First, the illegality may not have been discovered. There could have been entry by deception. Secondly, a person who is working here for a foreign firm may be living here regularly or for a number of years and his child may be born here. But if he has to leave the country for more than 90 days and take the child it will lose its right to citizenship. That could happen in a number of ways.
  What happens if a child has complied with all the rules until the age of 8 years and the Home Office orders the parents to leave the country? The Home Office would be putting the parents in a dilemma. In effect, it would be telling the parents to take the child with them, in which case it would lose its right, or to abandon the child to whomever they could find in order that it could remain here for 10 years. Or would the Home Office permit them to stay for two years so that the child could qualify?
  970
  As the years go by I expect that the Government will find themselves in trouble with the European Court of Human Rights, because under the convention they are required to respect family unity and family rights. Since they must also not create statelessness, potential contraventions of the convention may arise.
  The most remarkable aspect of the Bill is that it provides a positive encouragement for those who are unclear whether they are settled here, and for those who know that they are here for only a limited period, if they are keen on their children becoming British citizens, to abandon their children. Clause 1 makes it clear that a child born here and then abandoned—a foundling—is assumed to be British. So illegal immigrants will have to make the painful sacrifice of abandoning their children—turning them into artificial orphans—if they are to ensure that they have British citizenship.
  None of these curious complications needs to arise. The Government have only to remain with the principle that has served Britain well for so many years. We have heard a lot of nonsense about how we must get rid of dual citizenship. But the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) does not achieve that. Everyone accepts that under the Bill a child born to parents, one of whom is British, is itself British. If the mother is British but the father is foreign, the child may still have dual citizenship according to clause 1.
  7 pm
  All this talk about dual citizenship is inappropriate to clause 1. It has been dragged in by a sidewind. Clause 1 keeps dual citizenship; it was decided in Committee that dual citizenship should remain. We are concerned that there should be no increase in the superstructure of bureaucracy to determine whether people are British. We do not want to increase the bureaucratic delays which will occur while inquiries are conducted about passport applications.
  Hon. Members have asked how we can rely on the loyalty of people born of those who are living here. No evidence has been brought by the Government to justify abandonment of the rule that people born here are British citizens because they have turned out to be traitors. In future a child born here of a Uruguayan father and a British mother and taken back to Uruguay remains British, although he may never come back to Britain. That has been the position hitherto. Where is the evidence that such people are scheming against Britain or were arrested for treason in any war?
  My conclusion is that the Government's purpose must be directed at eliminating the entitlement to British citizenship of a small number of people who are born here of transients. We are told that there are likely to be such people, but not how many there are. To turn the law on its head to make this big change to prevent a few people from having British citizenship is very strange.
  Children born of transients often go back to the country of origin of their parents. Those who go back with their parents and apply for a passport 15 years later are often told that the birth certificate does not provide sufficient evidence. No photographs are taken of the child at the age of 6 months or 18 months. There is no concurrent series of photographs showing the development of the child from the age 3 months to 18 years. The person is unable to prove that he is the person whose name appears on the birth

  971
  certificate, and he does not get into the country. For a change of this sort there must be good reasons, and no good reasons have been advanced by the Government.
  The effect of abandoning the simple principle that a person born here is British spreads uncertainty. It makes people feel that the Government are against them. It causes insecurity. All minority groups tend to feel insecure. They are worried about their reception in the host community. Anything which unnecessarily increases uncertainty and insecurity is likely to produce the very result that we do not want. It is likely to make minority groups feel alienated from the country and reduce the chance of their being integrated and becoming a part of the population.
  Unless the Government have a convincing argument up their sleeve which was not advanced in Committee, they should think again about this provision. When the Bill reaches the other House all these arguments will be rehearsed, and it will have another rough passage. There is no support for the change among any of the organisations, including the Church organisations, which have been interested in the Bill. The Government stand alone in producing a change in the law for the sake of just a few people. They must be aiming at the few people who, being British citizens by birth, children of transient parents, might leave the country and come back later.
  If the authorities find an illegal immigrant who has arrived in Britain in the last few years, they send the illegal immigrant back and normally any child of that illegal immigrant, who is a British citizen, will go back with the parents to the country of origin. I can only assume that the Government are motivated by a worry that in future children of transients may apply to an embassy abroad for a British passport to enable them to get back to this country. To give any substance to that argument, huge numbers of people would have to be involved. Even then, I do not know how morally right it would be.
  In 20 years' time I can see Home Office officials wishing to examine passports for the preceding 20 years to make sure the child was not out of the country for more than 90 days in any one year. But the child will have been included in the parents' passport, which may not exist. Not all countries stamp passports. At the very least the burden of proof should be put on the Home Office to prove that the child has been out of the country for more than 90 days in any one year of 10 years rather than on the child. The Government should reserve the right to say that a child can be out of this country for longer. A child cannot make the decision whether to stay in the country or not; he is in the custody of his parents.
  The Minister in reply is likely to say that clause 3 gives him overall discretion, but the criterion for granting citizenship to minors is nowhere set out, and people are left in the throes of uncertainty.
  The Government have had a bad press. Nasty accusations have been made, but the Government have denied them. It would assist the Government's case and show that they have no bad intentions if they returned to the simple law we have enjoyed so long which provides that the child has the nationality of the country of birth and a child born in Britain is British.
  Mr. Race: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the breadth of the amendment and my hon. Friends for
  972
  attacking the racist arguments of some speakers. Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches have been arguing for a white society in Britain, and there has been much sophistry in the arguments advanced against a multiracial society.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) used the phrase "voluntary re-emigration", not "repatriation". We all know that he meant repatriation of large numbers of black people. I can only assume that he wanted that, as did some Tory Members who dislike the concept of a multiracial society and dislike Britishness being defined as applying equally to black and white people. The Government argue that, with the insertion of the no-racialism subsection, they are not introducing racialist legislation. They may take that view in general and they may believe it, but it is not believable in the eyes of the ethnic minority communities. It is not believable when we consider what is happening to those communities.
  The impression given by the Bill and by the speeches of some right hon. and hon. Members is that it is difficult for black people to be British in every conceivable sense. Members of the ethnic minority communities are especially badly affected by unemployment, bad housing conditions, prejudice and discrimination. They are affected especially by the operation of the immigration rules, which are continually stated by Home Office Ministers to be non-racialist.
  It is my experience that it is difficult to understand how the rules can be other than racialist when those who attend the surgeries of their local Member of Parliament are overwhelmingly black people-people from the Mediterranean, from the Asian sub-continent, from the West Indies and from Africa. During my first two years as a Member of Parliament I have had to refer to the Home Office only one case involving a white person. As the Minister of State will know, I refer many cases to him for his consideration and for him to use his discretion.
  The Bill is building on the edifice and the legacy of the policies to which I have referred. It is thoroughly racialist. The amendment seeks to remove one of the important planks of the Bill—namely, that a child cannot be British automatically be virtue of the birth of that child in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Proctor: May I revert to the hon. Gentleman's comments about repatriation? Is it his view that those from the new Commonwealth or Pakistan who wish to return to their home country should not be assisted to do so in some way by the Government?
  Mr. Race: People are free to return to any country they like if that is their wish. I would not stand in their way if that were their real intention. However, I object strongly to the encouragement of the belief that they should return and that they should be forced to go back by the comments of those who are Members of this place. What we are doing—what Conservative Members are doing—is creating a climate in which many in the ethnic communities believe that that is the Government's real intention and the intention of all politicians in the Conservative Party. I object to the creation and the encouragement of an atmosphere in which those in the ethnic minority communities believe that the only way in which they can maintain a decent life without being harassed and suffering from prejudice is to return to a country that they might not have seen for 20 or 30 years, if at all.

  973
  We are advancing arguments for a multiracial society. It is argued that we have a multiracial society in Britain. We say that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant when considering whether that person is a good citizen. We want no impediment and no obstacle to be placed in the way of those who may have been born here in acquiring citizenship merely because their parents may not have been born in the United Kingdom.
  7.15 pm
  There will be serious problems about documentation and people's entitlement to Health Service provision and the provision of housing. It is open to a local authority—some authorities do this—to say that an individual cannot go on the housing waiting list if his immigration and nationality status is unclear, or if he is not permanently settled in the United Kingdom. The Bill will encourage local authorities that take that view to carry forward their policy and to impose it even more strictly. We shall see it being applied by housing action centres and housing authorities throughout the country. Those who sit behind the desks will ask applicants for passports, documents from the Home Office, proof of identity, proof of nationality and proof of where they were born. That policy will spread. It will spread into areas where those requirements are not really justified.
  The Bill and other changes that the Government are making will have an affect on the NHS. There will be a great temptation for ward clerks, who may in some instances be prejudiced against black people or people from ethnic minority communities, to say to someone who has a black face "We want to see your passport or other documentation that will prove to us that you are entitled to National Health Service treatment as of right, and that you are not a visitor to this country who has to pay under the regulations introduced by the Government." That approach, that broader discrimination and difference of treatment between black people and white people, will be a further important source of friction between the two communities. Any hon. Member who doubts that is taking a crazy view.
  The arguments that we have been advancing on birth—the country of birth leading to a right and entitlement to nationality—are especially important. However, one problem that arises in my constituency and in the part of the borough that I represent has exercised me somewhat since the Bill was published. I have not yet seen any clear explanation of how the Home Office will implement the Bill for Cypriot refugees.
  I ask the Minister of State to give a clear indication of the way in which children born to Cypriot refugees who came here after 1973 at the discretion of the Home Office, who are not permanently settled and who were born after the commencement of the Bill's provisions, will be treated when it comes to determining nationality and applications for naturalisation. Will it be necessary for those persons to prove ordinary residence? Will the child of a Cypriot refugee be regarded as ordinarily resident in this country? How will the Home Office view that matter? That is an issue that we shall need to clear up.
  I have had considerable representations from Cypriot groups in my constituency and in the borough of Haringey on that issue. That is because Haringey, Islington and other parts of North London have great concentrations of Cypriot refugees and of other Cypriots who have been here for considerably longer.
  974
  In conclusion—I do not want to detain the House for long—the general provisions of the clause will cause immense confusion and immense harm to large numbers of people. The operation of the 10-year rule will he particularly damaging to children from ethnic minority communities. In some of those communities, it is the practice to send back the children to the Indian subcontinent for the duration of the summer holidays from school. What will happen to them? Those children will lose out on the 90-day rule. They will not be able to qualify for application for British citizenship at the discretion of the Home Secretary because they have been sent back for a holiday in the Indian sub-continent, Cyprus or anywhere else during the period that they have been in the United Kingdom.
  That rule will cause immense difficulties. Many children will not have a clear nationality for many years in the future. People of 20, 25 or perhaps even 30 years of age will not have had a clear 10-year period of residence in this country outside the 90-day rule on which to fall back when making an application.
  Under the Bill and this clause, the Conservative Government and the Minister of State are encouraging those people in our society who believe that Britain should not be a multiracial society, that somehow black people are inferior and that they are not capable of being British in every sense of the word. That encouragement to racialism and discrimination is a disgrace to the Government.
  The Government should make a start proving their good intentions by making a reality of the promise which they made in another section of the Bill, that nothing in the Bill would mean discrimination against black people or people from ethnic minority communities. That promise will be totally hollow if they do not move on clause 1 and accept the amendment which stands in my right hon. Friend's name and if they do not make some other fundamental and important changes to the way in which the Bill is drafted.
  I believe that the Bill will set back community relations for a long time. I hope that the House will make a start on rectifying the situation by accepting amendment No. 1.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Clause 1 offends against a basic principle enshrined in our law, that the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the children. If the children of a person who comes here illegally are born in Britain and are British subjects, they cannot compulsorily be returned if the father and the mother are returned. It does not always work like that. Often the parents feel that they must take the children back with them.
  The Minister will be aware of the case, which I mentioned yesterday, of the person who had been settled for 21 years in this country. He was a bus driver and was buying his own house. He suddenly discovered that, originally, he had come here illegally. He brought over a wife. The wife had committed no crime, but because, technically, he was not entitled to bring her in in the first place, she had to go back too. There were two young children. The parents had to make a heart-rending decision—the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) spoke of it earlier—whether to leave the children behind or to take them with them. In the end, they took the young children with them. Within 10 days of

  975
  returning to Pakistan the younger of the two children died of cholera. As I said yesterday, that case will always be a blot on the Home Office's administration.
  As I understand the new regulations in clause 1, there will not be an option in such a case because, if the father of the two children, although they were born in Britain and never knew anything else but this country—they were born here, lived here and may have started school—suddenly discovered that he had entered this country illegally, they would not be British and under the immigration rules could be returned, with no choice. I hope that the Minister will tell me if that is wrong. As I understand the Bill, those children who were born in this country with a parent who came here illegally will have the sins of the father visited upon them and will not be British subjects, as they are now. I believe that that is what the Bill means. If it does not, perhaps the Minister will tell me when he winds up.
  I do not believe that this clause is designed for the transient white visitor who comes here for a short period, and whose children are born here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) said, it is aimed at getting rid of some of the immigrant community—for example, those whose parents came here illegally. I cannot see any other reason for making such a fundamental change, except to reflect the Government's philosophy on immigration and race.
  For years it has been a fundamental right that if one is born in this country, one is a British citizen. The Bill is tied in with immigration and the right to stay here. If the Government were not wishing to change the immigration rules and constantly stiffening them, the Bill would not be before us today. It is linked with the immigration rules. The Bill, and the clause in particular, has caused a great deal of uncertainty in much of the immigrant community. Those people are afraid. They come to us in our advice centres and ask whether the Bill applies to them. It is difficult to give an answer, unless one has been a member of the Committee on the Bill, dealing with it every day.
  Miss Jo Richardson: Even then it is difficult.
  Mr. Mitchell: It is difficult, as the matter is so complex. The fact that one cannot give those people an instant answer makes them even more afraid and worried.
  The Bill—this clause in particular—has increased uncertainty in the immigrant community and has harmed race relations. People who are afraid and worried will react in particular ways. Like many other Members of Parliament, for many years I have worked towards improving and maintaining good race relations. We have all done so by every method we can use. Now we find that the Bill has set back what many people have been trying to do for many years. A cloud of suspicion and fear has been created in the community. This clause can do nothing but harm. I hope that the Minister will withdraw it.
  7.30 pm
  Miss Richardson: I wish simply to underline the difficulties that the Bill has caused and will cause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said, in our surgeries, when we receive deputations and at meetings of minority groups we see written all over everyone's faces the fear and uncertainty that the Bill is causing. Those of us on the Committee,
  976
  which started only in early February, although it feels like years ago, have become more and more aware of the difficulties that the Bill creates.
  We asked for an undertaking from the Minister that, in whatever form the Bill finally emerges from the House of Lords, individuals will be made adequately aware of what their status is and will be, but he has not yet given that undertaking. On the last occasion on which he was asked, he repeated that it would be a costly operation and that the Government could not undertake it. It is the height of cynicism and lunacy to introduce such a complex Bill, which is causing so much uncertainty and fear among those who have come to live here and many who are born here and not to describe in a simple way that everyone can understand what their position will be. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.
  I wish to deal with a narrow point to which I referred in Committee. Although it was not ideal, we were pleased that the Government made a concession by writing into the Bill that children who have been here for 10 years and have only been out of the country for a maximum of 90 days in each of those 10 years can claim British citizenship. We moved amendments to shorten the period. We discussed verification in the case of children applying to register under the provisions for those resident for the first 10 years of their lives. The Minister stated:
  "the NHS medical card can be clearly of considerable significance. I hesitate to attach absolute values to some of these documents, but under normal circumstances an NHS card will be a valuable piece of information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 26 February 1981; c. 225.]
  He went on to mention child benefit and school records.
  I am particularly concerned about school records. Has the Home Office asked the view of the National Union of Teachers about the school records being examined for that purpose. The Government may not like its view, but before they use school records—it may be difficult, as children move from one part of the country to another or to different areas within a borough—it would be wise to consult the teachers' unions.
  In the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, part of which I represent, in about three weeks we recently had the misfortune to have three schools burnt down. I do not know whether the records were kept on the premises or in other civic buildings in the borough, but what happens if buildings are destroyed and records are not available? The whole question of verification is dicey, and the Government should look for a better method or accept the word of the individuals concerned, without snooping into their records.
  It has been said that clause 1, which is the nub of the Bill, merely increases racial tension. I do not for one moment suggest that that was the Government's intention, although some hon. Members on the Government Benches are more reactionary than the Minister of State. If he has not seen the evidence for himself, either from his contact with constituents or in the Home Office, I beg him to realise that the Bill is causing tension. No one doubts the need to reconsider our nationality law, but to do it in this way, to remove an important and undeniable right that has been in our law since 1948 and to introduce this note at this stage does a disservice to race relations.
  Whether hon. Members on the Government Benches like it or not, we were a multi-racial society long before people from the New Commonwealth countries came here. Every one of us has strains from other races, and they

  977
  enrich our society. The problem in the minds of certain hon. Gentlemen concerns the colour of a person's skin, which is a shameful element to introduce into British society.
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: A number of hon. Members have attacked the idea of dual nationality, although it has been with us for a good many years. Although I was not in the Chamber all the time, I listened hard to what has been said, and I did not hear a single instance quoted of where the dual nationality permitted to people living here had had a notable adverse effect on our lives. If a departure from existing practice is argued for, we should have evidence to show that the present practice is not working satisfactorily. Had there been any such evidence, it might have been easy to find it. For example, one would have expected comparisons between people from Pakistan, who have dual nationality, and people from India, who do not. I am convinced that we should continue to permit people to have dual nationality.
  A number of irresponsible views were put forward. Sometimes only thinly disguised, the case was put for repatriating people who are not white. Those who advanced that argument talked about voluntary repatriation, but there is only a thin line between that and compulsory repatriation. The concept of voluntary repatriation is reprehensible because the more that it is talked about as the possible basis for policy, the more will people feel threatened and coerced and that they are not wanted here. That is the danger that we must avoid. Some people already feel that the host community does not want them here. Those who feel that they are not wanted here cite as evidence some of our legislation, such as the immigration rules, and point to this Bill, saying that it is another example of a Government measure that suggests that they are not completely accepted or wanted here.
  I hasten to repeat that the Government have said—and I hope that they will contine to say—that they fully accept the right to dual nationality. However, some of the other features of the Bill make people feel that they are not living here as equal members of society. On more than one occasion—including in Committee—the Minister said that the Bill had been unjustly criticised. That is not true. Most of the criticisms are fair. For many of us, the Bill's worst feature is its attempt to deny British citizenship to all those born here.
  If the Minister wished to do something positive to improve race relations and to increase the sense of security felt by blacks or Asians living in Britain, he would accept amendment No. 1 and give all children born here the right to British citizenship. The fears of the black and Asian communities are real. The Minister may deny that such fears exist, but they do. All Opposition Members have evidence of the concern and anxiety experienced by such people. They anxiously and desperately want to be accepted by the host community. They see the Bill as a further impediment to their acceptance. The Minister has not given enough assurances to the contrary and I hope that he will give some assurances today.
  Mention has already been made of the onus of proof that will fall on people to establish that their children are entitled to British citizenship. Recently there have been a number of unfortunate episodes. In some hospitals people have been asked to produce passports. Notorious raids were made on employers' premises to see whether their employees were illegal immigrants. In such cases, the
  978
  burden of proof has fallen on such people to show that they are entitled to live here, that they are settled here, have permission to stay, and so on. It is hard to satisfy the burden of proof unless one has some form of documentation, such as a passport.
  As a result of the Government's proposals, the trend will become worse. We are often approached by members of the Asian community who ask what they should do. They want to know whether they should carry their passports about with them. They want to know whether it will become even more important to do so if the Bill is enacted. The Minister may shake his head. Indeed, I thought that he would. However, what does one say to those who feel insecure, who are liable to be stopped and questioned and who need to produce evidence of their entitlement to live here? Surely this proposal will only make things worse.
  Another difficulty about the burden of proof has already been mentioned. I refer to the "concession" that the Minister put forward about those children who had been here for 10 years and to the proviso concerning the number of days that they should not be away for in any one year if they wish to qualify for citizenship after the 10-year period. It will be difficult for people to prove whether they have been away for a certain number of days. In Committee there was argument about whether those who were settled here at the time of the birth of their children might, as a result of subsequent court action, be defined as unsettled. That is another area of uncertainty
  My next point is not of one enormous principle but of practicality. I refer to the extra burden that will be thrown on the Home Office. We already receive letter; every week from the Home Office in response to queries about naturalisation and about delays in granting it. The Minister has heard such things many times before. Would he care to estimate the amount of extra work that will be thrown on the Home Office as a result of the new procedures and difficulties? The Home Office will need an enormous increase in staff if it is to cope with the extra difficulty. Without extra staff in the Home Office we shall be faced with years of uncertainty while constituents wait for their applications to be dealt with. Either in terms of the principle or in terms of sheer practicality, will the Minister concede the merits of the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and accept amendment No. 1?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Raison: We have had a long debate. We always expected that on Report this would prove to be one of the major debates. In a sense, we have had two debates which have, perhaps, jostled a little uneasily together. There has been a major and a minor theme. It might not be prudent to say which was the major and which was the minor theme, but in terms of time spent there can be no doubt that the major theme involved the question of citizenship by birth—the jus soli. The question of dual nationality was also raised.
  It will prove most convenient to speak first about the jus soli and amendment No. 1. I shall then turn to the subject of dual nationality, which was raised both by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and in the amendment to which several of my hon. Friends addressed their remarks. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, his amendment is clearly designed to remove from the Bill the

  979
  Government's proposal that in future a child born in this country should be a British citizen only if one of his parents is a British citizen or is settled. We believe that our proposal, embodied in clause 1(1), is eminently reasonable and should stand.
  As several hon. Members know, the matter was rightly debated at great length by Standing Committee F, which rejected amendments that would have had a similar effect to the one sought by the present amendment. During those debates I pointed out that it was only recently that the Opposition had put forward the arguments of high principle against the acquisition of citizenship through the status of a parent rather than through the place of one's birth.
  With respect, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not accurate about one matter. The Green Paper of the last Labour Government did not argue in that way. It is true that it ultimately favoured retention of the present all-inclusive method of conferring our citizenship on everyone born here. However, it is not true that a matter of principle was involved. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "principle". The Green Paper admitted that there were drawbacks to the present method. Its conclusion that, nevertheless, the present method should be retained was based more on its convenience than on any argument of high principle. The following words were used:
  "On the whole the Government consider that the simplicity and inclusiveness of the jus soli method outweighs its drawbacks."
  That is far from being a resounding statement. This Government attach greater weight to the drawbacks mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Green Paper.
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps I should not rise to intervene every time that the Minister makes semantic errors. However, if he considers the matter for a minute he will understand that inclusiveness is a principle. It is that principle on which the Green Paper specifically stood and it is that principle on which we stand today.
  Mr. Raison: Any hon. Member who reads that part of the Green Paper will accept that the flavour is very different from any discussion in terms of principle. That section of the Green Paper is rather pragmatic.
  The Government attach greater weight to the drawbacks mentioned in paragraph 34. Let me remind the House what those were. The Green Paper said that our present method of conferring citizenship on everybody born here
  "confers citizenship indiscriminately on all who happen to be born here … we confer citizenship on children who, though born here, may be brought up and live their lives abroad, and on children whose parents, though entirely unconnected with the United Kingdom, have arranged for the child to be born here to acquire citizenship for its possible usefulness later".
  The present Government, like the previous Government, see no strong reason in principle why our citizenship should be conferred on children born here in those circumstances. Indeed, many of the arguments of principle would appear to lie entirely on the opposite side. The White Paper pointed out that, in addition to the arguments advanced by the Green Paper, one had to take account of the fact that the children concerned were able to pass on their citizenship to their children born overseas. As the White Paper said
  "The additional British citizens so created … would have little or no real connection with the United Kingdom."
  That is very important because, as I think the House knows by now, what we are looking for in the creation of our new
  980
  scheme of British citizenship is real connection. We are looking for citizens who have a real connection with the United Kingdom.
  The question must be faced as to what rational reason there is for the children of people who are here purely temporarily or, for that matter, illegally, expecting to have the right to acquire British citizenship. The more one thinks about that fundamental point—I shall come to the practical arguments in a moment—the more doubtful it becomes as to what is the rationale in terms of principle for saying that everybody born here should be a British citizen, even if the person is merely born here, goes away after a few weeks and spends the next years or decades of life in some remote part of the world. That is fundamentally what we are talking about in terms of our switch from the old, historic principle to one which seems to us to be right for the present day and present circumstances.
  There are also, of course—and I do not seek to disguise this—important implications for the effectiveness of our immigration control. The White Paper referred to people who were here temporarily or had remained here in breach of conditions of entry or who had entered illegally. It concluded that in many such circumstances there seemed no real justification for continuing to allow the child to have our citizenship unless—and this is quite important—one of the parents was subsequently accepted for settlement here. That is not the overriding factor, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to suggest, but it is a significant factor.
  I also referred in Committee, to what the Government regard as an important point, namely, that two people who are here illegally, for whatever reason, should not acquire a right to remain simply by having a child in this country. Home Office Ministers of successive Administrations have always made it clear that the birth here of patrial children is not a bar to the removal of the parents. But there is the difficulty that, when the parents are deported in such cases, they cannot be compelled to take their children with them. Of course, the parents nearly always take their children with them voluntarily, but there is an anomaly here. Also, as I told the Standing Committee, we should take into account the various international bodies whose jurisdiction we have accepted. We cannot rule out the possibility that one of them might find that it was wrong to remove the parents of a child who had the right of abode here.
  As members of the Standing Committee know, it is not possible to give any precise estimate of the numbers who may be affected. I gave the Standing Committee some figures which could be indicative, although no more than that. As I said then, in 1979, between 59,000 and 64,000 children were born in England and Wales to parents both of whom were born outside the United Kingdom. It is a reasonable assumption that in some of those cases neither parent was settled here. Even if one assumed that 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the parents were our citizens or were settled, that would still leave between 3,000 and 6,500 children born here each year to parents who were neither citizens nor settled.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the arguments that he has adduced prove beyond any doubt that the measure he has put before the House is an immigration measure and not a nationality measure, in that he gives

  981
  greater weight to the immigration problems which might result for the authorities from problems about the parents than to the problems of the child, who might be rendered stateless by his proposition?
  Mr. Raison: They prove absolutely nothing of the sort. I told the House a few minutes ago what were the major reasons for our decision. I said perfectly frankly that there were immigration implications. But because there are immigration implications in one particular ingredient of the Bill that does not mean that the entire Bill is to be seen as an immigration measure rather than a nationality measure.
  The use of the term "settled" in this context has been the subject of criticism. This has been on the grounds of the claimed practical difficulties for the child in establishing his parents' settled status. This was raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). In my view, however, the difficulties have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the very use of the settled criteria in this context indicates the Government's non-racial approach. Settled parents who are not citizens can have children here who would become citizens. As the House knows, this is more generous than is usual with systems which confer citizenship on the basis of the status of the parent. Most countries with jus sanguinis systems require the parent to be a citizen before he can transmit citizenship to the child.
  It is said, however, that the term "settled" includes ordinary residence, and this is not a clear concept. For someone who remains out of the country for long periods, this can sometimes be so, although usually a sensible judgment can be arrived at when the facts are examined. Otherwise, it will normally be quite clear whether a person is settled here or not. Generally speaking, anyone who is living here free of conditions on his stay will be regarded as settled. Of course the term "settled" excludes illegal entrants and overstayers and indeed anyone who is not free of restrictions on his stay here. But, in the Government's opinion, it is right that people in these categories should be excluded.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Generally, therefore, a person would be regarded as being settled if the conditions had been removed. Will the Minister make that an absolute bar to investigations beyond the removal of conditions? If he did that, it would certainly remove a great deal of my difficulty. If he will say that the Home Office will not go behind the removal of conditions in order later to assert that the conditions were removed as a result of deception or fraud, I should certainly feel a good deal more relieved.
  Mr. Raison: I cannot answer "Yes" off the cuff. We must look at this problem in terms of the law as it stands and as it has been laid down by the High Court, and it is clear that a person is no longer settled if he achieves entry by deception. That is what the law says. I believe that we shall always look very carefully at the particular circumstances of cases that come before us. I know that this is a very sensitive area, but if the hon. Gentleman is asking me to give a categoric "Yes" in response to what he has said, I am afraid that I am not in a position to do so.
  Mr. Lyon: It is not such a preposterous suggestion as the Minister makes it sound, because until this class of case arose the Home Office regarded the fact of removal
  982
  conditions as being an absolute barrier and did not question it thereafter. It is only since these conditions have arisen that cases are now being questioned, long after the conditions have been removed and over a far wider area than alleged fraud.
  Mr. Raison: What I have said is that the law has been laid down by the High Court, and it is not for me to stand at the Dispatch Box at this moment and say that we can disregard the law as laid down by the High Court.
  8 pm
  With regard to settled status, I should like to say something in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) about Cypriot refugees. The people to whom the hon. Member referred are not regarded as refugees for the purposes of the United Nations convention. Their admission has always been concessionary and on a temporary basis. The children born after commencement would not, therefore, be British citizens unless the one parent had been accepted for settlement by the time of the children's birth.
  I cannot accept the arguments that have been put forward—I say this in particular to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).—about the effect of court judgments on illegal entrants. It may be that a parent who might have hoped that he was accepted as settled at the time of his child's birth is later discovered to have been here illegally all the time. What has happened in such cases is that someone who entered illegally is ajudged to have done so by the courts. The Government cannot condone illegal entry. I cannot see why the existence of recent court judgments on the question should lead us to interfere with the long accepted definition of "settled". But I say again to the hon. Gentleman that we have shown in all these cases of deception that we look at the matter very carefuly and with a good deal of sympathy. But I cannot go beyond what I have just said in regard to the law.
  Mr. Lyon: This is an absolutely vital part of the whole argument. I accept, of course, that in the cases where the Home Office considers the question, it does so with a considerable degree of care and with such sensitivity as it can command. The real issue is that, as a result of the court judgments, the police and immigration officers are questioning the status of a great many people against whom there is no suggestion of illegality. It is simply that they now have to scrutinise a much wider area of case.
  Mr. Raison: In the whole process of passing the Bill through the House we are talking about what the law of the land is to say and what it does say. The Bill uses the word "settled". It is there in clause 1. I cannot get up in this House and reinterpret the word "settled". It is not for me to do so. The word "settled" is there and it is an important prop of our whole position. It would be absurd for me to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do.
  There will, of course, come a time when a child born to a settled parent will need to establish that he is a British citizen. This is one of the features that has played a substantial part in our debate. It will be done as the occasion arises—when, for example, he wants a passport. I repeat that there is no question of determination of citizenship becoming part of the birth certification process. Parents of children born here after commencement might well, of course, welcome a leaflet setting out the new citizenship provisions, and we shall be looking at

  983
  that. I assure the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that I am concerned in general that after the Bill has received Royal Assent its contents should be widely known and understood.
  The Government see no particular reason why difficulty should normally arise when the child needs to assert his claim to citizenship. It was a gross exaggeration for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to say that proof will invariably be demanded of black children. That was not a fair thing to say.
  In very many cases the parents will set out the claim on the child's behalf while he is still a minor, and there seems to be no reason why they should not be able to produce evidence of their settled status. I agree that there must be some differences in the procedure for passport applications. This is because a simple birth certificate showing birth in the United Kingdom will in future be insufficient by itself as proof of citizenship. But we do not see why the application form could not be simply designed so that the parent could give details of his own claims to British citizenship or of his settled status in the United Kingdom.
  I should like to say a word or two more about passports and the process of application. I said in my Second Reading speech that we shall be relying basically on the declarations of applicants for passports and their parents and on those who act as sponsors. It is at present an essential feature of a passport application—I am referring to applications made in the United Kingdom—that reliance is placed on the sponsor or counter signatory to establish the identity of an applicant. We intend to use that method for this category, too. But because a birth certificate showing birth in the United Kingdom after commencement will not itself be proof, as it is now, of nationality status, the application form would be designed so that the parent could give details of his own claim to British citizenship or of his being settled in the United Kingdom. We believe that such proof as is needed would be readily available.
  Passport applications would normally be made during the child's minority by a parent. Where the parents have not taken British citizenship but want their children to have it, experience suggests that they apply for a passport when the child is young. In these cases we see no reason why the parents should have difficulty in establishing their settled status satisfactorily for this purpose. It is in the interests of everybody that status should be established at an early stage.
  Where one of the parents is a citizen, evidence of that will often be forthcoming naturally. For example, the application may be for the addition of the child's name to a parent's United Kingdom passport, or the application may be made when the parent is applying for or renewing a passport. Passport applications from persons born after commencement would form only a very small part of the total passport applications for some years to come. We have time to develop a practice in the light of experience without imposing onerous evidential requirements or accepting heavy additional work loads.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman knows, from the Opposition Benches we are continually referring to the discriminatory nature of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the normal practice of getting
  984
  a passport during the minority of the child. That may be his experience but it is not my experience with the indigenous population. It is within the experience of the immigrant community of this country that it is the only way in which people can prove their status in this country at the moment. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the tradition that has grown up in that community, because of fears of immigration rules and regulations, will continue when the Bill becomes law. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with his view that the legislation will not be discriminatory in practice?
  Mr. Raison: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about this matter. The fears that are being generated are not justified. I am not denying that there are fears and I have never sought to do so. But as people come to see how the Bill works in practice they will realise what fantasies most of these fears have been.
  The right hon. Member for Roxborough, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) talked about moving to some kind of pass law society, on the basis of what is contained in the Bill. That is absolute rubbish. There is no justification whatever for the argument that the Bill will have that kind of effect. It is utterly contrary to the intentions of the Government and of myself.
  We have also moved the important amendment to clause 1 that was accepted by the Standing Committee and is now incorporated as subsection (4). It provides that a child born here who does not become a British citizen through his parents' British citizenship or settled status shall have an entitlement to registration 10 years later if he has resided here continuously since birth. Short periods of absence would be permitted. That entitlement could be claimed by anyone failing to establish his parents' status and should be more than sufficient to deal with the exceptional case where there might be long term difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Ladywood talked about statelessness arising out of the Bill. But I remind the House that there is not merely the provision that I have just described. We fully meet the requirements under the international conventions, and, specifically in schedule 2, we have our provisions for meeting statelessness.
  Questions have also been raised about the immigration rules that would apply to children born here who do not obtain citizenship. As I told the Committee, at this stage I can give only a broad indication of what might be done, but obviously provision would have to be made for the child who applies to remain here or to enter after absence. The basic approach would probably be to bring his conditions of stay into line with those of his parents or of his mother if she were on different conditions of stay from his father.
  I hope that I have reassured the House that many of the points raised by Labour Members have no substance in fact. They have looked for every possible complication—sometimes they have found points that are worthy of note; I do not deny the value of our Committee discussions or the importance of getting the matter right—but on the fundamental question whether we are right to bring the new provision into our nationality law there can be no doubt that what we are doing makes sense and will be seen to make sense by the great majority of the people of this country.

  985
  I turn to the theme outlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) in speaking to the amendments in the names of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) and others. Amendment (a) provides that all children born in this country will acquire British citizenship unless they acquire the nationality of another State at birth, presumably by descent by one of their parents.
  There are several serious objections to that proposal. It would be difficult to operate, would cause considerable hardship and dislocation and would run counter to our declared policy on dual nationality. I shall deal with those objections.
  First, there would be no records of which children born here held another citizenship. A person born here and claiming British citizenship when, say, applying for a passport could be asked whether he held another citizenship, but there would be no means of checking on those who said that they did not. Searching inquiries would be necessary if the bar on dual nationality were to be enforced effectively.
  Secondly, the amendment would apply to those who had involuntarily acquired another citizenship through one of their parents. That could be particularly harsh. It would apply to those who, though they had a claim to another citizenship, had never sought to avail themselves of it, because they had no real links with another country and had spent all their lives here.
  It would presumably also apply to those whose parents held different nationalities, even if one were a British citizen. Moreover, there would be no choice in the matter and no opportunity to renounce the other citizenship. That would be unacceptable and impossible to justify and defend. Even countries that severely restrict dual nationality normally impose restrictions only on adults who are given an opportunity to renounce any other nationality that they may have acquired during their minority.
  As we made clear in the White Paper, we do not believe that it would be right to have any general restriction on the holding of other citizenships in addition to British citizenship. To do so would make it more difficult for people who have come here from overseas to settle down in this country and make their contribution to the life of the community. It is natural that such people should wish, at least initially, to retain their links with their country of birth, and we do not think that they should be compelled to choose between those links and those that they are developing with this country.
  We see the links as normally complementary rather than conflicting, and we think that a generous policy on dual nationality, far from hindering integration as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Down, South, will assist it. I must make it clear, as I did in Committee, that the Government are fearful that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is in some way to encourage black repatriation or, as he called it in his speech, re-emigration. I made my view clear in Committee. It is not the aim of the Government to do what the right hon. Gentleman wants. I cannot believe that it is right in a society such as ours to make that our aim. The purpose of the Bill is not to divide communities.
  Mr. Budgen: If any future Government wished to repatriate a section of the former immigrant community it
  986
  would surely be infinitely more difficult to repatriate those who had voluntarily chosen to take British citizenship and to renounce the citizenship of their country of origin.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Raison: That is not a path which I wish to go down. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's point.
  The purpose of the Bill is not to divide communities. Most of those born to people in the ethnic minorities in this country who are, for the most part, settled here, even when they have not acquired our citizenship, will be British citizens. That is right. To do anything to disturb that will only exacerbate unnecessarily existing racial tensions. There are no grounds for the belief of the right hon. Member for Down, South that to omit those settled here from the provisions allowing citizenship would be a means of removing conflict. Indeed, I believe the reverse to be true
  I accept that many countries have chosen a different route, but our choice is based on different circumstances. It is based on our history and the fact that we had not only an influx of people after the war, but an influx that followed the transformation of the old Commonwealth. The history of our Commonwealth and our Empire is that of many countries linked together by all sorts of ties. We do not wish to compel people to have to choose between their association with Britain and with another country as the price of acquiring British citizenship.
  It may interest the House to know that not only the ethnic minorities have asked us to keep dual citizenship. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have expressed their concern that British citizens in those countries should not be compelled to choose between their ties. There are dual loyalties in the network of relationships that has grown up and it would be a mistake to make it impossible, in formal terms, that they should exist.
  I advise the House to reject the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and I must also advise hon. Members to reject the amendments that seek to prohibit dual nationality.
  Mr. John Tilley: The House will have noted the contrast between the approaches of the Minister of State and the Home Secretary over the two days of our debates. The Home Secretary spent all yesterday afternoon fighting the idea that his decisions on nationality and naturalisation should be subject to legal processes and appeal to the courts or a tribunal. The Minister of State told us today that in carrying out his discretion he is bound by the decisions about the law made by judges.
  Mr. Raison: That is not what I said. I do not say that how we exercise our discretion is bound by the law set out by judges. Discretion is about moving away from the law. I said that the law, which is what we are talking about, is as set out by the judges.
  Mr. Tilley: The hon. Gentleman has merely confirmed what I thought he said and what I judged him to be saying—that he is bound by the judges in the interpretation of the law and in exercising discretion. I stick to my point about the contrast between the two approaches, but both Ministers were wrong.
  The law is created by Parliament and when we find that it has been interpreted by judges in ways that we never

  987
  intended it is the job of Ministers to bring the law back to Parliament to get it changed in order to ensure that the will of Parliament is carried out.
  I shall be brief, because we wish to discuss other matters before the guillotine falls. I agree with everything that my hon. Friends have said about the injustices and impracticalities of the proposal in clause 1. They have demonstrated the widespread concern that exists about the motives behind the Bill and how it will work. That concern is widespread in the sense that it is felt in many parts of the country and also in the sense that all the ethnic minorities, and many people who are not members of ethnic minorities, are concerned about what will happen.
  I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and also with the Minister over the suggestion that the removal of jus soli—automatic citizenship by birth—and the removal of dual nationality are separate. I believe that they are connected. This debate has shown how they are involved in what can be called the dynamic of racialist demand. Once there is no longer automatic citizenship by birth, this engenders the demand that there should not be automatic citizenship for people who are citizens of another country. This is followed in logical sequence by the demand for mass deportation of black people, misnamed repatriation, by those who favour the proposal. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has thought of another euphemism today—re-emigration. The House and the country will be shocked by the mildness of the Minister's repudiation of that idea.
  Our debates have established that for the Government the abolition of automatic citizenship by birth in this country is the most important part of the Bill. This emphasis supports our view about the racialist intent as well as the racialist effect of the Bill. The Minister guesses that the number of children affected each year will be between 3,000 and 6,500. Of those, one can say, for the sake of argument, that 500 are stateless, apart from not becoming British citizens. They have no statehood at all, even thought they were born in this country. They are the children of students, work permit holders and illegal entrants.
  The vast majority of those groups are black people. The majority of black children born in this country will be full British citizens because their parents are either full black British citizens themselves or settled in this country. However, the Minister will not accept that the number of stateless children, say 400 or 500 a year, will cause concern throughout the ethnic minority. One stateless child in an Asian community within one city will spread fear throughout the community. This fear, I believe, is, in many ways, justified.
  It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that parents will be aware of the details of the Bill, that theywill know about the 10-year concession and that they will be aware, once the baby is born, that an amendment moved by the Government means that, so long as the child is here for 10 years and during those years he or she is not away for more than 90 days, citizenship can be obtained. The reality is that those people are not only largely black but largely poor. Many of them—students, work permit holders and so on—are very young. Their problem in society will be to survive as a family rather than to keep detailed legal records and obtain detailed legal advice.
  988
  Another problem will be that parents, either through ignorance or a desire not to undermine the confidence of the child, will not inform their children of the situation and that those kids will find out only when they apply for a passport. If they apply after the age of 22, the provisions to reduce statelessness—I nearly said, for getting rid of statelessness which, unfortunately, the Bill does not do—would not apply and the young adult would have no chance of getting citizenship other than by naturalisation. The Opposition have pressed this matter because it is not necessary for a new nationality law to get rid of jus soli—the qualification that birth in this country makes one automatically a British citizen.
  All the matters of revision, splitting of citizenship and eliminating the problems of citizenship of the United Kingsom and Colonies could have been handled without getting rid of jus soli. The insistence of the Government on this provision makes us more convinced that their concern is immigration control. To be more precise, they are concerned about giving the appearance of tightening immigration control. There is no evidence that, between 1948 and 1980, people born in this country in transit or to parents who were here only temporarily, having gone back to the country of their parents' origin, grown up and had kids of their own, have exercised their right to come to this country. There is no evidence that this pool, as Ministers describe it in the White Paper, has ever drained, dripped or poured back into this country.
  All that Ministers are doing is trying to pander to prejudice and to give the impression of tighter immigration control. I should like to contrast statements made by the Secretary of State with those of the Minister of State, who is now present. The hon. Gentleman did not repudiate on Second Reading, and I am sure he will not do so now, a speech of the Home Secretary to a Conservative audience in Leicester on 7 April 1977 when he stated:
  "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."
  That is all that the right hon. Gentleman said to his Conservative audience. Three years later, the Minister of State, who was not addressing a Conservative audience but speaking at the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Sikh temple at Slough on 15 March 1981, said:
  "It has also been said that the Bill is primarily an immigration measure. This is transparently not the case."
  Hon. Members would like to be told which Minister was telling the truth and which reflects real Government policy. Which face of the Conservative Home Office is the true one? The removal of jus soli is not only objectionable in itself; it is also preparing the way, as the debate has shown, for the right hon. Member for Down, South and those who support him in their demand for further measures that we would regard as racialist. They are pressing for more measures in this sphere. We have heard the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), the voice of Back Bench Toryism on this issue. No other voice from the Conservative Benches has argued why this Bill should not be the first of many proposals in immigration control of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  The Government cannot buy off racialist prejudice. If they start to pay the Danegeld to the racialists, they will never be rid of them. They feel that by appearing to tighten immigration control, they will be able to buy off the prejudice. They will not be able to do so. Those who get one concession will demand more. The aim of the people

  989
  we are talking about—we have heard some of them today—is to get every black face off the streets of this country. The right hon. Member for Down, South was more open than usual about that ambition. He knows, but he will not say, that what he proposes can be achieved only by methods that are compulsory and authoritarian—in many ways, totalitarian.
  8.30 pm
  I take issue with the right hon. Member on one issue. He spoke about the future of inner London. He has a right to speak on that issue, because he lives in South Eaton Place. I have a right to speak about it not only because I represent Brixton, but because I live on Brixton Hill. He said that there were two views, although he outlined three. One view is that everything will he all right and that there is no problem. The two other views are that there is likely to be tension and conflict, and that there is a future of conflict because of mutual fears. He said that there are those who believe that it can be averted by persuading people, and that there are those who think that it is inevitable because of what we know about human nature and history.
  I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. I do not believe that it is necessarily inherent in human nature for there to be conflict of the kind that we have seen, and of which there may be more. Nor do I believe that it is the lesson of history that conflict of this kind is inevitable. The lesson of history is that it is the responsibility of politicians such as ourselves to try to avert and help to reduce those tensions. The lesson of history is that it can be done, that conflict and tension can be averted, provided that the Government of the day give a lead and show that they believe in a multi-racial society of equals, and ensure that the inner city areas about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so glibly get the resouces of housing, social services and jobs that they need.
  I refuse to accept the right hon. Gentleman's message of pessimism about the future of inner city areas—certainly not in my constituency, not in Handsworth. When he spoke about Handsworth, he said that many of us who represent inner city areas know perfectly well that there are members of the ethnic minorities—black people, some young, some old—who wish to return to the country from which they or their parents came.
  Mr. Proctor: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to help them to do so?
  Mr. Tilley: The hon. Member misses the point. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that they would be assisted in some way if they were no longer dual nationals. That is not true. From my experience of dealing with constituents, there is no problem for people who want to go back—for instance, to Jamaica—because they are dual nationals of Jamaica and of this country. It is nonsense to suggest either that they would be assisted, or that in many cases they would be deprived of the citizenship of their country of origin because they held British citizenship.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned India. There, it is a matter of taking up the rights that might deprive people of Indian citizenship. Certainly, that does not apply to any of the West Indian islands.
  Finally, I take up another comment made by the right hon. Member for Down, South. He said, after giving what
  990
  I regard as a spurious set of reasons for not having dual citizenship, that if we had dual citizenship it would maximise the anxiety of the rest of the community. There is no evidence for that. The right hon. Gentleman is trying, as he has done before, to make his prophecies self-fulfilling. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are determined that that will not happen. We believe that we can resolve the racial tensions in this country if the political will and determination are there. That is why we are so concerned about this debate.
  Two great assets are enshrined in our law to achieve the purpose of removing racial tension and having a harmonious multi-racial society. One is dual nationality, which I am glad to say that the Government are maintaining, although it is threatened by the amendment to our amendment, and the second is the jus soli—the great cohesive force of the fact that any child born in this country is an automatic full British citizen. If we preserve those two assets, they will help us to create a harmonious multi-racial society.
  The Government are doing two things. They are throwing away one of those great assets. That is bad enough in itself. However, in doing so, they are weakening the position of the other, the right to have dual nationality. In doing so, they are opening the floodgates to racist attacks and racism on a scale that we have not yet seen. I appeal to the House to reject the amendment to our amendment, and to accept our amendment to preseve the great assets that we have in British law.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 280.

  Division No. 198]

  [8.34 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dalyell, Tam

  Adams, Allen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Allaun, Frank

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashton, Joe

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Dempsey, James

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Dixon, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Dobson, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't' N)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Douglas, Dick

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bradley, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunn, James A.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  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)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Campbell, Ian

  English, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Cant, R. B.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ewing, Harry

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cartwright, John

  Field, Frank

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

  Flannery, Martin

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cowans, Harry

  Ford, Ben

  Craigen, J. M.

  Forrester, John

  Crowther, J. S.

  Foster, Derek

  Cryer, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

  Freud, Clement

  991

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Newens, Stanley

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Graham, Ted

  Parker, John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Parry, Robert

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Penhaligon, David

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Race, Reg

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Radice, Giles

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Haynes, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

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

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Home Robertson, John

  Roper, John

  Homewood, William

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Hooley, Frank

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Howells, Geraint

  Ryman, John

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Sever, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Kerr, Russell

  Soley, Clive

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lambie, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Stoddart, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tilley, John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Torney, Tom

  McKelvey, William

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, H. (Colne V)

  McNally, Thomas

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Watkins, David

  McTaggart, Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Magee, Bryan

  Welsh, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, Frank R.

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Whitlock, William

  Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Maxton, John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Winnick, David

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Wright, Sheila

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Morton, George

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  992

  Ancram, Michael

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Arnold, Tom

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Banks, Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gorst, John

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gow, Ian

  Best, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gray, Hamish

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Blackburn, John

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Body, Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Hannam, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hayhoe, Bamey

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Heddle, John

  Buck, Antony

  Henderson, Barry

  Budgen, Nick

  Hicks, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hill, James

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butcher, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hooson, Tom

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hordern, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knox, David

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lamont, Norman

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lang, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Cope, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Corrie, John

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Lee, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Critchley, Julian

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Crouch, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Loveridge, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Luce, Richard

  Dover, Denshore

  Lyell, Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  McCrindle, Robert

  Dunlop, John

  MacGregor, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Durant, Tony

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Eggar, Tim

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Elliott, Sir William

  Madel, David

  Emery, Peter

  Major, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marland, Paul

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Mates, Michael

  Farr, John

  Mather, Carol

  Fell, Anthony

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mawby, Ray

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Mellor, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fox, Marcus

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Fry, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  993

  Moate, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Molyneaux, James

  Shersby, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Silvester, Fred

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sims, Roger

  Moore, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Speed, Keith

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Speller, Tony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Spence, John

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mudd, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Murphy, Christopher

  Squire, Robin

  Myles, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Needham, Richard

  Stanley, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steen, Anthony

  Neubert, Michael

  Stevens, Martin

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stokes, John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Parris, Matthew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Donald

  Pawsey, James

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Trippier, David

  Porter, Barry

  Trotter, Neville

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Viggers, Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Waddington, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wakeham, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Raison, Timothy

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Wall, Patrick

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Tim

  Walters, Dennis

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Ward, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wheeler, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rost, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'Where' to `ceases' in line 26 and insert 'an order to which this subsection applies'.—[Mr. Luce.]
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understand that this amendment is being taken with Government amendment No. 3. The difference between the amendment and the text of the Bill appears partly to consist in the omission of the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. May I be permitted to ask whatever happened to the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969? Perhaps we could be satisfied about that before making the amendments.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I
  994
  appreciate the point. Clause 1(6), as it was originally introduced, referred to four Acts which contained a definition of a convention adoption order. One of them, the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, is now omitted because it provided for orders which are specified orders within the terms of the other Acts referred to in the clause. I hope that that answers the question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 29, at end insert—
  `(7) Subsection (6) applies to—

  (a) any Convention adoption order within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976, the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 or the Children Act 1975; and

  (b) any specified order within the meaning of the said Act of 1976, the said Act of 1978 or the Adoption Act 1968.'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Clause 3

  ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: MINORS
  Mr. Raison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  `(b) that the parent in question was employed in relevant employment (but not necessarily the same relevant employment) throughout the period of two years ending with the date of the birth and was on that date employed in overseas employment; and'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may also consider the following amendments:
  Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, after `employment)', insert
  'either in the United Kingdom or overseas'.
  Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
  Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 39, at end insert
  ', and
  (bb) with any association established outside the United Kingdom of which a company or association established in the United Kingdom has been a subscribing member for at least three years. '.
  Government amendments Nos. 10 to 14.
  Government amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 18, at end insert—
  `(8) For the purposes of subsection (3) a partner in a firm established in the United Kingdom is to be regarded as employed in employment with the firm, but a partner in a firm established outside the United Kingdom is not to be so regarded.'.
  Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment No. 15, at end add
  'unless such firm is a member of an association of which a United Kingdom firm is a member'.
  Government amendments Nos. 49, 50, 66 and 67.
  Mr. Raison: I undertook in Committee to consider sympathetically the possibility of making various changes in the arrangements in clause 3 which provide for British citizenship to be acquired, as an entitlement and on application, by a child born overseas to a parent who is a British citizen by descent and who has ties with this country through his or her employment. These amendments result from that undertaking, and I believe that they will meet the concerns that have been expressed by a number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
  It may be helpful if I explain in general terms what we have sought to do. First, in amendments Nos. 5, 6, 12 and 13 we have reduced the qualifying period of employment

  995
  from five to two years and have enabled relevant employment in the United Kingdom or with more than one company or association in the United Kingdom or overseas to count towards the qualifying period. The Home Secretary will have discretion in special circumstances to reduce the period of relevant employment.
  Secondly, in amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 14 and 15, we have sought to widen the categories of relevant employment. Employment with a company or association established outside the United Kingdom will now count where it has been arranged by a company or association established in the United Kingdom. So, in those circumstances, will employment overseas with a company or association which is associated with a company or association established in the United Kingdom. Partners in a company or association established in the United Kingdom will be able in suitable circumstances to meet the employment requirement.
  Thirdly, in amendment No. 11, we have provided that brief intervals between posts in relevant employment shall not disqualify. Also, a woman will be deemed to be in relevant employment when her child is born, if she had been so employed within six months of the birth; the six-month period preceding the birth of the child will then count towards the qualifying period.
  I believe that these amendments will substantially extend the ambit of the provisions in clause 3 which enable British citizens by descent who have ties with this country, mainly through their employment, to secure British citizenship for their children born overseas, as an entitlement on application. They are, we believe, an effective response to the concern that has been expressed, both in this House and outside it, about the need to ensure that people who have real ties with this country, particularly through the nature of their work, should be able to secure British citizenship for their children, since they are representing British interests when these children are born. These amendments will considerably extend the range of people who will now be able to apply for citizenship for their children in this way.
  These amendments, too, must be seen in the general context of what we are doing in this Bill as a whole to help children born overseas to British citizens by descent. They should be seen together with the provisions of subsection (7), which enables children born overseas to British citizens by descent to acquire British citizenship when they come back to this country and live here with their families, and with the provisions of new clauses 1 and 2 which seek to preserve the effects of the current system of consular registration for a limited period. In all, this is a substantial programme of measures to benefit children born overseas to British citizens by descent—a programme which in many respects is more generous than the current arrangements. But it is only right that when families have a real and continuing tie with this country they should be entitled to secure British citizenship for their children born overseas.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly welcome the amendments. They are vitally important to the Bill and they will bring considerable relief to many people who have been concerned about their circumstances. I welcome
  996
  them because I, like other hon. Members, have given close attention to representations that have been made to me by employers, their employees and the CBI.
  It is right that the qualifying period for employment overseas for the purpose of passing on citizenship should be shortened from five years to two. The change clearly goes some way to meet the objections of employers and their employees on this point. The new provisions, with subsection (3), also imply that the two-year qualifying period could be served in the United Kingdom, overseas, or partly in each. Thus employees would be able to have a child overseas at any time during the two-year qualifying period. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State accepts this implication. However, it should be made explicit by inserting
  "either in the United Kingdom or overseas"
  after the brackets in clause 3(2)(b). I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my proposed amendment to his amendment No. 5, in the interests of clarity and to avoid any misunderstanding. If he cannot do that this evening, because of the severe shortage of time before 9 o'clock, I ask him to look at it again in another place.
  I now come to my proposed amendment to Government amendment No. 15. The proposed subsection (8) to clause 3 provides that
  "a partner in a firm established outside the United Kingdom"
  is not in "relevant employment" for the purposes of the Bill.
  The CBI has pointed out to me this week that many partners, that is, self-employed persons and their employees, who are British citizens and work overseas have, for local or commercial reasons, no formal connection with a firm based in the United Kingdom, although they are normally considered to be part of it. Although the CBI does not directly represent their employers, there is a strong feeling that neither partners nor employees should be discriminated against because of their employment status, as they are no less British.
  The Government have already accepted this situation in relation to multinational companies which may also be established or incorporated independently overseas to fit in with national requirements, although the ultimate ownership may be elsewhere. The CBI takes the view, and I agree, that this point should logically and rightly be recognised in relation to partnerships and their employees. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to partnerships in international firms of accountants, architects and other professional organisations—and not just to international trade associations—involving those on secondment or where there is a British member in membership.
  To cover this point, my proposed amendment adds the words:
  "unless such firm is a member of an association of which a United Kingdom firm is a member".
  I should perhaps have added:
  "This shall also apply to employees of such firms who are also British citizens".
  I hope my hon. Friend will look at that point before the Bill is considered in another place.
  I urge my hon. Friend to accept that amendment. If he does not, many people, including the CBI, feel that some British citizens working overseas will still unfairly lose their rights to possess and transmit British citizenship and to free entry and abode in the United Kingdom. These are

  997
  two important improvements to my hon. Friend's amendments, and I hope that he will receive them sympathetically.
  Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I will think about the first point he raised but would prefer not to give any undertaking.
  My hon. Friend proposed, secondly, that amendment No. 15 should be altered to cover partners in firms established overseas if the firm is a member of an association of which a United Kingdom firm is a member. This is intended to benefit partners and firms which are independently established overseas but which may have links with this country.
  However, in our view, the amendment is too broad to achieve its aim. It would benefit partners in firms established overseas which might quite by chance belong to an association to which a firm of partners in this country also belonged. The association might be purely social, and the fact that a firm of partners in the United Kingdom and a firm of partners overseas were both members of it might not mean that the overseas firm had any fills with the United Kingdom.
  The amendment might make rather more sense if it referred to partners rather than to firms as it could then benefit, for instance, partners overseas who were members of United Kingdom professional bodies. However, it refers to firms and seeks essentially to cover partnerships overseas that are associated with partnerships in the United Kingdom because, for example, they have common partners. As I have said, the amendment is too wide to achieve that purpose effectively. It is not satisfactory for the reasons that I have explained.
  Amendment agreed to.
  9 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment up to the end of clause 12 moved by a member of the Government. The amendments are Nos. 6 to 8, 10 to 20, 22 and 24 and 27. Does any hon. Member wish to divide the House against any of the amendments? It seems that no one wishes to do so. That being so, I shall put them in a group if the Minister will move them.
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 31, leave out `Subsection (2) applies to' and insert
  'In this section "relevant employment" means'.
  No. 7, in page 3, line 35, leave out from 'Kingdom' to 'company' in line 37 and insert
  `where the employee's employment with that company or association was arranged by a'.
  No. 8, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
  `(bb) with any company or association established outside the United Kingdom which is associated with a company or association established in the United Kingdom;'.
  No. 10, in page 3, line 40, after `therein', insert—
  'or a company or association established in the United Kingdom'.
  No. 11, in page 4, line 9, at end insert—
  `(4) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—

  (a) where, in the case of any person, two periods of relevant employment are separated by an interval of not more than 90 days spent otherwise than in relevant employment, he shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the interval and, if he was employed in overseas employment immediately before the interval began, as having been employed in overseas employment throughout the interval; and

  998

  (b) where the parent in question is the mother, then, if her last period of relevant employment before the birth ended in the period of 180 days ending with the date of tie birth, she shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the period from the end of that period of relevant employment to the date of the birth and, if she was employed in overseas employment immediately before that period of relevant employment ended, as having been employed in overseas employment on the date of the birth;

  and the requirements specified in subsection (2)(c) shall not apply in relation to any period which by virtue of this subsection counts as a period of relevant employment.'.
  No. 12, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'five' and insert `two'.
  No. 13, in page 5, line 2, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
  '(a) "overseas employment" means employment under the terms of which the employee ordinarily works outside the United Kingdom; and'.
  No. 14, in page 5, line 9, leave out from `association' to end of line 18.
  No. 15, in page 5, line 18, at end insert—
  '(8) For the purposes of subsection (3) a partner in a firm established in the United Kingdom is to be regarded as employed in employment with the firm, but a partner in a firm established outside the United Kingdom is not to be so regarded. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 4

  ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: CITIZENS OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 16, in page 5, line 27, after `(a)', insert `subject to subsection (2A).'.
  No. 17, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
  '(2A) So much of subsection (2)(a) as requires the person in question to have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period there mentioned shall not apply in relation to a person in whose case the Secretary of State is satisfied that he was settled in the United Kingdom immediately before commencement.'. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 6

  RIGHT TO REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF RESIDENCE IN UNITED KINGDOM OR RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT.
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 7, line 2"7 at end insert—
  '(2A) Subject to subsection (2C), if, on an application for the registration of a person under subsection (2) as a British citizen, that person satisfies the Secretary of State that he was engaged in relevant service throughout any period (of whatever length), that period shall for the purposes of subsection (2) be treated as a period throughout which he was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) "relevant service" means—

  (a) Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom; or

  (b) service under any international organisation of which the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government therein is a member; or

  (c) service in the employment of any company or association established in the United Kingdom.

  (2C) A person shall not be registered under subsection (2) wholly or partly by reason of service within subsection (2B)(b) or (c) unless it seems to the Secretary of State fitting that he should be so registered by reason of his close connection with the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 7

  REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE
  Amendments made: No. 19, in page 8, line 2, leave out `two' and insert 'five'.
  No. 20, in page 8, line 13, at end insert—
  '(3) On an application for her registration as a British citizen made within five years after commencement by a woman who at the time of the application is married, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause her to be registered as such a citizen if—

  (a) immediately before commencement she would (if she had applied for it) have been entitled under section 6(2) of the 1948 act to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her being or having been married to the man who is her husband on the date of the application under this subsection; and

  (b) that man either—

  (i) became a British citizen at commencement but has ceased to be such a citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

  (ii) would have become a British citizen at commencement but for his having ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation.'. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 10

  RENUNCIATION
  Amendment made: No. 22, in page 10, line 12, at end insert
  `in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.'. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 12

  MEANING OF BRITISH CITIZEN BY DESCENT"
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 10, line 35, after `3(2)', insert
  `or (Right to registration as British citizen by virtue of father's citizenship etc.)'.
  No. 25, in page 10, line 36, after `(b)', insert 'subject to subsection (1A),'.
  No. 26, in page 11, leave out lines 4 to 14 and insert—
  `(iii) had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue only of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of Immigration Act 1971 as then in force (connection with United Kingdom through parent or grandparent), or by virtue only of that paragraph and paragraph (c) of that subsection (settlement in United Kingdom with five years' ordinary residence there), or by virtue only of being or having been the wife of a person who immediately before commencement had that right by virtue only of the said paragraph (b) or the said paragraphs (b) and (c); or
  (iv) being a women, was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of her registration as such a citizen under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act by virtue of having been married to a man who at commencement became a British citizen by descent or would have done so but for his having died or ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

  (c) subject to subsection (1A), being a woman born outside the United Kingdom before commencement, she is a British citizen as a result of her registration as such a citizen under section 7 by virtue of being or having been married to a man who at commencement became a British citizen by descent or would have done so but for his having died or ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

  1000

  (d) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section 8 who, having before commencement ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation, would, if he had not so ceased, have at commencement become a British citizen by descent by virtue of paragraph (b)(i) or (ii); or

  (e) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section 11 who immediately before he ceased to be a British citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation, was such a citizen by descent; or

  (f) he is a person born in a dependent territory after commencement who is a British citizen by virtue or paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.

  (1A) A person born outside the United Kingdom before commencement is not a British citizen "by decent" if his father was at the time of his birth serving outside the United Kingdom in service of a description mentioned in subsection (2), his recruitment for the service in question having taken place in the United Kingdom.'.
  No. 27, in page 11, line 15, leave out '(1)(b)', and insert '(1A)'. —[Mr. Raison].

Clause 15

  ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: MINORS
  Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  `(b)that the parent in question was employed in relevant employment (but not necessarily the same relevant employment) throughout the period of two years ending with the date of the birth and was on that date employed in overseas employment;'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 29 to 35.
  Mr. Luce: These amendments make changes to the arrangements in clause 15 which enable citizens of the British dependent territories by descent, who have links with the dependent territories, mainly through their employment, to secure citizenship for their children born outside the dependent territories as an entitlement, on application. The changes are comparable to those we have brought forward to clause 3, which benefit children born overseas to British citizens by descent.
  Of course, the numbers of children born to citizens of the British dependent territories who will benefit from these changes will be a good deal smaller than those born to British citizens who will benefit from the changes made to clause 3. This reflects not only the smaller numbers eligible for citizenship of the British dependents: it also reflects differences in economic structure between many of the dependencies and the United Kingdom. None the less, we think that it is only reasonable that those born outside the dependent territories to citizens of the British dependent territories should have the same opportunities to acquire their parents' citizenship as children born overseas to British citizens.
  The amendments fall into three broad groups. First, in amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 35, we have altered the requirement in the Bill as introduced that the parent of a child to be registered in this way should have been employed outside the dependent territories for five years in employment to which clause 15(2) relates. Instead, the parent now must have been in relevant employment—whether in dependent territories or outside them—only for two years preceding the child's birth: the types of employment which are relevant employment are now, under amendment No. 29, defined in subsection (3)

  1001
  of clause 15. The parent must also be in overseas employment at the date of birth. Overseas employment is defined, under amendment No. 35, as meaning employment under the terms of which the employee normally works outside the dependent territories. Changes in relevant employment throughout the two-year qualifying period would now be permitted whereas under the Bill as introduced they would not.
  In the light of these changes, a consequential amendment—No. 34—is needed to clause 15(4)(b). This provides, among other things, that the Secretary of State shall have discretion to reduce the period of relevant employment specified in clause 15(2)(b). Since, in amendment No. 28, the normal period of relevant employment has been shortened from five to two years, it follows that the reference in Clause 15(4)(b) to that period must also be altered from five years to two years.
  I turn now to amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and to another aspect of amendment No. 35. These widen the categories of employment in which a citizen of the British dependent territories must be engaged for two years if his child born outside the dependent territories is to be eligible for citizenship of the British dependent territories by registration or application. The first of these—amendment No. 30—enables employment with a company or association established outside the dependent territories to count towards the employment requirement, where the employment was arranged by a company or association established in a dependent territory. As with the parallel amendment to clause 3, there will be certain safeguards in other parts of clause 15—for example, the requirement that the nature or terms and conditions of the employment involve a close connection with one or more dependent territories—to ensure that people with very slight links with a dependent territory through their employment overseas are excluded.
  The second amendment in this group, amendment No. 31, covers full-time employment with any company or association established outside the dependent territories where that concern is associated with a company or association established in a dependent territory. Under the definition in clause 3(7)(c) as applied to this clause, a company or association is associated with another when one of them is directly or indirectly controlled by the other, or if each of them is directly or indirectly controlled by a third company or association.
  This amendment would benefit, for example, a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent who is working overseas for a multinational company, whether its headquarters are in a dependent territory or elsewhere, where the company has interests in a dependent territory; or, alternatively, the employee of a multinational company based in a dependent territory who is required to serve abroad as part of his career. Such a person would, of course, also have to show that he or she had close connections with a dependent territory through his work and that he intended to maintain close connections with a dependent territory in future.
  The third amendment in this group is amendment No. 32. It will enable a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent who is employed full-time by an international organisation which includes companies or associations established in the dependent territories among its members to secure citizenship of the British dependent territories for his or her child born overseas, provided he meets the other requirements of clause 15(2).
  1002
  Finally, in this group of amendments, amendment No. 35 provides, amongst other things that partners in companies and associations established in a dependent territory will be regarded as employees of those companies and associations.
  I conclude with amendment No. 33. It falls into two parts. The first is to cover the case of a person who has gaps in his or her employment during the two years prior to the birth of his child. He may, for instance, have lost his job or given it up voluntarily, and it may have taken him a little time to find another. Clearly we do not want this kind of gap to affect an individual's chances of securing citizenship of the British dependent territories for his child. So we have provided here that, during a gap of up to 90 days between two periods of relevant employment, a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent shall be regarded as still being in relevant employment. If such a citizen was in overseas employment immediately before the gap, he shall be regarded as still being in overseas employment throughout the period.
  The second part of the amendment is to cover women who give up their work to have a child. It is, of course, possible that such women will be on maternity leave from their employers and at the time of the child's birth will still be in employment. But this may not be so in all cases, and it would be wrong that a woman who is a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent should be unable to fulfil the employment requirement simply because she left work to have her baby. So this part of the amendment provides that a woman who is a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent, who has been in relevant employment in the 180 days leading up to the birth of her child, shall be regarded as being in relevant employment. If the employment she was in was overseas employment—that is, employment ordinarily undertaken outside the dependent territories—she will be regarded as being in overseas employment at the time of the child's birth.
  We believe that these amendments will ensure that those who are citizens of the British dependent territories by descent, but have a continuing link with a dependent territory through their work and in other ways, will be able to secure citizenship for their children born outside the dependent territories. These amendments must be seen, too, in the context of other provisions in the Bill for those who are citizens of the British dependent territories by descent—such as clause 15(5) which gives an entitlement to citizenship of the British dependent territories to a child born outside the dependent territories to a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent who returns to a dependency with his family and lives there for three years.
  I apologise for the time that I have taken in explaining the amendments, but it is important to get on record and explain to the House the changes that we are proposing in the Bill as a result of these amendments, of which there are quite a number. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together amendments Nos. 29 to 35.
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 13, line 28 leave out 'Subsection (2) applies to' and insert—
  'In this section "relevant employment" means'.
  No. 30, in page 13, line 32, leave out from 'territories' to 'company' in line 34 and insert—
  `, where the employee's employment with that company or association was arranged by a'.
  No. 31, in page 13, line 35, at end insert—
  `(bb) with any company or association established outside the dependent territories which is associated with a company or association established in a dependent territory;'.
  No. 32, in page 13, line 38, after 'territory', insert—
  'or a company or association established in a dependent territory'.
  No. 33, in page 13, line 38, at end insert—
  '(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)—

  (a) where in the case of any person, two periods of relevant employment are separated by an interval of not more than 90 days spent otherwise than in relevant employment, he shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the interval and, if he was employed in overseas employment immediately before the interval began, as having been employed in overseas employment throughout the interval; and

  (b) where the parent in question is the mother, then if her last period of relevant employment before the birth ended in the period of 180 days ending with the date of the birth, she shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the period from the end of that period of relevant employment to the date of the birth and, if she was employed in overseas employment immediately before that period of relevant employment ended, as having been employed in overseas employment on the date of the birth;

  and the requirement specified in subsection (2)(c) shall not apply in relation to any period which by virtue of this subsection counts as a period of relevant employment.'.
  No. 34, in page 13, line 44, leave out 'five' and insert `two'.
  No. 35, in page 14, leave out line 33 and insert—
  '(7) Section 3(7) and (8) shall apply for the purposes of this section with the following modifications, namely—

  (a) in section 3(7)(a) and (8), for "outside the United Kingdom" substitute "outside the dependent territories"; and

  (b) in section 3(8), for "in the United Kingdom" substitute "in a dependent territory".'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Clause 18

  REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE
  Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 16, line 6, at end insert—
  '(3) On an application for her registration as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories made within five years after commencement by a woman who at the time of the application is married, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause her to be registered as such a citizen if—

  (a) immediately before commencement she would (if she had applied for it) have been entitled under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her being or having been married to the man who is her husband on the date of the application under this subsection; and

  (b) that man either—

  (i) became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories at commencement but has ceased to be such a citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

  (ii) would have became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories at commencement but for his having ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation. '.

  This amendment is the equivalent, for citizenship of the British dependent territories of an earlier amendment to clause 7(2).
  1004
  It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to register as citizens of the British dependent territories the wives of those who have renounced their citizenship. As currently drafted, clause 18 makes no provision for such women: the entitlement in clause 18(1) is of no benefit to them since that requires that the husband should both have become a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement and not have renounced his citizenship between commencement and the date of application; nor is the discretionary power in clause 18(2) of any help here, since, although that does not exclude cases of renunciation, it applies only to women whose marriages have been dissolved.
  As my hon. Friend explained briefly, shortly before 9 pm, the number of cases in which it would be appropriate to register the wife of a man who had renounced citizenship are likely to be small. However, there may be deserving cases, and it has, therefore, been decided that a discretionary power should be made available to deal with them. It seems only reasonable that such a power should be provided not only in the case of British citizenship but also in the case of citizenship of the British dependent territories.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

  MEANING OF CITIZEN OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES BY DESCENT"
  Amendment made: No. 37, in page 19, line 7, after `15(2)', insert—
  'or (Right to registration as citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of father's citizenship etc.)'.—[Mr. Luce.]
  Mr. Luce: With the agreement of the House, may we take amendments Nos. 38 and 39 together, as they are closely linked?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes. It seems to be the will of the House.
  Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 19, line 25, after '20(1)(b)', insert 'only'.
  Mr. Luce: These amendments extend and clarify the categories of citizens of the British dependent territories who are to be citizens by descent.
  They are essentially aimed at making various improvements to the clause which are needed if it is to work equitably. Amendment No. 38 modifies subsection (1)(c). This provision ensures that people who become citizens of the British dependent territories through a parental or grandparental connection with a dependency are citizens of the British dependent territories by descent. However, it is possible that someone who acquires citizenship of the British dependent territories under clause 20(1)(b) through a parental or grandparental connection with a dependency might acquire citizenship of the British dependent territories on commencement under another provision of clause 20. In particular, it is possible that, say, a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country who has a mother born in a dependency might have been registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in a dependency under section 7 of the British Nationality Act 1948. Such a person would, on commencement, have a claim to citizenship of the British dependent territories both under clause 20(1)(b)—because he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a parent born in

  1005
  a dependency—and also under clause 20(1)(a)—because he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies through his registration in a dependency.
  Now we believe that someone who has a tie with a dependency through a parent but was also registered there should not be a citizen by descent, so this amendment ensures that people who become citizens of the British dependent territories under clause 20(1)(b) of the Bill are to be citizens by descent only if that is their only route to citizenship of the British dependent territories.
  Amendment No. 39 defines three groups of people who we believe should be British citizens by descent. The first two sections of the amendment deal with people who renounce citizenship and then resume; they seek to ensure that such people are no better placed in terms of transmitting citizenship than they were before they renounced.
  9.15 pm
  The new subsection (1)(e) covers a person who has renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies before commencement and is then registered as a citizen of the British dependent territories under clause 19; such a person is to be a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent, if that is the status that he would have gained, on commencement, had he not renounced before then. The next subsection, (1)(f), covers someone who has renounced citizenship of the British dependent territories after commencement and who then resumes that citizenship under the provision of clause 11 as they are applied to citizenship of the British dependent territories in clause 21. If such a person was a citizen by descent when he renounced, he will be a citizen by descent when he resumes.
  The final part of amendment No. 39 covers a person who was horn in the United Kingdom after commencement to a parent who is a citizen of the British dependent territories and who would otherwise be stateless. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill, a child born in these circumstances automatically becomes a citizen of the British dependent territories. Now the parent of such a child must, by definition, be a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent. Otherwise he or she would be able to transmit their citizenship to the child born here and there would be no risk of the child becoming stateless. So it is only appropriate that the child should also be a citizen by descent.
  These amendments are all necessary to correct unacceptable anomalies which could affect the working of this clause. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 39, in page 19, line 33 at end insert—
  ' or

  (e) he is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of registration under section 19 who, having before commencement ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation, would, if he had not so ceased, have at commencement become a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by descent by virtue of paragraph (b); or

  (f) he is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of registration under section 11 (as applied by section 21) who, immediately before he ceased to be a citizen of the British Dependent Territories as a result of a declaration of renunciation, was such a citizen by descent; or

  1006

  (g) he is a person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of paragraph li of Schedule 2.'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Clause 24

  REGISTRATION OF MINOR CHILDREN
  Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
  '(2) A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British Overseas citizen made within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied —

  (a) that the requirement referred to in subsection (1)(a) of section (Right to registration as British citizen by virtue of father's citizenship etc.) are fulfilled in the case of that person's father, subsection (2)(b) of that section being for the purpose of this paragraph read as if—

  (i) any reference to becoming a British citizen were a reference to becoming a citizen of any of the following descriptions, namely a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories and a British Overseas citizen; and

  (ii) the reference to remaining a British citizen throughout any period were a reference to being throughout that period a citizen of at least one of those descriptions (though not necessarily the same one) throughout that period; and

  (b) that if that person had been born before commencement and had become a citizen of the United Kingdom. and Colonies as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section, he would at commencement have become a British Overseas citizen by virtue of section 23.'.

  New clauses 1 and 2, which we debated yesterday, provided for the continuation of the effect of consular registration in the cases of those children born within five years of commencement whose connections are with the United Kingdom or the dependent territories. The amendment provides for those who, if they had been born and had their births registered before commencement, would, at commencement, have become British overseas citizens. British overseas citizenship is to be, in general, a non-transmissible status. But it seemed to the Government right that those who now have the avenue open to them of securing citizenship for their children through registration of the birth at a consulate should not be deprived of the opportunity of continuing to do so for a transitional period simply because the result of that registration would be that the child became a British overseas citizen.
  The amendment therefore adds a new subsection to clause 24, which provides for the very rare cases—I stress that point—of registration of minor children as British overseas citizens. The subsection provides for an entitlement to registration as British overseas citizens for persons born in foreign countries within five years of commencement if certain conditions are met. Application must be made within 12 months of the birth.
  The requirements that have to be met by the child's father are as follows: he must have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became at commencement a British citizen, a citizen of the British dependent territories, or a British overseas citizen, or would have done so but for his death. Having acquired one of those citizenships at commencement he must have retained it until the date of the application, unless in the meantime he has acquired

  1007
  one of the other two citizenships instead. He must, immediately before commencement, have been married to the child's mother and resident in a foreign country.
  These requirements that have to be met by the father reproduce the broad effect of the current arrangements for consular registration. It is only available in the male line, the child must be legitimate, and it is only available in foreign countries. The result is to continue to make registration available to all those who at commencement could reasonably expect that their children would be able to acquire citizenship by consular registration.
  Subsection (2)(b) sets out the criterion on which the child would be registered as a British overseas citizen. It is that, had he become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on consular registration before commencement, he would have become a British overseas citizen at commencement. He would have become a British overseas citizen and not a British citizen or a citizen of the British dependent territories, because he would have lacked a parental or grandparental connection with the United Kingdom or a dependency.
  With that explanation, I commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

  REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE
  Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 20, line 39, at end insert—
  '(3) On an application for her registration as a British Overseas citizen made within five years after commencement by a woman who at the time of the application is married, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause her to be registered as such a citizen if—

  (a) immediately before commencement she would (if she had applied for it) have been entitled under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her being or having been married to the man who is her husband on the date of the application under this subsection; and

  (b) that man either—

  (i) became a British Overseas citizen at commencement but has ceased to be such a citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

  (ii) would have become a British Overseas citizen at commencement but for his having ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation.'.

  This amendment is the equivalent for British overseas citizenship of an earlier amendment to clause 7(2). It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to register as British overseas citizens the wives of those who have renounced their citizenship. As currently drafted, clause 25 makes no provision for such women. The entitlement in clause 25(1) is of no benefit to them, since that requires that the husband should both have become a British overseas citizen at commencement and not have renounced his citizenship between commencement and the date of application. Nor is the discretionary power in clause 25(2) of any help here, since although that does not exclude cases of renunciation it applies only to women whose marriages have been dissolved.
  As is the case in the earlier amendment relating to other kinds of citizenship, the number of cases in which it would be appropriate to register the wife of a man who had
  1008
  renounced citizenship is likely to be small. However, there may be deserving cases. It has, therefore, been decided that a discretionary power should be made available to deal with them. It seems only reasonable that such a power should be provided not only in the case of British citizenship and citizenship of the British dependent territories, but also in the case of British overseas citizenship.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

  PROVISIONS FOR REDUCING STATELESSNESS
  Mr. TilleyI beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 48, line 36 leave out 'a British Overseas Citizen'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 43, in page 48, line 37 at end insert—
  `(4) A person born stateless outside the United Kingdom and the dependent territories after commencement shall be entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Citizen if on an application for his registration as a British Overseas Citizen the Secretary of State is satisfied that his father or mother was a British Overseas Citizen at the time of that person's birth'.
  Mr. Tilley: If there were a prize for the most barefaced cheek in parliamentary draftsmanship, whoever drafted clause 33 would undoubtedly win it. The clause simply states:
  "The provisions of Schedule 2 shall have effect for the purpose of reducing statelessness.
  To anyone who happened to open the Bill at that page, that might sound a worthy objective. I do not think that anyone would argue with the idea of reducing statelessness. What the clause does not say, and what I hope the House appreciates, is that the statelessness that purports to reduce is actually created by many of the first 32 clauses. To a very limited degree, it seeks to put right what we believe the Bill has done wrong in creating statelessness for the first time in British law.
  As I said in an earlier debate, the Opposition are very concerned about the statelessness caused in this country. For the first time in 700 years, children will be born in this country who will have no nationality because their parents are not British citizens and are not legally and permanently settled here. We regard that as a disgraceful provision in terms of injustice to the individual children as well as its very bad effect on race relations which I mentioned in an earlier debate.
  As well as creating statelessness at home, the Bill will create statelessness abroad, particularly in the third category of citizenship—the British overseas citizenship. In these two amendments, we wish to address ourselves to the problem of statelessness as created by British overseas citizenship—it is called a citizenship in the Bill, so for the sake of the debate I shall call it a citizenship—which is the new citizenship contained in part III, that is to say, in clauses 23 to 26.
  When clause 33 states that the purpose is to reduce statelessness, in terms of British overseas citizenship it merely reduces the statelessness created specifically, openly and intentionally by the Government in clauses 23 to 26.
  We said on Second Reading and in Committee that we are opposed in principle to the creation of British overseas citizenship. It will be the residual citizenship of those who are currently citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies

  1009
  but who will not qualify at commencement either for British citizenship or for citizenship of the British dependent territories. That will affect about 1·5 million people who are currently citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Twenty thousand of them are already in this country and have been admitted for settlement. We think that it is outrageous that such people should still be British overseas citizens, even though they are legally and physically in this country.
  But we are concerned in the amendment with the British overseas citizens still abroad—still, as it were, overseas—of whom there are about 1·5 million. Of those people, about 1·3 million, largely in Malaysia, are dual nationals, in that they not only have CUKC at the moment, thereby qualifying for British overseas citizenship, but have their local citizenship, largely the citizenship of Malaysia. We are not too concerned about those people. The British overseas citizenship will not be much good to them, but at least they will have a valid local citizenship of their own.
  The rest, something over 200,000, are the people who are largely or almost entirely of Indian extraction, who have moved, or whose ancestors have moved, to other parts of the former British Empire, particularly on the fringes of the Indian Ocean. Some went in one direction to Malaysia—I have mentioned them already—and others went to East Africa.
  We have made clear on Second Reading and in Committee our policy on the East African Asians, as they are known—the people who total about 71,000, who live in the countries of East Africa or have temporarily gone to India and who are currently admitted under the voucher system. It is a system that we regard as inadequate and which is being used very badly by the Government. We press them, even at this late stage, to give more vouchers to India for those East African Asians currently in India, because those are the people who are in some distress and are desperately queueing up to come here. They cannot get vouchers, whereas the allocation for the countries of East Africa—for those East African Asians who are in East Africa—is not being fully taken up.
  We not only think that the number of vouchers should be increased. Our policy is that the East African Asians should be made full British citizens, with the right of entry to this country. The removal of their right to come into this country in 1968 was wrong. They should now be allowed to have the right that was promised to them when their countries became independent—that, by maintaining their nationality link with Britain, they would be able, when they wished, to come to this country.
  We are not concerned with that issue in the amendment. We are concerned with two things. The first is our policy for those who are not in the category of East African Asians—largely people who are in Malaysia, although there are people in many other Commonwealth countries in smaller numbers who will be potential British overseas citizens if the Bill becomes law. Our policy is that those people should have local citizenship.
  If the various independence Acts passed by this House over the last 20 years had been better framed, it can be said with hindsight that it would have been preferable for all the people who are not now being described as British overseas citizens— other than East African Asians—to have had local citizenship as part of the independence Acts of those now independent Commonwealth countries. We feel that it is not too late for the Government to try to
  1010
  negotiate local citizenship where they can for those people. We regard that as by far the best option for those people.
  We were not surprised that in Committee the Government refused to accept our policy of making East African Asians full British citizens. They insisted that those who would not get British citizenship or citizenship of the dependent territories under parts I and II of the Bill should get the residual British overseas citizenship contained in part III.
  9.30 pm
  Having recognised the Government's determination, while not accepting it, we attempt in the amendment to limit the damage that we believe will be caused by the decision to stick to part III and to have such limited provisions for the reduction of statelessness in clause 33. We suggest that the statelessness created by the adoption of British overseas citizenship should be not merely reduced, but abolished.
  We must look carefully at British overseas citizenship. It is not citizenship in the normal sense of the word. That is why I was careful to say earlier that I called it British overseas citizenship merely for the convenience of the House. It gives no one who holds it any right of entry, any right of abode or any civic rights in any country.
  We were aware of that when we attacked the proposal on Second Reading and in Committee. We said that it was another name for statelessness. We have since concluded that we slightly overstated the case—but only slightly. The people concerned are virtually stateless because the rights that attach to normal citizenship do not attach to British overseas citizenship, but we accept that the people are not stateless if they qualify for, and are given by right, a British overseas citizen's passport.
  We are assured by the Government, and particularly by the Foreign Office, that such a passport will be accepted as a travel document in most countries. We were assured in Committee that if someone travelling on such a passport got into trouble he would be granted British consular help if it were needed.
  Perhaps the most important vestige of citizenship that attaches to the new category is that by preserving "British" it maintains the ultimate British responsibility for the people involved. We know from the leaks of the internal documents of the Home Office that one original purpose of the idea of British overseas citizenship was to reduce the British responsibility for those people if they ever became refugees.
  We hope that the fact that that ploy has been exposed means that it will not be used and that if the people concerned become refugees no Government, even the current Administration, will try to evade their fundamental duty to help people who could become refugees if the countries in which they are now living try to get rid of them, as happened in Uganda.
  The category proposed by the Government has some of the appurtenances of citizenship and is just better than nothing. The people involved are not put into a worse position, except by the change of nomenclature, than they were as United Kingdom passport holders, because they had already lost their most important right—that of entry to this country—in the 1968 Act. Only in one way will those people be worse off than they are at the moment as United Kingdom passport holders. Their status is not transmissible to their children. We regard transmissibility

  1011
  of citizenship as a major aspect of genuine citizenship, apart from vestigial status. Because that is not present, they will undoubtely be worse off than they are now as United Kingdom passport holders.
  The children of British overseas citizens who have no other nationality and who are not eligible for local citizenship will be stateless in countries where the communities of which their parents are members are already at a disadvantage because of their lack of local citizenship. It would be adding to the problems of this group and creating problems for children yet unborn who would fall under part III and who would not be helped by clause 33 which tries to reduce statelessness.
  We welcome the fact that in many countries—Malaysia, we believe, is one—these children would be eligible for local citizenship if born in Malaysia. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has conducted an inquiry in parallel with sittings of the Standing Committee on the Bill to try to elicit the facts about the position of those potential British overseas citizens who would not qualify for any other citizenship. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee, especially my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and for Barking (Miss Richardson). The words of Herbert Spencer describe the work of the Select Committee:
  "Every candle they lit exposed a greater area of darkness".
  It became clear that the situation was confused. I hope that the House will excuse my mixed or contradictory metaphor. It was clear that children born to British overseas citizens in some countries would not qualify for local citizenship and that they would therefore be stateless. Equally, they would not be helped by schedule 2, which is supposed to reduce statelessness. The countries singled out by the Select Committee, which made clear that there might also be problems eleswhere, were Singapore and Malawi. I am not criticising those countries. My fear is that if the Bill is passed, Britain will be in no position to criticise other Governments or countries about racist elements in their citizenship laws. We shall be leading the field.
  One of our principal approaches to the Bill was the attempt to avoid the statelessness at home and abroad that the Government are determined to create as part of their new approach to nationality. These two amendments are addressed solely to the problems of British overseas citizens living in a country where their children would not acquire the local citizenship.
  We suggest that where such a child is born stateless outside the United Kingdom and dependent territories—there are provisions in schedule 2 to help those born within the United Kingdom or dependent territories—he should be
  "entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Citizen if on an application for his registration as a British Overseas Citizen the Secretary of State is satisfied that his father or mother was a British Overseas Citizen at the time of that person's birth."
  We propose that there should be the option of registration as a British overseas citizen for children who otherwise would be completely stateless. The amendment seeks to rescue—or provide some help; clearly, it is not a complete rescue—for a handful of children, all of whom would be black, from statelessness in various countries. These children are the final innocent victims of the decolonisation process.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have not had the benefit of being a member of the Standing Committee and I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I simply ask for information. If the children of whom the hon. Gentleman is speaking were born in Malaysia or Malawi or anywhere else, would they not, under the legislation of those countries, have access to the citizenship of those countries?
  Mr. Tilley: No, not necessarily. The Select Committee report went into great detail and took evidence from both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and many legal academics. It established that in Singapore and Malawi there would be problems about those children getting nationality and that there might be difficulties in other countries in certain circumstances. I believe that the total number of British overseas citizens in Malawi—my hon. Friend the Member for York would correct me if he were here, but as he is not here I can make my "guesstimates" in the knowledge that he will not contradict me—is about 4,500, and in Singapore the figure is now thought to be in hundreds, though it was once thought to be in thousands. That is an indication of the difficulties that still exist about numbers. So we are talking about a handful of children—hundreds, or possibly only dozens—who would be stateless if the amendment is not accepted.
  We were surprised that this tiny concession of giving a vestigial British nationality status to a handful of children was too much for the Government to accept in Committee. However, we hope that it is not too much of a concession, in common humanity, for the House to support tonight.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am against the amendments, but I appreciate the Opposition's concern with the problem of dealing with overseas citizens. It is true that overseas citizens are, as was said in Committee, part of the debris of empire. They are the people who cannot easily be accommodated within the definition of citizenship of the British dependent territories.
  I confess that originally my view was that the Green Paper was right and that the Labour Government were right in their attitude to the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who were not to qualify as British citizens, in that there should be only one other category of British citizens, namely, British overseas citizens. That would cover the citizens of British dependent territories as well as those remaining citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who were distributed around the world. Originally, I thought that that was probably the best approach to the problem, because the whole object of the policy would have been to eliminate this category altogether so that ultimately everyone would have some sort of citizenship and civic rights appertaining to particular territories.
  9.45 pm
  However, on reflection, especially after the more mature and detailed consideration that, as a member of the Standing Committee, one had to give the Bill, the Green Paper and the White Paper, I revised my opinion.
  The British overseas citizen category covers people who cannot logically, politically or legally be accommodated within the category of British dependent territories. One must be realistic. The interests of the citizen of a British dependent territory, whether restricted to citizenship of each dependent territory, as I believe it should be, or as one overall category of citizens for all the

  1013
  British dependent territories, are different. They are related more directly to the United Kingdom in that they have lived within the sovereignty and control of the United Kingdom Government more than the remainder of people who have the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without the right of abode in the United Kingdom and without any real connection. However, they are resident in Commonwealth countries which are now independent. That gives them an entirely different relationship to the United Kingdom. Whatever their citizenship status, they are subjects, in the proper sense of the word, of their host Governments. Therefore, it is not possible for the British Parliament to legislate meaningfully.
  However, such people enjoy, and will enjoy until the Bill is passed, the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What can we do? How do we solve the problem of the people who are entitled to the status of citizenship but who are resident in independent sovereign States around the world? The problem is an anachronism which should never have occurred. We should never have had British overseas citizens in the sense that we have to deal with the problem today. The people about whom we are talking do not belong to the United Kingdom. They are relics of our imperial past. They should never have been left out of the citizenship legislation enacted for each territory in the colonial Empire as they gained independence. That is just one of the mistakes that we made.
  The problem is acknowledged by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), if not by the Opposition Front Bench. The 1948 Act was a mistake. In 1948 there was an opportunity to distinguish clearly who belonged to the United Kingdom and who belonged elsewhere. The mistake was that we took a foolish and sentimental view that Britain had a continuing obligation to all the people of every territory within the British Empire which obtained independence even though, as we all now realise, the real responsibility lay with the host Governments.
  We passed independence legislation for each territory and left a loophole. The legislation provided that certain people would not automatically achieve citizenship of the new independent country, whether as an option or as a result of internal legislation. Groups of people round the world were left as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  The foolishness arose in the early 1960s out of the mistaken belief by the United Kingdom Government that they were providing for the interests of people who were British. They were providing for people such as the so-called white settlers of East Africa, and especially of Kenya. The provisions for allowing residents in East Africa to retain their United Kingdom citizenship were aimed at people whose home was really the United Kingdom—those whom we wish to allow to return ultimately to Britain, and meanwhile to keep British citizenship. Because of the phraseology used in the appropriate legislation, those who benefited included large numbers—perhaps thousands—of people who did not become eligible, or did not opt for, citizenship under the legislation. That was a mistake of nearly 20 years ago which has resulted in today's thorny problem of hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps 1½ million around the world—who are entitled to the status of British overseas citizenship.
  1014
  Thank goodness not all of those people hold the citizenship conferred upon them by the Bill as their only citizenship. We are discussing only those who have no other citizenship and to whom we owe, because of our errors, a moral obligation. Even so, should Britain—alone of all the countries of the world—pick up the check, as the Americans say? Is it necessary that Britain should be forced to accept responsibility for those who have no real connection with Britain? The United Kingdom abandoned responsibility for them 10 or 20 years ago. Of course, we should not bear that responsibility. We are simply discussing another mistake in legislation that has been passed by the House.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that were we to accept the amendment it would encourage some Governments, who should share the responsibilities, to reject citizenship for children who might be stateless? They could say that Britain was helping them, so why should they accept any responsibility?
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have not yet come to the Opposition's responsibility, or that of the Labour Government, in these matters. It is an important and relevant consideration. Many people may feel that they have a claim on Britain through legislation, diplomatic protection or an obligation under international law, and that that is a sufficient right. Once the word "British" is attached to any citizenship status, Britain has not only a moral but a legal and international obligation.
  Sir Albert Costain: Amendment No. 43 uses the words
  "satisfied that his father or mother was a British Overseas Citizen"
  It does not state that a woman must be married. Would it not be possible for any woman who has a child and wishes it to be registered in Britain to claim that a wandering British overseas citizen was its father?
  Mr. Stanbrook: What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. Knowing the care with which Opposition spokesmen approach such legislation, I suppose that they carefully considered that possibility and deliberately omitted the detailed provision that would be necessary to avoid the nuisance to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Tilley: I do not think that we have given that possibility a great deal of thought, not having the detailed and clearly picaresque experiences of the hon. Member.
  Mr. Stanbrook: For a member of an alternative Government, that is a poor show. The Opposition have available to them experts and vast funds of advice, and vast funds, I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), which would have enabled them to avoid that trap. If the Opposition had looked at earlier amendments, they would have seen the way in which this could have been dealt with to avoid the mischief to which my hon. Friend referred.
  The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) referred to British overseas citizens as people who have apparently no civic rights. The question is what can be done about them. It is fair to give him credit for looking at it as he has done. His great fear is that a condition of statelessness may arise. The common sense of the situation makes it incumbent upon us to provide that there shall not be any transmissibility in this category. We want it to

  1015
  come to an end as soon as possible. Therefore, it follows that the two Opposition amendments are destructive of the point of the policy.
  We want to eliminate this class of citizenship. We acknowledge that it is unsatisfactory. Everyone agrees that it is not worth very much as a concept of citizenship. There are not many civic rights, if any, attached to it. The only duty or obligation which it can claim upon Britain is that the word "British" is attached. If this status is created in British nationality legislation it follows that if any of these people were to be expelled from the countries in which they are living there would in international law be an obligation upon the United Kingdom to take them in. That is a prospect which frightens me, if it does not frighten the spokesmen for the Opposition. It must be avoided.
  These people are living in various countries such as Malaysia, East Africa, Singapore and Malawi. For the most part, they are contented with their lot and are not apparently anxious to move anywhere else, apart from those who are covered by the special voucher scheme. The problem does not demand an immediate solution. Thank goodness for that. If it did, it might well result in a situation such as that we faced in 1971 when Asians were expelled from Uganda. That is the core of the problem.
  We understand that there are well over 150,000 people who have no citizenship other than this. This so-called citizenship—I am entitled to refer to it in that way because it is bereft of normal citizenship rights—would enable them to claim upon Britain were they to be expelled from the territories where they are. Worst of all, it means that their host Government feel no obligation to them. They know that ultimately if they were to expel these people Britain could, because I do not think it should, feel obliged to take them in even though they are remote from us in real connections and legal obligations.
  10 pm
  Perhaps the most important consideration is that of the British overseas citizens who live in Malawi. The present citizenship laws of that country provide that no one who is not of African descent is entitled to its citizenship. Therefore, those residents in Malawi who at present cannot claim citizenship by virtue of that factor—and that means a great many of the East African Asians who live there—might one day find themselves expelled from Malawi. If they have no citizenship in Malawi, who will take them in?
  Much criticism is levelled by people in this country against Britain and British Governments for the way in which they behave on international humanitarian issues. It is misguided and ignorant criticism. Our record, in relation to our capacity to satisfy various demands made upon us, is probably the best in the world. It certainly is when one considers the size of our country, the density of its population and the numbers of people already accommodated here from other parts of the world—people who have no real connection with the country and whose absorbtion is accompanied by the great social friction that we are witnessing today.
  It is, therefore, wrong to insist that Britain should take any more. However, we cannot resist such pressure. It arises from events that are no fault of ours. An example was the Vietnamese boat people. We felt obliged to accept 10,000 of them. They came from a part of the world for
  1016
  which we had no legal, constitutional or imperial responsibilities. These people were simply cast upon the high seas——
  Mr. Garel-Jones: By Communists.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Yes, they were expelled by Communists. We had no obligation to these people save in the general international humanitarian sense. In spite of all our difficulties, and with all the problems that we have brought upon ourselves by this humane attitude towards the legal fiction, the mistake in our legislation that has given us such large immigrant populations which we cannot peacefully absorb, we agreed to accept 10,000 of these people.
  No one could criticise this country for its attitude towards future absorbtion and acceptance of refugees from other parts of the world. We have done our bit and more. It is therefore perfectly proper for us to say that a problem exists, that people have a legal connection with us, but is it right for us to bear the responsibility for their future? Of course, we should not bear it. That has been recognised by all British Governments. The position would probably be the same if a Labour Government were now in power and we faced the same situation.
  The Conservative Government in 1971 and 1972 accepted what they thought was a moral obligation—I do not think that it was a legal one—to admit here at least 25,000 Ugandans of Indian descent when they were expelled by General Amin. It was said at the time that there was an international obligation on us to accept them because they had retained the status of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. However, shortly afterwards the Home Secretary, the then Mr. Robert Can, said in the House that it would never happen again, that if the same position arose Britain could not be expected to accept people expelled in such circumstances. So much for the legal obligation and for the duty which the British Government of the time felt they had towards these people.
  It was not in discharge of an illegal or international obligation that the Ugandan refugees were taken into this country. It was a pure and simple humanitarian act. All the arguments about international law were applied, and they had the so-called citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But everyone knew that they did not belong to us. Everyone knew that they were Indians and that, although they lived in Africa, if they had a home to go to other than Uganda, it was India. Nevertheless, at that time, one argument that was used was that we had an international obligation to those people. Indeed, the Attorney-General of the time said that they were accepted because Britain felt it had an obligation to do so under international law.
  That did not stop the present Lord Carr of Hadley from announcing publicly and gratuitously from the Dispatch Box that it would not happen again. He was discouraged on political grounds from accepting any obligation for such people in future. The announcement he made on behalf of the Conservative Government would have been confirmed by a Labour Government in similar circumstances. So far as any mass expulsion of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies has occurred, that stance of the British Government has been confirmed. It was maintained by Labour Governments.

  1017
  Now we have an opportunity to wind up that problem. It is clear that if only the Government would be more strong-minded that could be achieved without much difficulty. The people concerned belong to the country in which they live. It may be that according to the law of that country they are not technically citizens of that country, but they jolly well ought to be, as everyone knows. The only reason why they are not is that Britain in the end will pick up the check. That is an intolerable situation which should not be allowed to continue.
  Labour Members may smile——
  Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
  Mr. Stanbrook: We have had the Labour Party's alternative policy, so we know what a future Labour Government would do. They would negotiate with the host countries concerned. They would call a conference. I agree, it is a splendid idea to call a conference, but the Labour policy would be just the same as the Conservative policy in similar circumstances. It is that these people belong in the country where they now live. They have no real claim upon Britain. There is no connection by family, by blood or by law. We are foolish to maintain that there is. While we do, the individual host Governments find it convenient to assume that there is such an obligation, and find it convenient not to grant to these people normal citizenship rights.
  Labour Party policy is to call a conference of Commonwealth countries. All the people living around the world who at present have the right to call themselves British are to gather together through their representatives with the Governments concerned to discuss how local citizenship or local rights and duties can be conferred upon them. That is right and proper. It is common sense and obvious. If that were the end of the Labour Party's policy, one would say that it was a splendid idea. The trouble is that its policy goes a step further. The Labour Party says, in effect, "Before we get to the conference we shall tell everybody concerned that if they will not have them we shall have them. We shall have them all." The Labour Party says "If we are in power we shall not only take them in immediately without any entry vouchers or certificates of entitlement but"——
  Mr. Garel-Jones: It will not do it.
  Mr. Stanbrook: It says that it will do it. It says, in effect, that when they come to this country it will give them British citizenship from that very moment. What a lot of rubbish! It is codswallop. It is absolute nonsense. The Labour Party will never do it. It knows that very well. It talks in this way only because it is indulging in the irresponsibility of being in Opposition.
  The Labour Party knows as well as we do that the country could not afford such a policy. We could not tolerate another 150,000 people from the different parts of the world who would be totally out of place in this country. They would come from Asia, Africa and elsewhere. The Labour Party knows very well that we cannot tolerate the prospect of the present racial tensions being accelerated and aggravated by such an increase in the population by people from other parts of the world.
  It seems that all this will be done in the name of a legal obligation. As I have said, it is a load of nonsense. Those who are legally qualified like the hon. Member for York know that as well as anybody.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman said it himself at the beginning of the debate.
  Mr. Stanbrook: No future Labour Government would adopt such a policy. Its adoption would result in admitting to the United Kingdom large numbers of people of the sort that I have described and endowing them with British citizenship.
  The Labour Party's policy in this respect, as in so many others, is complete nonsense. It is irresponsible. Apart from the fact that it would involve telling Commonwealth Governments "We shall take them if you will not have them", there is the germ of a sensible idea that I commend. We are talking about people who belong elsewhere and not in Britain. We have too many such people already for our social peace and we do not want any more.
  Therefore, pressure must be applied on these people throughout the world to ensure that they preserve or acquire rights of citizenship locally that will ensure that there is no expulsion and no acceptance by Britain. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or the Minister may say, that is the reality behind the Government's policy. It will not be possible to accept into the United Kingdom large numbers of immigrants from the New Commonwealth or from Pakistan.
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose——
  Mr. Edward Lyons rose——
  Mr. Stanbrook: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones).
  Mr. Garel-Jones: With respect, I suggest that my hon. Friend is being slightly naive about the purpose of the constitutional conference that the Labour Party is proposing. The reason that it is suggesting such a conference is that it does not dare to suggest in a manifesto the sort of policies that the Left wing would like to put forward. Therefore, it suggests that there should be a constitutional conference. It dangles the prospect that these policies might ultimately be implemented. The reality is that they will not be implemented after the ensuing election.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amendment relates to children born after the Bill is enacted? As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is directing his remarks to those who are alive now. It is not for me to say that none of his speech has been within the rules of order. However, does he think that a guillotined debate is a proper time for making a filibuster?
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that from the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who made many useful speeches in Committee when he was present. We are talking about an amendment which proposes to deal with a particular problem, which is statelessness among a particular category. However, it is not for me, and it was not for the hon. and learned Member, to say what is in order.
  We are talking about British overseas citizens. We are talking about the parents of those whom this amendment proposes to benefit. Therefore, it is important for us to consider whether there should be an extension of that category. Do we want it to be increased? Do we want this status of British overseas citizen to be passed on to another

  1019
  generation? Of course we do not. We do not want more people living around the world with no connection with this country to be dignified by the appellation "British" because to us that means some obligation, not a legal one, but possibly——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt you heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons)—if I may still refer to him as that—raise a point of order with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). We all know that raising points of order between hon. Members is not in order. However, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you heard the point of
  1020
  order which my hon. and learned Friend raised. Is it in order to go through the whole gambit of whether we should have immigration and whether there are thousands of people in the context of this amendment? As my hon. and learned Friend said, is it not the case that this amendment refers to children only?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong):I take the point of order. I believe that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was relating what he had to say to the amendment although I think that the House has now taken the point. We should not have tedious repetition. I ask him to come to the point.
  Mr. Stanbrook: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has taken my point, and for that reason I propose to sit down.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: You now understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why the Government were compelled to introduce a guillotine motion to curtail debate in Committee. We have just had a fine example of the contributions which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has made at successive stages of this legislation, particularly in Committee. I do not wish to pick up all the points which he made on a number of occasions. Perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to some of the points which he made. Those points are important, in my opinion, and will be of paramount importance to the people about whom he has spoken so disparagingly—namely, people who will be British overseas citizens.
  On a number of occasions the hon. Member has referred to mistakes which have been made in drafting local citizenship forms. He said that we should never have been left with this problem. He said that the mistakes made by British Governments gave rise to that problem. He has repeated the assertions made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on a number of occasions when, with the benefit of hindsight, the 1948 nationality legislation has been condemned and has been said to be a mistake.
  In human terms, that means that there are 1½ million people scattered around the world, the debris of the old British Empire, people whom in the past the House was proud to call British subjects, people whom, in the past, the House has been only too pleased to use to advance the interests of the United Kingdom and of the British Empire as a whole. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, those people are seen as one mistake after another. That is an outright condemnation not only of the view of the hon. Member for Orpington but of the way in which the Tory Party, in its mass exit from empire, is treating those who are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  I remind the House of who British overseas citizens will be. They are people who at present share the same citizenship as you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The big difference is that since 1962 successive Governments have sought to withdraw from that group the right of entry and abode and the right to exercise civic rights. That is a condemnation of successive Governments since 1962. I regret that I include my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) in this, but it is even greater condemnation of what we are doing to refer to those people as United Kingdom passport holders. I and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends are United Kingdom passport holders, but the use of the phrase seeks to suggest that that group possesses a citizenship completely different from that which we hold. I do not accept that.
  Many of the provisions of schedule 2 would have been unnecessary had the Government accepted an amendment in my name, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). It would have enabled citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have no other claim to nationality and no other right of abode in another country to become British citizens. Had the proposal been accepted, most of the provisions of the schedule would be unnecessary.
  The new British overseas citizenship is virtually meaningless. It gives a person the right to reside in no country. It gives him the right to exercise no civic responsibilities in any country. In an earlier debate, we mentioned people termed "overstays", or illegal
  1022
  immigrants. The few people who fall into that category after commencement and who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will become British overseas citizens. If they have children in this country, those children will be stateless. Only under the provisions of schedule 2 will they be able to obtain citizenship, and that only the meaningless British overseas citizenship. Those difficulties could have been overcome if the Government had been prepared to accept the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South.
  I shall repeat a charge that I have made on several occasions. The category of British overseas citizenship is the logical consequence of the successive immigration Acts that have been placed on the statute book since 1962. It is the final solution for that group of 1·5 million people. This country is echoing the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orpington. Britain is saying that such people do not have any right to come into the United Kingdom. It is saying that we do not accept that we have any moral or legal obligations towards them. In order to make that point clear, we shall remove any last vestige of a direct link with the United Kingdom through the generic citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That is the logical conclusion of successive immigration Acts.
  For that reason, if for no other, we should oppose the creation of British overseas citizenship. I shall large my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the Labour Party at large to accept policy commitments that will implement the type of proposals that I have put forward in Committee over the past five or six months. In that way we could finally remove the stain and dark shadow that is being cast over this country's integrity and honour by the creation of British overseas citizenship.
  Mr. Raison: During the course of his remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) spoke about British overseas citizens and said that they had been described as the debris of empire. He argued that we should not have to be in the position where we have to face up to the problem of British overseas citizens and the need for such citizenship. He argued that the situation was anachronistic and that the matter would have been resolved if the independence legislation, which accompanied the move away from colonies and towards independent Commonwealth status, had been better ordered. My hon. Friend also argued that the 1948 Act was mistaken in its treatment of this problem.
  In Committee, hon. Members from both parties put forward the same sort of argument. However, we must face the fact that there is a category that must be dealt with. That is the subject of this debate. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said that he was opposed to the British overseas citizenship scheme in principle. He acknowledged that it confers more advantages on the British overseas citizens than he had been inclined to accept. However, he argued that it is not a proper form of citizenship and tried to spell that out. I have never argued that this is a fully-fledged citizenship, in the sense that we are aiming at in British citizenship. However, it is necessary and is the best solution to a problem that must be faced. We cannot wish it to go away.
  The concern expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is well understood. However, if he were to look closely at the facts he would discover that we are not treating this group shabbily. We

  1023
  are trying to face the problem. It should be borne in mind that elsewhere in the Bill—and outside it—we give fair treatment to those who will become British overseas citizens. We are continuing the special voucher scheme for those currently eligible in East Africa. Those who have gone to India from East Africa also benefit. That is an important and firm commitment on our part. We all know that the Labour Party passed the 1968 Act, which first brought those people under immigration control. The Bill puts the matter on a sensible footing, by conferring a citizenship that accurately reflects their position.
  10.30 pm
  There is, however, not only the special voucher scheme. Clause 4 confers a most generous entitlement to registration on British overseas citizens who are accepted for settlement if they meet certain residential requirements. They must have been in the United Kingdom for five years preceding their application. They may, however, be absent for periods not exceeding 450 days in all. All of this seems to me to be fair treatment and I reject the charge that in some way we are giving shabby treatment to the British overseas citizens.
  Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 introduced by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central would give an entitlement to registration as British overseas citizens to the children of such citizens born stateless outside the United Kingdom and the dependencies. This entitlement would be an absolute one and not dependent on later periods of residence in the United Kingdom and the dependent territories. It would arise even though the person may have ceased to be stateless.
  The Government's view of the principle involved was set out in paragraph 103 of the White Paper. I stress that the Bill's provisions are in accordance with the convention of the reduction of statelessness. Under the convention, there can be two approaches. The first is to provide that a child who would otherwise be stateless automatically acquires his parents' citizenship at birth. The other is to provide that he shall acquire citizenship by registration only after a period of residence in one's territory.
  Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 provides for the second alternative. I think that that is reasonable. By definition, British overseas citizenship is a status which has only distant connections with the United Kingdom or an existing dependency. It is a status which is intended to be residual and transitional. It is, therefore, only in the most exceptional circumstances that one should provide for the citizenship to be passed on. It is reasonable to provide for this where the child has been resident here or in a dependency and may be expected in time to qualify for British citizenship or citizenship of the British Dependent Territories. This is the approach adopted in paragraph 4 of schedule 2.
  As the House knows, we can derive considerable assistance in this matter from the Second report of the Home Affairs Committee for the Session 1980–81 on the "Numbers and Legal Status of future British Overseas citizens without other citizenship". The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central rather dismissed that report and said, in effect, that it raised more questions than it answered. I think that it was a very useful report and I think it is fair to say that it provided support in general for the position that we are taking. It indicated that in general the children
  1024
  born to future British overseas citizens should have no difficulty in acquiring the citizenship of the country where their parents resided. But examples are given of Singapore and Malawi, where citizenship is restricted.
  Nor, of course, can we be sure that other countries will not change their existing citizenship laws or even that they will interpret them in the same way as we do. In principle, it seems hardly desirable to provide that acquisition of one of the Bill's citizenships should depend on the legislation of other countries and not our own.
  If the amendment were passed, it would mean that British overseas citizenship might be capable of being passed on indefinitely outside the United Kingdom or a dependent territory. It would also enable any country which wished to do so to deny its own citizenship to the children concerned on the grounds that they already had an entitlement to another citizenship, namely, British overseas citizenship.
  Evidence was given to the Home Affairs Committee, for example, that a child born within Malaysia who would otherwise be stateless shall acquire Malaysian citizenship. To accept this amendment could deprive some children of Malaysian citizenship because, it could be argued, they would have an entitlement to be registered as British overseas citizens. Given the large numbers of British overseas citizens living there, I cannot believe that it makes sense that the large number of potential British overseas citizens living permanently in Malaysia should pass on BOC status to their children rather than see them become Malaysians.
  Having tried briefly to set out our objections to the amendments, I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw the amendment the House will reject it.
  Mr. Tilley: The Minister has made it clear that the Government stick to their position. They want these children to remain stateless so that they will be more effective negotiating pawns in trying to force the local States to give them citizenship. We reject that sort of attitude to this handful of children as yet unborn. The very least that the House and the Government ought to do is to ensure that the children are not born stateless. That is what our amendment seeks to achieve. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 270.

  Division No. 199]

  [10.35 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Campbell, Ian

  Adams, Allen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Allaun, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Donald

  Cant, R. B.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ashton, Joe

  Cartwright, John

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

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

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Beith, A. J.

  Cowans, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cryer, Bob

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

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

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Buchan, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

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

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

  1025

  Deakins, Eric

  McKelvey, William

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dempsey, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  McNally, Thomas

  Dixon, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dormand, Jack

  Magee, Bryan

  Douglas, Dick

  Marks, Kenneth

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunn, James A.

  Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Eadie, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ewing, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Field, Frank

  Morton, George

  Flannery, Martin

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Newens, Stanley

  Forrester, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foster, Derek

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Parker, John

  George, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Ginsburg, David

  Penhaligon, David

  Golding, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Graham, Ted

  Race, Reg

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Radice, Giles

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Richardson, Jo

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

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Haynes, Frank

  Roper, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Home Robertson, John

  Ryman, John

  Homewood, William

  Sandelson, Neville

  Hooley, Frank

  Sever, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Howells, Geraint

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Soley, Clive

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Kerr, Russell

  Stoddart, David

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Lambie, David

  Straw, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Litherland, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Tilley, John

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Torney, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Wainwright, B. (Dearne V)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Watkins, David

  1026

  Weetch, Ken

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

  Welsh, Michael

  Winnick, David

  White, Frank R.

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Wright, Sheila

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Whitlock, William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. James Tinn.

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

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Farr, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Alexander, Richard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Ancram, Michael

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

  Arnold, Tom

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Banks, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Best, Keith

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodhart, Philip

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Blackburn, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter (Wwich W)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gray, Hamish

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Brotherton, Michael

  Grylls, Michael

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hastings, Stephen

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heddle, John

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

  Henderson, Barry

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hill, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

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

  Hooson, Tom

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Irving, Charles (Cheltanham)

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Corrie, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Critchley, Julian

  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

  Latham, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunlop, John

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lee, John

  Durant, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  McCrindle, Robert

  1027

  MacGregor, John

  Newton, Tony

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

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

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Madel, David

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Major, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Marland, Paul

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Marlow, Tony

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Mather, Carol

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Mawby, Ray

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Pollock, Alexander

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Porter, Barry

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Mellor, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Raison, Timothy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Moate, Roger

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Monro, Hector

  Renton, Tim

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Moore, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Morgan, Geraint

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Mudd, David

  Rossi, Hugh

  Murphy, Christopher

  Rost, Peter

  Myles, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Needham, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Neubert, Michael

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  1028

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trippier, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Shersby, Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Silvester, Fred

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Waddington, David

  Speed, Keith

  Wakeham, John

  Speller, Tony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spence, John

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Sproat, Iain

  Wall, Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Waller, Gary

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waiters, Dennis

  Stanley, John

  Ward, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stevens, Martin

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Wheeler, John

  Stokes, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wickenden, Keith

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Donald

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Raison.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Insurance Contracts
  10.48 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the European Community Documents Nos. 8144/79 and 4124/81 on insurance contract law and of the Department of Trade's explanatory memoranda of August 1979, 31st October 1980, and 12th February 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to ensure that the provisions of the proposed directive should take account of the scope for reform of United Kingdom law identified in the Law Commission's Report on Insurance Law: Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty, Cmnd. 8064.
  The documents we are considering all deal with a proposal for harmonisation of the laws of member States on insurance contracts. The Government welcome the views of right hon. and hon. Members on these draft instruments. Their consideration in a Council working group is at an early stage. We hope at least to complete the first reading during our Presidency in the second half of this year.
  We are also in the course of considering the Law Commission's related report on non-disclosure and breach of warranty, and the Scottish Law Commission's recent comments, and we are still in the process of collecting views. It is, therefore, particularly useful and timely for the House to consider this topic.
  I shall in general be referring to document 4124/81, as this is the latest version of the directive.
  I shall briefly set the context. First, I shall deal with the development of the European insurance market. The EEC Treaty provides for freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services for all Community nationals. Nevertheless, progress in making these freedoms effective for insurance has been slow. Rules making freedom of establishment effective now cover most insurance, but those making freedom to provide services effective do not. For that, we need the so-called non-life services directive. Although that draft directive was put to the Council of Ministers in 1975, it has yet to be adopted. The Government are doing everything possible to speed up the process.
  The Commission considered that, if freedom of services was to be exercised without distortion of competition, insurance contract law in the Community should be harmonised. The United Kingdom has never been persuaded by that argument, and developments in the evolution of the two draft directives have weakened it still further. In particular, the draft services directive now mainly applies to large business risks, while the draft contract law directive primarily affects consumer insurance contracts. This weakening of an already tenuous link conditions our attitude to the directive. We do not see it as necessary or even significant for the opening up of the European Community insurance market, or as likely significantly to reduce any important barrier to trade.
  It is because the directive was first and foremost seen as a harmonisation measure to eliminate barriers to trade and distortions of competition, and therefore requiring uniformity, that it seeks to preclude member States from legislating further within the area that it covers to improve the lot of the consumer. The Government find it hard to accept that this would be a desirable or justifiable restriction on Parliament's freedom to improve the law.
  1030
  Nevertheless, a Community directive on this subject could have value. It is in the interests of a healthy European economy that policyholders should be free to shop around for their insurance throughout the Community, and in such circumstances it would clearly be desirable to have some general minimum standard of policyholder protection. There is, therefore, a case for a directive, but it should, in our view, be a minimal one, leaving member States free to improve on its provisions, though not to fall below the minimum standard that it lays down. Be that as it may, we need in any case to consider what standards of protection—and of obligation—we wish to provide for policyholders and insurers.
  The report last year of the Law Commission on insurance law—"Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty"—is, of course, of major importance in this context. The Law Commission concluded that the law in this area is defective and that reform is necessary and desirable. My Department's consultative note on the report said that we found its arguments for this convincing. The Law Commission also criticised a number of the main features of the draft directive, and here, too, in a number of instances we expressed considerable sympathy with its arguments.
  The Government have not, as I said, reached any final conclusions, but, in running briefly through the directive, I shall try to give an indication of our reactions so far.
  The first and central question is that of the duty to disclose. Under our law, and that of many other member States, the insured has a general duty to disclose to the insurer every circumstance which is material to a proposed contract. Failure to do so can lead to repudiation of the contract by the insurer. In some other countries the penalty can be less stringent, depending on the circumstances, and I shall come back to that.
  The definition of the duty which the proposer must fulfil if he is to have a valid claim on his insurer is set out in article 3.1. The earlier draft of this was criticised by the Law Commission and by the European Parliament and, in our view, rightly so. The Commission's redraft is a great improvement. It introduces the concepts of reasonableness, of constructive knowledge and of the prudent insurer. We are at present inclined to favour it in principle, while trying to have it refined further in ways suggested by the Law Commission. But it is already clear that a number of other member States prefer the original. A more general provision, leaving precise terminology to member States, would therefore be preferable and probably easier to agree upon.
  The second major question is that of the penalty for failure to disclose material facts. Under our present law insurers can, in such circumstances, avoid the contract ab initio, irrespective of whether the insured has acted innocently, negligently or fraudulently. The draft directive, however, in article 3(3), imposes no penalty for innocent or immaterial failure and distinguishes, broadly speaking, between negligent and fraudulent behaviour. In the case of fraudulent failure, the insurer may avoid any claim. In the case of what amounts to negligent failure, the principle of proportionality would apply.
  The Law Commission has criticised the principle of proportionality as unworkable in practice although attractive in principle. The Department's note described these criticisms as formidable, and we shall be deploying them in Brussels. It is true that an important change on that has been made in the Commission's redraft. It remains to

  1031
  be seen how member States react to the Commission's amendments. We are not at present determined to oppose proportionality, but we shall need a great deal of convincing that, in a form acceptable to others, it can work.
  The directive raises a number of other questions, many of which seem to us to cover matters which can and should remain within the individual competence of member States. They are merely likely to divert discussions in Brussels from the central questions of the major obligations imposed on insurer and insured.
  My Department is pressing ahead with its consultations on the Law Commission's report and the discussions in Brussels on the draft directive. The course of those discussions during the remainder of this year will, I hope, be sufficient to allow a view to be taken on whether there is scope and need for amendment of United Kingdom law in advance of the measures likely to be needed to meet the directive's requirements as and when it is adopted.
  I shall be glad to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I shall be especially grateful to receive those views that can be used in the Government's negotiations when we deal with these highly technical matters.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Clinton Davis: In general terms, I support the Government's view as put before the House today. My main concern arises as to when the Government propose to introduce legislation along the lines of the formidable criticism of the present law suggested by the Law Commission. It would be appropriate at this stage to offer, at least on behalf of the serried Opposition ranks and even the serried Government ranks, the congratulations of the House to the Law Commission on its work. It is a work of great skill and scholarship, which deserves commendation.
  We are at one in our approach to the proposed EEC directive. I share the Minister's criticisms about the harmonisation of insurance law throughout the EEC. He stated the Government's view well, and I would not depart from it, but in one respect it would be important if we could implement the non-life services directive which has created such difficulties for successive Governments in our negotiations with our European colleagues. I suspect that in this regard national interest, especially in the case of the French and German Governments, has somewhat overwhelmed the spirit of community which we hear so much about from time to time. What has happened is that British insurance interests are being squeezed out unceremoniously. I doubt whether we are going to make great progress on this, despite the fairly optimistic views of the Minister. These nationalistic concepts will, I think, continue to override the general requirement for harmonisation.
  Moving on to consumer protection, which governed most of the Minister's remarks, the purpose of the directive is not stated to be one of providing consumer protection. As I understand it, the choice that was depicted by the Law Commission for reforming the defects in our insurance law was that between domestic legislation and the EEC directive. I prefer the route of reform of our domestic legislation. A substantial case was made by the Law Commission for reasonably speedy reform.
  1032
  The directive has been dealt with in pretty scathing terms by the Law Commission, more scathing than the words of the Minister. Perhaps he was being diplomatic and did not want to cause too much offence to our Community colleagues; I do not know. The Law Commission described the directive as unsatisfactory and inadequate. I summarise the principal grounds for the Law Commission's strong critique. It felt that, if anything, the duty of disclosure should be retained, and perhaps widened, by requiring disclosure of any facts which may influence the insurer's judgment.
  The Law Commission is very strong about the proportionality principle, which it rejects in no uncertain terms—far stronger than the Minister's words. He expressed criticism of the proportionality principle by saying that he would need some convincing about its implementation. I should have liked him to have gone much further, even as far as the Law Commission, by suggesting that the whole principle ought to be dropped. Indeed, I had thought that that was the original view of the Department of Trade. I was concerned to hear that the Minister was seemingly qualifying that original judgment. I hope that he will comment on that in his speech in winding up the debate. Perhaps I have read too much into what he said. I hope that he will make it clear that the issue of proportionality is not one that the Government will accept.
  The reason why there is some superficial attraction for the argument of proportionality is that it appears to mitigate the harshness of the duty of disclosure. We can deal with the duty of disclosure by adopting the fundamental principle suggested by the Law Commission, that the existing law in this respect is far too heavily weighted in favour of insurers to the detriment of the insured. We should start from that precept and work on to reform the law substantially. Anyone reading the Law Commission's report could not doubt the need for that substantial reform.
  I have not dealt with all the arguments that have been brought to bear on the directive by the Law Commission. Its complete silence on warranties is clearly a matter of concern. The directive, I understand, does not include life insurance. Perhaps worst of all, it would have the effect—and this was the burden of one of the Minister's arguments—of freezing the reform of our law. That would make it difficult, apart from adopting the minimal standards to which the Minister referred, to inject a real note of reform into the law.
  Will the Minister, who seems now to adopt the case for substantial reform along the lines of the Law Commission's report, give us a little clearer idea of when the Government's consultations are expected to be concluded, and when we might expect some definitive propositions for the reform of the law. In some respects, the Government have no hesitation in establishing periods within which consultation has to be concluded. The Minister has just issued a consultation document on the difficult matter of concert parties and related subjects in company law. He has told everybody that they must finish their deliberations and report to him within 14 days. But in this respect no time limit is suggested. The deficiencies in the law are so important and serious that we should be demanding substantial reform designed to provide much more protection for consumers. That should not wait for another year or two or three.

  1033
  I have heard the Minister's arguments on these questions before. Recently we dealt in the House with the Insurance Companies Bill. I referred fairly obliquely on that occasion to the work of the Law Commission. The Minister seemed to advance the defence of the insurance companies that the voluntary codes of practice that have been issued provide an adequate protection for the consumer. I do not accept that. The Minister may say that the codes have only just been revised, that we now have the insurance industry ombudsman and that we should give all that a chance to work. However, insurance companies, in spite of the code, are still able to rely on their legal rights, and they remain the sole arbiters of what is reasonable.
  Let me deal with non-disclosure—first, where there is no proposal form. There is a strong argument in that case for a new law to protect insured persons. An example is where one simply has to put a tick in a box, as with certain holiday insurances that are offered in holiday brochures.
  The same happens when we apply for temporary cover for 28 days for motor insurance. We can obtain accident cover at airports merely by putting some money into a slot machine. In all these transactions there is no question of a proposal form. Those who are insured in such circumstances do not know what they have to disclose and in any event they do not know how to go about doing so. They do not address their minds to these matters substantially or at all. Therefore, a situation can arise in which an insurance company says that it will avoid a policy because of non-disclosure. In many instances that is a draconian penalty for an insured person merely because he does not disclose a material fact.
  The Law Commission suggests that the law should be reformed where there is a proposal form and complete and accurate information is required. For example, someone might say in good faith that he is not suffering from any illness and later he is found to be suffering from an illness. In those circumstances, the insurers are able, if they so wish, to reject the claim. It may never have dawned upon the person seeking insurance to provide the information. I suggest that the commission's recommendation that questions be answered only to the best of a person's knowledge and belief is the right criterion and that everything else is grossly unfair.
  What does a person have to disclose for the purpose of renewal? Every contract that comes up for renewal requires the disclosure principle to be repeated. The commission has perhaps sided with the insurance industry against its original views. However, most people do not understand their duty on renewal. They do not address their minds to these matters. The penalties for failure to disclose can be dire even if that failure is unrelated to the loss.
  At present the law requires an insured person to reveal any fact that a prudent insurer would consider to be material. I consider that requirement to be imperfect. It is a requirement that may be difficult for the insured person to carry out. Of course I make the assumption that we are dealing with someone who is honest and not crooked. A person may have suffered a driving conviction and that may become relevant in the mind of the insurer in respect of an entirely different form of insurance policy. Failure to disclose the conviction would enable the insurer to repudiate liability. That is an issue to which we should turn our attention very soon.
  1034
  Breach of warranty gives rise to some interesting discussion by the Law Commission and some interesting recommendations. At present an insurance company might be in the position of being able to reject a claim where the insured person breaks a promise to which he might hardly have addressed his mind. There may be a requirement, for example, to put special locks on someone's windows. If he neglects to do that and there is a fire in the house, the insurers might seek to repudiate liability. The test suggested by the Law Commission is that the breach should have related to and increased the risk of the loss that occurred. That is a fair test, which in my view the Government should implement as soon as possible.
  The basis of contract clauses—and I shall not go into that in detail—is something else that has been discussed at length by the Law Commission. The consumer associations differ from the Law Commission in their conclusions. However, it is an argument that we should hear more about at a more suitable time.
  I conclude on an argument to which the Minister did not refer and to which I have lightly alluded—the question of statements of practice. When I had the Minister's responsibility, I constantly heard that insurance companies felt that it was not necessary to undertake major reform because all the fears expressed by consumer associations, Ministers and sometimes officials in the Department of Trade were unrealistic, because they had their statements of practice. This Minister, to his credit, has encouraged the industry to beef up the situation, and we have revised statements of practice.
  However, the Law Commission is very critical indeed of the statements of practice, and implicitly about the new statements, too. Let me summarise the criticisms. First, it is argued that the statements of practice constitute evidence that the law is unsatisfactory; otherwise, they would not be necessary. That is a cogent argument. Secondly, insurers are able to rely, notwithstanding what is said in the statement of practice, on their strict legal rights. Thirdly, the statements do not have the effect of changing the law. The insurers retain a discretion to reject claims and repudiate policies. Fourthly, the Law Commission argues that insurers should not be the sole arbiters of whether repudiation is unreasonable in a given situation" Fifthly, the statements cover only policyholders in a private capacity. Sixthly, the statements are not adopted by all insurers in any event. Seventhly, the insured, particularly where intermediaries may be involved, may not know the identity of the insurer.
  I have gone into those matters at some length, because, by virtue of what the Government have put forward in their motion, they are saying that they welcome the approach of the Law Commission. This is the first time that we have had an opportunity to consider the representations of the Law Commission, so I make no apology for referring to them rather than to the misbegotten directive. There is only one thing to be said for the directive. It has perhaps helped to focus attention on an important matter of consumer protection.
  I hope, therefore, that the Government will not delay in introducing proposals, perhaps in the form of a Green Paper but preferably a White Paper, in the next 12 months—which is a perfectly adequate period—setting out their views on the Law Commission's recommendations having conducted the initial consultations to which the Minister referred. Let us proceed to reform our own law,

  1035
  unimpeded by the directive. I believe that, in the main, the Law Commission's recommendations are the lines that the Government should follow.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I seek the brief indulgence of the House in response to the Minister's invitation. I shall try to assist him on the question of proportionality from my practical experience of the insurance industry.
  There is little doubt in anyone's mind that the law governing the disclosure of material facts in relation to an insurance contract is out of date. The fact that a statute is antiquated does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. However, in this case it is such a long time since anyone seriously examined the law governing disclosure that it is high time that, as a result of the Law Commission's activities or the draft directive, action should be taken to consider the basis on which facts are considered material and the failure to reveal material facts is considered a correct basis for avoiding a claim.
  The starting point must be that the law is defective in that regard. There is a need for reform. However, we should recognise that, although insurance companies have had the right to reject thousands of claims because of a failure to disclose a material fact in an insurance proposal, they have taken advantage of it in only a few cases. Some people may think that that is an argument for moving slowly, if at all. I do not take that view. When the application of the law has to be resisted, it is time to consider the law and the possibility of a change.
  Given that there is a need for change, the Law Commission got its recommendations broadly right. It is particularly correct to resist the idea of "proportionality", which was recommended in the revised draft directive. If carried into practice, the principle would mean that if there was a failure to disclose a material fact it would not be known whether all the claim or only part of the claim was to be repudiated until the event. Far from simplifying the situation—when insurance companies are being asked to simplify their contracts—it would complicate the issue.
  I give my hon. Friend the Minister every backing in resisting any movement towards proportionality. It is an unworkable principle. I shall cite one example of how the acceptance of proportionality would increase the difficulties that are occasionally faced. In many policies there is the "average clause". That means that if the premium is paid on a sum insured that is less than the value on which it should be paid, an insurer is entitled to pay only a proportion of the total loss. At first sight that may appear to be a form of proportionality. In this area we are dealing with fact, not opinion. The value that should have been insured and the value that was insured can be ascertained. They are not matters of opinion. If that principle of proportionality were extended to the failure to disclose material facts we should have to assess when a fact is particularly material, not very material or not material. In advance of the event, that would prove an impossible task.
  If there is the possibility of a claim being reduced through an average clause, because the sum insured is inadequate, and if one adds to that the possibility of the claim being reduced because of a failure to state a material fact, the combination of those facts will add considerably
  1036
  to the confusion that a policyholder will experience. Therefore, I believe that the whole idea of proportionality should be stoutly resisted.
  In encouraging my hon. Friend to resist the idea, I hope that, important as it is to consider the draft directive, he will not allow any consideration of it and of the Law Commission report to obscure the fact that far and away the most important matter on which we should like to see movement within the EEC is the adoption of the directive on the freedom of services. This country takes over the Presidency on 1 July. I hope very much that during the period in which we hold the Presidency one of our achievements will be at long last to attain some movement on the adoption of the directive on the freedom of services. It is a golden opportunity, which I hope that the Government will grasp with both hands.
  By all means let us accept that some change in the law on disclosure of material facts is desirable—perhaps even urgent—but let us not complicate it by accepting the recommendation of the revised draft directive to introduce something which is foreign to the law of this land and which would be particularly difficult to work in practice—namely, the principle of proportionality.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one brief question, which I hope that he will answer when he winds up the debate.
  I must declare an interest, because I am a director of a very successful insurance company, the name of which I would give if I thought that many people would read the Official Report of our proceedings at this late hour.
  My question is simple. My hon. Friend the Minister has set out the principle of proportionality. Do the Government intend in future discussions on this matter to approach it on the basis of proportionality as to what the policy holder would have paid if he had declared the risk correctly with the same insurance company? That question is crucial and fundamental and could have important consequences for temperance insurance companies and others that insure only particular categories of people.
  It is clear that with a simple declaration of risk—for example, epilepsy, a previous conviction or having a wooden leg—it is easy to work out what the extra premium would have been if the person concerned had disclosed the facts.
  However, some insurance companies make it an absolute condition of issuing a policy that the policyholder should have certain basic characteristics. For example, some companies will insure only people who are total abstainers. They are substantial companies, and they include the enormous Swedish-based Ansvar Insurance Company Limited, of which I am a director.
  How could proportionality work in such circumstances? It is easy to work out what someone would have paid for, say, car insurance if he were not an abstainer and had gone to a normal insurance company. But it is not possible to work out what premium he would have had to pay if he had been a drinker and had decided to ask for a policy from a temperance insurance company, which is only one of a number of instances of companies that will insure only certain categories of people.
  Does my hon. Friend intend in the discussions to approach the issue on the basis of what would have been the premium paid by the insured person if he had declared the risk correctly in the generality of the insurance market,

  1037
  or will he try to sort the matter out in relation to what the policyholder would have paid if he had declared the risk correctly to the company with which he is insured? This is a point of substance.
  It is a shame that in this and other matters we are looking for harmonisation in a Euro-context within the EEC. It is becoming increasingly clear that the growth of business in insurance and other matters will not be in Western Europe, which unfortunately appears to be heading for decline in a world context. We should be looking for harmonisation with other countries and other areas where we can look forward to continuing real growth.
  It would be infinitely better if we looked for harmonisation in a world context, or perhaps with groups including the United States. It is unfortunate that we are seeking to harmonise simply within the EEC, which will be to the long-term disadvantage of insurance, banking, British industry and many other areas.
  I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer my one question—about declaring the risk to one insurance company, as against declaring it generally to the insurance market.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I apologise for the fact that I missed the start of the debate, which began earlier than we had expected. It is proper in those circumstances to keep one's remarks brief.
  I do not want to deal too much with the detail of the directive. I intervene because I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said about the broader aspects of the harmonisation of insurance provisions and the other enactments which we may presumably expect from the EEC on the general harmonisation of insurance services.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it is only a mild objection to what he said when I say that it is important to get the approval of the House for full harmonisation. This is, par excellence, an area in which the United Kingdom insurance industry will do very well once we achieve full liberalisation throughout the Community. Several other member States—I deliberately will not name them—have considerable restrictions on our industry entering their markets.
  I think that those of my hon. Friends who know the industry better than I will agree that, for the premiums that consumers pay in this country for general insurance coverage, including endowment and life policies, the scope of those policies and the return on them are much more substantial, and therefore more economical, than they are in other member States. The United Kingdom has a leading role to play in expanding those services into the other member States. Consumers in other countries would welcome our industry having that opportunity.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Has there not been a carefully orchestrated and concerted opposition to the very point that the hon. Gentleman is making? Over the years, other interests have become only too well aware that our insurance services would do well in the rest of the EEC and have therefore done their best to frustrate the operation of those services there properly or at all.
  Mr. Dykes: I agree, but surely the consequence is that we should fight hard at the various levels of Community
  1038
  decision-making and legislation to ensure that our rights—and those of other countries, if their industries are prepared to provide competitive insurance services—are safeguarded and those services provided through harmonisation. This is crucially an area in which Community law is important in all member States. We should press for those things, rather than resent that reality and just concede the point.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman suggests that Governments have not been trying. Successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have been trying, year after year, to persuade others to become more liberal in their attitude to these things, and we have significantly failed. There is not a chink of light at the end of the tunnel at the moment.
  Mr. Dykes: I do not accept that. It is possible to work towards an agreed Community solution which provides an open, free, market. Be that as it may, it would be inappropriate to prolong the debate, other than to put forward those important thoughts and sentiments which I believe that the whole House would support.
  When the other directives come up, I hope that there will be a better attendance in the House to try to ensure that the United Kingdom gets the appropriate solution for its industry, which we would all wish to see. It was in that spirit that I regarded the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East as being extremely negative, surprisingly so perhaps, because he knows a lot about that industry. I hope that there will be a change of mind on his part when the next occasion arises.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I thought that this would be a debate among lawyers and, discretion being the better part of valour, that it would be best to keep out of it. However, I found the remarks of my hon. Friend the member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) so irresistible that I should like to make one or two observations.
  The debate is a rather strange one. Looking briefly at the draft directives, one can see that it is of a limited nature. I understand that it was intended to apply only to large commercial risks, and even then only to risks of a limited kind, not even to marine and other risks. By relating it to the Law Commission report, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, in his usual thorough approach to these matters, has brought in a whole range of consumer protection matters which the Law Commission report covers.
  If we were simply talking about the original draft directive, it would be agreed that in no way does it touch upon the question of harmonisation of insurance services throughout the Community. It is of an extraordinarily limited nature. Looking at it, one wonders why the Community is bothering to approach the matter in this piecemeal and half-hearted way.
  Having got to this broader question of the Law Commission report—to which the debate quite properly relates—and the question of consumer protection, I make my observations as much in the nature of questions to my hon. Friend as the stating of opinions. When I read these proposals to change the law on disclosure and the law on the application of warranties to insurance contracts, I

  1039
  wonder whether we are doing the right thing by contemplating legislating on this subject. It seems—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that matters of interpretation of the law on insurance contracts arise from precedent and case law and not from legislation. It seems a rather dangerous idea to legislate in respect of such aspects as the interpretation of insurance contracts, leaving aside the many other areas concerning insurance contracts which are just as relevant on this question of consumer protection. I am a little sceptical about the value of doing it in this way. We have been talking of generalities. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central strongly supported the Law Commission recommendations for relaxing the laws on disclosure. In practice I wonder how many cases there have been where insurance companies have been seen to act unreasonably. I suggest that we have heard of very few such cases. That does not mean that there have not been more. I suspect, generally speaking, that if there had been unreasonable cases of repudiation on the grounds on non-disclosure of facts which we might consider to be not material, we would have heard of them.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: One of the points that can arise—and one would not hear about it—is where, in the course of negotiations over a claim, a suggestion is made by the insurance company that there has been some breach of the policy. This would perhaps avoid full payment being made and a settlement on rather lower terms being obtained. This is one of the matters we are not likely to hear about. The Law Commission has addressed itself to that argument.
  Mr. Moate: I stick to the general proposition that in these circumstances insurance companies act reasonably and are very reluctant to invoke the argument about nondisclosure. I speak only from my own limited experience, but I have dealt with a large number of ordinary claims for ordinary consumers. In my experience, when an insurance company introduces the argument about non-disclosure of material facts, it is fought very hard by any client, policyholder or insurance broker, and I think that it is done only very rarely.
  I suggest that the House should really be asking what volume of complaints would justify a change in the law. It is all very well to talk in generalities and to say that there might be an element of injustice in theory, but let us consider the practice. Before we go forward to legislation, we should ask how many hundreds or thousands of complaints there might have been both in respect of insurance policies based upon proposals and, as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central mentioned, all those cases based upon insurance where there is no proposal as the basis of contract. Let us find out the area of complaint and see whether it is really of such substance as to merit legislation which, like so much legislation, could well lead into areas of which we are not particularly cognisant at present.
  Moreover, as we now have an insurance ombudsman and new codes of conduct particularly relevant to the area of consumer protection, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and not the commercial risks to which the directive refers, surely it is sensible to test them in practice
  1040
  and see whether they will resolve that limited number of problems—and I believe that it is limited—which might have occurred in the past.
  I therefore approach the whole subject with a degree of scepticism and some regret on this occasion that there are not more lawyers present, because essentially we are discussing very important legal matters. Before the House goes too far on this, we should debate in more depth the question of the application of warranties and the law of non-disclosure.
  I turn briefly to the question of proportionality, which struck me as a rather unusual proposal to introduce into law. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist any temptation to introduce it into law. On the other hand, listening to the discussion, I do not think that the principle is too difficult to apply if one wants or needs to do so. Surely courts of law often apportion blame and costs as between different factors. For example, judges these days are reducing awards of damages because an individual may not have been wearing a seat belt. I should not have thought that it was all that difficult, in the event of a claim, for a judge or a court to decide how much of the loss was relevant to the fact of the non-disclosed information.
  Mr. McCrindle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem does not arise if a claim actually reaches the court? It arises in the far more numerous claims which are dealt with at insurance company level. If the only way in which satisfaction could be obtained was for the matter to reach a court, would not that be a temptation to have rather more litigation than we at present experience?
  Mr. Moate: I think that the danger lies in another respect. I was making the point that if a judge is capable of expressing an opinion—and it is only his opinion—about an allocation of blame or of costs, an insurance assessor or claims manager should be equally capable of expressing an opinion. I therefore do not think that it is too impossible a proposition or principle to apply.
  I believe that the real danger is in the following respect. As I have said, I think that insurance companies have been reluctant to repudiate a contract or claim on the ground of non-disclosure. If we had the law of proportionality, however, they might be far more willing to say that a client did not declare a fact, albeit a fairly minor fact, which should have been declared and then apply the law of proportionality and reduce the claim accordingly, and clients and consumers might suffer extensively as a result.
  I conclude by referring to the point that was the subject of discussion between my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I am sceptical about any prospect of an insurance Common Market. It is clear that the nationalistic approach of particularly the French and the Germans in this respect is such that they will never allow any major inroads to be made into their markets by the British life and non-life insurance companies. Their strength and success in direct selling and in selling by brokers of insurance is so great that there is no way in which those countries, with their totally different national traditions, will allow us to succeed.
  There is no harm in trying, and I am not saying that these endeavours should not be pursued, but anybody who thinks that millions of pounds, or thousands of millions of

  1041
  pounds—the sort of figures that would make a substantial difference—will flow from Europe into the insurance companies in Britain is living in a fool's paradise. I suspect that by now even those who were living in that fool's paradise, and dreamt of a great new British empire in insurance spreading on to the Continent of Europe, realise that it will not happen. The glitter has worn off the dreams of great expansion in the insurance markets of Europe. I share the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in that respect.
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Eyre: The prime purpose of these proceedings has been to give me an opportunity to listen to the views which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I express my appreciation of those views, although I must be careful to stay in order in my brief concluding comments and not to trespass too far on the ground which has been explored by some of my hon. Friends. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) for his words of commendation of the work of the Law Commission. I agree with him entirely as to the great value of that work, and I am grateful to him for his tribute.
  I noted carefully the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about defects in the present law. I acknowledge the correctness of his desriptions of the present practices of insurers, which do not strictly take full advantage of the legal position but which, in meeting liabilities, go well beyond those requirements.
  An important point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), when he expressed his views and possible reservations concerning the need for any change in the law. He emphasised the fact that the practices of insurers generally have been very much in the public interest and have taken account of the broader interest, irrespective of the precise legal position concerning the claims with which they have had to deal.
  With regard to proportionality, the European Commission has substantially amended the part of the directive that deals with that matter. The amendment is substantial. It has dealt with some of the Law Commission's criticism. On full probing, it may appear that most of the criticisms have been met. But the views of other member States on the European Commission's revisions will be forthcoming. So we need to examine the matter further in a critical and thorough manner, but not with closed minds. That is the proper approach.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) demonstrated his expertise in asking a question on a matter of practical importance. I cannot give him a precise answer tonight because it is not possible to foresee the circumstances in which negotiations relating exactly to his question would be taking place, but I have noted his question carefully and it will be borne in mind during the complex continuing negotiations.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has been kind in all his comments and I wish to ask him a simple question that does not relate to matters of detail. Have the Government insisted, and will they continue to do so, that proportionality should be in relation to the premium that
  1042
  would have been applied, if disclosure had been made, by the company concerned, rather than by the generality of the insurance market?
  Mr. Eyre: I understand the nature of my hon. Friend's question and appreciate that it raises a point of principle, but I cannot answer it accurately at this stage, in the context of thinking about matters of great complexity associated with proportionality. One will not know at what point in the negotiations the question raised by my hon. Friend would be considered. I will pay great attention to the question and will ensure that it is borne in mind and properly considered. I cannot go further at this stage. I ask my hon. Friend to accept my expression of interest and concern but to allow me to leave the matter there at present.
  I also noted carefully the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I made it clear in my opening speech that the Government are working hard to achieve progress on the service directive.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked about consultations on the Law Commission report, the importance of which we both acknowledge. We have received about two dozen sets of comments, many of them substantial, the most recent within the past fortnight. I am told that more may yet come to us. We are arranging meetings to discuss the written comments with, so far, the insurance industry—the BIA, Lloyd's and the Life Offices Association—and the consumer interests that have submitted views and reports.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I am waiting to hear what the Minister has to say about the time scale and how he will seek to conclude the consultations. He has given a list of those whom he is consulting. I hope that he will not forget the Confederation of Insurance Trade Unions, which is a useful body. I hope that he will not omit consultation with the trade unions, because they have a direct interest in the matter.
  Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. All the consultative documents were sent to the unions that he has in mind. They have said that their views will be forthcoming, but their views have not yet arrived. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look forward to receiving those views and that they will be taken into account in the further consultations. Other meetings may follow. We are prepared to talk to any interested parties that wish to participate in this process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government are doing everything possible to examine this area and to prepare our views. My Department is pressing ahead on the Law Commission's report and the discussion in Brussels on the draft directive.
  The course of the discussions during the rest of this year will, I believe, be sufficent to allow a view to be taken on whether there is scope and need for the amendment of United Kingdom law in advance of the measures likely to be needed to meet the directive's requirements as and when it is adopted.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: Will the hon. Gentleman stray out of order and respond to the

  1043
  general comments of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about the growing disillusionment of the insurance market about potential expansion into the EEC? Will he comment on the bid by Allianz, the German insurance firm, for Eagle Star? Does this represent a reverse takeover bid for the British insurance market?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the Minister will not be led astray.
  Mr. Eyre: However tempting the request of the hon. Member for Stoke-on Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) may be, I would not dream of venturing out of order. I have tried to emphasise the fact that the services directive is seen to be very important by our insurance industry. That is why the Government are pressing ahead as rapidly as possible with the negotiations.
  I should like to express my gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. It is important that we should have discussions at appropriate stages in the negotiations on these complex provisions. I appreciate the effort that hon. Members have made to contribute to the debate. Their views will be taken into account in all the negotiations on these directives.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8144/79 and 4124/81 on insurance contract law and of the Department of Trade's explanatory memoranda of August 1979, 31 October 1980, and 12 February 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to ensure that the provisions of the proposed directive should take account of the scope for reform of United Kingdom law identified in the Law Commission's Report on Insurance Law: Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty, Cmnd. 8064.

  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  11.57 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on bringing the previous proceedings to a close before midnight. As hon. Members know, this is Derby day. I started a tradition last year in this House that on Derby day we discuss sporting matters. It is a cause of sadness to some hon. Members that we do not discuss sport more often. Apart from my pleasure in seeing the Minister present for the debate, I am also delighted that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is greatly interested in this subject, should have been able to attend.
  Twelve months have elapsed since I brought to the attention of the House the Sports Council report that followed the mission to South Africa, led by Mr. Dick Jeeps, which was funded by the Government. The mission reported on the progress made on integration of the races in South African sport. It was a factual, comprehensive and, as I think those who have read its findings will agree, accurate report. It was well received by sportsmen throughout this country, dealing, as it did, with a delicate subject.
  The Minister himself acknowledged that the report was thorough. My hon. Friend recommended that the report should be circulated to other countries. I hope that his suggestion has been adopted. The report came to no conclusion, although Mr. Jeeps gave his opinion after publication and opinions have also been expressed by representatives of similar missions to South Africa over the past few years.
  The opinions expressed show that multi-racial sport in South Africa has come a long way towards full integration. Many people recognise that, despite the strong opposition in South Africa shown in the recent general election to the great reforms that the Government party has made.
  The report is a measure of progress in the last several years. The progress has been made by a Department which is seeking information. It is therefore disappointing that the Minister and the Prime Minister have said that although sport has made progress towards multi-racial activity in that country, they are still not satisfied that it has gone far enough. Many people ask how far South Africa must go to satisfy Her Majesty's Government and the rest of the world.
  Only this week in another place, Lord Kinnoull raised the question of segregation in sport in South Africa. The reply from Lord Avon was about rumours of recent initiatives. That was unfortunate because it shows that the Government are not taking account of what has happened in South Africa. I appeal to the Minister, who was in South Africa some years ago, to go back and see the progress for himself.
  Since the report was presented and since the debate 12 months ago, events have taken a nasty and vicious turn. I regret that our Government, perhaps because of their intransigent attitude towards the Gleneagles agreement, have not recognised the progress as much as many would like. They must take some responsibility. Indeed, the South African Non Racial Olympic Committee, the London-based political weapon of the South African

  1045
  Council on Sport, is using the new political weapon of a black list of sportsmen throughout the world. It contains many British sportsmen.
  SACOS is a totally unrepresentative body in opposition to the National Government in South Africa. It is racially discriminatory in that it is dominated by Indian and coloureds. Very few, if any, whites, and few blacks are on its board. Yet it has taken upon itself to produce a black list through its organisation in London. I am sad that it has captured the imagination of the media and has held many headlines throughout the world. It is a vindictive list relating to the spiteful policy which SANROC is pursuing.
  The activities of SACOS in South Africa should be catalogued here. The report tells stories of tyres being slashed and intimidation against people who are not members of SACOS. When I was in South Africa recently, I was told the story of the world boxing championship in the Orlando stadium in Soweto. SACOS distributed leaflets round the township before the event saying that it had been cancelled in an attempt to reduce the 40,000-strong crowd. The crowd turned up and the event went ahead. SACOS tried the same tactics when the O-Jays—an American singing group—gave a concert in the same stadium.
  I was also told of the story of an 11-year-old school girl who took part in a sporting event, not organised by SACOS and who was chastised in front of her 1,400 school mates. SACOS is dominated by teachers. It is not unknown for examination results to be affected by teachers if that is in the interests of SACOS.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the extraordinary incident of the cricket match between two schools, where, because two players on one side were coloured, the headmaster and school authorities refused to allow the match to continue? There was the even more appalling case of blind people taking part in a Braille contest who refused to continue when they learnt—although they could not see—that some of the opponents, who were also blind, were coloured. Does not that suggest that progress is not quite what the hon. Gentleman suggests? Will he condemn those actions along with any other condemnation that he cares to put forward?
  Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman should be grateful for the fact that I gave him so much time. There was a similar instance in the Craven week when schools refused to play against black teams. They were banned by the organiser and the authorities took a dim view of the incident that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House.
  When I was in South Africa the SACOS organisation seemed to be in some disarray and disillusionment. The president did resign but then changed his mind because of the pressure put on him. Only yesterday we heard from South Africa that Norman Middleton, the president of the South Africa Soccer Federation, which is a SACOS organisation, said that he would tell all. He said:
  "For the sake of unity and our fight to bring true non-racialism to our sport, I have always accepted these backhanders. Now it has all changed."
  That shows the sort of organisation that we are discussing.
  Only recently, in a new magazine called "Pace", the admirable journalist Ian Wooldridge, who is well known in Britain, spoke of Sam Ramsamy, the SANROC leader in London, and said about the funding of that organisation:
  1046
  "Ramsamy's friends as the years progressed included several with strong Russian accents."
  It is only right that the House should realise that that organisation, which purports to speak for many millions of South Africans—although I believe that it is unrepresentative—has a doubtful means of origin for its funds.
  The first example of the black list in Britain was brought to our attention by Lord Chalfont in an admirable article in The Times about John Feaver, a well-known English tennis player. He went to Nigeria to play in a tournament. He was detained in a cell overnight and then sent home with two of his colleagues, his crime having been that he played sport in South Africa, where tennis is played on a multi-racial basis. Despite my questions in the House, I was disappointed that the Government made no protest to the Nigerian Government about that incident. Not many days later the President of Nigeria was feted in this country by Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I could only wish that many organisations would take the view of the International Tennis Federation, which has now banned Nigeria from the Grand Prix circuit.
  The first black list that appeared was well known and has been well publicised. The most prominent name on the list was that of Dick Jeeps, the chairman of the Sports Council, who said that he would lose no sleep through being on the list. But it shows the importance of that list. To cap it all, to obtain the official seal of recognition SANROC received the support of the committee of the United Nations against apartheid—a committee which hon. Members know full well is dominated by those with Eastern European sympathies. I congratulate the Minister and the Lord Privy Seal on their utter condemnation of the affair at that time. We await the full United Nations decision on the matter, but I hope that the Government will take the same line as the Minister.
  The list is blatantly political, as is obvious for all to see. There was the recent example of Mr. Bill Hicks who spent a holiday in South Africa, returned to Britain, reported his activities to The Times, and was immediately blacklisted. There is Geoff Cook, the Northamptonshire cricketer, who spent the winter and previous winters coaching the blacks out there. Everyone who has been there realises the desperate need there is for coaching, when some 500 turn up for each coaching session. For his efforts he was put on a black list.
  There is Charles Palmer, the well-known cricket administrator, who went with the ICC in 1979 on a fact-finding mission, the results of which were kept secret. He has been put on the black list because he went to see for himself. As hon. Members will know, there are several names, including Lester Piggott, Geoff Boycott and Mark Cox, people who have brought much pleasure to South Africa and given an. enormous amount of instruction to less-privileged members of South African society and in South African sport. To cap it all, not many weeks ago we had the incident of Robin Jackman in Guyana, when the English cricket team was on the verge of coming home. Again I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her comment at that time. This had absolutely nothing to do with Gleneagles.
  Mr. Sam Ramsamyhas promised that several more names will be added to the list. It could be considered as a fairly amateur production. As reported by Ian Ball in the Daily Telegraph, it had several tell-tale marks and

  1047
  duplicator mistakes when it came out. It had obviously been compiled at the last minute from newspaper reports here and in South Africa. We are told that it is to be updated. Only this week there was an attempt to blackmail three Cardiff rugby players, three British Lions, who were going on a rugby tour to Rhodesia. They were told that they would not be allowed to enter that country unless they signed a declaration that they would not return to South Africa. Thank heaven, reason prevailed and the tour went ahead.
  The aims and objectives of this political organisation are obvious. They are being used as a weapon againt South Africa and against individuals and take no account of the feelings of individuals. They are nothing more than a personal vendetta. Who knows but that, if this movement were to grow, it could affect the Olympic Games, rugby in New Zealand, the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, and test matches with the West Indies, India and Pakistan. If the list included discrimination against South Africans in this country even Wimbledon and the Open Golf might be threatened. If the effort to exclude all South Africans continues it could lead to a sporting desert throughout the world.
  I am told that SANROC intends to extend its activities into entertainment. An excellent article in The Guardian by Donald Swami highlighted the terrible problem now becoming evident where entertainers are being denied the opportunity to go to South Africa to entertain in front of all colours. In that article he showed how far South Africa has gone down the road.
  One wonders where this is going to stop. Will a list be brought out to discourage business people from going to South Africa? There are some 350 British companies working in South Africa worth some 250,000 jobs in this country and investment of up to £7,000 million a year. One may think that the list is reaching almost farcical proportions. One can understand the temptation for some people to let the list grow. Many who might be are not on it. Perhaps we should feed names to SANROC so that the list would become completely manageable and there could be no sporting competition anywhere without those on it. I wonder what the cricketers of the West Indies, India and Pakistan would say if they had to stay away from the rich financial pastures of Lords, Adelaide and Christchurch.
  This is a serious matter, because it is a gross infringement of the British citizen's personal liberty. There was much in South Africa which I did not like and which many hon. Members do not like. There was also much to encourage me. They have made massive strides towards integration and there is no doubt that sport has led the way. Only this week the Government have announced, following a special sports report, that they will accept the recommendations of the report that the Liquor, the Group Areas, and the urban area for blacks Acts, are to be abolished for sport. Spectators are integrated, players change together and there is multi-racial competition throughout South Africa. The authorities there are very hard on recreants who do not follow that policy. They are being forced into change. The biggest barrier is probably the local authorities and some Government Departments. In this way we should give credit to the sportsmen of South Africa for the lead that they are taking in trying to change the politicians' minds, an endeavour in which they have enjoyed a certain amount of success over the years.
  1048
  South Africa was committed to a 20-year sentence. That was a long time ago. It has had no remission for good conduct, and I suggest that it is about time that that was considered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deplore the list. I hope that he will give an assurance that in the United Nations the Government will speak out against, and not just abstain on this issue. I hope that he will continue to encourage the sports administrators in South Africa to maintain the progress that they have made and encourage sports administrators in this country to go out to see for themselves.
  We are much encouraged by what has happened in the United States and by the initiative of President Reagan in seeing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The South Africans are much encouraged by the new Administration in Whitehall. I hope that I shall receive that encouragement from my hon. Friend tonight.
  12.15 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) for raising this subject and to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for being present.
  This is a particularly important topic, and I have no doubt that many of our sportsmen and women share my hon. Friend's concern. This must apply particularly to those who regularly participate in international competition.
  I therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the black list. I hope that I shall clear up one or two misconceptions.
  Let me begin by explaining once again the Government's attitude generally towards sporting relations with South Africa. It is against this background that we can best consider the United Nations black list or any other.
  As the House will know, the Government's policy rests wholly on the 1977 Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport—the Gleneagles agreement. This requires Commonwealth Governments to take every practical step in accordance with their laws to discourage sportsmen and women of their countries from playing against South Africa.
  At the same time, we are firmly committed to maintaining the established autonomy and independence of sport and sporting organisations. Beyond that we will uphold the traditional freedom of our citizens to travel and work when and where they wish.
  I cannot believe that any hon. Member would deny the evils of apartheid, but I recognise that many—particularly on the Conservative side of the House—are becoming uneasy. They fear that Governments of the Commonwealth have chosen to place sport in the forefront of a battle against apartheid in South Africa. They see the United Nations following suit.
  I share that concern and sense of unease. But we also have to recognise the immense and lasting value of the Commonwealth as an institution. It is perhaps the one organisation that brings together people from all parts of the globe in a real spirit of co-operation. It is this that we must set against the value of absolute freedom to play sport without hindrance. We must, therefore, face political realities. So, too, must our sportsmen and women.
  In an ideal world politics and sport would not be mixed. But, regrettably, ours is not an ideal world. One can argue that our sportsmen are individuals and citizens first. They

  1049
  must, therefore, have regard to the wider consequences of their decisions and actions. This is especially true when they may impinge on their fellow sportsmen.
  I am not suggesting that these considerations should be paramount, simply that they should be recognised and taken into account. Since we came into office in 1979 our commitment to the principles of the Gleneagles agreement has been reaffirmed many times. No one can be in any doubt about where we stand.
  I do not now propose to catalogue the actions I have taken in consequence, but we have sought to fulfil our obligations as best we can in a free society—by advice and persuasion. Often this has been rejected by the independent governing bodies concerned. When it has been we can do no more. The Government have no powers which allow us to take further steps to prevent contacts taking place. Nor do we wish to take any.
  In a free and democratic society such as ours it is right that we can seek only to advise and persuade. It is entirely up to the governing bodies and individuals concerned whether they accept this advice. Of course, the Commonwealth statement is open to different interpretations. However, we firmly believe that it concerns action by Governments with their own nationals. Others may interpret it differently, but we do not believe that the Commonwealth statement requires action by us, or any Commonwealth Government, against the nationals of another country.
  It may well be that others consider we do not do enough. The emergence of the United Nations black list is its way of advancing the battle lines. But let me be clear. The Government cannot support any proposal which would oblige us to place limitations on the movement of our sportsmen and women, or to interfere with individual liberties.
  We have to accept that every country has the right to refuse entry to non-nationals whose presence is considered undesirable. That right cannot be denied. However, we will not accept the use of such powers simply to penalise sportsmen.
  We cannot, therefore, approve of this initiative by the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid and we will not support it. Indeed, we condemn all such "sporting black lists", whatever the source. My hon. Friend is therefore right to be concerned about the implications for our sportsmen and the future of international sport.
  The House may find it useful if I outline briefly the history of, and background to, this unfortunate black list. Certainly media coverage of its origins and publication has been characterised by confusion over the past few months. Much of this is due to the two earlier unofficial lists by SANROC.
  The United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid has existed in various forms since 1962. The United Kingdom has never been a member, but this is in no way unusual. The committee's membership has consisted almost exclusively of Eastern European and developing nations. Its decisions and recommendations—unlike resolutions of the Security Council—are not binding. The centre against apartheid, which published the black list, operates under one of several sub-committees.
  Most of the information on which the list is based has been culled from newspaper reports—or, it seems, from
  1050
  the efforts of SANROC. Britons feature prominently throughout. This might reflect the fact that SANROC is based here in London.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, the list includes the chairman of the Sports Council and one of its members. I am sorry if my hon. Friend was concerned about my answer to his earlier question about the Sports Council chairman. That was possibly due to a misunderstanding. I have full confidence in Dick Jeeps. I am certain that the fact that his name appears on the list will in no way affect his ability to carry out his duties.
  As time rolls forward we can expect new additions to the black list. The secretary's report states that one of the committee's objects in publishing the list is to help secure the isolation of South African sport as a means towards the elimination of apartheid in South Africa.
  The report recognises that the co-operation of Governments and sports bodies will be necessary. The Government's view is clear. We abhor apartheid. We are committed to the Commonwealth statement. We will not co-operate with the special committee or the centre against apartheid in the operation of the black list.
  It is unfortunate that some Commonwealth countries have already taken action on the black list. The United Nations report notes that Guyana has operated such a policy since 1976. It was this policy rather than this black list which prompted the Jackman affair.
  My hon. Friend has given us other examples of what being on the black list means to British sportsmen. However, the United Nations committee goes further. It seems to be calling on Governments and sports bodies to bar their own nationals from domestic competition if they feature on the United Nations list. In the case of professional sportsmen, this would mean that individuals could effectively be denied any opportunity to pursue their chosen career. I need not dwell upon the Government's response to that suggestion other than to condemn it. I hope that British and international sports organisations will similarly condemn this proposal.
  At its simplest, therefore, the effect of this black list may well be to present individual sportsmen and women with a stark choice. They will have to decide between sacrificing their links with South Africa and sacrificing the possibility of competing in those countries that co-operate with the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid in the operation of the black list. In a sense, this would represent no more than an attempt to make individuals face up to the wider responsibilities that I mentioned earlier, but it would be nearer to blackmail than advice. I find the prospect profoundly disturbing and potentially very divisive.
  If a significant number of Governments should decide to deny entry to sportsmen named on the United Nations list, the effect could be more damaging. It is not difficult to foresee the result being complete polarisation of internationl sport. There could be groups of countries that are prepared or able to play only among themselves, which would be a total disaster for the world of sport.
  All involved—and those of us who are not directly involved but care—must ask whether the end justifies the means. I believe that I have made my views and those of the Government quite plain.
  However, others, too, have a role. I am thinking particularly of the international sporting federations themselves and the other sporting organisations that sanction or approve tournaments or fixtures. I hope that they will strongly resist pressures from whatever source to

  1051
  make use of this or similar black lists in deciding the entries for their competitions. I sincerely hope that British sportsmen and governing bodies, and their counterparts overseas, will try to persuade the relevant organisations to resist these political pressures originating from the United Nations committee. If not, the prospects for international sport begin to look bleak. The Government will do what they can, but it is important to maintain the continued independence of sport and sporting organisations. Therefore, there is a limit to what we can do.
  My hon. Friend has drawn our attention to three visits to South Africa, the Sports Council's fact-finding report, his own recent visit there, and the changed views of Bill Hicks, a respected member of the Sports Council. All report on the encouraging progress made in South Africa towards greater integration of sport.
  The Government note the progress with satisfaction. We monitor the situation continuously, but it varies considerably between the different sports. Some have made greater progress towards integration than others.
  1052
  Every step forward is helpful. We, therefore, welcome reports of the recent announcement by the South African Government that they intend to relax the Liquor Act, the Group Areas Act and related legislation as far as sport is concerned, but I understand that the legislative changes necessary have not yet been approved. None the less, the intention is welcome.
  However, we are bound by the Gleneagles agreement. When the Government are persuaded that progress towards integration in sport in South Africa warrants it, we shall certainly seek a review of the Gleneagles agreement, but we are not yet persuaded that this time has arrived——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Mr. Peter Sutcliffe
  Mr. Peter Sutcliffe
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  People's March for Jobs (Policing Costs)
  People's March for Jobs (Policing Costs)
  Marches and Demonstrations (Policing Costs)
  Marches and Demonstrations (Policing Costs)
  Immigration
  Immigration
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Service Dispute
  Civil Service Dispute
  Accommodation
  Accommodation
  Assistant Secretaries (Salaries)
  Assistant Secretaries (Salaries)
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Beds (Closures)
  Hospital Beds (Closures)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Secondary Education (Rutherglen)
  Secondary Education (Rutherglen)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Doctors, Nurses and Teachers (Unemployment Statistics)
  Doctors, Nurses and Teachers (Unemployment Statistics)
  Car Mileage Expenses (Public Bodies)
  Car Mileage Expenses (Public Bodies)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mrs. Patel (Member's Correspondence)
  Mrs. Patel (Member's Correspondence)
  Passports (Emergency Office)
  Passports (Emergency Office)
  Wages Council Orders (Cornwall)
  Wages Council Orders (Cornwall)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons (Wales)
  Disabled Persons (Wales)
  Training and Employment Schemes (Cost)
  Training and Employment Schemes (Cost)
  Wages Inspectors (Cornwall)
  Wages Inspectors (Cornwall)
  One-Year Traineeships
  One-Year Traineeships
  Pre-training Opportunities Programme
  Pre-training Opportunities Programme
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Wolverhampton and West Midlands
  Wolverhampton and West Midlands
  Salaries (Comparisons)
  Salaries (Comparisons)
  Pentachlorophenol
  Pentachlorophenol
  Newham
  Newham
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Infant Mortality (West Midlands)
  Infant Mortality (West Midlands)
  Children in Care (Corporal Punishment)
  Children in Care (Corporal Punishment)
  Natural Grapefruit Juice (Meysan Brand)
  Natural Grapefruit Juice (Meysan Brand)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Studies and Reports (Costs)
  Students (Travel)
  Students (Travel)
  Nursery and Primary Schools (West Midlands)
  Nursery and Primary Schools (West Midlands)
INDUSTRY
  Car Components (Statistics)
  Car Components (Statistics)
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Manufacturing Industry (Wages and Salaries)
  Manufacturing Industry (Wages and Salaries)
WALES
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Sport and Recreation Councils
  Sport and Recreation Councils
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Bilingual Education
  Bilingual Education
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bass Stocks
  Bass Stocks
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Fish Imports
  Fish Imports
DEFENCE
  Horseshoes
  Horseshoes
  BAOR (Salaries and Allowances)
  BAOR (Salaries and Allowances)
  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Gainsborough
  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Gainsborough
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
TRANSPORT
  Bus Service Trial Areas
  Bus Service Trial Areas
  Fare Reductions (Patterns of Use)
  Fare Reductions (Patterns of Use)
  Cycling
  Cycling
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Road Signs (Local Characteristics)
  Road Signs (Local Characteristics)
  Road Construction Units (Staff Reductions)
  Road Construction Units (Staff Reductions)
  Investment
  Investment
  Derv (Duty Reduction)
  Derv (Duty Reduction)
  Trunk Roads (Hampshire)
  Trunk Roads (Hampshire)
  Vehicle Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Vehicle Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  National Bus Company (Financial Results)
  National Bus Company (Financial Results)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Concessionary Travel
  Concessionary Travel
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  British Railways (Policy Document)
  British Railways (Policy Document)
  Freight
  Freight
  Bus Services (Rural Areas)
  Bus Services (Rural Areas)
  Highway Authorities (Road Repairs)
  Highway Authorities (Road Repairs)
  Coach Services
  Coach Services
  British Transport Hotels
  British Transport Hotels
  Advanced Passenger Train Service
  Advanced Passenger Train Service
  British Railways (Line Closures)
  British Railways (Line Closures)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Tachograph (Exemptions)
  Tachograph (Exemptions)
  Public Transport (Subsidies)
  Public Transport (Subsidies)
  Trunk Roads (Cash Limits)
  Trunk Roads (Cash Limits)
  British Railways (Passenger Receipts)
  British Railways (Passenger Receipts)
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes
  European Community (Transport Infrastructure)
  European Community (Transport Infrastructure)
  M20 (Ashford-Hollingbourne)
  M20 (Ashford-Hollingbourne)
  Used Cars (Consumers' Difficulties)
  Used Cars (Consumers' Difficulties)
ENVIRONMENT
  Palace of Westminster (Window Cleaning)
  Palace of Westminster (Window Cleaning)
  Rents and Rates
  Rents and Rates
  Greater London Council (Rate Support Grant)
  Greater London Council (Rate Support Grant)
  Sale of Houses (General Consent)
  Sale of Houses (General Consent)
  Council Dwellings (Sale)
  Council Dwellings (Sale)
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Pentachlorophenol
  Pentachlorophenol
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment

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

Baroness Ewart-Biggs
Felicity Jane Ewart-Biggs, having been created Baroness Ewart-Biggs, of Ellis Green in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Goronwy-Roberts and the Lord Greenhill of Harrow.
The Viscount Torrington—Took the Oath.

The Lebanon and the Christian Population
2.47 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider giving help to Lebanese Christians and give any assurances about their safety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, her Majesty's Government regret the continuing violence in Lebanon and the tragic loss of life that has gone with it. We believe the British Government's role and that of other Governments should be to support the legitimate Government of Lebanon and not individual groups within the country. The Lebanese Government has been working for a reconciliation between the parties. This provides the best assurance for the security of the people of Lebanon, Christian and Moslem alike.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, which perhaps affords some glimmer of hope. Will he agree that the Lebanese Christians will not become, as I believe they could become, the forgotten people or people whose existence could be overrun by we know who?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government are anxious to adopt an even-handed attitude in this matter, and I can assure my noble friend that we are actively concerned to ensure that a solution is found.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that the only people who have supported the Christians in Lebanon are the Jews in Israel?—and precious little sympathy they have had from us or from any of the other European countries.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the situation is not as black and white as she
1222
suggests. Partisan observations do not help the situation.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Foreign Secretary has expressed his desire to effect a settlement in the Middle East? Can the noble Lord say whether the Foreign Secretary has made any effort to assist the Christians in the Middle East against sporadic attacks by Syrians and others? What is the Foreign Secretary doing about it? Is he just talking about it but not doing anything else?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend's concern to secure a settlement to the wider Middle East issue is of course well-known, but it will not be lost on your Lordships, I think, that the solution to the wider problems in the Middle East does not lie in the hands of my noble friend alone.
Lord Pargiter: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether or not it would be desirable for the Syrian army to be withdrawn and a less partisan body put in charge of the peace negotiations and keeping the peace in that country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Syrian forces in the Lebanon are there under a mandate, I think, from the Arab League, and that would be a matter for them.

Mr. Vaughn Webster: Imprisonment in Namibia
2.51 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will raise with the Government of the Republic of South Africa the case of Mr. Vaughn Webster, a white citizen, who is serving 50 days in a Namibian prison under the terms of the apartheid Group Areas Act for letting two flats to coloured persons in Walvis Bay.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. On payment of a fine of 132 rand, Mr. Webster was released on 20th May having served six days of his sentence.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and wish him success in it? May I ask him: is it not the case that this prominent white citizen, 62 years old, was released not because of the inhumanity of the charge against him, but because his wife paid the remainder of the fine so that they might celebrate their 37th wedding anniversary together? Is it not the case that Mr. Webster had declined to pay the fine in protest against the discriminatory Group Areas Act which forbade him to provide accommodation for coloured persons? Was he not deported 22 miles into Namibia despite the fact that the Act is not in operation there?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, it is true, of course, that Mr. Webster's wife paid the fine after he had served six days of his sentence. This was according to South African law, and of course he operates under that law. As far as where the prison was, my understanding is that there were no satisfactory prison facilities in Walvis Bay and so he served his sentence in Namibia.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will express to the South African Government the strongest condemnation of this discriminative Act in Walvis Bay and of the imprisonment of this man in Namibia, where the Act does not even apply?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister fully expressed the Government's views when she stated on 26th July 1979 in another place:
"The policy of apartheid with its emphasis on separating peoples rather than bringing them together and all the harshness required to impose it on the South African population is wholly unacceptable".
I think that makes the position crystal clear.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is it not illegal for a British subject to be imprisoned by the Republic of South Africa in a country which is not in fact South African territory? Cannot Her Majesty's Government take steps to remove this illegality, if it is in fact so?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the South African Government is of course the administering authority in Walvis Bay, and this gentleman, Mr. Webster, who was a local politician there, was not a British citizen.

Gatwick Terminal 2 Inquiry
2.55 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 how soon they anticipate announcing a decision on the Gatwick Airport Terminal 2 Inquiry.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade, will make an announcement as soon as the complex issues described in the inspector's report have been fully considered. It is hoped that this will be in a very few weeks' time.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can my noble friend advise us which departments are in fact responsible for this decision? Secondly, bearing in mind the effect it could have on the Stansted inquiry, can he say whether he is talking of weeks, or months, or hopefully, days before a decision is announced?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I think my earlier reply indicated, it is a joint decision between the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Trade. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friends are well aware of the need to give the parties to the Stansted inquiry time to take full account of the implications of the decision on the second terminal at Gatwick in preparing their evidence.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this proposal to extend Gatwick makes Stansted Airport quite unnecessary?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says, but I am sure he would not expect me in any way to prejudge this present decision.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I say that there obviously will be concern that work on the second terminal at Gatwick should proceed quickly once a decision has been taken? One would hope that the noble Earl would be able to advise the House if it would be possible for a decision to be available before the Summer Recess.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, obviously I cannot commit my right honourable friends and it is difficult to be precise about a timing of a decision, but in view of the broad agreement between the two departments it should be possible to announce a decision within the next four or five weeks.

Football Supporters: Disturbances
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: 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 take steps to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances which took place among British supporters during the football match between England and Switzerland in Basle on 30th May.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we must be realistic about what the Government can do to control the actions of their citizens when they are abroad. Where football supporters are concerned I must emphasise that the responsibility lies with the football authorities and not with Government to take precautions necessary to ensure that the disgraceful scenes witnessed at the Switzerland v. England match are not repeated.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, and understanding the feelings of frustration that lie behind it, may I ask whether he would agree that this entire House would wish to express its feelings of repugnance and shame at the behaviour of some of our citizens at football matches abroad?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while I cannot speak for the entire House, I assure the noble Baroness that

1225
of course the Government agree with every word she has said. In fact on Monday my honourable friend the Minister for Sport urged the international governing bodies of football to reconsider their present arrangement for ticket allocation and crowd segregation at these matches. He also immediately condemned, on behalf of the Government, the behaviour of a small minority of English football supporters who at Basle brought such disgrace to English football and to the good reputation of our country.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not unfortunate that the excellent standards at Wrexham in the Wales and Soviet Union match were not carried out in Basle? Would it not be a good idea to export a few Welshmen on these occasions?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while speaking entirely as a Cockney, may I remind the noble and learned Lord that a Scottish match in London also went off very well.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, that being so, would it not be much more appropriate in the Question itself to refer to English supporters rather than British supporters?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will know that my honourable friend the Minister is of course a fellow countryman of his.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that a vast improvement in the general conduct of the Scotland-England match in London a fortnight ago was due to the better control of the sale of alcohol and the banning of alcohol on trains, something for which this House ought to take credit considering how this was pressed during the Committee stage of a Bill about a year ago?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I of course agree with my noble friend. I should also like to remind him that there has been action over the past years by the transport authorities, police, football authorities, and clubs and the Government against football hooliganism, which is now taking its toll.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, should a number of these football hooligans find themselves in jail in some of these countries for periods rather longer than they would expect to receive under similar circumstances in this country, will the noble Earl and his friends just please smile quietly and not assist them?
The Earl of Avon: I should not like to answer that hypothetical question at the moment, my Lords.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, apart from things getting out of hand in foreign cities, may I ask the Minister to say when the Home Secretary will see fit to make our own cities safer to live in? If he cannot, will he tell us what the Government intend to do about the increasingly dangerous situation?
The Earl of Avon: I suggest that my noble friend's question goes rather wide of the mark, my Lords.
1226
If he wishes to table it in his own name, I am sure my noble friend from the Home Office will be pleased to answer it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, while there will be universal agreement with the condemnation of the so-called football supporters, may I ask the Minister if any steps are being taken to have firm consultations with the Football Association about the matter?
The Earl of Avon: Yes indeed, my Lords; my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has asked for a report directly the secretary of the Football Association returns.

Whitehaven Harbour Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there are two points I should like to raise with the noble Lord. In one clause a very wide power to make by-laws is given to the authorities, and that is no doubt necessary, but some of the provisions—for instance, Clause 6(1)(d)—are drawn extremely widely and I would ask the noble Lord to look at them again to see that they are in common form and not beyond that. Secondly, the maximum fine on summary conviction for breach of such by-laws is no more than £50. When we think that this harbour was raided by Paul Jones about 200 years ago, creating a great disturbance, and even apart from that, surely £50 today is far too small a maximum penalty for a breach of by-laws such as we could see. Would the noble Lord agree that perhaps £200 would be much more appropriate?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, this is an unopposed Bill and therefore will come before me in the Unopposed Bill Committee, and I shall certainly see that the points raised by the noble Lord are looked into.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

ECC 21st Report: Development Aid Policy
3.3 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow Lord Greenhill of Harrow rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on development aid policy (21st Report, H.L. 146).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, our committee is extremely grateful to the House for making time available for this debate. We are also very gratified that the Secretary of State has found it possible to be present at least for some of the debate. It is surely timely for us to be discussing this matter. One of the features of political life today is the greatly increased

1227
and still growing interest in development aid to the third world. Some of the interest is, I fear, based more on emotion than on reason and is in careless disregard of the reality of practical difficulties. But the interest is genuine, sincere and must be welcomed and taken fully into account, and the publication of the Brandt Report has of course contributed to it.
Although that report covers a much wider range of issues than aid—and our report is not concerned with those wider matters—the committee were largely sympathetic to one of the fundamental points made by the Brandt Report, namely, that the necessity for development aid is urgent and that it is in the mutual interests of both donor and recipient that substantial and effective aid should be given.
The committee's report concerns itself with rather a narrow section of this huge problem. Broadly speaking, the questions we asked were whether the Community should continue to be a vehicle for aid; if so, does it give aid in the right way so far as the recipients and donors are concerned; and if not, how can its methods be reformed and improved? I hope some noble Lords will have studied the committee's conclusions and recommendations and perhaps gone further and read some of the evidence, and the House will not want me now to recapitulate those in detail. Members of our committee who will speak later will no doubt wish to emphasise certain points that are of special interest to them. However, I hope the House will permit me to draw attention to a few matters which may with advantage be discussed in this debate. I dare say our discussions will range widely over the aid question, but I hope that the limited field of the report itself will get adequate attention.
First, the Community aid programme is not in itself large. The report contains some useful comparative tables with other sources of aid funds, bilateral and multilateral, and noble Lords will see that the Community's efforts are relatively minor when compared with some national donors. The British share is £107 million per annum, which is not an inconsiderable sum when properly applied, but it is somewhat less than one-eighth of the total British aid including bilateral aid and aid to multilateral agencies other than the Community. But when considering the adequacy of these sums, we should perhaps bear in mind that the British public has today bet between £25 and £30 million on one horserace.
Secondly, the source of the Community's aid funds is, of course, the individual member countries; it has no funds other than those that individual members make available to it. One might observe that the Community can do as much, if not more, for developing countries by its trade policies as by donations of aid investment. But that is another question which is not the subject of the report.
Thirdly, certain advantages are claimed for aid given by the Community. It is said that Community aid is less "colonial". It is suggested that Community aid is less tied than bilateral national aid, just as efficient and has the added advantage of promoting co-operation between the European donors. It is also important for the reputation of the Community in the third world, where goodwill towards the Community may be of value politically. It is difficult to reach an
1228
objective conclusion on these matters, but on the whole our committee thought that if member countries were prepared to make more funds available for aid, those additional funds should most advantageously go not to the Community programme but to the bilateral programmes of the member countries or to other well-established multilateral programmes, some of which have suffered cuts.
But in the view of the committee, the two main shortcomings of the Community aid programme are its regional limitations and its mishandling of food aid. For historical reasons explained in the report, Community aid is largely concentrated in the limited areas of Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific countries. Those areas have the bulk of the aid and the bulk of the staff devoted to them. Inadequate aid is given to very deserving areas—to the so-called non-associated countries like India and Bangladesh—and this imbalance should in our view be corrected as soon as reasonably possible. It is not suggested that the ACP's share of the money should be reduced, but that any further monies should be directed elsewhere, and that there is some scope for re-allocating funds away from food aid in the Community's existing programme.
The Community's main aid instrument is the Lomé Convention. This is in many ways an admirable piece of long-established machinery, which now needs some adjustment and some modification. We have suggested in the report some ways in which that should be done. Actual disbursements of money are disappointingly slow, but are apparently no slower than in other international bureaucracies. The food aid programme, which is outside the Lomé Convention, needs a thorough re-think, with development objectives more clearly taken into account. We also suggest in the report how Community aid money could be used to unlock money from other sources and so increase the total amounts available.
There is much to admire in the present Community aid programme, not least the enthusiasm and the qualifications of the persons engaged in it. It bears the firm stamp of its long-serving Commissioner, M. Cheysson, who is now Minister of External Affairs in the new French Government. He has liberal views on these matters, but he has not been neglectful of French national interests. The time is right for making some necessary changes and improvements.
Her Majesty's Government may reasonably ask what it is that we wish them to do in the light of our report. I think that I can best summarise it as follows. First, we want Her Majesty's Government to be more assertive in the councils of the EEC when aid matters are discussed. We have the necessary qualifications and experience to act in this way, and although our total aid programme may currently be being reduced, our share of aid passing through the Community will remain the same. We want more United Kingdom influence on the philosophy and administration of the Community aid programme. Secondly, we should put forward constructive proposals for reforming the food aid programme from 1982 onwards; reduce the amount of dairy food aid and concentrate on larger deliveries to fewer countries; increase the staff, and improve administration and evaluation. Thirdly, we should press for the programme of aid for non-associated countries to be put on a firmer footing.

1229
Here the Government could bring forward a proposal in the Community to change the rules governing the use of EEC aid. The non-associated countries such as India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka should be helped to use EEC grants to raise and service loans from other sources for development purposes.
Lastly—and this is a wider question—we should like to see Her Majesty's Government take a leading part in co-ordinating the Community in support of some of the Brandt proposals. In particular, the Government should give a new impetus within the Community to the Euro/Arab dialogue to encourage the recycling of OPEC surpluses to developing countries. The member countries of the Community, if they act in concert, have the political and financial strength to do this. It will be particularly important, if, as is possible, the numerous conferences and summits on development issues during 1981 fail to produce more urgent practical responses to the developing countries' problems. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on development aid policy (21st Report, H.L.146).—(Lord Greenhill of Harrow.)
3.14 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, in common I think with most of your Lordships I have listened with much interest and general agreement to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and I believe that we all welcome the opportunity that he has given the House to discuss the development aid policy of the European Community. We would all congratulate him and his committee on the report that they have produced. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I am unable to sit through the whole of the debate, since I am afraid that I have some other commitments which I cannot very well miss. How-every I very much hope that I shall be able to hear the two maiden speakers who are to take part in the debate on this important subject.
Certainly the debate is welcome, because no two subjects could be more widely misunderstood and misrepresented in this country than the activities of the European Community and the Government's policy on overseas development. If one was to believe some of the tracts which have recently circulated, and the sayings of certain polemicists, for a Government spokesman to rise to debate these subjects must be as hopeful as ascending a scaffold. Your Lordships will perhaps recall Samuel Pepys's description of the demise of Major-General Harrison. He wrote,
"I went out to Charing Cross, to see Major-General Harrison hanged, drawn and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could in that condition".
If your Lordships find me cheerful today, it is because I am glad to have the chance to redress some of the misconceptions that I have mentioned. I hasten to emphasise that these misconceptions are not to be found in the serious and valuable study produced by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and his colleagues.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, never has the relationship between the developed and developing countries been the subject of such intense discussion
1230
and concern as it has over the past year. Governments and public opinion are united in recognising the urgent need for more effective ways of tackling the world's economic and social problems. Indeed, public concern for this was again demonstrated impressively last week in the massive lobby of Parliament. And, if I may say so, it has been demonstrated this afternoon by the number of speakers wishing to participate in the debate, despite countervailing attractions elsewhere.
In its report, your Lordships' committee has made a most useful contribution to the public debate by focussing on an important conduit of the United Kingdom's development aid—one to which, as the noble Lord has said, we contribute substantially over £100 million annually, or more than 12 per cent. of our total aid budget. I might perhaps remind your Lordships of the scale of the aid contributions made in sum by the member states of the Community. The official development assistance provided by the Ten, both bilaterally and through the Community, approaches 12 billion dollars. This is more than half the total for the OECD countries, and, incidentally, more than eight times what the Soviet Union provides in civilian aid to the developing world.
Like the noble Lord, I shall not attempt a detailed analysis of the committee's report. The Government will shortly publish a response to their recommendations. However, I should like to concentrate on certain important aspects. First, is it right that such a high proportion of our aid should be channelled through the Community? I was interested to note the committee's view that, as, and when, more funds become available, the first priority should be to devote them not to Community aid, but to bilateral programmes and to other multilateral agencies.
The Government, too, think that priority must where possible be given to bilateral aid. Britain has a very fine record in its administration. In our national programme we can bring to bear our long experience and depth of specialised knowledge, whether it be in such fields as tropical agriculture and preventive medicine or in the execution of projects on a large scale—for example, in power generation or irrigation—and perhaps more than most we can and do apply tight financial control. We shall therefore maintain the emphasis on bilateral aid, and we consider that proposals for increased multilateral aid, including proposals from the Community, must be evaluated most carefully.
That said, I should like to place on record the high value which we attach to the aid programme of the European Community; and the value we attach to this programme is demonstrated by the way in which it has evolved since the United Kingdom joined the Community. We have had a considerable influence on that evolution. With our accession, the trade privileges and access to Community aid funds, previously available, your Lordships will remember, only to the signatories of the Yaounde Convention, were extended to Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. In 1973 the Yaounde Convention covered 19 countries, with a population of some 90 million. Today, the second Lomé Convention extends to 61 countries, more than half of which are members of the Commonwealth, with a total population

1231
of about 300 million. That is a remarkable transformation.
The Lomé Convention not only maintains privileged access to the European market for sugar, bananas, rum and beef through the Commonwealth CAP countries. It also, for example, incorporates unprecedented schemes to help stabilise export earnings in key import commodities and to help over difficulties affecting mineral producers. The record of solid achievement under the Lomé Convention contrasts very favourably with progress made through other fora and negotiations, which, if I may say so, have been characterised all too often by rhetoric rather than by action.
The committee were not convinced—and the noble Lord repeated it this afternoon—that Britain had asserted its views vigorously enough within the councils of the Community. I am not sure that I or, indeed, our Community partners would agree. But be that as it may, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to press for desirable and practicable improvements, such as, for example, speeding up the rate of disbursement of funds; encouraging co-financing, including co-financing with OPEC countries, under the programme for non-associated countries; and strengthening the Commission's staff in looking after this last programme and food aid.
One area in which there is, I know, scope for further development is in the evolution of a Community development policy on a worldwide basis. This has been the view of successive British Governments. It is also one of your Committee's main conclusions. On joining the Community we pressed for its development policy to cover deserving countries outside the Lomé Convention. This led to practical results in 1976, when the Community's programme of aid to non-associates was initiated. The programme has grown steadily from a total for commitments of £13 million in 1976 to over £80 million in 1981. Most of this has gone to the poorest countries of Asia. The programme of aid to non-associates and the aid programmes under Lomé have in addition been backed by the Community's food aid programme. This is now largely concentrated on the poorest countries, on a worldwide basis. Like your committee, the Government would like to see a change of emphasis, and restraint, in the food aid programme. Food aid should be designed to assist development, and should not be an instrument for the disposal of food surpluses. It should be concentrated on fewer recipient countries. This Government have consistently opposed increases in dairy food aid, though I fear it would be unrealistic to expect a major shift of policy in the short term.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the participation of British companies in the Community's projects. It is self-evident that the Community's aid programme is not run, and should not be run, for the benefit of the industries of the member states. Nevertheless, we should of course like to see British companies playing their due part in the implementation of the programme, and this is not yet the case. When this Government took office the share of contracts won by British firms under the 4th European Development Fund was, at 9 per cent., less than half of Britain's share of the cost of the fund. The Government have made systematic and determined efforts to help British firms bidding for
1232
EDF contracts—for example, through a greatly improved information system in the Department of Trade; through the appointment of a full-time official to our representation in Brussels; and through close attention by our diplomatic missions in Lomé countries. Although I accept that there is still a long way to go, I am glad to say that the British share of contracts is now about 12 per cent; I very much hope that more British firms will rise to the challenge, so that their involvement can more closely match the level of the British contribution.
Before I conclude, I think your Lordships would expect me to say a word or two about our broad approach to relations with the developing world, and the matters covered in the report of the Brandt Commission. The next six months will see an unprecedented series of meetings focussing, largely or wholly, on the health of the world economy—the summit of seven developed nations at Ottawa in July; the preparatory meeting of Foreign Ministers in Mexico in August; the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Melbourne in October; and the Mexico Summit later that month. No one would deny that the patient is unwell. His health has been examined with every available diagnostic aid. One important symptom is clearly the accumulating balance of payments deficit of the non-oil-producing developing countries, which according to the managing director of the IMF may reach the enormous figure of 100 billion dollars in 1982.
There is not yet agreement on how the patient should be cured. But, clearly, as the committee has suggested, the remedy will have to include measures to promote more effective re-cycling of surpluses. The remedy will also have to take account of the needs of the body as a whole, and not merely attend to one or two constituent parts. It would be naïve to expect the gatherings I have mentioned to come up with an instant panacea. They will not do that. We must accept that convalescence will at best be a measured and gradual process.
So far as developing countries are concerned, our efforts must run much wider than aid. They must include trade, investment and technology. Britain makes a substantial contribution in all these fields. Let me give your Lordships one or two examples. We are second only to West Germany, among our European partners, in the share of our manufactured imports which come from developing countries. We provided more private direct investment to developing countries in 1979 (which are the last figures we have) than France and Germany put together. This investment is often accompanied by an invaluable flow of technology.
Our aid programme will amount to over £1,000 million in this financial year; and its quality is very high. In 1980, over 60 per cent. of our bilateral aid went to the poorest countries, virtually all of it on grant terms. We have supported major changes in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. For example, the capital of the World Bank is being doubled to 80 billion dollars. The International Monetary Fund's loan commitment to developing countries trebled last year. Quotas are up by 50 per cent. Saudi Arabia has agreed to lend up to 12 billion dollars over three years. We and the other OECD

1233
countries are together making available a further one billion dollars. Special help for countries facing a sharp increase in the cost of cereal imports has just been agreed. These, by any yardstick, are substantial advances, and deserve due recognition.
The Mexico Summit in October will provide a valuable occasion for Heads of Government to review the whole range of these problems. The Government are taking this summit very seriously, and we intend to approach it in a constructive spirit.
My Lords, I began on a not entirely pessimistic note. Let me conclude in a similar vein. We face a situation which is undeniably difficult, perhaps even dangerous. But at least governments, multilateral organisations and public opinion have recognised the dangers and are working hard to do something about them. And this very much includes the European Community.
The Community's aid policy and associated trade arrangements are solid evidence that the Community and its member states are not turning their backs on the world's poor when fashioning their own common policies. The Lomé Convention and other institutional arrangements provide a direct channel through which the views, hopes and fears of many developing countries can be—and are—vigorously put to the Community: and when put forward, they are not neglected. What the Community provides to so many countries in aid, in trade preferences and in investment Britain could never provide alone.
So let us recognise it for what it is; yet another solid reason why the Community, with Britain's help, grows every day stronger on the world's stage, and yet another solid testimony to the fact that our national concerns and those of the Community are, increasingly, not in conflict but in harmony.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, the House is indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow for presenting his Committee's report, and for doing so in such an admirable fashion. The House also appreciates the very thoughtful speech that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made in this context. He picked up a number of very important points which I am bound to say struck some very favourable echoes from this side of the House and, I think it will be fair to assume, from the Liberal Benches as well. It is a report in the very best traditions of the House and it will be a definitive document on aid for many years to come—particularly as the needs and the implications of the grants revelations are properly tackled.
The first thing that this report has shown, in common with every other report on the North and South situation that I have read over the past five years, is that the tragic gap between the relatively rich countries and the poorer countries of the world is widening. Naturally that does not mean to say that the sum of poverty is actually increasing but that the gap is widening. That can create a psychological and in some cases a nationalistic sentiment which is as bad in its effect upon stability and peace as actual hunger.
This dichotomy between comparative richness on the one hand and comparative poverty on the other has both political and economic lessons for us. At the
1234
same time, aid and development contributions, as the report itself shows in at least four of the tables it presents, are growing less and less. The recession, the oil crisis, the debt problems which the noble Lord quite rightly referred to as being a problem within a problem—and possibly an insoluble one because of its nature and because of the extraordinary heights to which the price of money has grown over the past few years—are all pressing the poorer countries further and further into poverty. This is something that the rest of the countries of the world, whatever their problems, enjoying as they do comparative wealth and wellbeing, must determine to reverse. The relatively prosperous nations must face these facts about the third world. The Community has a direct interest in helping third world countries because the Community, as an aggregation of the most highly industrialised countries in the world, depends more upon the potential market and resources of the third world than does any other group of industrial powers.
In the meantime we really must increase rather than diminish our direct aid—development and other—to the third world. The noble Lord will not be surprised when I say once more how deeply we on this side of the House regret the fact that Her Majesty's Government have cut our total aid contribution by 14½ per cent. The cuts in public spending has been only 4½ per cent. but the funds to alleviate the sufferings of the third world have been cut by three times as much. This is a misconceived priority; to give only one relatively small detail but one of flourishing importance, there is the way in which we are dealing with foreign students' charges. Cumulatively this will work against our country over the next few years and thereby against the whole concept of Western democracy, both politically and economically. It is a piece of mean and thoughtless saving and, late though the hour is, one hopes that even this Government may reconsider.
When the Minister answers the debate, we should like to have an assurance that Britain's aid contributions through the Community will at least continue in real terms as at present. On the figures we have, it will not do so; it will go down. Over the next three or four years it will actually decline. We have heard figures from the other side of the House but I hope we shall not have to argue about them because this is not really a partisan issue; this is a question of such tremendous importance that we really must have the right figures so that our priorities can be right. There is some confusion as to how much we as a country are doing and how much the Community as a region is doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, selected the most important points in his report for comment. He pointed out that the report contains two important sets of issues in EEC policy. First, there were the mechanics of the implementation of EEC aid structures; the technical problems; the efficiency of the European Development Fund and the Community Aid Programme. That in itself constitutes enough material for a full-dress debate in this or any other House. It is of immense importance that these mechanics should be progressively examined and improved.
Secondly, there is the larger question of policy as to whether these aid structures are in themselves the appropriate ones and whether they should be extended

1235
to additional countries. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had to say on this, and I will press him no further on it. I think there is a consensus that this matter of the addition of other countries needs to be quickly and effectively looked at.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has said, the report emphasises the extent to which Community aid structures are based on the French administrative model of development co-operation. I believe that that is the respectable way of putting it. And, indeed, it remains substantially (if I may quote from the report, again being respectable):
"a mirror image of French policy".
There is nothing wrong about a member state asserting its reasonable claims when, in fact, making a contribution to a general policy. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said: that, with advantage to the Community, to ourselves and to the recipient countries, we could emphasise the British voice a bit more both in the financial as well as in the organisational conclaves that dictate this policy.
The House will know that it is unsatisfactory for other member states, and for the United Kingdom in particular, that our largest bilateral aid recipients, India and Bangladesh, are outside the ACP group. It is going to be a very big problem of including what is, after all, a sub-continent within the ambit of the very effective system that we generally call the Lomé system.
I think it will be agreed that the paramount criterion to aid is that it must be determined by the development needs of the third world and not by the exigencies of the Community's internal agricultural policies. We must not be afraid of constructive criticism over the way in which the Community's economy is operated. Yet I sometimes wonder whether we are doing a disservice to the Community in that those who have for many years worked hard for European co-operation, even integration—political federalists, if I may say so—find that whenever we point to obvious discrepancies, mistakes of calculation and of administration (as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington pointed out years ago) we are automatically accused of being anti-European. It is not anti-European if one is critical of the Market; but that is not necessarily the same thing. It will be helpful to the development of a sound development and aid policy if it is not bedevilled by the exigencies of the need to reform SEAP in the near future.
I will give one quick example. The Community spends a great deal of money on food aid but the policy is mainly influenced by the CAP and especially towards surplus dairy products. There is no blame on the noble Lord who early in his speech showed that he was well aware of this difficulty. It is orientated towards surplus dairy products; but dairy food products are not suitable for many development countries. Moreover, there is the great scandal (to which my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies would have drawn attention from these Benches this afternoon had she not other pressing engagements) of multi-national corporations urging on mothers the use of powdered milk for their babies instead of breast milk when, without clean water and all the necessary adjuncts of Western bottle-feeding methods, powdered milk
1236
can be, and is, poison to thousands of children in the third world.
I hope that the details of our aid policy, especially in the food sector, will be gone into with great care in the next few months. Emergency aid, especially in food, there must be almost constantly. Emergency in food is more permanent, I would say, than the emergency in the supply of oil. It must be looked at and indeed attended to all the time. But when we are doing it, let us not hang on to it other considerations which, in turn, have dreadful results for those whom we seek to assist.
We would do well, as the report says, to examine what the voluntary agencies have to say about their experience of the complexities of Community aid. Oxfam, War on Want and comparable agencies make the point over and over again, both in the evidence and in their own publications, that in order to make disaster aid effective speed is of the essence. It was put to me that if Oxfam asks for help from the Milk Marketing Board, dried milk is immediately available; and in two, three of four hours is in the plane and on its way. The Community can take six, nine, or 12 months to achieve the same purpose. I quote in this regard from the report:
"Very often the people are dead or revolutions have intervened and the situation is wholly changed".
There is a good case in this report for taking another look at the efficiency and utility of some of our major voluntary agencies in this field. There is great expertise there and, even more, there is a tremendous amount of dedication and faith.
It is a sad fact that there is some tension between voluntary agencies and Governments because, although the objectives are often the same, Governments tend to favour large projects or to favour infrastructure and to favour projects which need complicated accountancy which have to be referred for long periods back home. As some of the agencies put it—and I am referring to the voluntary agencies—the accountants and technicians are often satisfied if a road or a port has been built; but it is quite another matter if it has been built in quite the right place or whether there is anybody there to keep it in good repair. This is the follow-up: that, either through the more sophisticated voluntary agencies or through a mix of voluntary agency experience and Government agencies, we can improve the actual implementation of development aid in these countries.
In answer to searching questions by the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, Lord Kissin and others, the representatives on the committee suggested that EDF and the Commission ought to be more conscious of the debate now taking place in the World Bank about how to reorientate a large part of the resources to the kinds of rural development which make a real impact on the needs of the rural poor. This is a major point. Too often donor countries, whether together or individually, seek somehow to help under-developed countries to industrialise themselves as if agriculture today and the myriad industries associated with modern agriculture is not an industry at all. This is an old-fashioned view, that somehow agriculture is second class to factory industry. Indeed, it is going to be—if it is not already—more important than many aspects of manufacturing industry. Which is the most

1237
serious problem facing the world in relation to burgeoning over-population? The oil shortage or the problem of food production, its transportation and its distribution? Agriculture stands at the very head of the industries that we ought to be consciously stimulating in the recipient countries.
A good deal of psychological education is needed. I have spoken to countless people in these countries, some of them leaders, who somehow think that they are not quite a country unless they have a certain amount of hardware industry. It is very difficult to persuade some—not all—about this. The world is learning and the world can see that starvation may well be staring it in the face unless it is careful about the proper use of the earth. It is very difficult to get them to understand the importance of agriculture. The right approach of course is through the agricultural sciences—agriculture itself is a productive science and there are at least 57 varieties of agriculture, as my noble friend will confirm—and to introduce agriculture as a major industry in a given region or country as a variety of activity engendering not just the tiller of the soil but all kinds of skills as well as crafts.
Then there is the question of financial control and auditing. The report feels that here and there the Community approach to financial control is rather mechanical. Well, I do not know. It is time perhaps that we were more careful about the control of finance in the Community. Certainly we have not yet mastered the techniques of using finance and credit—credit stands of course for skill, not resources—in such a way that they are not a dole, not a grant, not even a concessive loan, but an investment by the comparatively rich in the potential of the presently poor but the potentially rich. There are areas of the world where this truth is slowly becoming more and more apparent.
I found it a little disappointing that the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Overseas Aid—for whom I have the utmost regard, both as a person and as a Minister—had been a little unsympathetic to certain approaches to him by the voluntary agencies. But I pass that. I mention it because I am sure that he is the man to reconsider the relationship between Government and voluntary action, and to do so effectively.
May I also recommend to the House the fascinating account of how the projects are designated, planned and actually carried out, in the work of Dr. Black-Campbell, and others, for which there is no time to do more than pay passing tribute. Noble Lords will note that the United Kingdom's financial contribution to European Development Fund IV was fixed at 18.7 per cent. We mentioned this in the debate that we had the other night which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. But after four and a half years of the operation of the fund, contracts to British firms totalled only 11·23 per cent. I think that the Foreign Secretary put it at 12 per cent. It is as near as makes no difference. The figure is fewer than 12 per cent. after four and a half years of the operation of the fund.
I hurry to a conclusion because there is a long list of speakers whom we are all anxious to hear. Since the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has given us such a clear resumé of the report and its recommendations, and since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington,
1238
has replied so fully and given certain—I shall not call them "assurances", that would be unfair—indications of the way that his mind is working and the way that he wants to see aid policy develop, I shall not detain the House longer than to say this. It is essential that the area of assistance be expanded not only because the ACP countries (the Lomé countries as we call them) are clearly not the only countries which need Community aid but because the entire third world is at once a challenge to our humanity and an opportunity to our expertise. The two things go together.
The Brandt Commission sub-titled its report "A Programme for Survival". That is not just the survival of the third world, of the one-third of the world living on the brink of poverty, but survival of the world as a viable unit because we in the favoured West and North are dead ducks unless we have enough food, enough fuel and enough of the right metals, many of which come from across the seas and many of which may well come from underdeveloped countries where their presence is not even suspected. It is in the interests of the survival of the North and West, and the values that we stand for and will fight for, that we should extend to the underdeveloped world as much practical help as we can possibly afford. It is indeed a policy of enlightened self-interest.
4.0 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, whatever your individual views, I think that your Lordships will agree on one thing: namely, that "aid" is a controversial, complicated, and, on the whole, rather unpopular subject which cannot, however, possibly be ignored without very considerable risk for our nation.
The report of the Committee now before you deals specifically with only one rather small aspect of this vast subject, but within these limits it arrives, I suggest, at very reasonable conclusions. That this is so is largely due to the splendid chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who, if I may say so, is the embodiment of that pre-eminent British virtue, namely, common sense. I do not think that the conclusions of the Committee towards which he guided us, beyond a certain difference of emphasis on the advantages of bilateral, as opposed to multilateral, aid, are seriously contested by any of the Committee's members, representative of all parties though they were. I therefore hope that these recommendations will commend themselves to the House and to the Government. From what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, although his official views will be expressed later, if I understand him correctly, perhaps in the form of a White Paper, he did not seem to be opposed to any of the five recommendations of the report. Let us hope that these recommendations will also appeal to our colleagues in the European Community. I cannot see why they should not but I should here like, very briefly to make one or two observations which may supplement what the chairman of the sub-committee has said.
The publication of our report coincides, more or less, with the recent dramatic change of Government in France and shortly precedes the British Presidency of the Council of Ministers—an opportunity for the exercise of influence in the Community which, unless

1239
I have got it wrong, will only recur in 1986. One feature of the first of these events—that is to say, the change of Government in France—will surely be welcomed by all of us whatever our political allegiances, namely the nomination as French Foreign Minister, or rather as Minister of External Affairs, of M. Claude Cheysson, until recently, in Brussels, responsible for the aid policy of the Community and therefore responsible for the whole administration of the two Conventions of Lomé. It seems certain that this excellent man, who speaks perfect English, will do his best in the Council of Ministers to advocate an intelligent policy for aid generally, and I do not think he is likely to contest very vigorously the reforms of Community aid recommended by the Sub-Committee if these are put forward in the Council of Ministers, as I hope they will be, by the representative of Her Majesty's Government.
True, he may not be too keen on expanding the scope of the Lomé Conventions—because after all they are largely his own brain child—but I think he may well see the force of the argument in favour of so doing if and when any additional funds become available. And even on food aid I feel he might be won over, if only it could be represented (as I hope it will be) as part of some agreed reform of the common agricultural policy. So perhaps the basic question is whether he, and above all the new President, François Mitterand, can be induced to contemplate anything in the way of reform of the common agricultural policy. Though I may be thought absurdly optimistic, I would not despair of progress in this direction which, as we all know, it will be one of the main purposes of the incoming President of the Council, our own Foreign Secretary, to promote.
About a year ago, as a matter of fact, I did have a long talk with M. Mitterand, whom I had met some 20 years ago when I was Ambassador in Paris, and as a "European" I was considerably impressed by what he told me. Nobody will expect him to be anything but a sincere socialist, albeit a sincerely democratic socialist. Nobody will imagine, either, that he will be slow to defend what he considers to be the national interests of France. Nobody, finally, will believe that he will be particularly favourable to any extension of the interests of the great multi-national companies whose power he will probably seek, perhaps more vigorously than his predecessor, to curb by means of some agreed code of conduct; personally I hope he will. But what I think you will find is that he will be likely to favour the emergence in the European Parliament, as a result of free and democratic debate, of compromise solutions—that is to say solutions based on a compromises between rival national interests—which may well extend to the whole field of European agriculture and thus help us and the Germans in our efforts to get with his consent, some reasonable agreed reform, of the common agricultural policy.
What seems quite possible in any case is that as a result of the forthcoming elections in France the new President will not have an absolute majority of socialists in the National Assembly but may, with luck, be able to rely on some kind of moderate or left of centre, rather than communist, votes in order to put his policies—or some of them—into effect. If so, the result would surely be, as it has been in Germany, generally progressive
1240
and left-of-centre policies. All this may go sadly wrong but, if it does not, there seems to be a real chance of French and German co-operation on progressive lines that will redound to the benefit of the Community as a whole. What I do know is that M. Mitterand—unlike, I am sorry to say, the apparent majority of British socialists—firmly believes in building up a European Community on the basis of the present membership and the existing institutions which will have a policy of its own and hence, while remaining in the Atlantic Alliance in the absence of general disarmament, to a large extent will be independent of both super powers. That is what I believe he essentially stands for.
I return to the subject of aid after that digression, which I hope your Lordships will not regard as altogether irrelevant. It seems to me that this whole subject is still dominated, whether we like it or not, by the Brandt Report which, however, if I understand it correctly, only regards direct financial aid as part of a vast concerted effort to improve relations between industrialised and non-industrialised or only partially industrialised countries, to which in shorthand (and rather incorrectly) it refers to as "North" and "South". It puts, indeed, the desirable notional total of direct financial aid at about £2 billion per annum for the next 10 years and in the light of that one can say that our own contribution is not doing so badly, even though, as I think and as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, we cannot stay where we are and we really ought to contribute very much more.
On food aid, though Brandt thinks it should continue, he does appear to share some of the criticisms of the form of this aid which occurred to the committee. But the burden of his song is concerned, of course, with industrialisation and world trade, with commodity and trade development, with a new energy policy and above all with some world monetary order involving, as we should all hope, the transfer by some means of the surpluses of the oil producers to the development of the so-called third world as a whole. On all these matters the Brandt Committee, and more particularly Mr. Edward Heath, according to what I read in the papers, have voiced what appear to be strong criticisms of the policies of Northern Governments, not excepting our own Government. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Lord who is to wind up whether he thinks there is anything in the criticisms formulated by Mr. Heath and if so, why.
No doubt all these great matters will be discussed in the forthcoming conferences of world leaders in Ottawa and elsewhere ending at Mexico City in October. I suppose also to some extent they will figure on the agenda of the forthcoming meetings of the EEC Council of Ministers in London. The persistence of the world recession and the increasing likelihood of some repudiation of debts by various members of the third world who have seemingly reached the end of their financial resources will probably oblige the Ministers at least to try to reach a common attitude in all these respects. Nobody supposes that this will be easy, but it will surely be easier to arrive at a satisfactory solution of North/South, to say nothing of East/West difficulties, if the 10 members

1241
of the EEC stick together, than if, as is apparently desired, or at least contemplated, by some in the Labour Party, they all break up and pursue independent nationalistic policies.
I have pretty well come to the end of my 10 minutes, but I hope I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that the conclusions of the report of Lord Greenhill's committee are worthy of your general approval. In the main committee, under the able direction of the noble Baroness, Lady White, we discuss from time to time how far our reports are effective. I believe that they often are and this one is no exception. The audience, admittedly, is not enormous, but they are mostly those who can influence events in the Commission, in the European Parliament and even in the various national administrations. Unless, therefore, the Labour Party succeed in what, I imagine, is one of their major objectives—namely, the abolition of this House—I expect that this goodwill will continue.
If the Labour Party is likewise resolved—I do not know if it is so, but I am told that it is so—to take us out of the European Community as soon as possible, it may be that its interest in the administration of aid under Lomé will be somewhat limited. But for those in this country who feel that it would be madness for us to retire into political and economic isolation, and therefore to abandon the Lomé organisation, of which, seeing that it is administered by the Commission, we should not then be a part, it is obviously a matter of considerable importance how best Community aid can fit into the general scheme of things.
In conclusion, I would simply observe that the evidence presented to us was both extensive and fascinating to all interested in this great subject. I hope, therefore, that it, also, will be widely circulated. I must say, also, that we had the benefit of a really first-class secretary and an admirable specialist adviser, who kept us all well on the rails. So I have little doubt that the present debate will be useful, and that our report which is now under discussion will take a worthy place on the Library shelf, along with other noteworthy reports of this committee in the past.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, like previous speakers I, too, should like to offer my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and his committee for the production of this very valuable report. Indeed, I am bound to say that anybody who cares to take the trouble to look at anything which the European Community does is worthy of full support, because the Community needs watching day and night, and at any other period that might exist. When one looks at this report, and reads of some of the absurdities and of the contemptible waste that goes on in that organisation, it is bad enough, when it hurts us But when they endeavour to do things on the one hand, and then cut their own throats on the other—I wish they would do it successfully—one can understand why ordinary people in this country get very annoyed.
What I found particularly hurtful and regrettable on the very first page of this report were the words:
"Concern about development assistance has been increased by the intentions of some developed countries, including the
1242
United States and the United Kingdom, to reduce their aid".
It goes on:
"and by the publication of the Brandt Report".
We have those two statements in juxtaposition—what has been said in the Brandt Report, and then that the United States of America and Great Britain have been singled out in this report because of the reduction in aid which they are prepared to give to the hungry world.
Let us have none of these fancy phrases about developing countries and developed countries. Those of us who have had occasion to serve on various commissions in India, Africa and the Far East know what the word "developing" means. It means that people are starving and are still fighting ignorance, poverty and disease. We do not want these posh terms of the bureaucrats and the administrators, about developing and developed countries. We want words in the language of ordinary people, who produce the wherewithal with which to try to help those who are suffering.
Over the past decade or so we have had a number of reports. In 1944 we had the Bretton Woods conference. Then in 1945 we had the establishment of the United Nations and its charter. In particular, I would draw your Lordships' attention to Article 55 and, in the context of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, we ought to look at how much this country, the EEC and other countries have done in trying to make a reality of Article 55.
In 1960, we had the introduction of the first United Nations development decade. Then in 1969, there was what seemed to be a very attractive proposition—the partners in development. That did not get very far, because the World Bank had its grubby fingers in it. If you want to see anything ruined by avarice and greed, invite a few bankers to give advice. These are the thoughts of the ordinary people outside this House, who are concerned and who are wondering precisely what will happen to the millions in the developing hungry countries who are suffering great privation.
The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs mentioned, quite correctly, that there are many British firms which could do a little better and could show a little more initiative. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord should pick this time to chastise British firms. What they are concerned with are the hundreds of bankruptcies that are occurring every week, with firm after firm going down the drain. How can one expect the management and workers in those firms to be wholly concerned with this report, when what they are worried about it whether their firms will continue to exist and whether the workers in them will join the dole queues?
How can one expect that people outside, with over 2½ million on the dole, are going to get terribly worked up, as they ought to be, despite the fact that on the dole their standards of life are high compared to those of millions of their fellow human beings who are suffering hunger and deprivation? It is things of that kind that we must bring together, and we must make sure that we understand wholly what is involved in this report. We must also involve other people outside.
Speaking in parenthesis, I sometimes feel that, in addition to the people who gave evidence to the

1243
Select Committee—and the report is valuable reading—we should spread the net a little wider and ask for the guidance, experience and advice not only of administrators and bankers but of the real people who count—the carpenters, the joiners, the electricians, the quantity surveyors and the civil engineers. I have had the privilege of witnessing people of that kind making massive endeavours in Africa, India and parts of the Far East. Those are the people who count. All the money from the EEC and from our own nation is useless without the expertise of those who can create and construct.
The same argument applies to the young men and women whom I have witnessed in swamps, in fetid parts of the world, devoting the great knowledge which they have gathered from their own mother country, this island. They have taken that knowledge overseas and have made their contribution in the fight against disease, poverty and hunger. We shall not grasp the nettle of helping those who need assistance, unless we acknowledge that millions of able, competent people in this country, who are eagerly prepared to make their contribution to the economy of Great Britain, can also make their contribution to the millions in the world who are living on the edge of starvation.
It seems to me that we have got to do, whether through the EEC or on a world basis, what was adumbrated in the Brandt Report: when we talk of summits for peace, which are important, we ought also to talk about summits for living, summits which involve the whole of mankind, not just those who are concerned about war and peace. We have to remember that there are people who are not concerned about war and peace; death might be the only thing which would bring relief to them. This is the kind of thinking which I believe your Lordships' House ought to consider when we are discussing this problem. The rich and the poor have got to march together in reciprocity and in reciprocal activity. If the poor and the rich countries do not do so, civilisation will continue to limp.
Despite all that has been done in the past 30 years, we have not yet been able to make a dramatic attack on all the things which curse mankind in other parts of the world. It hurts me that our great nation, which once made a massive contribution, is not now being permitted to do so—not merely because of the world recession but because of that ugly blot on our economy at the moment; namely, the policy of the present Government which is bound up in one ugly, vulgar word—not compassion, not aid, not help, but monetarism. It is a word which I hope will be banished from the English language in the not too distant future.
This is a great nation. People have quoted our poets of the past. I want to do so, too. I want to quote what Milton said about the British people—that we are,
"a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit: acute to invent; subtle and sinewy in discourse; not beneath the reach of any point—the highest that human capacity can soar to".
In conclusion, may I say that, given an opportunity to make a reality of these great assets of the British people, we shall not only lift up the spirits, the hopes and the aspirations of the people of our country and
1244
be able to make a contribution to the problems which afflict our nation. I believe also that we still have it within us to make a contribution to suffering humanity in other parts of the world. These endeavours of our nation will not only be of great joy to the people in knowing what they are doing; at the same time, they can set an example on this aspect of aid and can be of help to a suffering world. We can be an example to all those who wish to follow us and make their contribution.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, after adding my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, for his extremely lucid presentation of this report, the privilege falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on his extremely stimulating maiden speech. I think I can say without exaggeration that it is possibly one of the more stimulating maiden speeches which I have heard in your Lordships' House. It is possible that there entered into it a whiff of smoke from a certain famous battlefield at the other end of the corridor, but I am sure that we all appreciated his contribution. We look forward to his further contributions to our debates on this and many other subjects.
I wish first to turn, although it has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and others, to the question of food aid. I believe that apart from its specific deficiencies it has important implications for our approach to development aid as a whole. Some, if not all, food aid is provided for the wrong reasons and with the wrong results. The food aid programme is described in terms of volume and distribution in paragraphs 30 to 34 of the report. It is more fully treated in paragraphs 78 to 93. Paragraph 79 in particular contains a pretty damning indictment by a member of the European Parliament which the sub-committee has largely endorsed.
The first thing, of course, is to distinguish between emergency aid, the need for which no-one questions and of which there should obviously be a reserve, as it were, in the Community's larder. In fact, about 10 per cent. of the Community's annual programme is reserved for this purpose. But the main body of food aid is quite different.
"Programmes of commodity assistance for development"—
I read from paragraph 81—
"conceived and executed over several years should in theory not only help food deficit countries but should also not harm food producers in those countries.…In particular, food aid programmes should not deter local production".
Yet there is no coherent multi-annual programme enabling recipients to plan ahead and integrate food aid with their domestic agriculture. It is an annual programme involving some incredible time lags, some of which are described in an interesting book Food Aid and the Developing World by Dr. Christopher Stephens. All the facts can be found there.
The other factor is that quite a significant part of the food aid programme, particularly in the field of dairy products, derives from European farmers' surpluses. In paragraph 81 of this report the CAP, that demon king, leaps on to the stage with a wicked chuckle, aided and abetted not only by Directorate General VIII, which is concerned with aid, but by his special henchman, Directorate General VI, which is concerned with agriculture. The committee were informed in evidence

1245
that it was barely more expensive to dispose of surplus dairy products through aid than to sell them at subsidised rates to the USSR and Eastern Europe. But this means that it gets loaded on to a fairly slim aid budget at the expense of other more pressing claims. I quote again from paragraph 81:
"Dairy products are not a form of food well suited to the nutritional requirements of many developing countries. Moreover, the reconstitution of powdered milk without adequate clean water supplies poses a major health hazard".
This has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and I will not go into it at any further length, though the evidence given to the committee by Dr. Stephens on this subject of the health hazard presented by reconstituted powdered milk is well worth reading. In fact, it appears on pages 143 to 149 of the report—that is, in the section containing the evidence.
Next, there is the question of how this aid is charged to the budget. This is described in paragraph 14 and in paragraphs 83 to 85 of the report. Believe it or not, exactly the same accounting procedure is applied to dairy products which are in surplus and which cost the Community very high storage charges as to cereals which have to be bought and paid for in hard cash on the world market. The United Kingdom's share of this in-house transaction is then imputed to the aid chapter of the Community budget at the full price, even though the dairy produce in question would not have been saleable at all on the open market. Furthermore, as your Lordships will see from paragraph 84, the Commission sometimes proposes to transfer unspent funds from other parts of the Community budget to increase food aid allocations. None of this affects our overall contribution to the EEC budget, but owing to our own aid accounting system any such increase in moneys under the aid chapter of the Community's budget would be debited to the ODA's vote, thus, I quote from paragraph 83:
"…reducing the scope for other development activities under bilateral aid programmes or through multilateral contributions".
Now in the aid game there are bilateralists and multilateralists, but whichever camp one belongs to (the present Government, I believe, tends to favour the former) there is nothing to be said for squeezing good programmes in support of bad ones. Two conclusions, for me, emerge from all this. The first is that we should modify our own accounting procedures so that unforeseen additional food aid appropriations, which in fact involve no additional cost to us, are not debited in such a way as to decrease our capacity in other more fruitful and more beneficial sectors of the aid programme.
In footnote 2 to paragraph 85 the committee agrees with the Commons Agriculture Committee that the convention of charging dairy products against aid budgets at world prices should be abandoned at the earliest possible moment. In paragraph 14 the committee notes that:
"The present practice of imputing Community aid to ODA's vote is being re-examined and they hope that greater flexibility will be possible in the future, especially for food aid".
I shall be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he replies to the debate, if he will tell us whether this re-examination has now been completed and, if so, what action the Government propose to take.
The second conclusion that I draw is contained
1246
succinctly in paragraph 90 of the report:
"The Committee consider that given the unsatisfactory nature of the current dairy food aid programme, its relatively high budgetary cost and the dubious suitability of dairy products for many developing countries, the overall size of the food aid programme in dairy products should be reduced. The budgetary savings should be transferred into programmes of financial aid, and particularly to the programme of aid to non-associates".
In paragraph 91 the report goes on to estimate that a reduction of dairy product aid and the concentration of it on about five recipients would release some £22·5 million. Some people might want the money for claimants other than the non-associates, but the main purport of this message will be unaffected and that is: let us keep this money for wells and water, roads and other vital projects, rather than putting it in the pockets of over-producers of dairy products. I very much hope that we shall use not only our best endeavours but all our influence and any muscle we may have to see that this comes about. Perhaps when the noble Lord winds up he will also indicate the intentions of the Government in this respect.
Turning rapidly to more promising avenues, perhaps the most novel proposal in the report is that recipients should be enabled to raise loans on the strength of Community aid and use that aid to service these new debts, thus considerably increasing their resources for development. This is set out in paragraphs 121 to 126. In the following paragraphs, 127 to 129 and again in 132, stress is laid on the importance of efforts to encourage the recycling of the OPEC countries' balance of payments surpluses in the direction of the developing world.
I am all for this, but I think it is important that we should not read into these proposals a suggestion that OPEC countries are doing nothing at present. I should therefore like to draw your Lordships' attention to table 1 on page vi, from which one learns that Saudi Arabia's net disbursement of ODA in 1979 was 3·13 per cent, and Kuwait's a whacking 50·14 per cent. This makes the Brandt Commission's recommendations that we should aim to reach 0·7 per cent. by 1985 and one whole percentage point by the year 2000 look tame. I should also like to direct your Lordships' attention to the very interesting memorandum by Sir Fred Warner on page 260, on co-financing with Arab development funds and particularly to the table on page 262 which shows an almost exact one for one matching of EEC and Arab investment funds.
This of course brings us into Brandt country and I noted with proper respect the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, that speakers in this debate should keep their eyes on the ball, but having, I think, complied with this so far I must confess that I am not strong enough to resist the temptation of saying a few words about Brandt, especially as the committee devotes paragraphs 130 to 133 to it and also of course those of us who sit on this Bench have a commitment to seeing that the Brandt Report gets a fair hearing in the fora of the world. The trouble with Herr Brandt's monumental effort in my view is that it is likely to become a sort of sacred cow to which some people pay a total obeisance and at which others sneer or throw stones and about which nothing much else is done. So I think it is worth while trying to clear our minds about what it is.

1247
Though sub-titled "A programme for survival", as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has pointed out, it seems to me important to bear in mind that the Brandt Report is predominantly about the future of market economies. The chairman met Mr. Brezhnev in 1978 and leaders from Poland and Hungary and other nations of the Warsaw Pact and Mr. Health went to China, but neither of these vast geo-political blocs was represented on the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, as Mr. Brandt's team was officially called.
Perhaps the crux of the Brandt analysis is contained in pages 237 and 238, which I will not quote, but it is worth remarking that equal concern is expressed for the poor health of the northern—or western economies, as I persist in labelling them in my mind—as for the needs of the south. There is no humanitarian appeal here; it is all quite clinical and businesslike.
On page 238 of the Brandt Commission's report we are given some OECD estimates of the amount of additional unemployment there would have been in the West and in the Community in particular if our exports to the developing world had not been on the increase. Then we come up against the growing burden of third world debt and the threat this poses to the future of such trade expansion.
According to Brandt, the principal mechanism for getting things moving in everybody's interests is a new world monetary order. In essence this is a reform of the international monetary system. It is set out on pages 219 and 220 and there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it. It has caused some alarm among major financial interests in the West but the idea is much less frightening than it sounds. It is still based on the market system and recognised international banking practices. One of the main concerns it professes is not to increase what it calls the "contractionist pressures" in the world economy.
Many other of Brandt's proposals are relatively modest. I have already mentioned the exhortation to meet the UN recommended appropriation to aid of 0·7 per cent. of GNP by 1985 and we are allowed until the end of the century to attain the mighty figure of 1 per cent. The idea of a tax on arms exports is toyed with but nothing concrete is proposed. Stabilised commodity agreements which would be almost as much to our advantage as to that of the producing countries are recommended, and so on. I really do not think that the Government, or indeed any Western Government, can pretend that a dangerous subversion of world order is implicit in any of these proposals. Subversion is rather more likely if nothing is done. As I said earlier, they are basically conceived as a rescue operation on the market economies and a way out of the recession. I do not even agree with all of them myself and I think that the humanitarian imperative could have been spelled out more strongly. But they certainly deserve a rational discussion at the highest level.
The Government have a number of opportunities coming up, as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary told us, first at Ottawa, then at the Commonwealth Conference in Melbourne and then in Mexico in October, and although of course one must agree with him that there are no panaceas on the horizon, I was extremely
1248
glad to hear his assurance that the Government would go to Mexico in a constructive spirit.
At this point I really must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, for having ducked under his guidelines and I hasten to slip back on to the straight and narrow. The transition is not really so difficult because any new initiatives are bound to draw on the experience of what we arc doing, on however small a scale, at present. The Lomé Convention may be an example of a partnership in which some partners are more equal than others, but it is at least contractual over a period of time and not a mere system of ad hoc handouts. Stabex and Sysmin are possibly forerunners of a wider network of commodity arrangements. Co-financing of projects is already to some extent taking place between Arab banks and the European Investment Bank. These steps are all to be welcomed. When I picked on food aid and particularly dairy products at the beginning of my speech, it was not to give aid a bad name but to put a warning notice on a path that the Community should not go down. We shall need all the resources we can spare—and more—to put some flesh on Brandt.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I, too, seek the indulgence of the House for a maiden speech. I am not sure whether, having entered your Lordships' House only a mere 24 hours ago, I should have left a respectably longer time before I ventured to address your Lordships' House. But I suggest that one way in which I feel at home here is that I spent nearly 15 years in the other place, and I am pleased to be joining some of my former friends there on this occasion. I note that I am to be followed by a right reverend Prelate, a Lord Bishop, and this rather indicates to me that I was wise in seeking to avoid a title which would lead to my being mistaken for a Lord spiritual, a flattering prospect indeed. Yet I have managed to keep my name and also to associate myself with the city of my birth, Bristol, or a part of it—a part which was in the first constituency that I fought, in Bristol West, nigh on 31 years ago, as well as having a territorial designation referring to Newark, the place where I live and where I was honoured to represent the people for about 15 years.
There will be no dispute that the matter before the House today is of very great importance, and I think it a matter of the greatest importance, as underlined by the Brandt Report, which is an historic document. The report before us today, and the Brandt Report, highlight the appalling conditions in which millions live in the less developed countries in many parts of the world, and it is of course a challenge to the United Kingdom itself. This report on the EEC development aid policy presents us with a subject on which I share real concern with many others. I am very pleased to see the Foreign Secretary here today. I must say that I do not in any way doubt the Government's sincerity in its aid and other policies, although this is not the occasion for me to say on which conclusions or policies I may disagree; that may follow at a later stage.
I am very pleased to be able to speak on this subject, first of all, because in another place I was the Minister of State for five years—that was a time when there was one Minister of State—and I had some responsibility for

1249
the problems of dealing with technical assistance, with exports, with trade and aid to other countries, attending the World Food Council, and so on. I am pleased to be back joining my noble friend Lord Peart, with whom I worked happily, as indeed I did with many others, for some years. I join in acknowledging the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the work of the Select Committee on the European Communities on this very vital subject.
I am reminded that brevity is required on these occasions, so I shall limit my remarks to a few aspects, trying to avoid some of the customary platitudes with which we often associate debates on overseas aid and development aid in general. The report is a comprehensive one dealing with several disturbing aspects which need more detailed examination, and I hope the report is read not only by noble Lords but also by the wider public in the country, because there are many items there which need and deserve scrutiny.
I am sure that we appreciate that the EEC aid programme does give member states the opportunity of co-ordinating their efforts, but one sees the disturbing revelations of paragraph 9, which suggest that up to now no machinery has existed within the Community for detailed co-ordination of member states' national aid programmes, although of course the OECD does something in that respect. If we are to maximise our aid contributions, close co-ordination is absolutely essential. This is one of the aspects which deserve more attention.
I want to emphasise two main points. First, I think we are indebted to the Brandt Commission for its work in giving us research which warns the world of the consequences of failing to match up to the demands and the needs of millions of men, women and children in the third world and in the less developed countries. I am sure we are indebted, too, to the dedicated work of a commission member for the UK, Mr. Edward Heath, for his zeal in publicising the problems of our times, and indeed to others up and down the country, in individual capacities or in organisations, for the work they are doing to highlight the importance of its message. I urge that we should all be trying to take what I think is a global perspective, seeing the need not in terms of what the industrialised North can give to the needy South, but in terms of peace, justice and jobs, as the commission report puts it. The needs of both North and South are tied up together and are of great consequence to each. Further, it calls for major international initiatives if the hundreds of millions of people on the edge of starvation are to survive.
In an era of science and technology—and we have of course the micro-technology, the biotechnology and other scientific aids which will affect agriculture and food production—we have a situation which will bring quite dramatic changes in our way of life in many ways. It really is essential that these great advances in science and technology are used not only for our advantage but for the advantage of the third world as well. The so-called advanced nations will have to rethink their attitudes, including attitudes to work and leisure, and to the place of people in society. We shall all have to adapt to the changes which will he brought about, because the micro-chip is getting
1250
smaller and getting more reliable and getting cheaper. The problem we face in this country and in the industrialised countries, and indeed in the Third World, is how we shall be able to adapt to these changes so that they are to our advantage and not to our disadvantage. I am rather afraid that this great advance we have here, which has been brought in in ways we do not always ascertain, could widen the gap between the richer and the poorer nations; so more appropriate technology is necessary to accommodate their needs.
The other point I want to make is to challenge the view that we in the North cannot afford to do more to help those in the South. If we do not recognise the need to provide help for humanitarian reasons, of course there are many reasons of self-interest which are applicable, because aid and trade can be to our benefit as well. If we are told we cannot do more until we are economically stronger—and that is often the reason put forward—then it is going to be a very bad prospect for us and for them.
As a former chairman of the Economic Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, which is a committee of parliamentarians of NATO countries, I recall producing a survey of the living standards of people in the Mediterranean countries, including Turkey, Israel, Italy and the Mahgreb States of North Africa, in order to identify some of the causes of tensions which lead to higher defence spending. I think we need to spend less on the fire brigade aspect of defence and more on the fire prevention aspects, reducing or indeed eliminating the causes of tension by trying to raise the living standards in the less developed countries in particular, although of course I hasten to say that this alone will not solve some of the problems which cause the tensions and cause defence spending to rise.
As the Brandt Report shows, we should see the needs of the less developed countries as part of our defence obligations, seeing spending on the conventional defence aspects as negative and spending on raising living standards as positive defence spending, reducing the causes of tensions which at present cause us to spend on negative defence. I should certainly like defence Ministers to see their relevance in Mexico and some of the other conferences that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, because if we could get a great crusade of the Warsaw Pact countries and the NATO countries, seeing the problems of the Third World as being within the terms of defence, this would give us far better hopes for the future. There are, as we know, millions of doctors and nurses and scientists and technicians, not only in this country but in the EEC, without jobs. I do not necessarily accept that they have nothing to do here, but if there is this potential available surely there could be, in a spirit of crusade for change and improvement in the less developed countries, a job for them to do either in the short or the longer term.
I believe that the need of our time is to stimulate new attitudes to aid, seeing it not as a charity and as a good turn but as a duty—loving our neighbours as ourselves. I believe that we need a new outlook seeing the relevance of the spiritual as well as the material aspects and recognising the value of every individual in our society whether he lives in Birmingham or in Bombay. If we were talking about poetry, as my noble friend did a moment ago, I would quote

1251
John Donne, who said that we are all part of the main and that each man's death diminishes us all. I am afraid that we have been diminished for too long and the challenge is here for us to face in the immediate future.
4.50 p.m.
The Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, for his report and also for the conciseness and clarity and example to preachers with which he introduced it. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, on the fact that he is only three letters away from episcopacy. As also he is on the Houses Committee of the Church Commissioners and I am a parson's son, he has housed me for nine months pre-natally and 70 years post-natally and, when I retire in 120 days to a property owned by him in Maida Vale—a basement which I shall call, of course, a lower maisonette in Little Venice—it will still be under the auspices of the noble Lord. Also, I hope that I shall be at least on the steps of the Throne to hear him again. I should like to say how grateful we all are.
It was, I think, in October last year that the Director of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation signalled a global alert to all member Governments about the imminence of a second world food crisis. Then in August last year the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches also issued a statement alerting member Churches to the crucial problem of hunger among millions of people.
Evidence of the imminence of this emergency came to us again in the pages of the present report. I should like to refer to two particular examples. It says:
"Only 8 or 9 countries in the Lomé Convention are succeeding in keeping their per capita food production going ahead of their population growth, despite five years of Common Market aid and trade privileges".
To the following question put to a Member of the European Parliament:
"What I mean is, are we winning? Is there more or less poverty in the world than there was when we joined the EEC?"
came the answer:
"Poverty is increasing … the population of the world has gone zooming up".
So in the midst of our mountains of food surpluses in Europe we are alerted in the report to the growing multitudes entering the Valley of the Shadow of Death from hunger and starvation. As a result of the report I suggest that we renew our resolve and strengthen our grasp to tackle the task that lies before us.
Why should we? I should like us to think about why we should engage in this battle. Again the report offers us some good reasons. Among the general conclusions stated in paragraph 133, the report recognises the problem of poverty as posing,
"a serious threat to world stability".
Whether we are thinking of Mediterranean islands like Cyprus and Malta, or whether we are thinking of the member states of the Lomé Convention like Ethiopia and Somalia in the Horn of Africa, or whether we are thinking of what are called the non-associated
1252
territories like India and Bangladesh, there is a serious threat to world stability caused by increasing poverty and the collapse of a nation's economy.
The European Community inherits a pattern of relationships with developing nations from the era of the British and French colonial empires. There is, therefore, a strong political and economic reason for the Community engaging in this battle against poverty and hunger. Over centuries we have derived vital raw materials of food, timber and mineral ores from these countries. As the Lomé Convention says:
"the post-colonial model for the relationship between developed and developing nations is now provided".
So I think that there are powerful political and economic reasons for the European Community engaging in this battle against poverty and hunger, and the Brandt Report had the honesty to recognise mutual interests of both developed and developing countries in tackling these problems.
I should like to add another reason. A statement from the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, to which I referred earlier, begins by declaring its belief that:
"Guaranteed access to a healthy diet is a fundamental human right",
as the noble Lord has just said. During the last war your Lordships will remember that it was the people of a member country of the European Community who conceived of the idea of what they called a "final solution" for ridding themselves of certain problems. But their humanity and that of the whole world was called in question by the outrageous policy to which they resorted. To guard against any such resort to dehumanising policies as will exploit hunger and starvation as political weapons, the United Nations' Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights states in Article 11:
"The fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger",
and recognition is given in the report to that fundamental and humanitarian reason for our engaging in these problems. Perhaps the clearest statement comes in the report where the Director of Oxfam says:
"We believe that there is an area of response to human suffering which is beyond the immediate requirement of political divisions—that there is a common humanity to which civilised people ought in all circumstances to respond.".
Both the world community, through the Director of the FAO, and the Church community, through the World Council of Churches, have been alerted to the imminent crisis of hunger and starvation to which the report refers. I have stressed the three reasons for the European Community engaging fully in this task. The report examines carefully the progress made and the reforms necessary and the manner by which this engagement can most effectively be carried out.
I wish to turn to the question of the education of the people of this country in the issues of world development raised in the report. Paragraph 2 states:
"Details of the (European Community) policy are not widely known in the United Kingdom.".
I suggest that that is a masterly understatement. I have with me the "league table" of the expenditure per capita on development education. It says: Sweden, 15p; Netherlands, 10p; Norway, 10p; Canada, 7p; Denmark, 4p; Germany, 2p; and the United

1253
Kingdom, 0.3p. Surely even Mr. Ron Greenwood would feel unhappy about that. It sounds exactly like the football league table and the English achievement.
The Government must surely be urged to restore their Development Education Fund so that the public can learn more of this vital work. Paragraph 620 of the report says on page 180 that co-financing between Oxfam and the EEC is taking place, but it is:
"a very, very small public opinion forming educational co-financing work.".
I submit that that is a wholly inadequate attempt to help the people of this country to understand the policies for world development which we are debating today.
I welcome the two statements in the report which refer to the Brandt Commission—and we must be disciplined about that, as the noble Lord has warned us. Do we not in our debate today want to endorse entirely the plea by the Member of the European Parliament when he expressed the hope that Lord Greenhill's committee would be effective in persuading the Government that they should take initiatives in this respect?
Finally, I am much helped by the tragic saga of Samson and Delilah, with which your Lordships will be acquainted. Your Lordships will remember:
"Out of the eater came something to eat,
Out of the strong came something sweet".
I submit that there can be no doubt that the common agricultural policy of the Community enables us in Western Europe to eat, and to eat very well. But this same policy must not be the means for us destroying the rural agricultural programmes of developing countries, because we dump or export surplus food as food aid, and as an expedient and short-term palliative to the problem of hunger.
By all means, out of a Community which eats well, let there be sent something for others to eat as well, but let us recognise the advance that we make when we enable these rural developing communities to produce enough to eat for themselves.
"Out of the strong came something sweet".
Ought we not to recognise the absurdity, as it seems to me, of guaranteeing through the Lomé Convention imports of 1¼ million tonnes of raw sugar cane and then exporting more than I million tonnes of processed and refined sugar back to them, when we have derived benefit from shipping, insuring and processing their own raw materials?
In paragraph 690 we read of the change of thinking that has taken place in developing countries between the 1950s and the 1960s, when all they wanted was aid for prestige projects, and the 1980s when they will tackle problems of rural agriculture. Therefore, in this country let us also register the need for reform and change in our attitudes in the 1980s, stop increasing our acreage of sugar beet, and stop a policy of processing the third world's exports of raw materials when they urgently need to earn the profits from refining their sugar for themselves.
That is the lesson that I learn from Samson's riddle. Noble Lords will remember that Samson was a strong man—except when he became involved in unfortunate women's lib—and the Community, too, is a strong trading influence within the world economy. Ever
1254
since the General Synod of the Church of England first debated the entry of the United Kingdom into the Community in 1972, that same Synod has stressed that:
"The Community has to be guided and influenced in such a way that it uses its giant economic strength to help the welfare and progress of all humanity".
5.2 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the Motion so admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow is certainly timely because, as the Foreign Secretary has said, it anticipates the series of conferences which are to be held later this year when every aspect of the assistance to the developing world will be discussed and at which we hope that new decisions will be taken. It may be that some of the suggestions made in your Lordships' House today, including those of the maiden speakers from whose speeches we have benefited, will be of value.
The report of the Select Committee, of course, deals with Europe's contribution to this problem and it has the benefit of the experience so far gained from operating the Lomé Convention. I shall not disguise my opinion from the House that Europe's trade is far more important to the third world than Europe's aid; trade makes work and work is essentially what these third world countries need. Nevertheless, the report makes a case for proceeding with the third stage of Lomé, and if that is to be done the Community's activities in this field of aid and development will be very important, particularly if they are extended to what are called non-associated countries. It is important for both the donors and the recipients that future schemes should be well laid.
Everyone knows—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has quite properly drawn our attention to it again—that there is too much poverty, too much hunger and too much malnutrition in the world. I think that it is conceded in the Western democracies that there is a moral obligation for the richer parts of the world to help the poorer. I have no reason to doubt that the will is there. The difficulty comes when one tries to find the means and what it is right and best to do. It is quite understandable that those below the poverty line should convince themselves that there must be some short cut which will bring them level with the industrial Joneses. However, the truth is that there is not. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who was looking for some such, what he called, dramatic impact, development and aid simply do not work that way.
Mr. Nehru was a very high-minded man and a man with infinite compassion for his fellows all over the world. He told me that the greatest mistake in his life had been to try to industralise India before the basic plans had been laid and put into operation for self-sufficiency in the production of home-grown food. That was his judgment on his own career.
He sent me to see some of, what he called, his community education schemes. I shall never forget the experience. The district officer and I sat in the middle of a village of some 300 or 400 people; he played to them on a one-stringed instrument and the burden of his song was this:
"If a cow is not kept in the house, the water will not be contaminated and there will be no disease.

1255
If the packet of seed is not poured into one hole, but distributed through many holes, the yield of the crop will be larger.
If the hillside is terraced and the water not allowed to sweep away the soil, the vegetables will be better growing".
It was as elementary as that and it was as slow as that. I asked the district officer whether this very simple, elementary teaching would bear fruit. He said, "You must wait 15 years". I waited 20 years and now India, in a year of good harvest, is self-sufficient in food. But it was carried out in that slow, difficult way. There is a lesson to be learned there. It was entirely due to the emphasis being placed on basic, grass-root teaching on the growing of crops and food.
Many under-developed countries today are as backward as India was then. But I believe that the lesson is still valid for development and for aid. The first priority must be—and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, made this point very strongly—home-grown food. The second must be supervision by people with a knowledge of the techniques of farming on the spot. Whether it be in South-East Asia, South America or in Africa, the techniques will be different; the experts are very important. Thirdly, priority must be given to the transport network necessary for the distribution of that food in the most economical way.
I insist on the key role of the expert in these matters with some reason. I happen to have experienced two schemes in Africa. The first, as your Lordships will well remember, was the groundnut scheme in East Africa; and the second was the afforestation of Swaziland. The first was horn of the highest Christian ideals, but sentiment would not grow nuts and the spectacular failure of that groundnut scheme, because there was no research and it was ill-prepared, did great harm to the impetus of development over future years.
The second case was quite different, the afforestation of Swaziland. The research was meticulous. The preparation was detailed. The expertise accepted and applied, and, as anybody who goes to Swaziland today will understand, it was a triumphant success both in terms of economic return and in social wellbeing to the people of that country. There is a contrast between two approaches to development and aid, and I think that the proof is that there must be expertise applied and accepted.
The lesson there is that there must be partnership between the donor and the recipient. The donor from the Western capitalised countries has to accept some risk, but it is reduced to the minimum if you employ people who know their job. And by the recipient the thought of neo-colonialism has to be put out of the window. It is high time it went out of the window anyhow, but it still lingers on, but if we are to make progress together in this matter then neocolonialism must not influence the minds of the recipients any more.
I should like to conclude by saying a word about aid. I am not talking about emergency aid. I think that is best initiated by the United Nations calling upon the particular countries who are in a good position to help in any crisis. I am talking really about aid in grain to poor countries which are hungry. Again, if I may, I shall draw on a practical experience from India. I happened again to be with Mr. Nehru when there was a grave shortage of grain in India. Because I knew that
1256
Canada had a surplus, I suggested to him that Canada would gladly send a cargo or two of grain if asked. I recall his reply very well. It was, "No, not unless the situation deteriorates to one of desperation, because unless the Indian people can learn to grow their own food we will never build ourselves into a self-reliant nation". That in some ways sounds harsh, but it is true. It is the growing of food in the country concerned that is going to lay the foundations for all the progress after that.
When funds are limited there is of course the exploration for, and the exploitation of, minerals, but everything I have seen over the years underlies the absolute importance of basic instruction in the development of food. I think that in the European plan, such as it is for the future, food must come first. I detect one slight shadow not in this debate but on the whole question of aid from the West to the developing countries. I got a hint of it on the wireless yesterday morning when Herr Willy Brandt said—and his sentiment was echoed to some extent by the Commonwealth Secretary-General—that he hoped that the United States, Britain, and West Germany were not going to isolate themselves from the problems posed by the world problem of development and aid.
I should hope not. If the United States, Britain and Germany were to hesitate and halt and falter in their resolution and in what they are doing now, the kind of thing of which the Foreign Secretary spoke to us today, the scheme would completely collapse. There would be virtually no aid of any consequence for any of the developing countries. I do not think that there is any danger of that at all, and I hope that potential critics of the performance of the United States, West Germany and this country will read what the Foreign Secretary had to say today, and I believe they will get some encouragement from it, because it is essential, if we are to make an impact on this problem, that donors and recipients should co-operate with no recriminations but with a joint purpose to help where help can do most good.
5.15 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): My Lords, as chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities I have the particular personal pleasure of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the members of his sub-committee for what I think all of us would agree is an admirable report. I should also like to put on record our appreciation of the excellent work done by the specialist adviser, Adrian Hewitt, from the Overseas Development institute, and also, perhaps unusually in this House, might I thank the Clerk to that committee, Francis Hawkings, a person of quite outstanding ability and dedication who, alas, is leaving the service of the House shortly to re-enter academic life. We appreciate very much indeed the work of all concerned in the production of the report, which is I think also responsible for the excellent debate we have had so far this afternoon, and in which I was very glad indeed that two of my former colleagues in another place have been able to join.
There is one voice which I would much wish to have heard this afternoon, which, alas, will be sadly missing, and that is the voice of Lady Jackson of Lodsworth, much

1257
better known as Barbara Ward, who died last Sunday. When she became a Member of this House I believe she already knew that her health was precarious. Her energies had to be conserved for matters of the closest interest to her, and consequently we never fully enjoyed the benefit of the contribution which we knew she could have made, most particularly on the subject before us today. Hers was a voice to which North and South, old world, new world, third world, listened with attention, and they did so because she combined moral concern with practical objectives. She combined concern for persons and communities with a vivid recognition that any sustainable development programme had to work with the laws of nature and not against them. She was one of the first and most eloquent of those who pointed out the need to link development aid programmes with environmental knowledge and wise resource conservation practice.
She undoubtedly believed, as I do myself, that those who regard development aid exclusively in terms of economic viability are mistaken. As the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, so rightly said, the partnership between donors and recipients is not just a trading transaction or an engineering contract, or a soft loan, although it may involve all three. It is, or should be, a common endeavour to improve the human condition, and to do that in a world where in the last couple of decades we have, for the first time, woken up to the fact that even our global natural resources are finite and that there are consequential limits to growth.
To acknowledge this should not turn one into a doomwatcher. Personally I have considerable confidence in human resourcefulness in face of need. But, as the energy crisis has so clearly demonstrated to us in the last few years, we in all parts of the world, rich or poor, are much more interdependent than most of us realised. Sooner or later we all have to share the resources of what Barbara Ward's best known book called, Onley One Earth; and her sub-title read, "The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet". We neglect this care and maintenance of our planet at our peril, whether we are the donors or the recipients of aid.
We should of course distinguish what type of aid we are discussing, and I thought the noble Lord, Lord Home, properly drew the distinction between emergency aid—the immediate impulse to send supplies, quite rightly, when hurricane, flood, earthquake or other natural disaster strikes (and similar conditions can arise in a war zone)—and development aid, which is what the report now before us is mainly about, which is an entirely different matter, although the two kinds can of course sometimes converge. In development planning, one's criterion of success or failure must be how far the aid proferred—be it in cash, kind, loans, technical assistance or terms of trade—helps the recipients to help themselves, and that to my mind is the crucial principle of successful development aid. That the donors too may benefit in one way or another—from consultancy fees, contracts or whatever it may be—is a totally legitimate objective, but the achievement of what is commonly called sustainable development by the receiving community must be what matters most.
In my view, it is against that background that we should try to evaluate the effectiveness of the European Communities' aid effort. There are a number of noble
1258
Lords who took a full part in the work of the subcommittee; I was able to attend a hearing or two but no more, and I feel therefore that it would be presumptuous of me to go into any detail into the administrative and financial considerations in particular which they studied so carefully, except to endorse what has already been forcefully said from all quarters of the House, namely that we feel it to be urgently necessary—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will deal with this matter when he replies—to urge our partners in the Community to review the whole question of food aid in terms of the way which it is currently dealt with. It is doing no kindness to a country to send food aid from our ill-considered surpluses in a way which positively deters food production in the countries to which it is sent; and it is still worse, of course, if in an emergency situation the delays are such that we do not even tackle that efficiently.
However, I wish to question particularly—because this is one of my personal strong interests—just how effective in the planning, execution and follow-up of these development projects is the ecological or environmental input in any situation where one is dealing with natural resources (be they crops, forestry, mineral exploitation, hydrological developments for energy, irrigation, fish cultivation, water supply or the like) and what land use considerations are studied before a project is agreed. There is no lack of fine words on the matter. I have with me the Declaration of Environmental Policies and Procedures Relating to Economic Development, signed in New York in February of last year by the presidents of no fewer than nine international aid-giving institutions, including the World Bank, UNDP, various regional banks and by Mr. Roy Jenkins himself on behalf of the European Development Fund and the European Communities. The declaration is full of the most proper and appropriate sentiments.
In the second Lomé Convention, in Article 112, there is specific reference to environmental requirements and, in the report, the last question but one on the last page but one, about the form which an applicant for aid sends to Directorate VIII in Brussels, asks for information on the expected environmental effects of the relevant project. For me, it is all too reminiscent of our United Kingdom Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968, which enjoins all Ministers in all Administrations to, "pay attention to the environment"—admirable in intention, but in practice honoured as much in the breach as in the observance. Again, in June 1977 at the Council of Ministers' meeting which determined the content of the Second Action Programme of the Community on the Environment, it was decided that the Commisssion would take new initiatives to ensure that considerations of environmental protection, in particular the long-term conservation of natural resources, became fully accepted as an integral part of the development aid programmes of EDF.
That is splendid so far as it goes as a declaration of intent. But I should very much like to know what influence the Environment and Consumer Protection Service (or Directorate, as it has recently become) in Brussels has on the development directorate known as Directorate VIII. Do they ever speak to one another and do they really consult about these matters? Nowhere in the Commission so far as I have been able

1259
to discover—or, for that matter (and I must be frank about this) in our own overseas development administration—can I find a really effective point of ecological input. The economists, cost accountants, lawyers and engineers are mandatory. But what we do to Mother Earth is left largely to non-obligatory advice or to the professional conscience of those whose competence lies in much narrower and more specialised fields, lacking the synoptic experience needed for adequate resource and environmental appraisal.
Ecological considerations should be part of the total planning and subsequent processes, and not an optional additive. There must be a genuine source of knowledge and concern in the planning team, whether in Brussels or in the field, and it should be there right from the start. Otherwise, wrong decisions will be made which at a later stage cannot be corrected without much greater trouble and expense. It is no use the economists and technocrats shrugging off resource protection studies as an extra time-consuming filter in their project programme. Properly organised and integrated, the non-quantifiable inputs of the sociologist and ecologist—even if one calls them by less grandiose names—are essential to successful operation in the field.
If that is not accepted, the European Development Fund, like other aid donors all over the world, will go on failing to learn, or to persuade the partner countries to learn, from earlier mistakes. We shall have the same sorry stories of deforestation, soil erosion, silting up of reservoirs in seven years instead of the estimated 40, intensified market agriculture which simply intensifies impoverishment of the soil, schemes too complex or too expensive for the local population to carry on once the project team has left, inadequate time given for the population to learn to adapt its customary farming practices to the new notions, and so on.
The catalogue of eco-sociological failings stretches on. The European Development Fund is, I am sure, no worse than other donors. It has tried to evaluate its work, for example on rural integration in Black Africa (its term, not mine) and I understand that for its part the Environment and Consumer Protection Service in the Commission has put in hand a study of how to secure a more effective ecological input into development aid planning in the Community. But I should like to know how much consideration is given to these matters by Her Majesty's Government. I gave notice to the Minister of my intention to ask that and I hope he will say how far the United Kingdom representatives concerned with these matters pay more than lip service to these considerations, which, in the view of many of us, are basic to a considerable proportion of Community development aid projects, and I shall be very interested to receive his reply.
I would also ask the Minister, because of its great importance to developing countries in many parts of the world, what role the United Kingdom sees for itself in the United Nations Water Decade. The noble Lord, Lord Home, rightly said that food was the most basic commodity, but I would say that water was its equal. I say that for various reasons. It is obvious that without water and food, life is impossible; but without water, food is impossible. But it has much
1260
greater effects indirectly on almost every type of rural development aid at least, in that water-borne diseases in particular are among the most debilitating diseases in the world, and, as those who have any personal knowledge at all of parts of the developing world will be aware, one cannot succeed with rural problems or get people to grow enough food and undertake the various necessary endeavours to keep their villages healthy and clean it they are suffering from the kind of debilitating diseases which sap all energy and endeavour.
It is not only the question of disease—and I am not usually an ardent feminist, but I feel very strongly about this. In most villages in many of the countries that we are discussing it is the women who have to carry the water, and in many cases this means the most arduous task not just occasionally but every single day of the year. A woman might have to go miles and miles to get water, which, when she brings it back, possibly infects the family and other disasters occur. I feel that the emphasis which we should be laying in our development programmes on the adequacy of water and sanitation (which is stressed in the United Nations' Water Decade) is one of the matters of the closest concern to anyone who feels a sense of responsibility about these questions, and here again I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government consider is their role in this extremely important effort.
My final concern is with the effect of European or other developed world commercial practices on some of our European Development Fund objectives. My noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts and others have referral to the baby food scandal. As he very rightly said, and as the report indicates, the trouble here lies in the appalling inadequacy of clean water in so many third world countries, with the consequent disease and malnutrition if one uses food that is improperly prepared. The scandal concerns not only the milk products multinationals. I would suggest that the multinational tobacco companies are even worse offenders, competing in the aggressiveness of their advertising with the milk products enterprises in pressing health hazard products on unsophisticated people.
If ever there was an unacceptable face of capitalism (to use Edward Heath's words) it is the commercial visage of the milk products and tobacco multinationals in the third world. This is not a topic on which one can expatiate at length, but it is one on Which many of us feel extremely strongly. One must ensure that EEC aid is never used, as some aid donors funds have been used in the past, to further these particular unscrupulous interests.
The Lomé Convention in particular is a partnership. We are only one part of one side of that partnership. But that does not absolve us from using our judgment in these matters and making our position clear to the administrators in Brussels. Neither human beings, nor natural resources, should be improperly exploited, if we can avoid it. If we have to compromise, we should at least know what we are doing, and not simply acquiesce through inertia. My Lords, those are some of the topics that are not very fully ventilated in the admirable report that we are considering this afternoon. I hope that your Lordships will accept

1261
that they help to round out the picture and that they have great importance in their own right.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to express my congratulations to the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. Having heard them both on many occasions in another place, I was delighted to find that their translation in no way diminished their skill. Having suffered recently from great trepidation on a similar occasion, I was deeply envious of the fearless competence of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for whom I have long had great admiration, I am sure that the House greatly welcomed his desire and intention to speak without losing more than a few hours following his Introduction, and hoped that we shall not have to wait very long before we hear him again.
As a comparative newcomer, I was very grateful to be allowed to join in the work of the sub-committee, and I had a particular pleasure in returning to work under the robust, but sensitive, chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and among the critical and analytical skill of other noble Lords on the committee. I am relieved that nearly all noble Lords who have spoken so far in the debate have found it as difficult as I shall find it to examine the report without mentioning rather wider considerations of aid policy, and without looking at the probable growth of the Community's role as we approach the 21st century.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, that interest in development aid has grown and is growing, and I hope that it will continue to grow. But my own fear is that the interest is still confined to a minority in this country who think that we should do more, and a rather smaller, but very often vociferous, minority who think that we do too much. It is between these extremes that there lies the weight of public opinion, which is not generally deeply concerned. But several noble Lords have observed, as I, too, have observed with great satisfaction—I think that the noble Baroness touched on this matter—that a substantial proportion of this middle opinion is aroused by the great natural disasters, such as flood, earthquake and famine, and I hope that I am not being too optimistic if I say that I think it not impossible that this occasional concern could be harnessed to the more general purpose of aid, much of which aims to prevent the occurrence, or recurrence, of such disasters, and to limit the consequent human suffering from things such as hunger, disease, or disablement.
Judging from the parallel response which I believe exists in other nations in Europe, I think it realistic to hope for a similar development of opinion throughout the Community. Those who retain their faith in the Community—which I still consider is a great concept, with a vast potential—believe that it can not only increase the unity and the prosperity of its member nations, but collectively make an important contribution to the stability and wellbeing of the human race.
The committee's report makes clear that the Community's contributions to world development are, and are likely to remain, both collective and individual. Nearly three-quarters of our own aid programme is
1262
provided bilaterally to recipient nations. The proportion of France's programme so provided is rather greater, while those of Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium are smaller. It is only Italy in the Community, with a much slighter total programme, which directs most of its available funds through European channels.
I have asked myself whether, if our commitment to Europe and to a European aid policy is genuine, the balance of its main aid donors—Britain included—should be tilted more distinctly towards a collective policy, away from a mainly bilateral policy, which we have at the moment. Similar questions arose in relation to other multilateral agencies long before we acceded to the European Community. Then my view leant, and it still leans, towards a predominance of bilateral effort. I believed, and I still believe, that there were, and are, some objectives which are likely to be achieved much more easily through multilateral agencies. I have in mind, for instance, large projects involving dams, great irrigation programmes, and so on, which are too extensive for national financing. On the other side, I have in mind politically sensitive matters, such as population control. I believe that these are all better achieved by the multilateral agencies.
But to the greater ease of controlling bilateral projects was added, in my experience in a number of cases, though not all, the preference of the recipients for the bilateral donor. Familiarity with a known donor was of importance, and familiarity with recognised methods of project planning was equally important. Therefore, I had no difficulty in subscribing to the general view of the committee that if more funds could be made available they should in the main be directed bilaterally. In any case, I felt that the aggregation of aid provided by the Community's member nations was of greater importance than its division between collective and individual contributions.
A further question I asked—and it has been asked by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, I think—was to what extent this view depended on the historical accident that Yaounde and Lomé were not concerned, in the main, with a number of large and very poor countries; and obviously in most of our minds is the example of India, with whom Britain has had a longstanding and very substantial aid arrangement. This relative unconcern of the conventions certainly strengthens the argument for preserving and, if possible, adding to our bilateral programme; but I myself should rejoice if this argument were weakened by the complete incorporation of countries like India into the scope of the European aid programme.
Here I think it is necessary to enter a reservation to the widely held view that the main thrust of development aid should be directed towards the poorest countries of the world. The committee, in paragraph 96, believed that,
"the Community's aid policy in the 1980s should be determines on the basis of need".
Many would consider this more or less self-evident; and, indeed, two-thirds of the ACP countries are justifiably described as "least developed". But—and here is my reservation—although we naturally agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury that the relief of human suffering is urgent and imperative in the poorest countries, I still believe that an

1263
important objective of the Community's, and indeed all, aid programmes is to quicken the economic tempo of the world; and if this be so there is surely a strong case for directing a considerable proportion of the world's available aid towards countries within a closer reach of individual economic take-off.
The committee's report contains a number of important recommendations on which a number of noble Lords have spoken, and no doubt will speak, with much greater authority than I can possibly command; but I believe that no issue that we considered during last winter is of greater significance to the world's future than the development, as time goes by, of the Community's attitude to the Brandt Report, which has been much mentioned this afternoon. In the debate which was instituted by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, last year, I think it was generally accepted that the objectives of the Brandt Report could be achieved only by the sharp quickening of political will among the richer nations, which both have resources to invest and can provide—and I think my noble friend Lord Home made this very important point—expanding markets for the products of the developing world. Aid alone would not be enough, and the Brandt Commission rightly put the problems into a far wider context.
The committee's recommendations on this matter, which were numbers (xviii) and (xix), the last of our recommendations, are very cautious, and I have to admit that the recommendations could mean much or could possibly mean rather little. But I fully shared the Committee's option for caution because I am not convinced that the Community is yet ready for a significant Brandt initiative; and while most of its individual members, as I think they are at present right to do, attach predominant importance to their own bilateral programmes, the collective resources at the European Community's disposal are likely to remain very small indeed, and probably too small to give such an inititative any real meaning.
None the less, as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, the total contribution of Europe to world development is already far larger than that of other major donors, like the United States, Japan and, far more, Soviet Russia. Europe still has to learn to speak with a single voice, but as it learns to do so and as its contribution grows both in volume and in proportion to its aggregate gross products, then I think Europe can rightly claim to be the leader of the world's development effort and to be the most important single agent in the solution of the vast problems which the Brandt Report has clearly put before us.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kissin: My Lords, after so many formidable speeches in the debate I cannot hope to add any points which have not already been mentioned. But I should like to expand and support the excellent summary that our chairman, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has given to the House. I share his view that all aid programmes carry very high priority in government. There is, of course, good reason for it, and one ought not to be too hypocritical about it. They are motivated by a mixture of humanitarianism, political expediency
1264
and economic self-interest. The Community's programme can be no exception, and for these reasons it is difficult to give a fully comprehensive evaluation of the EEC's aid policies.
The Committee's report attempts to get behind the figures and the political justifications, and to examine how the EEC programme operates on the ground. In all aid programmes political and media attention is focused on the act of giving. The planned expenditure of aid as a proportion of GNP appears to be the main target, but the Committee has drawn attention not only to what is actually spent but also to how it is spent, and has tried to find out whether it does any good.
From the report it becomes apparent that the late entry of Britain into the Common Market has somewhat prejudiced our flexibility and our freedom of participation in the formation of the aid policy. Africa accounts for 98 per cent. of the total population covered by the Lomé Convention, yet this represents, as previous speakers have noted, only half the population of India, which, together with the rest of the developing countries in Asia and in Latin America, is left out. Britain's own bilateral and multilateral aid programme does not therefore entirely fit in with the Community's policy, and there is a lack of harmonisation of member states' development policies.
Further, it is no good shrinking from stating in the clearest possible terms that it is necessary to point out if one aims at a Community programme there should be no nationalistic bias in the selection of candidates to fill all the echelons of the administration of the EEC, and particularly in the aid areas. If a Community aid programme is to succeed in the eyes of the recipient, no country should place its flag on any portfolio, especially on the aid portfolio, since it is in this area that the Commission, and not the member states, which decides how the total cake is to be divided between countries and projects. I cannot help but feel that, as yet, Britain has an inadequate representation among the EEC officials—I think the committee got this impression quite clearly—particularly EEC officials who are placed in developing countries. These officials have the crucial task of preparing and appraising projects, controlling tendering procedures, monitoring the technical and financial aspects of development, and evaluating the completed projects.
It is not surprising that the older members of the Community are using their diplomatic and bureaucratic muscle to the detriment of other Community members. In fact older members are doing a great deal better out of EEC development contracts, the majority of which are not awarded by open tender but by direct award and mutual agreement. For example, France contributes 26 per cent, of the total aid budget but her exporters receive 33 per cent. of all contracts. The United Kingdom contributes 18.7 per cent. of the budget, but receives only 11.2 per cent. of the contracts—or as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said earlier, 12 per cent. These figures are even more uneven in the case of valuable works contracts, where France's share is 43 per cent. compared, to the United Kingdom's share of 7 per cent. The United Kingdom does better on consultancy contracts, but there we have a restriction to a quota entitlement related to our budget contribution.

1265
It is not only a question of the United Kingdom losing out, because the present bias of the system is not in the Interests of the Community as a whole. In spite of the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in my view the British Government should adopt a more aggressive approach in the corridors of power in Brussels and insist on a more balanced representation, which would enhance the Community's image in the developing world.
On the other side of the coin, United Kingdom businessmen tend to assume that if other countries are doing well then it is because those other countries are using undue influence and doubtful methods which we would not use to obtain contracts. I doubt the value of that argument but, to enable our business community to play a more successful part, our own Government officials and diplomatic representatives overseas should do all they can to awaken the United Kingdom companies to the economic conditions in the aid programmes and to pinpoint business opportunities associated with EEC development projects. When I listened to witnesses at the committee hearings, I was intrigued to hear how relatively ineffective in their view is EEC aid in promoting economic development compared with how effective it could be.
One has to ask the question: are the aid criteria justifiable among the recipient countries or is there a need for greater consistency and a more acute awareness of global needs? The same question arises with regard to the financial assistance given to certain Mediterranean countries and the Food Aid Programme. Mediterranean countries are, on the whole, creditworthy. Algeria is an OPEC member and the case for continuing to give concessional finance is weak. I fully accept that it is important for the Community to maintain good relations with the Arab world and to reassure the Magreb and Mashreq countries about the effects of EEC enlargement. However, I believe that these two objectives can and should be successfully pursued separately by different agencies and that the aid link is not necessary and could be phased out.
The report is critical of the Community's Food Aid Programme and has posed the question, would this sort of programme best be executed by a non-government organisation such as OXFAM and the existing United Nations agencies, which have the experience, the resources and the manpower to handle emergency aid more efficiently? In the EEC aid programme, the bureaucratic process which is in existence appears to play an important part. Witnesses drew attention to the fact that when there are large agricultural projects, EEC aid involves problems of expenditure which is released very slowly and after a lot of consultation. Such aid seems to involve a lot of bureaucracy, particularly when large projects have to be approved by the Commission. Practically all witnesses pleaded for a reduction in bureaucracy and the committee could not but recommend greater freedom to EEC officials to approve projects, within an agreed framework, without further reference to Brussels.
Bureaucracy appears to be a major problem but other aspects of the EEC aid programme are equally disturbing from the recipients' point of view. Previous speakers have rightly drawn attention to the fact that the evidence suggests a large number of projects are designed to meet the needs and interests of the community's
1266
member states and exporters rather than the interests of a recipient country. It appears that more has to be done to evaluate the socio-economic impact of EEC expenditure. Monitoring techniques leave a great deal to be desired. The exporter is happy as long as he is paid for his goods and services, and the recipient Government are sometimes easily satisfied by the gift of foreign exchange—particularly for the erection of prestigious projects, which may have very little development value.
If EEC aid policy is to have any meaning, then a different system of co-operation between local officials and consultants is essential in project evaluation. The question the Committee had to examine continuously was whether the funds could be put to better use elsewhere. Consequently the Committee's recommendation, which I fully support, that more money should be channelled to non-associate developing countries deserves consideration. However, given the present administration of the European Development Fund, the expansion of the EEC aid budget cannot be justified if it can be done at only the expense of the member states' own programmes, to which I attach much greater importance.
One important point the committee could not consider because it was outside the committee's brief, but which the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, rightly raised, was that of trade and its contribution to economic development. This issue has to be taken into account in any attempt to answer the fundamental question as to whether member states should have a collective policy in addition to their own aid programmes. I do not want to go into details of the ACP exports and the limitations which restrict the degree to which ACP countries can sell industrialised or processed commodities to the EEC, but it is no secret that the present provisions regarding the rules of origin have been subsequently designed to protect EEC industry. I am of the opinion that it has to be resolved whether a less protective trade policy aimed at providing better access to the EEC market for third world projects could do as much if not more in the long term to stimulate economic development in the third world than the whole of the EEC's aid policy. I believe this option is one which deserves serious consideration by the Community.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I begin my intervention today by expressing a profound regret that the United Kingdom has failed as a whole to play a major role in the implementation of the Lomé policies. My noble friend Lord Kissin has pointed out that not only have we failed to secure contracts but, perhaps more significantly, we have on numerous occasions failed even to attempt to make a contribution. I am not quite sure where the fault lies in the United Kingdom as a whole. I think it lies somewhere between the public and the private sectors. We are faced with a situation today where (if I interpret properly the rumblings in relation to British aid policy) we say that, with cash limits, we can afford to contribute no more. Yet perhaps we, of all nations, should recognise that we are more dependent upon international trade than any other developed nation in the world.
We are dependent, as are many other countries of

1267
the Community, upon the third world on raw materials. We face today a situation where approaching 50 per cent. of the exports of the Community go towards the third world. Perhaps more significantly, we face a world recession with no sign of the developed world arising from it. Even the most optimistic of forecasters would fail to say that more than two or three of the developed countries will show a balance-of-payments surplus over the next few years. This may be due in part to a rise in oil prices, but if there is a continuing deficit, we shall see little growth in trade in the developed world.
I have always been led to believe that in normal times something like 30 per cent. of the British economy depends upon trade. This compares with 14 per cent. for Japan, 8 per cent. for America and between 25 per cent. and 27 per cent. for France. In a recession, a greater proportion of our economy, of jobs and demand, depend upon international trade and it would lie at the moment between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. Many Governments—and I submit that our own is no exception—and many international institutions often believe that in order to stimulate economic activity you must provide money. When economic activity does not take place, somebody says, "We must provide another sort of money"—and a new fund is born. This happens continually within the European Community and it happens in our own domestic economic policy in the United Kingdom. When there is no investment, someone in Government tries to devise a new scheme in the belief that it is money that will solve all problems. I submit that it is demand that solves problems and international demand that creates economic growth.
Thus, if we, as a nation, are so dependent upon international trade, perhaps even within whatever cash limits Governments may prescribe from time to time, we should allocate more of our resources to matters that relate to international trade and, in particular, to matters of development finance for developing countries. One asks oneself why was it that British companies, British Governments and British institutions years and years ago went out into what we now call the lesser-developed or the least-developed countries, lost lives, and, maybe, they exploited—but they were there because of the resources there which contributed to their own economic development; and many of those resources are still there. It is sad for some of us who go to Africa from time to time to talk with some of the old people there, to hear them say, "Once we were prosperous and successful. We had copper that we sold on the world market". When one looks at these raw material resources, one finds that many of them are under-utilised or not used at all. Yet, in theory, the money is there because the assets have value and demand in the international market.
Why is it that we ourselves are not playing a greater role in third world development? I think, frankly, that it is because we live in a mixed economy and that, because of such phrases as "public accountability" and such like, it becomes impossible for the two sides of our economy to mix. Thus, the technology needed or the drive, management and equipment needed to implement a project may often be found in the private
1268
sector while the financial resources are in the public sector. The public sector find it impossible to be selective when dealing with the private sector. This is not true of many of our competitors or colleagues within the EEC.
France has done a remarkable job in relation to utilising the resources of the Lomé Convention to assist her own industry and, equally important, to assist her former dependent territories. We, on the other hand, recognising that over half the Lomé countries are Commonwealth or former dependent territories of the United Kingdom, have failed to sit down with these territories at an early enough date and to ask, "What is it that we can do to help you implement a development programme which will help your people?" As a result, all too often programmes are committed or indicative programmes are drawn up and the die is cast for the allocation of funds from the Community or from other multilateral aid organisations.
Therefore, suddenly our companies are urged to bid for contracts. They receive short notice and are unable to get their tenders in in time and many of them do not know where the countries concerned are. We find that whenever a bid is asked for from the Community—because to a degree the Community is the customer—the British submit on average seven-tenths of a bid and the French submit three or four. We win the same proportion of the bids that we submit as do the French of the bids they submit. So to some extent the fault lies with us.
I see no solution to this unless a way can be found with our own Government and its agencies and the institutions to which it subscribes to sit down at an early date face to face with the Government of a Lomé territory or third world country and say, "We have certain resources that we can allocate to you. They may be financial or technical. Maybe we can buy from you. How can we put a package together so that we can implement what you want to our mutual benefit at an early date?" Then on their behalf we can make submissions to the Community and ask for their support. I have found a remarkable collection of people in Brussels who will respond willingly to any initiative that will encourage an early development or early implementation of a development programme.
That is one aspect of the points that I wish to raise. The second lies in more money. If we ourselves are short of money, where did all the money go? As we know, most of it went to OPEC. The Arab world territories themselves have a problem of self-interest, have a moral conscience, too, and a great desire to contribute to development programmes in the third world. We often forget the importance of religion worldwide. There are some 300 million people in black Africa and some 100 million of them are Islamic. The countries from which they come are entitled to benefit from many of the Islamic funds made available by the Arab states. But the Arab states have problems. They do not have engineering companies or consultants of their own and they are permanently nervous about having their funds exploited by one of the western capitalist countries. Thus, the original idea of a triangle of Arab wealth with western technology and equipment together with the third world

1269
will never work unless we are to some extent equal partners.
The Euro-Arab dialogue has on many occasions tried to find a way whereby Arab money could be brought together with Community money. This is happening in about 11 projects in Africa where Saudi or Arab funds are coming together with Community money. The interesting thing is that the third party in these ventures is not one of the British agencies. Instead one sees such strange initials as CCCE (Caisse Centrale de Coopération Economique) or names which I have only just managed to learn, of other aid agencies who are bilateral, who use their limited bilateral aid to initiate a project, seeking the bulk finance from a multilateral organisation. We are not totally to blame for the Community situation, because we were one of the latest members. It takes time to get to know the countries concerned, to visit them, to encourage companies to bid for contracts abroad. This is an uphill battle. The Department of Trade and Government departments as a whole do all that they can to help. They are normally in a position where they should be providing a response function.
A company should say, "I wish to do something, can you help?" Rather than having Government having to go to companies saying, "Please will you bid in some of these territories?" because industry will not do so. That is not through lack of initiative, it is through lack of knowledge. It is probably a failure to understand the Community itself is the payer. Many people still do not understand the Lomé Convention as such. They are unaware of the vast amounts of development finance washing around in multilateral agencies without the project into which the money could be put.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I am very interested in this point. He obviously is aware of the workings of the international monetary system. Is he aware that the Economist Intelligence Digest dealt with this very problem of special drawing rights which were first introduced in 1968 under the dollar and now they are trying to introduce it under a different kind of currency which will make liquidity easy for the international markets? That is a necessary point to develop foreign aid in the future.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, as a banker I am aware of that. It has a certain relevance. But money is often an unnecessary means of communication that was invented when all other forms of communication broke down. What I am saying is that the United Kingdom at this time needs orders, contracts and jobs. A third of our economy depends upon international aspects. I should like to feel that we could allocate more of our domestic resources to increase bilateral aid but in perhaps a more pragmatic way than has been done in the past.
I dwell briefly on the food situation with only one comment. I think that someone said that when Queen Victoria came to the throne approximately 15 per cent. of land was desert. Someone told me last year that it was approaching 40 per cent. It was not the lack of money that caused this; it was perhaps in many cases lack of will and implementation. I was
1270
most impressed by my noble friend Lord Home when he made the simple comments about how one produces food. It is very sad that many of these states, particularly the Arab states which were once the granaries of the Roman Empire, such as Algeria, should feel that it is almost socially beneath them to pursue an agricultural policy when ultimately it is food that will cause or keep the stability of the world.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I must start with an apology. Unfortunately, a long-standing engagement takes me away from your Lordships' House in a short while and I am not sure that I shall be able to extricate myself from it in time to return for the final stages of this debate. In that case, I apologise to those noble Lords who will be speaking and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill.
The next point that I should like to make is to congratulate from this Bench the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, on his admirable maiden speech which was so full of knowledge and wisdom. I share the hopes that others have expressed that we shall hear him frequently again, possibly even speaking from the same Bench as myself. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, a former colleague of the European Parliament. I, too, in company with other noble Lords, look forward to hearing him speak again when he is untrammelled by the lack of controversy which is normal in maiden speeches.
My third introductory point is to echo what my noble friend Lady White said about Barbara Ward, Lady Jackson. She was, as my noble friend Lady White said, one of the great pioneers in this movement concerning the third world both of making us in this part of the world conscious of the problems of the third world and in gaining the confidence of the third world itself, the people in it, and bringing her wonderfully acute mind and warm heart to bear on those problems. She is a very great loss not only to us but to the whole world. We are grateful for the contribution that she made.
I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for his speech, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this extremely important subject and for the admirable report which he and his colleagues have produced. I find myself in complete agreement with most of it. I certainly agree with what was said in the report and with what other noble Lords have said concerning the dangers of food aid. Valuable though it may be, it cannot be used simply as a means of disposing of our own unwanted and embarrassing surpluses. I shall not develop that; other noble Lords have done so very adequately.
I also believe that it would be right for the community as well as ourselves in this country to extend our aid still wider particularly with reference to Latin America and to Asia. I add my strong warm praise for the concept of Lomé and the Stabex system. I underline the word "concept" because I am afraid that in its actual implementation it has not yet lived up to the high hopes which those of us who were to some extent involved in it in its early days had for it. Undoubtedly, great credit should go to its main architect Claude Cheysson. It is sad that he has left

1271
his important post in Brussels; but it is good for Europe and good for the world that he now occupies an even more important post in Paris.
When all is said and done we cannot expect to get any significant improvement in the third world without a massive transfer of resources from the North to the South, from the rich to the poor and from the developed to the developing countries of the world. Unless that is done the gap will continue to widen and relative poverty will grow and absolute poverty will remain.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, was very right and wise in pointing out to us the importance of countries producing their own food and the very long term process that this is. I would not disagree for a moment with him. I agree with every word that he said. To my mind that underlines—if it needed It—the urgent need for greater resources to be made available at the present time. If by making available new resources within six or nine months, poverty would start to diminish, maybe there will be something to be said for saying: "Well, we are going through difficult times ourselves at home, let us postpone this for a few months or possibly a year or two". But when we know full well that it is going to take 10, 15 or 20 years for the result of aid from the developed world to start to fructify, to start to improve the lot of the poor, the hungry, the undernourished and the actually starving, then there can be no time to be lost whatsoever.
It has been done in certain areas in India, as the noble Lord said. It has been done—and I was glad he mentioned this—in Swaziland. But those are all long-term projects. The infrastructure is needed in the countries: the drainage and the water supplies, the irrigation and the building of roads and communications. Also, there should be the training of the people who are actually going to the do work, the training of those people at the higher levels of education, at the intermediate levels and the very lowest village levels. Then in the villages themselves people at least would know how to read and write, know the significance of figures and the application of fertilisers and things of that sort.
That makes still more sad the decision of Her Majesty's Government to reduce the number of students who are coming here to learn our techniques and to learn those very things which are so essential to their own countries if the problems of poverty, starvation and hunger are to be conquered. I know we are told the whole time that "much as we would like to increase our aid or at least to maintain it, our own economic position at home is such that for the moment we have to retrench".
There are three reasons that I wish to touch on, I hope briefly, in order to refute that argument. First, there is the problem of trade which had already been touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Kissin and Lord Selsdon. Of course what is needed to increase trade—and we, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, so rightly said, are more dependent on trade than any other country in the developed world—is demand. I would suggest the demand is there-people want what we produce but they do not buy it because they do not have the money with which to pay for it and we do not let them have it without money.
1272
I came across this in a simple way some 25 years ago when I started farming in the Caribbean and the Eastern Caribbean. At that time the banana industry was just beginning. Aided by a variety of means—long-term contracts, stability and remunerative prices—that industry developed enormously and with it developed the wealth of the Eastern Caribbean. That resulted in a higher standard of living for those who lived there. It resulted in more investment in schools, hospitals, water and communications. But it also resulted in more trade with this country because there was then generated out of the profits from the crops exported sufficient money to buy corrugated iron to roof their houses with, instead of palm fronds; bicycles, cars, tractors, fertilisers, radios and even some of the, to them, higher grades of protein foods.
I will not weary your Lordships with the statistics, but trade from this country to that small area increased enormously with very great benefit to the recipients, to the buyers, and was of considerable benefit, though on a modest scale, to industry in this country. If that were extended throughout far larger areas of the developing world today, our unemployment might not cease but it would certainly diminish. Our output would increase, our prosperity in this country would go up and therefore anything we can do to increase purchasing power in the third world will have a very direct and rapid effect upon unemployment, productivity and general economic well-being at home also.
The second point I would make is one which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. That is the matter of defence. Of course, we must defend ourselves and we must spend a very large part of our national product upon defence. Obviously, this is not the right time to go into details of the balance of our defence expenditure, but we must not be so led astray by the immediate threats from immediate enemies and potential enemies that we ignore entirely the causes of threats and instability in the future. Much of our trouble today has come about because 20 years ago we did not give sufficient attention to what was going to cause threats and instability today.
There can be no denying the fact that the greater the disparities between different parts of the world and between rich and poor, the greater will be the tensions and the threats to world peace. If we are to diminish those threats in 20 years' time, we must take steps now to see that those discrepancies diminish rather than grow, and at the same time we must take steps to see that many of the countries of great strategic importance to us in the event of a war do not fall under the domination of our potential enemies, providing them perhaps with military bases, with naval bases, with over-flying rights and with vital mineral and other resources. So from the defence point of view, too, an expenditure of money wisely allocated throughout the third world is a necessary part of our whole defence strategy.
Thirdly, we must remember what it is that we are trying to defend, what it is that we value and what it is we are proud of in the western world. We consider ourselves to be a bulwark of civilisation based upon the Christian ethic; and if we are to defend our values we cannot turn our backs upon the teachings of the Christian ethic, whether or not we are Christians ourselves. I do not want to trespass on the soil of

1273
the right reverend Prelates who frequently speak here on matters such as these; but after all it was Christ who told the rich young man to sell all that he had and give it to the poor if he meant to follow Him.
It was St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, who cut his cloak in half when he saw a cold beggar, so that he could wrap himself up and be warm. One was told to give 100 per cent. and one gave 50 per cent. and was canonised for it. We are giving half of 1 per cent.—and that we are reducing now because we are so poor. We are so poor that people are able to go to the Derby and people who cannot go there can watch on their televisions. All these are aspects that we know so well of the affluent life that we lead here. In spite of our poverty, our unemployment and other hardships, collectively as a nation we are still incomparably richer than those countries of the third world with whom we are dealing.
The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, "The will is there to give, but are the means?" Yes, my Lords, the means are there. We have the means to give another £100 million, £500 million and so on without really feeling it. The trouble is that the will is not really there. We mouth our desire to help the poor, but not at the expense of any sacrifices. We will not sell all that we have and give it to the poor. We will not sell one-tenth of 1 per cent. and give it to the poor. As long as we retain that attitude of selfishness, and lack of understanding and love for others, any attempt that we make to help the lot of the poor cannot be successful and cannot be regarded with sincerity. We must have a change of heart within ourselves before we can make available those funds which still are here even in our impoverished state.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and his committee for this immensely interesting and valuable report. It is all the more valuable for dealing with a complex and technical matter in such a clear and concise way. It has attracted a great deal of interest and a large number of speakers which, for me, has two consequences: first, I must be selective in what I say and, secondly, I fear, like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I may be unable to hear the closing speeches, so I shall read them with great interest. I apologise for that.
I should like to confine myself to making one general observation and two comments. The report asks "Why a Community aid policy?" and it concludes that, on balance, there is a role for Community aid in certain areas. I do not disagree with that general conclusion, though I should like to put it a little more positively. I think it is fair to put the Committee's question the other way round: "What if there were no Community development aid policy?"
The Community should be more than a Common Market for the benefit of the relatively rich industrialised nations of Western Europe. Already its members negotiate as a Community on trade and agricultural matters, many of which affect the developing world. We want to see the process of political co-operation taken further, so that the Community can exercise a greater influence in foreign policy matters. Against that background, is it really conceivable that the
1274
Community should take no interest and play no part in helping the developing world? And does not the existence of the Community aid policy, in addition to the aid it provides, play some part in developing the Community's general attitude towards the developing world in related matters? Would we want to see this interest diminished? I suggest that the answer to all those questions is, No.
I recognise, of course, that the Government have expressed a preference at the present time for bilateral rather than multilateral aid, so that greater weight can be given to our political, industrial and commercial interests. It is, however, arguable that Community aid is not truly multilateral aid, and I was glad to note the warm way in which the Foreign Secretary spoke about it.
Its origin is, of course, political and most of the aid goes to countries with whom members of the EEC, including ourselves, have long ties. Its programme is administered exclusively by nationals drawn from the members of the Community. It is not truly multilateral aid and I am making this point not in a semantic way, but for a purely practical reason. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we contribute 18 per cent. of the EDF and a further significant amount to other EEC aid programmes through the medium of the EEC budget. Thus, we have an important stake in EEC aid and also—whether in the Council of Ministers, in the European Parliament or in discussion with the Commission—an influential voice in its development.
That voice, as we all know, was influential in the development of the original aid policy, from the Yaoundé convention to the Lomé conventions, to the benefit of many former British territories. It ought to be no less influential in the further development of that policy when, as the committee rightly points out, the percentage of United Kingdom aid channelled through the Community is, in any case, likely to rise as a consequence of the reduction of our overall aid programme and our new commitments to the enlarged EDF in 1980–85. So I hope that that voice will be heard strongly in the councils in Brussels. There are a number of interesting developments, some of which have been touched on today, which could well be argued for; in particular, a greater tilting of the balance in favour of the poorer non-associates and, perhaps, some co-financing of projects with OPEC.
That is my general observation. The first specific point that I want to make concerns food and emergency aid. Since the role of the voluntary organisations has been mentioned, I ought perhaps to tell your Lordships that I am chairman of the Disasters Emergency Committee, which is the medium through which the Red Cross, Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid and CAFOD operate jointly when they make a joint appeal on the occasion of a major overseas disaster. All these charities have their own interest in EEC aid policy and, for example, would welcome anything which would simplify the arrangements for the co-financing of projects jointly between the EEC and the voluntary organisations; and, of course, the Director General of Oxfam gave evidence to Sub-Committee B.
The comments I now want to make are mine alone and it should not be necessarily assumed that these

1275
charities agree with everything I say. Food aid is an emotive subject and anyone who questions its wisdom may appear to be indifferent to hunger. Of course, some food aid is normally vital for refugee feeding and for emergencies. But, even here, there must be some doubt whether a body like the EEC is best placed to respond quickly enough to emergency needs, except through the process of purchasing food in the region of the disaster.
Certainly—and I agree with what other noble Lords have said—food aid ought not to be seen as a way of disposing of the surpluses of the common agricultural policy. It is true that its origin lay partly in that, but the problems of food surpluses need much more radical solutions which tackle them at source. I understand that the EEC have themselves been recently buying food regionally after disasters. I think that this trend should be encouraged not only because it provides it more quickly, but also because that food is often bought in developing countries and benefits them, also.
But aside from food aid at times of emergency or disaster, the case for it is much more questionable and, at the very least, it ought not to be doled out indiscriminately. In economic terms, it is obviously of benefit if it is incremental, or if it substitutes for commercial imports and is thus the equivalent of balance-of-payments support. But leaving aside the risk of changing dietary habits and the question of artificial milk, on which other noble Lords have touched, food aid can, and does, tend to depress the price of food in the local market and thus to discourage local agricultural production. In other words, since it is an aid to consumption rather than to investment, it can, by dealing with the problem of hunger separately from the problem of overall development, result in treating the symptom rather than the disease.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said about his conversations with Mr. Nehru. I would support what he said with one fact, which is that many people would, with hindsight, feel that PL480 food supplied to India was a mistake. It was supplied with the best of motives at the time and had some success. But when President Nixon, as a mark of displeasure with Indian policy, cut it off the result was a stimulus to Indian agriculture. So I would argue that food aid should be given only where it is incremental to local production, and where it is consistent with overall development policy; and that far more of the EEC's aid should put greater emphasis on agricultural development rather than food aid.
Finally, I should like to comment on the statistic which has been given much prominence; namely, that we contribute nearly 19 per cent. of the EDF, but by mid-1980 had obtained only 11 per cent. of the contracts awarded to date and only 6 per cent. of the major works contracts. I accept the point which one noble Lord made, that aid is not given for the benefit of the donors. Nevertheless, aid to projects and to contracts leads to work, and it is only fair that we should do our best to get our share of them.
I suggest that there are two myths, or semi-myths, which die very hard in this country and with which we often tend to console ourselves for our lack of success and sometimes even for our lack of effort. The first of these is that the Commission is a vast and impenetrable
1276
bureaucracy. The second is that all our partners cheat whereas we play by the Queensberry Rules. Of course the Commission is a bureaucracy, though we sometimes forget that the whole of the Commission is a good deal smaller than many Whitehall departments. And of course dealing with any bureaucracy involves both mastering its procedures and enduring a certain degree of frustration, though I think that those who have dealt with it will agree that the Commission is remarkably open to outsiders and ready to see people and to talk to them. I do not believe that there is any real evidence that the game is rigged against us. I note that the Department of Trade witnesses to the committee said that:
"the Commission endeavour to be fair"
and that the main impediments to the success of British firms were lack of experience, lack of knowledge and sometimes lack of willingness.
To me, by far the most revealing piece of evidence contained in the report, to which no noble Lord has yet referred, was that given by a witness from industry (it is on page 109 of the report) who argued that the business is there if you take it seriously and work at it. He quoted the example of his own firm. They started trying to obtain consultancy arrangements under the EDF in 1977 and obtained nothing. In 1978 they obtained two contracts, in 1979 again two contracts, and in 1980, five contracts. The witness said:
"It has been a learning curve"
and stressed the importance of maintaining and developing contacts both in Brussels and also in the developing country where the work was.
I hope, therefore, that this debate will contribute something to the efforts which I know are already being made to make British industry more aware of the possibilities which are open to it under the EDF. To sum up, therefore, I suggest that a Community aid policy is desirable and that there is much in the existing arrangements which we should welcome. They should not however be seen as static and we should lose no opportunity to influence them in the direction of development aid for the poorer countries.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, Sub-Committee B, under the very able and distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, are to be congratulated upon producing a most valuable report and affording us the opportunity for such an important and wide-ranging debate. I should like to confine my remarks to food aid. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, has just said, this is a subject which has strong emotive appeal, one which many regard as a humanitarian and high-minded way of getting rid of surpluses.
In my opinion, the first thing to realise is that food aid in the long term is not a major solution to the problems of development. It is not an adequate substitute for food production in those countries which are suffering from food deficiencies. It can have negative effects, by discouraging local production, by depressing prices or by changing the dietary habits and import patterns of the country concerned. Food aid should not be a tool of foreign policy, or be suspended for political reasons or, in the commercial

1277
field, be a first step in a market development strategy by which donors turn rice eaters into bread eaters and then proceed to sell them wheat.
The first criterion for distributing food aid must be, above all, the true needs of the receiver country. This might appear to be obvious but one witness said,
"The pressure for the EEC's food aid programme comes from within the Community by the people who produce the food and want markets for it."
Finally, without consideration of nutritional needs, food aid can be very harmful. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and others have pointed out, the distribution of skimmed milk powder to areas with polluted water supplies will have obvious disastrous effects. The problem of hunger and malnutrition is as much one of poverty as of food shortage. Many of the countries with a food deficit can improve output by developing farming systems appropriate to local circumstances—by reforming the system of land tenure to overcome the effects of excessive fragmentation of holdings, for example. It is in this area of rural development and the building up of an infrastructure that aid is needed, with projects properly organised by local personnel.
In my opinion, the EEC could take their lead from the World Bank, its procedures and practices, and its aim of increasing incomes in the rural areas. As one witness summed up the problem, food aid is the wrong use of scarce resources. Money should be spent not on giving food away but on enabling countries to grow food themselves. Food aid for disaster relief will no doubt always be needed and it is the least controversial of all food aid, but it must be clearly distinguished from development aid policy.
At present, EEC development aid policy is weakened by conflicting objectives. It wishes to reach a large number of countries and thus spreads the aid too thinly, yet at the same time it wishes to give significant quantities of aid to a small number of countries. Also, as the report recommends, if more resources become available in the next decade there should be a shift in direction to take account of the needs of the people in the poorest countries of Asia and Latin America. So far, EEC aid has had little impact on the populations of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Brazil. EEC aid to such countries, as the report points out, amounted in 1979 to only 3 per cent. of the total.
Community aid programmes inherited their geographical imbalance in response to colonial legacies and this should be righted over time. Also, concentration on food aid with a relative neglect of financial and technical aid to the poor countries should cease. Food aid on an annual basis makes it difficult to assess the true longer term needs of the receiver country. Any abrupt change obviously affects their balance of payments. Therefore, as the report recommends, the United Kingdom Government should encourage the Council of Ministers to adopt multi-annual planning of food aid.
My Lords, I realise that I have touched only on the fringe of the problems. It is difficult to do more in a short speech. I conclude by hoping that the world statesmen have the vision and the will to act before it is too late on the development issues which have been
1278
so clearly analysed in what has become known as the Brandt Report.
6.52 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I add my congratulations upon the two maiden speeches which we have heard this afternoon, which again confirm what a tremendous volume of expertise and experience we can always rely on in your Lordships' House. Also, as a member of the sub-committee who was with it throughout the whole of the preparation of this report—and I like to think that I did not miss any of the meetings—I should like to say how fortunate we in the subcommittee were that our chairman was able to bring to it such a vast amount of experience gained in his past career—experience which was of immense value in dealing with the complex subject with which we were concerned.
I should also like to join with other members of the sub-committee in paying tribute to our clerk and also to our specialist advisor and as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, may I say how sorry I am that our clerk is going to leave the service of your Lordships to enter academic fields in the very near future?
When we started our work, I must admit that this complex subject was very much a closed book to me, but I soon realised what an important and difficult subject it was, how far-ranging and how important, not only to recipient countries but in a variety of different and very important ways to the donor countries. As we progressed, certain basic questions formed in my mind, which I should like briefly to rehearse to your Lordships, and I must apologise because inevitably, in doing so, I shall be guilty of repetition. However, I hope it will be felt that this repetition is rather more an underlining what is in the report and what so many of your Lordships have already referred to.
The first question that comes to my mind is what really is the advantage of Community aid over member states' considerable bilateral aid or over other existing multilateral agency aid schemes, such as the World Bank?
My next question is this: what was the purpose of this aid? Was it, as the report itself hints, to give the Community a visible presence in the third world?—to me a very important consideration if one values the whole concept and existence of the Community in its widest sense. Was it that the Community aid has fewer strings to it than much bilateral aid and could it be expected therefore to have fewer colonial overtones? If that was indeed a worry to some potential recipients (which I trust it was not), it would seem to me to be a sorry condemnation of the past if an ex-colonial power was regarded as suspect simply because it sought to retain some friendly and practical contact with ex-dependent territories and indeed felt a measure of responsibility to do so and to be seen to be doing so.
Was it perhaps that it was felt that the combined examples and influence of member states could be expected to do more than individual states by themselves to encourage OPEC countries to recycle more of their surplus funds to developing countries, whether by way of co-financing or other schemes? In passing,

1279
I would repeat what other noble Lords have said—that some money already goes from OPEC countries and we do not want to discount the importance of that at all.
It is not my purpose to say anything about food aid, but there is one general question which crosses the barriers between food aid and technical aid which I should just like to ask—and I am not at all referring to emergency aid. Undoubtedly, food aid has a considerable importance, but is the Community's food aid policy primarily a convenient way of offloading its agricultural surpluses, which arise from what some people would regard as rather selfish domestic policies, or is it really intended as a sincere, altruistic effort to reduce world malnutrition and starvation? The answer may perhaps be judged by the extent to which the Community might be prepared to switch some of what it spends on food aid to what is regarded as technical aid, helping recipient countries with equipment, with infrastructure and with continuing advice as to how better to feed themselves. In certain circumstances, that policy might be more expensive to donor countries, but I am quite certain, as I have also gathered from what other noble Lords have said this afternoon, that it is infinitely better all round for everyone.
Those are the main questions that came to my mind. They are of course difficult questions, it is not easy to answer them and there are many other questions that the report poses and discusses which I am not going to mention, but against the background of those questions, I want to say a few words about the Lomé Convention. I would not wish to disparage in any way either the achievements or the enthusiasm of those who operate that convention, whether in Brussels or in the field. As others have said, it has much to its credit but it is unfortunate that, because of its historical background, it does not operate evenly round the world. It may even be said at times to operate unfairly, and it does not cover the whole third world. Here we have the ACP states and the non-associated states, notably, as mentioned earlier, India, Bangladesh and countries in Latin America. Of course these areas receive aid through other channels, including from ourselves in the United Kingdom and from the Community itself, but it seems to me that we have here an unsatisfactory and untidy situation.
Certainly as the years go by the historical reasons for this imbalance in treatment of countries will recede, and for the future I personally should like to see a more determined drive beginning now towards the equivalent of a worldwide Lomé. But with that I should like to see some generally recognised mechanism to cover the position of those countries which surely must grow beyond plausible justification for being regarded still as developing countries. Unless there is some such progressive disqualification of developing status, I can see a situation arising where the burden of such an enlarged Lomé could present donor states with such a problem that it would be to the detriment of their own very important bilateral schemes, or alternatively result in aid available to the really deserving countries being spread too thinly. This could well be.so even if we allow for a possible repetition of the
1280
experience we have had with Lomé 1 and 2; the relatively small ratio to date of factual dispersements to allocations.
In passing, as regards bilateral schemes there does seem to me to be evidence that they can offer considerable advantage to recipients, if only by cutting out some of the delay along the rather tortuous sequence of stages from conception of a loan aid project through to execution and final settlement.
I want finally to make two further points affecting the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with Lord Greenhill of Harrow that we should work for the United Kingdom having greater influence on the philosophy and administration of the Community aid programme. This is not merely a matter of national pride. I believe we have much valuable experience to offer, and, like other members of the committee I was disappointed at the relatively low proportion of contracts, other than consultancy contracts, gained by United Kingdom firms. There may be some justification for this. The report goes into some detail as to why this should be so. Most Lomé contracts are let out by a system of qualified open tenders, though a sizeable proportion are granted by direct award, meaning that they are not open to tender.
I certainly got the impression, listening to what witnesses told us, that as regards those open tender contracts there was room for improvement in the monitoring, early advice and information available to United Kingdom firms, and perhaps Her Majesty's Government could look into this, although I believe they are very well aware of this point of view. In the last resort, of course, responsibility must rest with tendering firms, with the facilities, the expertise, the productive capacity, and, above all, the enthusiasm that firms are prepared to and can make available to projects of these kinds. I gather that encouraging headway is already being made in this direction. Although we were unable to interview many individual firms, those few firms that we did see certainly impressed me tremendously by their determination to get results and their confidence that they would get results. The noble Lord who spoke a few moments ago, Lord Hunt, was I think referring to this. They were very impressive.
The whole question of aid to the third world, wherever it comes from, whether from the Community, individual member states or elsewhere, is of course urgent and very important, particularly at this time of worldwide flux and ferment, and the Brandt Report left us in no doubt about that. But if aid is to achieve anything of lasting value—and I am not talking about emergency or first aid, but aid such as we are considering today—it surely must be seen by all not as charity, however well intentioned, but rather as something that is obviously and naturally and commercially of benefit to recipient and donor countries alike, so that progressively over the years it will make for a better and easier understanding between those countries, with a growing degree of mutual confidence and co-operation, and so for a more stable world.
My Lords, I am indeed grateful to have had the opportunity of taking part in the deliberations of Lord Greenhill's sub-committee, and I can only hope that the report will prove of some value to those on whom the onus of future vital decisions will rest.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I wish to do much more than thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, for initiating this debate. I want to congratulate him and his colleagues on the Select Committee on European Communities for their work. We know very little of what is happening in the European Community, but the Select Committee here is giving far more consideration to it and evidence about it than any similar body in another place. The report which the committee has produced is typical of their work, the thoroughness, the evidence of experts, and their own report, and I suggest to this House that we must find some new method of considering their recommendations and their evidence—otherwise it may disappear into thin air. I doubt whether very many of us would even have studied this report if it had not been the fact that we were having this debate today.
While saying that, I am very critical of the report. I find it terribly inadequate to deal with the problem of poverty in the world. Despite the recession which is taking place in Western Europe, our countries are still the most affluent in the world, and indeed rich in comparison with the conditions of life in South America, the whole of Africa, the greater part of Asia, where, in the words of Robert MacNamara of the World Bank, 800 million people are on the brink of death. We have a right to ask whether the European Community should take some responsibility for dealing with this situation. I suggest they should, because they are the joint voice and the co-ordination of the peoples of most of Western Europe. Apart from humanitarian considerations, the political and economic relations of Western Europe with the third world demand that we should be active in this sphere. It is in our own interests to demand it. Lift the standards of life of the millions of people in Latin America, Africa and Asia and inevitably the result will be a demand for our goods. It will make a contribution to ending the recession in the West and reducing the terrible unemployment which we have here.
This report shows that the present extent of aid from the European Community is very limited. It represents 5.7 per cent. of the European Community's total expenditure. That 5.7 per cent. includes the European Development Fund associated with the Lomé Convention. There is 5.7 per cent. to end hunger in the world, but 73 per cent. of the expenditure of the European Community is for its own agricultural development.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but is he drawing a clear distinction, as perhaps he ought, between what the Community does through its Community machinery and what it does as individual member states? I think that the picture he is giving is rather misleading, because he uses the term "Community" sometimes referring to the machinery of the Commission and so on and sometimes referring to the member states.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, knows me he would expect me to deal with that problem before I conclude my speech.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I am glad.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, as I have said I am shocked by the Committee's indication that they regard this 5·7 per cent. of expenditure as "reasonable". The Committee urges instead that the major responsibility should be with bilateral aid and through the multinational agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has today endorsed that view of preference for bilateral aid. But how utterly inadequate bilateral aid is. The report gives tables which show that only Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, from their vast oil profits, have reached the accepted target of 1·7 per cent. of gross national product in each country.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm the figures of 1·7 per cent., because the figure I have is 0·7 per cent.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord. I am getting a little older and I did not hear his intervention. However, I hope that what I shall continue to say will meet the point that he has made. I was saying that except for those two oil-rich countries every country has failed even to reach the 0·7 per cent. target of the gross national product—the Soviet Union, 0·14 per cent.; the United States, 0·20 per cent.; and the United Kingdom has done a little better 0·52 per cent. But in addition to inadequacy, bilateral aid has great disadvantages. It is frequently tied to political motivation and economic compensation rather than meeting the needs of the poor of the world. It is directed both to military and ideological alliances and secondly, to commitment to contracts with the purchases from donor countries.
When we turn to multinational aid we find that it is even more inadequate in the world situation than bilateral aid. The table in the report shows that multinational aid is a mere fraction of even the meagre bilateral aid which is given. As regards the United Kingdom, 72 per cent. of our aid is bilateral aid and only 16 per cent. is multilateral aid. As regards West Germany, 65 per cent. of its aid is bilateral and only 26 per cent. is multilateral. As regards France, 63 per cent. is bilateral and only 10 per cent. is multilateral. I just mention that in the case of France, with the socialist party becoming dominant, there is now a prospect of those figures being greatly changed.
The Brandt Report shows that aid, to be effective, must be mainly multinational, must be global. These problems are to be discussed shortly at a series of conferences, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has indicated. For seven years there has been absolute deadlock in the negotiations between the North and South of the World. An absolute revolution in attitude is required, including the attitude of our own Government, if this problem is to be dealt with adequately.
There is now some hope for changing attitude even in the countries of the European Community. This is particularly the case with the election of the new Socialist President of France and the response made to his proposals by the Chancellor of West Germany. In the European Community itself there is new hope in the appointment of Edgard Pisani as commissioner in charge of relations with the developing countries. Edgard Pisani was a member of the Brandt Commission. These are signs of hope, but what I want to emphasise in conclusion is that the peoples of this

1283
country and the peoples of Western Europe are now ready for the change in attitude if this problem is to be solved. In this country it was shown only last week by that unprecedentedly-large lobby in favour of the Brandt Report. In all the Western European countries—France, West Germany, Belgium and Holland—similar movements are now arising showing that the people are beginning to realise that they must act to save the starving millions in the world.
We must seize the opportunities of this year to end the hunger—the unnecessary hunger—of millions in the world, and, even more important, by beginning to construct a new world order, uniting the present divided North and South of the earth so that they may, in co-operation and partnership, end poverty in the world.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I should like to begin by welcoming this report and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and his colleagues on the work that they have done. In particular, I welcome the second recommendation, that as more resources become available, the first priority should be to restore and increase bilateral programmes of member states and their contributions to other multinational agencies. However, as a firm supporter of the EEC, I think that it is highly desirable that aid should also be distributed by the EEC in its own right. It helps to build up the importance of the Community in the eyes of the world and to increase its own self-confidence. Such aid also, as is emphasised in paragraph 111, tends to have fewer colonial overtones than that offered bilaterally by member states.
However, it is disappointing that the total EEC development assistance of £593 million for the year is only a little in excess of that of Sweden, a country with a population of 8 million people. That is not a very awe-inspiring sum for such a relatively wealthy group of nations. But I appreciate that these figures do not take into account the bilateral assistance given by member states. One must still hope that the EEC's contribution will in due course be raised.
I want to confine the remainder of my remarks to what I regard as an unfortunate omission from the report and from its recommendations. I refer to the implication of the present world population explosion on aid efficacy. No mention is made in the main body of the report of this all-important aspect or of the need of both member states and the EEC itself to take population growth into account in the disbursement of their aid. Aid for family planning projects as a component part of an overall development plan, which includes maternal and child health care and improvement in the education and status of women, is surely the most important and most effective of all types of assistance which we can give to developing countries at the present time, a time when the population of the world is due to increase by between 3,000 to 4,000 million people within the next 20 to 30 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who preceded me, mentioned—and I think that he was quoting Robert MacNamara—that 800 million people were already on the brink of starvation. One can imagine how many
1284
more people will be on the brink of starvation when there are another 3,000 to 4,000 million mouths to feed.
Table 6 on page xii of the report notes the 11 leading recipients of EDF aid in 1979; all were African countries, with a total population of 108 million. I have ascertained that the doubling time of the population of these 11 countries is 25 years. In the case of Kenya, it is 18 years. What conceivable gain can there be in pouring aid into such countries if it is not accompanied by a determined effort to keep their population growth within reasonable bounds and to educate these rather backward people, not just on the advantages of family planning, but on the absolute necessity of it if they are to survive and to better the abject conditions of health and poverty under which so many of them exist? We are wasting our money and we are certainly doing them no service if we pretend otherwise.
Mention has been made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and others, of the tremendous agricultural advance which has been made in India in the last two decades. Indeed, it is a marvellous achievement that they are now able to feed themselves. But the achievement will be turned to nothing if they cannot do something to curb their population growth. They are, indeed, doing something. They are trying their best, but they also need our help. So far as I am aware, the only assistance approved by the EEC specifically for population projects has been transmitted through the nongovernmental organisations.
I understand that in the last five years, the EEC has co-financed 700 projects through 124 NGOs in 91 countries; no mean achievement and one for which, I think, they deserve great credit. The total funds spent in this way amount to some £27 million, but of this total, only £166,000, or a tiny 0·006 per cent., has been devoted to population projects. Two months ago I witnessed for myself how some £20,000 of this £166,000 was being spent on an integrated rural development project which included a family planning element in the Jabalpur area of Central India. The NGO to which the EEC money had been disbursed was Population Concern in the United Kingdom. The project was being administerd by the Family Planning Association of India, in conjunction with local government officials. Significant results were being obtained and the enthusiasm generated by the infusion of this EEC money was tremendous. One can only regret that a higher, percentage of the funds is not made available for such purposes.
I have heard it suggested that third world countries resent the tying of overseas aid to population projects and prefer to decide for themselves how the aid is allocated. Having spoken to a number of the people concerned in these countries, I do not believe this to be true. Because of the intense social and economic pressures on their Governments, it is sometimes difficult for them to devote as much of the aid as they would like to population projects, which inevitably produce long-term results. They therefore welcome any aid which is designated specifically for family planning and population education.
To emphasise the report I should like to quote from paragraph 9 of the final communiqué issued by the International Conference of Asian countries on Family Planning held in Djakarta from 26th to 30th April

1285
this year. This was not, it will be noted, an occasion when Western countries were lecturing the less developed countries on what they should do; it was a question of the latter appealing for Western help. I quote from paragraph 9:
"There is an urgent need to increase current expenditure in developing countries from an estimated current one billion dollars to approximately three billion dollars annually in order to meet population and family planning programme needs. Countries providing development assistance should increase then support of population programmes from the current 2·1 per cent. of development assistance outlays"—
and in this country it is not 2·1 per cent., it is 1 per cent—
"to at least 5 per cent. At the same time the developing countries should substantially increase the proportion of their public expenditure which is allocated for family planning programmes".
I should like to conclude my speech by an appeal to the Commission in Brussels to reconsider the existing very low percentage of EEC aid which is allocated for family planning purposes. I hope that the amount given to non-governmental organisations can be increased, and I hope also that the Commission will consider making funds available to the multilateral agencies in this field such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation. If, as I imagine, the objective of overseas development aid is to help raise the living standards of the people of these countries, no money could be more effectively spent.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I agree with what has been said by the two speakers who have preceded me, but in my case I want to deal with the Lomé Convention. First, because I have a personal interest in it, in that I was an observer of the first meeting in Brussels and I know some of the problems and some of the battles which took place behind the scenes to mould the ACP together into one group. In fact, it was taken for granted that the French would be able to deal with it in the way that they had dealt with all previous conferences, by leading the francophone countries in one direction and leaving the others to battle for themselves. But in effect it was only because of the work of the present Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Shridath Ramphal, that the ACP countries were brought together and moulded into the group they are now. Therefore, I have a strong personal interest in the success of Lomé.
Although I accept and agree that we have been led away by the excess of rhetoric over Lomé, I hope that the fact that we have not quite achieved the objectives that have been declared will not lead your Lordships into dropping the concept behind the Lomé Convention. Of course if you talk about partnership—and it is a partnership between very rich countries who are the donors, and very poor countries who are the recipients—it is obviously not a partnership of equals. Although in the rhetoric one talks as though it is in fact a partnership of equals, I do not think that at any stage the ACP countries thought that in fact it would really be a partnership of equals. They knew that they are in fact the junior partners. They were the receiving group, and the other rich group were the ones who were giving, and therefore the rich group would wish to control the way in which the matter is dealt with.
1286
But the institutions which were set up in fact enable a dialogue between the donors and the recipients, and enable the recipients to carry some sort of influence on the donors. The influence is not the influence of equals, but it is influence all the same; it is the influence of people who have an equal interest. Therefore, the institutions of Lomé are in fact important. One of the things that has worried me is the extent to which we often fail to use, for example, the Assembly. I was disappointed in reading that in many instances ACP countries send ambassadors to the Assembly rather than members of their Parliaments. That is an obvious mistake. The ACP countries must use the institutions to the fullest extent, and one of the things that members—it would not be this place, it would have to be the European Parliament—need to do is persuade their counterparts in the ACP countries that they must play their full part in the Assembly.
The Lomé Convention has six main parts. There are the provisions for financial and technical co-operation, including aid through both the EDF and the EIB. I agree with those who have said that the stress should be on agricultural development. But I hope you will note that already a fair amount of EDF funds is used for agricultural development.
In talking about Lomé, and at all times in dealing with it, I am anxious that we should build on the foundations that are there. What we should be doing is to encourage a greater use of EDF funds for agricultural development. I agree with all the previous speakers who have said that one of the first objectives in any developing country must be to feed itself. Aid to that country must be aid geared to enable them to achieve that particular objective. On the EDF the ACP countries feel two things. First, of course, the funds are not enough. That is fair enough. Secondly, that the Community is a bit over-bureaucratic in the way in which it deals with the control of the funds; that there is too long a delay between commitment and disbursement, and that as a consequence of that long delay the fund is reduced. Everybody recognises that. If you are promised £1,000 today, and you get it five years hence, if there has been a lot of inflation it is probably worth only £800.
When we come to negotiate Lomé 3, the question of indexing the fund should be gone into very thoroughly. We may not be able to have complete indexation, but indexing should be explored. To add a suggestion of my own—in that I have not heard it from any ACP country—we should not expect the EDF to pay the expenses of EEC delegates in the various ECP countries. That should be an expense on the budget of the Commission, thus increasing the fund and making it of greater value.
There are several legs to the convention, but the second is represented by the trade provisions. Here again, there has been criticism over the country of origin provisions. It has been suggested that the provisions have been so strictly applied that the benefits which should flow from those provisions are not being gained because there are always technical objections to particular products. Therefore, my second suggestion in relation to dealing with Lomé is that there should be some flexibility in the country of origin of products. We must remember that we are dealing with countries which must often make a slight addition to products

1287
before they can be produced as manufactured goods. It is therefore wrong to enforce the country of origin provisions as rigidly as is happening at present.
The next leg is Stabex, which is a good benefit for the developing ACP countries. The only problem with Stabex is that it should cover many more commodities than it does at present. If we are really trying to help these countries, it is rather absurd to say to a country like Zambia, "You depend on copper. When the price of copper falls your income is very low. However, we cannot regard copper as a product that should be included in Stabex". In saying that, we are not being as helpful—I am selecting as mild a word as possible—as we should be, and I hope that through the institutions which exist we will explore the possible expansion of the number of commodities accepted for Stabex.
We have just introduced Sysmin, which is designed to maintain the levels of production and export of certain minerals. What the ACP countries were asking for was that minerals should be included in Stabex, but we have produced a different system, one which—let us be honest about it—is geared more to helping the EEC countries than the countries producing the minerals, so on this one we have not quite played cricket. I am not suggesting that Sysmin should be abolished—because it is good to try to maintain the levels of production and export of certain minerals—but I am suggesting that there should be some bringing together of Sysmin and Stabex with a view to helping the producing countries concerned.
The next leg is the special arrangement for industrial co-operation. That has not got very far, and the general experience seems to be that it is very difficult to carry out the transfer of technology about which we all talk but which we find so difficult to do. I had intended to refer to the question of co-financing, but that has been dealt with by several other noble Lords. I would only say that we must think of co-financing at different levels: there is co-financing between the Community and non-governmental organisations for small projects, and that is very useful; there is co-financing between the Community and the ACP countries for what are called mini-projects, and that is also very useful; and there is co-financing with OPEC, about which we heard earlier.
I hope we shall take some initiative over Brandt and that we shall be prepared, if the conference in Mexico does not produce the results for which we are hoping, to take up with the OPEC countries (by "we" I mean the EEC) the question of a partnership. The Lomé institutions are already there and in effect they could be extended into the sphere of the EEC, OPEC and the countries which are benefiting from the new arrangement. There is no reason why we should not explore that possibility if we cannot get the sort of agreement we are hoping for in Mexico; of course, if we can get proper agreement in Mexico, that will be the better option.
My noble friend Lord Brockway and others have spoken about multilateral and bilateral aid. My honest view is that there are certain things best done bilaterally and others that are better done multilaterally, and I am not so sure that the conflict between multilateral and bilateral aid is as big a conflict as
1288
some tend to make out. My view is that some things are best done bilaterally but that many other things are better done through multilateral aid and that we should see to it that the things which need to be done by way of multilateral aid are done that way.
Let us be honest and admit that there is one advantage in bilateral aid. It is that one can say to the people of the country concerned, in our case to the people of the United Kingdom, "We are undertaking this project in that particular place and it is providing a certain number of jobs for people in this country". That is a straightforward statement and it has an obvious advantage. However, let us also face the fact that people are beginning to understand the whole position of the North/South dialogue, of the need to mobilise our resources so that in effect North and South can benefit. That I think explains why 10,000 people came to Parliament to lobby on Brandt. It means that the people in this country are beginning to understand what is behind the need to come together in order to survive.
In thanking the committee for its report, I would add that I hope that we shall regard the whole question of using the resources of the North to meet the needs of the South as being what Brandt said it is: a way in which can make sure of our survival. We can make sure, for example, that the 3 million people unemployed in the North, and the underused resources of the North, will give to the people in the South who are hungry and in need those things that they need, so that we can both move forward together. Finally, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and his committee on the thorough job that they did in collating all the facts relating to Community aid, and to thank them for giving us this valuable report.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I can follow straight on from where the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has left off, since it would be very remiss of me if I were not to express my appreciation of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has done in preparing the report. I was his immediate predecessor as chairman of the sub-committee concerned, and I realised how extremely lucky we were to persuade him to take on the job of considering the question of development aid. The job was almost tailored for him and he has certainly done it superbly well.
Inevitably in a debate of this kind we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, expected we would, ranged very far and wide from the immediate question in hand; namely, the place of EEC aid in future aid programmes. Of course we were bound to have this point in mind to some extent in considering the place that aid would have in any developments such as are suggested by the Brandt Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has said, the debate is extremely timely in view of the conferences that are to take place during the remainder of this year.
I should like to start with a little historical perspective. I have not heard this point covered so far in the debate, even though I have been in the Chamber all afternoon. We should do well to remember that EEC aid stems directly from Articles 131 to 134 of the Treaty of Rome (now over 20 years old), under which

1289
the member states then agreed to associate with the Community the non-European territories which had special relations with one or other of them. As has been mentioned, effect was given to that by the Yaoundé agreement, signed in 1963, when all the African states, plus Madagascar, adhered to the agreement. The exception was Guinea, which joined in 1969.
The purpose of the association—I mention this because I think that it is extremely important in providing the background to the matter—was to promote the economic and social development of the countries and territories and to further the interests and prosperity of their inhabitants in order to lead them—I invite your Lordships to note the words "lead them"—to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire.
I say at once that I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, when he spoke about the dialogue that developed under Lomé. In a sense it was a "polylogue", because there was a dialogue between the EEC and the various countries concerned not only collectively but also individually, and I believe that this has proved immensely valuable.
When the Six became the Nine, there were added similar territories in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific islands with special relations with Great Britain, and within a couple of years a new agreement was reached—the Lomé Agreement. But the larger territories which had formed part of the British Empire, such as India, East and West Pakistan (as they then were) and Ceylon, were not included. I think it is just as well to point out why they were not included. It was because it was felt that they were submerged, so to speak, and also because at that time they were in a different state of development and civilisation. We know from our historical experience that Africans and Indians do not always get on extremely well together.
Over, above and beyond the collective responsibilities assumed by the European Community, there were the individual responsibilities undertaken by member states under the United Nations and the various agencies of the free world, together with the bilateral aid which individual member states negotiated with them and other non-European countries.
Table 3 on page viii of the report sets out very clearly the proportions of total aid contributions of the main EEC donors made in 1979—these have been quoted by a noble Lord opposite—by way of bilateral aid, and contributions to the EEC programmes and to multilateral agencies respectively. In all cases the contributions to the EEC programmes are by far the smallest of the three forms of aid—in the case of Britain being about 12 per cent., or £107 million, out of a total of £891 million.
The report is concerned not so much with the question of whether that is too much or too little as with the effectiveness of the way in which the aid is spent, and this is where I would differ from the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It is not so much a question of the amount of the aid, but rather the way in which it is spent—and I would add, to some extent in comparison with other forms of aid. The British percentage of GNP worked out in 1979 at 0.52, which was less than that of France and more than that of Germany, which were both far short of 0.7 per cent.
1290
which I understand is the target for 1985.
Far and away the highest percentages were achieved by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which of course have very high balance of payments surpluses. However, the oil-rich countries want to invest the surpluses in ways which will retain their real value against the time when their oil resources are exhausted, and of course this will be very difficult to achieve. But in as much as the way in which they can be persuaded to invest their money can benefit the world as a whole, they will also be benefiting themselves.
Because of our economic difficulties, Great Britain has of course had to cut down on aid somewhere, and the main cut has fallen on bilateral aid. Mention has been made of a figure of 14½ per cent. There is one very good reason for this; namely, that our contributions to EEC programmes are contractual, so we cannot cut them without default. This is indeed one of the main advantages of Lomé for the ACP beneficiaries. Under Lomé 1 and 2, programmes are fixed for each beneficiary for five years ahead, and contributions are called forward by the Commission every six months until the projects for which the money is pledged are completed. I am not absolutely certain whether that is the right statement or whether it is until the money pledged has been spent. It is very important that we should know what is the answer there.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also mentioned, like everyone else Lomé suffers from inflation. One starts with an agreed sum of aid, which is divided between the beneficiaries. By the time the projects in the various countries are decided upon, contracts allotted and so on, a considerable proportion of the five years has already elapsed. It is hardly surprising that the proportion of the total sum actually spent by the end of the five-year period is alarmingly small; and all the time the costs are rising, with no provision for indexation, as the noble, Lord Pitt, mentioned. So how are the approved projects to be completed without a revision of the limits? I hope my noble friend will be able to answer that question, because it seems extremely important.
In a sense, of course, this would be a way of indexation; but what is much more important is that this is a project-based scheme, and therefore projects undertaken should be completed. This is a cause of grave concern to both donor and recipient, and gives rise to growing disenchantment on the part of both. Nevertheless, continuity is important, and, indeed, it is being maintained. Above all—and here I echo what many speakers have said—the principle of co-operation is maintained; that is, co-operation between the EEC as an entity and a large number of territories on a basis of common purpose and friendship. That continuity and that co-operation makes for stability in troubled times.
Whatever may be the shortcomings of the system, the evidence we received left us in no doubt that with good will and experience they are being reduced. As one witness put it, things are getting better, and they can be expected to get better. I perhaps rather regret some of the criticisms which have been made today, because they are probably already out of date to a considerable extent, and improvements are being made all the time. Naturally, in the early stages of a great venture of this

1291
kind there is bound to be some over-centralisation of decision-making, and also a degree of local supervision which could well be reduced as time goes on. Communications have surely reached the point now where there could be less central and more regional control, such as is exercised by the World Bank. This could enhance both efficiency and economy. One example given in evidence was that delegations consisting of teams of experts need hardly be kept in each territory, or at any rate in a large number of territories, but could be based at focal points and could service groups of countries. Equally, more financial responsibility could be devolved to the regions, and even to the representative of the Commission in any given territory.
The committee also felt that more of the European Development Fund aid should be devoted to programme aid rather than aid for particular projects. Again, as adjacent countries of the ACP become more accustomed to working together, this may well come about. The main object of the exercise, after all, is to enable the associated territories to provide for themselves a rising standard of living in the widest sense to themselves. I may be wrong, but I would imagine that more thought is given by the Commission and by the territories concerned to dovetailing the projects than would appear from the lists of projects approved. Here, again, I think this is a practice which is growing.
As to the distribution of grants, the report draws attention to the apparent disparity in the amount of aid per head of population given to the various territories. Without knowing the form and amount of bilateral aid afforded to them, it is difficult to form a judgment on this; but what seems clear from the evidence we received is that British influence has helped to ensure that aid should be given primarily on the basis of need, and that preference is now increasingly being given to the most needy countries.
EEC aid is not confined, of course, to the ACP countries, but the aid given to non-associated territories is relatively small. I think that only about £21·5 million was spent over the four years 1976 to 1979. Unlike Lomé, this is non-contractual land somewhat spasmodic. It is also largely used to co-finance projects with other agencies. Personally, I feel that it would be nice if, as the report suggests, the Ten were to promote:
"a balanced world-wide programme of financial assistance".
But I doubt whether at this stage it is really possible, or, if achieved, would be very effective. The jam would be spread too thinly, and the administrative costs would be likely to be even higher than the administrative costs are at present. It seems to be much more important that the EEC should make a success of Lomé as it develops—I mean develops in efficiency and in scope, though one would hope that in future it would be possible to spend more upon it—and also that individual member states should choose for themselves with whom to make bilateral arrangements and with whom to join in financing multilateral arrangements.
Some noble Lords today would have liked to see Lomé extended to those other territories previously associated with Britain. But there is, I think, as I have already said, the danger of lack of cohesion and
1292
common origin between the Indian sub-continent and the African continent, and a lack of domination of the latter by the former. As for the EEC aid to the Magreb and Mashrak countries, which have not been mentioned at all, I think, the object surely should be to maintain peace and friendly relations, which may not prove too easy for the years immediately ahead, and in the meantime to continue to devote such limited funds as we can muster to that end.
Finally, a word on food—a subject which is not unconnected with the Community's agricultural policy. Briefly, what I think emerged from our studies was that the paramount object of our aid policy should be to concentrate our efforts on assisting the poorer, and especially the poorest, to become self-sufficient, and in the meantime to do all we can to ensure that they do not go hungry. This, I think, has been broadly borne out by what most speakers have said today. The spectre, or the mere thought, of others going hungry—of chronic famine—raises the deepest emotion and compassion. Nevertheless, we could not fail to be impressed by the weight of expert opinion that unwise, ill-considered and ill-organised donations of food could not only be wasteful but could have exactly the opposite effect to that desired. The effect might well be to keep the needy needy.
My conclusion, if it was not made clear, is that what is required is a closely co-ordinated plan to raise food production in the countries concerned and to deal with food emergencies by ensuring adequate supplies for those in need in the meantime. It is, of course, easy to say that but it is an extremely complex procedure. I share very much the feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that this is not something that can be brought about in the twinkling of an eye, and that patience will be needed to achieve this over, perhaps, a decade or two; but that we must press on in this direction and there should be a high degree of co-ordination somewhere or another.
We had some evidence of information sharing about bilateral, multilateral, and Community aid so as to avoid overlapping, and also of a growing degree of co-financing, and clearly there is a long way to go on this. In general, in considering our report we felt that there was a danger of over-simplification and of trying to achieve too much too soon. One thing that is absolutely clear to my mind—and it is something that was said by one of our witnesses—is that the whole question of poverty and development cannot be dealt with by one or even two gigantic world organisations. Such organisations may very well set out the way in which problems should be dealt with, but it must be left to the enterprise and ingenuity of a large number of bodies in order to get the best results.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as we cross the gap on the list of speakers I think there must be an element of relief in some of your Lordships' minds; not that the speeches we have heard have been too long or too many. It is a sign of great interest and commitment on the part of a large number of the Members of your Lordships' House that—very unusually for a speakers' list of this length—only one speaker has "scratched", and the speeches have got no shorter as the afternoon and the evening have gone on. That

1293
is because your Lordships have all had a great deal to offer to this debate in terms of both knowledge and care. There have been some very notable speeches. We have heard two maiden speeches, both of them in their own way delivered with great feeling and passion. I think that is something we all ought to value very much in this debate. Although there are many speeches I should like to mention, if I were to mention just one it would be that made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her tribute to Lady Jackson.
I will not attempt to pick up the threads of the debate. I think it would be impossible to do so. The debate has been of such quality that many of the threads which seemed to be loose at the beginning have been picked up by someone and woven into the whole. Instead, I will concentrate for a very few minutes on one particular element of the aid programme about which my party is extremely keen. It is the development of agriculture.
This is a debate about European institutions as much as about anything else, and Europe is fortunate in that it can feed itself. I believe that is something we ought to be proud of and it is certainly not something we should throw away. It is quite probable—and indeed a lot of experts hold the view—that Britain could even feed herself if she put herself to the task, although it would be difficult at this moment. But undoubtedly Europe as a whole is capable of feeding itself and of looking after itself. On that basis Europe has an element of richness which, whatever may happen to the balance of payments throughout the world or to the price of oil, is a richness that it will never lose, we hope, short of a catastrophe. That is a blessing we should concentrate on helping the rest of the world to achieve. It is our duty in Europe to help the rest of the world out of what is our real richness, and we must recognise that duty. I believe the word "duty" was the one used by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and a sense of duty should be at the heart of what we are saying today.
Although it is true that aid is in the long term self-help, surely that should be an extra. For as long as gaps between the rich and the poor countries increase, the fact that to help the poor would be to help ourselves would be very nice and a useful way, probably, of helping a number of people to see that it is worthwhile. Nevertheless, it is marginal. In a recent television broadcast the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, let slip the remark that only once in 20 years of dealing with Foreign Secretaries had he ever heard one talk about the good of mankind. In some ways, of course, there is an advantage in that: it means an avoidance of cant. But, on the other hand, there is a disadvantage, and I believe there is a necessity to realise the moral basis of some of the foreign policy and some of the home policy which we must undertake.
In a notable speech made in another place my honourable friend Mr. Russell Johnston pleaded for acknowledgement of the need for unselfishness in foreign affairs, only to have his speech contemptuously dismissed by the speaker who immediately succeeded him. I believe, and my party believe, that we must increase the quality of our aid and, at the very least, not diminish its quantity. There are those who feel that we must diminish the quantity. In a recent speech in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said:
1294
"I know that overseas aid is a sensitive subject, but can a country faced with the problems we face really continue it on quite this scale? There are still directions in which further reductions need to be made".
The reductions which the noble Lord wanted to see are already happening in terms of both quantity and quality. In 1979–80 the aid-to-defence expenditure ratio was 1 to 10; in 1983–84, according to present plans, the ratio will be 1 to 13. As to quality, we are told that greater weight is being given to political, industrial and commercial considerations. This point was quoted on one or two occasions today. That must be to say that less weight is being given to what the recipients need.
In the cuts which are being made, there are disproportionate cuts in aid. The great principle behind the biblical injunction to tithe was that if one gives a proportion, one gives a proportion whether one is rich or poor. It is very important that we should try to stick to the target of 0·7 per cent., or whatever it may happen to be at any particular time, and that we should not diminish what we give out of proportion to other items on which we are cutting back.
I think that on the European level we may hope for a quality of aid which sometimes has not come through on the purely bilateral arrangements. If the Community merely represented the sum of the selfishness of its members, we should be in a bad way; but I think that, acting on behalf of all of us, in many ways it tones down the selfishness of the members and that there is a considerable case for having this Community aid as well as the aid of the individual countries.
I said at the beginning of my speech that it was Europe's duty to help feed the world and if I emphasise food it is because it is basic. You cannot build a steel-works if you are starving and nor is there any purpose in doing so. There are two ways in which we can help with food. Most importantly, European aid, or British aid in particular, should go to help the renewal of sound, peasant agriculture wherever we can find it. Secondly, while soils which have been ruined all over the world are being revived—and we have heard in one speech today of the amount of land which is now desert which was not desert before—and we are helping with that and while land tenure is being reformed, we can sometimes help with food at the periodical crises which will occur—although I accept the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and others about the danger of direct food help.
We need to see a move in world terms away from the cash crops of no nutritional value such as coffee, tea and tobacco which are grown in order to earn foreign currency; we need to see a move away from them and towards more staple and more nutritional crops. We want to see reliance not on miracle crops and imported petrol-based fertilisers but on gradually-improved crops, natural fertilisers and more ecological ways of approaching the growing of food in the developing countries; renewable power, small-scale hydro-electric plants, biomass, fuel plantations and methane digesters—all those things which the noble Baroness, Lady White, touched on. These are the kinds of development which countries can deal with by themselves without straining their balance of payments.
In order to facilitate that, we need peasant or co-operative ownership. This will not be easy. I

1295
take the point of Lord Sainsbury about putting holdings together to make them viable but there is the question of seeing that people have a stake in the land and that they get the maximum amount of food; and one gets the maximum amount of food by having a large number of people on the land. That will not be easy. Of the land owned in blocks of over 100 hectares in the world, over half are owned by 0.2 per cent. of the landowners. We must move away from that. The facts and the figures are too overwhelming and frightening. If one wants an object lesson, one looks at El Salvador where 14 families possess the fertile land in order to produce coffee and the result—and it is the result and is not incidental—is a civil war between two nasty armies and two factions for either of which there is not much to be said, widespread malnutrition and widespread poverty. On the other side of the coin is China, South Korea, Japan and North Vietnam. They may not be countries that we would want to live in, but they have the least land on average per person in the world and they produce the most food. It is only on a basis like that that you produce a sound economy.
I am aware that there is one major problem with what I am saying which a number of noble Lords will have picked up. It is that there is a certain amount of Western arrogance in standing up in the Chamber and telling other countries what they need. I certainly would withdraw from the stark terms in which I put that; but I do not completely withdraw. There is a duty to learn from one's own mistakes, both the mistakes of our own development and the mistakes that we have made in helping other people, and we have plenty of experience to draw upon. It is a typical example of trahison des clercs to shy away from that duty and to say that we must not dictate to the less-developed countries. Of course not, but we have a duty to advise and to consult; and one or two noble Lords touched on that point and said that when you come down to it and talk to them face to face, it is not too difficult to get to what needs to be done. We need to do that, and we need to concentrate on those countries and those projects where people are willing to use the resources that we have to offer to build up a strong indigenous agriculture.
I started my argument with perhaps slightly sanctimonious remarks about unselfishness. But that last point I have been making is the opposite of that; it is hard headedness. I think that none of us can avoid the conclusion that a very great deal of aid in the past has been wasted. Those of us who believe in aid passionately would admit that as much as those who were rather dubious in the first place. But we must not waste it; that is of no help to anyone. The critics have a case only too often; and we must see that they do not.
We may not be a rich country any longer, whatever that now means, but we are in some comparisons (as noble Lords have said) very rich. But we have experience of our own and experience from the days of the Commonwealth and, before that, of the Empire. If we can generously contribute that, as well as keeping up the fundamental financial and substantial and material aid and channel it through the European initiative, we shall be doing well.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow for initiating this debate and for providing us with the report that we have been discussing. I think and hope that he will feel rewarded by the fact that there has been a well-informed and interesting debate. It has been enlivened by two maiden speeches from my noble friends Lord Molloy and Lord Bishopston and it was a pleasure to me personally to meet them again in this House. We shall look forward to future contributions that they will make to our debates.
Although the debate has dealt with very wide issues, the report itself deals only with a quite limited question about aid. It is the aid programme of the European Community; not of the Member States of the Community but the aid that goes through the Community's own channels. That is a small part of all the aid that is provided in the world; and all the aid that is provided in the world is small in comparison with the need for it. I am sure that that is true. This has not, in the main, been a controversial debate but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts—and he regrets that health does not allow him to be with us at this moment—was right to stress at the beginning that it is a profound mistake on the part of the Governments to have made the cuts in the aid programme that they have. The programme is still desperately small in comparison with world needs; and that point was made also by my noble friend Lord Walston.
At this point I must take up the very interesting contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. He was counselling us, if I understood him rightly, against trying to do too much too quickly and was emphasising the primacy of helping poorer countries to produce more food and produce it more efficiently. I am sure that he is right about the primacy of food production. Of course, there are some countries which by their nature are not capable of feeding themselves and they must get their food by developing such resources as they have for export. But that is by the way. I would add this to what was said by the noble Lord. The more efficient growing of food is not merely a matter of acquainting unsophisticated people with fairly simple rules of agriculture and the terracing of land. It may require large industrial and engineering projects. It may require dams and irrigation; it may require the development in their own countries of the making of agricultural machinery. It may require railways and other forms of transport. More than once in the world there have been famines due not to shortage of food but to shortage of transport facilities to get the food from where it was to where it was needed.
There is bound to be a certain industrial element even in aid to the poorest and least sophisticated countries. But when we look at the food aid programme of the European Community, it is the decisive conclusion of the report that this has been thoroughly bad from beginning to end. I do not think that I am exaggerating the report's judgment on it. That has been the opinion of everyone who has spoken about it in the House. The conclusion we come to is this. Emergency aid is a quite distinct problem from development aid, and I do not know that we need discuss it very much. The problems can be terrible but they are

1297
straightforward and simple and it ought not to pass human wit to know how to deal with them. But when we are concerned with development aid we ought not to be concerned with providing the recipient countries either with food or probably with things for consumpton of any kind. We ought to be enabling them to produce for themselves the things that they need for consumption. That is to say, to provide them with both the equipment and the knowledge needed to do that.
It should be remembered—though not a great deal has been said in the debate—that an important part of aid is the provision of skilled personnel and partly giving to people from poorer countries the opportunity to come to countries like ours and learn that what some economic textbooks call "non-material equipment", the knowledge that helps one to produce wealth, is as essential as equipment in the ordinary sense of that term.
If we regard that as the function of development aid, I would add this: I do not believe that there is very much danger of our rushing in so quickly with a great fund of resources before we have decided how to use them properly. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Home, rather exaggarated that danger. It can happen of course that you can embark on ill-considered projects. But I do not think that we can possibly defend the smallness of the world's present aid programme on the ground that there are not enough useful viable projects available for it to be worth while spending any more money at the present time.
I believe one could double, treble or quadruple what is now being spent and there would not be a shortage of useful projects, provided that—and this is a proviso one must make whether the total programme is large or small—one uses common sense and makes use of whatever expert knowledge there is available. As John Ball, who led the peasants' revolt 600 years ago, said: Let skill go before will. We hope that there is the will for international aid. Skill and knowledge must go in front of it, preparing the way so that goodwill does not run to waste.
If I am right in thinking that that is the real nature of development aid, to enable the recipient countries to provide for their own needs with increasing efficiency, then I think, judging from the report, the Community aid—food aid apart—does not come out too badly. One of the things that we admire about the report is its careful and balanced judgments.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested that some of the defects it points out are already in the process of being remedied. We may reasonably hope that that is so. When one has read the report, when one has made the necessary allowances for the difficulties of the operation in itself, I think that we can conclude that, on the whole, Community aid—again, food aid apart—has a reasonably good record.
If we ask the question: Do we need this particular channel of European aid as distinct from aid by the individual member states or through other multilateral agencies?—one answer I would give is that it is inevitable that aid will operate through a number of different channels. The report points out, for example, that non-governmental organisations start with a rather different philosophy of aid from that of the official agencies. But that does not prevent them doing extremely useful work. I would not think it would be
1298
right, therefore, to try and cut off in the interests of tidiness any particular channel of aid that may be operating with reasonable efficiency at the present time.
The other thing I would say for Community aid is the real value of the example that has been set by Lomé. I know of course that it is said in the report that some of the very high hopes expressed about Lomé have not been fulfilled. But as that is true of practically everything that the human race has ever attempted, we need not lay too much weight on that criticism.
I believe that it is true that the working of Lomé has encouraged a frankness of discussion between donor and recipient that has been useful and that sets a good example for the future. I was suggesting that the nature of aid should be to help the developing countries to manage for themselves and stand on their own feet. One of the things one must have if that is to be efficiently done is a programme of priorities. There I think that the technique of frank discussion between donor and recipient which should operate under the Lomé Convention is helpful.
I remember when I held the office of Secretary of State for Economic Affairs going round the various regional economic planning committees. It had been their job to draft a programme of priorities of all the things that they felt needed to be done in their regions. It was usually my job to go round and tell them that they had done an excellent job but unfortunately the resources for carrying the programme out were not yet available. None the less, I am quite sure that the task of working out a programme of priorities was a useful one, and that is the kind of thing which can be done and is encouraged to be done in the working of the Lomé Convention.
One or two matters of administration come out from the report and it would be worth seeing what the future tells us about them. One is the need for continuity—the desirability of having multi-annual programmes instead of arrangements merely for a year and nobody knowing for certain whether they will be continued in the following year. I gather that there are to be regulations to facilitate this and I hope that that will go ahead.
The other is co-financing, work in co-operation with sources of finance other than the Community, and the very interesting suggestion, if I have got it right, that the recipient country should be able to borrow on the strength of the undertaking from the Community that it is to receive aid. That seems to be an imaginative and useful suggestion. I am afraid I was not able to hear the whole of the speeh of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, but if I understood him rightly he also urged that what the EEC is doing should be made more fully known to businessmen than it is at the present time. He considered that this was a weakness, and again I think it is a weakness that can be corrected.
Finally, I would repeat what I said at the beginning. This is dealing with a small part Of the whole world aid problem, dealing simply with the aid administered through the Community. The report does not claim to do more than that and, if I may say so, I think my noble friend Lord Brockway was a little less than just to the report when he criticised it because European aid was so small. It is by no means certain, even if we could greatly increase the total of world aid, that we

1299
should necessarily want to expand Community aid in proportion to the total expansion of world aid. It might or might not prove to be a useful thing to do; and what this report tells us is how European aid has got on so far.
That has been an extremely valuable piece of information to us; but we do the report an injustice if we suppose that the members of the committee allowed their horizons to be strictly limited by what I suppose were their terms of reference. We see right at the end of the report, for example, recommendation (xvii), which says that the Community should increase efforts within its existing aid programmes to work with the OPEC countries—already looking beyond the Community itself—and then review still further the positions of member states in international gatherings on development issues during 1981, and that the United Nations global negotiations must be co-ordinated. Member states should act together to accelerate acceptance of a more urgent approach to the problem of global development and the expansion of world trade. It then goes on to make suggestions on what they should do if no significant progress is made in international meetings and negotiations. I think that it can therefore fairly be said that the report, while it is concerned with European matters, is very well aware of the wider issues and the need for action in the world as a whole.
There are going to be quite a string of meetings, and may I say this to the Government: I think that when we come to be judged people will not be greatly interested in how many meetings there are or how delicately worded the communiqués are, but whether there is at the end an expansion of aid on something like the scale which the Brandt Report envisaged, because unless we get somewhere there, really we shall go on with this insoluble problem. It need not be insoluble, but it does require an effort of generosity and of imagination. I see no reason why that should not be forthcoming. I am afraid that the public is pretty apathetic about aid and a good deal of opinion, if more was known about it, might be hostile; but I think that that is something that can be dispersed, given a resolute lead from governments.
It is no good asking human beings to be 100 per cent. unselfish; that is not possible. But they are not absolutely 100 per cent. selfish either. They can respond to an appeal for generosity if you can show them why it is important and that their efforts will not be wasted. It is possible to show them both those things. People sometimes argue as to whether we ought to approach aid as an act of generosity and ask how much weight we should give to the element of self-interest; but in the end it pays us all that world poverty should be alleviated. I do not examine that question too closely. One conviction was borne into me when I was at the Foreign Office, and the longer I was there the more deeply it sank in. It was this: if you can get people to do humane and sensible things, do not inquire too nicely as to their motives. The fact that they will do them is something to get on with and it is something that is of use to mankind.
The debate was also enriched by a contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. Since there are none of the Lords Spiritual here, perhaps I might venture on a theological quotation
1300
which I might have been timid about if any of them had been here. It was, I think, St. Augustine who when discussing alms giving, said:
"When we give alms we do a work not of charity but of justice, for God intended that there should be enough for all".
8.46 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have, as so often on these occasions, listened with the greatest interest to this afternoon's debate, which has, I suggest, most certainly done justice to the Select Committee's thoughtful and constructive report. As every noble Lord who has spoken has already said, our debate has been much enhanced by the interventions of the two maiden speakers whom we heard earlier this afternoon. I hope, as I am sure all your Lordships will hope, that we shall hear both noble Lords again soon and often.
As other speakers have already pointed out, the report and also this debate have come at a good time. By 1979 spending under the Community aid programme had already increased to the equivalent of £600 million a year, and that figure has further increased since then. Britain pays for approaching one fifth of this and, given the likely rate of expenditure on commitments already entered into, the share of our aid programme at present accounted for by Commnuity aid—about 12 per cent. in 1979, as the report brings out—is likely to increase in the years ahead. Therefore, we need to take careful stock from time to time of the Community aid programme and to consider whether it is attaining its objectives and whether we agree with them. The report and this debate have made a substantial and valuable contribution to this process of review.
Let me turn now to some points which have been raised during the course of our discussion. In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, referred to a number of points, including in particular the further growth of aid to non-associates. A lot must depend on the economic climate and on other claims on our aid funds. As long as we are obliged to find savings in spending programmes, including aid, our main priority in respect of the non-associates programme must be to get it properly established under the recently-agreed enabling regulation and to get the administration arrangements improved. In the longer term I certainly hope to see a substantial and effective aid programme, but at present we regard the 1980–81 total—that is, the aid to non-associates—of 150 million units of account in new commitments (it was only 138·5 million in 1980) as entirely reasonable.
Again referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill—and this point was also picked up by other noble Lords—he asked about the position of OPEC surpluses with regard to this matter. The current balance of payments surpluses of the OPEC countries has, of course, been accompanied by widespread deficits among both developed and developing countries. Such imbalances give rise to a need for a substantial level of financing flows, particularly for non-oil developing countries. The principal capital markets are expected to continue to play a major role in recycling the oil surpluses, as they did after 1973, but for the poorest countries there will continue to be a need for a significant level of official flows, both on a bilateral and on a multilateral basis. European Community governments, including the United Kingdom,

1301
have actively encouraged greater OPEC involvement in both areas.
The international financial institutions are particularly important. The United Kingdom has supported the concept of an enlarged role for the IMF, and has agreed that the fund's resources will need to be correspondingly augmented. Arrangements are being made, whereby Saudi Arabia will make available up to 4 billion SDRs to the fund over the next 12 months, and a further 4 billion SDRs over the following 12 months. Virtually all the fund's recent lending has been channelled towards the LDCs. There will be continuing discussion of these matters at the forthcoming meetings of the relevant international bodies, and the needs of the poorest developing countries will therefore be kept under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made this point, and asked me particularly about details of the Lomé Convention arrangements and the evaluation of Lomé programmes. There is an evaluation unit within DG.8 in the Commission, which has undertaken sectoral studies leading to useful guidelines for future projects. There have also been country studies by independent consultants. The United Kingdom has welcomed all this, has taken part in discussions and has encouraged the extension of evaluation activities, but we should certainly like to see more, not just of Lomé aid.
There has been a suggestion—though not, I think, made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, or the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill—of evidence of bias towards francophone ACP countries in the distribution of Lomé aid. Distribution is a matter for the Commission which uses objective criteria, such as size of population and GNP per capita. Recipients, however, may not be disadvantaged by new accessions and that does, to some extent, protect the benefits previously granted to the Yaoundé associates.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who I am sorry is not in his place—I understand that he is not too well—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, among other noble Lords, referred to our aid policies generally and to the cuts in our aid programme—somewhat disapprovingly. It is essential for our economic future to bring inflation under control. The most effective contribution is to reduce public spending and it is not practicable to exempt overseas aid from these reductions.
The Government's record on aid terms, on absolute size of aid programmes and geographical allocation of resources, remains a good one. Other areas of public expenditure have been reduced by more than the aid programme. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who raised that point. It is not true to say, as has been suggested, that our aid budget has been peculiarly disadvantaged in respect of the cuts that have had to be made in public-expenditure generally.
The fact is that there are a number of other areas which have been subjected to a greater percentage reduction than the aid budget. Certain industry, for example, has been affected to the extent of 48 per cent; certain housing programmes about the same; energy by 28 per cent.; employment by 26 per cent.
1302
and trade by about 20 per cent. So those figures will, I believe, show that the aid budget has not been peculiarly attacked, as we have been accused of doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me to comment on the remarks of my right honourable friend Mr. Heath, which were published recently. I have read my right honourable friend's paper with the closest attention and, indeed, we share many of his objectives. His suggestions for policy will, of course, be taken fully into account in the preparations for the forthcoming summit meetings in Ottawa, Melbourne and Mexico.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—also on the general aid matter—referred to the percentage of GNP which we now spend on aid, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to this as well. Aid, measured as a percentage of GNP, fell from 0.52 per cent. in 1979 to 0.34 per cent. in 1980. The fall in the 1980 figure is largely explained by technical factors; for example, the non-deposit of an IDA.6 promissory note, because a replenishment agreement was not ratified; and also because of sluggish bilateral drawings by some recipients, notably India.
This, I think, highlights the artificiality of targets like the 0.7 per cent. one, in that the figures can vary substantially from one year to the next for reasons quite unconnected with the basic programme which is being maintained. I have said before to your Lordships that the Government accept the target of 0.7 per cent., but we have not been able—as, indeed, were our predecessors—to put a timetable on attaining it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and, I think, a number of other noble Lords, referred to the question of food aid which is, of course, referred to in the report. We agree with many of the Committee's comments and conclusions about the Community's food aid programme. We consider that the programme should be recognised and implemented as an instrument for development, and not as a means for disposing of Community food surpluses. Progress has been achieved in recent years and, like the committee, we are pressing for the early adoption of a food aid management grant regulation. This will provide a proper framework for strengthening of the programme and for putting it on a sounder basis.
Like the non-associates programme, the food aid programme needs a reinforcement of its staff by transfer from other parts of the Commission which are under less pressure. We should like to see the Commission provide more information to justify the allocation of food aid to individual recipient countries, to enable the Council to make more informed decisions. Like the committee, we should like to see the programme concentrated on fewer recipient countries. So far, there has been only marginal progress in this direction. There are obvious difficulties in reducing the list of recipients.
I should like to make it clear, however, that we have reservations about the developmental benefits of food aid. In Brussels, we have consistently opposed increases in the dairy food aid programme and we have noted the report's recommendation that dairy food aid should be reduced. We cannot, of course, achieve a reduction on our own and I am afraid that it would be unrealistic to expect a major shift, but we will persist in our efforts.

1303
However, we should recognise that, at least, dairy aid does provide for a large multi-year commitment to India to help Operation Flood, which is developing India's dairying industry and providing direct services for farmers. I am glad to say that the Community has now also accepted the need for multi-year commitments of cereals under pressure from us and others, including the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, criticised the valuation of dairy products aid and the way in which our share is now charged to the British aid programme.
As the sub-committee were, I think, told, all food aid is internationally valued at world market prices, to prevent donors claiming as aid other elements which are really there to support their own farmers. About this, I hope there is no dispute. But the question raised is really more arcane: does this financial valuation reflect the economic value of such aid? The Government agree that it does not, but it is necessary to distinguish between economic value and actual cost. The Community budget measures actual costs; it does not attempt to assess economic value.
Confusion may arise, because it is natural to think of food aid from surplus stocks as having no actual cost, except for transport and administrative expenses, but this would not reflect the actual operations of the Community's food aid arrangements. Given the present system, a reduction in the monetary value of food aid would not reduce the overall cost of this aid to the European Community budget. The present system of splitting the cost between chapters 6 and 9 of the budget, and the practice of attributing the United Kingdom's share of the amount charged under chapter 9 to the United Kingdom's aid programme, has existed for some itme. A study commissioned by the European Community on the true costs of food aid and its value to developing countries is due to be completed later this year. In the light of this, the Council will consider whether any changes should be made to the present arrangements. There is no procedural obstacle to transferring savings on dairy food aid to other parts of the budget such as, for example, non-associates aid, but the benefits of any possible transfer would have to be judged against our policy of placing more emphasis on bilateral aid.
Your Lordships will forgive me for having dealt with that matter at some length but it is an important issue which has been raised by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who again was unhappily unable to remain with us, asked about the importance of food production. I am certainly happy to agree wholeheartedly with everything which my noble friend said about this. We can all be reassured that this is seen to be the number one priority by all countries. This was clearly affirmed in the conclusions of last week's meeting of Ministers of the World Food Council. I shall ensure that a copy of the document which followed from that meeting is made available in your Lordships' Library.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, started with a tribute to the late Lady Jackson, with which I would certainly wish to be associated. The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked how the various organs of the Commission co-ordinated their approach to see that environmental considerations were properly taken into
1304
account in Community aid. I can reply that the question is one for the Commission itself but that in such aid weight is given to environmental questions. As an example, I can quote from the guidelines agreed at the highest political level between the Community and the ACP on the basis of joint recommendations from Community and ACP experts. These deal with the design and carrying out of agricultural projects. Among other things, they instruct that account must be taken of the environmental risks that the introduction of certain techniques of intensive crop production may entail. The noble Baroness also asked what we were doing about the United Nations water decade. I believe that my honourable friend's department—that is, the ODA—has recently put out details of this help. If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness with some details.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, asked about the arrangements for Britain to get her share under these various funds. The United Kingdom share of business funded by EDF IV falls some way short of our contribution, which is 18·7 per cent. I am glad to say, however, that over the past year the United Kingdom share of projects under the Lomé Convention has risen from just over 9 per cent. in the period up to 30th June 1979 to 12·1 per cent. in the period up to 31st December 1980, which slightly corrects the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which has been updated since then. Of that 12·1 per cent., 6·8 per cent. is works and 17·8 per cent. is supply, while 16·3 per cent., I am informed, is consultancy. Ministers, as did my noble friend earlier this afternoon, have expressed concern about the lack of interest shown by United Kingdom exporters in pursuing EDF business. They, and officials, take every opportunity to impress upon businessmen the opportunities available. What is needed, I fear, is more effort from our industrialists, particularly contractors, to pursue these opportunities.
I have covered the OPEC point which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. Several noble Lords referred to the problems of the administration of the Lomé Convention, again in particular the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. Several of the improvements which the noble Lord suggested have already been put into effect into Lomé II. For example, the cost of European Community delegates is no longer paid from the EDF. The Stabex system was designed essentially to help agricultural producers. Export earnings support for all product shortfalls, including copper, is available for all countries from a special compensatory financing facility of the IMF which has been successively increased and improved. The Community feels, and we agree, that Sysmin is a better way of dealing with the problems of copper producers within the Lomé framework. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, recognised that this has some positive advantages.
On rules of origin, the Community is concerned to prevent other developed countries—the United States, Japan or even the USSR—from setting up industries in the ACP with a token ACP input and then exporting their output to the Community. We have lent our help to solve particular problems, such as Kenya's and Malawi's fishing flies.

1305
The fact that your Lordships have demonstrated such interest in the subject is a welcome sign that the Community's role and performance in terms of development aid is now seen to be one of its more important activities. The report itself and the speeches of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and others have rightly drawn attention to the way in which the Community tries to integrate trade and aid in a coherent approach to the Third World. The report has suggested ways in which Britain could try to improve things. By and large, however, it suggests that we should push harder on the same sort of issues as we have been pursuing as priorities since our accession—for example, a more global approach, a more discriminating use of food aid, and so on.
There are, however, limits to how far we can push things quickly on our own, especially when our own aid resources are necessarily limited and when we wish to place renewed emphasis on bilateral aid. We have to take things more slowly, more deliberately. This means a lot of detailed practical work and playing a full part in the Community's deliberations. I believe that in doing that since our accession we have established our role as one which is particularly listened to within the Community when aid matters are discussed. We have much to offer in terms of experience and knowledge. The Government are determined to ensure that it continues to be given proper weight in the Councils of the Community.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, members of the committee will draw great satisfaction from the debate which their report has stimulated today. If it has ranged more widely than the subject of the report, this is what we expected. Indeed, this is what we desired. On hehalf of the committee I should like to thank very much those Members of the House who have found the time and the wish to intervene in this discussion and at times to speak kindly of the report and its conclusions. The impression that I take away from this six hour long debate is that there is a very large measure of consensus within the House about this extremely important subject. The fact that this consensus exists is a matter for encouragement and hope for the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
9.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 12th May 1981, be approved.
This draft order deals with various matters within the field of employment in Northern Ireland. The main provisions are contained in Parts II and III. Part II deals with the control, through licensing, of private employment agencies and employment businesses in Northern Ireland. Part III repeals the Safeguarding of Employment Act (Northern Ireland)
1306
1947 and it also makes provision for the abolition of three statutory bodies—the Central Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled, the Northern Ireland Training Council and the Youth Careers Guidance Committee, and in addition contains an Article to raise the limit of the borrowing power of the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund.
The effect of Part II of this order is to bring the law ill Northern Ireland broadly into line with that in Great Britain. It contains provisions similar to those which the Employment Agencies Act 1973 applied to employment agencies and employment businesses in Great Britain. This Act received a general welcome from all sides of the House but it did not cover Northern Ireland.
While the provisions of the order are broadly similar to those of the Act they differ from it in one important particular—they do not provide rights of entry for the purpose of the inspection of premises, records or documents. Article 6 provides for the making of regulations as to the keeping of records, the furnishing of information to the Department of Manpower Services and other matters. Rights of entry have been carefully considered but the Government are reluctant to see any extension of powers of this sort, and it is felt that adequate control can be exercised through the licensing procedure.
The Employment Agencies Act was welcomed at its introduction as a means of controlling a number of abuses. In Northern Ireland, however, employment agencies have not been a problem and there has been no urgency in seeking to control or regulate their operations. However, representations were made by Equity, which expressed concern about exploitation of artists obtaining work through Northern Ireland agencies and it was decided to bring forward legislation similar to the Employment Agencies Act. Since this decision the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions passed at their recent conference a resolution seeking an extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Great Britain Act.
The order does not seek to curb the activities of respectable and responsible agencies. It does seek to ensure that firms active in this sphere do not fall below the standards which the public, including employees and employers, are entitled to expect. It provides, in Article 4, for: the licensing of employment agencies and employment businesses; and for the refusal and revocation of licences on the grounds of the applicant's age or misconduct or the misconduct of the agency's business or the unsuitability of the premises. It provides in Article 5 for representations against such refusals or revocations: in Article 6 for the making of regulations to secure the proper conduct of employment agencies; in Article 7 for the restriction of charges on persons seeking employment; in Article 8 for the display of licences; for appropriate enforcement provisions; and in Article 11 for the exemption of certain types of agency from the provisions of the order; for example, those for nurses or for seamen or provided by certain educational establishments.
Part III of the order deals with miscellaneous matters relating to employment and training in Northern Ireland. Article 12 repeals the Safeguarding of Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1947. I should explain to your Lordships that this was a measure

1307
designed to protect the jobs of Northern Ireland workers from being taken up by nationals of other countries. When the United Kingdom acceded to the Treaty of Rome in 1973 it was granted a period of derogation from the requirements of the treaty regarding the free movement of labour throughout the European Community. The United Kingdom Government undertook not to extend this period beyond 31st December 1977. From 1st January 1978 therefore the 1947 Act ceased to have effect.
Workers from European Community countries are now free to take up employment in Northern Ireland, although of course nationals from countries outside the European Community are still subject, as they are in other parts of the United Kingdom, to the more stringent requirements of the Immigration Act 1971 and therefore need work permits before taking up jobs in Northern Ireland.
The purpose of Articles 13, 14 and 15 is to simplify and improve the steps by which Government carry out their consultation with appropriate bodies. These articles provide for the abolition of the Central Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled, which has not met since 1969, and also of the Northern Ireland Training Council and the Youth Careers Guidance Committee. In their place it is intended that a single non-statutory forum called the Manpower Advisory Council will be established. In the words of my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Butler, this Council will include four representatives of the employers, places for four representatives of employed persons, three representatives of educational interests covering the higher, further and secondary sectors, two representatives of what one might call the providers of training—that is training boards and management and related services organisations—and one representative of the disabled.
It will provide the means for a thorough exchange of views between the interests represented on it, and my honourable friend, the Minister of State, I understand, intends to take the chair as frequently as possible in person. It will cover the whole range of training, careers guidance and employment, and will, I am sure, prove to be a useful addition to the information and advice available to him on these matters.
Article 16 of the order raises the limit, set by Section 45 of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments (Northern Ireland) Act 1965 (as amended), on the amount which can be borrowed by the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund from the Consolidated Fund from £2 million to £7½ million. The increase is necessary first, to meet expected claims on the Redundancy Fund, which, as in Great Britain, have grown rapidly during the last year and are expected to continue at a high level during 1981, and, secondly, to achieve parity with the Great Britain Redundancy Fund. My Lords, those are the principal provisions of the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
9.16 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanatory outline of
1308
this Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order. At the outset of my remarks I should like to say that I fully accept that, in the context of many of the crucial problems and difficulties Northern Ireland is currently having to deal with, this order is not the most pressing issue. At the same time, I believe it is important that every consideration be given to the cumulative effects of legislative measures presented by orders of this miscellaneous kind on the long-term development of effective government and, indeed, the public attitude to good executive and administrative arrangements for the Province.
In my opinion, the miscellaneous provisions and measures of this order are important. The various matters deal with employment, and with one of Northern Ireland's most valuable assets—that is, the quality and effectiveness of our manpower services. From information and views I have received about the draft order, and from my own experiences, I am doubtful that the methods and extent of the procedures for consultation with all interested bodies have been adequately carried out on this occasion. Certainly some aspects of the draft order have given rise to much genuine concern about the possible effects the legislation may have on future developments of Northern Ireland manpower services.
For a number of years, the Northern Ireland manpower services have been highly regarded and commended for their adaptability and effectiveness. They have been commended in this respect by industrialists, by inward capital investors and by others who have displayed an active interest in the future of the Province. The Minister has already made mention of some of the attitudes of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and he will know of some aspects of the disquiet that has arisen from the proposals contained in this order. I have no doubt that much of this concern and anxiety has been mainly due to misunderstandings that could have been prevented had suitable communication and consultation been undertaken.
The Minister has outlined in some detail the six separate matters in the field of employment that the order deals with. I feel it necessary to repeat them. They are provisions that enable the Department of Manpower Services: to regulate and license Employment agencies; to repeal the Safeguarding of Employment Act, 1947; to abolish the Central Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled; to abolish the Northern Ireland Training Council; to abolish the Youth Careers Guidance Committee; and to increase the limit on the monies available to the Redundancy Fund. In addition to these six matters, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Adam Butler, stated, when the order was debated in another place on 19th May, that he proposes to set up a non-statutory forum entitled the Manpower Advisory Council.
Whatever may be the merits or the wisdom or the reasons for encompassing these seven employment services matters within this one order, I do not propose to probe at any length into the particular reasons here tonight. However, I do feel obliged to invite the Minister to consider a few points arising from Part I of the order, the employment agencies, and also the Government's intention, which is not contained in the

1309
order, to set up the non-statutory Manpower Advisory Council.
The Minister will be aware of the trade unions' declared opposition to the provisions contained in this Northern Ireland order for the control through licensing of private employment agencies. It has been claimed that the order brings the law in Northern Ireland in line with that in Great Britain and I noted carefully that the Minister said "broadly in line" with that in Great Britain.
The Northern Ireland trade unions are concerned because the order does not provide for regulatory powers and control to be given to inspectors to enter employment agency premises and to inspect books which is, indeed, the law in Great Britain. By asking the Northern Ireland trade unions to accept the order without those provisions, the Government are placing the unions in an awkward situation in relation to their trade union colleagues in Great Britain and, indeed, in respect of EEC countries. I understand from inquiries that I have made today that the British TUC is already unhappy about the present law that exists in connection with fee-paying employment agencies and is demanding the abolition of all fee-paying agencies or, if not abolition, certainly rigorous regulations. So I think it understandable that the Northern Ireland trade unions should take this particular attitude to an order being introduced in Northern Ireland at this time in respect of fee-paying agencies.
I could go on to mention the 1933 and 1947 ILO conventions at which tripartite bodies—employers, government employers and trade unions—have laid down rules and conventions for the abolition of fee-paying employment agencies. However, I propose at this stage to put a few questions to the Minister. Article 4(8) deals with the issuing and revoking of licences by the department. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can explain if it is proposed that each licence is to be reviewed annually and under what circumstances licences will be granted for a five-year period. As regards Article 6(1)(h), which is concerned with,
"regulating the provision of services by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses in respect of persons who are under the age of eighteen years or are undergoing full-time education",
I should like to ask the Minister what kind of employment services it is envisaged will be provided by fee-paying agencies for persons under 18 years of age. Will they be related to or co-ordinated with the existing Departments of Education and Manpower and other bodies that are carrying out vocational guidance and educational guidance and other such manpower employment matters? Can the Minister explain the reference to "undergoing full-time education"? Does that apply only to persons under 18 years of age, or does it apply to all persons undergoing full-time education?
I should like to refer back to page 5 and Article 6, which deals with the general regulations. There is a list of the particular ways in which the licences are controlled and to be granted. How are the regulations or orders that may be made by the department to be enforced? How many persons are to be employed as inspectors to carry out the remit that has been laid down in Article 6? Finally, dealing with the employment agencies, will an annual report on this part of
1310
the order be presented to both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament?
In dealing with the Manpower Advisory Council, there are a number of matters which I should like to raise, but I shall confine myself to one. This is a non-statutory body. The Central Advisory Council on disablement is to be abolished, but the area committees are to be retained. These have a statutory obligation. Will these disablement committees report separately, or will the Manpower Advisory Committee, as a non-statutory body, issue an annual report? In what way will this House, the general public, or others who are interested, be acquainted with the role, the functions and the work of this particular body, or will we simply be left to the device of asking questions or probing into matters through both Houses of this Parliament?
Finally, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and indeed the Minister of State, Mr. Adam Butler, very much appreciate the difficulties of the Northern Ireland trade unions, and I know that both of them, along with the Northern Ireland Office, value highly the trade union goodwill and co-operation in many spheres of employment and manpower matters. It is certainly my personal view that Mr. Butler acted wisely in keeping available places for trade unions on the proposed Manpower Advisory Council, and I hope that the Minister will initiate new approaches to the Northern Ireland Committee about the role of this particular council.
Although there are aspects of the order with which I can concur, before I indicate approval of the order from this side of the House, I shall await the Minister's reply.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments on this order and I shall try to take them in the order in which he presented them, but I may get them muddled. First, the noble Lord raised the question of the consultation which preceded the introduction of this order and was, I think, of the opinion that it had been inadequate. I can only say that the proposal to set up the Manpower Advisory Council in place of the three bodies which are abolished—and it is that decision about which he is concerned—its terms of reference and membership were explained in detail in letters from' the Department of Manpower Services in September last year to, among others, members of the Northern Ireland Training Council, the Youth Careers Guidance Committee and members of the Northern Ireland Training Executive and the nine Industrial Training Boards. There was consultation with both sides of industry on the proposal, and this was prolonged both at official and at ministerial level.
In the case of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who have, as the noble Lord has commented, refused to serve, I am glad that the noble Lord shares my approval of my honourable friend's decision to retain their seats empty in the hope that they will eventually decide to occupy them. I know that they have expressed the opinion that attendance at this body would simply duplicate direct representations to the Department of

1311
Manpower Services, which they already have, and would accordingly, in their view, be a waste of time.
I think that that view is mistaken and I hope that they will take up the offer that my honourable friend keeps open to them of sitting in those seats, or putting people forward to sit in those seats, and so maintain the co-operation which the noble Lord quite rightly says is highly valued by the Government.
The noble Lord was not happy that powers of entry had been denied in the enforcement of the terms of this order, when they were available for the enforcement of the Great Britain Act. I can only say that the Government have taken a view on powers of entry that these should be given only in the most necessary circumstances on the ground that the Englishman's home is his castle, and in this case the Ulsterman's home will be slighly more his castle in that we do not live as an employment agency, the noble Lord would have me remember.
The fact is that there is a public awareness of and hostility to, the considerable number of official people who can, sometimes without warning, demand or even force entry in pursuit of the enforcement of regulations which are not matters of life and death and which can be enforced by other means. On the matter of enforcement, if an agency requires a licence to operate and that licence is denied to the agency, then that is a potent way of enforcing conformity with the regulations upon which a licence depends. The enforcement in that sense will be carried out by the existing staff of this department and will not therefore result in extra charges on the public purse.
On the matter of licences it is intended at first that the licences should be issued on an annual basis, and to see how that goes. This will enable contact to be maintained with the agencies and businesses. In the light of experience, it will be decided whether the annual period could be extended to a longer period The noble Lord was interested in the point at which there would be a cut-off relating to full-time education. Article 6, paragraph 1(h), is designed to protect young people from unscrupulous agents. Clearly, full-time education can be followed at any age, but for the purposes of the order the Department of Manpower Services agrees with the line taken in the Great Britain regulations and proposes to impose a cut-off point at the age of 18.
On the matter of reporting, there will not be an annual report presented to Parliament on the work of the Manpower Advisory Council. This is a non-statutory body and will, as the title suggests, provide regular opportunities for my honourable friend and his department to receive advice, and for him and his department and interested organisations jointly to discuss matters relating to manpower training, career guidance opportunities for young people, and the operation of the employment service, including any special needs of the disabled or disadvantaged in these areas. Similarly there will not be annual reports on the granting of licences. The original 1973 Act for Great Britain provided for the licensing authorities, which were in effect the local authorities, to publish such reports. However, before the Act came into operation in 1976 licensing authority was transferred to the Department of Employment under the Employment
1312
Protection Act 1975. The requirement for annual reports was also repealed in that Act.
I think that really it would not be necessary to set up elaborate mechanisms for compulsory reporting to Parliament, adding to the burdens carried by Parliament, in years when everything is all right. When things are not all right I think Parliament can rely on the noble Lord, if nobody else, to draw the thing that has gone wrong to the attention of the House. I think that I have answered all the questions that the noble Lord asked me. I have been greatly assisted by his courtesy and forethought in forewarning me in some form or another of all of them. I trust that the House will now agree that it should give its approval to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside (Scotland) Bill
9.32 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill which was introduced into the other place by Mr. Peter Fraser, the Member for South Angus. It passed through the Commons without a Division and, I would add, without a Second Reading, so in that sense we are advancing on new ground in trying to explain the general principles on which the Bill is based.
A few changes took place in the structure of the draft rather late in the proceedings elsewhere. The clauses were renumbered. What are called the Renton recommendations, textual amendments, were introduced in certain clauses. There was, however, very little change to the substance of the Bill, but the appearance is different. Not only that, there were printers' errors, some of which have been reported to your Lordships on the document containing corrections. In Clause 1, subsection (3) is omitted, and accordingly the subsections are renumbered in Clause 1. One other amendment was not reported, and that is to Clause 11, where there is the introduction of two subsections; after "11" it should be marked "subsection (1)", subsection (5) becomes subsection (2), and "(5)" is omitted.
Fourteen years have now elapsed since the Countryside (Scotland) Bill was introduced, when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State. The Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and since then certain things have emerged to indicate that the measure could be improved. Indeed, Lord Hughes introduced a supplementary Bill which would have been covered by Clauses 7 and 10 of this Bill, but that fell owing to the dissolution of Parliament two years ago.
The Bill before the House arises really from two documents, one a park system in Scotland by the Countryside Commission and the other following a working party under the aegis of the Scottish Office consisting of representatives of the Convention of Local Authorities, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the Countryside Commission, the Scottish Countryside Activities Council, which covers quite a number of bodies which operate in the countryside, and of course

1313
the Scottish Office. They consulted some 30 different organisations and I am given to understand that in general terms this small Bill is welcomed by them.
The purpose of the measure is of course the same as the 1967 Act; access to the countryside and the enjoyment and protection of the countryside. The whole question of tourism and leisure, as it is called, has been the subject of the most enormous development in recent years. As a matter of fact, about 50 years ago I was a member of an organisation called the Scottish Travel Association. I believe it was the first attempt to co-ordinate people who were broadly interested in tourism as such. I do not think it did very much, although I understand one thing emerged from it, which was that the late Sir Frederick Ogilvy, who was at one time Vice-Chancellor of Belfast University and subsequently Director General of the BBC, wrote what I believe was the first serious analysis of the economics of tourism. That was the beginning. Today, tourism forms a very substantial part of our invisible exports. The British Tourist Authority said in a recent report that about 17 million people come to this country, giving the benefit of some £.3½ billion to our invisible exports. The BTA added that the local authorities have a fundamental task to perform in this sphere; and so they have in the Bill, and it is only right that they should have.
We are perhaps more interested in what I might call the sociological side—the question of physical health and mental stability—and it is not uninteresting to note that 100 years ago we spent a lot of our time on horseback and walking to work and so on. Today we go mostly by mechanical contrivances of one sort or another. There is an interesting compensation for this change because the young people of today take a tremendous interest in physical exercise; you see people jogging round London and elsewhere quite frequently and there have been enormous developments in skiing, water skating and in sports like hang gliding and sail boarding. All sorts of new sports have grown up and they have made a great appeal to the young people of today.
I should like to compare that somewhat with a quotation from Lord Shinwell's autobiography. That little boy living in the Gorbals in Glasgow tells how he went for a walk in what must have been very lovely countryside outside the town itself. He saw a hedge with wild roses in it, and he writes this:
"I have never forgotten that hedge. I had no idea such lovely things existed".
That was perhaps 80 years ago, but anyone who today takes boys to camp realises that often they know very little about the countryside and the wonders of nature. There is still a considerable element of teaching to be undertaken.
This is of course looking well into the future and there are many points surrounding it. I now propose to read a quotation from the Countryside Commission's most recent report:
"We should record again our view that the full impact of capital taxation upon the structure of land holding in the wider countryside will be increasingly seen to inhibit sound land management".
That is an important point. Sound land management is of the utmost importance, and I hope that within limits this little Bill might make some small contribution to
1314
that. The use of the countryside inevitably involves an element of conflict, and we all know that there have been some grand conflicts of one kind or another in Scotland. There is no need for me to go into these this evening, but certainly they have occurred.
Principally the Bill relaxes the power of the Secretary of State and leaves more discretion to the local authorities and the Countryside Commission. It also continues the principle of the 1967 Act—that agreement should be by consent. Agreement regarding access to land for the purposes of pathways should be freely entered into. There is an element of compulsion—I shall say a few words about it shortly—when it is impractical to proceed by any other way.
I now wish to turn to the clauses of the Bill, but before doing so I wish to thank Mr. Orr of the Scottish Office, and his colleagues, for the assistance that they have given me in understanding in particular the way in which the Bill dovetails into the 1967 Act, and if I make myself comprehensible to the House, it will be due in large part to the guidance that I have received from them. Clause 1 enables the Countryside Commission to make loans not only to private organisations or people, but also to public organisations. The expenditure can be incurred on their own initiative, without reference to the Secretary of State, but of course it would be subject to the arrangements which he will already have made with them.
Clause 2 extends the concept of open country to include water, which might seem rather obvious. Clause 3 provides a new way to assess land to be used for access. It is I think fairly obvious that there is no open market for paths, pathways, or bridleways, and accordingly there is no basis upon which the district assessor can operate. So he is given the duty of assessing the land in the environment in which it happens to be. I have mentioned compulsion. This can be used when it is essential, when it is impractical to secure a pathway by any other means. The matter must then proceed with the consent of the Secretary of State and compulsion can then be resorted to.
There is a further relaxation of the Secretary of State's power in that when access agreements are reached and there is no objection, there will be no need at all to refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
Clause 6 increases the penalties in line with the reduced value of money. Clause 7 makes quite clear which planning authorities the Bill refers to, and since they vary a little, perhaps I should mention them. The authorities concerned are the Island authorities, the Highland authorities, the Border Region and the Dumfries and Galloway Region. With the exception of those authorities, the duty will lie with district authorities.
Now I come to Clause 8, which concerns regional parks. This, I think, is the most important new concept which enters into this Bill. We do not have any national park in Scotland, and this is a different way, as I see it, of establishing something of the same character. The central point of this is that there is no change of land ownership. This will cover, if necessary, both land held by local authorities and land held by private persons. The concept is that it enables people to go out from the urban areas into open country, and will do so under the general management of the local authority. That means no more than this, as

1315
understand it, that they will provide certain facilities. They will provide access, perhaps a car park and sanitary arrangements, and will employ rangers, as they are now called.
I should like to draw attention to this, because I think it is not unimportant. Your Lordships will see that under Clause 10 the local authority can pass by-laws to ensure that people behave. I know it is a little easier to say that than it will be to enforce it, but this is the concept which is there of regulated or managed travel or (shall I say?) passage to enable people to wander into areas which are under certain regulations so that they can see the countryside without interfering with agricultural processes and, I hope, without interfering with forestry processes. I think this is an interesting development which in the future might become very important.
I should add that the designation of these regional parks will be strictly under the general guidance of the Secretary of State. Local land interests will of course be fully informed; their objections will be heard by the Secretary of State; and if they are confirmed by him, the whole thing will then be submitted in a Statutory Instrument to Parliament and subject to the annulment process. I therefore think that this will come into operation only after very careful examination.
I should add, perhaps, that in the event of any planning permission being requested or applied for in the regional parks, consideration will have to be given to the fact that they are regional parks. I think the general picture we have is the development of such places as the Clyde Muirshiel development, that rather lovely country just south of the mouth of the Clyde, and possibly the Pentland Hills; but, of course, that is a matter which will have to be decided later on.
Clause 9 deals with management agreements. It is not very easy to explain exactly what they are, but the purpose is that in particular areas it may be desirable to preserve certain things which would enhance the natural beauty of those areas. What that may mean is a variety of things. It may mean that you will want to grow trees and have rough ground, or it may mean that you will want to avoid trees to provide a view. It may be that you will want to replace a rather unpleasant wire fence with, perhaps, a stone dyke, or a variety of things. This is an open question which will have to be judged by the Commission or by the local authority. Of course, payments will be made for it; but it means that certain undesirable developments might be removed or perhaps prevented. I cannot guage entirely how this will be used, but I think it is a useful power.
1316
Clause 10 gives the control of public paths, in so far as they are on local authority property, to the local authority; but where access agreements have been made it will be by the planning authority. They can make by-laws (which, of course, is with the consent of the Secretary of State) as to how they should be operated; and, of course, they will have a ranger service to deal with them. Clause 11 deals with noise and the possible conflict between those who go into the hills and want to be quiet and those who go into the hills, frankly, to make a noise.
I have in mind, in particular, motor-cyclists. It is perfectly fair that those who are keen on motor-cycling should have a proper opportunity to go scrambling. In fact, I know some motor-cyclists who want to go motor-scrambling, but they do not know quite where to go. It is equally true that those who want peace and quiet should be able to go to places where quiet is almost insisted upon; that is, one does not want to have conflict between people who want to use the open countryside for very different purposes. Here, the idea is to give what one might call guided toleration; the guidance of the local authority and the tolerance of different people of one sort or another. I remember that the late Duke of Montrose once said that if one knew there was a tourist on the mountainside, it quite added spice to stalking a deer. That might be a slightly two-edged sword but I have some idea what he had in mind.
I have received representations from some parts of the CBI that this power to impose quiet might affect various industrial activities such as quarrying. I do not think this is possible. The CBI had in mind that some area which had planning authority for quarrying might subsequently have a period of silence imposed upon it. I cannot believe that any sensible local authority would do this, but, if one reads the terms of Clause 11, it states there that the purpose is to preserve quiet and not to impose quiet. Therefore, I feel it would be quite impossible to use this power to prevent some quarrying operation from using its lorries or anything of that kind.
Clause 12 deals with the payment of compensation to officers of the Countryside Commission who leave prematurely and I believe that is a quite natural power and one that should be available. This is quite a small Bill. It carried the powers and duties of local authorities and of the Countryside Commission just a little further. I hope that the Bill will restrain vandalism and will add a little to the health and happiness of the people of Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
9.52 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—as should the original sponsors of the Bill in another place—for taking on the onerous task of seeing this Bill through your Lordships' House and for treating us to a very clear, lucid and comprehensive introduction to the Bill. Like the noble Earl, I believe it is a pity that this Bill received no Second Reading in the other place because when one reads the debates at Committee and Report stage in another place one does not get a full picture of the proposals within their full setting as a further extension or projection of the 1967 Act and its relevance to the present day. I am sincere in offering my congratulations to the noble Earl. Indeed, I feel that I should extend those congratulations to the Government because there is no doubt but that this is not a Private Member's Bill; it is a Government Bill. It has been known in the past for Governments to persuade a Private Member to take over a Bill for which they cannot find time in their legislative programme. This is obviously the case in respect of this Bill. I notice, for instance, that when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, sought an explanation he did not go to the sponsor of the Bill but to the Scottish Office. How very sensible of him in respect of this particular Bill.
Perhaps I should now declare one or two particular interests. First, I was the Secretary of State who had to "carry the can" for the original Bill. It was I who set up the first Countryside Commission in Scotland. Secondly, I was equally responsible for the reappointment in February 1960 of the commission's present chairman. I notice that it has been suggested in another place that I did something wrong and that someone who was a fellow Minister told me all about his feelings on the matter. I have a very good memory. I appointed Dr. Jean Balfour because I thought she had done a first-class job. She had great authority and enthusiasm. She had experience and knowledge of what she was doing and she was fair in all the things which were brought to my notice.
I can remember February 1976 very well because about two months later I ceased to be Secretary of State. Having handled one Prime Minister for about eight years, I was not going to break in another one. But the interesting point concerning a person who suggested that he had fallen out with me over this is that I think one of the last duties I did, certainly as Secretary of State and probably in a more private party capacity, although I was still Secretary of State, was to go to that gentleman's constituency. He had plenty of opportunity to deal with this particular point with me at the time. I have a reasonably good memory. He may have felt something, but he did not convey his displeasure to me. It may be that he is confusing that occasion with some other occasion. However, that is the first thing: my responsibility for the Countryside Commission.
May I say that for my sins, or my virtues, I am also responsible for the Scottish Tourist Board. I set that up as well. In my present capacity I am the deputy chairman of the National Trust for Scotland and I know the extent of liaison there is between the National Trust and the Countryside Commission. I am a member of a country park committee which is mainly that of Cunningham District Council and members of
1318
the National Trust and I know there how much we depend on the Countryside Commission for help and for advice and for support in the ranger services and other aspects of the work in this country park which is one of the newer country parks in Scotland.
I will go further. I am the ex-Member of Parliament for Kilmarnock which was my constituency for 33 years. The latest country park in Scotland is in Kilmarnock at Dene Castle. The park was opened by Mrs. Jean Balfour on Saturday last and I know the extent to which they are indebted for help, and financial help, from the Countryside Commission in respect of achieving that. I think that from that one may conclude that I am fairly well in on all this business.
In the last Countryside Commission report it was stated by the chairman, speaking on behalf of the whole commission, that for years they had been concerned to get amendments to the 1967 Act and they told of how the working party which had been set up in conjunction with the interests, the local authorities, the Countryside Commission, the land-owning interests and with the recreational countryside interests, were working things out. The first thing I want to know is this—and this is where I think it is a great pity we did not have the people truly responsible for this Bill, the Government, in command, because I have to address my remarks on this not to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but to the Government. Does this meet all the points that have been worrying the Countryside Commission in relation to their need for further legislation? I am as much in the dark as anybody. I do not know. Or have aspects of what they considered their policy been turned down?
One of them is rather sweeping. I notice that the Countryside Commission are not without ambitions. They pointed out that in England there is a public authority, a public body, the National Parks, which can handle matters of taking into ownership desirable parks of the country. It may well be by gift; it may well be as a result of setting off against death duties; it may well be in relation to some other way in which this becomes available to the Government. However, in Scotland there is no national body. There is of course the National Trust. It is not a public body, it is a private charitable trust. The Countryside Commission seemed to suggest that there is a limit to what the National Trust can do because of their endowment requirement. I know how essential this is from our present deliberations on certain problems in relation to suggestions made to us. The requirement is to get sufficient money for the proper endowment, maintenance and upkeep of certain lands and properties. I wonder whether the fact that there is no public body was put to the Government and what their relationship and response would be. I certainly would tend to question the ambitions of the Countryside Commission in this respect, and it may well be that this could be done in more ways than the one that seems to be suggested—although it was very sensitively done—in the commission's report.
There is no doubt that even if we had that within some public national authority it would not solve all the problems that arise and all the conflicts that arise where one gets the conflict of interest over the proper use of the land: the conservation aspect against the development aspect. We saw this very much highlighted

1319
in 1974, when, because of the urgency and the satisfactory nature of the site that was being suggested, the Government decided that certain areas of Scotland of outstanding natural beauty which were in the ownership of the National Trust, and so were inalienable except for certain special parliamentary procedures, should be taken over. The Government wanted the sites for building an oil rig.
This is where you come up against it right away. We found oil in the North Sea and the far North Sea, and the onshore effect of that immediately hit areas where there were a sparse population and tremendous interests in relation to the scenic beauties of the countryside. Remember that Glasgow and the River Clyde was at one time probably one of the most beautiful spots in the whole of Scotland. Industrial development scarred it, although there are improvements coming now. You have to make that balance in respect of development and in respect of preservation for the further enjoyment of all the people of an area. That is not easy.
I am glad that we have this renewed emphasis on the scenic heritage of Scotland, for it is a priceless birthright to the Scots to be able to go there and enjoy it. However, the people who live there also want to work there. The 40 areas of scenic beauty that had to be carefully watched were listed, and there are great areas of the Highlands and Islands. There has to be more and more understanding by conservationists and the people who want development. That is what it comes to in the present circumstances. I am glad that the commission are going about more and meeting local authority people, and I hope they will reach a balanced point of view between them as to what can be done. I think this is where some of the troubles have arisen, not just with the commission, because it happens with other people, but between the commission and the local authorities in the highland areas and especially in those areas where a great stretch of the area is going to be treated specially, because so much of their area is in it in relation to development.
Commissions that are set up by the Government are just the same as local authorities: none of them are endowed with the quality of infallibility, and the more they get together and reach a balance, the better it will be. I hope that is something that will come from the extension of the powers there, because the fact that we are now giving statutory authority to what has been happening for nearly two years—that is to say, the Government just using the Countryside Commission as their agents to give grants to local authorities for countryside matters—means that there will now be more direct contact between the local authorities and the commission. That has been happening since, I think, some time in 1969 and now the de facto situation has been made de jure. We now have that into the Bill itself.
I have no great desire to make a very long speech. May I say I am very glad that what used to be Clause 1 is now about 9, 10 or 11, or something like that. Imagine starting up an important Bill like this—this may well be the influence of a Private Member in another place. The first clause used to be that one in relation to noise. Quite frankly, I am willing to have a good look at this one. I know that makes the
1320
Minister of State shudder, but it is very important indeed. It is only the noise related to motor vehicles and motor engines: it may be tractors. Somebody talked about snocats and aeroplanes, and there is also the definition of "places of quiet". How shall we define that? I was being told last night that I lived in a place of quiet. I thought there was going to be relief for me here until I discovered that all the scheduled aircraft that fly from Prestwick are not involved in this. I am sure the people who like to play golf at Troon in an area of quietness, when they are making that important putt in the British Open Championship, would be glad that there was some bar on a plane landing at Prestwick at that very moment; and of course Troon golf course is on the flight path.
I thought about what would happen at Ayr. There is a lovely racecourse in the very centre, where private planes arrive with jockeys. Jockeys of course are very important people these days. It is not the owners of horses who arrive by plane but the jockeys. However, that will not be in it at all, and these can be covered by other things. There are the matters of the definitions, limitations and exceptions, and I wonder whether the clause is worth while at all. The Government could have taken a little longer about it.
The subject of parks is important because it may well be that what we do about regional parks might influence our whole policy in relation to this. The Government have just had a report. I do not know whether Tony Stodart has arrived here yet. Perhaps this is why we are getting this through before he arrives here. He is one of the recently ennobled Scots, and he has just produced a report for the Government on overlapping powers. That is part of the hangover from local government reorganisation. One of the troubles is: who will be responsible for the parks—the regions or the districts? Yet here we are setting up regional parks, with a recommendation to the Government from their own committee that parks should go to the districts. If they go to the districts, that will pose very considerable problems.
When Scotland's first country park, Culzean country park, was set up, the Secretary of State—I shall not tell your Lordships who was Secretary of State at the time—managed to get together three local authorities, Ayr County Council, Kilmarnock Town Council and Ayr Town Council. They joined together to create this park with the National Trust, with all the land round about Culzean Castle. It had a tremendous success. But what will happen in relation to that, if we get statutory insistence that that park should be a purely one-district park? It draws people from the whole of central Scotland. I regret that we have not had a debate on the Stodart report, because I do not think that what we are doing here will necessarily, in the long run, be the right thing to do about parks.
I have talked about grants and noise, but what about footpaths? I know that the Countryside Commission have been dealing quite a lot with footpaths, and trying to create a West Highland Way to link up with the Pennine Walk and elsewhere in the Highlands. Will this still be the responsibility of the regions? As I understand it, it will be purely a district function, because the report talks about dealing with matters

1321
with the region. We had better get that straight, too, because we want it to be of advantage to Scotland, rather than look at it from the point of view of the pride of local authorities.
On the whole, this is a useful Bill. There is a lot to discuss in it and there is a lot that I should have liked to say about it tonight. But, on the whole, let us not despair of getting that co-operation which is necessary between the local authorities and the commission in respect of their new place in the planning procedures.
One of the things I have noticed is the growth of interest of young people. I spent last weekend in Muirkirk. I nearly blew my top when I saw a Question from, I think, an English Baroness about the behaviour of British supporters at an England-Switzerland game. I am glad to say that there were British supporters at the West Lowlands hike of the Boys' Brigade last weekend, when over 400 youngsters spent more than two days hiking over the hills and moors of Muirkirk and all around, without a thought to what was happening elsewhere. They were intent on testing themselves against the hills, thereby appreciating the value of that countryside recreation which is invaluable to the people of Scotland, and which more and more people, in various ways, are beginning to value and to participate in.
There are quite a number of points that we can talk about in Committee, but the noble Earl need not despair. There will be no great opposition, because this is now his Bill and I welcome the measures that are being taken to extend the work and the powers of the commission and, in many cases, of local authorities in respect of the countryside.
10.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, whatever its origins, the Bill comes to this House as a Scottish Private Member's Bill. They are fairly rare. It gives me particular pleasure to lend the support of the Government to this measure which, as my noble friend has said, is modest in scale and yet is of considerable importance. I should like to extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Selkirk who has taken over responsibility for the Bill in your Lordships' House. I know that all his endeavours will he supported by all those with an interest in the Scottish countryside, whatever that interest happens to be.
It is only natural that Scottish countryside legislation should require some adjustment after a decade and a half of operation. That the proposals in this particular Bill are so modest and have, so far, at any rate, proved so uncontroversial is I believe a good sign that the situation in Scotland on the provision of access to and amenities in the countryside generally is developing along lines broadly acceptable to all the interests involved. As my noble friend has indicated, certain parts of the Bill have come to the House before: in the Countryside (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill which was introduced by the previous Administration and which died with it. But here they are again, almost unchanged, and that is to be welcomed.
A number of these measures are indicative of a continuing change in the countryside; namely, its increasing use as a recreational facility, especially by people from our urban areas. Both noble Lords have
1322
drawn attention to the 13th annual report of the Countryside Commission which states that:
"Informal recreation in the countryside is an essential part of the way of life of large numbers of people. As a consequence, recreational provisions for tourists and others must be made in order to conserve the countryside and allow productive land use to continue with minimal intrusion or damage by visitors.".
It would be damaging to all the interests to ignore this phenomenon or to hope that the problem which the Countryside Commission has identified will somehow resolve itself unaided, although I do believe that those who use the countryside are much more aware of their responsibilities than they have been previously.
The report of the commission has illustrated the opening of the West Highland Way. It might well have been that there would have been a picture of me, because I opened it, except that the rain was coming down so hard that the commission have prudently merely included a photograph of the map. Nevertheless, it brought home to me personally the importance of the West Highland Way. This was particularly so when last week, on Government business, I had the pleasure and privilege of flying up part of it in a helicopter to go to an Outward Bound school at Locheil where I was also privileged to see how young people can enjoy the Scottish countryside in a very different way.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the helicopter flight must have created a lot of noise.
The Earl of Mansfield: The early adjustment of existing legislation along lines as modest as those which are before us will, I believe, do much to preserve and enhance the recognition and respect by farmers, landowners and those seeking recreation of one another's interests in this most important element of our national heritage, the countryside of Scotland. I have no doubt that with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, sitting opposite, the Bill will be subjected to a fairly rigorous Committee and possibly Report stage. No doubt we shall go into the problem of noise in the countryside and whether or not a helicopter on a scheduled service should cause any, even when it is bringing undoubted mobility and very great benefit to the people who live in the Highlands and Islands, particularly in the vicinity of Fort William.
The noble Lord asked me a couple of questions and I have no doubt that there will be some more in Committee. In effect he asked whether this particular Bill meets all the points that the Countryside Commission have—or had—in relation to potential legislation, if I may so term it. Of course, nobody can ever expect to be totally satisfied. There was a proposal that would have given the Commission the right to manage land for conservation purposes and to that end to acquire land by agreement only. The Government took a policy decision not to proceed with this proposal.
There was also a proposal to set up special parks, and that was not acceptable to CoSLA because it would have given the park authority, not being an elected body, planning powers within the park. Those are two items which no doubt to a lesser or greater degree provided a measure of disappointment to the commission. The noble Lord also drew attention to the Stodart Report and the functions of local government which it examined. The report is indeed important

1323
and the Government are considering it. Any changes which may be required by legislation, including those which may relate to Clause 8, will be effected when the decisions have all been taken and certainly need not affect this Bill or our consideration of it. Therefore, I commend this measure to your Lordships and wish my noble friend a fair wind for the Bill's passage.
10.23 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for the welcome he has given to this Bill and I hope it will proceed. I should like to thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for the very kind and generous things which he said. I agree that he showed characteristic common sense in re-appointing Dr. Balfour and I should have thought that nearly every serious student of the countryside would be in full agreement with that. I do not think I doubted the warmth of his heart towards the beauty of the countryside and the need for young people to enjoy it, but I am glad that he expressed those views and I think it is valuable that he should do so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Leasehold Tenure of Dwelling-houses
10.24 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce legislation to reform leasehold tenure of dwelling-houses to counteract the widespread hardship it is causing in certain areas of the country.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am only sorry that it has come up this late in the evening and that some of your Lordships who showed a great interest over many years in the problem of leasehold reform will not be here because of the lateness of the hour. I particularly regret that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who has shown a lifelong interest in the subject, cannot be here this evening.
Leasehold reform has long been a major feature of the policy of the Liberal Party. In his famous Limehouse speech in 1909 David Lloyd George referred to the residential leasehold system thus:
"This system is not business…it is blackmail".
Things have changed materially since those days and in 1967 a serious attempt was made in the Leasehold Reform Act to solve the problems which arise from leasehold tenure. This Act went a long way towards ameliorating the problem, but it left two very important areas of difficulty and some lesser problems.
These were the numerous anomalies which prevented large numbers of leaseholders from becoming freeholders. Exactly how many is almost impossible to ascertain, a point I will come back to later. Secondly, there is no basis in law for establishing the value of a freehold. The tribunals set up under the 1980 Housing Act are beginning to come into operation now, and I suspect the noble Lord the Minister may suggest to your Lordships that we should wait and see how they operate.
1324
But, in my opinion, however successful the tribunals may be, the fact that either party has the right to refer the decision of the tribunal to the Lands Tribunal would very often put this means of assessing a value outside the means of the average lessee.
During the passage of the Housing Bill last year the problems arising from leasehold tenure were again aired in your Lordships' House and in another place. Your Lordships may remember that we spent nearly two hours on the subject during the Committee stage of the Bill and another hour during the Report stage. In another place the issue was debated at length upstairs in Committee and for over two hours in the full Chamber on Report stage. Some minor changes were indeed made to the system in the 1980 Act, specifically the establishment of the local leasehold tribunals to which I referred, and the reduction of the residence qualification for enfranchisement from five years to three years. These, however, merely mean that the Government were willing to give some consideration to this grave problem and decided that these largely cosmetic reforms were all that was needed to deal with it. The Government also failed to brine in the third amendment which the outgoing Labour Government had drafted to simplify the valuation formulae for higher rated properties which had been excluded from the 1967 Act but had been included in the amendments to that Act.
One of the most active and conscientious groups involved in the issue of leasehold reform is the Welsh Leasehold Reform Campaign. They lobbied persistently and vociferously, as I think many of your Lordships will know, during the passage of the Housing Bill, but their pleas and entreaties for redress from hardship for the thousands they represent on the whole fell on deaf and unresponsive ears on the Government Benches. There are numerous examples of the hardship caused by the present system, by its arbitrary nature as well as by the fundamental and inherent injustice of the valuation arrangements. I would quote the South Wales Echo of 27th May, 1981;
"A pensioner has been offered the freehold of his home by a Cardiff surveyor for more than £2,000—only two years after the agent valued a similar lease in an identical house next door for £800".
I could quote many more absurd, and sometimes tragic, examples of the failure of the enfranchisement system to work fairly for leaseholders.
South Wales appears to suffer more than most other areas of the country from the difficulty created by the leasehold tenure because of its industrial and social history. But it is not the only area where problems occur by any means, I have specific instances reported to me from Cambridge, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Llandudno, Liverpool and the West Midlands. Some of the difficulties can be overcome and are overcome by compassionate landlords and imaginative local authorities, but these are only short-term solutions in a minority of cases. The fundamental and inherent problem of the system can be put right in my opinion only by legislation, which is why I have posed this Unstarred Question to your Lordships this evening seeking for Government action to carry out further reforms.
In particular what is needed is a specific formula to be written into the law for the calculation of the price

1325
of a freehold reversion. This should be based on a valuation of the property, in my opinion, according to the rateable value or possibly the ground rent imposed by the lessor, and the length of the lease left to run, together with considerations to do with the dilapidations on the property. I suspect that many of the difficulties are to do with the problem of dilapidations.
It is absolutely essential that the uncertainty of the present system should be removed. At present it seems to me that a landlord can almost pick a figure out of the air and demand that as the freehold price. With an arithmetical formula the leaseholder himself would be able to work out the legal price he would be required to pay to purchase his freehold. It is not enough in my submission that justice might be done under the existing arrangements of the local leasehold tribunals; justice must be seen and known to be done to the lessees under the present system.
There should be an immediate right of enfranchisement for all residential leaseholders with the exception of flats which I think are bound to be treated differently. The complexities of the land law in this country do require that we must retain leasehold tenure for flats. Although I realise, particularly in the Greater London area, the difficulties that are created by maintenance charges and so on as regards leasehold flats, unfortunately I cannot see how we can deal with flats without retaining the leasehold tenure of them. The concept of' freehold flats is, I believe, impossible to realise under our present system of land tenure. A blanket right to enfranchise would wipe out all the existing anomalies "at a stroke", to borrow a phrase from a former Conservative Prime Minister.
But it would not abolish, as I see it, the leasehold system for those who still wish to live in leasehold properties. I believe that the right to enfranchise should be conferred, but it would not be a compulsory enfranchisement and it would appear to me that this would be a logical extension of the present Government's policy embodied in the Housing Act to give all council tenants the right to buy their houses while not requiring or forcing them to purchase them.
Housing associations and local authorities should be able to intervene at the request of a leaseholder to purchase the freehold as the leaseholder's nominee. Housing associations should also be able to enfranchise houses that they occupy as a housing association. The legal costs of enfranchisement for the leaseholder can be very high and legal aid should be made more freely available for the costs, at the very least, of consulting a solicitor in appropriate cases. The trouble with the present system is that although a leaseholder can get legal aid for consulting a solicitor to enfranchise his property, any money that he has saved up to buy the freehold is counted as capital and thereby reduces his rights to legal aid under the present system. The leaseholder should also be made aware, in my opinion, of his right to enfranchise by the landlord immediately on the passage of any new legislation and, perhaps, thereafter he should be reminded annually of his rights on a specified form, similar to the form used for business premises under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Again, I believe—and I think that this is very important whatever may be our views about leasehold
1326
reform—that the Government should begin to collect statistics on leasehold and freehold characteristics of property as a matter of course, with all the other innumerable housing statistics that are produced by the department year by year. I have found that it has been virtually impossible to collate reliable information on the extent of the leasehold problem because of the inadequacy of the statistics available. The Government now appear to be very willing to collect detailed data on the comparative efficiency of local authorities, as we discussed yesterday, in providing services, but apparently the Government do not appear willing to collect equally detailed data about the characteristics of the areas in which those local authorities provide services.
The final reform that I should like to see would apply throughout the country and not just to pockets such as South Wales, the West Midlands and so on. I should like to see a reform of the position of lessees of combined shop and house properties on long leases at low rents, which are not at present covered by legislation. This is a problem that many people in all parts of the country have drawn to my attention; that the legislation that exists at present does not give any protection to the lessee of combined shop and house properties.
Therefore, I conclude by pleading with the Government to declare themselves—I hope that the noble Lord the Minister might give us a favourable reply at the end of this discussion—on whether or not the leaseholders of this country are to be included in the new property-owning democracy that the Housing Act began to set up, certainly for tenants of council houses and for the generality of tenants under the tenants' charter. It is not sufficient for leaseholders for the Government to make sympathetic noises about the problem. I think that there is widespread sympathy about the plight of leaseholders. But, quite frankly, the problem is sufficiently serious in certain areas of this country—particular in South Wales—that the mere expression of sympathy is not sufficient. Action is needed, and I hope that during the course of this debate the noble Lord the Minister will indicate what action the Government are prepared to take to deal with the problems that I have outlined in this Unstarred Question.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, at this late hour, I intend—my name is next on the list, is it not?
10.37 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, many extraordinary things can happen at this hour, and I should be the last to complain if my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek took my place in the list. Indeed, I think that it might be much more entertaining for your Lordships if he did. The other dreadful thing in speaking at this hour is that one is not in the mood for compliments. Nevertheless, I should like to express quite sincerely on behalf, I am sure, of the House our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for bringing this important matter to our attention and for the very clear and lucid way, which is typical of him, in which he outlined his own views and some of the problems that still obtain in regard to leasehold reform. It befits no one

1327
to talk of the lateness of the hour and then to make a long speech, and so I assure your Lordships that my observations will be brief and, I hope, to the point.
One of the difficulties that are, I think, felt in regard to this business of leasehold reform and enfranchisement is that the rights of lessees are still not known, especially in many quarters where lessees do not necessarily read Bills and Acts, such as the Leasehold Reform Act. I think that it is very necessary—and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to this very briefly—somehow or other to bring the statutory provisions to the knowledge of lessees. This particularly applies in many of the poorer areas where this knowledge is really not held. Whether this is to be done by some sort of statutory notice, I am not quite sure, because our statutory notices have unfortunately a habit of not being written in simple English. But if the Government could by some publicity, in very simple language, bring these matters and rights to the knowledge of leaseholders and lessees, especially in the areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, so movingly referred, I should have thought it would be a great benefit.
One has to go a little carefully in emphasising the needs, which undoubtedly exist, of some lessees who have felt that their homes were their own until they suddenly found that their lease had run out, without at the same time appreciating—and that is why I am emphasising this business of the rights being known to lessees—that there are some people who take advantage of these rights at the expense of lessees. It is not unknown to me professionally that there are some people who go around buying up fairly short leases from people who have not got the knowledge about the right of enfranchisement, and then having obtained the necessary residential qualification, which now, as a result of the work of the Opposition in another place in the Housing Act 1980, has been reduced from five years to three (it is not a very long time in which to set up a residential right), convey the freehold at a very enhanced profit, having exercised their right of enfranchisement. I mention this because there is a difficulty, which I personally recognise, in doing away with any residential qualification whatsoever, because if you do that you really are opening the door to some property speculators of the wrong kind to make a killing here, notwithstanding that of course it is quite outside the purpose of the Act that they should.
I was interested in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made about the definition of "house" in the original Act that he was referring to, which was not dealt with at all in the Housing Act 1980, so far as I remember, and which has given rise to certain cases which I am sure the noble Lord the Minister is aware of. In those cases one would have thought it was the intention of the Act that the premises should be covered, but because of the narrow definition of "house" in the original Act, in fact the right of enfranchisement does not exist. I personally came across a case not long ago where it was a question of a public house which had an extension which just went over a dwelling. So it was argued that the dwelling-house which had this part of the public house within its
1328
curtilage could not be premises which could give the advantage of the enfranchisement provisions. The best advice that one could obtain was obtained, and on the basis of certain decided cases in regard to definition of a "house" one had to advise, although it was a very hard case, that the enfranchisement provisions did not apply.
There is room, without any doubt at all, for a simplification of the price which a lessee is expected to pay to the freeholder, but I am perfectly sure that this may largely be overcome by the amendments in the Housing Act 1980, to which again the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred, setting up these leasehold valuation tribunals, which frankly are rent assessment committees under another name. I am sure that, with their local knowledge, they will be able to assess these prices with some facility and equity, and that there will not be the wide divergencies of which many of us know.
What worries me a little, especially with the right of appeal to the lands tribunal, is that, so far as I am aware, legal aid does not extend to an appearance by a lessee before such a tribunal, and certainly not before the lands tribunal on appeal. It is possible, bearing in mind that these tribunals consist of a lawyer together with two surveyors, for a rather wealthier freeholder to turn up with expert evidence and with a pleader of the ability, for example, of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and as a result put a lessee at a grave disadvantage if legal aid were not available. If the Minister would say he will use his considerable influence and endeavour to persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to do the same to see that legal aid is made available in these circumstancse, I am sure that some injustice which I believe will be caused by this will be removed.
Since this is a brave experiment, I hope very much—taking these matters to the rather informal procedure of what we now know to be, as I said, a rent assessment committee in another form—that Parliament will be kept informed of how these committees are working, the experiences they are having, the nature of the informality of the procedure they adopt and the consistency which I hope they manage to procure and which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, rightly pointed out was so important. I repeat my gratitude, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, to the noble Lord for bringing this matter to our attention tonight.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, following the example of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I too will have mercy on the House at this late hour and be brief. We have had a busy day, culminating in this excellent and informative debate, but I will not take more than a few minutes at this hour. In any event, most of the case has already been stated and the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for tabling this Question.
I particularly remember, when a Member of another place, Mr. George Thomas making a magnificent fight over a number of years in the Commons to get the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 on the statute book. At that time we did not envisage the legal loopholes, but it was a move in the right direction. I might mention that 1965 was a record year for housebuilding in South Wales, with 19,524 dwellings being built during that

1329
year, although Wales then needed 175,000 new dwellings. The strange thing about leasehold matters as they stand is that the property-owning democracy is limited in the creation of property-owning democrats. In South Wales, as in many other parts of Britain, people have been living with this problem. I say that because in endeavouring to be brief I will not expand beyond the Welsh side of the debate.
For well over 100 years the problem of leasehold and allied problems have existed, and they are becoming greater now as the 99-year leases on traditional older houses begin to expire. The old empires of the Beau-forts and Butes were known throughout the Welsh valleys, and despite the Acts of 1967 and 1980, the difficulties of home-owners have not been removed because, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon pointed out, the door is still open for speculation in residential freeholds, and the law still allows enormous freehold prices to be charged. Without making a song and dance about it, I would say that that is something which should be eradicated.
This is the reality of the system in South Wales today. It is anachronistic in principle and in practice and it works against home ownership, housing security, and housing improvements. I should like to give one example before sitting down. It concerns a case reported by the Welsh Leasehold Reform Campaign, involving an old couple who live in Ninian Park Road, Cardiff. The couple are in their eighties and have lived in and been leaseholders of their house for over 40 years. Their lease expired on 25th March 1981. They have been asked £2,900 for the freehold. The market value of the house is only £9,000. Because of their age they are, naturally, unable to raise a mortgage and they have only about £1,000 savings, most of which is from compensation for industrial injury paid to the old gentleman who rents the house. This is a typical example of this kind of injustice, and it could be multiplied many times.
The case for reform is well known, and I hope that the Government will make some effort—I know that there are problems—to eradicate some of the difficulties confronting the least privileged of the people living in properties with leases which are now coming to an end. I promised to be brief—I have taken only four minutes—and I think that a tired House would now like to hear the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that many extraordinary things happen at this time of night. Nothing is more remarkable than that I should enter into a debate on the question of Welsh leasehold, of which I am totally ignorant, though I believe that the situation bears some passing resemblance with what we call a tack in Scotland. I do not know—but I believe that it does. I have received a communication, which the noble Lord opposite has also received, from the Welsh Leasehold Reform Campaign. The communication describes a position with which the noble Lord has dealt, but as I see it, the statement is incorrect and it refers to a situation with which a building society could deal perfectly well. The statement that is incorrect is this:
"Because of their age they are unable to raise a mortgage…".
The question of age presents no objection to a mortgage.
1330
I rang a building society and asked whether this was the kind of case that it could handle. Well, ex facie of this document it is. I asked the building society to write to the people involved and check the whole position. I do not know what is the correct position, and I do not wish to hold out any hopes of any kind, but it is within the capacity of a building society to deal with the situation such as is mentioned in the document. Perhaps the tack has something to do with this kind of thing. All I know is that an arrangement was made in the town of Motherwell, where there were a great many tacks, and the Scottish Office, in a document, went so far as to say that the arrangement was admirable. I shall add no more than that, other than to say that I felt that this was an occasion when an intervention might help.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, whether a building society would give an old couple in their eighties a mortgage of £11,000, and whether they would live long enough to repay it, is a question which I think everyone would look at in depth.
The Earl of Selkirk: That would not matter a bit—they have security on the house.
10.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, for raising the subject of leasehold tenure in the House this evening. As always, he has made his points moderately and fairly, and I shall seek to reply to him in the same spirit.
When I saw the noble Lord's Unstarred Question on the Order Paper I naturally looked up the Hansards of our debates on the Housing Bill last year. This served to remind me that the noble Lord had intervened on a number of occasions in Committee, and on Report, to introduce or support amendments to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Some of the matters to which he referred were highly technical, which is not surprising since by common consent the 1967 Act is recognised as one of the most complicated measures to reach the statute book in post-war years.
However, I also noted that at col. 786 on 4th July 1980, the noble Lord said:
"There is a philosophical difference between the noble Lord the Minister and myself about these matters. I have a very deeply-felt, fundamental belief that it is totally inappropriate that long leases of residential property, such as this, should be able to produce a profit for a second and, perhaps, a third time to the feudal landlord—which is pretty well what he is".
The difference between freehold and a leasehold sale on these terms is that at the end of the 99-year lease the lessee is contractually obliged to return not simply the land but the house as well to the freeholder.
Even in the 1880s this practice gave rise to lively controversy. It was, in fact, a most suitable subject at that time for great debate among Victorians; but I do not propose to get into that tonight. What I would say is that the noble Lord has tonight amplified what he said previously, and I very much respect the fact that he has spoken from a fundamental and deeply-held belief. He is absolutely correct to say that leasehold tenure can raise philosophical questions

1331
about the rights of occupiers and the right to property, and since few if any in this House take the view that all property is theft, that must mean that there are no easy answers.
The vast majority of occupying leaseholders of houses have three options. They have the right to buy the freehold on the basis laid down in the Act, or they can opt for an extension lease of 50 years at a modern ground rent. If neither of these courses attracts them, then the third possibility is to become Rent Act tenants at the end of the lease. It is said that the procedures for enfranchisement are complex and can be subject to considerable delay. That may be true, but it must be remembered that this represents the only situation where one private person is entitled to use compulsory purchase against the property of another private person; and when one considers the long history of the question and the deeply-held differences of view that it has produced, I do not think that leaseholders can fairly claim that they have had a bad deal.
Without denying that there are cases where individuals feel that they are subject to injustice, I am also bound to say that, while we are certainly not indifferent to complaints made, the fact is that the volume of complaints reaching the department is not great, although it is true that the problem is greater in some areas, such as South Wales. It is greater there than in other areas. It may well be that this is something that one will have to look at more closely, to try to ascertain the extent of the problem. But if one is to judge it simply by the level of complaint then I would have to say as I have said.
When this Government took office my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received representations that the scope of the Act should be extended to properties above the current rateable value limits, and that the higher valuation basis should be scrapped. He decided not to alter the scope of the Act or the terms on which it operates. Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said, the Government introduced amendments to reduce the qualifying period and the period for re-application after withdrawal from five to three years, to close a loophole and to make for more informal and accessible procedures for settling disputes. In the latter case I am referring, of course, to the new local leasehold valuation tribunals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred. He referred to them slightly disparagingly, but I think he meant them not to be so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope I never gave the impression to the noble Lord or to any Member of the House that I referred to them disparagingly. On the contrary, I welcomed the fact that they were the rent assessment committees by another name and would deal with these matters informally with local knowledge and, I hoped, would remove some of the anomalies that existed. The last thing in the world I would want to do is anything to disparage them. I wish them well.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I entirely accept that. I think that is very fair comment. I rather gathered from the way the noble Lord put it that perhaps he was
1332
disappointed they were not something beyond what they are. That is what I gleaned from what he was saying; but if that is not so—and I see he shakes his head—then I am happy to accept that without question.
This order came into operation on 31st March. The first case was held in Birmingham on 7th May, and the decision—incidentally, in favour of the leaseholder—was issued on 13th May. My Lords, I should not have thought that that was a cosmetic beginning, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, suggested. Indeed, I do not recall during the many hours of debate we had on the Bill at the time that anybody thought the reduction from five to three years was at all cosmetic; it was argued and debated very vigorously at the time.
Perhaps I may now deal with some of the detailed points which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, proposed that leaseholders should be enfranchised forthwith. This would mean removing any resident requirement at all. As I have already said, we reduced the resident requirement in the Act from five years to three years. In the Government's view a three-year resident requirement meets the aim of helping genuine owner-occupiers of leasehold houses as opposed to those who may buy leasehold houses as an investment. I do not feel that there is any justification for reducing the resident requirement further or abolishing it altogether.
The noble Lord also suggested that the Government should introduce a formula for calculating the price of the freehold. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very fairly pointed out some of the problems that might arise from that. It is a suggestion that has been raised in the past but no formula has yet been devised which is fair to both parties and which is of universal application in all the leasehold situations arising. The principle underlying the 1967 Act is that the price of the freehold should, broadly speaking, represent the market value of the site, which is rightly a matter for negotiation, but subject to appropriate procedures where agreement cannot be reached. This market value basis creates a substantial difficulty in the way of creating a formula satisfactory in all cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also talked about the possibility of legal aid being made available to meet the costs of tenants' enfranchising. There is no reason why in certain circumstances the cost relating to the conveyancing of the property may not be met in whole or in part under the Green Form advice and assistance scheme. The Government do not consider there are any reasons for making special provisions for leaseholders exercising the right compulsorily to acquire their leasehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. In any case, the question of making legal aid available to those involved in proceedings before leasehold valuation tribunals raises very wide issues about legal aid which would have to be considered in a wider context by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Nevertheless, as always when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raises a point in the way that he did, this is something that I should want to talk about with my colleagues.
The noble Lord also suggested that tenants should be notified annually of their rights under the 1967 Act. The existing requirement under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that the landlord must serve notice

1333
upon the tenant before a long lease terminates, warning the tenant that he will lose his rights under the Leasehold Reform Act unless he exercises them within two months of the landlord giving notice. In the Government's view, this adequately ensures that tenants are aware of their rights. Nevertheless, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the need to bring statutory provisions to the notice of lessees. He said that some publicity in simple language might be helpful, and one would certainly want to think about that; I shall certainly talk to my colleagues about the position and see what might be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, talked about collecting statistics, and on that point may I just say that we are talking here about private transactions between private individuals. We can therefore see no reason for the Government to collect information about such transactions. As to the point about combined shops and houses it is surely, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also said, a matter of definition of "house" in the Act. Not all combined properties will be excluded from the Act but the Act only applies to houses. These are difficult questions which apply to individual cases and in the end it will be the courts who will have to decide whether a particular property qualifies as a house. I can see that this can present problems. Again, I do not really know what we can do, but I shall want to talk to my colleagues about that aspect as well.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his helpful intervention. I am not sure, listening to what he said, quite how far that is a problem or a solution; but certainly it was valid, it seems to me, and I would want to think about that, too. I shall have to do a lot of thinking about these among other matters in the near future. It is late and I am rather sorry that the debate has come on at a late hour because there is much more that everyone would have liked to say and to have gone into at greater depth. I think of the hours we talked about this, with the problem of the flats which do not go away because we only talked
1334
about them. We ought, perhaps, to bring this back at some convenient time and deal with it at greater length. The problem exists. No one seeks to deny that.
I would sum up by saying that the Government view in general is that Parliament has given leaseholders of houses the opportunities to enfranchise. If, as some believe, building leases developed in the 19th century created an historical injustice, a remedy is available. Whether or not we should go further in assisting the compulsory transfer of assets between private persons at this time is something else. I would have to say at the moment that we do not think so; but we will look at all that has been said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for bringing forward the debate.

  PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  IMF INTERIM COMMITTEE: CHAIRMANSHIP
  IMF INTERIM COMMITTEE: CHAIRMANSHIP
  DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION
  DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION
  DWELLINGS: NUMBERS AND CONDITIONS
  DWELLINGS: NUMBERS AND CONDITIONS
  SLAUGHTERHOUSE FACILITIES: EEC GRANTS
  SLAUGHTERHOUSE FACILITIES: EEC GRANTS