Sitting of 9 May 1983

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

    Coal Stocks
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total amount of coal stocks at the latest available date.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): As at 31 March, 53·2 million tonnes in Great Britain.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that this is possibly the highest percentage of total production that has ever been recorded and accept that it is mainly due to the Government's policy of creating an industrial desert in Britain? If the Minister wants to bring the coal stocks down by even a little, will he try to help those made redundant in the pre-1970 closures, who never received any coal, such as the retired miners who did 40 years in the pits, and the widows? Will he use some of the coal for the 2,000 people who deserve to receive concessionary coal, like—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be fair to other hon. Members.
    Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The coal stocks are at record highs, but the size of the coal stock is much more related to the decline in industrial demand, the decline in domestic demand and the decline in the use of coal in the steel industry. These are factors that make it imperative that the coal industry keeps costs under control and ensures security of supply for its industrial customers.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: How is the Government scheme to encourage conversion to coal firing going? This is one market where there are real possibilities.
    Mr. Moore: I am glad to remind the House of the success of the scheme, which has already created additional industrial demand of about 620,000 tonnes per annum. We hope that that will be raised to over 1 million tonnes per annum. The success of the scheme was welcomed by all who hope that coal has a successful long-term future in Britain.
    Mr. Eadie: Have the Government any policy other than pit closures to deal with coal stocks? What happened to the policy that the hon. Gentleman used to state from the Government Front Bench, namely that the vagaries of the market should not be allowed to dominate long-term considerations of coal production and expansion?
    Mr. Moore: Apart from the industrial recovery that is clearly under way, it is a bit much for the Opposition to question the consistency of the Government policies when, in the past four years, two thirds of the £4·5 billion invested in the coal industry has been invested through the Government's policies.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what further privatisation he expects to require or hopes to initiate in the energy field.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): It is the Government's firm intention to maintain the momentum of the privatisation programme, and further proposals will be put to the House in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Hardy: While it would be unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to carry out any further examples of reckless irresponsibility or daylight robbery in the next two or three days, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government do not intend either to denationalise any part of the deep-mining capacity or to proceed with the denationalisation of any opencast activity?
    Mr. Lawson: There is no present intention in either of those regards.
    Mr. Skeet: I welcome the proposals to privatise the nationalised sector, but what about the sale of the British Gas Corporation's oil assets to the State? Will the partners involved in some of these assets have an option to buy? Will that be continued?
    Mr. Lawson: This plan is going ahead and there are two schemes, one transferring the assets to a new subsidiary of the Gas Corporation and the second establishing the appropriate participation arrangements, which came into force a few days ago, at the beginning of the month. The next step will be to transfer the shares in these new subsidiaries to me as Secretary of State and this will require an order that will be laid in the new Parliament.
    As for the BGC's existing partners in these holdings, I know that there was a report in the press about one of them, AMOCO, alleging that it was angry about this, but my office received a telephone call today from Mr. Dalton, the managing director, saying that he was misquoted and that the Government have every right to continue this policy.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House one clear and categoric assurance, namely, that no decision to sell the Wytch Farm interest of British Gas will be taken before the next election? As the right hon. Gentleman has never had a mandate to sell those or any other energy assets, will he note that the Labour party will seek a mandate to restore them to national control?
    Mr. Lawson: Leaving aside the last rather optimistic remarks of the hon. Gentleman, which were singularly empty of conviction, I cannot give the assurance for which he asks, because the Government are not a party to the sale. It is a matter for the British Gas Corporation on the one hand and the Dorset Group on the other. I understand that their discussions are now in the final stages. I also understand that BP's present intention, having examined the bid, is not to exercise its matching rights. It is, of course, the intention that BP should become the operator.

    Coal Liquefaction
    Mr Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's present policy on coal liquefaction.
    Mr. John Moore: The Government continue to provide financial support for the NCB's work on coal liquefaction so as to encourage its development towards a technically viable United Kingdom technology, to give it the best chance of reaching commercial maturity and therefore securing for itself a successful position in the long-term market for synthetic fuel processes.
    Mr. Dormand: Why are the Government making so many excuses for not taking a more positive lead in this exciting project? Will the Minister admit that the withdrawal of private sector finance was a major influence in the Government's becoming so dilatory in the matter? Will he confirm that all the major and most important technical difficulties involved in the process have now been overcome?
    Mr. Moore: The Government are in no way withdrawing support. They are concerned, as they have been all along, to ensure the technical viability of the project, and the acceptance of the four conditions that I mentioned to the House in November 1982, in response to the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who cannot be here today, and we all understand why, and who apologises for his absence. The position has not changed. My hon. Friend's support and interest are just as keen from Flint as they are from here.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister understand that in north-east Wales we are very concerned and rather suspicious at the delay in making further statements on the project at Point of Ayr? Does he understand that, with so much mass unemployment in north-east Wales, if the project were to go ahead at Point of Ayr the construction industry as well as the mining industry would have a major boost? Does the Minister accept that if he were to make a statement in the middle of the election campaign, rather than to this House, it would be taken badly by those concerned?
    Mr. Moore: We should not get too excited about the subject because of electioneering. The hon. Gentleman has been a legitimate and consistent supporter of the project. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West will be pleased to know that, if all goes according to plan—and there is no reason to doubt that — work on detailed engineering, procurement and construction will begin in mid-1984. There has been no check to the process since the last announcement to this House in March.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister realise that his party will go into the election with the tag that the Conservative Government smashed to smithereens the prospect of getting a quick start on the oil-from-coal process? What is happening now at Point of Ayr? Does the Minister realise that all we have had from him for several years are excuses, and not very good ones at that?
    Mr. Moore: I thought that I had just made clear what was happening. I did so in reply to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), who has a particular constituency
    614
    interest. It looks as though construction will go on in midterm. Whatever passion is raised on the issue, there is no point in encouraging the throwing of money at issues. It serves only the vanity of politicians.
    The Government are concerned to ensure that the technical and commercial long-term prospects for the project are realised. That is the aim of the policy, and we shall continue to apply rigid disciplines to the use of taxpayers' money.

    Acid Rain
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will invite the Central Electricity Generating Board to prepare a report to be laid before the House on the environmental effects of acid rain from coal and oil-fired power stations.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): A memorandum on this subject prepared by the Central Electricity Generating Board for the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, together with oral evidence by representatives of the board in May 1982, was published in the Committee's 16th report, Session 1981–82, of 29 June 1982.
    Mr. Palmer: As the Minister may know, I support the balanced development of electricity generation both from coal and nuclear sources. Bearing in mind that the bulk of our electricity will still come from coal-fired power stations well into the year 2000, is it not important that there should now be an authoritative statement from the Government on a matter that is causing increasing concern not only in Britain but on the Continent?
    Mr. Gray: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in these matters, that they cause concern. However, acid rain is an international question, and the CEGB and the Government are fully prepared to play their part in the necessary research on the subject. We should not jump to conclusions too quickly. Much has been said and written about it, but there is still relatively little substantive evidence.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Can my right hon. Friend help the public understanding of the debate on the choice of fuels for power stations — and avoid the damage that may result from misunderstanding—by illustrating whether nuclear-powered stations are environmentally preferable to, as well as being more economical than, oil-fired or coal-fired stations?
    Mr. Gray: Nuclear-powered stations are undoubtedly very much less subject to environmental pollution — [Interruption.] Hon. Members can argue about it until they are blue in the face—and they will have to remain blue in the face for a long time after the next election.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister accept that we need very soon to make some demonstration to convince the international community that we are moving in the right direction? Before commissioning any further report, will he take action on the Atkinson report to ensure that the district heating—CHP—schemes proceed on the basis of fluidised bed combustion? That will demonstrate that we are prepared to burn coal properly, successfully and cleanly.
    Mr. Gray: The point is well and truly taken. The Government will give every consideration to the best method of proceeding along those lines.
    Mr. Warren: With respect to my right hon. Friend, does he agree that more important than acid rain fallout is that carcinogenic substances are falling on Britain every day from the coal-fired and oil-fired power stations, which should be investigated and brought to the attention of the public? Such an investigation would prove that nuclear usage provides a much safer fuel generation process.
    Mr. Gray: Yes, that is the case, and I remind my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom spends £4 million, of which half is spent by the CEGB, on research into the effects of acidification.
    Mr. Allen McKay: When the Minister talks about the environmental aspects of nuclear power stations, is he 100 per cent. sure about the safe disposal of nuclear waste? What has he to say about the decommissioning of nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Gray: That is a completely different question. I was asked about environmental matters and gave the view that nuclear power was undoubtedly less of an environmental hazard than some of the other methods that we have at present.
    Mr. Forman: As it is my right hon. Friend's view that research concerning acid rain is not yet conclusive, will he ask his officials to look at the evidence from Czechoslovakia, where considerable problems have been encountered with acid rain as the result of the operations of German coal-fired stations?
    Mr. Gray: That is a very interesting point. The discovery that was made in Czechoslovakia shows that, environmentally, nuclear power is very much cleaner.

    OPEC (Price Fixing)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he considers prices fixed by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries a satisfactory criterion for settling North sea reference prices.
    Mr. Lawson: North sea prices are determined in commercial negotiations which obviously take account of OPEC prices along with all the other market evidence.
    Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of oil production in the middle east is less than $1 a barrel, whereas the sale price is about $29 a barrel? That does not help the Third world. That is a cartel price and not a market price. Therefore, that should not be the basis on which North sea oil is priced.
    Mr. Lawson: I venture to disagree with my hon. Friend. OPEC accounts for about 30 per cent. of total world production, so it can hardly be held to be a cartel in any meaningful sense. There is no question of the oil price falling to the cost of production in the middle east, as the OPEC countries would not continue to produce oil at anything less than a market price. Sharp fluctuations in the oil price, whether up or down, do most harm to the world economy and to underdeveloped countries.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the full market price is sought, is it not reasonable to expect sharp ups and downs of the type that the Secretary of State claims is bad? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House about his visit to the Gulf states and whether it was a love-in between the right hon. Gentleman and the sheikhs?
    Mr. Lawson: I will gladly tell the hon. Gentleman something of my visit to Saudi Arabia, where I saw Sheikh Yamani, to Kuwait, where I spoke to Sheikh Ali Khalifa and to the United Arab Emirates, where I spoke to Dr. Otaiba. Although we have different perspectives on the subject, there emerged a considerable coincidence of interests on the need for stability in the oil market. The journey was harmonious and cordial.
    Sir Peter Emery: Is my right hon. Friend actually trying to tell the House that OPEC is not a cartel? If he is, how does he hold that view? Has not the OPEC price been the leading factor that has caused considerable difficulties in the sale price of oil to underdeveloped nations in the Third world?
    Mr. Lawson: I will willingly review the history of the past 10 years. If OPEC were an effective cartel in the way my hon. Friend imagines it to be, the price of OPEC oil would not have gone down from $34 to $29 earlier this year, which was in response to market forces. It was not an act of charity on the part of the members of OPEC.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the reason why the price has been held at the present level and why the Secretary of State got involved in the OPEC talk before the decision was made not substantially to lower the price—quite apart from allowing market forces to operate—that great problems would arise in Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria, which are heavily in debt to the tune of more than $120 billion, and therefore great difficulties would arise for the international banking system?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member credits me with too much power and influence in this sphere. During the turmoil in the oil market the Government and the British National Oil Corporation acted very much in the interests of this country. The idea that Britain could fix the world oil price is nonsense. I make no such claim.

    Depletion Policy (North Sea)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will review North Sea oil depletion policy in the light of the world oil surplus.
    Mr. Gray: No. Present depletion policies have served us well by giving the oil industry the freedom and confidence to develop the resources of the North sea to the economic benefit of the nation. The tax and royalty concessions announced in the Budget will further encourage the new development that we need.
    Mr. Dubs: Is not the sad truth that at a time of world glut and falling prices it would be in this country's interest to conserve North sea oil stocks, and the only reason the Government are not following this policy is the need for revenue to finance the dole queues?
    Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is absolutely no case for delaying development when Britain's main activity must, be to stimulate new developments to come on stream once production from the present fields begins to decline.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister come clean about this issue? Are we not in reality overproducing oil from the big fields when, a long time ago, a programme to accelerate and develop the marginals should have taken place? I know that the Minister, in the safety of Houston, made

    617
    exaggerated statements about development. When will the developments take place, as they are absolutely necessary if production is to be ensured?
    Mr. Gray: Jealousy will get the hon. Gentleman nowhere. The Opposition are afraid of good news. The North sea has an abundance of good news. I have said outside the House—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will keep quiet for a moment, I shall tell them that the future of the North sea is in safe hands and is very bright. The prosperity of the North sea could only be inhibited by the policies of the Opposition. Seventeen fields have applied for development and are coming on stream. That is entirely due to the Government's policies, despite the inhibitions which have been raised.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimated Government funding of wind, wave, solar and tidal power, respectively, in 1983–84.
    Mr. Gray: I expect my Department to spend approximately £14 million on research into new and renewable sources of energy in 1983–84. I have arranged for a breakdown of this estimate to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Hooley: Bearing in mind that the much-trumpeted 15 GW nuclear power programme announced three and a half years ago has not even commenced, would it not have been wiser to concentrate effort on renewable resources than to squander effort and money on the programme?
    Mr. Gray: The amount of money being spent on renewable resources has been substantially increased in the life of this Parliament. Work is proceeding all the time on the development of our nuclear programme. Many people working in the nuclear supply industry are still in employment as a result of this Government's policies.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are spending four times as much as the Labour Government did on research and development into alternative forms of energy? What progress has been made in obtaining private sector participation in financing the Severn barrage?
    Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend is hoping to make a statement in the near future about the Severn barrage.
    Mr. Forman: Is it not clear that the Government are spending the funds usefully on research and development into renewables? Will the Minister give a commitment that in examining the commercial development of such sources the Government will look upon that matter favourably?
    Mr. Gray: That is correct. The Government are always prepared to examine the involvement of the private sector in any way that can be helpful.
    Following is the information:
    The estimated 1983–84 expenditure by the Department of Energy on new and renewable sources of energy is as follows:

    £ million

    Wind

    4·8

    Wave

    1·0

    Solar

    1·2

    Geothermal

    4·2

    £ million

    Biofuels

    0·7

    Programme Management

    2·0

    13·9

    National Coal Board
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. John Moore: At our meetings with the chairman my right hon. Friend and I discuss all aspects of the board's business.
    Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind the uncertainty in the Scottish coal industry following the decisions to close Kinneil, Sorn and Highhouse, will the Minister give a commitment that adequate investment will be made to ensure the future of what is left of the Scottish coal industry, especially the Cardowen colliery? Failing that, will the Minister admit that if people are daft enough to vote Tory at the next election they will be voting for the closure of Cardowen and the possible annihilation of the entire Scottish coal industry?
    Mr. Moore: I shall not comment on the details involved in the discussions between the unions and the National Coal Board on a specific pit such as Cardowen. The hon. Gentleman has some cheek to talk about investment in the coal industry in Scotland. In 1975–76, investment in the coal industry in real terms in Scotland was £100 million. There has been a 48·8 per cent. real increase in investment in the coal industry to £150 million. To describe a real increase in investment in the coal industry in Scotland as a tragedy, underestimates Scotland's needs.
    Mr. Rost: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the NCB, will he discuss with him the huge potential increased market for the sale of coal that could result from an expansion of combined heat and power, which can not only produce cheaper heat and power for industry, but can alleviate fuel poverty in many of our inner cities?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the advantages of combined heat and power. The coal industry has a role to play, provided that it can keep control of its prices and guarantee supplies, and there will be a bigger market place as a result of the development of combined heat and power schemes.
    Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Gentleman is proposing to meet the chairman of the NCB, will he tell Mr. MacGregor that he should be preparing himself for early retirement, because the Government will not be in office after the general election? Does the Under-Secretary agree that, bearing in mind the reserves at Cardowan colliery, it would be monstrous for the Government to suggest that the colliery should be closed because of the Government's operation of what they describe as market forces to get rid of the coal stocks? My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) would like to have been here today, but he has been unavoidably detained in Scotland.
    Mr. Moore: I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his previous experience in the coal industry, would not expect

    619
    me to comment on a particular pit in terms of potential negotiations between the NCB and the unions representing the men in the industry. The hon. Gentleman would not have done that when he was in office. It is not the practice within the management of the industry. The Government have not given, and do not give, any instructions or make any comments on individual pits. That is not the way in which the Government and the coal industry work. It is a management matter for the industry. The Government have provided massive investment to the industry and it is up to the industry to decide how to use it.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend tell the chairman of the NCB that at least £50 million would be available for investment if the board disposed of its holdings in private companies, which compete unfairly with other private firms in the coal industry?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has raised the subject of unfair competition in the past. I thought that I had answered the point satisfactorily, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the chairman of the NCB.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that, after 9 June, he will not be discussing anything with the chairman of the NCB? Will he take into account that the next Labour Secretary of State will tell the chairman that there are to be no further pit closures on the ground of economy alone?
    Mr. Moore: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have more chance of being re-elected in the north-east against the minor party that I gather has been scouring that area lately, but he will be part of a rump Labour party facing a re-elected Conservative Government who will be delighted to continue their regular meetings with Mr. Siddall and his successor, Mr. MacGregor.

    Chile (Nuclear Fuel)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether any nuclear fuel has yet been supplied to Chile.
    Mr. John Moore: No material has yet been delivered under the contract concluded last year between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Atomic Energy Commission of Chile.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the plans to supply Chile with nuclear fuel part of a trade-off worked out with General Matthai on his recent visit here, whereby Chile will help R class submarines, one of which went well south of Ascension after HMS Sheffield was sunk, and which may be called on again? Is it part of a trade-off with Chile?
    Mr. Moore: That is absolute and complete rubbish. The basis of the relationship for the supply of nuclear materials to Chile relates back, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to 1968, when the then Labour Government established the Anglo-Chilean nuclear treaty. The recent trade that we are talking about relates to indications from the Chilean Atomic Energy Authority in 1980 when it approached the UKAEA. Essential permissions were given by this country by March 1982, prior to the Falklands activity. It was only because the Government had to deal with the International Atomic Energy Authority, in terms of maintaing proper safeguards, that an announcement was not made until September, when the safeguard arrangements were completed. There is absolutely no truth in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Power Generation Costs
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has now had an opportunity to study the Central Electricity Generating Board's memorandum on the relative costs of power generation.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence in the memorandum and many other documents submitted to him shows that it is essential that a future Government should press en with an extended nuclear power programme to ensure that we have a reasonable supply of electricity in the next century?
    Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he points out, the paper is more thorough and detailed than anything that the CEGB has put forward previously. It shows that a new pressurised water reactor is expected to produce electricity at 2·61p per kW hour, over its lifetime, compared with 3·15p per kW hour for a new AGR and 3·88p per kW hour for a new coal-fired station. My hon. Friend is right. If we are to have low-cost electricity for future generations, it is essential that we press ahead with the nuclear power programme, which must be safe—as our nuclear power programme has been and will continue to be. That is why the Government are pressing ahead with the nuclear power programme.
    Mr. Hooley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new 15 GW nuclear power programme that we heard about three and a half years ago will take as long to implement as the previous programme, which dates back to the early 1960s and has still not been completed?
    Mr. Lawson: There has never been a 15 GW nuclear power programme. The hon. Gentleman should look back and see what was said at the time. As for the existing nuclear power programme, it is true that power stations have not been built to time and to cost in this country. I am happy to say that the nuclear power stations now under construction appear to be running to time and to cost, and that is a most important improvement.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the South-Eastern electricity board appears to be the only regional board that has failed to implement his policy of charging less than 50 per cent. for standing charges? Is that because of generating costs in the region, or is there some other excuse?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right, and there is no reason connected with generating costs or anything like that for the board's decision. I have no power to compel it to implement the 50–50 scheme, but it is the only board that has chosen to ignore the scheme, and I deeply regret that, because pensioners and other small consumers of electricity throughout the rest of the country are enjoying the benefit of the rebate, so that they pay no more than half their total bill in standing charges. That is not the case in the south-east, and I earnestly ask the South-Eastern electricity board to think again about its decision.

    Solar Systems
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Energy how much energy is now produced by solar systems: at what unit cost; what are the comparative figures for 1978 and 1973; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gray: My Department will be spending £1 ¼ million in the current year on solar energy. I regret that statistics in the form requested by my hon. Friend are not available.
    Mr. Greenway: Having regard to the relentless rise in the cost of the production of energy from coal, oil and other sources, will my right hon. Friend take advantage of the sunshine that will follow a massive Conservative majority in the general election to commission more intensive research into the production of energy from solar systems?
    Mr. Gray: I confirm to my hon. Friend that we are concentrating our available research and development funds on the most promising of the renewable technologies for the United Kingdom, which are wind, geothermal and passive solar design. Among the solar systems, my Department is concentrating on the passive solar design, which is the most promising means of exploiting solar energy in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Eadie: If there were a breakthrough in the technology of heat pumps, what impact would that have on the Government's proposed solar energy programme?
    Mr. Gray: The Government's programme for alternative sources of energy is flexible, and, of course, were such a breakthrough to take place, the Government would take account of it.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to use his clairvoyant powers to tell us what the solar system says about the likely result of the coming general election?
    Mr. Palmer: Will the Minister say how seriously in these matters the advice of the chief scientist to the Ministry is taken?
    Mr. Gray: The advice of the chief scientist is always taken seriously and carefully considered.

    Marginal Fields (Tax Regime)
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement of changes in the North Sea tax regime, he has evidence of increasing interest in marginal fields.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, indeed. There has been a uniformly positive response from the industry, and I am confident that it will now be pressing ahead with plans for a number of new developments as a direct consequence of the new reliefs for future fields.
    Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware what good news that is for British industry? Does he realise that the passing of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act, which he pushed through the House with great success, opens up new opportunities in the southern basin, but that at the moment there is a question mark over development because of the royalty dimension? If the Finance Bill is to be truncated — or otherwise — does he realise that clarification of the matter would greatly benefit the development of that basin?
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad to say that as a result, to a large extent—as my hon. Friend was kind enough to say—of the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act, there is
    622
    greatly renewed interest in the southern basin and in gas prospecting in the North Sea. For example, 17 new exploration and appraisal wells were drilled last year. That was more than in the previous seven years put together. Moreover, there is considerable interest in the eighth round in connection with the southern basin gas blocks, and I hope to be in a position to announce the results of that round shortly.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State say whether the estimate that has been given that one new oilfield will be opened every six weeks in the North Sea is the official Government estimate?
    Mr. Lawson: Our best expectation is that new developments are likely to come to my Department over the next few years at the rate of one every six weeks. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that only last week BP announced that it was intending to reappraise the Andrew field.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is it really the wisest use of the revenues from this valuable and irreplaceable source of energy to pay 4 million people to stay at home doing nothing? Would not the revenues be better used in providing jobs as a result of increased public investment?
    Mr. Lawson: I deeply regret the present unemployment, which is a consequence of the world recession. The use to which North Sea oil revenues have been put has reduced the very high public sector borrowing requirement that we inherited from the Labour Administration, and it has enabled us to get interest rates down substantially and the rate of inflation down to 4½ per cent., which is the lowest figure since the 1960s. That has benefited the whole country.
    Sir John Eden: In view of all the activity off the coast of Bournemouth, and onshore in the county of Dorset, will my right hon. Friend balance the need for plentiful supplies of oil, natural gas, and nuclear power with the realisation that this is a holiday and tourist area of quite outstanding merit?
    Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is perfectly right. Environmental considerations should always be given proper weight. On the question of onshore oil exploration, my right hon. Friend will be aware that although I have the power to give licences to drill, it is still a matter for the local planning authority to decide whether to give planning permission, depending on the full evaluation of the environmental circumstances of the case.
    Mr. Rowlands: Instead of meaningless forecasts of one new oilfield every six weeks, will the Secretary of State tell us clearly and simply when we shall next get a new order for, say, Nigg bay, for McDermott's yard in Scotland?
    Mr. Lawson: The forecast that I gave is anything but meaningless. The hon. Gentleman should at least have the courtesy of commending the Government for having made the changes in North Sea oil taxation, because they are changes of the kind that he said were required. He will have noted the extremely positive response of the oil companies, and of course, that response will inevitably give a tremendous fillip in due course to the offshore supply industry.

    National Coal Board
    Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Energy what tasks he has set for the new chairman of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. John Moore: His tasks reflect the objectives set for the present chairman, Norman Siddall, to return the industry to profitability as soon as possible by securing the highest possible efficiency and control of costs so that the coal industry may develop new markets for British coal and compete successfully in the market place.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister pass on our regards to the new chairman and convey to him that his next important task will be to find another new house in America, because he will be going back there shortly after the next election?
    Mr. Moore: On reflection, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased with what he said. He and I share a passionate interest in the success of the coal industry, and I am sure that he would wish the new chairman well. However, he does not take office until 1 September. Norman Siddall will be looking forward to further meetings with the new Conservative Government after the next election.

    Electricity Supply (Coal Generation)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the electricity supply in the United Kingdom was coal-generated in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1974.
    Mr. John Moore: In 1974 coal generated 56 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity. By 1982 this had risen to 74 per cent.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show that satisfactory progress has been made since 1974? Does he expect that trend will continue in the years ahead?
    Mr. Moore: They show that the relative disparity between the price of oil and coal has been maintained in the past few years. Last year we saw the percentage of electricity generation by coal nearer 80 than 74 per cent. Therefore, it would be hard to imagine, however much we would wish, that coal will penetrate the electricity generation market by more than 75 to 80 per cent. The figures are very satisfactory for our coal industry.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the one thing that could most damage the coal industry's future and its contribution to our energy resources would be a decision to keep open any pit, regardless of whether it was economic, at the expense of the most efficient pits, such as the one at Selby in Yorkshire, which have a great future and can contribute considerably to coal in future?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The degree to which the coal industry is able to utilise its substantial investment—for example, the £800 million-plus a year that is going into mines such as Selby—is obviously hindered by the degree to which the industry has to keep open its uneconomic capacity. The industry has closed only 8 million tonnes of capacity in the last nine years since "Plan for Coal". It has opened over 16 million tonnes of capacity and there are 26 million tonnes of new capacity
    624
    in train. Obviously, if the industry is to obtain the new clients that it wishes it must develop that investment. My hon. Friend is right to assume that, providing the investment goes in the direction of new low-cost capacity pits, such as Selby, the industry has an excellent future, especially as its new markets are in the industrial market place as opposed to the current markets in electricity generation, which form 80 per cent. of the whole.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Committee of Privileges
    Mr. Dalyellasked Lord President of the Council how often reports from the Committee of Privileges have been debated in the present Parliament.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): None of the three reports made by the Committee of Privileges this Parliament has been debated.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House be spending many hours in the coming weeks concentrating on the work of the Committee of Privileges in Room 12, deciding whether to persecute a Lobby journalist for doing his job rather well? Would it not be better if the Committee of Privileges devoted its attention to Mr. Paul Foot's article in the Daily Mirror of Thursday, revealing that there was a treaty bound in red leather, awaiting signature in Lima on Sunday 2 May, and to asking why, instead, the Prime Minister averted her eyes from peace and decided to sink the Belgrano for her own domestic political purposes?
    Mr. Biffen: I expect that I shall spend many hours doing various things over the next few weeks, but they will not include the study of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he has any reason to believe that Mr. Paul Foot has breached privilege, it is open to him to come to the House and act accordingly.
    Sir Dudley Smith: While the principle of parliamentary privilege must be sustained in a democracy like ours, does my right hon. Friend agree that there might be a good case in the next Parliament for having a general review of privilege, particlarly into the procedures governing the way that evidence is taken and witnesses are interrogated?
    Mr. Biffen: I would not dismiss that proposition, but I should point out that the present procedures were introduced only in 1978. We should reflect on that before having yet another inquiry.

    Members (Salaries)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals on the report of the Top Salaries Review Body.
    Mr. Biffen: As I explained to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), in my written reply of 4 May, the Government have received the review body's report and are now considering it.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be the greatest urgency in improving some aspects of hon. Members' conditions, not least severance and pension arrangements? Is he aware of the cynicism of some hon. Members about the lack of

    625
    commitment by the Government to implement recommendations that have been arrived at after hard work and detailed investigation by an independent body? Will he use his influence to see that recommendations are agreed? In view of the urgency of these matters, will he arrange for a debate on the report this week?
    Mr. Biffen: The value of the work that is undertaken by the Top Salaries Review Body is generally recognised throughout the House, particularly in the light of those factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, including pension arrangements. Those will all be matters for the House to consider at one time or another, but sheer practical, hard common sense compels me to say that it is unlikely that there will be a debate upon the report this week.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend try to obtain an agreement on the report between the Government and the Opposition before the House is dissolved so that a commitment is made by this Parliament and we do not have to raise the matter for debate and new commitment in the new Parliament?
    Mr. Biffen: I think that the House will appreciate it if I am candid about this. I simply do not see how time can be made available during the next three or four days for the resolution of what is a contentious and complex problem.
    Mr. John Silkin: Does the Leader of the House share my view that no hon. Member should be prejudiced by the fact that there is likely to be a dissolution of Parliament? If so, should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and perhaps allow some discussions through the usual channels to see whether we can come to some agreement before the next Parliament?
    Mr. Biffen: Those matters are ultimately for the authority of Parliament and not for an agreement between the unsual channels. [Interruption.] Yes, that would set aside the ultimate authority of Parliament. I am certain that when the recommendations are studied there will be anxiety on whatever issue Parliament has to take a view upon. Nothing will be done to prejudice the position of people now serving in this Parliament.
    Mr. Silkin: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that nobody will be prejudiced by the dissolution of Parliament. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lead that he and I may give to our right hon. and hon. Friends will have some degree of persuasiveness, even though it may not be conclusive?
    Mr. Biffen: Of course I accept that point.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: On what basis can putting Members of Parliament into the category of those receiving top salaries be justified?
    Mr. Biffen: It was originally the decision of the House that these matters should be considered by the Top Salaries Review Body. Whether that is a matter that falls under the trade descriptions legislation is another question. It is not my fault; it is a decision of the House.

    European Community
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord President of the Council what are his responsibilities for the dissemination of information about European Community affairs.
    Mr. Biffen: I have a general responsibility for coordinating information on Government policy, including matters relating to the Community.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of the widespread rumours that an election might be announced soon, will the Leader of the House say who is responsible for saying whether it is still the Government's firm intention that a rebate for 1983 must be resolved on 6 June and no later?
    Mr. Biffen: Clearly, if an election were to be held on the date mentioned by my hon. Friend it would be one factor in the Government's negotiating posture. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall fight sturdily for our corner in these matters and thus contrast our performance with the negative attitude of our opponents.
    Mr. Jay: Has 10 years' membership of this organisation altered the right hon. Gentleman's views on the subject?
    Mr. Biffen: The Community, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the less information we have about federalist pretentions and pettifogging harmonisation, the more support there will be in the United Kingdom for the EC?
    Mr. Biffen: It is certainly true that there will be a much happier commitment to the alliance that we have within the EC if it is clearly based upon national institutions and the interest of the nation state.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that beauty is only skin deep, that membership of the EC has cost us £1 million for every day that we have been a member over the past 10 years, 4 million unemployed, and a loss of 2 million manufacturing jobs?
    Mr. Biffen: If over the next few weeks the hon. Gentleman conducts his campaign with that rather simple approach to what is essentially a fairly complex problem there will be growing support for a party that supports fraternal association with our partners and the championing of national interests.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that in the 10 years since Britain joined the EC, which he consistently voted against—36 times in the first Session, I think—[Interruption.] Yes, he held the record on the Tory Benches. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the total net cost to Britain has been £3,911 million, of which £2,476 million was spent during the four years of the Tory Government—62·5 per cent. of the net total—contrary to what the media says about the Prime Minister bringing home barrowloads of money from Brussels?
    Mr. Biffen: I can neither confirm nor deny the hon. Gentleman's statistics, but the Prime Minister and the Treasury Bench have been much more aggressive and successful in the prosecution of the national interest than the supine bunch who preceded them.

    Accommodation
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement in response to the recent report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) about future accommodation of Members and staff at the House.
    Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that at this stage I cannot add to my earlier replies on this subject.
    Mr. Hooley: Does the Lord President agree that this is a constructive and helpful report? If, after the election, he becomes the shadow Leader of the House, will he give us an assurance that he will give it his full support on behalf of his party?
    Mr. Biffen: I can easily answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question by saying yes. As to the second part, I hope that in the new Parliament there will be an early opportunity to debate the report and it will be for the future House to make its resolution.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that it remains a major aim of the Government to make as much accommodation as possible available within the Palace of Westminster, as distinct from what might be described as the outbuildings of the Palace?
    Mr. Biffen: Yes, the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. The Palace of Westminster should take precedence in the distribution of accommodation for Members of Parliament.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. British Shipbuilders Act 1983.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Running Away Act 1983.
Mr. Speaker:Mr. Speaker:

2. Level Crossings Act 1983

3. Plant Varieties Act 1983.

4. Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983.

5. Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.

6. Mental Health Act 1983.

7. Pilotage Act 1983.

8. Ports (Reduction of Debt) Act 1983.

9. Water Act 1983.

10. Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983.

11. Energy Act 1983.

12. Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Act 1983.

13. Hampshire Act 1983.

And to the following Measures, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:

1. Pastoral Measure 1983 (No. 1).

2. Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1983 (No. 2).

The Clerk of the House
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the House:
"Dear Mr. Speaker,
Having completed thirty-seven years in the service of the House, of which twenty-one have been spent at the Table, I believe that the time is now ripe for my retirement, which I would accordingly wish to take effect from 31st July next.
To serve the House in any capacity is a pleasure and an honour, and to have done so in its highest permanent office is a privilege indeed. I shall relinquish that office with memories of a thousand fruitful and friendly contacts with colleagues in all Departments, hon. Members and occupants of the Chair, which the passage of time will never erase."
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It is always an occasion for regret when the House is informed of the retirement of one of its distinguished servants. Today is no exception, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will have listened to your announcement with sorrow. For the moment, however, I should like to suggest, in accordance with custom, that we reserve our fuller comments for a later day.

BILLS PRESENTED
  DOG LICENCES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (No. 2)
  Sir John Langford-Holt, supported by Mr. Jack Aspinwall and Mr. Peter Bottomley, presented a Bill to require the attachment to collars of dogs of visible indications of the date of issue of dog licences; and to increase the fee for dog licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
  ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL (GREATER LONDON)
  Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to make further provision for the control of road traffic in the Greater London area: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

  Business of the House
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a brief announcement about business.
  In view of the Prime Minister's announcement, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were not to proceed with the main business on today's Order Paper, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, but to move to item 2, the motion on the European Community document on the special programme to combat hunger in the world.
  Following discussions through the usual channels, the business for the remainder of the week will be rearranged and I propose to make a further statement to the House later today. It is my intention that the House should be given appropriate advance warning of my statement.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard the Leader of the House refer to an announcement by the Prime Minister. It is the custom, I think, for such announcements to be made to the House of Commons. This is gross discourtesy. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that I first knew of the announcement from a member of the Press Gallery? That was the first indication that I had. What has happened is gross discourtesy.
  Mr. John Silkin: Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker. We look forward with great pleasure to the rearrangement of business that the right hon. Gentleman will put before us. In the meantime, may I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, say that we are delighted that we are not to proceed with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill?
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand, from the announcement that has been made, that the two-day debate on defence, during which the Government's policies would have been under severe attack, is to be jettisoned?
  Mr. Speaker: We must await the business statement that is to be made later today.

Orders of the Day

  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Order read for further consideration of Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee and on Recommittal).
  To be further considered tomorrow.

Hunger in the World
3.39 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4658/83 containing the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the Special Programme to Combat Hunger in the World; and welcomes the Government's efforts to secure improvements to the proposal.
The motion before the House concerns the European Commission's proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of the special programme to combat hunger in the world. The relevant document 4658/83 was deposited in the House on 10 February and an explanatory memorandum submitted on 25 February.
The Council of Ministers has yet to discuss the proposal contained in document 4658/83. It is expected to be on the agenda for the next development council, which I understand is to meet on 9 June. I therefore particularly welcome this opportunity to explain to the House the Government's attitude to the Commission's proposal.
The essential purpose of the proposal is that the Council should adopt the legal basis necessary for the administration of the 50 million European currency units —equivalent to about £31 million—of appropriations entered in the 1983 Community budget under a new heading, article 958:
"Special programme to combat hunger in the world".
Hon. Members may wonder how it is that an item may appear on the approved budget when there is no legal basis for the expenditure. The explanation lies in the origin of the new budget item and the effect of a new procedure adopted by the Community on 30 June 1982.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to explain that all Community aid, with the important exception of the European development fund, is financed from the Community budget. This includes food aid, aid for the Mediterranean, the non-associates and emergency aid.
The Community budget process is complex. First, the Commission presents a preliminary draft to the Council. The Council, acting by qualified majority, adapts the Commission's proposals to establish the draft budget for submission to the Parliament. The Parliament can amend the draft and ultimately the Council and Parliament have to resolve their differences and establish the final budget.
The draft budget for 1983 as established by the Council included no provision for the item which we are now debating. However, the European Parliament proposed at its first reading of the 1983 budget that a new article, 958, on hunger in the world — be created with the expenditure, as I have said, of 58 million ecus. The Council decided not to include this article in the draft budget as amended and modified.
On its second reading of the draft budget, as amended and modified, the European Parliament proposed a second set of amendments. These included the reinstatement of article 958, but with 50 million ecus of expenditure. After further consideration on 17 December, the Council informed the Parliament that it could accept the Parliament's amendments in full. The budgetary procedure was thus completed and the 1983 budget was declared adopted on 21 December.
The Council, including the United Kingdom, was concerned that there should not be yet another dispute over
634
the status of an EC budget. However, the budget is not self-executing; that is, provision for expenditure is not enough. Before actual expenditure can be made, a basic regulation is needed to give the expenditure a legal base. This view, supported by the United Kingdom and several other member states, was maintained in the joint declaration signed by the presidents of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament on 30 June 1982.
As our explanatory memorandum indicated, the Council of the European Parliament, whose opinion must be sought, must undertake to use its best endeavours to act on the proposal for implementing regulation by 31 May of this year, approval of which requires a unanimous decision by the Council. I cannot now predict whether it will succeed in doing so. If it does not, it is our understanding that the Commission is required to propose an alternative use for the funds.
As I have explained, therefore, the immediate purpose of the Commission proposal is to secure from the Council a legal basis on which the Commission can implement a new programme in the 1983 budget.
As for the new programme and our attitude towards it, the amount of money involved is comparatively small, 50 million ecus, or about £31 million, compared with a total aid provison of about 900 million ecus, or about £560 million, in 1983. As the proposal stands, it would enable the Community to grant aid to all developing countries to support national food strategies and structural measures to protect national resources and to improve their utilisation, together with training in these fields.
I quote from the document to set the matter out more fully:
"The Community operations would fall into two main categories:

(1) support for beneficiary countries' food strategies or policies; such operations, aimed at increasing these countries' self-sufficiency in food, would provide assistance in the rural sector and in particular with the production, marketing, storage and transportation of food;

(2) operations with a specific 'theme', i.e. structural projects designed to protect natural resources in the developing countries and improve the way they are utilized. They would pave the way for work in areas of general interest such as the efficient use of fuelwood, reafforestation, control of desertification, village water supplies and improvement of the domestic and wild livestock population."

Training operations could be financed in those fields and, as for the geographical spread, the least developed countries would have a priority claim to improve the food position.
On the face of it, it may appear to many hon. Members to represent proposals which the Government could endorse. However, in the Government's view the title of the draft regulation is somewhat misleading, suggesting a more comprehensive and closely targeted scheme than is envisaged. We have serious reservations about several aspects of the proposal and in the absence of what we would regard as substantial improvements would find it difficult to give it our support in the Council.
Our first difficulty is in seeing how the rather general measures envisaged would add significantly or effectively to the Community's existing efforts to alleviate world hunger, a priority objective to which the Government attach much importance. The proposal merely duplicates —in a less satisfactory way—the various aid facilities already available to the Community.

635
Many of the articles of the draft regulation would require considerable refinement and clarification to ensure that these aid resources were concentrated effectively on those countries and programmes most needing and justifying selective extra support. We would not be content to leave the existing proposals to be elaborated subsequently by the Commission. It would not be unfair to suggest that the proposal illustrates well the difficulty into which the Community may get itself when it first makes a sum of money available and then has to define a policy on which to spend it.
Our second reservation concerns the rather wide geographical scope of the proposal. Hon. Members will have noticed that it is to be directed
"to all developing countries, especially the least developed".
That would, in effect, mean that countries which are signatories of contractual aid arrangements with the Community stretching over several years would also become eligible for extra aid outside the fund from the Community budget. Those are the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which benefit from the European development fund under the Lomé convention. Hitherto there has been a clear dividing line between aid negotiated on a long-term contractual basis, such as the Lomé convention or the financial protocols with the Mediterranean developing countries, and the annually established aid from the Community budget for the non-associated developing countries.
It has been an important United Kingdom aim to see that Community aid is properly balanced geographically and that the interests of poorer developing countries in Asia, whose needs are great and with which we have close links, are treated equitably. We do not agree, therefore, that countries that are already well favoured under the Lomé convention should also benefit from additional appropriations from the budget.
Before giving our support for the expenditure we would therefore wish to see the new item directed towards non-associated developing countries. It is these countries which, at the moment, do not derive so much benefit from the European Community and where there is clearly a good case for trying to provide greater assistance.
Although at this stage the funds involved are relatively modest, we believe that in another important respect an undesirable precedent would be established were the Commission's proposal to proceed as it stands. Hon. Members will be aware that we have sought to strengthen financial planning and control of the Community's aid effort. Financial aid provided under contractual arrangements, such as the Lomé convention, is one area in which such planning and control have operated relatively successfully. Were the precedent to be set of providing supplementary aid from the Community budget to countries already covered by negotiated multi-annual agreements, such as the Lomé convention, financial control would be correspondingly weakened and indeed such negotiation would to a large extent become meaningless.
I have, of course, a particular interest in this issue because of the impact of Community aid expenditure on the British aid programme. As most hon. Members know, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs frankly explained in his speech in December at the Royal Commonwealth Society, the effect of extra Community expenditure is further to put pressure on the resources available for
636
bilateral programmes. There is agreement between the two sides of the House that our bilateral programmes have always had a high reputation of which we are rightly proud and which we wish to maintain.
It will be clear from what I have said that, for several reasons, the Government do not consider the Commission's proposal one that they can support as it stands. I should like to make it equally clear, however, that although we have reservations about this particular proposal, we want to see a strengthening of the Community's efforts to combat hunger in the world.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend explain this a little more clearly? Does the proposal for additional expenditure by the Community against poverty mean that that money would have to come out of the United Kingdom aid budget and, therefore, be voted by Parliament before it could be used by the European Community?
Mr. Raison: Broadly, yes. The ways in which money is voted by Parliament are rather complicated, but, as my hon. Friend knows, we have a British aid budget that covers expenditure on aid of virtually every kind. Money spent on aid through the European Community is attributed to that budget. A consequence of providing additional forms of aid resources — the Community spending more on aid—is that a notional equivalent related to our share of the Community budget is attributed to the British aid programme. Additional Community spending on aid has an adverse effect on the size of the British bilateral programme.
Mr. Frank Hooley: I am rather puzzled. My impression was that the money came from what is called the Community's own resources. If that is so, how can it additionally be a charge on our aid programme?
Mr. Raison: The way in which the system works is that the appropriate proportion of Community spending is regarded as spending under the British aid programme, although it goes through the Community mechanism.
Two thirds of the Community's aid programme is food aid; that is to say more than ten times the amount in the current proposal. The United Kingdom is urging the Community to use these massive resources more effectively in the fight against hunger. We have urged that food aid funds should be made available more directly to help agricultural production; and, in particular, that the Commission should bring forward a draft regulation to implement article 929 of the budget, which permits appropriations for food aid, to be used instead for other more cost-effective agricultural inputs. This would be a more valuable and effective facility to combat hunger in the world than the proposed regulation to implement article 958.
A large volume of food is, in fact, already provided as aid. In 1982 about £260 million was spent on EC food aid —of which we meet a share of the cost. Additionally, in the financial year 1982–83, about £10 million was spent on food aid provided direct by the United Kingdom and about £1 million on our contributions to the World Food Programme. Apart from famine relief in genuine emergencies, food aid is not the best way of countering the problem of world hunger. There are times when famine relief is essential, but food aid can have disincentive

637
effects on indigenous agricultural production; it is difficult to administer; and it is perhaps more open than most forms of aid to misappropriation or corruption. The best way to deal with world hunger is to increase agricultural production in the developing countries to enable them to attain food self-reliance. As I shall explain in a few moments, a significant element of our aid programme is devoted to helping developing countries attain that objective.
We have suggested that the successor to the current Lomé convention, for which negotiations will soon begin, should include a specific chapter on food to promote self-reliance in food and better co-ordinate the various facilities available to achieve this. It is not that a new facility is required by the Community to cope with a new problem, far from it. The problem is rather of using an abundance of existing facilities, including food aid, the European development fund and the Community research programme, more effectively. We would, indeed, find it easier to support the proposed expenditure if it were used to supplement existing non-contractual aid programmes, unambiguously concentrated on those immense poverty stricken areas of the world that most need it. This indeed reflects the approach of successive British Governments, who have accepted the importance of developing countries of rural development and food production in particular. I should be surprised if the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) were to have a different view in the light of his experience.
So that there should be no doubt of the importance attached to the agricultural sector in British aid policy, I should like briefly to outline the principal ways in which we are helping increase food production and distribution in developing countries. Aid to the agricultural sector remains a high priority, because agriculture is the basis of the economy in nearly all developing countries. Following the Cancun summit meeting, the Prime Minister reported to the House that
"the main priority must be for developing countries to grow more food for their own people. This means giving farmers the right incentives and technical support. Aid should be designed to reinforce these objectives". — [Official Report, 26 October 1981; Vol. 10, c. 557.]
In November 1981 my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), my distinguished predecessor, told the FAO conference that
"the United Kingdom gives special support to rural development concentrating a high proportion on the poorest developing countries … we are trying to increase our total aid co-operation investment in food and agriculture both directly and indirectly".
In formulating aid policy to the agricultural sector we take into account the specific needs of different countries, but of course what we do is subject to requests from developing countries. In Asia the high priority areas are irrigation, land resource conservation and assessment, oil seeds, crop protection, forestry and agricultural research. In Africa priority is attached to agricultural policy and planning, crop protection, agricultural research —including farming systems — marketing and credit, agricultural management, livestock, forestry extension and training. Inputs are needed in many countries in post-harvest activities such as processing, storage and marketing.
While the experience of the mid-1970s demonstrated some difficulties in channelling aid resources productively
638
into the agricultural sector, it has also shown some of the constraints which need to be tackled for development of the sector and which can be relieved by effective aid. For example, there is a particular need in Africa for inputs of skilled technical manpower to enable capital aid to be absorbed effectively. We have found that programmes need longer periods of active donor involvement than in the past.
A World Bank report "Focus on Poverty" draws attention to four particular problems relating to project aid. I spent last week in New York and Washington having valuable discussions with the leaders of both United Nations organisations concerned in this area, particularly with the World Bank. Like most people who have contact with the World Bank, I was impressed by its approach and the energy with which it carried out an important job.
The report refers to four problems. First, technical constraints—for example techniques of water management in major irrigation systems, together with inadequate or corrupt water delivery practices—often deny water to both poor and downstream farmers. Second, projects often provide inadequate gains for the very poorest. They provide few direct benefits for the landless and tenants and poor farmers who find it hard to borrow and take risks. Third is pricing and post-harvest policies— inadequate price incentives can jeopardise small farm projects. Fourth is limited agricultural knowledge—success in poverty-oriented projects depends on sociological, cultural and political factors. For example, where projects have ignored the role of women in the production process, techniques and cropping systems may change in ways that adversely affect their income-earning capacity.
In seeking to meet their varied needs, we have built up and sustained in Britain a unique capability to co-operate with developing countries. Our expertise is wide ranging in scope and disciplines and is distributed over many institutions, including private firms, consultancy and contractor companies, Government-supported research stations and universities.
The agricultural sector, for example, accounts for about half of the total research and development programme commissioned by the Overseas Development Administration. Increased crop production needs new crop varieties with high yield potential and farming systems to reduce energy needs and minimise plant protection against pests, and improve plant nutrition. Such developments need basic and strategic research in institutions having very specialised expertise and facilities for the work. These largely exist in developed countries.
Relatively small investments in contracted research bring the sophisticated resources of British science to bear upon those problems. The results are simple products and techniques that can be easily understood and adopted by small-scale farmers. An input such as improved seed can be self-extending and make a major impact even in the absence of a strong extension organisation. In drawing upon our large pool of British expertise we are helped by the readiness with which expertise can be transferred from temperate to tropical situations. But, in any event, university and other research institutes in the United Kingdom already have wide experience of tropical problems. I have visited our institutes and admired the work that is being done there.
Our help to the agricultural sector as a whole under the aid programme falls into two main categories —multilateral and bilateral. On the multilateral front, we are

639
playing an important part through our contributions to the international institutions such as the World Bank, European development fund and the Food and Agricultural Organisation. The World Bank's lending for agricultural and research and development projects increased dramatically from $US 2·2 billion in 1970 to 1973 to more than $US 13·2 billion in 1978 to 1981. That was an increase from 19 to 31 per cent. of total World Bank and IDA lending. A rising share of this total supported the poorest countries and there has been greater emphasis on crops most likely to be grown or eaten by the poor. Although 1982 saw a drop in the proportion of spending to 25 per cent., that resulted mainly from a decrease in the availability of IDA funds.
The United Kingdom is a founder member of the consultative group on international agricultural research and gives full and regular support to the crucial work of its international centres in helping to build up agricultural production in developing countries. We have recently supported further Community contributions to CGIAR. There is close collaboration in agricultural research. Parts of the effort are carried out most effectively in Britain, other parts in the international centres and final adaptation in individual tropical countries. The increased yields from improved varieties produced by the centres were by 1980 feeding some 300 million people, while in the case of high-yielding rice the annual economic rate of return on the investment in the International Rice Research Institute has been estimated at about 80 per cent. Our contributions to the centres in 1983 are £4 million, bringing our total contribution to their core budgets to over £25 million since 1971, and we are proud of their achievements, in many of which British members of their staffs have played a significant part.
On the bilateral front, our aid to the agricultural sector remains a high priority. Agricultural projects involving capital aid are often associated with technical co-operation inputs such as personnel, training and consultancies. Experience shows that agricultural projects need particularly careful preparation and need to involve a wide range of expertise.
This expertise is available to us from the professional staff of the Overseas Development Administration, and from consultants in the private sector, universities and other research organisations. With changing needs and growing capacity elsewhere we have judged it possible to reduce the size of the Land Resources Development Centre and to merge the former Tropical Products Institute and Centre for Overseas Pest Research into the newly-created Tropical Development and Research Institute. We regard these organisations, with their high international reputations, as a valuable part of our aid programme and believe that these changes will make them more cost-effective. Faced with the problems of world hunger and the urgent need for practical assistance, we think it vital to ensure that we obtain the greatest possible benefits from the aid moneys that we spend.
Two examples will illustrate what we can do under our bilateral aid programme. One project about to start in the agricultural sector is for deep tubewells in Bangladesh. We are contributing £17·36 million towards this $142 million World Bank project. The main aim is to increase food production by installing 4,000 deep tubewells in areas identified as largely unsuitable for other types of tubewells. The wells will irrigate 300,000 acres and enable crops to be grown during the dry season. The project will
640
also assist farmer co-operatives as well as providing for groundwater studies and experiments to test different water distribution systems and alternative deep tubewell designs. It will be supported by British consultants.
Our aid programme to Zambia provides examples of two approaches to boosting agricultural production. To assist smallholders we have allocated £3 million plus a team of technical co-operation officers to three food-deficit districts as part of the Zambian integrated rural development programme. Under the project, oxen are being trained and sold to farmers, roads and bridges built to open up agricultural areas, local marketing organisations improved through the provision of stores and scales, and health units and village wells constructed. The project, together with economic farmgate prices—a vital element for sound agricultural development—has produced a 50 per cent. increase in maize production. To help meet the growing demand for bread in urban areas we are providing £500,000 for irrigation equipment for wheat production. This will be sold to large-scale commercial farmers. At present Zambia imports 90 per cent. of its wheat requirements.
Following a new initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury in September 1981 we are providing £1·5 million to strengthen national agricultural research systems in selected African countries. The objective is to establish strong, viable national systems which are able to make full use of research done by international centres and by developed country institutions, and of information fed back from farm studies and national extension services, to generate technology that is truly relevant to local farming communities.
I think that I have shown, I hope conclusively, that we are doing much under the aid programme to help increase food production in the Third world. We very much recognise the need for the Third world to develop its agricultural sector. We will be looking to increase the proportion of our aid going in this direction, particularly in areas where we can contribute from our special experience and capacity. However, our resources are not unlimited, and we must ensure that the funds available are directed to sensible and effective ends. It is against this background—as a donor with both a long-established commitment to alleviating hunger in the world and a concern that aid funds should be concentrated on well-devised programmes — that we have examined the European Commission's proposal for a new regulation.
We have concluded that we should therefore seek either to see very substantial improvement in the Commission's draft regulation, which is the subject of the motion before the House, or to suggest some alternative and demonstrably more effective use of the 50 million European currency units appropriated in the 1983 budget.
4.11 pm
Mr. Guy Barnett: The House will be grateful to the Minister for Overseas Development for his clear exposition of the Government's attitude to this proposal for a Council regulation. There can be no doubt about the importance of the subject of the proposal—
"the implementation of the Special Programme to Combat Hunger in the World."
As the right hon. Gentleman agreed, the proposal before the House hardly measures up to that rather grandiose title.

641
Apparently, it would provide a mere £31 million to combat world hunger. Anyone with any knowledge of the problem must be aware of the inadequacy of such a sum.
Not only does poverty in the Third world remain a vast problem, but the situation is constantly deteriorating. Despite all the fine rhetoric attached to all aid programmes, it is said that the rate of pauperisation is increasing. What is needed more than anything else, perhaps, is a coherent programme to deal with the problem. No hon. Member would doubt the good faith of Mr. Pisani, who is personally deeply concerned about the problems with which the proposal deals. But—the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this point—the proposal that we are now considering will, if anything, make the administrative problems worse.
Anyone who visits a Third world country will discover that the recipient Government is often overwhelmed by the variety of offers made to it and the variety of aid donors arriving with proposals for the assistance of the recipient country. In consequence, a considerable administrative burden is placed upon the Governments of those countries. I am therefore suspicious of a proposal which—as I understand it—lies outside the bilateral programmes of the EC countries and even outside the framework of the European development fund. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that those who have championed the idea that the EC should make a significant contribution to solving the problems of world hunger are well motivated. However, for reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has explained to the House, this proposal is open to severe criticism.
First, the sum of money suggested is inadequate even to cope with the problems of a relatively small number of countries. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman again correctly pointed out, some of the most severe problems of hunger occur in the non-associated countries rather than in those that are members of the Lomé agreement. It is in those countries, perhaps, that the principal contribution needs to be made. Again, one would wish that the EC's policies towards the Third world were properly coordinated. As I have said to the House many times, whatever contribution the EC as an institution may make to the Third world, that contribution is often vitiated by programmes that emanate from the common agricultural policy.
As the right hon. Gentleman has correctly said, food aid is often highly damaging. I say that as someone who has been involved in distributing famine relief, and has seen some of the adverse consequences that can arise from the distribution of famine relief. The arguments against food aid were well rehearsed by the right hon. Gentleman but I stress that the consequences of the indiscriminate dumping of food surpluses on world markets can be absolutely opposite to the purposes that are supposed to be served by this proposal. For instance, the food war now going on between the United States and the EC can have only the most damaging consequences for Third world countries, and particularly for farmers in those countries.
One of the most serious criticisms of food aid is not merely that it can be damaging in some respects to the markets of those who are trying to obtain proper rewards for their products, but that the temperate products produced in Europe can often alter habits of consumption in Third world countries. For instance, we may introduce
642
into some Third world countries a liking for wheat rather than maize, although wheat is expensive to produce in such countries. Some Third world countries may learn to prefer rice to maize, although it may be difficult if not impossible to produce rice in the countries concerned. The House will also be aware of the damaging consequences of the use of milk powder in the Third world.
When there is a discussion of the future of the EDF and the contribution of the EC to the Third world, I hope that there will be a proper appreciation of the damaging consequences of dumping surpluses on world markets and the damaging consequences that can arise from indiscriminate food aid. I do not deny that food aid has its value and its use. I know that a good deal of thought has already been given in various quarters to the issue of food aid, but I hope that the problem will receive even more consideration. It has a role in development but so often, through bitter experience, we have learnt the consequence of ill-thought-out programmes for the distribution of food aid.
We share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the way in which it is possible for the European development fund almost, as it were, to raid his aid Vote. Although on this occasion we are talking about a relatively small sum of money, it seems to be difficult for any British Government to plan their aid programme in coming years when they know, as this Government know, that year by year the increase in the subvention that goes to the EDF from this country can have a damaging effect on our own bilateral programme. I very much echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in praise of our own bilateral programme, particularly in the agriculture sector. Although he justifiably spoke highly of the contribution that we have been able to make in the past and of the expertise that we possess, there are reasons for anxiety.
I am not happy about the decision that the Government appear to have made to cut the size of the scientific units. The Overseas Development Administration enjoys a high reputation throughout the world for the expertise of those scientific units. I know that others, both in the House and outside, share my great anxiety. Of course, our universities make an important contribution. Only last week I paid an interesting visit to the department of development studies at the university of East Anglia, and I hope shortly to pay a visit to the institute of development studies at Sussex university. That contribution is often based on visits that are made on behalf of the World Bank by members of the staff of those institutions to Third world countries to undertake specific research. As a result, those staff are well up to date and are very much in touch with the situation in the field. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that either universities or the use of private consultants by themselves can make up for deficiencies that may arise as a consequence of a cut in the size of the scientific units.
I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the value of private consultants. When talking about the problems of water and hydrology generally, he might have mentioned the important contribution from employees of the National Water Council. The Opposition would like to discover more ways in which both public corporations and private firms can make the kind of contribution of which they are capable on the basis of expertise that they possess and which is relevant to the needs of Third world countries. That is so for water and agriculture development, transport and many other matters.

643
In general, we echo the right hon. Gentleman's reservations about the proposal and its likely consequences. We also believe that, so far as possible, there ought to be the maximum co-ordination between donor countries with regard to the contribution that they make in Third world countries. I have reason to believe that the intention of Mr. Pisani — although I do not know what has become of it now—was that, so far as possible, the proposal was designed to be some kind of European co-ordination of the effort that Europe as a whole made in Third world countries. If it was his objective so far as possible to achieve a measure of cooperation between the countries of Europe, we have no objection to that, but so often the trouble has been that one country has tried to compete with the objectives and programmes of another. We should welcome any attempt to co-ordinate aid in a much more sensible fashion.
From the proposal before us, it does not seem that that is the likely consequence. I am therefore glad that the right hon. Gentleman made the speech that he did and entered the reservations that he did. I very much hope that, as a consequence, the proposal will be reconsidered and that some of our objections will alter the form of regulation that eventually emerges.
4.26 pm
Mr. Percy Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a brief contribution. This may well be the last speech that I make in the House of Commons, because, in view of the Prime Minister's announcement today, not many debating days are left. By saying that, I hope that I shall not be excluded from catching Mr. Speaker's or Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye if the occasion arises, but I must be realistic and say that this may well be the last time that I shall speak.
I am grateful for the fact that I am able to participate in a debate on matters which, throughout my 19 years in the House, I have had very much at heart — our membership of the European Community, for which I fought very hard and supported with all my heart, and our duties to the Third world. We are one world and, whether unilaterally as a country with a great colonial and imperial past and great experience, or multilaterally as part of the European Community, we have a great role to play in helping the Third world to help itself. That was the theme of the speeches of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett).
Aid to the Third world, particularly to those who are in want and starving, must take two forms, dependent on the nature of the operation in which one is engaged. We all know that in the Third world great crises such as starvation and drought arise, which call for immediate aid, such as we have seen in central Africa, Ethiopia and, alas, in many other parts of the world. They call for unilateral aid by us and multilateral aid by the Community, and demand that we do all we can to help our fellow humans who are suffering. That calls for food aid, sometime on a great scale.
I am given cause for hope for the world by the way in which society, not merely Parliaments or Governments, responds to the call of those who suffer when these great crises arise, especially as we have never been found wanting, nor have or our partners in the European Community or the richer countries. As to the long-term problem of helping poorer countries, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the mere export of food is far
644
from enough. We must help people in those countries to help themselves by sharing our expertise, technological and agricultural knowledge and giving them advice about crops that are suitable for their areas. I share my right hon. Friend's reservations about the Commission's proposals because they concentrate too much on exporting food and not enough on other much more constructive ways of helping.
I should like to pay tribute not only to official channels of help but to unofficial ones such as Voluntary Aid Overseas which has brought out the best in many young people in Britain, other European countries and the free world. Britain has an enormous part to play as we have long experience of the Third world. Although it is unfashionable to do so, I speak with pride of a remote colonial and imperial past which gave a great deal to the world. We built up enormous experience of tropical and sub-tropical countries, so we know how to help them. We should continue to use that experience to help those countries as my right hon. Friend suggested.
I do not resent the intrusion on our own aid budget of our having to contribute to the EC aid fund. There is room for both. One of the great virtues of belonging to the Community is that we can act as one on many issues such as foreign and economic policy and in regard to attitudes to the Third world whether it be for defence or aid. We should not begrudge that contribution but approach the matter constructively. In doing so, we should criticise and help as my right hon. Friend suggested. That is why I support the motion. I hope that we shall bring constructive criticism to bear and that the Community's final proposals will be the better for our suggestions.
4.33 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Almost everyone believes that overseas aid and aid to the Third world are a good thing, but one of the ironies of British politics is that whereas the volume of support for the idea is substantial the amount of money that is spent on it is pitifully small. I regret that the Government have not said that they will put up more money.
It is especially regrettable that, as I understand what the Minister said, not only will there not be more money as a result of this initiative, but the proposal amounts merely to the EC saying that it wants to decide how some of cur aid will be spent rather than our being able to decide. Although I regret that we do not spend more, on the whole, British overseas aid has been spent well. Our programme has been fairly well thought out and targeted at the right areas. We have more expertise and are more efficient than is evident in the programme that is being advanced in this directive. I hope that we shall resist the proposal that others should spend the money, and insist that we continue to control our aid programme.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that the tube wells that will be built in Bangladesh as a result of British aid have been carefully thought out. I understand that earlier aid programmes to build wells in the delta region of Bangladesh resulted in a lowering of the water table. There was great rejoicing where one well was sunk but a village not far away found that its water was no longer pure and became increasingly saline because the lowering of the water table meant that the well drew in water from the Indian ocean. That is one of the sad aspects of aid programmes for sinking wells. The community that has the new well enjoys the benefits but another's water supply is

645
spoilt. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the new scheme guarantees to increase the water supply rather than to reallocate it.
I should like to press the Minister about how much the Government are able to help Ethiopia and test our aid programme to that country during the past 10 years. We are all aware that there was a disastrous famine in Ethiopia in the early 1970s. Although Britain tried hard, and with some success, to provide emergency food, vast numbers of people died. Many hon. Members said that that should never happen again and that it was important not simply to feed people when they were starving but to give them the resources to be able to grow enough food. We should assist them with irrigation programmes so that the problem would not recur. We also should help with communications so that if there was a surplus of food in one part of the country it could be moved to another.
I understand that, nearly 10 years later, Ethiopia faces exactly the same problems. I hope that they are not on the same scale. Reports conflict. It is sad that aid from Europe and other advanced countries does not seem to have improved matters. Once again, there is a desperate need for immediate food aid. Can the Minister tell us what has happened in the past 10 years?
I am aware that the first problem in Ethiopia is to establish peace. It is sad that the benefit of aid is partially destroyed because of civil war in the northern part of the country. It is unfortunate that the Government, the EC or the United Nations have not been able to persuade the Ethiopians that their problems can be settled peacefully and that they have a common problem to fight—hunger and malnutrition. Can the Minister tell us the quantity of emergency food aid that is going to Ethiopia and how effectively it is being distributed?
To what extent in the next 12 months shall we be able to offer Ethiopia long-term schemes to help solve the water and drought problem? Many countries in the central belt of Africa and near the Sahara have a major problem with the irregularity of rainfall. It might be possible to grow sufficient crops one year but then, because of a small difference in rainfall, there is an utterly inadequate harvest the following year and a major food shortage. The terrain in Ethiopia is extremely rugged and uneven which, unfortunately, leads to food surpluses in some parts, and food transportation difficulties to the areas most in need.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the document is relevant to the real problems of the inhabitants of Ethiopia, who are starving now as they were 10 years ago, and whether it can guarantee that the next time the rain fails in such a country those people will not starve again?
4.41 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: One reason why I supported Britain's joining the European Community was that, properly organised, the Community could lend greater assistance to the poorer countries than could Britain alone, and that therefore our membership of the Community would strengthen our ability to help the poorest nations. The document falls little short of a tragedy in achieving that end. It is fruitless for the EC to remove from its members, especially Britain, the control of their own aid budgets. The Minister's answer to my comment in an intervention, that that would involve a reduction in
646
the money available for bilateral programmes, means just that. I support the criticism made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett).
If our aim is co-ordination, for which there is a well-recognised need in the Third world which Mr. Pisani embraced, we should co-ordinate national aid programmes to poor countries as suggested by the component parts of the Community. We must make certain, for example, that the economic policies adopted by a developing country and the projects that it accepts from donor countries do not compete with each other but add to the sum of wealth and possible development of that country. All hon. Members can name countries in which competition between aid organisations has led to the efforts of one country offsetting the efforts of another, with the result that economic, development and hunger problems become worse. I should have expected Mr. Pisani and others in the Commission to aim for co-ordination, but the document does nothing towards that end.
It is unfortunate that the document is aimed solely at food aid. Although famine relief is part of food aid in a general sense, it does not seek to generate food production in the host country, and therefore I shall put it on one side. Food for famine relief and emergency supply must be properly co-ordinated and controlled. The hon. Member for Greenwich made a telling point when he said that he had witnessed the distribution of emergency food aid. Frequently, food does not reach those who need it; it arrives in the wrong form and there is much corruption in its distribution. All hon. Members can tell horror stories about food aid. However, I shall not discuss that defect because the document seeks to stimulate food production. One way in which the European Community could and should help is to reduce its production of surplus products, such as sugar.
Sugar is produced in the developing countries, but it is already in over-supply in the world. During the past 10 years the EC has increased its production of sugar and flooded the world market, thus reducing the market price and making it impossible for many countries to help themselves by selling their sugar at a price at least above their costs of production. Many developing countries must now sell their surplus sugar at prices below the cost of production, which substantially reduces their wealth and their ability to help themselves. In that sense, the £31 million proposed in the order is laughable. It replaces billions of pounds with a mere gesture, and I wonder why the Community has put it forward. Beneficial and sympathetic trade policies will assist the developing world far more than aid given indiscriminately.
We all have horror stories about food aid. I especially remember a United Nations agency programme among the Amerindians in Guyana in South America. After a study by a nutritionist of the diet of the Amerindian population, a report was published showing that it suffered serious deficiencies in some foodstuffs. Oxfam's reaction to the report was understandably sympathetic. It wished to help and, through the United Nations agency, it arranged for food to be shipped up the long rivers in Guyana, and portered across the rapids, to feed the Amerindian population. The Indians' reaction was to give up their food production altogether, except for the production of cassavu, which is a basic ingredient of their impure alcoholic drink. The food aid simply increased the consumption of alcohol and the inebriation in the Amerindian villages, which probably added to their

647
enjoyment but also added to disease because the impure alcohol induced sterility and blindness. That is one example of good intentions going awry when giving food to unsophisticated areas.
The United Nations agency decided that the programme was not assisting the development of the Amerindians, and it cut off the food supply without warning. The vessels ceased to sail up the rivers, and starvation began. Many people died in those communities. If we must provide food aid, it should be coupled with additional food production in those countries.
I was interested in my right hon. Friend's description of the way in which we are assisting food production in Zambia, which is seriously short of food although it should not be. However, the growing of food and hybrid seeds, the development of new agricultural and horticultural practices, and the training of unsophisticated farmers in the use of fertilisers alone will not increase the total production of food from the soil. Marketing and transportation are also important. At present, the highlands of Tanzania are producing a surplus of good quality wheat, rice and sorghum, thanks to another excellent effort under Britain's bilateral aid programme through the Commonwealth Development Corporation. However, if the food cannot be transported to where it is needed, especially in Dar es Salaam on the coast, where there is much starvation, that production is entirely lost. That is happening in Tanzania today.
Food production has become a problem in Ghana, which used to be a rich country that could produce its own food. Because of the economic situation, and the political chaos that has unfortunately been the hallmark of Ghana over the past 20 years, Ghanaians are now not exporting their cocoa through the normal channels, and are thereby impoverishing the nation and its agricultural methods. As a result, they are reducing their ability to produce food for themselves. Any aid aimed at Ghana should not be aimed through the EC in this way, but should be aimed at administration and marketing of food and the improving of the financial and economic climate in which the farmers are trying to grow these products.
Food aid as such is suspect and needs special techniques and attention. It has had that, remarkably, through the World Bank programme in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. As a result of the efforts of the World Bank there will be a breakthrough, and soon India will not only be self-sufficient in rice production but will export rice to other needy countries. This is a result of the increased production methods introduced by the World Bank and helped by the hybrid seeds that have been developed, the change in agricultural methods and the increase in storage facilities—another thing that is often forgotten in food production — as well as the improvement in the transportation communication methods to distribute that food in a proper and profitable way, both to those who consume and those who produce it. We need to follow such examples.
That brings me back to the craziness of trying to add yet another way to send food assistance to these that already exist in the Community. There are already the bilateral programmes, the European Investment Bank, which acts as an agent of the European development fund, the European development fund itself, and now there will be yet another method to try to direct such aid to
648
developing countries. This is bound to lead to further lack of co-ordination and further misuse of limited technical and financial resources.
We should refuse to have anything to do with this document until the EC puts its house in order. The House of Lords has produced a good report on the EC's food and aid programmes, which was critical of the European development fund achievements during this period. Those criticisms are justified, but nobody in the EC has taken them up and begun to answer them. Mr. Pisani has produced no answer for the co-ordination of our efforts in aid in the EC, and nor has he been to see us to discuss ways in which we can assist the simplification of this process and the reduction of administrative delay which characterise much of the EC efforts in this direction. Not until the EC addresses these matters closely can we consider any further assistance to the European development fund or to any other of its proposals.
As we approach the Lomé convention renegotiations that are to take place within the next 18 months, it is absurd to introduce a new administrative arrangement for focusing European aid assistance without consulting the countries that are to receive the aid. The Lomé negotiations will provide just such a forum. For the European countries alone, without any consultation—there is no evidence of consultation with the respective recipient countries of the aid — to produce the programme in the form we have is ill considered and insensitive.
Any negotiation of European development work should be discussed with those who are to receive it so that we can get their ideas on how Europe could provide the best possible framework of which they could take advantage. No effort has been made to consult anybody outside Europe. We should also be consulting the United Nations agencies and others who work in this sphere to make certain that what we are proposing in Europe co-ordinates and works together with other agencies throughout the world so that we go along in parallel, aiming at producing proper development in those countries.
I beg the Minister, when he attends the Council meeting —which I hope will come up while he is still in office and before the calling of the general election because I know that he can make a major contribution—to tell our European partners that they must produce a coherent policy that is administratively sensible. The European Development Bank, which is an agency of the European development fund, has not been effective in focusing aid where it is needed. The bank was set up not as an agency for development in Third world countries but to organise aid to countries within Europe. I have grave doubts as to whether its methods or knowledge are sufficient to effect proper aid development in the Third world.
Our consultants can put a feather in their cap for the degree to which the European Development Bank relies on British consultants to make certain that aid goes to the countries in a way that is useful and can be properly controlled. It shows that the European Development Bank itself does not have the resources to do that work. We need to reform the bank and the fund. We must reform the trade practices of the European Community so that they are consistent with our aid and development ideas. To run a surplus in sugar, dairy products and grain as we do, and to export it to the world, thus depressing world prices, is absurd, and we must find our way out. We must tell our European partners that the money should come not from

649
national aid budgets but from the money now put into the CAP in Europe. It will thus be directed at the proper objectives that we should be trying to seek, and the money coming out of the European subsidies programme to stimulate the development in the Third world, which will enable those countries to purchase more products from Europe, will make a more healthy and faster expanding world trade and prosperity both in Europe and in the developing countries concerned.
Those should be the objectives that are combined with trade and aid and our national programmes so that all Europe, in a determined fashion, can say to the Third world "Yes, we shall assist you, but we shall do so in all aspects and not selfishly look after our own interests all the time."
4.58 pm
Mr. Clinton Davis: It is nearly 13 years since I made my maiden speech in the House, and it may be that this is my last speech, although not because of the efforts of the Conservative party. I hope that that is not the case because I should like to continue to serve Hackney in the House, but it may not be up to me. However, I shall leave those personally poignant observations.
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), who speaks with great clarity, sincerity and knowledge of the topics to which he has alluded in his speech.
It is nearly three years since I led a small delegation of the British branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to Guyana. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage was a valued member of the team and I learned a great deal from him because of his intimate knowledge of Guyana, where he had worked for a considerable number of years. On that occasion we worked very closely together. I was not permitted to speak my mind completely as to what I had seen. Had I done so it would, I gather, have brought the whole of the CPA tumbling down into ruins. However, what I saw there lends great credence to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the way in which aid is administered or, on occasions, maladministered.
I should like to refer to one or two other points in the hon. Gentleman's compelling speech. Perhaps at this juncture in the nation's political development I should not pay the hon. Gentleman so many compliments. However, I am not sure that the issues raised by the debate will figure very largely in his election campaign; I only wish that it were so. He rightly observed that the prime duty of Britain and the European Community is to assist developing countries so that they may themselves be able to create additional ways of producing food. I am sure that that is absolutely right, because it is one, at least, of the ways to mitigate any corrupting influences that might be at work, and it is obviously the most beneficial way in which Third world countries can develop what they particularly require —and not, as the hon. Gentleman said, develop at the behest of the developed nations and the European Community in particular.
The objective cannot be achieved unless there is the maximum degree of co-operation and consultation with people who have an expertise on the ground and who know what is required. Many such people have given a dedicated lifetime of service to the cause of Third world countries.
650
I share the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the lack of consultation that has taken place with agencies and individuals who would be able to make a positive and significant contribution.
I am a little troubled about the way in which the Government go about their task of providing aid for the Third world. I shall not refer now to the arguments about the percentage of gross national product that Britain should be providing in that respect, because it widens the argument too much for the purposes of this speech. I can best exemplify my anxiety by referring to Nicaragua, which I visited recently when I went to Central America.
I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the information that the Government derive about Central America is not gained first-hand. For example, our ambassador to Nicaragua is based in Costa Rica. He visits Nicaragua on about 40 days a year. That is grotesquely inadequate for a country that has now assumed, rightly or wrongly, a very important role in Central America, although I do not believe that this is the wish of Nicaragua.
It is part of the United States' strategy, regrettably, to pay overdue attention to Central America, and inadequate attention to the problems of Latin America as a whole. It has the effect of distorting American policies. It is unjustifiably putting Nicaragua beyond the pale, and it is, I believe, a policy of sheer self-destruction from the American point of view.
Some time ago I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office why the British Government had obstructed a European Community aid programme to Nicaragua. I apprehended that the central reason for it was that the British Government did not wish to give offence to the United States, and that our trading interests in Nicaragua were minimal. I think that we have a balance of trade advantage of £1 million. We export about £2 million worth of goods and materials to Nicaragua, and Nicaragua exports about £1 million worth of goods to us. Therefore, the word "minimal" is about the right description for what is occurring. I also believe that the Government have been making assumptions about Nicaragua that are derived from American opinions, which are themselves based upon ideological considerations.
The British Government alone obstructed the provision of aid to Nicaragua—aid that other EC nations wanted to provide. The grounds that the Government advanced for that attitude were, among others, that there were higher priorities in the area, although those remained rather mysterious; that the Nicaraguans were guilty of breaches of human rights on a substantial scale, although that is a simple reflection of United States propaganda of. and information, to which I shall refer in a moment; and that they pay inadequate regard to social justice and land reform.
I have never heard such inadequate or untrue reasons advanced for obstructing an aid programme. I do not know of the higher priorities in Central America to which the Government are applying themselves. As the Minister knows, I shall have to be elsewhere when he replies to the debate, so I shall read his remarks with interest. I should like to know what are the higher priorities in Central America.
With regard to breaches of human rights, I visited the area to which the Meskito Indians had been moved from the frontier areas between Nicaragua and Honduras. I was with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and Lord Chitnis. We were not obstructed in any way when we

651
visited a village of about 2,500 people. We were able to speak to the people there through our own interpreter, free of any encumbrance from the Government. The people spoke their minds to us. They did not much like living in an area quite as large as that and did not like being moved from their homes, but they recognised that there was no alternative in view of the fighting that had been taking place on the borders. There were no barbed wire fences around the village. People were able to come and go as they wished, and they did so. Yet, when I went to the American embassy in Tegusigalpa in Honduras, I was told that the area I had visited was in a state of uprising. That was patently untrue.
I do not say for a moment that the Nicaraguan Government's response to the problems of an indigenous people has been in every respect a great advertisement for that Government. I think that the contrary is the case. The Government have sought to promote the advantages of the revolution in a way that was not appreciated by an indigenous people, but I think that the Government tried to do their best. The provision of decent housing, with electricity supplies and with piped water—and pure water at that—was an immensely important advantage.
The American Government take a different view, based not on clear and direct knowledge of the position but on what they wish to imagine is the position. Unhappily, the British Government assist them in that respect and deny an aid programme to Nicaragua on that ground.
When they speak of inadequate regard for social justice, and criticise the position in Nicaragua, compared with that existing in other Central American countries, leaving aside Costa Rica, it is quite laughable. The promotion of social justice has been one of the most important elements in the Nicaraguan Government's campaign to improve living standards.
Conservative, Liberal and Labour Members of Parliament—I am not an extremist nor an apologist for the Nicaraguan Government—will find many faults in the political system of that country. However, that Government have demonstrably tried to improve the social conditions of people by embarking upon a viable programme of land reform and ensuring that refugees from El Salvador are given a fresh start in life on land provided by the Government. For the British Government to advance those reasons as a ground for refusing aid to Nicaragua is a grotesque perversion of the truth.
I have no doubt that Nicaragua desperately needs technological assistance, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage advocated, to provide additional methods of producing food for its people. Oxfam, Christian Aid and another voluntary agency sought help from the Government for the provision of £150,000 a year to develop schemes that are of immeasurable benefit—as we saw for ourselves, in agriculture—in the open prison that I visited and in a variety of other ways. The Government's reply was that aid funds were under considerable pressure and there were no available resources. That perfectly reasonable request was rejected. I suggest that it was rejected because the Government were examining the problems of Nicaragua partly on ideological grounds. Furthermore, I suggest that that decision was reached because the Government did not wish to cause offence to the United States, because that is how the provision of such aid would be construed. That decision has caused immense harm to building up what should be
652
a firm, friendly and critical relationship between Britain and Nicaragua. I deeply regret the reasons that stood in the way of providing that assistance.
I beg the Government not to adopt an ideological stance about this issue. Nicaragua is not beyond the pale. Countries such as Nicaragua need technological help to do precisely what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage urged. I urge the Government not to turn aside the pleas of Oxfam, Christian Aid and others. Those organisations have people working hard with great dedication, day in and day out, in the service of poor and deprived peasant people. They appreciate the dangers to those people and are striving to avert them. The Government should play their part. If we do not hear the voices of the hungry, and it does not matter whether they come from Left or Right-wing countries, others most certainly will and they will take advantage of the position. I beg the Government to re-examine their posture on this matter.
5.15 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: It may be tactless to refer to the attendance at this important debate, but the nation will understand why the Benches are sparsely populated even though Opposition right hon. and hon. Members have been so critical of the Government's overseas aid policy and now have an opportunity to express those objections. The dissolution of Parliament is imminent, after which I trust a Conservative Administration will be returned to further the recovery of Britain. That will enable this country to be more effective in restoring the world's economy as a whole and in giving assistance to less fortunate people.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) for not having heard everything that he said. My remarks will be somewhat reminiscent, as were the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). I felt a little sad when the hon. Gentleman said that his speech was possibly a swan song in the House of Commons. I hope not. It would not be to the credit of the party system if the next Parliament were deprived of the hon. Gentleman's attendance. The hon. Gentleman is a moderate. His speeches in the House have been of a high quality and he has been listened to with great respect. Those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be returned to the House will, I trust, have the opportunity to hear him again.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Christain Aid and to Nicaragua. I echo his appeal that starvation should not be treated ideologically. The Government should not decide whether to help people who are hungry because of the character of the regime under which they have to live, perhaps unwillingly. Such a problem has arisen in connection with Ethiopia. Worry has been expressed, not so much because of the charactor of the Ethiopian Government, but because of reports that some of the aid for famine relief was misdirected. There have been reassuring reports on that score. If those reports are true, I do not object in any way to the Ethiopian people being helped in their distress. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central that the Government should not adopt an ideological stance. However, Christian Aid does adopt an ideological stance on occasions. It produces a journal that is highly ideological and often hostile to the principles and policy of Her Majesty's Governmentt. As a result, I find difficulty in supporting that organisation.

653
I saw the Bengal famine when I was a young officer in the war zones of east Bengal and Arakan in 1942. I remember searching for hoarded grain and forcing it out of rich men's houses and barns almost at bayonet point. Then I realised that that famine was not caused by shortage of money or shortage of grain, but was man-made to a large extent. The problem was one not of money, but of administration and human greed.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of listening to people on the ground. I was one of the people on the ground at that time and, although I do not suppose Sir Richard Attenborough would believe it, I think that some of us presented an acceptable face of imperialism.
It is not always a question of money, and much money is already going out from this country in food aid —about £70 million, and that is in addition to United Kingdom national actions costing £20 million and food aid from the EC, which constitutes about two fifths of its aid programme.
In many Third world countries where there is hunger and starvation, the ideological actions deprecated by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central have, as in eastern Europe, resulted in efficient food producers being expropriated or liquidated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage said that Zambia, a country about which I know a little, having visited it several times, ought to be an exporter of grain, but actually imports grain and depends to a great extent on supplies from a country to the south of which the Zambian Government thoroughly disapprove.
A disproportionate amount of food production in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe comes from those producers who are allowed to be independent, and the same is true in the countries of central Africa and elsewhere, which, for their own ideological reasons, have followed the example of eastern Europe.
Food aid should be directed towards its own abolition. That is not only my opinion; it is the opinion of Mr. Pisani. All aid should be directed to making aid unnecessary.
When I was last in southern Africa there was a story current about the visit to Zimbabwe by President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. He is supposed to have said to President Robert Mugabe, "There is something you can do for me." Mr Mugabe asked, "What's that?" President Nyerere replied, "You can send us a few hundred of your white farmers."
A large proportion of the food production in Zambia and Zimbabwe comes from a small private sector of agriculture and anything that is done, for ideological or other reasons, to discourage white farmers from remaining in those countries is likely to increase food scarcity.
There is a moral for the rest of the aid programme. Labour Members may object to a mention of the value of market forces, but it is worth noting that the Third world countries that have paid some regard to market forces and have made it possible for private enterprise to flourish, experience less scarcity and poverty and have made more progress.
Through Commonwealth agencies, EC agencies and others, everything should be done within our resources to encourage production, what is called intermediate technology and to give people the help and advice that they
654
need to enable them to do without any more help and advice. That is the general tenor of the policy that we should pursue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage referred to the remarkable transformation of Indian agriculture. The green revolution in India is perhaps one of the most revolutionary events of modern times. We should be keen, not to throw money about, but to help producers to help themselves and Governments to pursue policies that make sense.
5.25 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I have considerable pleasure in taking part in the debate. It does not divide us on party lines, because, although we may have our own ideas about the most effective way of directing aid to those in need, there is unanimity in the House that there is a clear, direct and immediate responsibility upon the wealthier countries to help alleviate the suffering in less fortunate countries, that we cannot shuffle off that responsibility and that the Government have not sought to avoid it.
I realise that many who advocate more generous overseas aid are dissatisfied with the efforts of any Government and, over the years, successive Governments have been criticised for their actions in the light of the economic circumstances of the time.
However, in the last full year for which records are available, this country's achievement in providing a proportion of its gross national product which was almost 25 per cent. above the average of other OECD countries, which, on the whole, are rather better off than us on a per capita basis, is no mean feat. It is an effort that we should hold up as an example of what can be done and will continue to be done as our national resources increase with the restoration of prosperity that I trust we shall see in the years to come.
I hesitate to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) in his absence, although, as he will be subjected to much more criticism over the next few weeks, as will the rest of us, perhaps he will not take it amiss if I express a modest disagreement with what he said. He was less than generous in describing the European Community's initiative and he gave the impression that it was simply a sop and that providing food was not solving the problems of the poorest countries. There was also an implied suggestion that the EC was producing unnecessary food surpluses and was simply seeking more acceptable ways of disposing of them.
I have discussed these matters on many occasions with constituents who are particularly concerned about overseas aid. I pay tribute to the members of the world development movement who have kept me up to scratch on these issues since 1979 and who will, I trust, feel it necessary to do so for some time to come. They take an absolutely disinterested and non-partisan view, and they regularly press me to make it clear that the main priority is that of providing food for the hungry. Of course, we all want the infrastructure of underdeveloped countries to be improved, as well as improvements in transport, education and health services, but it is essential to create and maintain food supplies if the people in less developed countries are to play their part in the development of the economic infrastructure of their countries.
I therefore welcome the initiative that has been taken by the European Community. Perhaps I might mention

655
some of the details. In fact, it is not a programme for handing out food, although those of us who have seen the pictures of starving men, women and children, in central and east Africa and elsewhere, would not take exception to the idea of simply handing out food to people who are in such great need.
Article 2 clearly establishes that the aid shall be directed towards developing countries, "especially the least developed". It is surely in those countries that the development of adequate and reliable food supplies must be a priority. With food to give them health and strength, the people of the underdeveloped countries and their friends overseas can co-operate in the further developments that may take them out of the category of "least developed".
It is clearly stated in article 3 that Community aid shall be directed towards those programmes
"which the beneficiary countries have decided to undertake".
This is not something that is imposed from outside, or something in which the wealthy or relatively wealthy and relatively successful countries simply tell others how to proceed. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), who said that we should not direct our aid either to those countries that we find politically attractive or away from those that we find politically unattractive. Our aid should go where the need is greatest, as long as there is a guarantee that the aid will go to those who require the aid most.
In paragraph 2 of article 3, I note that the measures are to support
"the production, marketing, storage and transportation of agricultural products."
So it is not just the original production, but the further stages of the development of agriculture from production through to the market place. That is essential in many countries, not only the poorest, on the basis of per capita income. We are sometimes misled by per capita income figures. Some countries appear to have relatively comfortable levels of average income, but they include pockets of the most gross and abysmal poverty. We should remember those areas, as well as the countries that have the lowest income per capita.
I draw particular attention to paragraph 3 of article 3 about
"reafforestation and prevention of the extension of desert".
There is evidence, which no doubt we have all studied over the past few years, that there are climatic changes in areas on each side of the Equator which are leading to changes in the natural ground cover and directly affecting agricultural activities, particularly to the north of the Equator and on the southern reaches of what was traditionally the Sahara. I suggest that in past, at least, human activity has encouraged the encroachment of the desert. The overgrazing of the land, the ploughing of marginal land, and the cutting down of timber for fencing, housing and fuel have reduced the ability of the land to regenerate itself from year to year, and have allowed the encroachment of the desert.
Mr. Matthew Parris: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know the Sahara region quite well, and I endorse what my hon. Friend says, particularly about overgrazing. I believe that donkeys and goats do far more to advance the spread of the desert than climatic changes.
Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was going to say that in my own speciality,
656
the study of the United States, I have examined in detail the problems of the middle-west states in the 1920s and 1930s — the so-called "dust bowl" in Oklahoma and Arkansas, for example. There, problems were caused in areas that traditionally had been grasslands as a result of overploughing and the removal of afforestation. I therefore welcome this as a way in which it may be possible to arrest the encroachment of the desert on land that previously was suitable for either grazing or cultivation.
A key to all this will be the education and training programme that is mentioned in paragraph 4 of article 3. It is difficult to explain to people that larger numbers of cattle or other animals, which have often been the traditional form of wealth, are not advantageous in themselves, and that fewer, more selectively bred animals may be far more wealth-producing for the future, and may cause far less damage to the surrounding soil.
I mentioned my constituency earlier, as I am sure many of us will do over the coming weeks. I simply want to jog the Minister's memory, 'while he is captive on the Front Bench, about the proposal that arose in Portsmouth from a retired lecturer at the Portsmouth polytechnic. He has spent many years in service overseas on the development of food programmes. He has developed a design for a machine which places a thin layer of asphalt underneath the porous topsoil in areas where rainfall is deficient. The effect is that, whereas normally the rain drains away and water may be available at a considerable depth, by placing a non-porous layer beneath the topsoil the water is kept at such a depth that it does not immediately evaporate and is available for the production of crops. No doubt my right hon. Friend will recall that he has already arranged for one of his technical officers to examine the project. The scheme would probably have high capital costs but it would bring enormous benefits in the long run. This may be the type of project for the European Community to espouse in helping to develop countries north of the Equator and south of the Sahara.
Finally, I welcome the fact that this initiative has been taken by the European Community. I have been critical of that organisation on many occasions, and I am certainly not uncritical of it now, but following what was said by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central about the problems of political orientation, it seems to me that aid should be made available by groups of countries instead of by individual national Governments. That way it may be more acceptable to the recipient countries. Countries that are poor are grateful for aid, but they often have their pride and feel that they may be pawns in a world political struggle in which they are drawn on to the side that offers them aid. The EC is a firm and staunch part of the Western world but its aid does not carry the same political implication as that from a national Government. The EC contains within its boundaries Governments of varied complexions. Therefore, it is able to offer overseas aid without the recipient feeling that it is coming from a country with one particular political programme as its guide.
We are discussing a special programme to combat hunger in the world. Over the next few weeks, I fear that there will be much sound and fury and that we shall find much on which to disagree. Perhaps here this afternoon we can all find full agreement in discussing a programme to combat world hunger.
5.40 pm
Mr. Richard Luce: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who has considerable knowledge of and has shown much thoughtfulness about some of the problems that the developing countries face. In particular, he highlighted many of the problems that are faced by African countries and I find myself in close agreement with much of what he had to say.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister for not hearing all his speech, but, if it is any comfort to him, I found myself in complete accord with that which I did hear. I share some of his reservations about the proposal, which, in broad terms, is excellent. I welcome the fact that, due to events this week, we have a fortuitous chance to discuss what, after all, if we think about it deeply, is of great importance, not just to the developing world, but to ourselves. If the developing world can succeed in tackling some of its grave agriculture problems with the help of the European Community, we can trade more with them, thus benefiting Britain's trade, standard of living and job opportunities. The issue is singularly important.
I want to make a small contribution to this debate, having been, for the first three years of this Government, a Minister with particular responsibility for African affairs, but also for the Caribbean and Latin America. I hope that it will be of some value to the debate. The more I travelled round Africa and the Caribbean, the more strongly I felt that the key to the prospects of the developing countries in the last part of this century centred on their ability to be more self-sufficient in agriculture. One reason why the African continent is suffering grave economic setbacks, which in turn cause acute political problems, is that so many African countries have become less and less self-sufficient in agriculture, which has created greater unemployment and structural unemployment as well, and greater political instability.
Let us take the first example that comes to mind. We have recently seen in west Africa the serious exodus of illegal immigrants from Nigeria. When I say serious, I am not criticising the Nigerian Government for deciding that illegal immigrants must go. One must ask why, not just thousands of people, but, according to the estimates, at least 1 million—principally from Ghana—were recently asked to leave Nigeria so quickly. Ghana had and has great economic and agricultural potential. It is close to the United Kingdom in historic terms and in its trade and agricultural ties. Yet its agricultural production has not succeeded. In fact, it has had increasingly serious difficulties. The result was a declining standard of living and much poverty, and therefore its people flocked to other countries, principally Nigeria, the nearest country to offer the prospect of jobs and a higher standard of living. Had Ghana succeeded in recent years in increasing its agricultural production, that serious problem would not have arisen.
Last week the Foreign Minister of the state of Benin paid an official visit to Britain. I am glad that he did so, because it is important that we get to know some of the leaders of the Francophone states in Africa. During his visit he brought home not only the seriousness of the crisis which the exodus of so many people from Nigeria had created for his country, but some evidence, which he said was now becoming increasingly available, that more and
658
more of those who went from Nigeria to Ghana were now flowing back into Nigeria because they found conditions in their villages in Ghana so serious.
It all comes back to the problem which we are now discussing, which is of such great importance to the people of the developing world and consequently to the Western world. I feel strongly that the emphasis must move away from simply emergency food aid to how we can help our friends in the developing world to produce more food for themselves, with a view to avoiding, wherever they can, the kind of acute emergency that arises more and more frequently in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world.
It is essential that we in the Western world should be quick to respond to an immediate crisis—a drought or whatever it may be — by providing immediate emergency supplies. Britain's response to the crisis in Karamoja in northern Uganda several years ago was magnificent. I seem to remember that £5 million or £6 million was raised voluntarily and sent through voluntary bodies to help those people. I went out soon after the emergency had started and witnessed the work of voluntary bodies such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Save the Children Fund, as well as the work that was carried out with straight Government aid.
What is more important in the long term is the way in which we in the West can help developing countries to cultivate even harsh desert regions so that they can be cushioned against some of the worst effects of natural disasters. Such countries can therefore be given greater prospects of survival and an improved standard of living. We must be ready to respond to these emergencies when they arise, but we must seek ways in which we can make it easier to prevent them arising in the first place.
During the weekend I attended a conference at Ditchley park on the international problems of refugees, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). There is often an exodus of refugees when a country has not been able to cope with its agricultural production problems.
The Williamsburg conference will be of supreme importance to us all—I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attaches the highest importance to it. I hope that the Western world and developing countries will find ways in which they can reach a greater understanding and a greater measure of co-operation, especially on agricultural production. I hope also that they will consider ways in which encouragement can be given to stimulate a greater degree of agricultural production. If some concrete understandings can be reached at Williamsburg, that will be of great benefit to the developing as well as to the developed countries.
I was struck by the World Bank's 1982 report on the African continent's economic problems, which was a hard-headed and realistic analysis of the continent's problems. It is clear that there is no hope of seeing an improvement in the standard of living of African countries through better agricultural production unless the majority of them pursue policies that will create that sort of environment. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) was saying earlier.
Market forces have a crucial part to play. When I visited the Cameroons about 18 months ago, I was impressed by their success in agricultural production. Some of the neighbouring Francophone countries are, similarly, being successful. Why is this so? It is

659
principally because these countries have taken the bold measure of ensuring that farmers who take the risk of producing receive a reasonable return for their produce. Unless that is so, there will not be an increase in agricultural production. Indeed, in the absence of that return there will be a need for more and more food to be imported. That is what we are seeing throughout the African continent and in many other parts of the world. If that continues, there will be increasing economic devastation.
The World Bank report was right to stress that developing countries' leaders must take the lead. Against that background, the Western world can offer active cooperation and help. There is much that we already offer in our aid programmes—for example, crop protection, agricultural management, produce research and personnel training. These various forms of assistance are of great importance, but they are only complementary and supplementary to the policies of the recipient countries. If they do not pursue policies that actively create the right environment for the expansion of agricultural production, all the assistance that the Western world gives, whether through the Community or nationally, will be wasted.
I hope that note will be taken at Williamsburg, at Community conferences and at any gathering where these issues are discussed of the report by the World Bank. We should seek to persuade our friends in the Community and at Commonwealth level that they should note the report and do more to create an environment that will lead to the expansion of agricultural production. We need leadership from the Community, and I think that the proposal before us will play its part. We need leadership at Williamsburg, and we certainly need leadership within the Commonwealth. Equally, we need statesmanship and leadership from the developing countries' Heads of State.
This is very much a two-way business. If that is realised, we might make some progress. I hope that we shall not lose sight of the importance and need for those of great knowledge of agriculture in the Western world to play a more prominent part in positions of responsibility in the developing countries, provided that those countries ask for them and are prepared to put them in those positions.
There has been a sharp distinction between what the Francophone countries have done in co-operation with the French and what we have done. However, there is a case for thinking in terms of a Community corps of experts and advisers as well as a Commonwealth corps, which could more readily be encouraged to assist developing countries in dealing with important issues such as agricultural production.
If we in the West, within the Community and at Willaimsburg set the lead and demonstrate with a strong appeal to our friends in the developing countries—in the Commonwealth and elsewhere—that we are willing to create the right climate and the right environment for increased agricultural production, I am sure that the initiative will be met with a ready response. If that is achieved, we shall be making some progress to our mutual advantage.
6 pm
Mr. Reg Prentice: I hope I shall be forgiven for being absent during the earlier part of the debate, but this has been a somewhat confusing day, for reasons that go wider than the subject under discussion. I
660
hope that because we are in the last week of this Parliament our debate has a symbolic implication for the future. We should discuss hunger in the world more often. When we do—for example, in the debates on the second Brandt report—both here and in another place, I fear that the same parliamentarians speak to each other in a sort of charmed circle. Those of us who have been committed to this subject for a long time have failed to create a sufficient sense of priority among our fellows, both inside and outside Parliament, and I hope that in the next Parliament there will be more time for debate, and a greater sense of urgency about these issues.
I speak as a former Minister for Overseas Development. I had the task on two occasions of leading the British delegation to the FAO annual conference and I attended the Council of Ministers of the Community when food aid was being discussed. This is a subject on which priorities are argued by the inner circle, so to speak, and I fear that much of what I have heard today has been a repetition of earlier debates.
I heard my right hon. Friend on the radio this morning and I thought that, as a Minister, he talked sense. I agree that, whereas we need to do more for the hungry people of the world, the latest ideas to come from the Community are not necessarily the most helpful way of approaching the task. We already have too much machinery —national, European, United Nations, the machinery of United Nations agencies and much else besides. We need to increase the resources available to the institutions we have, perhaps making them more efficient and cost-effective. We shall not do that by setting up new institutions or by creating initiatives that simply produce masses of paper but no tangible results for the hungry people of the world.
If the proposal we are discussing, or any proposals, were to lead to more resources being made available from Britain and our partners in the Community, that would be welcome because we could say that more was being tone, but from my understanding of what is happening we are simply allocating resources to the ODA from another part of the overall programme, and that is not helpful.
I recall the difficulty we had when I was Minister in working out the aid framework every year, having to decide what resources should be allocated to the vast number of claimants for bilateral and multilateral aid. I recall the difficulty involved in making adjustments, and I appreciate that my right hon. Friend must be experiencing similar difficulties now. His task is not helped by the creation of new machinery, unless a strong case is presented to us for its establishment, and that, has not occurred.
In general, food aid is not the most effective way to fight the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty. It has an important part to play, especially in times of emergency. One thinks of earthquakes and droughts. The terrible situation in Ethopia immediately comes to mind. On such occasions there is urgent need for the world community to help with relief supplies—food, medical and other items — but that is a relief rather than a development operation and it is no substitute for the ongoing and much larger solutions that are required. Jonathan Swift wrote of the importance of making two blades of grass grow where one grew before.
I remember a visit I paid in the autumn of 1968 to the Punjab, that region of India where the green revolution —to use the jargon of the time—had been much more

661
successful than it had been in most other parts of India or the developing world. New strains of seeds had been introduced, developed mainly by the state agricultural university there as part of an aid programme in which that university was helped to a great degree by the university of Ohio. Trying to persuade the local farmers to use the new seeds was the first difficulty to overcome. Farmers the world over are conservative and suspicious of intellectual advice. However, once the new seeds had been shown to work well, the farmers were anxious to obtain them. When I visited the area the farmers were walking hundreds of miles to the university to obtain the new strains of seeds.
It is not just a question of new seeds, of course. Irrigation, fertilisers, pesticides and so on are all factors to be taken into account, and it is especially in those spheres that we must help the developing countries. I wish the British people were more aware of the achievements, for example, of the Tropical Products Institute and the help that is given by British scientific institutions as part of our aid programme. There is also the work of British exporters in the developing world. For many years they have been helping to tackle coffee berry disease in India and many other problems throughout the world. We can do much by providing technical assistance to help them to increase their food production.
I have been horrified to see some figures about the food situation in Africa. A recent report by the United Nations world food council pointed out that per capita food production in Africa declined by 7 per cent. in the 1960s and by 15 per cent. in the 1970s. After a small improvement in 1980, it had fallen again in 1981. The director-general of the FAO said recently:
"At present, 20 to 30 per cent. of their population"—
the poorest African countries—
"is hungry and malnourished during the greater part of the year".
That shows that we are not talking about temporary crises arising from, say, drought, but that we are faced with an ongoing situation of human misery on a vast scale.
We must do more to help through existing channels rather than setting up new machinery. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) when he spoke of the Williamsburg summit. I hope that the Prime Minister still intends to attend it. I recently wrote to her, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for Overseas Development. My plea—it was not original; it has been made on many occasions by hon. Members—was to the effect that the Williamsburg summit was an occasion for the leading Western nations to commit themselves on a much bigger scale to the global fight against poverty and hunger, and to do so because it is morally right and because of the overwhelming need for interdependence, a word used strongly in the second Brandt report.
At Williamsburg, world statesmen should be looking for a way of stimulating the world economy and promoting economic growth without starting a world inflationary spiral all over again. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that the best way to promote growth without the danger of inflation is to concentrate immediate efforts on the poorest parts of the world and to promote successful development programmes in those regions. The rural sector must have priority in development programmes.
If one looks at the problems of many countries in Africa and southern Asia and the plight of their cities, one sees
662
that that plight is aggravated year by year by the poverty of the countryside. Despite all the terrible problems of Calcutta, people still go there from the rural areas, consequently increasing the overcrowding, unemployment and urban squalor. I have heard it said that for every new job created in Calcutta — they are created in the industrial sector—unemployment is increased because, on average, three people go into the city in search of every one new job. The only answer to that dilemma is successful development of the countryside, of which food production is the most important, though not necessarily the only, element. If farmers become more prosperous they will want other goods and there will be a spin-off in other parts of the economy.
I hope that these issues will not be forgotten during the general election campaign. I hope that the pressure groups —the World Development Movement, Christian Aid, the United Nations Association, the churches and many other people—will ask candidates of all parties where they stand in relation to Great Britain's effort in assisting the poorest countries. Our aid programme is the clearest single test of our national will to help. Commodity problems, private investment and all the other such matters need to be discussed. It should not be a party issue.
Great Britain's performance in the past has been inadequate under Governments of both parties. I believe that the same is roughly true of all other Western countries. One needs to alter the national mood towards these matters. People should not regard help for the developing world as a marginal charity—something into which one puts a coin or two if one is in the right mood and can afford it. Aid should be seen as a vital priority within our national policy because of the need for interdependence and for moral reasons. I hope therefore that this subject will be raised at election meetings and that candidates of all parties will be challenged to say where they stand on this issue.
6.13 pm
Mr. John Loveridge: Want in the midst of plenty must horrify us all and yet time and again we read reports of prolonged famine, which even all our modern transport and reserves of food cannot relieve quickly. I am therefore happy to welcome the Council's recommendation for the implementation of a "Special Programme to Combat Hunger in the World" within the European Community. The Commission has proposed that the Council should set aside 50 million ecu of appropriations in its 1983 budget under that heading.
The document that we are debating emphasises that the grant aid is for developing countries, to support national food strategies, structural measures designed to protect the natural resources of developing countries and to improve the way in which those resources are utilised and to finance training. What a change that is from the history of food and the Third world. We have so often seen food supplies to Third world countries depress and sometimes destroy the indigenous agriculture and the farmers' capacity to make sales. Impoverished, those farmers turned to their Governments for help. Their Governments in turn have gladly bought American surpluses and, latterly, European surpluses cheaply, although the European surpluses have been bought on a smaller scale. That has left country after country with desperate balance of payments problems and heavy debts to banks. They no longer have the resources for the redevelopment of their own agriculture with its

663
need for new machinery for cultivation, for new wells, and new technologies to take advantage of building up what they had before—the capacity to feed themselves. They do not then have the money to trade with or to buy from the advanced countries. Aid by itself is not enough. In Europe's time of need after the war, when its factories were destroyed and its agriculture run down General de Gaulle called for trade, not aid.
It is necessary to have aid for emergencies. We should always be ready to help the starving with immediate transport and food but, above all, our resources should ensure that these countries can feed themselves.
The way in which America has responded is to be welcomed. There was an article in The Economist of 9 April with the unusual heading "Surprise, surprise". It stated that because the United States had suddenly taken out of production immense acreages, a total of 82 million acres were to be left idle in the coming planting season. That will surely help the trade war that was pending between Europe and America over the export of agricultural surpluses and has set a marvellous example to Europeans. It should never be forgotten, however, that the growth in the sale of European agricultural surpluses is small compared to American sales. Although an important factor, European sales have been on nothing like the scale of those of the United States with its vast prairies from which to draw.
The article speaks of the American move confounding sceptics in America who thought farmers would refuse to allow their land to go fallow on such a scale. A generous United States Government have provided the equivalent of a subsidy to allow this land to lie fallow. That will undoubtedly have a profound effect on world prices and keep them at a level that will not allow, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) said, an inflationary spiral to arise from a sharp over-production and supply of agricultural produce.
The amounts cut back are substantial-32 million acres of wheat and 40 million acres of corn and sorghum are not to be planted and the remainder of the total of 82 million acres are not to be planted with cotton and rice under the new programme announced by the United States Government. A further 100 million acres will remain uncultivated under other programmes previously settled. That represents an enormous cutback in production and might at first sight appear to be dangerous when food is short in the world. However, the Americans' stores are full and in Europe we have our own food mountains. It is wiser to have food mountains and to sell what cannot be stored to hungry Russians at a cut rate than to run the risk of the weather— and agriculture is totally dependent on the weather— resulting in a bad harvest year. We should never forget the seven lean years of Bible history. Today, with the miracle of new seeds, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred, we have seen that two people can be fed from the same amount of land that would have previously fed one person.
The difficulty is that every advance in seed technology has been followed by advances in disease. No one can be certain that the advances in technology can for ever keep ahead of the ravages of disease to which weak crops are prone. It is most imporant that in Europe—and perhaps some of the money might be set aside for this—and in the world generally, old seeds long in use should be preserved and that one should try to cross them, as has
664
been done, with modern seeds, because in many cases old seeds give protection against disease, while the new seeds give high-yielding crops.
The example set by the United States must make us all feel a little humble. A real and direct sacrifice has been made by the American Government for the good of the world. It is one of the most significant single Government decisions to be taken in recent years, and will have profound effects for good so long as—I emphasise this —we help the poor and undeveloped nations to grow their own crops, to keep up to date with technology and to sink wells, and so long as we help them by inviting their partially trained people to come to the agricultural schools in the Western world. The amount set aside by the EC of 50 million ecu is not large for such a programme. It is a very small sum for so great a purpose, but at least it is a beginning. For the first time the EC will have in its budget a "Special Programme to Combat Hunger".
I spoke earlier of my concern about the balance of payments, when Third world countries imported too much food, for which they could not afford to pay, which destroyed their capacity to produce food that they needed, even when they had previously been self-sufficient. The failure of the world farm industry could be a key to a major industrial slump beyond the extent of any recession that we have recently observed. A failure of the farm industry in the United States could set off such a slump. The effects of America going off the gold standard under President Nixon, which led to the sharp increase in oil prices, would make our recent recession look small compared to what might happen. Agriculture remains the world's largest single industry. Therefore, stable farm prices are vital to the economies of all Western countries and to the Eastern and Communist countries.
Any drop in subsidy or in help to the farmers must be regarded with the greatest caution because if it induced a yo-yo effect in prices it could induce a slump the like of which we have not seen. It is therefore with regret that I have sometimes heard hon. Members talk about cutting back our agriculture and buying in the world's cheapest markets. That is exactly what has happened to the Third world countries. They have bought in the cheapest world markets. As a result, they have undermined their agriculture, have had balance of payments problems, have had to cut back their industry and can no longer trade adequately with the Western world. The roots of stability for the Western economies and the possibility of advances in technology lie in keeping agriculture stable. It is far better to have a few small food mountains than shortages.
I shall refer in a little more detail to the food supplies of the world. The figures for wheat this year are expected to be greater even than the record figure in 1981. It is estimated that there will be a wheat crop of 476 million tonnes and a coarse grain crop of 784 million tonnes. That means that there will be plenty of food about, even in spite of the "set aside" programme in the United States. However, that does not mean that there will not be a need for an enormous programme from the Western world for the training of technologists from the underdeveloped countries to help their agriculture—far more than the 50 million ecu referred to in the document that we are discussing.
World consumption of wheat rose from 349 million tonnes to 461 million tonnes between 1971 and 1981. However, in Russia, production fell from a little over a third of the world total to under a quarter. There had to be

665
imports as a result. This must surely reflect upon the Russians' capacity to manage their agriculture properly. It is a pity, without wishing to be offensive to such a country, that some "set aside" programme, comparable with the 50 million ecu programme, could not be used to train the Russians in how to use their own land more effectively. It is dangerous for the Western world that that country should be so heavily armed and yet incapable of feeding itself from its own good soil.
One of the most important factors affecting the Third world has been the rise in oil prices and the fact that large sums of money have been set aside that have not been reinvested. We talk of loan recycling but in many cases loans have been recycled into bits of paper and not into factories. The debts that have amassed have placed an immense burden upon the Western world and, in turn, upon agriculture. The debt of the non-OPEC developing countries was $70,000 million in 1980 and rose in the following year to $83,000 million, or 27 per cent. of their total export earnings. These figures represent idle money, which means recession.
There has also been a decline in food output not only in, for example, the USSR, but—more relevant in terms of the use of the 50 million ecu in the document under discussion—in Africa, where we are unhappy to note that the output of food per head fell by seven per cent. in the 1960s and a further 15 per cent. in the 1970s. A great belt of land across Africa has been affected by drought. Even more important was the fact that many countries were buying in cheap imports and ruining their own agriculture as a result. People were driven out of the rural areas into the cities, although the resources were not available even to make the growing shanty towns hygienic. That has been a grave anxiety to us all.
I was in Bophuthatswana at the end of last year, where they are wisely trying to build up their agriculture, and there I heard talk of large numbers of people trying to infiltrate down from the drought-stricken countries to the north. The problem has been accentuated by an increasing and sorry drought in recent months.
Fifty million ecu will not go far. It is merely a gesture. However, we should welcome the gesture, because once it is established in the EC budget voices will be heard saying that the sums available should be increased. It is important to stress that the money should go to training and to re-establishing dying areas of agriculture that can be revived, rather than to providing more cheap food. That would only set up again the unhappy cycle of which we have spoken.
At present, perhaps a quarter of the population in the world's poorest countries is hungry and malnourished during much of the year. That figure cannot fail to affect the hearts of all those who think of what it means. We see on our television sets the effect on the children, and we weep for them in our hearts, because those deaths are not necessary in a world of plenty.
Europe and America must work together. It is true that much has been done. The EC plans to give aid flows amounting to $1,200 million to the agricultural sector this year. That represents an increase under the second Lométion period, 1981 to 1985, over the aid flows under the previous Lomé convention.
I spoke earlier of the USSR. The output of the harvest of that great people is estimated at about 160 million
666
tonnes. It should be perhaps 60 million tonnes more than that, and the harvests of potatoes and sugar beet in the USSR have been well below target in the past as well. The Russians have improved their milk production, and they have a gigantic herd of cows. That might suggest that the population of Russia should be well and comfortably fed, but the sad truth is that their cows do not produce as much milk as they could. Again, there is a need for training.
The imbalance between the USSR on the one hand and Europe and America on the other is very dangerous. Anything that we can do to help the Russians to make better use of their agricultural land — without giving offence to that great people—should be done.
I hope that it is not outside the scope of the debate to speak about the distress in Russia. Perhaps "distress" is the wrong word, but the Russians are not doing as well as they could.
Viscount Cranborne: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments about Russian agriculture. He quite properly hopes that the Russians will improve their rate of production, but is it not ironic that the Russians are actively trying to prevent another Third world country — Afghanistan — producing any food at all? Indeed, they are destroying crops there. Is that not a curious paradox?
Mr. Loveridge: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite right, when we are discussing what Europe is trying to do for the underdeveloped world, to note that another great people is trying to prevent part of the underdeveloped world from peacefully growing its own crops. The Russians would be wise to allow the people of Afghanistan to go their way in peace, and to help the Western world to provide training for the reconstruction of their agriculture.
I hope that the money that will be provided if this EC proposal is accepted will be used largely for training in the Western world as a whole.
It is interesting to compare the grain yields of different areas. The United Kingdom might hope to produce six or seven tonnes of grain per hectare. There are "10-tonne clubs", and I have even heard of 15 tonnes a hectare being produced on an experimental basis. However, we use large amounts of fertiliser, and it would not be proper to expect such use in the countries about which we are speaking. They would not have the cultivating equipment, the water, the storage or transport needed to cope with heavy harvests per hectare. We need to enable them to take in the small harvests per hectare that they can produce, and to train them to do so rather than to give up harvesting altogether and to buy cheap grain from elsewhere.
In the United States about 4·2 tonnes of grain are produced per hectare. That figure has risen from 1·6 tonnes over the past 30 years, because of the green revolution and the new methods of cultivation. In the USSR, yields have risen only from 0·8 to 1·4 tonnes per hecare — a very low figure. It is no wonder that the Soviet Union has to import grain from America and Europe.
However, all is not dark in eastern Europe. Although Czechoslovakia's grain harvest was below the planned level, it did well with sugar and fruit. Any improvement in output is to be encouraged, because it improves the prospects for peace and for peaceful trade in industrial as well as agricultural produce. Poland, however, is in a sad

667
state. It has almost become a Third world country. Rationing has been in force throughout the year. Europe and America have, in the generous outpouring of their stores of food, recognised the needs of their neighbours. More than help in supplies, though, they need help to grow more themselves. In the Third world we should go back to what was once widely applauded and taken up even more than at present—the concept of voluntary service overseas. It is not that these countries lack the money; rather they lack training. For example, one reads of wells sunk in countries such as Bangladesh. Then, in that wet and flooded country, the wells silt up. Without adequate training to keep the wells in operation all the good of the first help is undone.
Limited though the money is, we welcome the European initiative. Our basic message must be to help people to produce enough food to feed themselves, thereby creating the wealth to buy Western machinery so that those countries can become mechanised and in turn buy from us.
As has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, the debt of the world's banks hangs heavy over the whole question of how we can help Western agriculture. In January 1973, I forecast debt levels for our own country rising to £10,000 million. That happened. Increased debts have also occurred in much of the rest of the world. The Williamsburg meetings will be the key to the hungry world's hopes. Unless in some way Williamsburg is able to solve the financing of future trade, we shall find that agriculture may slip back, and with that there could be a drastic and dramatic slump from which it might take years to recover.
We must encourage our Government to do everything that they can to bring sanity to this question, so that we avoid the volatility of the wildly fluctuating yo-yo exchange rates that we have seen in recent years. We must avoid the imprudence of advancing money to countries that cannot repay it, for things that they may not need, which often destroy the very roots of their own prosperity by damaging their capacity to feed themselves.
This European Community document is to be welcomed. It is good, but it is not enough. I hope and pray that the Government will carry the message to Europe that we must set aside more money for training countries to feed themselves.
6.42 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The whole subject of food aid immediately triggers an emotional response among the British electorate, and I am sure that that is true of all the Christian people of Europe as well. Therefore, emotion is inevitably in favour of a proposal such as this. But, increasingly, we are coming to realise that simply disposing of aid without discrimination does not necessarily do the best for people living in countries in the greatest need of the basic things of life. We must use our brains and should not merely respond impulsively with our hearts.
I hope that it will be in order if I spend a few minutes considering the food aid policy of the European Community. I shall divide my remarks into two considerations — the chronic food surplus that is developing in member states and the chronic food shortage in the developing countries, even those with long-established connections with the western European industrial countries.
668
Many people are beginning to think that, like the United States, western Europe should be working towards a recognition that we are likely to have a permanent export surplus, at any rate of some classes of foodstuffs. Therefore, we must consider how the disposal of our food surpluses will fit into our policy of encouraging food production in other countries.
I want particularly to look at the difference between the position in Britain and that on the Continent, because every year we have an unhappy conflict over food policy, particularly the effects of the CAP in the matter of price support. That aspect of the European Community budget causes the most disputes and bitter antagonism, and I am afraid that this year we have not improved on former years, because Britain appears once again to be the odd man out on food policy.
I believe, however, that our awkward relationship with the CAP is transitional and not fundamental: it is a serious issue, however, and it is worth considering why the situation in Britain is so different from that in the Continental countries. We have to look back to the first part of the 19th century to understand why our agriculture is so different.
Britain was the first major country to industrialise and to bring large numbers of people into the tow ns. In the middle of the 19th century, the vast majority of people on the Continent gained their living from agriculture or forestry and, unlike in Britain, one did not find large urban populations dependent on the price of food and unable to look after themselves, as agricultural communities can in good years and bad.
I suppose that it was inevitable that Britain was the first country to allow in supplies of grain and meat from countries such as North America, Australia and New Zealand, which were developing vast export surpluses of cheap foodstuffs during the 19th century. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 is the origin of Britain's difficulties now—in 1983—with our Continental partners over the CAP. In order to feed its towns, Britain adopted a cheap food policy, whereas on the Continent that policy was resisted and agriculture protected right up until recent times. Indeed, it is still protected as a matter of policy, whereas we are still inclined to the cheap food policy we adopted in the 19th century.
It is all forgotten now, but the effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws on British agriculture was disastrous. It ruined a large proportion of the British farm population, which sought emigration as the only way to survive. Many tens of thousands of British farmworkers went to Canada, North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere to continue their livelihoods, because it was no longer possible to farm in Britain at the prices set by world competition.
I suppose that that was the principal reason why by 1914 such a large part of the world was coloured red. Britain had an enormous surplus of farmworkers. However, the same thing did not happen on the Continent. The people there remained in their overmanned, terribly inefficient and medieval systems of agriculture. By the end of the war, in 1945 or 1950, 20 to 25 per cent. of the population of France was directly dependent on agriculture for its living, whereas here the proportion was less than 5 per cent. and still declining. In Italy, the proportion of the population that was entirely dependent on agriculture was even higher and the proportion was still extremely high in

669
parts of south Germany. The agricultural population had political clout, and the industry was seriously overmanned.
In the early days of the Common Market, the enormous surplus population on the land was recognised by Mansholt, who introduced schemes which at the time were considered to be intensely controversial but which, looking back, were probably right. He tried to find ways in which to resettle the huge surplus population. For Britain, the problem had long been forgotten. When the Common Market came into being, there was a grab for funds to deal with the biggest social problem—the most overmanned industry in Europe. That was not so much because cheap food was being imported from the rest of the world as because social and technical change was breaking through into European agriculture and people were not prepared to continue to live in primitive housing without proper facilities; the younger generation was drifting into the towns because there were better opportunities there; farming methods changed because even the older farmers discovered that they could make more profit by using machinery rather than horses.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, agriculture on the Continent changed very rapidly. However, it was subsidised by raising prices artificially throughout the Common Market. It is tempting to wonder what might have happened if a deficiency payment system had been introduced under the Treaty of Rome rather than the policy of maintaining high prices, which was the form of protection chosen for the less efficient producers. To this day, France and Italy have large agrarian populations that are maintained—I hate to use the expression but I shall — in a human zoo. Methods that are seen to be inefficient are still permitted because it is not possible to accommodate a faster drift away from the land. One has only to consider the changes in great cities such as Paris, Lille, Milan and German cities, where enormous numbers of new schools, high-rise flats and other facilities have been built to house the population that has drifted from the land, to realise the pressure that the change in agriculture has put on the national economies.
European agriculture is in transition and there is still a tendency to overproduce, not because of farm policy or for economic reasons but as an aspect of social policy. Continental politicians ask how it is possible to press for reform of the CAP when there is unemployment in Continental towns. They simply cannot accommodate a faster drift of population away from the land. Reducing food prices might reduce the food surplus, but it would destabilise their democratic societies.
We must therefore think in terms of a long-term Community programme for reform of the CAP. We cannot solve it by introducing measures from year to year as part of political pressure from the Commission, or from Britain or other member states. There are ways in which we should examine the problems of overmanned agriculture sympathetically. I have constantly advocated that there should be major expansion of our forestry programme. The main reason for overproduction, especially of dairy products, in the Common Market is the shortage of capital. If one is short of capital, one cannot carry one's family and outgoings on a farm for long. One must go in for the types of product that one can market quickly and get an immediate return on. That is one of the many reasons why
670
there is such a remorseless surplus of milk. If one produces milk, one gets two crops a day. In one produces meat, one has to carry expenses for very much longer. If one produces timber, one is likely to get only one major crop in a lifetime or even longer. In marginal farming areas in continental Europe, farmers, their wives and their families cannot live on forestry unless there is a major programme of farm income support which enables them to make the switch out of short-term market products into the longer-term ones.
Mr. Matthew Parris: May I challenge my hon. Friend to come up to my constituency, perhaps after the general election, and defend before the National Farmers Union and especially dairy farmers in west Derbyshire the proposal that their farms be turned over to forestry?
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: We are one of the countries that are increasing their milk production. That is an embarrassing fact when we criticise the surplus of dairy products in the Common Market. Britain has not solved its problems any better than have other countries. I do not think that farmers in Derbyshire would resist the idea of producing timber if they thought that it would provide satisfactory support for their families in the long run. If one must persuade people to go into timber, one must show them that they can depend on 50 or 60 years of consistent price support so that they do not discover halfway through that they are stranded without means of financial support from their land.
We import large volumes of timber into the Community. When it comes to the disposal of the dairy surplus, we simply do not know how to dump the byproducts of milk production without embarrassing our friends. We must therefore take a long look at problems in the Community and put them in the context of world demand for food in the long run. We must make long-term plans for agriculture. Trying to deal on an ad hoc basis from year to year in the context of the annual budget in the European Community is not producing results. I hope that the Government will seek to make serious contributions to long-term thinking about European agriculture in the context of world demand. When I say long-term I do not speak of five or 10-year programmes. We must make projections of supply and demand over half a century if we are to make useful reforms in our agricultural system that will not ultimately prove to have been a waste of money.
I shall say a few words about the food shortage in developing countries, because it is an emotive subject. Many people in Kensington are deeply concerned about it and feel that it is against their normal principles to enjoy the benefits of ample supplies of food when they know from television, the press and their own examination of the world scene how many people are destitute or even dying of hunger every day. The world produces about 200,000 more people every day. I suppose that it is better to have a surplus of food in Europe than a shortage. If one projects that expansion in the size of population over a few years, it might seem that we shall soon need every ounce of grain and pint of milk that we can produce. But as the standard of living in developing countries increases, their inhabitants tend to have smaller families and their productivity increases, and therefore those countries which are now so desperately short of food—in Africa,

671
Latin America and elsewhere — may in time reach a balance through the natural forces in their economies. However, we should be seen to be helping them in every possible way.
The Lomé convention is one of the best measures introduced in the European Community since Britain joined, but it has its deficiencies. It could give better value for money and improve in several ways Europe's contribution to the solution of the problems of the developing countries. First, it should be extended, and now is the right time to do that. We should not concentrate only on the major former dependencies of France and Britain, but we should look ahead to that time—I hope that it will come soon—when Spain and Portugal join the Community. They, too, have links with Spanish and Portugese-speaking areas in Latin America, Africa and the far east.
We should prepare a second Lomé convention that will embody in treaty form the relationship that we eventually want to strike up between the European Community and the Spanish and Portugese-speaking countries. We must make a long-term commitment to the Lomé convention. I do not necessarily suggest that we increase our payments under the Lomé convention, but we should enable those who plan its expenditure to think about programmes that will last 10, 15 or 20 years. Capitalism depends on the ability to make long-term plans with the reasonable certainty that they will bear fruit and prove to be right. Continuity of policy is therefore essential if our contribution to the Lomé convention is to be well spent.
To use the formula that many hon. Members use in speeches on the subject of food aid, "When a man is hungry it is better to teach him how to fish than to give him a fish". I would like to advocate once again my recommendation, which I have argued with Mr. Pisani in the Commission and with Ministers of the British Government, of the concept of the world university of the air. The opportunities for the transmission of ideas by satellite will soon be so numerous and widely spread that there will be a shortage of useful programmes to occupy the time available for sending out sound and sight messages by satellite all over the world. Europe must not be behind in coming forward with programmes that can be transmitted by satellite, and received all over the world, and that will be of real use to those who receive them.
I do not know how long it will be before millions of people will have acquired cheap facilities to receive sound and television broadcasts from satellites. When one considers the speed with which the Japanese develop new products, make them cheaper, market them and get them absorbed all over the world, we realise that even during the 1980s facilities will be available to establish a world university of the air.
That objective should be adopted by the Lomé convention, and would be in the long term a much more fruitful use of the money that Mr. Pisani is recommending the European Parliament and member states to spend on food aid. It would teach people how to make the best of their opportunities instead of becoming increasingly dependent on gifts of food and programmes introduced on a year-to-year basis from countries that remain technologically far superior.
Large cadres of people in the developing countries should be trained in the technology that will enable them to help themselves. We should prepare simple programmes in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and
672
other languages for regular transmission by satellite, and we should prepare tutorials to be used by the training establishments, schools and universities of the developing countries to allow students to make better use of the tapes.
The BBC language services are already being followed by millions of people, and we already have a successful Open university in Britain. It could be said that we have mastered the technique of tuition through radio transmission. Europe should seize that idea and use it for the benefit of the developing world.
Those are my recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the money that we spend through the Lomé convention. The proposal before us is modest and it would be churlish to criticise it. The House should approve the Commission's proposal, but it should return to the subject again and again.
7.5 pm
Mr. Matthew Parris: I apologise to hon. Members, especially to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, for the fact that I was not here to listen to his opening speech. It is poignant—I am not the first hon. Member to mention it — that in a depleted Chamber, preoccupied as we are by other considerations, we should be discussing a matter which, by any objective scale, is far more important than whether there will be a June election. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend the Williamsburg conference, where she is determined to discuss such matters. It is sad that the substance of what she says about this matter will not be of much consequence during the election campaign, but it is comforting that, regardless of that fact, the matter is important to her.
I do not wish to be sententiously self-congratulatory, but it is a tribute to the honour and principle of hon. Members on both sides of the House that a subject on which there are so few votes should continue to command the attention of the House, as it does, and to command a goodly share of our resources. If we were selfish politicians who ask only from where the next handful of votes would come, we should not spend as much time and money on this matter as we do. To some of the malnourished children whom I have seen in Africa—I was brought up there and have travelled there extensively —it is of little importance whether the general election is on 9 June, 23 June or even October.
I have learnt much from the hon. Members who have spoken this evening. I was especially interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham, and I agree with him about the importance of trade. He mentioned the lack of self-sufficiency in some countries, especially in Ghana. I used to know Ghana quite well, and I am perplexed by the fact that a country which is so well endowed with the resources to produce its own food should have reached such a calamitous state. My hon. Friend said that most food aid should be provided in response to calamity and should not go beyond that. I agree with him, but the problem is that in some parts of the world calamity has become almost perpetual and, by relieving the calamity with such aid, in some ways one contributes to the perpetuation of the calamity. Yet it seems unkind to turn aside.
My hon. Friend mentioned the admirable and hardheaded World Bank report, and especially the success of the Cameroons in producing their own food. I travelled

673
recently across the northern Cameroons; and hon. Members would be surprised by what a gentle, fertile, rich and well-farmed country it is. Parts of it resemble the home counties, both in climate and the way in which they are farmed. My hon. Friend mentioned the need for a Community corps of experts and advisers, and I agree with him. There is often more of a need for experts and advisers than there is for large parcels of food.
I was interested in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I agree with him that rationality rather than emotion is important. As he said, there is a chronic food surplus in the EC and a chronic food shortage in the Third world. That in itself is not necessarily wrong in principle. There is a chronic copper surplus in Zambia and a chronic copper shortage here. However, the parallels are superficial rather than profound, the problem being that, although there is a chronic food shortage in the Third world, it has to have the means to purchase the food being produced elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with trading where one trades what one can produce easily for what one cannot. The Third world countries that could produce food easily cannot pay for food from abroad, but yet are not producing the food that they need.
The poorer countries may one day approach a balance, because as people grow richer they tend to have fewer children, and the problems of overpopulation diminish. When things are working one has a virtuous circle, but when things are not working there is a vicious circle, and as countries grow poorer people seem to produce more children, and the population problem grows ever more intense. I admire the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, while remaining within the bounds of order, sustained a long discussion on the world university of the air, although that is not a subject upon which I can follow him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made an interesting point. I agree with much of what he said, but he criticised somewhat unfairly my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells). The latter had suggested that food aid can sometimes be a bit of a sop and an outlet for the unwanted food, for example, that the Community produces. Those criticisms are valid, and that sometimes can be the effect of food aid. Wherever vested interests become involved in the provision of one form of aid rather than another, one must look carefully at the rational argument for that aid rather than at the rational arguments for the continued support of the vested interests producing the wherewithal.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I trust that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the EC document, which makes it clear that it is concerned with a much wider range of support for food production than simply the providing of packages of food for those who need them in the short term. It is a very broad plan, and it is in that sense that I welcome it.
Mr. Parris: I agree with my hon. Friend, and to the extent to which we can live up to the aims expressed in the programme, as opposed to some of the interests that sometimes become involved, we shall be very much the better.
I agree too about the endemic problems in the Third world for which the provision of aid is no solution, such
674
as soil erosion, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. I know parts of Africa very well, as I said. All that we are doing and all that we can ever hope to do by way of aid cannot begin to balance the damage that is being done and the way in which what could be rich farmland is being undone through soil erosion. Hon. Members who have not been to that part of the world would be shocked and amazed at the extent and sheer scale of the soil erosion. Without meaning to sound lighthearted—although it is a subject that is difficult to treat without an air of levity—goats are probably doing more damage in the world than British aid is doing good. A world programme for the eradication of goats, although it might bring us the sort of correspondence the clubbing of baby seals has been bringing us over the past years, would do a great deal to help the people of those territories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North mentioned, as did other hon. Members, the hoarding of cattle. In parts of Africa and India, cattle are used almost as a form of currency. Consequently, farmers keep far more cattle than is necessary and they do not keep the cattle in the condition that they should be kept in because it is the number rather than the condition of the cattle that defines a man's wealth. In Swaziland, where I went to school for six years, the Swazi people—this is also true of the Zulu and Xhosa people—have a custom that is the opposite to the old system of dowries that we used to have. A dowry was the purchase price paid for a bride, usually by the parents of the groom or the groom himself. The Swazis, with perhaps more regard for the underlying psychological realities of the marital state, pay the groom to accept the bride, and the father of the bride pays the groom a lobola. The standard lobola in Swaziland was 11 head of cattle, and if a man had five daughters he would have to have 55 head of cattle to dispose of his daughters. He would try to keep 55 head of cattle regardless of whether the land which he was farming would sustain cattle in a fit condition. These problems, although they entertain our constituents less than the percentage of GNP that we may be able to contribute, are more important than anything we might be able to do.
I also listened with great interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) said. He was a little critical of food aid, as most hon. Members have been. He made an important point about the plight of the cities in the Third world, giving Calcutta as a example, and said that the plight of those cities is often the direct consequence of the plight of the countryside, because from the country the poor people flood into the cities in the hope of employment. That is true to the extent that if we make life in the countryside easier we shall relieve pressure on the cities, but there is another problem that is harder to define.
In many Third world countries that I know, people have been inculcated with a system of values that makes city life and city dwelling high prestige projects, and the traffic of a materialistic Western society is so much higher in the estimation of the people, and in particular in the estimation of politicians, that rather than live a relatively comfortable life in the country people prefer to come into the city on the vague offchance of securing some of the these more glittering prizes. It is a great pity that there is this attitude in the Third world. Some of the richer of the Third world countries are just as bad, and Jamaica where I lived for five years is a good example. It is a pity that these countries cannot inculcate more of the dignity of agriculture into

675
their people. In this country there is no indignity in living and working on the land—quite the opposite—and until we can get the same sort of scale of values in the Third world there will be difficulties.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister (Mr. Loveridge), who spoke about the importance of trade. In particular, I agree about the great significance of the cutbacks in the United States agricultural production which are now under way. He said, and he was right, that this was a great and important sacrifice that we in the EC must be prepared to match. I hope that we have the courage to do so in the future. I was surprised by the statistics that he gave the House on African food output, which he said fell by seven per cent. in the 1960s and by a further 15 per cent. in the 1970s. It is a sad and surprising tragedy that, in an age when many improvements to agricultural methods must be, at least in theory, available in the continent, it should be slipping back so fast in the production of food.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster spoke also of Voluntary Service Overseas, and I agree that this is important. I saw a great deal of it when I was in Africa. However, the problem with VSO members is that they are usually sent out between school and university, and the experience is often more valuable for them than it is to the people whom they teach. They learn much, but at the time that they go out they do not have much to teach. In the modern world, we should send out people who have at least gone through a university degree, and possibly even send out people in mid-career when they have acquired useful skills of one kind or another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) was particularly interesting when he spoke of his own experiences in finding people hoarding large quantities of grain in a country where grain was supposed to be in short supply; indeed, the hoarding had caused the short supply.
I have noticed that we have some reservations in Britain about any increase in cereals aid. We may eventually be obliged to accept an increase in cereals aid if it is a substitute for, or if it goes hand in hand with, an increase in aid in dairy products. It is not right to be ripping minerals, in the form of phosphates, out of the ground so that we can grow cereals in Britain, often on land which is not particularly well adapted to growing them —growing them through the aid of subsidies which come from VAT, and dumping them on countries in which they could more easily have been grown in the first place. That does not make sense.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I recall a small incident which happened to me many years ago in a fairly rich Arab North African country, not by any means one of the poorest of the Third world states. I went into an oasis town in that country looking for some flour. We were camping a little way outside the oasis. Flour was not sold in the shops, so we went to the bakery. The baker said that he would give us some flour because he had a great deal of it and it did not cost him much. I looked into his stores from whence the flour came, and saw that it was part of United States aid. On the side of the great sacks it said, "A gift from the people of the United States". That incident raised in my mind several problems about food aid.
The destination of food aid is always and necessarily uncertain. It can be dispatched, but one never really knows
676
where it will end up. In many cases it ends up either in the wrong country or at least in the wrong class within the country to which it has been addressed.
There is the problem of corruption. Everyone in the House accepts that there is a level of corruption in the Third world—in some countries worse than others—but I think that many hon. Members would be surprised by the scale of corruption that is still commonplace in Africa. I have become inured to the thought that one should be prepared to accept a loss of 10, 20, 30 or even 40 per cent. as the necessary kick-back or slush fund to the middle man, but there are parts of Africa where less than half of what we are sending is reaching the desired recipients. I think that in some cases only a quarter of it is getting there.
There is the problem of transmission. The flour to which I referred earlier was rather poor and was in bad condition. It must have been fairly old because the last drought in a neighbouring country in that part of Africa had been some years previously. Food is not well suited for transportation. It goes off, it deteriorates, and in relation to its value it is much too heavy to be sending all over the world. It does not make sense to be sending butter, milk powder and flour if we can transmit our aid in more sensible forms than that.
Next, there is the distortion of patterns of food consumption. In most of the oasis towns in the country that I visited, people ate a great deal of bread. It probably does not make sense to encourage a taste for bread in a country in which little wheat, if any, is grown. There must be other forms of carbohydrates that would be more sensible in balancing the diet. The bread was cheap presumably because the flour was cheap, and the flour was coming from elsewhere.
There is the distortion of patterns of food production. In my constituency, on marginal land— and in some places on what is almost hill land—farmers are trying to grow barley on land which is clearly not suited to it. There is something wrong with our system of production and EC aids if farmers on marginal land in the United Kingdom are trying to grow barley. It is a question of the vested interests that begin to surround food—a matter that I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North.
Finally, there is the point which was made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping—that: by sending food aid to countries which are proving to be unable to produce their own food we tend to reinforce inadequate or wrong-headed policies of agricultural production in those countries.
I spent about six years of my childhood in Southern Rhodesia, as it then was. When I was there Southern Rhodesia not only produced all the maize she needed but exported maize to Malawi, Mozambique and Northern Rhodesia, as it then was. Zimbabwe is now in danger of having to import maize.
It cannot be right always in cases of food shortages simply to fill them by exports from abroad when what is needed is a reorganisation either of patterns of production or of the economic system in the countries concerned, so that production will be rewarded in a way that will encourage farmers to grow what is needed domestically.
In rehearsing the problems of food aid, and of helping other countries by sending them food rather than in other ways, I do so without any sort of glee. Having discovered that food aid is not the best way to help countries, I do not think that we should conclude that we need not help them

677
at all or that all forms of aid are wrong. We should simply conclude that there are better ways of helping people than by sending them food.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). I hope that it was not his swansong. One has to be careful about giving plaudits, because they can be used against an unfortunate Conservative candidate in a general election. A Labour councillor in my constituency once congratulated me publicly on doing what he was kind enough to say was a good job. The unhappy man has since had those plaudits thrown back at him at every election campaign—not by me, I hasten to add. Perhaps I should not say that I should like to see the hon. Member for Hackney, Central back in the House after the election, but I would. I have always listened with great interest to what he has had to say in debates such as the present one. He speaks not only with compassion but with great understanding.
I conclude by mentioning a subject on which the hon. Gentleman dwelt at some length—the problem of aid for those countries of which, for one reason or another, political or otherwise, we may disapprove. I try not to observe double standards in these matters. I have always argued that, even in countries such as South Africa, it is important that a certain amount of commercial intercourse should take place. Even with the Soviet Union, a certain amount of trade and exchange is important.
I am thinking particularly of Vietnam when I ask the Minister whether it is not time to review the absolute prohibition that Britain still maintains on aid for Vietnam. There is a great deal of malnutrition in Vietnam. I know that we disapprove of Vietnam for all kinds of reasons, but there must be a stage in the gravity of a calamity at which we set aside political considerations and ask whether the commonsense thing is not simply to provide the help. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on Vietnam.
7.27 pm
Mr. Tom Normanton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this juncture in a debate which most of us anticipated would last a mere one and a half hours. Judging by the contributions to the debate, I am sure that the importance of the subject matter has fully justified the extra time that has been made available.
I declare an interest as an elected Member of the European Parliament. Ever since I became a Member of it, appointed by this House in 1973, I have taken a very active, energetic and genuine interest in the relationships between the European Community, as it has developed over the years, and the developing parts of the world, and the help which is given—and increasingly given—to them. It was first given under the Yaoundé treaty, when the territories concerned were exclusively French or former French overseas colonies. Since the Lomé treaty eight years ago, there has been an expansion of that aid to cover the wider world of Lomé, now comprising 65 individual autonomous sovereign States in the Caribbean, in the Pacific and in Africa.
I must also declare an interest in an organisation that is energetically and actively involved in financing
678
developments and activities in the developing world and especially helping to solve some of the financial problems of those countries.
The fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, called me to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) gives me considerable satisfaction. My hon. Friend made a valuable contribution to the debate. He based his contribution not on theory or study, but on direct first-hand involvement for a long time. He mentioned the five years that he spent in Jamaica. I spent only five days in Jamaica three months ago and would not dream of commenting on any of my hon. Friend's remarks. He mentioned many of Jamaica's difficulties and the need to find solutions for them.
My hon. Friend referred also to the time that he spent in Swaziland and other parts of Africa. I spent many weeks in Africa as a member of the consultative assembly of the Lomé convention, which is a parliamentary institution of a kind. I have to say "of a kind" because in virtually all of those territories the word "parliamentary" means something entirely different from anything with which we in this House are familiar. It is a forum where politicians from 65 individual sovereign states meet elected parliamentarians from the European Community to pool their experiences, share their hopes and contribute to finding solutions to such problems as food production.
The Commission's proposal flows indirectly from the type of dialogue that has taken place for many years. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development for missing his opening contribution to the debate. I trust that in the course of that introduction he referred to the European Parliament and the dialogue that has occurred between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers culminating in the agreement of 30 June last year. That agreement established a modus operandi and a constitutional basis for the exercise of EC budgetary powers.
The debate has ranged widely as a result of the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members and has been constructive.
For reasons of time I do not propose to touch upon two aspects that are of tremendous importance — first, the constitutional and legal questions, which involve the basis upon which the Commission's proposal is being presented to the House and, secondly, the budgetary powers and the budgetary aspects of development finance by the European Community. I do wish, however, to refer to a few aspects that I consider to be of special importance. Deep and wide consultations are taking place throughout the 10 member states of the Community, throughout all its parliamentary institutions and between the Governments of the individual member states comprising the signatories to the Lomé convention, for a new Lomé 3 to take effect next year. In doing that, several lessons must be learnt.
First, I wish to direct Britain's attention and especially that of British industry to the way in which British industry is failing to avail itself of opportunities for business, industrial and commercial expansion in the way that France has done so successfully for many years. I refer to the European development fund. The sum involved is quite small in comparison with the totality of the United Kingdom's budget. That is about £125,000 million, whereas the EDF comprises about 5,500 million units of account—approximately £3,000 million— a relatively small sum. French interests, French industry and, above all, French governmental agencies go out of their way

679
legitimately to capture as big a slice of this fund as they can for French benefit, and especially for former French colonial territories. British industry is only 25 per cent. successful when measured in terms of the success of French industry.
The EDF is financed by member Governments of the 10 EC states. For every franc that the French Government inject into the EDF, French industry, interests and agencies take out two francs. For every pound that came out of the pockets of right hon. and hon. Members and the public last year, a mere 41p came back to British industry. The reason for that is lack of awareness of what the fund is, how industry can get its hands on it and the opportunities available.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, I trust that he will either confirm or refute my point. Will he, loudly and long, stress to British industry the need to take advantage of the opportunities available?
I wish to refer to the defects in the Community aid programmes. I have been associated with such programmes since the Yaoundé convention and since Lomé 1 and Lomé 2 programmes have been involved. Many defects and weaknesses have been shown to exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West touched on many of them. His points are entirely valid and sensible and constructive lessons should be drawn from them.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his participation as a member of the appropriate Council of Ministers will lay great stress on the many difficulties in the budget. First, there is the delay between presentation of requests by individual states for aid and their processing for inclusion in the Community approved programmes. Secondly, there is the lamentable delay that results almost inevitably in underspending of approved and available sums. That topic causes deep and justifiable anxiety on the part of the 65 member Governments of the Lomé convention. Thirdly, I have always felt that the Community and the individual member states have tended to place too great an importance on aid in the form of food, in helping to fill empty bellies rather than pursuing the objective of helping countries to help themselves, which should be the principal objective of the Lomé 3 policy for helping the developing world.
Another lesson to be learnt is the importance of infrastructure. If a fraction of the sums that the EC has poured into the developing world under the Lomé 1 and 2 programmes had been concentrated on infrastructure—for example, the construction of hydroelectric schemes which would have outlasted many of the political arguments and inter-state rivalries and hostilities that have characterised the relationships between many Lomé states, particularly in Africa—the control of water to create power and the supply of water to desert and arid areas would have been the biggest single contribution to helping to fill the empty bellies to which I referred earlier.
The classic example is the Sahel where enormous quantities of flour, powdered milk and so on have been flown in at huge cost. Much has perished on the way. If we had made water flow where no water has flowed before or has flowed only intermittently, in the form of floods and deluges, we would have made the biggest single contribution to helping those in developing countries, particularly in Africa.
I hope that the Government will consider this matter. The Council of Ministers proposes to make available a
680
mere 50 million units of account to help to combat hunger. We must help people to help themselves to fill their own bellies, not make them dependent on us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West referred to VSO. Many young men and women in my constituency have benefited enormously from serving on VSO projects, but I suggest that a greater and longer-lasting benefit would accrue to the developing countries if their own clever people came to Europe, learnt skills and expertise that are appropriate to their own countries, and went back and put into practice what they learnt here.
There is a gap in the administrative structure of most developing countries. It is the absence of what might be called a middle class or a commercial sector. We have a duty, not to say a mutual interest, to try to fill that void. In the consultative assembly of the EEC/ACP I have managed to get support for the establishment of a business training college. I am thinking not of something like the Harvard school, because that would be useless for people from developing countries, but a place where skills and expertise can be taught to those from developing countries so that they will be able to do for themselves what only they can and must do. There is a great need for the establishment of such a college, and I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will think about that, not necessarily today, but when he is having discussions with the political leaders of the 65 Lomé states, with whom he is frequently in contact.
The other area in which developing countries desperately need help is in financial management. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West mentioned corruption, but that is only one part of the syndrome, albeit an important part. I know of one country—it would be unethical of me to name it at this stage — whose president pleaded with me to help him to set up an efficient, honest and capable Ministry of Finance. I know the president well and have met him frequently. It was not that he did not trust his Minister of Finance or the officials in the Ministry. They are good and honourable people, but in handling financial contributions from the West, including from the E.I.B. and the World Bank, they do not have the expertise to be efficient and cost effective.
The West could bring influence to bear in such areas. Britain has the resources, the expertise and, above all, the world-renowned integrity that would allow us to help to train people from developing countries to be more effective—some would say more honourable, though it is a matter not of honour or ethics, but of expertise—-in the management of their own financial affairs.
The European Commission is proposing that the Council of Ministers should adopt the legal basis that is necessary under Community regulations for 50 million units of account of appropriations to be entered in the 1933 EC budget. That is in addition to the funds that are already made available under the European development fund, but the control of them and the legal basis for projects under the regulations will be different. I strongly support that proposal and I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reflect his concern and mine sympathetically in his discussions with his opposite numbers in the other nine member states of the Community.
7.49 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: No one could look at the extent of the suffering that is caused by a shortage of food in Third world countries without feeling enormous

681
compassion and sorrow. The question for the House to consider therefore is not whether we have a duty to help, but to what extent it is practicable for us and the European Community to do so, whether the aid proposed is adequate, and what other steps can be taken to increase the assistance that we give the stricken countries in the Third world.
First, we must consider the causes of the suffering and shortages. As many of my hon. Friends have said, there is no great shortage of food in the world, but there is a great shortage of food where it is most needed and surpluses where it is not needed. An easy mistake is to assume that by the mere process of moving the food from one part of the world to another one can resolve all the problems. However, the burden of cost of moving that food makes effectiveness of such aid highly questionable. In America, the vast areas of corn-producing land often end up with an enormous surplus heap. No one moves it and it rots. There is a problem of scale, and it cannot be met by assistance from this country or from any one nation. It is a problem that will give the world headaches for many years to come.
In Africa, in particular, one of the causes of the chronic problems is the cost of oil. In Kenya some five or six years ago, before the last great oil price increase, only 20 per cent. of the gross domestic product was spent on importing fuel. Now, over 75 per cent. of the product of that country has to be spent on imported fuel before any agricultural work can be undertaken. It is clearly impossible for any country in that position to feed its own population adequately or to create the wealth that is necessary to buy the food on the world markets and import food at a reasonable price.
Another problem in Africa is the lack of expertise and skill together with the tremendous and unfortunate political instability which has led the whole of that continent year after year into a state where it cannot properly govern itself. Also, sadly, racial prejudice in many African countries prevents them from helping themselves correctly. African leaders who refuse to allow white people to farm or contribute to farming in their countries demonstrate the totally counter-productive attitude of their Governments. It makes it hard for European nations, however well-intentioned, to give them adequate assistance in learning to feed themselves.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris)—who, unfortunately, has just left the Chamber—who pointed to the danger of the idea that one could solve the problem simply by sending food. To send food is superficially attractive. No one can look at dying and starving people without wishing to send food that will alleviate their suffering for the time being, but to do so is often far from kind in the long term, unless these countries learn to feed themselves in due course. The supply of aid cannot continue for ever, and the more dependent they become on imported and artificial food the less likely it is that they will be able to help themselves.
Moreover, there is a major problem with the changing climate that is affecting farming enterprises throughout the globe, particularly in the southern hemisphere, where both Australia and South Africa recently experienced droughts which, as far as I am aware, had no parallel in recorded
682
history. If there is a major crop failure in such comparatively advanced countries, the consequences for the rest of that part of the world must be severe.
I do not know whether man's knowledge will grow sufficiently in the coming years and decades for us to be able to predict weather patterns more closely. It will not help to attempt to grow crops in places which cannot support them. It is difficult to carry out the planning that has been suggested in the Chamber today if we give aid in terms of expertise of machinery and equipment where the soil or weather prevents the effective growing of crops.
None the less, and reluctantly, I agree with what has been said about food imports. If we attempt to give aid by sending food, such as tinned milk, and cereals in particular, all too often that aid disappears en route or is the subject of massive corruption on the part of recipient Governments or members of those Governments. The food does not filter through to the poor and starving people. My father was in India at the end of the last war and he was in charge of some of the operations that we undertook at that time to help with the terrible starvation that was one of the consequences of that war. He told me about the corruption that he encoutered in the chain of command and supply and distribution. The grain or rice that was sent from this country to India never got much further than the pockets of some of the Indian gentleman who were responsible for distributing the aid. We must not pretend that corruption does not exist in many of the countries to which we send aid.
I suggest that when we send food aid direct we should make certain that the EC is in total control of the way in which the food is used and distributed, as happened recently with some of the charity that was sent to the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia. The acute suffering was brought home to us by the extremely good television coverage. It showed us the appalling sadness of the dying children there.
There are two main ways in which we can follow up the policies which the EC has adopted. First, we must make sure that food aid is not distributed by people whose honesty is questionable. Secondly, we must ensure that where aid is given to help with farming, it is given in such a way that it can be used by the people who are learning from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West spoke about the admirable work of the VSO and said that, notwithstanding its great benefit both to the communities visited and to the young people themselves, he was doubtful about the real use of that form of aid to the communities that it is supposed to serve. I agree with that view, in that, although I accept that it is magnificent to send young people out to teach, when it comes to teaching agriculture they are generally not sufficiently expert to be of much practical use to those communities, and even if they are expert they have probably been apprenticed to English farms, using English methods of agriculture which are wholly unrelated to the situation in which they find themselves.
We should put greater emphasis on encouraging people with the relevant experience and with good academic qualifications to spend longer periods in these communities, trying to help them to set up suitable schemes of their own. It is not a matter so much of teaching farmers as of teaching people who can then become teachers and teach the farmers how best to use the facilities of their own countryside. Unless we do that, we shall waste the limited resources that we can put into such schemes and the

683
opportunities to alleviate the suffering and to make a constructive contribution to the agriculture of the Third world. While I support the proposals in the document before the House, and I believe that everybody will do so —there are only two Labour Members present, so it is unlikely that they will argue against the Government's proposals—none the less, we should do so with those comments in mind.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman had followed the debate from the start he would have been aware that there was almost complete unanimity between the Front Benches. Only one or two Conservatives Members have suggested that they do not support the Government's policy. There was clearly acceptance among Labour Members that the matter had to be improved before the Government could agree with it.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have no doubt that every hon. Member is anxious that we should do what we can to help to deal with this dreadful, widespread and unacceptable suffering. It is extraordinary that over 400 million people are suffering from malnutrition. That, put into the context of the EC, shows that only a limited amount of help at any given time can be made available and that, unfortunately, we can only scratch at the surface with any steps that we might take to be of assistance. I warmly commend the recommendations in this paper and hope that others will do the same.
8.1 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: This is an interesting debate because it reflects the attitudes of the developed world to the underdeveloped world. There can be no doubt that, whatever party one belongs to, no one can look at the problems of the Third world and remain untouched. The real issue in debates of this kind is whether the aid that is being given is channelled in the most useful way, not whether it is sufficient. Are we making the best possible use of resources that the developed world, in particular the EC, has for helping the Third world? After all, aid is a highly emotive word and the developed nations of Europe have been involved in many forms of aid to the Third world for many years.
Some would criticise the way that aid has been exploited by individuals within the Third world, and that has been touched on by some hon. Members. Food aid, in particular, can be seen as a positive way to help people in the Third world where food is in short supply. It is easy to ship grain to those people who are hungry. Sadly, assistance which can give relief in the short term can do long-term damage to the country receiving aid if the aid is only given in the form of food. We must consider how to encourage people in different parts of the world to cultivate more from their own resources—to improve their agriculture to achieve what is necessary.
The real challenge that is facing us is to build up and develop agriculture in the Third world so that so it can become more sufficient. It is sad that many parts of the world which, provided the other conditions are right, have a climate that can produce enormous harvests for those living there fail to do so because the most important commodity—water—is missing. We should channel aid from the EC to the Third world into the production of food, marketing, and distribution. Those are all the areas that are
684
either in need of change or do not exist at all. If such countries are to provide food from their own resources they must have the means of production, marketing and distribution. The aid should be channelled into those areas and then monitored effectively to provide long-term solutions to the problem, which is not new; it has been with the Third world for a long time.
How can the EC effectively help to combat hunger in the Third world? It is certainly not by providing food either free or cheaply. It is by dealing with production, marketing and distribution. That can be achieved, first, by ensuring that there is the necessary infrastructure within those countries. Without that, little can be done. That will call for hydro schemes in some areas to produce electricity, which can then be used for irrigation schemes. More importantly, assistance will be needed in crop management and animal husbandry.
The sad truth is that lack of water in the right places, coupled with infestation, has been responsible for many of the sad sights that we see so often on our television sets —the malnutrition and the illnesses that children and adults suffer from.
I want to draw on an example of the work that has been carried out over the past 60 years in a part of the world that was previously made up of swamps. Anyone who has visited the West Bank of the Jordan and looked at the work that has been done there and in Israel will know that swamps have been turned into farms and that deserts have become fertile agricultural land. I make no comment on the political situation in that sad part of the world; I am just drawing attention to what can be done in an area that has for so long been a desert or a swamp. When I served in that part of the world as a young man I can remember noticing the difference when one flew over the Sinai peninsula and then came to the country that was called Palestine. One could see the difference. No wonder it was called the Promised Land. There were the green areas and the lovely crops adjacent to an enormous desert that is now slowly being transformed by irrigation and the fact that the people know how to apply what nature provides. Provided that they can be harnessed, a desert or a swamp can be made to produce food.
Food aid can have a depressing effect on market prices for locally produced products and in many ways creates a disincentive for local producers. Even in a country that already has the means of production, if the Western world in its wisdom decides to send it lots of food in the form of aid to solve its problems that can have a depressing effect on that country's market and can be a disincentive to local producers. The vital task is to encourage the development of production in Third world countries. That can best be achieved with crop programmes that can produce a return.
An element that has not been touched on previously in the debate is to be found in the example set by the tobacco companies in the Third world. Tobacco is used as a revenue-producing crop, with which a producer can then rotate his crops and grow other much-needed foods. That is done in conjunction and with the help of the tobacco companies, which give advice on husbandry and crop rotation. The tobacco companies come in for much criticism from many quarters but it is interesting that their example in the Third world is rarely touched upon. Yet, if anyone cares to study their work in the Third world, it will be seen that they have a record that is second to none in terms of positive help in crop management and rotation.

685
That is one way in which the private sector has been involved over many decades in assisting Third world countries. It is certainly true in Latin America, south-east Asia and Africa.
There are other ways in which we can help. For example, the Crop Research Institute at Invergowrie in my constituency sends out people to give help and advice on crop rotation, the best crops to grow and the way to care for them. That is another example of an organisation within the EC that is helping producers in the Third world in a meaningful way. It is not enough merely to give advice. We must become more involved. We must give advice and practical help on the spot and ensure that the advice is understood and applied. When we say in English what we want done, the effect may be entirely different when translated into Swahili, for example, and may convey a very different message.
It is clear from the example of the USSR that when the state tries to run agriculture there can be ghastly crop failures. That is not necessarily because the climate or the growing conditions are bad. When individuals work in agriculture they must be highly motivated. It is no good if they start work at 9 o'clock when they should have started at 6 o'clock. It is no good if they put off until the next day what should have been done on the day in question. Many of the problems in the USSR stem from a lack of incentive.
If developing countries try to run their agriculture on the model of the USSR, we should not be surprised if the result is failure on a grand scale. When we give aid to the socialist countries of the Third world, we should stress that although we may not be against their ideals—although we may be — and are not saying that there are better approaches, it must be recognised that capitalist North America produces crops that meet its needs and the world's needs, whereas in the USSR that is not achieved.
It is sad to consider the problems that the Soviets have faced. It gives me no pleasure to realise that Soviet agricultural production was at its best in 1978. Since then it has been on a steep decline. Agricultural production within the Soviet Union has not been adequate to meet the nation's needs since 1978. However, it has the land mass and the conditions that should make it possible to produce on the scale that will satisfy demand.
In the Third world there are countries with climatic conditions that could provide food in abundance if they received advice on irrigation, for example, and other assistance. That is true of Israel where the swamps were turned into splendid agricultural areas. That can be done but there must be investment in the right form. Such a transformation calls for management aid and, more importantly, the motivation of those who have to carry out the task.
If the EC and the United Kingdom are keen on helping positively and meaningfully, voluntary aid is an extremely effective method of getting our young people to the areas where they are most needed. There is a need especially for trained people who can provide the leadership and motivation that is desperately needed in Third world countries.
In many Third world countries there are endemic problems such as corruption. We judge corruption by United Kingdom standards, but in many Third world countries it is normal for pay-offs to be received and for
686
people to expect a cut on the strength of an involvement. We must accept that that is the way in which certain countries are run and operated. We must ensure that we do not allow that corruption to continue on a scale that deflects the aid that we are prepared to give. However, we must not expect that these countries will have codes of conduct that are comparable with those that we expect in the United Kingdom.
When we provide positive and meaningful aid, I hope that we shall consider carefully how the schemes will be administered and who will be responsible for doing so. That means that we must give careful consideration to the practice that Europe has adopted of getting rid of its surpluses. That is not a clever way of helping countries that need help. In getting rid of its surpluses, Europe is helping to destroy the agricultural potential of many Third world countries. That is the result of putting their producers out of business.
8.15 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. It is not without significance that at this interesting stage in the Parliament we are debating food aid to the Third world. It is not without reason for comment, too, that the Liberal and Social Democratic parties' Benches have been empty for a long time while a debate has been proceeding on a subject that is clearly of great interest to the main political parties.
The Third world is a subject of especially deep importance to the British people. That may stem from a colonial past, for which some of us—but very few on the Conservative Benches and certainly not I—attempt to apologise, or from other historical links, but it seems that the British people's consciousness of those in the Third world and their sense of responsibility and interdependence are deep indeed.
The phenomenon of the Brandt Commission's report is a sign of that fact. I happen to believe that that report had some rather serious flaws, many of which were eliminated in the later report, "The Common Crisis". The phenomenon to which I refer is the response of the British people to the report. About 120,000 copies of the Brandt report have been sold or distributed in the United Kingdom compared with about 6,000 or 7,000 in the United States, and fewer still in West Germany. Almost none were sold or distributed in many other countries. I believe that it had a high distribution in the Netherlands, but overwhelmingly the report rang a bell with the British public. That is something in which we should take pride.
As a people we continue to feel that we have a link with the suffering in the rest of the world. That feeling is developed by what we see on our television screens, although from time to time we may become nervous about some of the representations, which may become misrepresentations. I accept that generally the television coverage of the Third world's problems has a beneficial effect. It maintains the awareness of which I speak and finds a ready response in Britain among all sections of political opinion, and most certainly opinion in the Churches. That I greatly welcome.
I have the opportunity quite often of speaking throughout the country and I am pleasantly surprised at the depth of knowledge as well as the compassion that is revealed among so many of our compatriots. The resolution which is put to member countries by the

687
Commission is a welcome reflection of that feeling. To that degree it has to be welcomed, but the Government must be congratulated on their recognition of the fact that the proposal is in need of improvement. It approaches the important problem of hunger and undernourishment at too simplistic a level.
The problems of western Europe—which perhaps we have created because of the common agricultural policy and food surpluses—have created pressures which have led us into a dangerous emphasis on transfer of food aid. There are other pressures and dangers of which we should be aware as we wrestle with the problem of ensuring that 400 million people will not go on starving. To that end, food aid is not the only answer, and to exaggerate the impact of straight food transfers could itself be damaging.
Before I was privileged to enter this House, as a member of the Diplomatic Service I spent about 10 years being involved, in various capacities with the administration of our official aid programme, and I saw much of the programmes of the various voluntary agencies. I served as deputy high commissioner in Bangladesh. I had experience of Latin America, India and Pakistan and, from the London end, I had some experience of our links with east African countries.
That experience gave me a considerable insight into the possibilities and dangers of aid. One danger of food aid —the food goes, by definition, to what are basically food-producing countries—is that it seriously upsets the local economy. I have not yet seen an example—even in India, which is one of the most sophisticated economies to benefit from food aid—where serious problems have not been caused for the national economy and local food producers. Chapter 3 of Brandt pointed out that most problems must be solved in the countries themselves. If the political, structural, economic and social criteria are not right, no amount of external aid—food, economic, the simple transfer of funds or even aid by way of technology —will work unless, using the phrase metaphorically, the domestic soil is properly cultivated.
The experience of the post-war years—certainly the 20 or so years during which the developed countries have made a considerable effort in the provision of aid—has confirmed Brandt's comment that, without something approaching the correct domestic conditions in the developing countries, no amount of external aid will produce the answers for which we passionately look. When we consider the record of those countries which have taken off, we see that that thesis has proved to be correct time and again. We may not approve of the political mix of a country, but when we look at the successs of some and the failure of others it is clear that many lessons are to be drawn.
Consider, for example, what has been achieved in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. They could, on the face of it, be extremely poor countries. Singapore and Hong Kong have virtually no natural resources yet, with massive populations, they have achieved incredible economic growth, to the point where we in the West have come to fear for our own industrial and manufacturing capabilities.
Bangladesh, where I had the honour to serve for two years, is a fertile country. It suffers from water problems —usually too much, but sometimes drought—but the soil is highly fertile. Despite its serious population problem, if it could achieve the acreage yields of Japan, the food problems of Bangladesh, one of the poorest
688
countries in the world, would be on the way to being solved. Sadly, that is far from the case. They will not be solved by a few more thousand tonnes of dried milk being shipped in from western Europe. They can be solved only by the people of Bangladesh making the necessary land and other reforms, with proper irrigation and so on. The knowledge is there. Only the organisation and motivation are required, though an appreciation of that is dawning there and elsewhere.
Consider what is happening in China, which went through the traumatic experience of the cultural revolution, 10 years during which Mao was seeking to make everyone live in impersonal communes containing huge groupings of humanity, with the theory of Marxism and Communism being brought to what he believed was its highest point. It was a political disaster. The cultural revolution developed into near civil war. Food production was a disaster. It was a great lesson for the Chinese.
The developing world should see what has happened in China since the new policies have been followed over the past four to six years. The present Chinese leadership, particularly under Deng Xiaoping, has recognised the point that I am making, and which was made by the Brandt Commission, that organisation within the community is what matters. The Chinese have returned to private incentives and rewards for the peasants. The results have been tremendously encouraging, and that is to put it mildly. We are always chary of dealing with Chinese statistics, and I shall not quote any, but it is clear to any observer that over the past four or five years the Chinese have made great strides, because they are solving their problems locally at peasant level.
When I was in China just over 12 months ago there was the incredible phenomenon of peasants with high incomes by Chinese standards. It was reported in the local newspaper that the family of one peasant was earning no less than £12,000, which is an absolute fortune in China. It would be regarded by many of us as a not inconsiderable sum. The private plots of land which are burgeoning are bringing food into the cities. China has been transformed. It is a lesson that the rest of the world should lean.
The opposite can be seen in other areas where Socialism is practised and clung to as an ideology through thick and thin. It is virtually always through thin. It is no accident that the billions of pounds that have been spent over the past 20 years on the developing countries by the industrial world have had less effect on those countries which have clung to the ideological commitment of a Socialist Government. That is confirmed when we look at the international figures for food grain.
It is unfortunate, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that we should be debating this subject when there are record cereal harvests. The wheat crop harvest is 746 million tonnes and coarse grain 748 million tonnes. They are record figures and yet at the same time other parts of the world have serious problems. The majority of countries which have those problems are those where Socialist principles are being applied. That includes the Soviet Union. Whereas in 1970 the Soviet Union was a net grain exporter, in 1982—and I believe that it will he the same in 1983 — it was one of the world's leading importers of grain and wheat. The entry of the Socialist countries of eastern Europe into the grain markets is yet another factor that is putting pressure on Third world countries. When one adds to that the problems and pressures created by the oil price crisis and its impact on

689
the import bills of the developing countries, and the consequent sharp reduction in their ability to pay for their own imports, one has a good idea of the problems that we face.
What is the answer for Britain and the rest of the developed world—the Community and the countries that participate in the Development Assistance Committee? The answer is to follow the element in the Brandt Commission that concentrates on helping Third world countries — the underdeveloped countries — to help themselves. That must be where the answer lies. It cannot be in constantly increasing food aid transfers. As I have tried to show in my brief remarks, that may help, as a temporary palliative, to relieve some of the immediate problems for a week or a day, but the real answer must lie in developing the right conditions.
The situation could be transformed. The developing countries could look at the successes of and the lessons that can be learnt from countries such as South Korea and Japan. Leaving aside the industrial might of Japan, the rural areas there have much to teach the rest of Asia. The leap from the low productivity in so many parts of South Asia or Africa to the productivity that has been achieved in countries such as Japan seems enormous at present, but, with the correct policies, the correct political leadership and the incentives that private enterprise gives, and the private enterprise that China can demonstrate, it would be reasonable to hope that in two or three years' time we would no longer need to debate emergency food aid proposals. Then we could look forward to a much more prosperous world in which living standards are rising and markets are increasing, for the greater benefit of all of us.
8.38 pm
Mr. John G. Blackburn: I am delighted to have the favour of being called in this debate. Now, when Parliament is coming to an end, it is a time for reflection. In that spirit I reflect on the House of Commons at its finest moment. In my considered judgment, the House showed all its compassion, sense and gift in the two wonderful debates on the Brandt report. It was a credit not only to the House and to those who took part, but to this country and the compassion that was poured into the pages of the Brandt report.
It is most opportune that I should have been called to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), because he has given a moving and authoritative account of the position in the Third world, which he knows at first hand, in particular from his service in the High Commission in Bangladesh. His speech reflected the greatest possible credit upon my hon. Friend and his constituency.
In the few moments at my disposal, I should like to follow the theme of the debate by referring to the Indian subcontinent. Eighteen months ago, I spent five weeks in the Indian subcontinent and visited the two poorest countries in the world. It was a sobering experience. I urge hon. Members, in reading the document before us, to be cautious about the concept of continually providing aid in the form of food. My experience in the subcontinent suggests to me that, in the final analysis, that is not the answer.
In India, 12 months ago, $80 out of every $100 earned in foreign currency was spent on oil. In Bangladesh, the
690
figure was $65 out of every $100. That is a crippling burden for a people with little industry and with a very limited agricultural industry, mainly at peasant level, to bear. I should therefore like to direct a few remarks to article 3·4.
Before I had the privilege of serving in this House, I spent 22 years as an engineer. It is remarkable that, although we are talking about aid to the underdeveloped countries and the Third world, one has to look very hard at the proposal before finding any mention of industry, engineering or the possibility of increased trade. I should like to pay a sincere tribute to the then Government for the decision taken in 1978 to give aid to Bangladesh in the sum of £500 million. It is a credit to this House that that aid was not given in the form of food or medical assistance; it was for building.
If one travels to the northern part of Bangladesh one will find a factory called Ashundi, the like of which I have never seen in my life. It employs 18,000 people, and it was aid from this country that built it. The factory produces fertiliser. When in full production, it will produce enough fertiliser to supply the needs of Bangladesh and for export. That is an example of real, positive, constructive aid to the Third world.
There are tremendous problems in earning foreign currency to meet the fuel bills. I salute the engineers of this country who went to Bangladesh and with their skill, their gifts and their talent gave Bangladesh more than the food that any other country could have given. They discovered natural gas on a scale which, if handled and engineered correctly, should reduce the figure of $65 for every $100 earned to possibly $10 or $20. That is the sort of aid that the developed country should be giving.
A consistency throughout the debate, again a credit to the House, has been that hon. Members have spoken about food, vitamins and nourishment. It is an equally sobering experience to stand outside a hospital in Dacca at seven in the morning and to see 800 people queuing up for treatment, many of whom had walked 10 or 12 miles through the night to be there. It is a humbling experience to go through the hospital wards in Bangladesh, be they in Dacca or Chittagong, and see them staffed by people from the European Community. They give aid in a way that can never be measured within the terms of a Community document.
I hope that people will not be offended by what I say, but I have always been a dedicated disciple of trade between countries. Given an opportunity to create positive trade between these countries, we shall help them in such a way that perhaps the cries and pleas for food aid will be a thing of the past. I am sure that our prayer is that that should be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said that there was either too much water or not enough. It is incredible that the cost of supplying fresh, pure drinking water to a village is £150. I have seen a tube well sunk in the village square giving such a water supply. But we should hang our heads in shame because the £150 needed to supply that tube well does not come from Brandt or this House, with all its majesty and compassion, but from the Christians who donate to the various missionary funds that supply the villages of Bangladesh with water. I am especially pleased to note in article 3·4 the expression
"vocational and technical training in the field of development".
There is a real opportunity for people who are dedicated to and love the Third world to use their talents for the

691
benefit of Bangladesh. I would not allow the House to think that Bangladeshis do nothing for themselves. When the pages of history are written, it will emerge that one of the tragedies of that country was the assassination of the man who, at 6 o'clock in the morning, went to the villages, took a spade and dug the irrigation canals together with his people. That was President Ziaur Rahman. His assassination at the Circuit House at Chittagong was one of the darkest deeds in the short history of Bangladesh.
As to India with all its problems, the real hope that we pan give is to allow it to develop its national resources, its trade and its people's skills. It is honourable to earn one's daily bread.
It is against that background that this debate and the document are important. I have mentioned the development of natural gas and the production of fertiliser. I respectfully remind the Treasury that if we gave such development greater emphasis and developed trade between our countries, we should confer on the Indian subcontinent all that it could wish for.
I suppose that this is the last time that I shall make a speech in this Parliament. Brandt is the key which opens up new horizons for the people of the Third world. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted the terms of Brandt. I exclude the Social Democrats and the Liberals who, yet again, are conspicious by their absence from this important debate. No one has a monopoly of compassion and love. This debate is another example of the House of Commons dealing with Brandt and facing the issues. I hope that we shall give a good account of our stewardship of this important EC document. I hope that we shall pray that God will bless those who help people in the Third world. They deserve our support and protection and I am sure that the House will not fail them.
8.54 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I have travelled extensively in the Third world and have seen the problems that we are discussing, especially in Africa, the middle east and Mauritius. Direct aid in the form of agriculture counts for most in Third world countries. We should encourage school children to support the Third world by buying and naming a cow for a village, and by sending money for a hospital that someone can visit. What we need most from children, adults and people of good will who have over the centuries, especially in this and the past century, been moved to send money and to relieve the hungry in the Third world is aid that contributes to the development of a country's ability to produce its own food.
One of my best friends is Archbishop Trevor Huddlestone. I visited him in Mauritius two years ago and travelled with him round that small island to see where aid from Governments, the EC and voluntary service goes. Direct aid from Britain has provided an infrastructure of roads, which is fundamental to the development of any economy, and voluntary aid has provided hostels for old people which they would never otherwise have, and facilities for children, orphans and the blind in the form of a nicely appointed home.
We who sometimes stagger from Sainsbury's with groaning shopping bags complaining of being underfed should think of those who have distended stomachs because of malnutrition and the hell that that involves. In our comparative affluence, we should think of those who have nothing.
8.58 pm
Mr. John Sever: The House will have welcomed the opportunity to give such deep consideration to this document. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed its arrival. There has probably been greater agreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and the Minister of State than between the Minister and many of his colleagues. The Minister was wise enough to welcome the document cautiously, but also to express some reservations about it that he believes to be appropriate.
By tomorrow many people who are alive now will be dead. Many bodies will be strewn round the Third world. People will die for want of a decent meal, which most of us, we hope, will enjoy later this evening. They are desperate. The situation for most of the developing nations is difficult at best and beyond hope in certain regards at worst. It is a credit to the EC that it should, at least in some small and meagre measure—which this is—be giving some consideration to those who are doubtless the worst off. If we are, as the Government have accepted recently, supposed to be giving aid to those in the greatest need, the poorest in the poorest countries, any little help that we might be able to give from improvements in the way in which we operate both our bilateral and multilateral aid, such as the measures about which we are talking, is to be welcomed.
The House has heard a number of hon. Members refer to different aspects of the way in which we can be of some assistance to those in greatest need, and help in the development of the Third world and the improvement of the living standards of millions of people. Not much help will come to those millions from the money that will be disposed of if we accept this document. The Minister is right to believe that there are some reservations that we should have about the way in which we operate and dispense what little funds we have for the tackling of what is probably the greatest problem and the greatest tragedy that face mankind — that of those who do not have enough to eat.
The House has a considerable degree of compassion and concern for those in this unfortunate category and that is why I hope that in the years to come, when we will have, I hope, a new Labour Administration who are somewhat more specifically committed to development in the Third world, we shall see a more purposeful advance towards overcoming the tragedies of the Third world. I hope that were my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich in the position of the Minister of State, he would introduce proposals and documents that would be more helpful to the development of the Third world than the one that we are discussing now. However, I cannot blame the Minister for the contents of the document but merely for not being able, with whatever powers are at his disposal for encouraging his European partners, to propose something more meaningful for this great tragedy.
My right hon. and hon. Friends, during the course of this Parliament, have argued consistently that the recommendations outlined graphically in the Brandt report and the memorandum recently issued should be pursued with all vigour and enthusiasm. Money should be made available from the Treasury to back up the Brandt recommendations and to make real inroads into the

693
problems of development, not only in the Third world but in those countries where some degree of improvement is long overdue.
Earlier in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) made a telling and moving contribution about the tragedy that now faces the people of Ethiopia. In recent times, this issue has highlighted and pinpointed the great problems that face us in the developed world over the way in which we administer funds and offer help and succour to those in greatest need. My hon. Friend referred to the great tragedy of the refugees and the starvation that has hit millions of people in the Horn of Africa. The commitment that we are making there is considerable, and much credit should go to the Government. However, that commitment is in no way a true reflection of the view that the British people hold about the tragedy there or the way in which they believe that the Government should be supporting those who are facing such jeopardy. We should be encouraging the Government, even at this latest hour in what will be, I hope, their terminal week, to make something more than the gesture that they have made to those people to bring about a happier solution to the problems facing so many.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) gave the House, with some degree of humour, his view of the Government's views on Nicaragua and the problems that that country faces. Many of us believe that, while the political situation there might not be all that it is in Birmingham, Ladywood, or anywhere else in Britain, it is showing the signs that we would hope for in its development, inasmuch as the Government are committed to bringing about real and meaningful improvements in the standard of living of their people. The political ideologies that might divide the Government of Nicaragua from the Minister of State and his colleagues should not be so wide as to cause the rejection of any pleas for help that might come from them, or appeals for an advancement in the aid that we are able to offer.
To ensure the stabilisation of countries that are facing enormous and extremely difficult problems we should be making contributions towards their development and helping those there who are seeking to bring about genuine improvement.
I am mindful of the fact that in the past there has been a degree of criticism about the way in which aid has been dispensed and of the kind of aid that has been made available. It was mentioned earlier that aid often has an adverse effect on the indigenous industry of the country to which it is sent. One or two hon. Members have referred to that aspect in the debate. It is particularly the case with food aid, which can seriously disrupt the agricultural organisation of the area to which it is sent.
Recently a witness spoke very disparagingly to the House of Lords Select Committee dealing with the subject, and said that, although, the dangers of food aid can be avoided, the way in which the EC gives food aid makes it as difficult as it can be to ensure that the negative effects are avoided and the positive effects are attained.
There have also been cases of EC food aid being withheld from certain regions for political reasons. The Select Committee documents the case of the suspension of the Community's aid programme to relieve the Vietnamese population in 1979, and the delay in food aid
694
to El Salvador in 1980, which was resumed in 1981. There is a parallel to be drawn between those situations and that which now obtains in Nicaragua.
Several hon. Members have referred to the way in which we might develop our trade associations with the developing nations in order to bring aid to them. I doubt whether many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), who has left us momentarily, would argue against the proposition that they could do with a few more orders being placed in the engineering firms' order books in Dudley for projects being developed and set up in Third world countries.
Obviously, while it is accepted that the development of fertiliser plants and so on is of immense value to the development and infrastructure of Third world countries, it is none the less the case that while those projects are being constructed people are dying in the villages around them. The urgency of the food aid programmes and of assistance such as that referred to in the document before us must be recognised and pursued with all speed.
Several hon. Members have referred to the framework of our overseas aid and development programme and to the way in which the moneys are dispensed. There is something in the argument that we could very well streamline the way in which money is made available in our overseas aid programmme. We need to look again at the way in which we dispense aid moneys.
It can be argued that there are a number of voluntary organisations that might best be suited to looking after certain aspects of the work that we are trying to undertake. I should like to see any Government doing that. Often the voluntary agencies have a knowledge of and a relationship with an area that is probably far more intimate than that which can be obtained through a Government agency. The pound for pound scheme, which has been discussed in the House, should be developed, supported and, if possible, extended. As a mark of their foreign aid commitment, the Government should state that every pound that a voluntary organisation can manage to find will be matched by the Government from a range of schemes and objectives that they pursue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich made reference in his opening remarks to the EDF. As Britain is committed to the fund, more finance should be found for it. We should encourage our partners in the Community to stump up the money that is required for a major advancement in the work that the European Community is attempting to undertake in the underdeveloped world. If Ministers go to Europe with a commitment to a greater involvement in development matters with their EC partners—with the support of the House—that would greatly encourage the work that is being done and would be a meaningful contribution to a solution of the problem.
If the EDF, the World Bank and other agencies were to be given greater support by Britain, there might well be a favourable response from many other countries, which do not necessarily make the contribution that Britain would wish them to make. Britain can play a leading role in the development of the Third world by reflecting the commitment of the House and the country towards the interest of those in the greatest need. A Minister of State would not be in any difficulty in seeking more money for this problem from his Treasury colleagues. It is not usually easy for the Minister for Overseas Development to argue against other more powerful Ministers for a greater budget. The support that is given in the House, and

695
outside, especially by many non-politicially aligned organisations in Britain, and the pressures that are being put on them by the Third world are enormous. A courageous Government could acquire more money, spend more money and make a more meaningful contribution, thereby alleviating the massive problems that should rest on everybody's conscience.
Hon. Members referred earlier to the way in which the document was presented and what it means. The document has been described as being good, welcome and laughable. I suspect that the truth lies between the parameters of what various hon. Members have said. At best, the document is encouraging in that it seems to be a new initiative, but it is not especially encouraging because it is not meaningful as it lacks the back-up of real money. The task that it sets itself is not likely to create a real reduction in world hunger and is not designed to be specifically aimed at target areas. The document is a bit wishy-washy as to who will administer its recommendations, and as to how much money wil be spent in specific areas. Furthermore, the document does not set out any priorities. Those hon. Members who are not wildly enthusiastic about the EC might wish to make some political comments about it. I will refrain from doing so because I do not wish to criticise a document that makes small inroads into an enormous problem that all hon. Members wish to see solved. Many people will examine the document and be displeased because it will not achieve its objectives. It will not resolve the problem of the starving millions. Furthermore, I doubt whether it will do anything other than make a marginal difference to the way in which the problem facing the hungry millions is tackled. I also doubt whether citizens of the Third world will jump about with glee having read the document.
If the Minister takes on board the arguments in support of the document and the theory and principle of assisting the developing world, that might in some small measure show the enthusiasm of the House for doing something for those people who are in the greatest need. It will help to stem the tide of hunger and starvation that is growing throughout the world, which has continued unabated for the past 20 years and about which the Government are doing little and about which they might do more by supporting the document and arguing for improvements in it.
The validity of the document is undeniable. It will bring some small assistance to an enormous problem, but the Opposition's major hope is that a Labour Government will be returned at the general election. A Labour Government, committed to the advancement of those in the developing and Third worlds, will be much more meaningful than the document that we are discussing.
Sir William Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sever: I believe that the incoming Labour Government will make a firm and positive commitment to the Third world so that some of the enormous problems that face us can be overcome.
9.15 pm
Mr. Raison: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. We were expecting to debate this subject for no more than one and a half hours late in the day. In fact, we have had a full day's debate and I believe that those who
696
have been present for it will be glad that that has been so. The debate has been thoughtful and has been distinguished by a number of excellent contributions. It has shown again the interest of the House in this subject
The comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) about the greater interest of a Labour Government have not been reflected in today's attendance or in the speeches. We have had a string of excellent speeches from my hon. Friends, who have shown that Conservatives are deeply committed to and interested in the subject of the debate.
However, we have had 'valuable speeches from both sides of the House and they are worthy of careful consideration. The debate has ranged wider than the specific proposal mentioned n the motion and has justified the primary emphasis that we seek to give in our aid programme, including the part channelled through the Community, to help to increase food production in the poorest countries of the world and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) put it, to help them help themselves.
We shall continue fully to support the EC aid programme, and we wish to see it strengthened and directed in the most effective manner. That is what we shall be concerned to do when we are returned to power.
The point at issue on the Commission's proposal is not whether the 50 million ecu should be spent, but how they can be spent most effectively. We should be happy to see the money disbursed through existing Community institutional arrangements such as the non-associates programme or the emergency aid programme.
We are not convinced that the proposed new regulation will be an appropriate additional measure unless it is improved. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the Government motion, and I am glad that the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and for Ladywood agree with the approach that we have taken.
The hon. Member for Greenwich made a point of substance when he spoke about recipient Governments being overwhelmed by the variety of offers and organisations that they face and by the administrative burdens entailed in dealing with different organisations. We have to recognise that, and if we can find ways of improving co-operation between donors it will be all to the good. Donor conferences can be valuable, but I accept that there is a need for proper co-ordination and that the hon. Member for Greenwich was right when he said that the policies of the Community towards the Third world should be co-ordinated. I should add that the EC is undoubtedly a useful instrument for co-ordination in this area. I agree, too, that we need a proper appreciation in reshaping the policies of the EDF, which will crop up in negotiations in the next Lomé round. So in those respects I agree with the hon. Gentleman, by and large.
The next speech was that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who told the House that it would probably be his last speech in this House. After his long period in the House, that will have grieved his friends. It was valuable to be reminded by him that not only had he fought hard and for a long time for our membership of the European Community, but that we should take advantage of that membership. I shall come back to that matter later. My hon. and learned Friend reminded us, as did other hon. Members, that

697
fundamentally we are talking about one world. That was the message of both the first and second Brandt reports, which we have already debated, and it is true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) made a telling point. He told us that as a young officer he saw the Bengal famine in 1943, which must have been an awesome experience. He said that it was not just a natural disaster, because it was largely manmade. Although nature and forces beyond our control contribute a tremendous amount to our problems, we must never sit back and say, "There is nothing that we can do about it." We must take the right steps.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) also spoke of the human element. He gave examples of the way that the over-grazing of land can allow the encroachment of the desert. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) likewise spoke of his experiences in Africa, where he saw what was happening on the ground and how the problems were caused. He advanced the view that goats should be eradicated. I thought that that was rather unlikely, because I cannot see goats disappearing from the world. However, many of his arguments were trenchant and deserve to be considered carefully.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) also made important points. There was the cost of imported fuel and its effect on the Third world. There was also the damaging effect of political instability and the problem—a natural problem—of whether we are living at a time when the climate is changing, and whether the damaging droughts in southern Africa and Australia have something to do with longer-term changes in our weather.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) talked, as he has done before, about the food aid policy of the European Community. No one has had a longer connection with the European Community than he, and no one is better able to speak of the development of policy in that connection. He gave us a historical perspective, going back to the repeal of the Corn Laws, which he condemned as a great mistake. He did not stop there. He also spoke about the reform of the common agricultural policy, which of course bears on this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) talked about the role of policy in increasing food production. He rightly drew attention to the importance of having the right policy environment to encourage the growth of food production in developing countries. One of the lessons from the efforts made by aid donors to direct more resources to rural development in the 1970s was that more finance alone is not enough. Without adequate prices, flexible marketing policies and the other elements of what nowadays is commonly called food strategy, investment may too easily fail to yield its proper return. That conclusion was carefully documented and brought out in the World Bank report "Aid to sub-Saharan Africa", to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) referred in his speech. Indeed, the absence of sufficiently clear and specific links between effective food policies and the provision of extra Community aid is one of the main reasons for the Government's reservations about the draft regulation that is before the House.
698
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) both referred to the importance of the forthcoming Williamsburg summit for developing countries. We agree that developing countries have been severely hit by the current world recession. Their export markets have contracted and some are facing mounting debt problems. The long-term solution for such problems is clearly a return to sustained non-inflationary growth in the world economy. We have laid the basis for sustained and sound growth at home by the success of our policies in combating inflation. Elsewhere there are signs that economic activity in other industrialised countries, especially the United States, is beginning to pick up. The Williamsburg summit will be an important opportunity for Western leaders to discuss the state of the world economy in that context.
One of the topics that has been discussed today and which was commented upon both by myself in response to an intervention and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) is that of attribution. Let me say something about the practice of attributing expenditure from the Community budget to the aid programme, which is what we mean by the term "attribution". It is true that that expenditure is not provided for by means of the aid programme Vote but it is nevertheless real public expenditure and hon. Members will be aware that the United Kingdom makes a substantial net contribution to the Community budget.
It has been the practice of all United Kingdom Governments since we joined the Community to attribute the United Kingdom share of Community aid expenditure to the United Kingdom aid programme to ensure that the planning and control of public expenditure is based on an overall view of our multilateral and bilateral aid. Certain of our partners such as the Dutch and the Danes adopt a similar practice.
The European development fund, which finances the Lomé convention, is financed not from the Community budget but from direct contributions from member states. Therefore, the British share comes direct from the aid programme Vote. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Greenwich was right to point out that the growth in multilateral obligations is imposing a difficult management problem on our aid programme. Over the past five years our contribution to Community aid, both through the budget and the Lomé convention, has risen sixfold. In 1976, at £26 million, it represented 5 per cent. of the British aid programme. In 1981, at £158 million, it was 15 per cent. In the financial year just ended we estimate that British spending on Community aid totalled £180 million, and it will soon account for about one fifth of the total United Kingdom aid programme.
That rapid rise in expenditure is one good reason why we need to examine proposals carefully. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull observed, we shall offer constructive criticisms in an effort to improve the quality of European aid. The hon. Member for Greenwich, perhaps reasonably, pointed out that 50 million ecu, or £31 million, does not measure up to the gravity of the problem of hunger in the world. However, the 1983 budget provides for £560 million of aid which can make a substantial contribution if well directed. Nearly two thirds of that money is directed towards food aid, about which several hon. Members commented. I share the concern about it. The European development fund provides a further £430 million. Increasing expenditure is no

699
guarantee of developmental success and the large amounts of food aid given by the Community are clearly an example of that. Food aid has expensive overheads, suffers from physical losses, is difficult to direct towards particular objectives, risks health hazards and may provide disincentives to local production. We believe, as hon. Members have argued, that the way to deal with hunger in the world is to encourage hungry nations to feed themselves. We must use our resources not to provide food aid but to help them develop their agriculture. We have supported Monsieur Pisani's efforts to combat hunger in the world on the understanding that he intends to achieve better co-ordinated and directed efforts within the resources that are realistically available. The problem with the proposal that is before us is that it does not fit readily into such a programme.
Although there is criticism about the proposal and of a number of other aspects of the European Community's aid programme, it is important to remind the House that it should not conclude that the disadvantages apply equally to the Community's aid programme as a whole. It is clear that many developing countries regard the Community's aid programme as an extremely valuable contribution to their development.
There are several reasons for this. First, there is the sheer volume of Community aid resources, to which I have referred. Secondly, much of the Community's aid is provided through contractual or other arrangements that involve vast commitments covering several years at a time. The aid element of the Lomé convention and the Mediterranean protocols fall into this category. These commitments enable developing country Governments to plan development schemes well in advance.
The third advantage that follows from the procedure of the Lomé convention is that there exists a built-in opportunity to link the application of aid funds with the improvement of trade access for the ACP countries. I believe that these are important advantages in the Community aid programme. It is up to Labour Members and the Labour party as a whole, which is endeavouring to take Britain out of the European Community, to explain clearly whether they believe that the developing countries would benefit by the weakening of the European Community aid programme and whether they want to withdraw from a system of aid and development for the poorer countries that has grown up within the Community. Labour Members must ask themselves that and face the questions of the electorate, including those who are deeply concerned about developments on this topic. We have not heard a whisper of an attempt throughout the debate to relate what we have been talking about to the Labour party's commitment to leave the European Community.
During the fairly short time that I have been in my post I have tried to get a deeper understanding of what has gone on. I visited the United States a short while ago and I have also paid a visit to Brussels, which for me was extremely valuable, in an attempt to familiarise myself with the workings of the Commission and to discuss some of our main concerns about Community aid to the Third world. I sought to get across the need to ensure that Community aid is well spent through improved project preparation, monitoring and evaluation, and to concentrate resources on schemes that have early and practical prospects of success.
The House will be aware that the Government have made efforts to strengthen the administration of our own
700
bilateral aid in these respects. It is right that we should take every opportunity with our Community partners to bring about similar improvements in European aid. The massive European food aid programme should be put on a sounder basis. This means allowing its operation to be governed more by the real needs of developing countries than by the need to dispose of the Community's surplus agricultural produce. In Brussels last month I was able to press further our attitude to article 929 of the budget, which would permit food aid funds to be used to help agricultural production instead.
I shall try to take up some of the interesting speeches made by those who have contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage talked about improved agricultural output in India. I heard about the role that development assistance had played during my recent visit to Washington for discussions with the World Bank. In its report entitled "IDA in Retrospect", which was published last year, the bank observed that in the mid-1960s India was importing 10 million to 12 million tonnes of food grain annually. The introduction of high yielding varieties of wheat, which had been developed in one of the international agricultural research institutes based in Mexico, literally revolutionised agricultural output in India. It is worth repeating that—we have already heard it today — as an answer to those who shrug their shoulders and say that aid does not do any good for anybody. It shows that properly directed aid is of great importance.
Associated with the introduction of those varieties was the need for a range of co-ordinated policies as the structure of Indian agriculture shifted from being basically subsistence to one in which marketable surpluses were produced. Pricing, marketing and distribution policies were particularly important: in that respect. The bank admitted that external aid was a relatively small proportion of the total resources applied in India to increasing agricultural output. Nevertheless, it believed that aid played a real part in assisting India in the transition from deficit to surplus in food grain production.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who has been faithful in his attendance of the debate, talked of the impact of tube well projects on the water table. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) spoke about a similar problem. We are well aware of the possible adverse impact on the water table level that can arise from the poor siting of tube wells. It is a problem that must be handled carefully. Nevertheless, reliable irrigation is of vital importance to increasing food production in developing countries.
In Bangladesh, for example, irrigation is necessary to increase food production, enabling an additional crop to be grown during the dry season. We are co-financing with the World Bank and Australia a tube well project which, it is estimated, will benefit 300,000 farming families and produce an additional 282,000 tonnes of rice and 200,000 tonnes of wheat annually. Including contributions by the Bangladesh Government, the total cost will be $142 million. Of that, the United Kingdom share will be £17·4 million, of which £2·4 million will be for technical co-operation. That relatively large technical co-operation element will cover the cost of British consultants who will advise on the siting of wells to achieve an equitable distribution of water resources and consider the impact on ground water resources.

701
The hon. Member for Stockport, North also raised points about Ethiopia. We understand the problem of drought which is hitting much of Africa, in that area and further south. We have been providing aid to Ethiopia. We have contributed 27,000 tonnes of food aid worth £3·3 million from our bilateral contribution to the world food programme and we have recently provided over £400,000 to various relief organisations, mainly British voluntary agencies, to assist with famine relief operations. Further requests for food aid, if they come to us, will be considered sympathetically, although the resources available are limited.
On top of that, and relevant to the debate, the European Community's current food aid contributions to Ethiopia are worth £8 million, of which the United Kingdom share is £1·5 million. They comprise the normal 1982 cereal food aid programme of 20,000 tonnes, plus 2,000 tonnes of milk powder and 1,000 tonnes of butter oil. With the supplementary allocation in December of last year of 15,000 tonnes of cereals and a recently agreed emergency allocation of 5,000 tonnes of cereals and 94 tonnes of butter oil, the Community's aid programme to Ethiopia during the current Lomé convention comes to a maximum of £91 million, and we are paying 17·75 per cent. of that.
I do not know what the views of the hon. Member for Stockport, North are on the Common Market—I have a feeling that he is not a great one for staying in—but that is what the European Community is doing in practice in the fight against hunger and starvation in parts of the world that are faced with those terrible problems.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) mentioned Nicaragua. On 22 November in Brussels the Foreign Affairs Council agreed that the European Community special aid programme to Central America should benefit Costa Rica, Honduras and the Dominican Republic. When considering priorities for the programme with our EC partners we had to take account of local conditions in determining the best way to allocate the additional funds available. We expressed reservations about the lack of democratic development in Nicaragua, which seemed to be holding back institutions dealing with freedom of speech and other human rights. We are bound to be concerned about that. Nevertheless, Nicaragua already receives European Community aid from the regular EC non-associates and food aid programmes and will continue to be eligible to do so.
The Commission has since decided to grant Honduras and Nicaragua 3·2 million ecu for the construction of bridges, and Nicaragua 9·8 million ecu for agrarian reform and rural development. We also have a small bilateral technical assistance programme in Nicaragua. We have given some emergency relief.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the voluntary agencies' request for £150,000 for a programme of projects in Nicaragua. I have had to make it clear that we
702
could not agree with that for reasons that I have already set out, but if the voluntary agencies put specific projects to us they can be considered.
We have taken the advantage of a rather unexpectedly full debate to cover enormously important ground. I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have approached the debate. It has emerged that there are limitations in the proposal put forward by the European Community. I hope that the House will approve of my motion making it clear that we have these reservations. I hope that when the House goes away and thinks about this it will also bear in mind the enormously valuable contribution being made by the European Community, and ourselves, through our membership of it, to solving these great problems, and will ask itself whether it makes sense to contemplate backing out of the European Community.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4658/83 containing the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the Special Programme to Combat Hunger in the World; and welcomes the Government's efforts to secure improvements to the proposal.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.).
  That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 11th April, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With permission of the House I shall put together motions 4 to 7 on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.).

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Rates (Amendment No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.
  That the draft Property (Discharge of Mortgage by Receipt) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.

  HOVERCRAFT
  That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 21st April, be approved. — [Mr. Goodlad.]
  Question agreed to.

Poland
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
9.43 pm
Viscount Cranborne: I do not know whether the House, after the extraordinary events of the past few hours, can cast its mind back to March, which seems now a long time ago. I then put down an early-day motion in the names of myself and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends. To my delight, but not to my surprise, I saw, as the days went on, that the early-day motion had attracted no fewer than 189 signatures from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
At the risk of seeming invidious, I must say that I believe that it is remarkable that any motion should attract the enthusiastic support of so diverse a range of opinion as from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). That was the achievement of the motion. It is worth considering why the motion attracted such support. It called for the institution of a period of free post for Poland. A period of four months was suggested. As a result of the enthusiasm demonstrated by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been emboldened to ask for this debate. Why did it attract this support?
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It was a very good motion.
Viscount Cranborne: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a good motion. After all, he helped me to draft it.
The motion attracted that support because the whole House is more than aware of the extraordinary plight of the people of Poland. We have read about that plight in our newspapers and seen it on our television screens month after agonising month. It is surely evidence enough of the desire of the people of this country to support the people of Poland in their agony that we should be here in such numbers, at least on the Conservative Benches, to support a further plea to the Government.
My plea is based not on the fact that no support is going to the people of Poland. The reverse is the case. There is an impressive list of items of aid from the European Community as a community. There is a long and no doubt boring list of goods that have been sent from this country under the EC programme. I shall give two examples—nearly 500,000 tonnes of barley and about 500,000 tonnes of other grains from this country. All that is under the EC programme, and is very laudable. In addition, I notice that Her Majesty's Government have joined our partners in the Community as well as those in NATO to encourage the increase of aid through voluntary agencies, which is laudable. I am sure that the whole House will support that increase.
How are we to go about increasing the aid? Many voluntary agencies are carrying aid to Poland at the moment. All of us know of the voluntary agencies that take lorries to Poland month after month. Goods to an enormous value have been conveyed in that manner. However, there is no doubt that it is becoming increasingly difficult to deliver those goods, particularly to the remote parts of Poland that are now suffering so badly. Equally, the overheads associated with the transport of the goods are increasing rapidly. It is increasingly doubtful whether
704
all the goods will reach the destinations that they should reach as the authorities become more suspicious of the good work that is being done.
There is, however, another way in which we can help the Polish people. That way is simply the institution of a period of free post. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friend will accept my word for it, but in case they do not I shall pray in aid perhaps the greatest authority to support my contention—the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. If right hon. and hon. Members were to have the opportunity of consulting, for instance, Bishop Wesoli, the primate of Poland's delegate to the Vatican, they would be told without hesitation that by far the most effective way of helping the Polish people would be the institution of a period of free post.
My proposal would help the Polish people in two ways. First, it would help their morale, which is at rock bottom. Polish people say that their country is a country without hope. The arrival of parcels from every quarter of the United Kingdom would provide a boost for morale unequalled since other countries in the European Community themselves instituted a period of free post. Secondly, it would give practical aid. We could be sure that the parcels would arrive—an important point—and this would be the most cost-effective way of making sure of that.
Those who will not believe the Roman Catholic Church in Poland could consult the EC countries which have tried the free post themselves—Sweden, Germany, and Italy. Germany had two periods of free post during 1982 and sent no fewer than 8 million parcels of food, medical supplies and clothing to help the Polish people.
What have the Government done, outside their EC role? They have done quite well. They gave £11,500 to the Ockenden Venture, a well-known and admirable charity. They also managed, I am told, to divert towards medical supplies £1,500,000 from the £65 million of credit that was already committed to Poland. That is splendid. However, in view of their commitment to increase the aid through voluntary agencies, have they really done enough? When taxed with that question, how do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government reply? Their reply is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons when pressed on this matter during business questions before Easter. His reaction — expressed, of course, with his usual elegance—reminded me of that of a houseproud householder looking at something nasty that the cat had brought in. He intimated that it would be too expensive. He also took an argument from the script of "Yes, Minister", employing the theory of the thin end of the wedge. The Government argument has been that if we give free post to Poland there is no reason why we should not give it to everyone else as well. However, not every country is capable of receiving a free post, and there is no guarantee that, just because it would suit Poland, it would suit every developing country.
The Government must reconsider the question. In case they cannot see the merits of my proposal simply from my arguments, I shall finish by appealing first to the Government's more unworthy instincts — all Governments, however excellent, have such instincts—and secondly to their more worthy instincts. First, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—who will reply to the debate with his usual eloquence, I am sure— to consider the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Those who do not know

705
my Friend as I know him sometimes tell me that he sits for a critical, marginal constituency. That is quite untrue. However, I should like to point out to the Minister that the number of Poles resident in my hon. Friend's constituency exceeds his present majority.
I also suggest that there is a more noble way of looking at this problem. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Poles, 16,240 of whom died defending this country during the last war. We would not have won the Battle of Britain had Polish pilots not come to our aid. I know that gratitude is not something from which international relations or countries that conduct them suffer. Indeed, we need only look at the treatment of the Poles in 1945 to realise that we did not suffer from it either. However, I suggest that in the dying days of this Conservative Government, in the brief moment of electioneering that will elapse before the next Conservative Government, it might be a worthy gesture, indicative of many of the good things that we know will flow from that Government, if we go out on a final decision that tells the world that we at least do not forget our friends and that we repay our debts.
9.56 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: The initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) is most welcome to the people of Poland, particularly to the large community of expatriate Poles in my constituency and the London borough of Ealing who have worked to support their mother country in a noble way.
I have had the honour to present to the Prime Minister and others three enormous petitions on this issue from people in my constituency—expatriate Poles and others who rightly support their cause. May Day in Poland had to be seen on television to be believed. We saw the police with their truncheons and water cannon displaying savage
706
pressure against a people who were striving to express their spirit, as Polish people do everywhere. Is there any wonder that at present morale in Poland is low, given the pressure that the people are encountering from their own Government and police force as they strive to move towards a more open society in which they are free to say what they think, just as we are in this country?
It is our business and duty to support those in our own community who seek to sustain that morale at a critical time in the history of Poland. Such support may come from trade unions, the churches or all sections of the community, but it is our business to stand by Poland today.
Martial law has depressed the Polish nation even further than it was depressed before the present difficulties—[Interruption.] The fact that martial law is maintained in such a vigorous and ruthless way is not a subject for chi-iking by Labour Members. Instead, it is a matter for shame, and it is our business to stand for Poland.
There is a continuing shortage of food and other supplies to Poland, but that has been substantially overcome by massive aid from our own country. Smaller things, such as letters from friends here, will go a long way towards sustaining the morale of that nation. That must be our business as the greatest nation of free people in the world.
The Polish community in Ealing has a marvellous record of help to their brothers and sisters in Poland, and I am proud to be able to say that. If this great cause received the same help from every other constituency, the people of Poland would be even more strongly sustained. Rather than gibing, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) should support people who want to be, should be, and deserve to be, free. The thought in Polish people's minds that people from Britain will write them letters and send them parcels will be of incalculable value to Poland.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business statement on the re-arrangement of business for this week:
TUESDAY 10 MAY—Proceedings on the Importation of Milk Bill.
Remaining stages of the Dentists Bill [Lords] and of the Marriage Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 11 MAY—Proceedings on the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill.
Proceedings on the Litter Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure.
The House will be asked to pass all outstanding Votes and Estimates.
THURSDAY 12 MAY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings of the County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order and on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order.
FRIDAY 13 MAY—Any other business which it may be necessary to ask the House to agree before being adjourned.
Mr. John Silkin: We understand why the business has been changed. May I tell the Leader of the House that we appreciate the efficiency with which the change has been achieved? We would, of course, have liked to have heard the Government's case for their defence policy but, never mind, we shall be content with the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] instead.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why have the Government been so determined to prevent the House from having the debate on defence which it wanted to have? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that debate will now be conducted out of doors and that the Government will lose it?
Mr. Biffen: Doubtless the events of 9 June will reveal whether the Government will lose that debate. If the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is implying that in this election, as in previous ones, he will be advising the support of the Labour party, well, we shall follow that with much interest.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have already stood in their place and then return to the Adjournment debate.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why are the Government so ready to abandon four major Bills upon which they have spent so much time in this session—
708
the Data Protection Bill, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the Housing and Building Control Bill and the Telecommunications Bill? Why have the arguments which seemed so heavy suddenly been abandoned?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the answer is that the welcome co-operation that has been extended in other parts of the House to secure the passage of the Bills that I have just announced was not forthcoming for those Bills. In a spirit of realism, it was not thought appropriate to include them.
Mr. Jack Dormand: Does the Leader of the House recall the exchanges that we had this afternoon about the Top Salaries Review Body report which has been at No. 10 since last week? In view of the disappointing statement that he has just made, does he now agree that there are several pressing issues which ought to be attended to? Will he give an assurance that if they are not debated on the Floor of the House something will be done, if I may so describe it, behind the scenes?
Mr. Biffen: I have just announced a valuable list of legislation, and it shows a proper sense of priorities that that should take precedence over a debate upon the report of the Top Salaries Review Board, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. John Roper: Does the Leader of the House accept that it would have been possible, by using Friday for public business, for us to have had a one-day debate on defence and disarmament? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is unfortunate that the House does not have an opportunity to explore the Government's defence and disarmament proposals here before we go to the country. Does he also accept that the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill is not altogether uncontroversial and may take some time on Wednesday? Finally, does he accept that the point of view advanced about Members' conditions is shared widely throughout the House, and that perhaps the business timetable could be reconsidered?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). As to the possibility of our having a one-day defence debate as well as the formidable programme of legislation that I have just announced, I do not believe that that would be practicable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman believes that debating defence on the hustings at a general election is at least some recompense, and I have no doubt that all the arguments will be carefully and zealously portrayed, and that the result will be fascinating.
Mr. George Foulkes: If that long list of the important measures that the Leader of the House has announced is so important and needs such long discussion, and since the Government have an adequate working majority, why did they not use the year left to them to give proper consideration to that legislation? Was it not because they are now taking advantage of what they think is a short-term advantage of an apparent lead in the opinion polls; and will not the public see through their cynicism?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's point, although fascinating, does not strictly relate to the business of the next two or three days.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Secretary of State for Defence has

709
continually reasserted his claim that the debate on defence should take place in the Chamber when he refuses to debate the matter with CND representatives? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the public will indict the Government for refusing to have a debate in Parliament, and that we shall win the debate outside? Will he arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the amount of taxpayers' money that has been used to provide pamphlets and other information in the defence debate to the Conservative party and to Conservative front organisations? It must have cost the taxpayer several thousand pounds.
Mr. Biffen: There will be regret on both sides of the House that our business has had to be rearranged in such a way as not to allow time for a defence debate, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we all look forward to that debate on the hustings. I certainly believe that his confidence is more than matched on the Conservative Benches. I shall consider his request for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Allaun: The Leader of the House has just told us that we all regret that the defence debate has had to be jettisoned. Why did it have to be jettisoned? Debates have presumably taken place at Conservative party headquarters and at Chequers about whether the date of the election should be 9 June, 16 June or 23 June. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not know perfectly well that two days were set aside for that debate, for which we have been asking for years? We have not had a debate and a vote on cruise missiles, but millions of people have wished it. I suggest that the Government have run away from this issue.
Mr. Biffen: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not running away from the issue of the proper defence of this country. I can only say that as we do not live in the best of all possible worlds I am unable to meet his desire for a debate.

Poland (Free Post)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order out of the time for the Adjournment and, election or no, we want to be fair.
Dr. Bray: This is a business statement the contents of which it was impossible to anticipate. During the business statement it was possible to have some hurried consultation between the two sides of the House about the important statements that Ministers have undertaken to make that were not referred to by the Leader of the House. Would it be in order to ask the Leader of the House whether the Secretary of State for Industry intends to make a statement on steel before the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: That would not be possible at this stage.
Mr. Greenway: I simply conclude what I was saying by urging my hon. Friend to announce, on behalf of the Government, regular periods of free post to Poland.
10.11 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the frivolity from the Labour Benches when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was speaking, I am sure that on reflection the whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) for raising this matter on the Adjournment. The Leader of the Opposition, who is not with us tonight, said in December 1982
"that the civilised world held its breath to see what might happen after the heroic exertions of the Polish people to establish their just rights. Any attempt from outside to interfere with the assertion of those rights, the rights of people to have free and independent trade unions along with other rights, would be a tragedy and a crime against the world."
Hon. Members are asking what now can be done to help, and my hon. Friend has pointed the way in his speech tonight and in an early-day motion that I, among many others, supported.
I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on what they have done themselves and as a member Government of the Community in providing credits for the purchase of medicine and medical supplies and in supporting voluntary and Church agencies. It is not just because I am Roman Catholic that I say that the Church in Poland is the agency that is most likely to ensure that supplies do not get into the wrong hands. The Polish Red Cross, unfortunately, like Red Cross agencies in all totalitarian regimes, is an instrument of the state.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South brought out well the fact that parcels of food and clothes for Poland have a strong psychological influence, and this is a time when morale is low and new hope must be given. Her Majesty's Government and the Post Office can do something tonight to light a new candle of hope and to show our acknowledgement of our debt of honour to the people of Poland.
10.13 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I intervene briefly to give my warm support to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount

711
Cranborne) for his courageous persistence. He has not only tabled a well-drafted motion but has supplied us with this Adjournment debate. It is wholly appopriate that this should be one of the last things that this Parliament should turn its attention to. The success of the Government and their record should be judged not only by great acts on the world stage but by those little, long-remembered acts of kindness that show that they appreciate the things of enduring value and permanent importance. Poland has a proud but tragic history that should excite the respect, admiration and affection of our people.
I hope that in replying tonight the Minister will show that there is considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend has advocated. I hope there will be a determination to show in a tangible and proper way that we are in spirit with the Polish people in their struggle—it is not the first struggle they have had for freedom and independence —and that we shall show that we remember that in the darkest days of the 20th century we came to their aid, as they came to ours.
Now, as the 20th century draws towards a fairly sombre close, we in this country are still with the Polish people, determined to help them, to acknowledge their plight and, as my hon. Friend has so lucidly and eloquently said, to bring a little light into the darkness and to light a candle to freedom in their name.
10.16 pm
Sir Victor Goodhew: I cannot let this moment go by without saying how much I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) in his Adjournment motion.
Early in the war, I was at Northolt when the Polish squadrons were formed. I saw those courageous men flying in and out of that airfield in Spitfires and Hurricanes, almost knocked to pieces. I saw them dumping on to the grass beside the runway aircraft with the undercarriage shot away and rushing up to find in the hangars other aircraft in which to take off. Their courage was great, and ever since I have known only too well what it must have meant to them to be in the situation that they now face.
I join my hon. Friends in their feelings that we should do anything possible, in the last few days of this Parliament, to help the Polish people. I am most anxious that this House should agree with my hon. Friend in his motion.
10.17 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) for their contributions, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), for his tenacity in pursuing the issue on the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South asked the Government to consider the noble way—if I quote him accurately — to resolve the problem. He gently chided us for taking what I think he called a ministerial line. I think that he even mentioned the sins which are sometimes summarised in the programme "Yes Minister".
I refer my hon. Friend to a noble man, an honourable man and, indeed, an hon. Gentleman — his great grandfather the third Marquess of Salisbury who, as I am
712
sure my hon. Friend will be aware, wrote a very interesting piece in the "Quarterly Review" of 1863. Having seen that item of information—admittedly only three hours ago—I could not but be struck by the poignancy of its content and by the fact that what was written by my hon. Friend's great grandfather in 1863 seems to have an uncanny accuracy and a moral which could be re-examined in the context of 1983.
I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments while I refer my hon. Friend to his great grandfather's words. He wrote:
"The virtues the Poles have displayed and the sufferings through which they have been made to pass through the last half century have called forth a unanimity of sympathy from all civilised nations which even the Italian movement failed to command. Whatever its issue may be—and the prospect is far from cheering—the incidents of this struggle are much more heart-stirring than those which made Garibaldi into a hero. The tyranny has been more savage and more powerful, the endurance has been more unconquerable, the supreme effort has been more despairing, and the ultimate results to which it may lead are far wider in their range."
Were the House not constrained to the subject of the provision of a free postal service, those hon. Members who have taken an interest in modern history and in the history of central and eastern Europe would find in each of those nine or 10 sentences a rich vein to be mined For debate on Poland's current irony. Lord Cecil writing in 1863 would have been delighted to see his offspring repeating some of those sentiments on the Floor of the House in 1983.
During the past half century — the Polish nation rediscovered itself as a nation which was then reabsorbed into one form of totalitarianism only to experience brief freedom before being absorbed back into another form of totalitarianism. My hon. Friends have done justice to the House by reminding us that there is something unusual in our affection for those people. As someone who was born into an Air Force family, I tell my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans that I, too, although unfortunately I could not witness the events, have been left in no doubt, after listening to tales in Air Force talking shops, that the Poles were fanatical in their opposition to Nazism. They lost many aeroplanes because they took great risks. Their bravery was almost foolhardy. They had great courage. Many of the children of those pilots are living in England today, not least in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North
The debate proposes a method which the United Kingdom could perhaps use to help replace some of the debts that we owe to Poland in terms of lives lost and to show, dare I use the word, solidarity with the principles which the Polish people so fondly wish to keep alive. I fully understand the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South and other hon. Members of the Government to see as much consideration as possible given to the Polish people. They have endured great hardship. They are now constrained by the dictates of a military Government who, with the full backing and support of the Soviet Union, have imposed their will by force against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Polish people.
As the demonstrations in Poland on 1 and 3 May revealed, this rule is actively opposed by the vast majority of Poles who seek the establishment of a freer and more just society. As the House is aware, Britain and its partners have condemned in the strongest terms the imposition of martial law in Poland. We have repeatedly called upon the

713
Polish Government to honour their undertakings to re-establish civil liberties in that country and the process of reform as rapidly as possible. In pursuit of these objectives, the Government have taken several practical measures against Poland and the Soviet Union both as a mark of our disapproval of the developments in Poland and as a sign of our willingness to go further in the event of more overt Soviet intervention. At the same time, through the provision of humanitarian aid and in other ways, Britain has sought to demonstrate to the Polish people the anxiety and sympathy to which their plight gives rise in the West.
Against that background, I turn to the specific proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset South has placed before the House. The Government are aware of the high degree of interest in the proposal for a free post to Poland. That fact is most vividly confirmed by the number of signatures which my hon. Friend's early-day motion attracted. We have, accordingly, carefully examined the possibilities and arguments for such a project.
It may be helpful if I set out some of the considerations against which the proposal has to be judged within the context of our overall policy towards Poland. I emphasise the importance that the Government have attached to the provision of humanitarian aid to Poland. Immediately following the imposition of martial law, we and our European partners agreed to provide two million ecus, about £1·2 million, to help to alleviate the material difficulties in Poland at that time and the Polish people's isolation from the outside world. Those funds were channelled entirely through non-governmental agencies. I fully understand the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South about the use to which even the Red Cross can be put in eastern Europe.
That aid was followed in February 1982 by the decision of EC countries to provide further funds for the purchase of essential foods and medicines for Poland. My hon. Friend spoke of the diversion of £1,500,000 from the figure of £65 million of credit to medical supplies for Poland and said that we have given help to the Ockenden Venture in two sums of £5,000 and £6,500.
In contributing that aid, our objective has been to help those in Poland most in need of the necessary food and medicines that we in the West take for granted. We have also given thought to those in this country who have wished to volunteer aid and one of the main aims of the co-ordination activity that I have mentioned has been to enable the smaller charities and local appeal groups to pool their resources with the larger agencies, thereby helping to reduce the cost of arranging and transporting aid donations to Poland.
That co-ordination has also helped to establish a secure and reliable mechanism to ensure that aid from the United Kingdom reaches those in Poland for whom it is intended. Although the Polish authorities have forbidden the transportation of individually addressed parcels through those channels, we understand that many of the voluntary agencies have been prepared to help by collecting and adding individual contributions to their aid and by giving them to the Polish Church for distribution in Poland.
In answer to a specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South, I should say that the
714
feedback that we have received, particularly from the Church aid agencies in Poland, but also from other agencies, is that the remote areas to which my hon. Friend referred are receiving the aid that was designated for them. No doubt my hon. Friend and I can take up that matter, in one capacity or another, in the next Parliament.
It is against that background that I approach, with a little difficulty, the proposal for a free post for Poland. My hon. Friend has commented on such schemes that have been operated by some of our European partners. A few countries have granted temporary concessions on postal tariffs to Poland, but that has not become a widespread or standard practice.
We understand that Sweden ran a free parcel post to Poland during the first nine months of 1982, but has since ended the concession. The Federal Republic of Germany introduced a free post from February to June 1982 and reintroduced it in November-December 1982 for Christmas parcels. That scheme was similarly closed at the end of 1982. Of our other Community partners, Italy and Luxembourg introduced schemes for three and two months respectively in 1982, but no longer operate the concession.
As far as we are aware, none of our Community partners which operated free post services in 1982 has firm plans to reintroduce them or to extend the concessions more generally. As far as we can discover, the position of Sweden seems to be similar. Indications from our other Community partners who have not introduced free post schemes suggest that there is no intention to bring them in at the present time or in the foreseeable future.
Any decision about the possible provision of a free post service to Poland must take into account the wider perspective, and a number of factors have to be considered. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Post Office receives many requests for special consideration from charities and other needy causes, both in this country and abroad. Internationally, there are regular requests for such consideration to be given to countries going through periods of particular economic hardship and, indeed, to Third world countries in general.
My hon. Friends have asked us to reconsider the case for a free post. I fully appreciate their anxiety. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South may have heard much of this before, but we have been challenged to take up the cudgels again on behalf of the Polish people and I cannot say to him at this moment that I am prepared instantly to redefine policy in the final days of this Parliament. The best hope that I can offer him is that our successors in the next Conservative Government will look at the debate and may review the case sympathetically. It may be that they will decide that they should reassert the arguments of my hon. Friends and bring them to the attention of the authorities in the Post Office.
The European Community may be asked to take another look at the problem. In conjunction with our European Partners and at the request of the Commission or others, a review may be entertained. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South will not expect me to go further. I congratulate him on securing the Adjournment debate on the fourth anniversary of another historic event, which was the return of the Government on 9 May 1979.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Korea (Reunification)
  Korea (Reunification)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Value-for-Money Audits
  Value-for-Money Audits
SCOTLAND
  Acid Rain (Salmon Rivers)
  Acid Rain (Salmon Rivers)
  Ethnic Minority Languages
  Ethnic Minority Languages
  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
  Sexual Assaults (Statistics)
  Sexual Assaults (Statistics)
  Secondary Schools (Staff Shortages)
  Secondary Schools (Staff Shortages)
  Lothian Region (Budget)
  Lothian Region (Budget)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Larsen Sweeney Publication Ltd.
  Larsen Sweeney Publication Ltd.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank of England
  Bank of England
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Civil Service Pensioners
  Civil Service Pensioners
  Income Tax (Mortgage Interest Relief)
  Income Tax (Mortgage Interest Relief)
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Wine (Duty)
  Wine (Duty)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Noise Levels
  Noise Levels
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Forensic Laboratories
  Forensic Laboratories
  Replica Firearms
  Replica Firearms
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Detentions)
  Mental Health Act 1959 (Detentions)
  Prisons (Anti-burglary Equipment)
  Prisons (Anti-burglary Equipment)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Moorland Burning
  Moorland Burning
  Fertilisers (Nitrate)
  Fertilisers (Nitrate)
  Giant Hogweed
  Giant Hogweed
INDUSTRY
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Computers
  Computers
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Cruelty to Animals)
  Hong Kong (Cruelty to Animals)
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Conference on Safety and Security
  Conference on Safety and Security
  Brunei
  Brunei
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Soviet Union (Ministerial Visit)
  Soviet Union (Ministerial Visit)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Canteen and Strangers' Cafeteria
  Members' Canteen and Strangers' Cafeteria
  Thames House South
  Thames House South
TRADE
  Sotheby's
  Sotheby's
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Cars (Imports-Exports)
  Cars (Imports-Exports)
  Clyde Shipping
  Clyde Shipping
  Companies Registration Office (Privatisation)
  Companies Registration Office (Privatisation)
  Davenports (Takeover)
  Davenports (Takeover)
  European Community (Coastal Shipping)
  European Community (Coastal Shipping)
  Aerodromes (Privatisation)
  Aerodromes (Privatisation)
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Opencast Sites
  Opencast Sites
  Advertising Costs
  Advertising Costs
  North Sea
  North Sea
  Conservation Programme
  Conservation Programme
  Substitute Natural Gas
  Substitute Natural Gas
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  Conservation (Report)
  Conservation (Report)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Act 1982
  Transport Act 1982
  Cycles and Mopeds
  Cycles and Mopeds
  Road Building (Private Finance)
  Road Building (Private Finance)
  Roads (Capital Expenditure)
  Roads (Capital Expenditure)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights
  Severn Bridge (Report)
  Severn Bridge (Report)
  Highway Work (Tendering Threshold)
  Highway Work (Tendering Threshold)
ENVIRONMENT
  New Town Development Corporations
  New Town Development Corporations
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Drinking Water (Nitrate Levels)
  Drinking Water (Nitrate Levels)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Planning Applications (Bolton)
  Planning Applications (Bolton)
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Property Services Agency (Annual Report)
  Property Services Agency (Annual Report)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Housing)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Housing)
  Building Materials
  Building Materials
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Rents
  Rents
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Urban Development Grant
  Urban Development Grant
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  House of Commons Terrace (Marquees)
  House of Commons Terrace (Marquees)
WALES
  Moorland (Illegal Burning)
  Moorland (Illegal Burning)
  Motorway
  Motorway
  Hospital Units
  Hospital Units
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Farmers (Grants)
  Farmers (Grants)
  Agricultural Research
  Agricultural Research
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
  Housing (Grants)
  Housing (Grants)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Welsh Language Projects
  Welsh Language Projects
  European Community (Livestock Prices)
  European Community (Livestock Prices)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Foyle Salmon (Mathematical Model)
  Foyle Salmon (Mathematical Model)
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Work Preparation Units
  Work Preparation Units
  Youth Training Programme
  Youth Training Programme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Somerset House and St. Catherine's House (Records)
  Somerset House and St. Catherine's House (Records)
  Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy
  Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  War Pensioners (Funerals)
  War Pensioners (Funerals)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Day Care Places
  Day Care Places
  Doctors (Unit Management Teams)
  Doctors (Unit Management Teams)
  Age of Retirement
  Age of Retirement
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
  Binder Hamlyn Survey
  Binder Hamlyn Survey
  Social Security Disregard
  Social Security Disregard
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Birmingham)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Birmingham)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Industrial Noise
  Industrial Noise
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Walthamstow
  Walthamstow
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Crewe
  Crewe
  Welwyn-Hatfield
  Welwyn-Hatfield
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Ethnic Languages
  Ethnic Languages
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Deptford Skillcentre
  Deptford Skillcentre
  Noise Levels
  Noise Levels
  Redundancies (Essex)
  Redundancies (Essex)
DEFENCE
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Weapons Policy
  Weapons Policy
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Container Ship Astronomer
  Container Ship Astronomer
  Widows
  Widows

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

Parliamentary Telephone Message Centre
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether he is satisfied with the working of the new telephone message centre in the Houses of Parliament.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the new arrangements for telephone messages have been in operation for only four weeks. I understand that there have been some initial teething troubles but that these are being overcome. If, however, the noble Earl has a specific complaint in mind, I shall of course have it followed up.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that I have put two of my complaints to Black Rod? On one day, the author of the message sent to me was a name utterly unrecognisable although it was carefully and painstakingly dictated by my secretary, who was very familiar with the name. On another occasion, the critical opening sentence of the message was omitted; and, on a third occasion, the message was not delivered at all.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am extremely sorry. I am afraid that these accidents and troubles do happen. They happened under the old system. I am not sure that it has anything to do with the new arrangements; but I am sure that if it has been brought to the attention of Black Rod he will have paid due attention to what the noble Earl says.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is my noble friend the Chairman of Committees aware that there is no dialling code book in the telephone room?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, no. I shall make sure that there is.
Lord Spens: My Lords, has the pink form that arrives with the white form containing a telephone message any purpose?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I have no idea.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that we should be grateful for the help that we receive from the telephone staff—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps no one wants to ring me up, but I have never had anything but a decent and helpful service from the telephone staff. That should be recorded as well as any complaints that are made.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl. What he says is helpful. I know that the new telecommunications manager is extremely anxious to give the best possible service to the House. I am grateful.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, following upon what the noble Earl has stated—with which I agree—that I have always received excellent service and I have never had any cause for complaint?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am even more grateful to have support from the other side of the House.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there must be something wrong in the system? I was definitely sent three messages last week but did not receive any of them in any shape or form.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give me details. I shall have the matter looked into.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree with what I think must be the general feeling of the House that we are grateful for having had an excellent telephone message service for many years, that we all understand that when a new system is introduced there are bound to be teething problems, but that there has been a sharp and measurable drop in efficiency since the new form of service was introduced?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I can only think that this is probably the inevitable consequence of changing the system. I hope that these problems will be overcome shortly.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I received a telephone message a few minutes ago saying that there would be a general election on 9th June?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, that just goes to show the efficiency of the service.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my question was not prompted by any criticism of the personnel in the House but rather the contrary? I was trying to suggest that something has gone wrong somewhere, possibly in another part of the building.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, there has not really been much change. The same telephone operators who were formerly located here are now located elsewhere but they are the same people who dealt with us before. However, there are troubles, and I take the noble Earl's point. We shall endeavour to make sure that the service is improved.

Coastguard Rescue Service
2.41 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the future of the coastguard rescue service.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the present responsibilities of Her Majesty's Coastguard for the co-ordination of civil maritime search and rescue. The modernisation of the service with improved communications and operational facilities is continuing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask when we can expect to have the Government's view on the Rayner Report, which includes the need to modernise our coastal radio stations? Will he say what will be the effect—we hope it will be beneficial—on the voluntary lifeboat system if some of its recommendations are accepted?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we shall, of course, be able to consider the Rayner Report, which, as the noble Lord is aware, is under consideration by the Government. We expect to be able to announce a decision on it in due course. Your Lordships will be aware that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a proud and independent service, which we all admire. It is, however, entirely independent of the Government, and independent even of your Lordships' House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, although it may strictly be independent, the volunteers who give such magnificent service in the life-boat system believe that the nation should at least subscribe to testing and examining boats which are used to rescue other people and which sometimes fail and cost the lives of those volunteers? Will the noble Lord not agree that everything should be done to prevent such disasters as those that occurred in the Mumbles in 1947 and as recently as last year in Devonshire, if this is possible by providing better life-boats?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord may be perfectly correct, but I am afraid that all the points that he has raised have nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper; and nor do they necessarily have anything to do with the coastguard service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with great respect, it has always been acknowledged right round the coast that there is an inextricable link between the voluntary lifeboat service, the radio stations and everything else connected with this matter. Therefore, are the Government not prepared to consider that there is a link which they could acknowledge and which they could help wherever possible?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we shall read the noble Lord's comments with the greatest interest, and we are
330
very grateful to him for his continued support for the lifeboat service.

Nuclear Weapons: General Altenburg
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether General Altenburg's statement that a nuclear weapon fired at the Soviet Union would not cause a nuclear war represents NATO nuclear policy, and if so, whether they will make arrangements for the entire population of this country to be evacuated.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are not aware of any such statement by General Altenburg.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this statement was very widely publicised? Is he further aware that there is a reputable scientific body of opinion that takes the view that the deployment of the cruise missile would further destabilise a dangerous situation? Finally, is he also aware that if the Government win—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Government win the coming election—
The Earl of Onslow: When the Government win, my Lords!
Lord Jenkins of Putney:—the very strong probability is that there will be no election after that as we shall almost certainly be overtaken by a nuclear holocaust?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, General Altenburg suggested that if war did break out the risks of escalation might actually serve as an incentive to conclude hostilities rather than lead on inevitably to all-out nuclear conflict.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, whether his fear that the population of this country might need to be evacuated could be averted if the Soviet Union were offered bases for their nuclear weapons in this country as well as the American's and our own?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in terms of the original Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the whole idea of evacuation of this country falls.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it might be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would tell us where the statement that he quoted was publicised?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should be very interested to hear where it came from.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the important practical point is that the talks now going on at Geneva should be successful and should be brought to a constructive conclusion? Can he say whether the Andropov proposals are on the agenda of the Geneva talks and what progress is being made at those talks?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that is a totally different question from the Question on the Order Paper, which dealt with quotations, or supposedly quotations, from General Altenburg. The whole question of the talks at Geneva and the inclusion of the British deterrent in them is a different matter altogether. The British deterrent is a strategic deterrent of last resort. We do not possess it in order to offer protection to our friends. It is for us and for our own purposes and whether or not it is included is something which has been answered on many occasions in your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord himself commented on the nature and possible length of a nuclear war. These are matters which are now being discussed between the USSR and the United States of America at Geneva and they are vital to the talks that are taking place. Is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Belstead has said on many occasions at that Dispatch Box that we are in close consultation with the United States upon the progress of these talks? Therefore, would the noble Lord be good enough to say clearly whether the proposals are on the table at Geneva and whether the talks are proceeding successfully?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, that simply does not arise from the Question that is on the Order Paper.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does my noble friend have any idea as to where the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wishes us all to be evacuated, and whether the noble Lord has plans to do a pathfinding mission to this unknown country himself on a one-way ticket?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I have some very sound ideas myself both as to where the noble Lord might be evacuated, and as to where my noble friend and I might be evacuated, but I think it might be better not to go into that now.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that his last answer but two about the British thermonuclear force being a deterrent of last resort for this country, constitutes a change in the arrangement whereby it is assigned to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again I am afraid that that is a completely different question and wide of the mark.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Lord not saddened, although no doubt not alarmed, by the enormous number of ways produced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, of asking the same question over and over again?
Lord Glenarthur: Not alarmed, my Lords, but certainly saddened.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the important point is to continue to prevent war through remaining strong and deterring any possible aggression? Further, would he agree that if we one-sidedly throw our weapons away, we should make war and the loss of our freedom much more likely?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with everything that my noble friend says.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us whether serious consideration can be given to the suggestion from behind me that everybody should be invited to have a nuclear base here? Then, under the system of deterrence, we would indeed be an effective nuclear-free zone.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord and the party opposite not agree that, on the question of nuclear war, there is at least a serious element, and that perhaps they might attune their minds to that particular element before we conclude this Question Time? For example, will the noble Lord not agree that what perturbs many people here and some of the people of our ally nations is the submission during the last big debate that, if there was an emergent invasion through Germany to France, in order to protect herself Great Britain would attempt to wipe out Russian armies with nuclear weapons, which would have devastating effects on the civil populations of NATO countries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is again going completely wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I do not think it would be right for me to go into another long debate on the whole nuclear issue, which was admirably covered last week by my noble friend Lord Belstead.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we seem to be agreed that General Altenburg made a statement but that we have seen different versions of that statement? Would it not be helpful to all noble Lords if the noble Lord were to clarify the issue by including the actual authorised statement in the Official Report—of course, not authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre—which General Altenburg himself agreed that he made?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am quite sure that, if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, contacted the radio source in Germany which conducted the interview, they would be very happy to supply him with their translation.

Soviet Visitors to United Kingdom
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many members of the All-Union Supreme Soviet or of the

333
Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation visited the United Kingdom during the past 12 months.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, nor of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, visited the United Kingdom in the past year in his capacity as a deputy of either of these bodies. However, several Soviet visitors to the United Kingdom during the past 12 months have been members of these institutions. Members of the USSR Supreme Soviet will visit the United Kingdom later this month, at the invitation of the Great Britain-USSR Association.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that Britain does not discriminate on an individual basis against representatives of these Soviet bodies, which, with us, are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, whereas the Soviet Government do discriminate and pick and choose on an individual basis between British parliamentarians? Therefore, will he agree that the time has come to redress this imbalance and deal with applications from Soviet so-called parliamentarians on the basis of reciprocity?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can, of course, confirm to my noble friend that there is no discrimination in any sense. My noble friend rightly criticises the Soviet Union for refusing visas on general political grounds. We would not wish to follow the Soviet example by refusing a Soviet applicant solely in retaliation for their prior refusal of a British applicant. Our practice is that visas are refused only when there is clear evidence that the individual concerned is personally unacceptable to us.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not remarkable that not one of the 1,500 elected members of the Supreme Soviet has ever asked a question critical of the defence policy of any Soviet Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are many things in heaven and earth that are remarkable.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether when anybody occupying an official position in the Soviet Union comes to the United Kingdom, that person is approached by anyone from our Foreign Office, or anyone occupying an official position in the United Kingdom, directing the visitor's attention to the constant and persistent violation of human rights in the Soviet Union as compared with our behaviour in this country—for example, what is happening to Shcharansky at the present time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that any visitor to this country would immediately recognise what the country as a whole feels about human rights. As regards the other part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I do not think that the duties of a member of the Supreme Soviet can be compared with the duties of a British parliamentarian.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is there any prospect of a resumption of exchanges with the Supreme Soviet through the Inter-Parliamentary Union? They have proved to be of some value in the past, and the complete closing of dialogue with the Soviet Union would not be a very happy augury for the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no closing of dialogue with the Soviet Union at ministerial level. The House will be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was in Russia last week, or possibly the week before, and, as I said in my original Answer, the Great Britain-USSR Association has arranged for members of the USSR Supreme Soviet to visit the United Kingdom later this month.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what is the IPU position?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, but I have no information on that point.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, how can there be parliamentary dialogue between the Soviet Union and Britain when the Soviet side are allowed to pick and choose with which British parliamentarians they have a dialogue?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would say that the boot is equally on the other foot, for Members of this Parliament can pick and choose whom they see in the Soviet Republic.

Future Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, in the light of the announcement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that it is proposed to rearrange this week's business in the House. In particular, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Telecommunications Bill, due for its second Committee day tomorrow, and the Housing and Building Control Bill, due for its Report stage on Thursday, will not now further proceed.
With the leave of the House, I propose to make a further statement about the business for the remainder of this week, later this afternoon. I shall arrange for adequate warning of this statement to be given on the annunciators. However, today's business will remain as it appears on the Order Paper.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young)The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young) had given notice of her intention to move the Motion standing in her name on the order Paper:
That Standing Order 34 and paragraphs (10), (11), (12) and (13) of the Rules for the conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to the Motion in the name of the Lord Diamond set down for Monday 16th May.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the Statement that has just been made by my noble friend the Chief Whip, I shall not now move the Business Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Energy Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill
2.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Development Commission.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment, which would delete the power of the Government to give directions to the development commission in its new statutory form. I am of course aware that this is a normal power which the Government have in relation to bodies of this kind, and I move the amendment to seek certain assurances about the use of the Government's power that they will have to give directions, and about the degree of independence which the commission will have under the new régime.
It does not need a Sherlock Holmes to realise that there has been a struggle about this particular provision. If one looks at Schedule 1 to the Bill, paragraph 11 indicates that the annual report of the commission will set out any direction given by the Secretary of State during the year. That is rather unusual if it really amounts to the commission being able to tell everybody what it was doing independently and what it was doing during the year under direct instructions of the Government.
The historic independence of the commission and the pioneering in support of the most disadvantaged rural areas that it has done for some 70 years or more are well known, but the catalogue—and I could not give it today—bears some examination to see how independent and pioneering it has been. It started just after the first world war in helping village industries and craftsmen from the early 1920s, first of all with an intelligence bureau with advice and information, and then on to a full rural industries bureau. We knew that later in the century as CoSIRA.
Again in the early 1920s the commission was the body which effectively fostered the growth of the rural communilty councils, starting with Kent in 1925, originally working to help craftsmen and having rural industry organisers to help the organising of craftsmen in the rural areas. In 1940 it was the commissioners, under the existing Act, who started a loan fund for rural industry. They started grants for village halls in 1925. They have funded the National Federation of Women's Institutes since 1921.
In my own time as chairman of the commission, we set up the special investment areas which are now effectively the rural development areas. We broadened the whole of our activity to include action plans for the total revival of the more disadvantaged areas. Again, the commissioners spent a lot of money after the first world war on agricultural research. This was then floated off from the commissioners as the Agricultural Research Council, a very eminent body today. The commissioners at that period looked after fishery harbours, taken over by the Government in 1955. I give these just as examples of pioneering which the commission has always undertaken to help the rural areas.
Now why is it important to seek assurances about the future? I repeat the point that this was pioneering Nearly all of it was a very substantial departure from the policy of the Government of the day. It would be disastrous if the commission were in future to be a creature of Government and he denied that continuous pioneering role which it has filled so effectively. In all of that work it nearly always has acted, and still acts today, as a catalyst. It does not put in a large amount of Government money. It offers a little Government money in return for people looking after themselves, or finding extra money from other sources.
The power of the commission under the present Act depends on the fact that it is a standing Royal Commission for a start. It is appointed by Her Majesty. It is not just an ordinary quango. It has this rather extra status of being a Royal Commission. It advises Her Majesty's Government on the spending of the development fund. The development fund is money voted by Parliament every year to help the rural areas on matters for which no other statutory provision exists. It is, if you like, the supporter, until other forms of statutory provision take over, of new ideas which are being pioneered.
The point about the commission is the extraordinary, unique power of the commissioners. It has what is known as a double veto. As the annual report of the commission makes clear, the commissioners cannot spend out of the development fund without the approval of Her Majesty's Government. But equally—and this is the important point—the Government cannot spend out of the development fund without the approval of the commissioners. I have never known an Act of Parliament which brought an outside body so near to control and strong influence over Government policy.
What that in practice meant was that the two bodies, the Government and the commissioners, had all the time to reach agreement in the middle, otherwise they could veto each other. Most important of all, if the Government too often tried to stop the new ideas, the new departures, the pioneering of the commission the commission could wave the big stick and say, "If you go on like this we shall veto other spending out of the development fund". This is an important influence on public policy. It has been an important power. It has worked extremely well by continuously reaching agreement rather than falling out and using the veto between the two sides.
Therefore, I say bluntly to the noble Lord, we are now going into a one-way street instead of a two-way

337
street. The commission will not be able to prevent Government doing a lot of things any more if they fall out. It is a one-way street in which only the Government can give orders to the commission. Therefore, I ask will it still have this same freedom to pioneer that it has always had, or will it just be carrying out Government policy in the rural areas from now on? That pioneering role has been crucial to all the new departures I have listed.
Secondly, will it be the case, as before, that the Government will look to the commission to pioneer in this way and then will take over the commission's ideas when they prove fruitful and practicable and enshrine them in public policy so that the commission can use its resources, its expertise and its energies to find new ideas, to pioneer them again and bring extra new ideas to the help of the rural areas?
Finally, how much money is involved? Is the commission going to be allowed to have a reasonable budget to carry all this out so that it matches at least the sort of money that it has now and preferably goes on to, say, about £30 million a year as opposed to approaching £20 million, which would give it real independence and real power to carry on its most constructive work for the benefit of the disadvantaged rural areas? This is an important amendment on which I hope the noble Lord will tell us exactly what the Government's policy is for the future of this successful, unusual quango which has had such a great history up to now. I beg to move.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: We are indebted to my noble friend for putting down this amendment and for explaining his reasons for doing so. On Second Reading, as the Committee will recall, there were several tributes to the work of the commission and to the value of the 1909 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, in particular, gave us the benefit of his own experience as a member of the commission; and my noble friend Lord Northfield, as a former chairman of the commission, obviously speaks with great authority.
The position as of now, as my noble friend has explained it, is that a delicate balance exists between the Ministry and the commission. The 1909 Act serves two primary purposes. First, it ensures that the commissioners are informed of Government policy in the field of activity submitted as a scheme to the Ministry. Secondly, it enables the commission to make certain that no other source of funds is available. The Department of the Environment must approve advances from the development fund, and the Minister can veto the commissioners' recommendations. On the other hand, the Ministry cannot make any advances from the fund without the commissioners' recommendations.
There are other related provisions, as the Committee knows, but that is the key one for the purposes of my noble friend's amendment. That is the sensitive balance to which he has referred. As he said, if the Government resisted too many of the initiatives for the revival of the countryside the commissioners could move to veto other expenditure. Of course, in
338
practice over the years this power was sufficient to cause both sides to co-operate and co-ordinate amicably; and as the noble Lord knows, and as I know from my experience when I was Secretary of State for Wales, it has worked extremely well. Clause 1(8) removes this balance and appears to deprive the new commission of a very important power. It strengthens the department at the expense of the new body, and may do so unnecessarily. It would also be helpful if the noble Lord could give us the information about the budget to which my noble friend referred.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will tell us that he will accept my noble friend's amendment, or, if it is in any way technically deficient, that he will introduce another which will leave the commission with the discretion which it now enjoys. Our united wish is that the new commission should work well. It is in that spirit that I believe my noble friend makes his proposal.
Lord Trefgarne: It might be helpful if I make some brief general remarks before dealing with the specific points that have been put to me. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 together, including subsection (8), to which the amendment refers, replace the development commissioners and the development fund, established under the Development and Road Improvement Acts of 1909 and 1910, with the Development Commission, a statutory grant-aided corporation. Transitional provisions ensure that the present commissioners and staff continue in office without loss of status or rights, and that all the liabilities and assets of the development fund are transferred to the Development Commission to be established under this Bill.
There have been many changes since 1909, and this measure is designed to give the commission a legal and financial status in line with present-day thinking on grant-aided non-governmental bodies. It will also resolve a legal doubt over the propriety of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA) being given Government funds to provide financial help to small firms. This change has no direct financial implications—the size of the grant is recommended by Ministers to Parliament, after consultation with the commissioners, in estimates—but it will allow certain simplifications of procedure and give the Development Commission a greater degree of autonomy in line with the Government's policy for it.
Our object in drafting these provisions has been to preserve all that is best in the original enactments while giving the commission up-to-date powers and protection. The personnel of the commission and, for that matter, CoSIRA, will have continuity of employment, pay and pensions. The commission will take over the assets and liabilities of the development fund, and the present commissioners will remain in office. We envisage this part of the Bill being brought into force on 1st April 1984.
To deal specifically with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, he is, as he told your Lordships, a former and distinguished chairman of the development commissioners, and has obviously spoken with a great deal of authority and experience. It might be helpful if I first seek to explain briefly the effect of the amendment. This will show why we would

339
not welcome such a change. Removing subsection (8) from Clause 1 would take away the power of the Secretary of State to give general directions, and the duty of the commission to comply. Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the work of the commission, and other analogous bodies receiving public funds. Ministers cannot be held responsible unless they have power to control and direct within the framework laid down by Parliament. The form of words used in subsection (8), or something like them, can be found in a number of recent statutes.
That said, I turn now to the main burden of what the noble Lord said, which was to the effect that we should give the Development Commission the maximum autonomy. These are sentiments very dear to the Government's heart. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place reported in March last year the results of an interdepartmental review of the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. The review confirmed the Government's belief in the effectiveness and relevance of the commission's work.
My right honourable friend announced a number of steps to give it greater independence of action. In particular, the commission, instead of the Government, is to choose the areas of greatest need in which it will concentrate its work. They are to be called rural development areas. However, no line on a map can contain all areas of need, and the Government have allocated funds for use outside these areas at the discretion of the commission. CoSIRA will continue to provide its services in all rural areas. Another way in which we want to emphasise the independence of the commission takes expression in this Bill. At present, the commission only advises expenditure. In future, if this Bill becomes law, it will then spend its own grant in aid.
Now manpower and money. The Government were elected on a programme of reducing direct Government involvement and giving value for money. A general policy of holding manpower numbers throughout the public sector at the prevailing levels, wherever possible, was applied to the commission and to CoSIRA. Increases are not automatically refused. In fact, there has been one approved increase and one approved decrease, following a restructuring and up-grading, since we came to power. The commission understands our view that its principal task is to persuade others to take action in their own communities, keeping to a minimum the functions which it undertakes for itself. As for funds, the commission has had all it can spend, and it is the Government's intention to give all the support they can to the employment-creating work in hand.
Increasingly, public funds are used in a pump-priming or "lender of last resort" role, and the Government are grateful for the imaginative way in which the commissioners have found ways to attract private finance. We believe this to be the right way forward. In general terms I can give the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, the assurances he is seeking: that we shall be directing the commission's affairs much less under future arrangements than has been the case hitherto, and that the splendid work the commission has been doing up to now will continue and will be
340
increased. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northfield: The noble Lord has been quite helpful. However, I should not have traded the old Act for the new one. The commission was making good use of the old Act under a sharing of power with Government. It was unique in the history of bodies of this kind. We shall have to watch very carefully whether the one-way street that we are now in—in which only the Government can give the orders, and the commission has no effective right of fight-back with a veto—works to the disadvantage of the commission. Nevertheless, I take the general assurances that the noble Lord has given. We will watch and I shall consider what he has said, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I follow my noble friend in thanking the noble Lord for his reply to my noble friend's speech. I confirm what my noble friend said: namely, that we shall be scrutinising carefully the activities of the commission in relation to the Department of the Environment in future. There is no doubt that the commission has been deprived of a substantial power that it enjoyed under the old dispensation.
The noble Lord made one important point: that the commission will have power to designate rural development areas. This leads me to ask the noble Lord a question which I put to him in another way in my speech on Second Reading. I refer specifically to the position in Wales and Scotland. In Wales the Welsh Rural Development Board designates an area within which it operates. The same is true of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. But there are rural areas outside the designated areas of the WRDB and outside the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It seems therefore that rural areas in England—all of which are covered by the activities of the Development Commission—will enjoy substantial benefits not enjoyed by areas in Wales and Scotland, which are outside the designated areas of two boards I mentioned but which are, nevertheless, in need of assistance.
I come back to an area in which I have a great interest; that is, north-west Wales, an area covered more or less by the boundaries of Gwynedd. In that area, there are great rural problems. If I may remind the noble Lord and the House that unemployment there now runs at nearly 25 per cent. of the insured population, the House will appreciate that there is a grave problem, that rural industries need assistance and that there is also a need for new rural industries to assist young school-leavers in particular to find the training opportunities, apprenticeships and work in general. Is it the case that the Development Commission and CoSIRA will be able to designate any part of rural England as a rural development area but that there is no authority in Wales and Scotland outside the two rural boards which will be able to carry out this provision?

341
In reply to my question on Second Reading, the noble Lord said that CoSIRA will continue to operate in Wales and Scotland, presumably as agents of the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency. My short question to the noble Lord is whether the Welsh Development Agency and its counterpart in Scotland will be able, through CoSIRA, to designate rural development areas in the same way as they will be designated in England by the commission.
Lord Trefgarne: I have to say that I am not quite certain about the answer to that question. I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to inquire into it and write to him. My understanding is that that is not the case, that they will not be able to do that. I will clarify the position and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand his inability at the moment, without notice, to answer a rather complicated question. I would appreciate an answer because this is a matter of the utmost significance so far as the less prosperous rural areas of Wales and Scotland are concerned. I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of Crown Estate Commissioners to grant leases]:
[Amendment 2 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I wonder whether I may trouble the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to deal with a point raised on Report, in another place on this clause. He will be aware that in the final debate on the Crown Estate Commissioners, his honourable friend the Minister announced an internal review of the position in relation to the leases for fish farms in coastal waters. I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us how this is proceeding and precisely what it may involve.
Lord Trefgarne: I am aware that the inquiry is proceeding. I am afraid that there are not yet any conclusions to be reported to your Lordships. Perhaps I could make further inquiries and, at the risk of sounding somewhat unbriefed, will again undertake to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Development Commission]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be agreed to?
Lord Northfield: I should again like to ask the noble Lord a question on Schedule 1 which governs the
342
operation of the commission. The schedule has a paragraph dealing with staff. I am very concerned about one particular remark that the noble Lord made earlier; namely, that the Government restriction on staff numbers is being applied to this body. Headquarters staff of the Development Commission number only 36 people. It is a body which is carrying out a vast amount of work on a handful of people. One of its great successes has been it has had for its servants some young and very dedicated staff who, over the years, work all hours and who, in every respect, put so much enthusiasm behind their job that they can manage on very small numbers.
If this body is to become a fully recognised rural development agency and build on these beginnings the last thing it wants at this stage is to be restricted unduly to a staff of 36. This recognition is what all of us were working for throughout the 1970s as we gradually expanded its activities and status and took it into new parts of the country so that there are now, I think, well over 1,000 small factories under construction with agreements with county and borough councils up and down the country about joint plans to revive their most disadvantaged rural districts.
I am hoping the noble Lord will be good enough to qualify what he has said about this, so that, in order that it shall be a fully-developed agency for want of another half a dozen more people, it is not going to be running up against a Government veto in that respect. This is a very important matter for a very dedicated body which is doing a great deal of work by stealth. I hope that the noble Lord will qualify what he has said about the restrictions on staffing levels.
Lord Trefgarne: I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no blind enforcement of any arbitrary level of staffing of the commission under the new arrangements. Of course, it is not possible for the Government to give some carte blanche to the commission when funds are provided by Parliament; but, as I have said earlier, we are fully seized of the important work that the commission does, and if they come forward with a case which on its merit is sound, I am certain that we shall agree to it.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Royal Assent
3.29 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

British Shipbuilders Act,

Level Crossings Act,

Plant Varieties Act,

343

Nuclear Material (Offences) Act.

Matrimonial Homes Act,

Mental Health Act,

Pilotage Act,

Ports (Reduction of Debt) Act,

Water Act,

Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act,

Energy Act,

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Act,

Pastoral Measure,

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure,

Hampshire Act.

Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Up-rating orders.]:
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("month") and insert ("months")
The noble Lord said: For the benefit and convenience of the Committee—and certainly not the Government—I shall move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 because these amendments all have the same theme, which is to try to obtain a system whereby the increases in benefits are taken by decisions every six months. The Government may feel that this is impossible; but nothing is impossible in this computerised age, and in fact it seems that the computer given to the Conservative Party by a benevolent friend has even forecast the date of the election, something with which I dealt on the Second Reading. Seriously, the question involved in these amendments is simply that it would be greater justice to have a six-monthly review than the system proposed in this Bill. My reasons for this are quite simple. Some of us perhaps have serious doubts about the intentions of the Government in having 31st May stipulated in this Bill for the decision on pension increases in November, simply because of the forecast rate of inflation.
But this might arise in any Government at any time, and we feel there is greater justice and more common sense in this, in that it may be that in the first six months of decision, the estimate might be out and in November the adjustment can be made—and nobody can complain about that—so that there is a degree of continuity. I accept absolutely and completely that it would be impossible to have a period of less than six months.
There is an amendment down, Amendment No. 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for a new clause which ties up very much with what I am proposing now. My amendment, however, goes into
344
detail; and quite honestly I cannot see why there should be any opposition to it. The only opposition may be that at the immediate moment it could be inconvenient. But, looking ahead, and bearing in mind the tremendous advances made in technology, there is not the slightest doubt that justice could be done and could be seen to be done on all sides by having this six-monthly review.
Arguments can be produced that previous Governments should have done this; but those arguments are no excuse for our not dealing with it now. After all, as I said, we are in a new age that has come upon us somewhat rapidly. I do not intend to proceed further with my remarks on these amendments; but I commend them to the Committee as being reaonable and necessary. I concede the possible arguments that this cannot be done this year. I am prepared to receive an argument on that basis. But, on the general principle, and the principle involved in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I do not think I am prepared to concede anything. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to express support for these amendments, general sympathy with their purpose and I support the concept of bi-annual upratings. As I made clear when we had the debate on Second Reading, I think the Government are right to go back to the historical method instead of the forecast method; but I think that the timing of doing it is wrong and that it should not be done at a time when inflation is expected to rise because that involves a loss. The chief drawback in the historical method is the degree of delay which is involved. Bi-annual upratings will cut that down. It used to be argued by Government that it took six to seven months to carry out the necessary calculations, and that therefore you could not have more than one uprating per year. But I think it became clear during the debate of this Bill in another place that it could be done within five months and therefore it is technically possible to do it twice in a year—and other countries in fact manage to do so. France and Denmark have pensions reviewed twice yearly in relation to the index. In Finland and the Netherlands there is an automatic increase after a 3 per cent. rise in the index. In Luxembourg there is a similar automatic increase after a 5 per cent. rise. In Belgium, it follows automatically upon changes in a prices-and-wages index. It can be argued they have different systems and that ours would need to be accommodated to this idea. Perhaps that is no bad thing and we should think out ways of doing what other people have managed to do. At any rate, it is clear that it is not impossible to have the historic method and to have bi-annual upratings.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The burden of these amendments is that benefits could and should be uprated twice a year rather than once. In this context, three factors have fundamental importance: necessity, cost and operational feasibility. The main case to be made for more frequent upratings on grounds of necessity arises in times of high and rapidly rising inflation. For example, the argument for six-monthly upratings was particularly relevant in 1974 and 1975 when the

345
annual rate of inflation rose from a low point of under 12 per cent. to a high point of 26.9 per cent.
In such circumstances, the value of benefits was eroding almost as fast as new rates could be fixed. Once the annual rate of inflation fell below 20 per cent., the then Government quickly moved to an annual cycle of uprating. It is an entirely different matter when inflation has been brought down to low, single figures and when the Government intend that it should fall still further. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the inflation situation now is very different from that which existed in 1975 when inflation indeed made more frequent uprating a real necessity. By way of illustration, in the four months from November 1982 to March 1973, which is the latest figures I have at the moment, the R.P.I. had risen by only 0.6 per cent.
I turn now to costs. Six-monthly upratings would add hundreds of millions of pounds per year to the benefit cost of upratings. For example, a May uprating in addition to the normal November uprating would add about £150 million to uprating costs in 1983/84 for each 1 per cent. brought forward. Even if the uprating were to be restricted only to pensions and long-term benefits, the extra cost for each 1 per cent. brought forward would be of the order of £100 million. If there were additional resources of this order available to incorporate in the general social security budget then the proper place for consideration of such matters would be in the annual review itself. Apart from the high-benefit costs involved in more frequent upratings, there are administrative costs and difficulties which cannot lightly be ignored. It cannot be denied that it is operationally possible to uprate more than once a year; but it still takes the best part of six months to carry out the work of each uprating so that a system of twice-yearly upratings would mean a need for more staff and it would mean that large numbers of DHSS staff would need to be permanently deployed on such work. Sometimes our uprating systems have been compared unfavourably with those of other countries, particularly in relation to our partners in the European Community. But this is an unfair comparison because it does not compare like with like. For example, while most member states provide some special help for those with low incomes, including pensioners, our system of supplementary benefit is not in general matched in other EC countries. Furthermore, of the other nine member states, only the Republic of Ireland who also uprate annually, pays its pensions weekly by order-book. All the other states pay their pensions monthly, or, in the case of Italy, every two months, either by post or by credit transfer. If all beneficiaries in this country were to change to a credit transfer system of monthly payment, our operational difficulties would be lessened too.
Recently we gave our pensioners the option of having their pensions paid by credit transfer to a hank or building society, but first returns show that only a very tiny percentage of weekly-paid pensioners have opted to change to that method of payment. As long as our pensioners prefer to have their pensions paid weekly by order-book, we shall have to live with the difficulties that their choice entails. Improved technology will eventually shorten the time taken to
346
deal with the complex process of reassessing the three to four million supplementary benefit cases which are currently reassessed clerically, but it is unlikely that significant time savings will be achieved within the next few years.
Finally, I should remind noble Lords that the cost of benefit increases have to be paid for by the working population. Contributions and taxes have to rise to meet the extra cost involved, and this leads workers to press for more frequent pay increases in compensation. This adds to inflationary pressures and serves to undo the good work of recent years in bringing down inflation to low single figures and in helping to make our industry more competitive in world markets. Now that we have inflation under control, it seems sensible to keep it under control and to reduce it still further so that pensioners may be spared the worry which inflation brings. I hope that, in the light of these arguments, the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendments.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I do not have any intention of pressing them at the present time, for various reasons. At the same time I cannot accept entirely what the noble Lord has said in reply. One of the problems is that his department has been cutting staff. In fact the whole theme of his speech was the necessity for financial savings. He said it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds to do this double check up each year. I cannot accept this, because he is dealing with the old methods that have been employed, whereas I am suggesting that modern methods should be used. His whole theme was financial saving, which is the basis of this and every other social security Bill that we have had since the start of this Parliament.
There is a further point regarding a twice-yearly review. If the noble Lord had seen some of the letters I have received thanks to a small notice in the press on my comments on the Bill, he would realise that pensioners are in a different world altogether so far as the question of prices is concerned. This is something that every Government must consider, whether it be this one or the next one, whatever the next one may be. The noble Lord said they had asked for people to have their payments made directly into bank and Giro accounts. In fact, what he does not realise—and I am talking about the average pensioner and not those fortunate ones like myself who have another pension through service in another place—is that many pensioners have to rely desperately upon their single pension and it is small wonder that there has been very little response. Anybody who is in touch with these people—and I would give noble Lords opposite credit because a lot of them are—would understand. So far as benefits are concerned, the costs must be related to our intention to see that those at the lowest point of the income scale are given a reasonable standard of living. I say from this Box that, if sacrifices are necessary through taxation in order to achieve that ideal, then we as a nation would stand high in the world.
I do not want to intrude upon a defence debate or anything like that, but there is never hesitation when the question of defence expenditure arises. That is money possibly—though I hope to God it will not be—for the eventual destruction of humanity

347
somewhere or another. I am concerned with the people who are in need and who have served this country, whether as dustmen or brilliant technologists. That is why I hope the Government will consider the position further, particularly the question of the review that I am calling for, and taking into account the price situation as it affects elderly people.
As I have indicated, I shall not press the amendments, at this stage. I understand that there may be a Report stage and a Third Reading. As I said on Second Reading, the whole thing is being rushed; and now today we know why. What happens on Report stage will have to be decided after I have read the noble Lord's remarks. In the meantime, in order to assist the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("except that, if in the second year of operation the application of this provision has not been sufficient to maintain the real value of benefits at the November 1982 level then an appropriate adjustment will be made in the percentage increase for the third year.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 and, with the leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendment No. 8. This is the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and myself. May I say that the name of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock should have been added, but it does not in fact appear on the Marshalled List.
I think we would all agree that if inflation is running at an annual rate of 4 per cent. in May, this month, and if it will be 6 per cent. next November, the beneficiaries will suffer a loss in the first year. It has been argued that this loss will be made up in the following year. The Secretary of State, Mr. Norman Fowler, in another place said this during the Second Reading debate, at col. 820:
"What will happen under the proposed system is that any inflation between May and November of this year or any subsequent year will automatically be caught up in the following up-rating".
In other words, the loss suffered in the first year and which of course will not be repaid, will not be lost in the second year. That is not necessarily true. There is no guarantee that the loss will be made up, and I should like to explain why I say that.
In November 1982 there was an over-estimate of inflation of 2.7 per cent. so that the figure of increase was higher than the actual inflation would have allowed. We on these Benches are anxious that that amount should not be clawed back: in other words, we want to maintain the November 1982 value of benefits. We want there to be no difference between the real value of benefits at November 1984, when compared with November 1982: that is, that the second year should in fact catch up.
Under the new method the difference in up-rating between November 1982 and November 1984 will relate to a reference period, May 1982 to May 1984. That is under the method proposed in this Bill. Under the old method, it would have referred to November 1982 to November 1984. November 1982 to May 1984 is common to both of those reference periods.
348
The new method has six months, May to November 1982, at the beginning added to it and the old method has six months, May to November 1984, at the end of it. Therefore, the difference between the two methods will depend upon the difference between the rise of prices in these two six-monthly periods at either end.
We know what the rise in prices was in the first six months, May to November 1982. It was only 1·3 per cent., which was abnormally low. If prices rise by 1·3 per cent. or less between May and November 1984, the real value as at November 1982 will have been maintained. But if prices rise by more than 1·3 per cent. between May and November 1984, the real value as at November 1982 will have been reduced and that, I think most of us would agree, is the most likely outcome.
This amendment would ensure that if the 1982 value declined in this way between 1982 and 1984, then an adjustment to take care of that would be made in the 1985 uprating. Thus, the November 1982 value would have been preserved. So that is the object of this amendment. It is to make sure that the November 1982 value is maintained, and it will not necessarily be maintained unless some special provision is made to ensure that that is so. I beg to move.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. He has moved it so clearly and so ably that there is little need for me to go into a great deal of detail. I noticed that, when the Minister was replying to the earlier amendment, he referred to the extra cost that would be incurred if the changes that we wish for were made. If there is an extra cost to the Government, that must mean a loss to the beneficiaries. When he talks about all these thousands of pounds being a charge on the Government, it makes us feel that we really ought to look at those thousands of pounds of which beneficiaries are being deprived. It cannot work both ways.
Another reason why I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is that there is a volatility in prices and, as my noble friend Lord Wallace said, that volatility particularly affects pensioners, the unemployed and people who are at the receiving end of these benefits, because many of the points which affect the price index are not reflected in the budgets of these people.
Another point which makes me support this amendment is the unfairness of the inability to catch up. For instance, if anybody dies in the period between one point of calculation and another, there is no compensation for his family. If the index has risen and then an unfortunate person dies, that money is lost forever. So the idea that we will catch up next year does not apply, especially to a lot of elderly people. Neither does it apply to the strange and unusual case of a person on unemployment benefit who might, even under this Government, suddenly find a job. He will then be taken out of unemployment benefit and will never be compensated for the shortfall in the unemployment benefit that he received when he was out of work, because he will have got back to work.
If the noble Lord can explain that that is not the case, then I shall be happy to listen to him, but we

349
think that this is a very fair amendment. This question of the real benefit must be more carefully considered, and some way must be found of making it up to people who suffer from the proposals in this Bill. So I support this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I just want to confirm that it was intended that my name should appear on the amendment, and I have received a handsome apology from the Public Bill Office for the fact that it did not. I shall not detain your Lordships, but I just want to revert to the point I made on Second Reading, which was that we on this Bench support, in principle, the idea of a reversion to the historic method of calculation. We also feel it is extremely important that the new method should not only get off to a fair start, but should be seen to get off to a fair start. It seems to me that the amendment, which has been very ably proposed and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, takes care of this. We therefore feel that it is a reasonable point to which the Government should pay serious consideration. It could be a one-off adjustment to make sure that the whole thing gets going on the right basis. We therefore support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: The purpose of this amendment is plain, even if it is far from clear, I fear, that as drafted it would achieve the desired result. It provides a variation on a theme which has already been the subject of extensive debate, both here and in the other place. Up to now, the suggestion has been that there should be some form of adjustment to benefits in 1984, if this year's up-rating increase is less than the percentage rise in prices from November 1982 to November 1983. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, goes one stage further than that by proposing to delay any adjustment of this kind until we have had at least two up-ratings on the new basis.
I am afraid that the Government cannot support this amendment. The whole purpose of the Bill is to restore certainty and stability to the up-rating process. We no longer wish to be looking over our shoulder at minor variations in the annual inflation rate from one month to another. We want to get away from all questions of overshoot, shortfall or adjustment. Our simple proposal is that the actual year-on-year rise in prices each May shall be used to determine the rise in benefits in the following November. On Second Reading, I spelled out why the May figures are the latest actual figures we can use, if beneficiaries are to get their increases paid on time. When we reach a position where we can move to a known figure later than May, we will gladly do so, but that time is not yet here.
This year the change in method is being introduced in favourable circumstances for pensioners, despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on this point on Second Reading and again today. A significant part of the rise in prices from May 1982 to May 1983 has already been reflected in the November 1982 benefit increase, yet it will also count towards the increase in November 1983. The increase in November 1982 was 2·7 per cent. higher than was justified by the actual rise in prices in the preceding 12 months, yet the 1983 up-rating will still reflect a full 12 months' movement
350
of prices from May to May, and any rise in prices in the 12 months from May 1983 will automatically be taken into account in the 1984 up-rating.
It is better to proceed on this simple and reliable basis than to look back to some base year of no particular relevance to the pensioner. What pensioners will be looking for in 1984 and 1985 is not what they had in November 1982, but whether the rate of inflation can be further reduced below the present level so that they need no longer fear it, as they did throughout the 1970s.
This Government are more firmly committed to bringing down the rate of inflation than any of the other major parties. The smaller and more stable the annual rate of inflation, the less the chance of any significant difference between the May inflation rate and the November inflation rate. Pensioners know that their benefit rises will relate to the annual movement of prices and not to the inherent uncertainties of a forecast system. The Government's position is therefore clear. The November 1982 overshoot is not being clawed back. Pensioners and others have enjoyed that over-provision throughout 1983, and the rates set in 1982 will form the basis of future up-ratings under the historic method. Any further improvement in the value of pensions must, I fear, depend upon the country's economic performance, the generation of new wealth and the ability of taxpayers and contributors to meet the necessary extra costs.
In the light of these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and those who supported him, will be persuaded to withdraw these amendments. If he presses them, I hope that your Lordships will reject them.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether the Government will provide any recompense for people who have had an underpayment of benefit because of inflation and who then, because of getting a job, never, apparently, obtain recompense for the period during which they have been underpaid in relation to inflation?
Lord Trefgarne: In the context both of this amendment and of the earlier one, I have already explained why more frequent up-ratings are not appropriate. What the noble Baroness is really asking for, I think, is a weekly up-rating arrangement, or some such arrangement as that, whereby pensioners are always paid benefit precisely in line with the level of inflation. That, I am afraid, is not a practicable proposition, and I cannot hold out any hope of the Government thinking otherwise.
Baroness Jeger: I apologise for not making myself clear. I was not talking about pensioners. I thought I referred quite clearly to the unemployed who will have been receiving unemployment benefit at a rate below inflation but who, if they get a job before the year of reassessment is up, will never get that loss of money paid back.
Lord Trefgarne: I understood the noble Baroness was referring to unemployment benefit recipients. I remember that she referred earlier to pensioners who

351
might suffer a similar disadvantage by dying in between up-ratings. The same argument applies to unemployment benefit recipients as applies to pensioners who sadly die while in receipt of pension in between up-rating points: that in order to ensure that unemployment benefit recipients are not disadvantaged in the way the noble Baroness describes, up-ratings on a very frequent basis would be necessary. For the reasons I have described, I fear that this is not possible.
Lord Banks: The reason why this amendment was put down was because there is no guarantee that the up-rating in the second year will make good the loss which I think we are all agreed is bound to take place in the first year. The noble Lord did not address himself to that point. He said he did not think that the amendment would achieve its purpose, but he did not say why he did not think it would achieve its purpose. He said he wanted to get away from overshoot or shortfall. The whole purpose of my argument was to show that under the present system you could not get away from overshoot and shortfall. If, therefore, you did not want to lose value, it was necessary to have an arrangement of this kind. I can well understand that these are quite complicated arguments to take in when expressed verbally. Therefore, I believe it is only right that the Minister should have an opportunity to read what I have said and then to answer the points I have raised. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(". The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the date on which this Act comes into force, recommend to Parliament a method to provide for bi-annual upratings of the retirement pension.")
The noble Lord said: The earlier amendments dealing with bi-annual up-ratings obliged the Government to up-rate twice a year. The noble Lord put forward objections to that: administrative objections, and objections as to the cost of benefits and the cost of administration. This amendment does not oblige the Government to up-rate bi-annually at the start. It does not even oblige the Government to up-rate biannually at any time. All it does is to ensure that the Government recommend a method of doing this to Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force. We know that other countries manage to do this. We realise that there are perhaps difficulties within our own system which would need to be removed in some way if we were to do the same as other countries, but there is no reason why we should not do the same. We know that technically it is possible so to do. Therefore, all the amendment asks is that the Government should look at this question to see how what is done in other countries could be done here, and to recommend such a change in due course. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I rise to support this amendment, which I consider to be excellent and also extremely acceptable to the Government, who now have the opportunity to prove that they are prepared to look into the future with, shall I say, a more benevolent eye than they have looked into the past since they have been in office. This is an arrangement whereby the Government can make up their mind in due course. It does not tie them down to detail, as did my amendments, excellent though they were. If the Government refuse this amendment, the mind boggles. There is no reason whatever why any reasonable Government should not accept this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: We on this Bench support the amendment. It is worth pointing out—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, hinted at it—that this amendment is very similar to one which was put down by one of the Government's own Back-Bench supporters in another place, who pointed out when moving it that the Conservative party had made election pledges on two occasions to bring about a reform of this nature when they came to power but that it had not happened. I am very glad that in this Committee the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has finally put to death the ground of administrative impossibility of a biannual up-rating. It is interesting that the noble Lord has admitted that it is possible, in direct contradiction to what the Minister, Mr. Rossi, said in another place at col. 327 on Wednesday, 20th April: that bi-annual up-ratings are so administratively difficult as to be beyond contemplation. The noble Lord, I am glad to say, has corrected that error.
It is obvious from the implications of the Bill before the Committee at the moment that if the Government are planning to make an announcement in June—17th June has been mentioned for an up-rating—and if it is to be in place for implementatation by 21st November, the period would be five months and one week. Therefore, by implication, in this Bill it is perfectly clear that an up-rating can be performed in just over five months. This is exactly what the amendment proposes, if the Bill becomes law.
The administrative cost is not great. It is about £10 million per bi-annual up-rating. It is clear that we should get feasibility and the fact that it is not costly out of the way. The remaining important consideration is simply that of the effect on public expenditure. If the Government are going to reject this idea, they must come clean and reject it on the grounds of additional public expenditure. The Government would indeed incur extra cost on a rising rate but if, on the other hand, inflation continues on a steady path or on a downward path then the Government would save money.
Finally, this proposal seems to me to be a logical extension of the Government's own proposal to make the up-rating system fairer, more accurate, and more in tune with the real and actual inflation rate ruling at the time. On those grounds, and on the grounds of the Government's previous election pledges, I can see no reason why the Government can possibly reject this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not again deploy all the arguments

353
I deployed against earlier amendments along these lines. As I ventured to suggest then, Conservative support for this idea, which certainly was around in 1974 or 1975, was in the context of a rate of inflation in excess of 20 per cent. I am ready to accept now the arguments in favour of this sort of arrangement when inflation is running at that sort of level. But we are now facing inflation at a wholly different level—something below 5 per cent., I suppose, at the present time. So it follows that the necessity for more frequent up-rating falls away.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that it is not possible to say that two annual up-ratings are a physical impossibility so far as the DHSS are concerned. However, it is a very major undertaking, let me say. The noble Lord referred to a figure of £10 million for administrative costs. It is at least that. It involves the employment of some 1,300 extra staff, which is not a prospect we would lightly entertain. However, the essential point is that upon which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, put his finger—that the extra costs in terms of the increased benefit that would have to be paid out will be very substantial. I referred in my earlier remarks to a sum of about £150 million in respect of each 1 per cent. brought forward in this way.
I have to tell the Committee that unless we are to somehow reduce existing benefits to cope with that additional cost, we shall be imposing an additional burden of this amount upon employers and employees. That is not something they would lightly entertain. Indeed, I believe it would be widely regarded as unfortunate, and it is not something that I am prepared to recommend to your Lordships. I hope that, for the reasons deployed earlier in relation to the other amendments and now underlined again by me, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not press his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to the fact that an additional 1,300 staff would be necessary. There is the possibility that, by taking 1,300 people from the unemployment queue and thus relieving the state of the need to pay unemployment benefit, there will be some saving of public money.
Lord Trefgarne: The difficulty is that I do not believe there are 1,300 experts of this kind on the unemployment register.
Baroness Jeger: Then train them.
Lord Banks: I must say that I find the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, disappointing. I had hoped that the Government would be prepared to accept the concept of bi-annual up-ratings even if they were not prepared to incorporate this as something that would be brought into practice as soon as the Bill becomes law. As my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock pointed out, it seems that public expenditure is the only substantial ground on which this proposal is registered.
If there is an increase half way through the year, it is true that a certain amount of expenditure would be
354
added in the next six months that otherwise would not have been made—but the increase at the end of that six months will not be so great as if the first up-rating had not been undertaken. So I am not sure that the argument that the noble Lord has put to us is as strong as he thinks it is. I believe that there is a very strong argument in principle for establishing that we want to move towards bi-annual upratings. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Amulree, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Barrington, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Blyton, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Byers, L.

Plant, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rea, L.

Collison, L.

Reilly, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Sainsbury, L.

David, B.

Segal, L.

Diamond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ezra, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gormley, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Daventry, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Davidson, V.

Ampthill, L.

De Freyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Avon, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eccles, V.

Beloff, L.

Effingham, E.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gainford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Glanusk, L.

Craigavon, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

355

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Portland, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Radnor, E.

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rodney, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Somers, L.

Long, V.

Spens, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stamp, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

McFadzean, L.

Suffield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Terrington, L.

Mansfield, E.

Teynham, L.

Margadale. L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Trenchard, V.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Tryon, L.

Molson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Monson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vickers, B.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Newall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to restore the position which everyone had assumed was the existing law before the 10th March this year, when your Lordships in your judicial capacity gave judgment in the case of Peart v. Stewart. In that case it was held that a county court was an "inferior court" for the purposes of Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and that accordingly its power to deal with civil contempts was limited to 30 days' imprisonment. rather than two years.
For well over a century, by virtue of what is now Section 74 of the County Courts Act 1959, the county courts have had the same power as the High Court to deal with civil contempts—that is to say, breaches of injunctions. In paragraph 204 of their report, the Phillimore Committee recommended no change. The purpose of Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was simply to substitute a fixed instead of an indefinite term in such cases and to impose a maximum of two years on the terms of imprisonment which could be imposed on any occasion. It was not the intention to create any difference between the High Court and the county courts in this regard.
During the preparation of the Bill the question was raised as to whether the drafting, and in particular the
356
definition of "superior court" in Section 19, was really clear enough for the purposes of Section 14, and I was assured that it was. Since I am responsible for the drafting of Bills—of that Bill, at any rate—which I introduce, I apologise for the error. It is fair to say that no discussion took place on the Floor of the House and that the advice I received on the subject was entirely reassuring.
From the point of view of policy it is vital, I am afraid, that the status quo as between High Court and county court should be preserved for this purpose. The county court now has a wide matrimonial jurisdiction, apart from everything else, and a general jurisdiction wider than ever before. If I may give one example, which is slightly diverting, sent to me by a judge who was rightly disturbed by the decision in Pearl v. Stewart, I will quote his letter, as follows:
"I write to bring to your attention the distress, difficulties and expense which the decision in Peart v. Stewart is causing in practice.
"I have at least one unbalanced man resident within the district of this court. He has a mania for molesting and assaulting the woman with whom he formerly lived. I made a non-molestation injunction against him, which he ignored. I sent him inside for five days. The next time he did it, I sent him down for 14 days. On the third occasion, the judge who was taking my list for me while I was sitting in crime, very sensibly sent him down for six months, but having regard to Pearl v. Stewart he was released after three months. This, I think, encouraged him and on his current breach he is again inside for one month. The woman concerned must be having a frightful time, knowing that he is likely to be hack on her doorstep before long.
"He now writes what I regard as his usual letter, saying that he will not offend again, and he will come before me early next week asking for an early release. I would not give very much for his chances of success, but he will be out before long and I expect will re-offend.
"Have I still got to play this ineffective 30 day game with him, with all the expense that it involves?
"The woman will be represented, on legal aid. Two bailiffs will have to take him to Bedford Prison over 50 miles each way. (Where he is well known and was welcomed last time by the Officer on the gate with the words 'Hello, you back again'.
"I thought at first I might be able to resolve some of the difficulty by transferring the matter to the High Court so as to get the extended and necessary jurisdiction, but I do not think I have power so to do. Nor, indeed, if I did, would it serve any useful purpose, because the Courts Administrator tells me the only authority he has to appoint me a deputy High Court judge is in divorce and wardship cases, and if it went to London even more expense would be caused".
My Lords, that letter speaks more eloquently than I of the necessity—indeed, the urgent need—of this Bill. So I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that cautionary tale. I venture to think that there will be little dispute between the two sides of the House, tempting as it will be from now on to find reason for difference at all possible opportunities until the battle of the hustings is resolved one way or the other.
Obviously it is essential that courts should have the power to enforce orders against recalcitrant parties, particularly in the case of those who have been subjected to orders arising from the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, and the need to protect what—alas!—is usually the lady who has been the subject of violence from the continuance of the violence against her. The noble and learned Lord has

357
pointed out that the jurisdiction of the county courts has of course increased very greatly in recent years, and the particular jurisdiction under the 1976 Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act is an important and useful illustration.
It is also the case that county courts grant far more injunctions than any other court in England and Wales. Therefore, it is very important to get this matter clarified. I am bound to say that I share whatever responsibility there was for the failure to spot this point at the earlier stage with the noble and learned Lords dealing with Peart—I should continue to pronounce it "pert" in case there is confusion with a most respected noble Lord in the House whose name is pronounced in a slightly different way and who assures me is no relation to any of the parties in question.
This provision therefore to give to the county courts the same power as exists in the courts of superior jurisdiction seems to us to be right. It does not follow by any means that the message should go out that the county courts should necessarily impose penalties of imprisonment over the period of one month that they can presently exercise. The two years is a maximum term and they will no doubt exercise their discretion as they think fit in the use of that power against recalcitrant litigants who have refused to obey the orders of the court. In the circumstances, we agree with the passing of this Bill.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, in view of the changed political situation, may I not only express my support for the Bill but also the hope that it will be found possible for it to reach the statute book before Parliament is dissolved.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his well informed and helpful speech and also to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, with whose sentiments I agree. However, I can only say that these things can only be done by agreement.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Saint Christopher and Nevis Termination of Association Order 1983
4.32 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, nearly two years ago I had the honour of seeking your Lordships' approval of a draft Order in Council which made Antigua and Babuda a fully independent nation within the Commonwealth. She had previously been a West Indian Associated State under the West Indies Act 1967. Today it falls to me to ask your Lordships to approve another draft Order in Council confirming the same status on St. Kitts and Nevis, the sixth and last of the Associated States in the Eastern Caribbean to achieve this momentous step forward in the history of a people.
It is proposed that this order, which will be made under Section 10(2) of the Act, should come into effect on 19th September this year. Thereupon the islands of Saint Christopher and Nevis will become a fully independent sovereign federal domocratic state which should be described as the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis (of St. Kitts and Nevis) or simply Saint Christopher and Nevis (or St. Kitts and Nevis). Her Majesty the Queen will be head of the independent state. Under normal circumstances I would have waxed lyrical and eulogised on the beauty of the two islands and the long historical association between these islands and the United Kingdom, but in the event I think that perhaps it is better if I restrain myself.
The West Indies Act 1967 created the concept of associated statehood. This enabled certain small territories in the Eastern Caribbean, which were not then ready to move to full independence, to be given full internal self-government. The United Kingdom retained responsibility only for defence and external affairs, although certain of the latter responsibilities were also delegated to the Associated States' Governments. There has been a steady movement on the part of these states, over the past nine years, towards full independence.
The House of Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis has by way of resolution requested termination under Section 10(2) of the 1967 Act, and there is no reason not to accede to that request. This is the same method as has been followed in the transition to independence of the other five former Associated States.
British policy on the application of this section of the 1967 Act has been consistent under successive Governments. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These criteria are: first, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the state; and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the rights and freedoms of these people. I am satisfied that both criteria have been met. A constitutional conference was held at Lancaster House in December under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I was a regular attender at it. The coalition Government of St. Kitts and Nevis, led by Premier Dr. Simmonds, and an opposition delegation, led by Mr. Moore, participated.
The draft before the conference had been prepared by the state Government and embodied proposals which were published in July 1982, subsequently discussed fully in the Associated State and approved by the state's House of Assembly in October. My honourable friend visited the islands later in October to meet the political leaders and to familiarise himself with the issues. He was entirely satisfied that all the political parties there were agreed on the principle of independence and that this was the wish of the majority of the people.
The constitutional conference produced a report which was a thoroughly considered basis for a constitution. Regrettably the opposition delegation felt that the proposals they put before the conference were not adequately discussed, and they participated intermit-

359
tently, not taking part in the signing ceremony. I am satisfied, however, that their criticisms of the manner in which the conference was conducted were unjustified. When the St. Kitts and Nevis Government delegation were presented with reasoned, careful and constructive criticisms of the draft constitution they showed that they were prepared to go a considerable way towards meeting the opposition's point of view.
The opposition had full opportunity to present their own proposals as well as to comment in detail on the draft constitution before the conference. The final version of the constitution, which incorporated amendments made in the light of conference decisions, was debated over a period of three days in the St. Christopher and Nevis House of Assembly. The constitution was then approved by a resolution of St. Kitts and Nevis House of Assembly, a copy of which I have had placed in the Library of this House.
The proposed constitution is similar to those under which the other Associated States became independent. In the opening statements by the premier and the leader of the opposition it rapidly bcame apparent that the possible secession of Nevis was still, after many years, a bone of contention. This is why it contains a number of novel features in that it contains provisions for the automony of Nevis within the federation, and for secession of Nevis from the federation. The provisions for Nevis to secede would require the introduction and the passage of a Bill in the Nevis Assembly supported by a two-thirds majority of the elected members. This would subsequently need to be approved by a referendum in Nevis by not less than two-thirds of the votes cast by persons registered on the parliamentary electoral roll there.
Further provisions would ensure that adequate notification of the proposals for separation, including the proposals for its future constitution, would be given to enable proper discussion and explanation to take place. Arrangements would be made for independent and impartial observers appointed by an independent international body to observe the procedures involved in the referendum and to report publicly on the manner in which it had been carried out. The provisions for the Nevis legislature and administration, the financial provisions and the right of secession will be entrenched in the constitution. For this reason we are confident that the interests of the people of Nevis have been safeguarded.
St. Kitts and Nevis will be the first dependent territory to become independent after the entry into force of the British Nationality Act 1981 on 1st January 1983. Those who were formerly citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by virtue of a connection with St. Kitts and Nevis become British dependent territories citizens under the 1981 Act. They will become citizens of Saint Christopher and Nevis on independence day, when they will lose their British dependent territories citizenship unless they qualify for retention of that citizenship by virtue of a connection with a remaining dependency. No one will lose British citizenship as a result of the independence of St. Kitts and Nevis.
As the wish of the majority of the people of St. Kitts and Nevis is for independence, it is encumbent upon us to respond now to that wish. With full indepen-
360
dence, the state of St. Kitts and Nevis will be able further to develop its co-operation with neighbouring states, notably within the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, in the activities of which an independent St. Kitts and Nevis will be able to play a full part. This will be an important contribution to the stability of the region.
Aid to St. Kitts and Nevis will continue after independence and we shall be discussing a suitable aid package with the St. Kitts-Nevis Government once this order is approved. We hope and expect that aid to St. Kitts and Nevis from other sources will increase as a result of independence.
Finally, I am happy to inform the House that the St. Kitts and Nevis Government have announced their intention to apply for membership of the Commonwealth. We look forward to continuing our links with them within the Commonwealth. I know that the good wishes of the House will go to the Government and people of St. Kitts and Nevis as they approach their independence, an important stage in their development. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th April be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
4.41 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the order to us. We are all concerned to ensure that the islands, which have been so closely associated with this country for so long, will enjoy a successful and prosperous future.
I read the report of the constitutional conference to which the noble Lord has referred with great interest. I noted that there were some acute disagreements in the discussions which took place in December. The experience is that each of these islands in the Caribbean (some of them very small) has its own identity and its own ethos and that its people are sensitive about amalgamation and about constitutions in general. Being an islander myself, and having represented an island in another place for nearly 30 years, I can fully understand this attitude. There were many times when I felt, in frustration, that Anglesey should declare UDI. I can therefore well understand that there could be disagreement between the various parties. There is no difference of opinion about independence. The arguments over the constitutional arrangements—and these are sincere and deeply held—are profound. It is clear that doubts still remain, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said.
I have read the petition presented to Her Majesty the Queen by the St. Kitt's Labour Party, and I would refer to some of the points in it. They have of course argued for a federal form of government but not of the type which has now been agreed by Her Majesty's Government. What the St. Kitts Labour Party have been pressing for is a federal form with two subordinate legislatures. They say:
"The chief defect is simply this. No provision whatever has been made for any local Government or elected political institutions of any kind in the Island of St. Christopher, apart from the Federal Parliament".

361
They argue that Nevis is being granted an assembly with wide autonomous powers (with a Lieutenant Governor and a Premier) out of all proportion to its population, Nevis being much smaller than St. Kitts. They make the point that:
"the proposed Constitution locks the people of St. Christopher, a sugar island, into a straitjacket, of which Nevis, with no interest in sugar, is given the key".
They also say that representation in the single chamber legislature is unfairly weighted in favour of Nevis:
"an island with one fifth of the voters electing not less, but possibly more, than one third of the representatives".
As the noble Lord is aware, they ask for independence to be withheld until the constitution is amended to provide for a sub-legislature for St. Kitts on the lines of Nevis. That is the nub of the case of the St. Kitts Labour Party.
The key question is whether there is adequate evidence that the electors of St. Kitts are in favour of the constitution. At what stage did it become clear to Her Majesty's Government that the majority of the population, or of the electors, of St. Christopher were in favour of this particular constitution? That is the requirement of Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967, as the noble Lord is aware. I am informed—perhaps the noble Lord can confirm or deny this—that there remains substantial opposition to the constitution. I refer specifically to page 19 of the White Paper, which summarises the objections and gives details of the objectors. It seems to me that this is a formidable opposition and that it is incumbent on the noble Lord to explain to the House how the Government have been able to come to these present conclusions in the face of this opposition.
I have received representations myself. If I may, I will read a paragraph from one letter from a native of the island. He says:
"The chief defect of the proposed constitution is that there is no provision for any elected representative body for St. Kitts itself other than the Federal Assembly, while Nevis would have its own separate legislature.
This inferior position in the new Federal State is not one from which St. Kitts can escape by secession, though secession is to be allowed to Nevis"—
this is a point that the noble Lord made clearly in his speech. Thus the proposed constitution locks the people of St. Kitts, as I said before, into the straitjacket which I described. The letter goes on:
"At this late stage it may suffice to insert in the proposed constitution a provision that there should be an Assembly for St. Kitts, which should hold its first meeting within 12 months of the next elections".
The proposal made by this correspondent would be supported by the St. Kitts Labour Party. As this is the final stage of debate on this matter in Parliament, I think it right that I should summarise the case made by the petitioners, and I invite the noble Lord to reply to it.
Before I conclude, may I say how much I welcome that section of the conference conclusions which deals with the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. I refer particularly to paragraph 11(a) of the White Paper. I think that this is sufficiently important for me to quote it:
"Provision would be made on the lines of the existing constitution for the protection of individual human rights. Additions to the
362
existing constitutional provisions would include provision for the right of a person to belong to a political party or other political association and protection of the individual against discrimination on grounds of sex or birth out of wedlock, as well as race, place of origin, political opinions or affiliations, colour or creed".
It is one of the tragedies of our time that these words and all that they imply are frequently flouted and disregarded. But they are fundamental and there can be no civilised existence without them. I hope that the current disagreements can be swiftly resolved. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that the matter of aid is to be a subject of discussion very soon. I hope therefore that these two islands will have a successful and happy history.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, this will be a very historic moment for your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships realise it. Although much history has been seen here, with the independence of St. Kitts/Nevis we are seeing what is virtually the end of the British Empire. St. Kitts/Nevis has the distinction of having been the first British colony in the Caribbean, and, as your Lordships can see, it is almost the last. It is certainly the last of the Associated States.
Seven years ago the attempt began to bring the three islands, St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, into independence. This was led by the late and much lamented premier Robert Bradshaw. After years of discussion, for better or for worse, Anguilla was in 1979 hived off. The process of attaining independence then continued for the two states of St. Kitts and Nevis. Then, of course, a perceptible change was made. Nevis did not wish to enter into independence with St. Kitts. I well remember the leading members of the Nevis Reform Party, who are now Ministers in the Government, coming here to try to persuade me to support them in their claim. They were interested either in separate independence or remaining a colony like Anguilla. To the credit of the British Government—I have to give them credit—they were never encouraged in this secession.
In the Caribbean democracy still prevails. At the last election the Labour Party in St. Kitts-Nevis was defeated. It is worth remembering—this is vital to what is going on and to what may happen in the future—that although the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party lost the election in St. Kitts-Nevis, it won the election in St. Kitts. The consequence was a coalition between the minority party in St. Kitts and the two elected members from Nevis who were committed to secession. They won the election on a programme of secession. That does not necessarily invalidate what has happened. It is very much to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that they were unwilling to allow this state to go to independence as a result of secession. They encouraged the two parties to come together and work together in the coalition to form a Government and to seek independence as one state.
The Nevis Reformation Party was not prepared to go into independence except with an assurance that if working together became imposible it could secede. The issues were therefore resolved by an agreement to draft a constitution that would give Nevis adequate representation in the central Parliament, a local assembly and the right to secede. Thus, all Nevis's worries were assuaged. The present Opposition did not

363
disagree on the matter of independence. In fact, they were proposing independence themselves. But they certainly disagreed with the method by which the state should go into independence. The Opposition affirmed that the present constitutional structure in which the country was going into independence was likely to make for fragmentation. Their solution, with which I would not agree, either, was to do the fragmenting now. They felt that since, in effect, Nevis was going to secede anyway, it might just as well secede now rather than have a few years in which it ruled St. Kitts and then secede.
It is therefore important to note that while the claims of Nevis have been met in full, St. Kitts now feels cheated. That is the problem with which we are faced. I have received many representations, among them one from Brian King. It is funny that someone should ask who Brian King was, because he was a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He has been a lecturer in jurisprudence at Cambridge for several years. He is a native of St. Kitts and only recently retired there. He was around here much of the time and attended most of the constitutional conferences relating to other Caribbean countries. I was therefore most amused when I was asked who Brian King was.
Brian King was most concerned about this issue. He made many representations to me. The suggestion mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is in fact a solution that he believes can be applied now and can work; that is to say, there should be an assembly for St. Kitts and a proper Senate in which the two islands are equally represented. This would permit a proper federation rather than a country that can be described as a federation of St. Christopher-Nevis or St. Kitts-Nevis. Let it be a federation, and, if a federation, let it be a real federation in which there is a federal House with all the powers including states assemblies in St. Kitts and Nevis and in which there is a Senate that equally represents the two states. That is the solution. It is still possible to get that solution agreed between now and 19th September, which is the date on which independence is scheduled.
St. Kitts is the oldest of the British colonies in the West Indies. It was settled a year before Barbados. Like most of the states in the Caribbean, it has witnessed the vicissitudes of British naval history during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. It is interesting to recall not only that the most distinguished sailor in British naval history lived in the Caribbean but that Nelson also married in Nevis. The United States of America also is right to be grateful to Nevis because one of the founders of its constitution, Alexander Hamilton, was born in Nevis. If one goes to Nevis, one can find a plaque to his memory.
On reading the constitution, I wondered whether that was the reason why Nevis was being so well favoured by the constitution. It could well be felt that Nevis is famous enough to deserve it. I am afraid, however, that this would be a terrible gamble. I have already pointed out that, although the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party lost the last election in St. Kitts-Nevis, it won the election in St. Kitts. It won four of the seven seats. If, at the next election, it wins five of the seven seats, there is a change. I presume, however, that the next election will be fought on the constitution that will involve 11 seats of which eight will be in St. Kitts.
364
It is still possible for the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party to win six of the eight seats. There was a time when it used to win all the seven seats. The whole issue therefore is adumbrated on something that could crumble in 1985.
There has to be an election in 1985. It is because I personally regard it as so dangerous that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will pause at this moment, think again and perhaps confer with the present Government of St. Kitts-Nevis, and put forward the suggestions that have been made. I cannot see that either the Nevis Reform Party or the People's Action Movement could object to this arrangement. It is an arrangement under which there would be a proper federal state with an assembly in St. Kitts, an assembly in Nevis and a federal House of Assembly in which both parties would be adequately represented. But in addition there would be a Senate in which they would be equally represented so that all the worries of Nevis could well be met and the worries of St. Kitts could also be met, and we would have a proper, well-constituted state. Therefore, I sincerely hope that even at this stage—because between May and September there is plenty of time—we can get this change effected so that St. Kitts-Nevis can go into independence without the problems that I personally at the moment foresee.
I have spoken for a long time on this subject, but I wish to make two further comments. When considering independence there are two matters as regards the Caribbean about which Her Majesty's Government need to concern themselves. The first is the security of the region, and the second is economics. I hope that the Government have taken cognisance of what the Eastern Caribbean is trying to do for itself by way of security. The Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby these parties agree to prepare a contingency plan to assist each other on request in natural emergencies; smuggling; search and rescue; immigration control; fisheries protection; offshore installation; pollution control; natural and other disasters and threats to national security. It is the general hope and belief that St. Kitts-Nevis would play a part in this as soon as she becomes independent.
It is also the hope of all the Caribbean Governments that Her Majesty's Government would do everything possible to encourage this joint venture, not only by "words of wisdom", but in a very practical way by perhaps assistance in procuring, as I must acknowledge Her Majesty's Government have done in respect of St. Vincent and the Grenadines in helping to secure patrol boats to scour the rather long distances between one island and another. This is an area in which we ought to play, and need to be seen to play, a major role.
As regards national security, the states have no intention of protecting themselves against foreign powers. They cannot do so—it would be practically impossible for them to do so. But they certainly feel that they could handle threats from marauders who endanger their immediate economic well-being. For this reason I hope that the Minister will inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to keep a weathered eye on the area by way

365
of supporting whatever these newly emergent states can do for themselves as a measure of security. This is something that we can do and it is something that we must do.
As regards economics, the prime economic factor in St. Kitts-Nevis is sugar. There is a secondary industry which is very much in its infancy in those islands—namely, tourism. The Government there intend to pay attention to this matter. However, at this stage it will be of interest to point out that the exchange rate of the pound sterling to the dollar so adversely affects the whole economy of St. Kitts-Nevis that for sugar alone I am informed that the Government of this new state will be losing in the coming year something in the vicinity of 12 million to 13 million East Caribbean dollars just because of the way in which the exchange rate is running at present. As regards tourism, St. Kitts-Nevis has begun a drive towards increasing the number of tourists arriving in the country. I wish to deal with another aspect of that matter later. However, first I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another matter.
It is customary that Her Majesty's Government give to a newly independent country a golden handshake. From reports that I have been receiving from different territories in the Caribbean this gift has come to be regarded as neither golden nor a handshake. It is not golden, not because they are pressing for a greater amount—not that I would object if the amount was greater—but because it has suddenly dawned on these states, who thought that they were being given, in most cases, a grant and a loan together totalling £10 million for the economic improvement of their state, that there is nothing of the sort. So far as I have been able to gather, what in fact really happens is that after independence the Foreign and Commonwealth Office aid department seeks to set up a quasi-colonial relationship. It administers the golden handshake in a series of driblets, small portions of monies which are carefully checked and monitored as if the state were still a crown colony. The state is never really able to undertake any major projects which in its own view are of absolute necessity, but there is a system of patching up. The independent state is being kept ever on a lead. I do not think that that is the concept of a golden handshake.
I feel—and I know that the people of the Caribbean feel—that it is a mechanism to keep the state in economic colonial relationship with this country. That is exactly what the states would wish to get away from on becoming independent. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government can make a firm commitment to giving the economic aid for the advancement of St. Kitts-Nevis in a way which, in the view of the new state, would better serve its economic interests. I have recently had some complaints from Antigua about the way in which it is now being treated. I hope that this will not be repeated in the case of St. Kitts.
It seems to me curious that although Her Majesty's Government are prepared to support the wider integration of the Caribbean islands, they have been prepared to deny the islands the use of British West Indian Airways as their regional carrier. One of the planks in this integration is air linkage because we are talking about a lot of little islands. Throughout it was
366
hoped—indeed, it was almost taken for granted—that the introduction of a regional carrier would enable these territories to advance the integration. It has been blocked time and time again through the British Government insisting on British Airways being the carrier rather than British West Indian Airways.
For some time now the Eastern Caribbean islands have thought it in their best interest to have a regional carrier and have turned to their own British West Indian Airways to be that carrier. I for one can see no reason why Her Majesty's Government should continue to stand in the way of the development of the area in this way in order to provide a few seats for British Airways.
These independent states have repeatedly approached Her Majesty's Government with, as I said before, the intention of assisting this progress of integration and the economy of these states, which to such a large extent depend on tourism. In fact, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their attitude in this particular matter, because I know that St. Kitts-Nevis has had overtures made about British West Indian Airways being designated as its carrier. I hope it will not have the same experience as Antigua and St. Lucia have had when they have tried to same thing.
Finally, may I again suggest that the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis be approached with a suggestion that the constitution be amended in the way that has been suggested. I know that it will increase the cost of government. But I personally think that it would be more sensible to have better government at an increased cost; it would certainly be less dangerous. I am well aware of the fact that we cannot dictate to the St. Kitts Government, but I still think that between now and the time for independence we can use such influence as we have to suggest to them a way in which this present problem can be resolved.
It is rather ironic that, having been so critical of the organisation of the Caribbean, I should find myself unable to give the wholehearted support that I should have liked to give to this order. At least this order has not furthered the break-up of the area. But the reason I have to be as critical as I am is that I really think that we are laying the seeds for a further break-up. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position in this matter.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Pitt, with his very eloquent speech, and my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, I approach this order with mixed feelings. My own particular link with this Associated State dates from the 1960s, when, as I have mentioned to your Lordships' House before, I was sent with Sir Nigel Fisher—because of our joint knowledge of this area and of the people concerned—to try to prevent the secession of Anguilla from this Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla. The process, during which we negotiated with mini-shuttle diplomacy on aeroplanes between Anguilla and St. Kitts, was one which I shall remember for the rest of my life.
The position is that there is one justification for the secession of Anguilla which certainly does not exist in the case of Nevis. I want to state that from the

367
beginning. The Anguillans are some scores of miles away across the Caribbean ocean. Their forefathers were mainly pirates who landed in the area and intermarried with the black people whom we had brought there from Africa. They did not have many links in a very real sense with the island of St. Kitts, which is a sugar island and, as my noble friend Lord Pitt has indicated, a one crop economy. It was almost an accident of history—a grouping by former British Governments of the three islands together—that made it into one state—St. Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla.
Despite our efforts—Sir Nigel Fisher's, mine and those of successive Ministers—in the end we have had to accept the secession of Anguilla. But a constitution which, as my noble friend says, sows seeds for this to happen to Nevis is only regrettable. In contrast with Anguilla, Nevis is just across the road from St. Kitts. It is almost physically linked to St. Kitts. There is there a community of interest which did not exist in Anguilla. It is sad that the precedent of Anguilla is, in a sense, being seized on by the people of Nevis when the comparison is illegitimate. That is the first point I want to make and, therefore, I join with my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Pitt in saying that there is a great deal to worry about in the provisions for the possible secession of Nevis.
The tragedy is that in a way this would not have happened if it had all come to fruition a few years ago. At that time the giants of St. Kitts' history were still alive. One was Robert Bradshaw, who had a long history in the Caribbean, not just as Premier of St. Kitts but also as the Finance Minister in the defunct Federation of the West Indies in the 1960s. He towered above all his contemporaries. Sadly, he was to die two or three years ago, and one of the saddest days of my life was to represent Her Majesty's Government at his funeral. I felt that the end of an era was all around me.
Then very quickly afterwards the man who had joined with him to do so much for St. Kitts—Paul Southwell—also died. He was not originally a Kittician, but an adopted Kittician, as my noble friend confirms. I thought that he would carry the day and see the island through to independence with proper safeguards for the future, but sadly, he too died very shortly afterwards. With great respect to the Ministers and people who are in power today, they are not the giants that were Robert Bradshaw and Paul Southwell. If those two had been alive, we would not have had an independence conference of this kind with so much disagreement and with the seeds of danger so clearly sown. They would have towered above it, and I am sure would have rallied the people of both islands to a much more satisfactory continuation of the link between them.
So I approach this with mixed feelings. I shall not repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has put from the Opposition Front Bench as to the dangers of the detail in that constitution. But there is one other thing that needs to be said on this day when we are bidding goodbye to most of our former colonies of the Caribbean. It is that our record in the area is not all that good. It is not something I go around the world praising and taking credit for. In the first place, by our act, we scuttled out of the Caribbean much too soon. We allowed fragmentation to occur.
368
We encouraged unnecessarily the idea of early independence for states which are now too small to make strong headway in the currents of world economics. I would have said to hell with the Committee of the United Nations and hung on to our role a good deal longer. We had a job to do there which was to encourage these islands to work more closely together in a federation after the first one failed, and to unite their economies in a way that we had never successfully done when their links were always with us and never with each other as colonies.
Secondly, we never did it right in terms of economics either, as my noble friend has hinted. In the 1960s we managed to get the Canadian and American Governments to join with the British Government in sponsoring a study by Dr. Carleen O'Loughlin of the University of the West Indies on the cost of bringing these islands to real economic take-off point. My Lords, it was peanuts. A few million pounds at that time would have taken these islands forward to a real springboard for independence. Instead, all the initiative was left. The British Government said, "Oh, it's not our responsibility. We're just going to get out. We've had enough". The result was that we never tried to get the Canadian and American Governments to join with us in executing the recommendation of Dr. Carleen O'Loughlin's study, which would have started these states off on a basis of real economic viability. It is to our shame—one I shall live with for the rest of my life—that we got it wrong in the Caribbean, and we should not be going around at all proud of our record.
Now I come to the future. The Government have at least some chance of making up for some of this in the golden handshake that my noble friend mentioned. First, we have to try to help diversify the economy of the main island of St. Kitts. If we can do so and get it off sugar, it will be for the good of those people there. Secondly, when it comes to tourism, St. Kitts has one of the most beautiful beaches in the Caribbean in the southern part of the island. It desperately needs funds to launch it as a major tourist resort now that the airport has been upgraded to take really big jets. The possibilities are great. We should see that some of the money is used to give that island a second chance of economic viability.
Finally, in that list of possible shopping for a golden handshake why not see that there is a physical link of some kind with the island of Nevis, just across the road? That would be one way of stopping the talk in Nevis of secession. It would be one way of making them realise that the British Government strongly feel that this would be a mistake. How big a mistake? It is a few thousand people wanting to become an independent nation in the world. Frankly, it is ridiculous. Although we can fly the flag of self-determination we still have a role in the world of offering advice.
The advice that ought to go out from this House today is that we do not believe that it would be right for Nevis to fragment even further the Caribbean with all the dangers that that can hold, with all the continual strife it will make in the future between these two virtually linked islands—virtually physically linked as they are—and we ought to be saying to them that part of the golden handshake that we hope to be able to offer will strengthen and not weaken those links which are for the good of both the islands and both the

369
peoples. It is not a happy day for those of us who are interested in the Caribbean and know and love all of its peoples. We have to wish an Associated State luck, good fortune on independence, but on this occasion it is with mixed feelings that we do so.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful, and I am sure that the Government and people of St. Kitts-Nevis will be, that three noble Lords have felt sufficiently moved by this order to speak on it in your Lordships' House today. I must, however, begin my reply with a general observation. St. Kitts and Nevis have had internal self-government since 1967. That is, for over 15 years. In this time Governments of two political persuasions have ruled both conscientiously and well. That is not supposed to sound patronising. It is something that I feel.
It has been consistent Government policy over many years to bring people to full independence in accordance with the United Nations Charter when both they and their Governments request it. Much of this debate this evening has centred upon Nevis secession—not surprisingly. It was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and his noble friend Lord Pitt. Since 1975, attempts to bring St. Kitts-Nevis to independence have foundered because Nevis distrusted the St. Kitts Labour Government, which, as we have heard, was in power for 30 years up to 1980 and wanted a separate status. Talks in 1979 broke down when Nevis rejected this Government's proposals for independence to be followed after 18 months by a binding referendum on secession.
Relations between the two islands have, I am glad to say, improved greatly since 1980. Agreement has been reached—and the House should not underestimate this—for a secesssion clause in the constitution which requires, as I said in my opening speech, a two-thirds majority in the Nevis Assembly, referendum approved by not less than two-thirds of the electorate, and independent international monitoring of it. The time is now opportune to bring St. Kitts-Nevis to independence as a unitary state.
In essence I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who referred to himself as an islander—recently I have been considering other sorts of islanders, those made by Britten Norman, but we will let that pass—asked why St. Kitts had not got its own secession arrangements. It is really a question of where the pressure has come from over the years. It has always been Nevis that has sought autonomy from St. Kitts and not the other way round. There has been no adverse reaction from the people of St. Kitts to the present proposals. Perhaps most importantly of all, and finally, it is for the Government and people of St. Kitts-Nevis to work out constitutional arrangements that suit them. We are satisfied that this is what they have done, and that they have had ample opportunity to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked whether we are satisfied with the security arrangements in the Eastern Caribbean generally. As the noble Lord well knows, associated statehood was conceived as a stepping stone to full independence. All the political parties of St. Kitts are in favour of independence. This new
370
status will enable St. Kitts-Nevis to obtain aid and technical assistance from a wider range of international sources.
In passing, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that this aid package—or what he rather unfortunately, I thought, referred to as a golden handshake; it is not intended to be that at all, for to my mind at least that has totally different connotations—is of course still a matter for discussion. This discussion will go on between this Government and the St. Kitts-Nevis Government for some considerable time to come, but of course there is no point in pursuing that unless the House passes this order this evening.
This new status will enable St. Kitts-Nevis to obtain aid and technical assistance from a wider range of international sources. It will permit an even wider participation in regional fora, such as the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Contrary to the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, may have left the House with, Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome recent efforts of Easten Caribbean States to co-operate in mutual security arrangements, and look forward to assisting with training and equipment and in whatever way would appear to be appropriate at the time.
I am quite satisfied that enough time was available for public discussion and debate on this proposed termination order. The question of independence for St. Kitts-Nevis is far from new. Moves were first made to organise a constitutional conference in 1979 by the Labour Party Government led by Mr. Leigh Moore. Informal talks were held, but they stumbled over the issue of Nevis, whose representatives were insisting on a referendum being held before independence. That was overridden and it was agreed that St. Kitts and Nevis should move towards independence as a unitary state as early as possible in 1980. The proposal finally came to grief when Mr. Moore's party lost the general election held in February 1980 and he went into opposition. His subsequent objection to proposals for independence to go ahead under the Government of Dr. Kennedy Simmons seemed, therefore, to be based on somewhat political reasons. The independence debate has been in progress for several years and all the points at issue have been aired many times.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me when were the Government in this country saitsfied that there was political agreement on the subject of independence in St. Kitts and Nevis.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I asked when the Government were satisfied that there was ample evidence that the people of St. Kitts were in favour of this constitution.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification, my Lords. When the constitutional conference was held the fact that both parties were there represented was an indication of this. However, in my book, the real acceptance, or perception of the acceptance, came in the debate in the legislative assembly in March this year, when both parties spoke and there was a vote at the end.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked why was the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis not asked to hold an election or referendum.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I did not ask the noble Lord that, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, gave me the impression that he had asked, but since he has now confirmed that he did not, I shall not answer.
The one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, did ask about was the exchange rate. It is a factor that because the Eastern Caribbean dollar is a currency on its own and is not, as I understand it, linked to any other national currency, it will suffer the vagaries of the exchange rate, particularly in relation to the pound, which has been doing some rather strange things lately for no apparent reason, at least to me, though I am sure that many noble Lords will know exactly why. It is a matter for the Eastern Caribbean states to decide whether this should continue or whether the Eastern Caribbean dollar should be linked to the United States dollar, to the pound, to the Japanese yen, or to anything else that they may like to discuss.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also commented about the local airline, BWIA, British West Indian Airways. The question of this airline's rights are a matter for discussion between the St. Kitts and Nevis Government and Her Majesty's Government after independence. I should point out that BWIA is the Trinidad national carrier and is not, as yet, a regional carrier, because it has no regional ownership.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, this is the whole point that has angered me. British West Indian Airways is owned by the Trinidad Government, but every West Indian Government except Jamaica has so far asked that British West Indian Airways should be made the regional carrier and on each occasion the British Government—because British Airways objected—has obstructed that. It is no use any British Minister saying that it is a matter for discussion between this Government or that Government. In effect, when the Government come to make a decision they obstruct. That is what has been happening with British West Indian Airways.
I wish to go further, if your Lordships will permit me, to say that British West Indian Airways was once a subsidiary of British Overseas Airways Corporation. When the federation broke up, Trinidad was the only country that had money and it bought British West Indian Airways. It was always intended to be the carrier for the whole area and the only reason it is not the carrier for the whole area is because the British Government have always backed British Airways in obstructing it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a matter of opinion which I do not particularly want to get drawn into at this moment.
The arrangements for the independence settlement will be discussed very soon and no doubt the St. Kitts and Nevis Government will put forward arguments advanced by the noble Lord. We must not forget that British aid is British money and must be properly accounted for, subject, of course, to the annual parliamentary appropriations.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, asked me, and talked in quite a piece of his speech, about the history
372
of our relationship with the Caribbean as a geographical area. I assure him that we recognise our continuing responsibility for assisting the economic development of the Commonwealth Caribbean. We have not neglected and are not neglecting our responsibilities. British aid to the Caribbean is currently running at £25 million a year, which is a substantial sum by any standards.
In conclusion, this debate is about something which is basically simple, and that is whether the democratically expressed human rights of a group of islanders should be denied expression by the will of this Parliament, to which, quite evidently, the answer must be, No. It is no for perhaps a slightly different reason. In his opening speech to the constitutional conference in London, Mr. Leigh Moore, the Leader of the Opposition, stated:
"I wish to affirm that the people are not against independence".
I hope that your Lordships' House will not be either.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.38 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is to correct an anomaly identified in paragraph 12.201 of the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling (Cmnd. 7200) in 1978. The anomaly is prejudicing the export of material by certain firms in our domestic printing industry which specialise in the production of tickets for lotteries conducted wholly abroad.
There can be no justification for United Kingdom legislation penalising our export industry. This is not merely a theoretical fetter on export effort and potential, but can be illustrated by one undertaking's performance. Since 1973 its export turnover, which recently rose to 41 per cent. of the whole, has totalled £10,783,000, and in 1981 it was £2,745,000, to 22 overseas countries, giving employment to 300 people. These achievements have been secured in the face of the strongest overseas competition and despite the effects of the recession.
The anomaly arises in Section 2(1)(a) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and can be traced back through Section 42(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to the Lotteries Act 1823, when, no doubt, printing exports were of much less consequence than they are today. The final report of the Royal Commission in 1978 could hardly have put the case for altering the anomaly more forcefully and succinctly. In paragraph 12.200 it says:
"We received formal evidence from Kenrick and Jefferson, an old-established firm specialising in security printing, complaining that section 42(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (which has become section 2(1)(a) of the 1976 Act), as at present interpreted, has prevented them from exporting lottery tickets. They say in their evidence: 'Being an ethical house we obey the law. At the same time we know that overseas lottery tickets are printed in the United Kingdom, and subsequently exported.' Far from suggesting that the offenders be made to toe the line, it is our contention that the law should be changed in order that others may legally participate in this trade".
In the following paragraph it says:
"Our terms of reference are concerned with gambling in Britain,

373
not with unnecessary hindrance to Britain's export trade, Nevertheless, it does seem absurd that a law which has remained unchanged since 1823 should be able to have this effect. We hope that the hindrances referred to by Kenrick and Jefferson will be quickly removed."
Moreover, the reality of the threat to the printing undertakings of this country is shown by the representations made by their overseas printing competitors to our industry's potential customers abroad, alleging that those undertakings are in breach of United Kingdom law in making printed lottery supplies. A letter dated 23rd June 1982, addressed to the Finnish Embassy commercial department from the European representative of an American printing company, actually threatened that if the British printing company got the order they, an American company, would initiate a prosecution in this country against them. Your Lordships may think that this is an impertinence, but, whatever it is, it certainly is not a situation which should be allowed to continue. There is also no virtue in our police authorities being required to investigate complaints of this nature, as, indeed, has occurred.
It can be added that the present anomaly in Section 2 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 is contrary to the Treaty of Rome as a (and I quote from the treaty),
"disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
Article 36 of the treaty is in the following terms:
"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
The terms of the Bill have been limited strictly to curing the acknowledged anomaly. The source of the problem is in the opening words of Section 2(1):
"Subject to the provisions of this section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere"—
and those are the two offending words—
"shall be guilty of an offence".
Put shortly, the new subsection (4) proposed in the Bill removes the offences of printing and selling material to the promoters of any lottery conducted wholly outside Great Britain. It does not, for example, tamper with the offence of distributing in Great Britain tickets or chances in a lottery promoted outside Great Britain (such as the Irish Hospitals Sweep, for which tickets cannot be sold here).
It has been made clear that the Department of Industry and the Home Office are fully in sympathy with the modest purpose of the Bill, and drafting of the Bill has been undertaken in consultation with their officials. If any point of drafting arises, sympathetic consideration will be given to it, but it is hoped that the preliminary consultations have ensured that no amendment should be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of the Gambling Board, has been good enough to say that, although it is not the responsibility of his board, the board finds no problems in this amendment. What is plain is that, for the safeguard of the export potential of this sector of
374
our printing industry, this alteration of the law is urgently needed. It should not await the uncertainty of the timetable for any future Government measure in this field.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Irving of Dartford.)
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, for having brought this short Bill before the House and for having explained its purpose so clearly. Your Lordships will have realised that something must have been overlooked by Parliament when it came to deal with the legislation on lotteries. Because I felt that it was incumbent upon me to do a little research work to see how this error occurred, I found something which may lighten your Lordships' hearts on a day when very serious announcements have been made.
The fact of the matter is that the 1976 Act was a consolidation Act. It followed upon 1975, when, of course, it was decided that local authorities should have a part to play in lotteries. Being a consolidation Bill coming before your Lordships' House and another place, it was not suitable for any amendments to be thought of; so one had to go back to the 1963 Act, and one finds that that, too, was a consolidation Act and therefore not appropriate for amendment.
In the history of this matter, the preceding Act was the 1934 Act. I take your Lordships back, with some sense of amusement, to a time when in your Lordships' House the very clause of which my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford has been speaking was discussed. In 1934—and I read from the Official Report of your Lordships' proceedings of 31st May of that year—the following interesting discussion took place at the Committee stage of the Betting and Lotteries Bill then before your Lordships' House. It was the Duke of Atholl who started a discussion upon this and an allied clause, and perhaps I may read it:
"Before this clause is passed I should be glad if the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill"—
it was the Marquess of Londonderry, in fact—
"would describe to the House what he means by a lottery as the words in the clause, 'all lotteries', seem to me to be rather sweeping. It is just as well that the public should know not ony what constitutes an offence such as we find in this Bill, but also what constitutes a lottery. My reason for asking this is that ignorance on this point may lead virtuous people astray and involve them in a heavy fine and imprisonment. For instance, all members of your Lordships' House have received a notice of a ballot, of which apparently the Lord Chancellor is the promoter. They have been asked to subscribe 7s. 6d. each for the chance of obtaining a prize in the shape of a seat for the ceremony of Trooping the Colour on June 4. All the money subscribed is to go to expenses. The money is to be enclosed with the application, and in no circumstances will the money be returned, although it is not known whether the amount received will be sufficient to pay for the erection of the stands or whether it will be in excess of the amount required. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me in what way this so-called ballot differs from a lottery. If it does not, I feel that I should warn a certain high dignitary of this House as well as the Secretary to the War Office that lotteries promoted for good or national objects in this country are not always looked upon favourably by the authorities."
The Marquess of Londonderry—and I say this with great respect to the noble Marquess—was, I think, caught on the wrong foot and, in his reply (with which I shall not trouble your Lordships) he endeavoured to throw the burden upon the poor Duke of Atholl by

375
asking him, since he had raised the question, to define for himself what a lottery was; otherwise apparently to the noble Marquess it was somewhat of an impertinence to raise the matter in Committee in your Lordships' House.
In fact, this very anomaly, as your Lordships may feel it to be, which prevents British printers from printing lottery tickets for a lottery promoted wholly abroad, was again dealt with by the Duke of Atholl, to whom one really feels one owes a debt at this moment. He raised this very point—I am now reading from col. 719 of the same day, 31st May 1934—and said:
"Supposing there was a sweepstake in some foreign country: there is no reason why our printers should not print the tickets so long as they are honest people and it is not against the law in this country. I am not quite certain whether it is covered in a later Amendment I am going to press".
Then Viscount Bertie of Thame said:
"May I ask the noble Marquess whether foreign premium bonds which might be printed in this country for foreign Governments would not come under this Bill?"
The Marquess of Londonderry replied that he would make inquiries; he was again extremely helpful. All my researches after that do not reveal the result of those inquiries. Apparently the noble Duke who raised the matter originally was persuaded, possibly by some other greater matter of state, not to raise it again.
So that is the history of the matter which is before your Lordships today. It comes in this very innocent but very proper Bill which is introduced in order to try to amend something which was discussed in 1934 but which, unfortunately, was not dealt with. Perhaps it is an encouragement to all members of your Lordships' House that once they have seized upon a good point they will never leave it, whatever the Minister tries to do, to you.
The final thing I want to do is this. My noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford referred to the way in which British printers were prevented from getting perfectly legitimate orders by reason of the present state of the law. He referred to a letter which was sent, and only because I find it to be the unacceptable face of capitalism do I intend to read the letter; then I will trouble your Lordships no longer. It illustrates quite definitely how unfairly some commercial firms work within this country in order to try to rob our own people of very proper contracts even though our law seems to be somewhat defective in the matter. I should like to read to your Lordships this letter, which comes from a Mr. E. Kelly and is dated 23rd June 1982. It is written from Warwickshire, and is addressed to the Finnish Embassy, Commercial Section. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir.
"I understand that arrangements have recently been concluded between your Government and Norton & Wright Ltd. of Leeds, whereby that Company will supply tickets for use in your State lottery.
"It is my duty to bring to your attention the fact that it is totally unlawful for a British company to print and export lottery tickets for use abroad (Section 2 (1)(a) of the Lotteries & Amusements Act 1976) and it seems totally incongruous that a Government such as your own would countenance flouting British law in such a way.
"As the European representative of a major print group in the United States of America (from where export is perfectly lawful) I have taken very detailed legal advice and I can assure you that the prohibition on exports from Britain is quite specific and that Norton's activities are open to the deepest question.
"To substantiate my point, I enclose a letter from the Department
376
of Trade, the contents of which were made known to Norton & Wright over a year ago. I thus give you warning to look into this matter before my company initiates a prosecution against Nortons—the result of which may well prove extremely embarrassing for your Government—both practically and politically.
"My company will be represented at the forthcoming Lottery Congress in Lausanne and will be delighted to suggest alternative and more legal arrangements for your Lottery's consideration".
The gentleman signs himself "Yours faithfully".
We have an opportunity this afternoon, as a result of my noble friend's Bill, to rectify this matter and to see that such letters can no longer be sent to deprive lawful and respectable British firms of the business which they undertake, in many cases most efficiently. It is therefore with some delight that I support my noble friend's Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has somewhat pre-empted what he feels the Government might say about his Bill; but I should like to congratulate him on the lucid way in which he has explained the points that he wanted to make about this Bill.
As he described, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also pointed out, it is, at present, an offence under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to print any ticket for use in a lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted except as provided for by that Act. Lotteries promoted outside Great Britain are, as provided by the Act, unlawful. As we know, this is not a new restriction; it has existed for many years, at least since the early nineteenth century. The purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to remove that restriction by amending the 1976 Act so as to enable printers in Great Britain to print and supply lottery tickets and associated lottery material such as advertisements, for use in the promotion of a lottery wholly outside Great Britain, such as a foreign national lottery, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to.
Lottery legislation is framed so as to control and regulate lotteries conducted in Great Britain and to prevent the importation of advertising material, notices or tickets relating to foreign lotteries over which we would have no control. The legislation is there to protect the public from buying tickets in lotteries where there can be no assurance that such lotteries are properly run. The restriction on the export of lottery tickets no doubt made sense when such export was perhaps simply the first stage before reimporting the tickets to this country as spurious foreign lottery tickets. But such a restriction no longer seems appropriate when many countries run large national lotteries of their own—lotteries, moreover, which require specialised printing of a kind which British companies can provide.
The existing legislation was never intended to prevent or restrict legitimate commercial export activities, but it is important that any relaxation in the law, such as that proposed in the Bill, should not undermine the controls which protect the public. In particular, we must be satisfied that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that tickets for foreign lotteries are not distributed in Great Britain or exported and then imported.
With these considerations firmly in mind, the Government support the principle of this modest Bill.

377
The Royal Commission on Gambling, who noted that the point was outside their terms of reference, nevertheless recommended that this change should be made and we had noted it for inclusion in more general legislation on lotteries. The Gaming Board, whom we have consulted, also have no objection to the proposals in the Bill.
There are some amendments we should like to see made to the Bill, both of a technical nature and to ensure that there is no loophole which permits the distribution in Great Britain of lottery material intended for export. These would in no way affect the main purpose of the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has described. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it would be our intention to offer the noble Lord, Lord Irving, amendments which he might move at the Committee stage and such other assistance as might prove necessary.
I said that this was a modest Bill but it is one which could serve a useful purpose. It would open up a potential export market for some sectors of the British printing industry and that is something I am sure your Lordships' House would wish to encourage. My Lords, in conclusion I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Irving, on introducing this Bill. I do not, of course, know what the rest of the week holds in store for us and I hope the noble Lord will not be too despondent over the timing of the Second Reading of this Bill in view of the announcements that have been made today; but I can reaffirm with a certain measure of conviction that if he were to introduce it again later in the summer, the Government (as they are now) will support the principle behind the Bill.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord and the Government for their very sympathetic support for the Bill. I should be only too glad to entertain the amendments that are suggested. I am afraid that I cannot make the same remark that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made earlier this afternoon in another Second Reading debate. I cannot hope that the Government might find time for the Bill before the end of this Parliament, but I will certainly be back with it in the next Parliament.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Charities Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Future Business
6.1 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the rest of this week's business. The business tomorrow, Tuesday, will now be as follows: Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill—Third Reading; County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]—Committee and remaining stages; Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill—Committee and remaining stages; Diseases of Fish Bill—Committee and remaining stages; Coroners' Juries Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages; Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]—Committee.
The Business of Wednesday will be as follows: Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1983 and the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations of 1983—Motions for Approval (these two orders being advanced from Thurday); Charities Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages; Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages (these last two Bills being the two which have just arrived from another place today); debate on Industrial Production on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
The Business on Thursday will include the following items: National Heritage Bill [H.L.]—Consideration of Commons Amendments; Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]—Consideration of Commons Amendments (these two items being advanced from Friday); Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill—Report and Third Reading: Copyright (Amendment) Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages. In addition, the House will be asked on Thursday and Friday to deal with other Bills brought or returned from the Commons. Further details will be announced tomorrow.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for so promptly making that Statement and advising your Lordships of the proposed Business for the remainder of this week. I assume that the intention will be that the House will meet on Friday at 11. o'clock as previously arranged.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. That is the case.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I say how grateful we are to the noble Lord for giving us as much notice as possible of the re-arrangement of business. I know that we shall be very happy to seek to assist in ensuring that the non-contentious matters that still remain can be put on the statute book before Parliament is prorogued. May I ask the noble Lord whether, in relation to prorogation, he is in a position to give any indication as to the timing or indeed, the manner in which it will be done?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, the House will adjourn in the normal way on Friday and Parliament will be dissolved by Proclamation thereafter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my I ask the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip one technical

379
question? As we are meeting of Friday at 11 a.m., will the business include the Starred Questions on the Order Paper in the normal way?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I imagine that it will. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know.

Diseases of Fish Bill
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must declare an interest, in that I am a fish farmer of, I suppose by English standards, fairly considerable size, and furthermore—and this is a point which should be made before speaking about this Bill—I am a fish farmer who produces fish entirely for food. In other words, fish that leave my farm leave it dead. Your Lordships will have realised that there are certain prohibitions and restraints on fish farmers within this Bill which are a little stronger than they were in the 1937 Act, but they will bear a little heavier on those who sell fish for stocking rivers or lakes than on those, such as myself, who as I said, sell entirely for the table.
We have often spoken of fish farming in your Lordships' Chamber and I myself have once or twice before. Lady Emmet of Amberley used to keep the subject before our eyes and perhaps we should have got further by now if she were still with us to do so. The subject is of very considerable importance, and it completely belies the small size of the Bill. In I think 1980 the Government produced a consultative paper which had various paragraphs on fish farming and fish diseases. It bore very heavily on the importance and the danger of fish diseases, in view of the fact that fish farming has grown so very quickly of recent years, and in relation to this Bill we must consider just how quickly this emergent industry, if I may call it that, has grown. It is not a large industry now, but I started fish farming about 14 years ago and I believe that in this country there were then some 20 or so fish farmers of any size at all. Now I am told that there are approximately 470. This morning, I motored up from my home just south of Salisbury and passed four fish farms. Fourteen years ago, after leaving my own fish farm I never saw another fish until I got to Billingsgate.
As I said, this subject is important, and it is also important to look a little at the way in which fish farming has grown. There are a large number of fish farms which take the process from the very start to the finish. They take the eggs from the female fish, fertilise them and grow them on until eventually they go to market in one way or another, either alive or dead. But there is another very large section of the industry which has emulated the fatstock industry and divided itself up. There are farmers who grow eggs and sell them on and others who take the fish as far as the fingerling size, or even larger. One hears of fish that are almost mature being sold just to be finished, as a bullock might be finished off in a yard in the eastern counties, perhaps having been born on the borders of Wales. This means that fish are moving across the country in tanks on lorries or trailers almost every day. As well as passing fish farms on the way up from
380
Salisbury, nearly always I pass a tanker containing, I believe, trout.
Another development of which the Bill before your Lordships takes cognisance is that over this span of 14 years, or a little longer, fish farming, which used to involve almost entirely trout, now involves all sorts of fish. As your Lordships know, the salmon farming industry off the coast of Scotland has become very important, and of some size. One sees farmed salmon advertised in many fishmongers in London and elsewhere. The industry is still growing. People are beginning to farm eels, using the warm waters of power stations, or similar situations. Halibut and turbot are farmed. Shellfish are farmed, too, and have to be taken notice of very particularly. Even such species as crayfish are, I am told, farmed. Whether this is a successful venture I do not know.
If noble Lords consider this growth and the diversity which has emerged, it is not surprising that the fish farming industry has somewhat outgrown the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and also the Shellfish Act 1967. It would be remarkable if it had not. We should be aware of the risk that this Bill tries to obviate, so far as possible. The risk is that we shall move disease rapidly from one fish farm to another, or from one catchment area to another, or from one marine area to another and damage not only our fish farms but, very important indeed, our natural and still very prolific waters.
Your Lordships know, because it has been written about recently, that in this country there is an enormous and growing population of anglers. It would be ironic as well as a catastrophe if fish farmers, who to a large extent provide fish to give pleasure to anglers, at the same time provided them with the necessary disease to kill what fish they have, plus the new influx, and to destroy their fisheries. We should therefore be very grateful to Mr. Corrie in another place for choosing to promote a Bill dealing with this subject.
As I have already said, the Bill updates and reinforces the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and makes a small but important addition to the Shellfish Act 1967. It does this in a variety of ways. The Bill enables the Minister to act more quickly in times of emergency, and with a little more force. In Clause 1 there is a slight relaxation of the 1937 Act rules. Salmonids will now, if the Minister sees fit to issue a licence, be allowed to come into Scotland from Northern Ireland. I believe that this is of importance to fish farmers in Northern Ireland. I believe also that their own laws on fish farming and general health and hygiene are very strict.
The next point that I should like to bring before your Lordships relates to speed. When the Minister wishes to designate an infected area he will be able to do so on the suspicion of disease. This will speed things up quite considerably. In the fish farming climate in which we now live, this is very important indeed. One might say that at the moment there is no disease which requires to be dealt with speedily, but that would be wrong. There are a few diseases which need to be dealt with quickly in order to prevent them getting a hold and causing real difficulty. But what must always be at the back of our minds when we are talking about the Bill are the diseases which might come to this country. Two are now rife on the Continent, particularly in

381
France. For obvious reasons, they are given initials. The first one is VHS—viral haemorrhagic septicaemia. The next is IHN, which is infectious haematopoetic necrosis or something of that sort. The names are enough to frighten any honest fish farmer. I was speaking a few days ago to a very clever professor from Idaho who has studied fish all his life. He said that we can well do without both of these diseases and that we ought not to spend too much time talking about them; the best thing to do would be to take some action.
The Bill also strengthens the controls which the Minister can apply within a designated area. It alters the rules to the extent that, as well as not allowing live eggs or fish to leave the farm, it prevents them from coming into the farm, though foodstuff is allowed to come into the farm. Nobody expects the fish to starve. The Bill also contains the all-important provision extending these controls to cover farmed sea fish. It makes provision for cages in the sea. Both freshwater and seawater fish will be covered by the same rules.
The Bill alters the timing of the preliminary period during which a fish farmer is told that he must stop the movement of fish. At present, a period of 16 days is applied, and it is reapplied ad infinitum, if necessary. The period contained in the Bill is longer in order to give the scientists more time to work on the problem. The period is 30 days and it can be extended to 60 days. After 60 days, however, instead of continuing to renew the period, the area has to be designated. Action of another kind has to be taken.
My next point relates to notifiable diseases. Many new diseases are appearing. This underlines the fact that speed is important. Furthermore, some diseases which long ago frightened us very much are not now considered to be important. Therefore the Minister has been given the power by Negative Resolution to add to and substract from the list of notifiable diseases. The list would only get longer and longer, and in the end it would produce a ridiculous situation. Many practical people agree that certain diseases should come off the list and should no longer be a burden and a worry.
It has been suggested that there should be something in this Bill about the importation of dead fish, which can, of course, carry disease. I am assured that this matter is perfectly adequately covered in the Animal Health Act 1981, and it was said in another place by Mr. Buchanan-Smith that he would be perfectly prepared to use that Act if it were thought necessary to do so.
All these new enabling powers are of importance, but perhaps central to the whole question are the innovations which are included in Clauses 7 to 9. Here we have fresh powers to enable the Minister to ensure that fish farmers are registered. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords to learn that, so far, they are not registered. There is no guarantee that anybody knows quite where they all are. It is obviously of the most vital importance that one should know where these fish farms are. In fact, nothing would be really workable without that knowledge.
Furthermore, power is given to make fish farmers keep records. We all hate keeping records, but again this is a point of considerable importance, and one
382
would hope that the records would be kept to the absolute minimum. They might be records showing the movement of fish and the quantity of fish kept on the farm, which would go hand in hand with the record of the species kept, and so on. This seems to me to be the skeleton of the Bill on which other matters must be built.
In Clause 6 we come to shellfish. This is a very interesting area but it is a little out of my realm. Previously, under the shellfish Act which I mentioned, there were prohibitions against bringing shellfish into an area—certain areas outlined on a map of the British Isles. Clause 6 seems to bring the shellfish situation into line with the inland fish farming situation, where shellfish not only cannot be brought in to a designated area but cannot be taken out either. That again seems absolutely logical and sensible. I have nothing more to add about shellfish except that I believe it is an area where one would hope that, with sensible controls, perhaps coming in with your Lordships' approval, there might be scope for some considerable expansion.
I hope that I have been able to outline this Bill with reasonable clarity. If the fish farming industry is to progress and fulfil its full potential, the strengthening of the 1937 Act is absolutely essential. It would be a very good thing if the fish farming industry did progress and grow larger along the right lines. It has done a good job so far in saving imports. It may not be a grand affair but, when I started fish farming, Billingsgate and every other fish market was full of Japanese, Danish and Italian fish, and that is no longer so. They still come in, but not to the same extent. But if in expanding the industry we also spread disease to each other's fish farms and, worse still, pollute our natural waters—whether they be the seas or the rivers of this country—then it will be a real tragedy. This Bill is of the greatest importance to fish farmers, to riparian owners and to anglers. I should like to commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(The Earl of Radnor.)
6.26 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, one of the nice things about this House is the connections one renews. For many years I sat under the noble Earl's father as a governor of the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering. He was a man of great perception and handled his governorship and chairmanship very well indeed. I can see something of the father in the son, in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, introduced this Bill today—and I should like to compliment him on that. He has, obviously, deep knowledge of the subject, being a fish farmer himself. Like the noble Earl, I should like to compliment the originator of this Bill who was lucky enough in the draw in another place to introduce this Bill, which we all hope we can get through by Friday. As we all heard, a few moments ago, it is to be dealt with tomorrow.
This Bill seems to be very pleasing and satisfying to the NFUs of all the countries concerned, and that is always a good sign. As the noble Earl has said, it has become quite an industry. He gave figures showing how it has developed over the years. He mentioned the fact that motoring up from Salisbury not many years ago he never passed a fish farm—but today, as we all

383
know, one can hardly go anywhere without seeing a sign announcing trout for sale.
I do hope that the suggestion made in another place at Committee stage, that fish farming be called "aquaculture", is not taken up. I believe that the term "fish farming" is much better and that "aquaculture" is really going beyond a joke. We already have agriculture and horticulture, and in some areas we even have "horseyculture"—an expression I do not like, either. I have nothing against the horse but just feel that that is going a bit too far.
This Bill, as the noble Earl pointed out, is necessary because when one gets intensification—and we are experiencing intensification in nearly everything in agriculture at present—there are always problems. One has only to witness this in the case of other stock, be it the fattening of pigs, poultry or even cattle. In the case of agriculture, we are getting into a fantastic situation with cereal diseases. We might even have a Diseases of Cereals Bill—although I hope I shall not see it—in this House, which would give us a far bigger headache than any other Bill I can think of. This question of intensification requires looking at and this Bill is dealing with it, and is doing so in good time.
When the original Bill was introduced in another place, some points arose at Committee stage which were quite interesting. One of them was mentioned by the noble Earl, and it was the matter of compensation if there happens to be a disease where the fish have to be destroyed. We have had cases of fowl pest, which have compensation (although it is a different system now); foot and mouth has compensation; and Aujeszky's disease in pigs has compensation by a levy.
I wonder what the noble Viscount would think of a levy of some description or some method of giving compensation if a fish farmers' stock had to be destroyed and he was put out of business for some considerable time? We have such an arrangement in the case of foot and mouth disease, although there is no compensation for the loss of profits in the case of foot and mouth disease—one has to insure against that. At Committee stage in another place, it was suggested that there could be insurance—but if one insures for loss of profits, then there should be some system of compensation for loss of one's stock.
Then the noble Earl mentioned the question of registration and records. As he said, all of us dislike keeping records, but it is absolutely necessary. When there is an outbreak of foot and mouth records are kept so that animals all over that area can be traced very quickly, and it is an essential part of the system. But it is not going to be an easy one to enforce to begin with. There is the question of registration fees, which was mentioned in Committee in another place. I would have thought that if registration was mandatory it should be free. Otherwise, if it was voluntary and there was a voluntary levy it may be suggested that there should be a fee; that fee has not been decided yet and it will no doubt come out when it is seen what the cost is going to be.
There is the question of sea fisheries, what will be a fish farm and what will not, when it is on the coast. Another thing about the Bill is the question of siting, whether if you have a farm you can site your fish section of it anywhere you wish, or whether the
384
Minister would be given some power of planning control over fish farming. I do not know the answer, but I think it is something that needs to be looked at very carefully. I remember when the fishing grants for sea farming were brought in a few months ago in this House, I asked what would be the case if somebody pumped sea water into an inland reservoir, whether that would be considered salt water farming. I do not think I ever got an answer to that, and that is a little problem that might arise in regard to fish farming.
Then, of course, there is this problem of definition and how you get normal fishing excluded from fish farming. At Committee stage in another place the longest debate took place on the question of barring certain equipment for netting, particularly the gill net, mainly because if a fish gets enmeshed in a gill net it causes injury, particularly in smaller fish, and I gathered that that is a reason for disease spreading in injured fish. I am surprised that this was left out of the Bill. I think the Minister in charge of the Bill gave an undertaking that this would be looked at at some future date. Those are all the points that I want to make. I think this is a very necessary Bill, and it has been put forward to this House by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, very well indeed, So far as we are concerned, we give it our blessing.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for clearly introducing this Bill; he did it in a very nice, clear, low-key way. I think if I had been in his shoes I would have stressed the urgency a little more, but then I look at it more from a fisheries point of view than from that of a trout farmer. I will come back to that later, but all is not always particularly peaceful between the fish farmers of the country and those who look after the river systems in which the fish farms operate. However, I am delighted at the news we had from the Government Chief Whip that this Bill still has a very sporting chance of survival and becoming an Act before the end of this Session.
I believe that this Bill is just in time for the sport of fishing and for the fish farming industry, because otherwise we were heading for trouble. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned the intensive keeping of animals in unnatural conditions, which fish farming does, and indeed fish and trout are as susceptible to disease as anything else, possibly more so. There is also the problem with any fish disease in a river system that water flows downhill. That sounds an awfully simple remark, but if you imagine a lot of people in a narrow tunnel with a soft breeze blowing through it, if the man at the front sneezes loudly enough there is a fair chance that everybody else will catch a cold; so it is with the poor fish, and a big outbreak of disease in a fish farm can go down the river.
I set out for the House today with a lengthy list of reasons and examples as to why this Bill was necessary, and indeed a few suggestions as to improvement, or, rather more accurately, additions that could be made. However, with the general election now announced, and it being perfectly clear that there must be no interference with this Bill if we are to get it through, preferring, as always, half of a good cake to no cake at all, I will not be proposing any amendments; nor will

385
I expound at length on the virtues of the Bill; I seem to sense that the House has accepted its virtues.
I have to declare an interest at this stage, although I hope noble Lords will see it more as a qualification for speaking on this somewhat obscure subject than anything more sinister. I am effectively a shareholder and a director of a fish farm by virtue of my membership of a fishing club in Hampshire of which, very democratically, all the very few members are both shareholders and directors; and we do operate a trout farm within the meaning of the Act, although it is largely for restocking purposes and the surplus fish are sold to other people. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that he used to drive to London without passing a trout farm. I think that is not strictly true because in fact he passed that trout farm, which has been in existence very much longer than has his; namely, 100 years or more. The noble Earl laughs; he knows the one I mean.
I said earlier that this was half of a good cake, and I say that because I have done quite a lot of homework on this Bill and I am absolutely assured that it has been very thoroughly dealt with in the other place by Members who have considerable knowledge of the subject, whose hearts were in it and who pursued it very thoroughly indeed. I am no parliamentary draftsman, but I am as convinced as one can be that there are no i's to dot and t's to cross and that the Bill is in good shape.
May I suggest, however, that this is an opportunity—and it would not be a waste of our time—to raise two very important matters which are not covered by the Bill but are in need of legislation shortly. The first is directly concerned with fish farming and its impact on fisheries and fishing in our rivers. It sounds a small matter, but I hope I will show that it is a matter of considerable concern to the fisheries with whom the fish farms have to exist. It relates to the gratings used at the top and bottom ends of the flow of water through the fish farms. It seems that no regulatory authority has any jurisdiction in this matter. The National Farmers' Union guidelines, which I understand is the document that aspiring fish farmers and existing ones refer to from time to time, are quite silent on the subject. Incidentally, the NFU guidelines are fairly long on very sensible suggestions, but very short on details. If the NFU is listening, they could well do with some up-dating.
To return to the gratings, and to start at the upstream end, there seems to be some evidence in some rivers that smelts, the young salmon descending down the rivers, are becoming either trapped against the gratings at the upstream end of fish farms or passing through into the fish farms and being trapped there. A standard of grating should be imposed upon fish farms to ensure that this is not possible. Alternatively, a by-pass for the smelts should be provided, or it should be ensured that they are lifted out by some method and put back safely below the fish farm. With the state of salmon as it is, it is vital that every smelt should get back safely to the sea. I gather that is not always happening.
At the downstream end of the fish farms the problem is one of escapees from the fish farms. Noble Lords may think that fishery owners adjacent to fish farms would be delighted with a bit of free restocking.
386
But that is not always so. They have not welcomed fish from the fish farms among the wild popoulation. Frequently they are of the wrong breed. For example, small rainbow trout may get loose among a fishery that tries to concentrate on brown trout. The balance of the ecology, and the number of fish in a fishery, are very delicate matters. Angling literature is full of examples of waters being over-stocked, which totally ruins the fishing in the process. What happens is not, as one might expect, that some fish die and the stock then balances itself. All the fish in the fishery suffer. Therefore, a sudden arrival—obviously accidental because no fish farmer wants to lose fish, but they are just careless—should be prevented as far as possible.
The second matter, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that is lacking in the Bill but on which I hope we shall get some action from the next Government, whichever it might be, is the question of monofilament gill nets. As we have heard, this was brought up in another place under this Bill, the argument being that salmon which escape from these nets, which is quite frequent, are badly damaged by them. They have big cuts and gashes on them, as I have often seen. When this was raised in the other place the Government Minister, Mr. Buchanan-Smith, said on Third Reading:
"It would not be appropriate to deal with the matter now at length, but there is no evidence of a causal connection between certain type of tackle and disease"—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/83: col. 552.].
The scientists may not yet have come up with the full answer on that, but I should have thought that any animal suffering the loss of large parts of its skin and covered in raw patches must be more vulnerable to disease than animals that are unharmed.
Gill nets for salmon, in my view, remain a national disgrace and are operated by those who seek to reap where they sow nothing. The species will rapidly become endangered. They are not subject to any effective control, and I trust that the next Government will urgently grasp this nettle. This is a non-party matter and, if your Lordships will excuse me, I can do no better than to quote from what Mr. Mark Hughes, a Labour Member, said on Second Reading on the subject of gill nets:
"Finally, it is the will of the House of Commons that the use of monofilament gill nets"—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/83; col. 552.]
Did I hear, "Order"?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is out of order in quoting a named Member of the other House.
Lord Tryon: I stand corrected, my Lords, but I believe I may paraphrase. What he said, in effect, was that everyone, apart from the gill netters themselves, now seemed to be agreed that gill nets were thoroughly undesirable in every possible way and that it was time something was done about it. I could not agree more with that, and I pass on that remark.
To conclude, fish farming, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is a rapidly growing industry. Rod fishing is a rapidly growing sport; perhaps one of the fastest growing in the country. The National Anglers' Council says that about six people an hour are taking up fishing for the first time. That is

387
quite a growth spread over the year and, as we know, adds up to many millions of people with trout fishermen alone now standing at the remarkable figure of about 800,000. All of this is at risk from disease unless we are very careful, and this Bill is the first useful step to our being more careful.
6.48 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Radnor upon bringing this Bill before your Lordships, and say how pleasant it is to be here with what is virtually a non-controversial Bill, but a very important one for the fish farming industry as a whole. My noble friend started off with the echoes of one of our late noble friends, Lady Emmet, who never wasted a moment from the Back-Benches to inform whoever was Minister of Agriculture that fish farming was a very important subject, and she would never let it rest at that. I am sure that she would be very proud that we are now going one step ahead to help fish farming in regard to fish farming diseases.
My noble friend mentioned also, as he commenced his Second Reading speech, that this is now a very up and coming and growing industry. I understand that there are now about 470 fish farms scattered about the country. I can probably name one more which is just opening in my own town of Bradford-on-Avon. Therefore, in listening to your Lordships this evening I welcome and sympathise with all that has been said, and, whatever we can do to help the fish farming industry, this is where it should begin. Therefore, on behalf of the Government I welcome the Bill.
Although the Bill was not introduced by the Government, it has received the Government's wholehearted support. The Bill concerns fish diseases and as such is of particular interest to the fish farming industry. Fish farming is a small but important part of food production in this country and, as I have already said, a growing industry. The measures that the Bill introduces will provide a significant step forward in fish disease control and prevention. I am pleased, therefore, that the Bill has been welcomed by the fish farming industry as a whole.
In England, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for the policy and implementation of legislation which the Bill amends: the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967; in Wales and in Scotland these Acts are the responsibilities of our right honourable friends the Secretaries of State.
Both the 1937 and 1967 Acts are amended by the Bill so as to give Ministers powers that go wider than those currently contained in those Acts. For example, the amendments to the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 will mean that it will be possible to take precautionary disease control measures at a much earlier stage, thus helping to stop the spread of fish disease. The amendment to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 will mean that, in addition to controls on depositing shellfish, it will now be possible to control the taking of shellfish from specified areas, again helping to stop the spread of disease.
As your Lordships have heard, the Bill also introduces new powers in relation to registration and record-keeping by fish farms and shellfish farming
388
businesses. This will provide Ministers with information hitherto not available which will enable movements of fish and eggs or shellfish to be traced if there should be an outbreak of disease.
These powers already exist in relation to animal disease and, similarly, are essential for fish and shellfish diseases if we are to have a chance of keeping ahead of the most virulent diseases on the notifiable disease list. Thankfully, some of these diseases have not been found in our fish, but the economic implications for fish and shellfish farmers, were they to occur, would be disastrous. Something of what can happen has been seen recently in relation to bonamia in shellfish. The situation in relation to disease does not stay still. The Government are, and will continue to be, in close contact with the industry to ensure that the powers provided in this Bill, taken with existing powers, will be selectively used in the way most suited to the circumstances of a disease. The vast majority of responsible fish farmers and shellfishermen recognise the need for the provisions of the Bill and welcome the protection which tighter control should give against the minority who could put their livelihoods at risk.
I have listened to some very interesting speeches this evening. I feel that I should now try to answer some of the questions which have been asked. My noble friend Lord Radnor mentioned the control of the movements of fish, eggs and food into farms, as I believe did other noble Lords. The Bill provides a general order-making power. Orders will be made individually in each case, as is appropriate. As now, movements will be controlled only to the extent necessary in the circumstances. Some flexibility may be possible, depending on the risk, and it may be possible to authorise certain categories of movement. This is how we have dealt with diseases in the past. We shall continue to develop our policies in consultation with the industry. There will be no sudden general imposition of tighter controls on infected sites. That is not the purpose of the provision.
My noble friend and other noble Lords were worried about the list of diseases. The Bill enables diseases to be added to a list of notifiable diseases, and removed from it, and for this to be done more swiftly than under the 1937 Act. The changes will be made by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Speed can be of the essence if a new disease threatens fish stocks. Our scientists will keep the list of notifiable diseases under review, and make recommendations as circumstances change.
I believe that my noble friend and others were quite worried about the import of fish and eggs from Northern Ireland. The Bill provides for the amendment of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 to enable the absolute prohibition of the import into Great Britain of live salmonids to be relaxed by order. Following consultations among English, Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers, it was decided to instruct our scientists and veterinary experts to consider further the absolute ban on the imports of live salmonids from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Obviously, the outcome of that examination is not yet known. It may be that some relaxation can sensibly and safely be allowed; it may be that the existing absolute prohibition will have to be adhered to. We shall have to wait to see. However, it seems sensible to

389
provide for the possibility at some time in the future of allowing some imports of live salmonids into Great Britain from Northern Ireland, or conceivably from elsewhere. The Bill provides for this eventuality. I hope that the answers I am giving are a help to the House, because we should like the Bill to go through before the end of this week.
My noble friend asked a further question regarding the registration and keeping of records. We propose to make an order establishing a scheme of registration for fish farmers as soon as possible after the Act comes into force. Without the registration and the keeping of stock and movement records, we cannot hope to trace the movements of fish and consequently cannot keep one step ahead of a disease. I should stress that there will be no question of refusing registration; all fish farmers will be on the register.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned a further worry as to the compensation of fish farmers. The Government understand the wish for the compensation of fish farmers who may face financial hardships as a result of the Ministry's movement control measures. The question of compensation is a difficult one. It has been raised in the context of our review of inland and coastal fisheries. The Government have listened with interest to the representations that have been made; but we do not think that this is the time for a decision. More discussions are needed and will take place to analyse the problems and ensure that we get the approach right. When solutions emerge we shall consider any implications for legislation.
However, I should like to bring one further point to your Lordships' attention. In the animal health field, compensation is paid only in respect of animals slaughtered compulsorily. Ministers do not at present have a power of compulsory slaughter in relation to fish disease. This Bill does not seek to provide them with one. I would recommend to your Lordships that the questions of compulsory slaughter and compensation are linked together. We should not try to separate them. This is not the appropriate forum for these issues to be resolved, and we should permit the separate discussions on these complex issues to go forward unhindered. The Bill before us has tackled many questions on which there is wide agreement. We should seek to secure these measures and consolidate them, and not put them at risk by trying to address matters of great controversy to which solutions have not yet emerged.
I turn to a further point raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, and that concerns gill-netting. When this Bill was considered in another place there was a full and valuable discussion about the use of monofilament gill-nets to catch salmon. It is the Government's view that this subject is outside the scope of this Bill. This Bill is designed to extend the protection for farmed fish from diseases, and is not primarily concerned either with methods of commercial fishing or with fish in the wild.
A number of amendments were tabled in another place which sought to introduce into the Bill measures designed to control the practice of monofilament gill-net fishing for salmon. However, controls on the use of
390
monofilament gill-nets are already available to water authorities in England and Wales under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. Under that Act, water authorities have extensive responsibilities over the fisheries in their areas and they have wide powers to make bylaws banning or regulating the use of different sorts of nets. A number of water authorities have already made such bylaws. However, I am very well aware that the water authorities face problems in enforcing their bylaws. Therefore, the answer must not be to produce even more legislation but to enforce the existing controls effectively.
In Scotland, there is a complete ban on the use of drift nets from fishing boats for catching salmon and migratory trout. The issue of the use of a particular type of net such as microfilament gill-nets therefore does not arise. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland makes strenuous efforts to ensure that the ban is enforced.
One of the arguments put forward for the need to control the use of monofilament gill nets was that such nets were a contributory factor to the spread of disease among fish because fish that escaped from the nets were invariably injured and maimed, making them more susceptible to disease. However, in the light of scientific guidance there is no casual connection between certain types of tackle and diseases. All nets can injure fish, but I have no evidence that monofilament gill nets cause proportionately more damage than others. Scientific advisers have presented preliminary reports on the use and distribution of gill nets in England and Wales and on a survey of public literature about the use of gill nets in other countries. These reports do not demonstrate that the gill nets cause undue damage to fish, or that any regulatory measures are needed. These reports have been placed in the Library of the House. However, these are only preliminary reports. If the final report produces evidence which will mean further controls to establish that banning, and so on, might be necessary for certain reasons, the Government will have a totally open mind and a readiness to consider the matter.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, it was interesting to hear that scientists say that gill-netting does not do any harm or any more harm than other types of netting. Would the noble Viscount care to take a nylon cord through his hand quickly and then compare the difference between that and a natural fibre cord?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I see that the noble Lord is a fisherman. I am not. I do not know how cruel one can be towards a fish, but I am sure that netting does injure them.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned registration fees. The Bill requires that a registration fee shall not exceed the cost of registration. That appears in Clause 7(6). If that is any help, it is one small step forward. The noble Lord also asked about inland fish farms using pumped sea water. Such farms are dealt with in the same way as inland farms using fresh water. I am not an expert on whether you tap the salt water straight from the sea or add salt to it. I hope, however, that my answer is what the noble Lord requires.

391
The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, mentioned gratings on fish farms. That is a good point which can be taken up in continuing discussions with Ministers and the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales. The noble Lord will be relieved to learn that the NFU guidelines are currently under revision in this forum, as he probably already knows. I am not a fish farmer, nor an expert on fish; nor am I an expert on aquaculture. I hope however that my answers to your Lordships' questions will have helped the progress of the Bill. I hope that the Bill goes through the House at the earliest opportunity in order to help fish farming. In the meantime, I congratulate my noble friend and leave him to wind up the debate.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, for giving the Bill such a kind and considerate reception, slightly critical in places. I thank my noble friend Lord Long for putting the Government's position so clearly and sympathetically. I must admit that I was pleased to hear (if I heard rightly) that the remaining stages of the Bill will be dealt with tomorrow. That is very important. It is like sitting on a volcano, with had diseases abroad and with a growing industry. To put this Bill back at this stage and not to bring it forward to the statute book would constitute a real danger to the fisheries of England.
My noble friend Lord Long has done so well that there is nothing much for me to say. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in the hope that this subject will not be called aquaculture. I shall continue to call myself a fish farmer and not an aquaculturist. That term does not seem to suit either the job or the people who perform it. I like the idea of a levy to guard against possible compensation. There is one enormous disadvantage. When a levy was exacted for another purpose, it took a long time for fish farmers to agree to part with their pennies to fund a situation that had not yet materialised. It was, however, an extremely good idea. It is very much an aside, but insurance for fish farming is difficult. One is always being asked to count the number of dead fish. If one is dealing with four and a half million, half of them at the bottom of four feet of water, with just their tails sticking out of the mud, it cannot be done. Then there is no payment which, I suppose, is reasonable.
The whole question of siting and planning is wide. I would imagine that any Government would keep it under review simply for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, mentioned—that water runs downhill and that pathogens, I understand, run uphill, or perhaps upstream. The noble Lord also mentioned migrating smolts. In my experience, the water authority deals with that situation. It takes a great deal of trouble to see that they are put in smolt traps or diverted in some way or other, preferably around the farm. It has been many people's experience that once they get into the farm some rather large smolts are found among the trout and there they sit. Whether they ever reach the sea, I do not know. Fortunately, whereas the eel follows the bottom of the current, the smolt follows the top current and goes over waterfalls. It is often possible to see that they are diverted around the farm.
392
I am probably wrong, but in my experience I have always assumed that if I have an inadequate grid, this would be considered as polluting the water. Whether or not that is so, we look carefully at grids and water authorities to see that they are behaving themselves. This is possibly a loaded question. The noble Lord who is a little upstream of me on the same river, has perhaps experienced some foreign trout creeping up to him.
I do not think there is anything more to say except to feel pleased that Mr. Corrie, in another place, has brought this Bill forward. I congratulate him on his luck in the ballot, and express my great pleasure that the Bill will be carried through. I commend it to your Lordships once again.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Public Houses: Hours
7.10 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to introduce flexible hours of opening of public houses in England and Wales, bearing in mind the success of these arrangements in Scotland".
The present situation about the licensing laws for England and Wales is governed by the Licensing Act 1964, which is a consolidation Act of previous licensing laws, the latest of which was the 1961 Act and, for Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The former—that is the 1964 Act—allows little or no flexibility of hours of opening; the latter allows a great deal of flexibility at local discretion.
Last November, the Brewers' Society sent to my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross, in his capacity, I hope, as secretary of our little repeals group, of which I am the chairman, a draft of a Bill to abolish:
"the restrictions in the Licensing Act 1964 on the hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold, supplied or consumed in licensed premises or in the premises of a registered club".
This, in fact, meant the repeal of the whole of Part III of the 1964 Act, which deals with permitted hours—a subject in which my small committee found itself very interested.
At the same time the Brewers' Society published an article in the trade magazine Brewing Review entitled "Pot Luck". It said:
"The laws governing pub hours vary all over the British Isles: getting a pint depends on where you are—and when".
It set out the differences in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the isles around us, showing up glaring inconsistencies.
Meanwhile, I had been in touch with the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, who said in June of last year that they liked the idea of bringing the English law into line with the Scottish, but that some preparatory work would have to be done first. I met their parliamentary committee some three weeks ago and I was asked then to initiate this Question which I am asking today. The result of this is that I have a joint brief from

393
the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers which is a very useful document.
So, my Lords, what are the differences? In this respect I do not propose to involve myself with the special problems that exist in Wales. I am not sure whether we have any Welshmen who are to speak today, but the problem of whether certain parts of the country should be "wet" or "dry" on Sundays is for them to settle and not for us. No, this is a general approach to Her Majesty's Government about introducing flexibility into the permitted hours of opening in England and Wales. At present the situation is governed by Section 60 in Part III of the 1964 Act, which lays down general rules about permitted hours of opening—basically, between 11 a.m. and 10.30 p.m., with a break of two and a half hours from 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. There are variations for Sundays and holidays which I do not think need affect us today. That was the situation under the 1964 Act.
In 1972 the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, presented a unanimous report. Of course it covered a great many matters, but on flexible hours the committee recommended:
"that a personal licensee be permitted to sell intoxicating liquor by retail for on-consumption at any time between 10 a.m. and midnight."
The committee qualified that by saying:
"We are not suggesting that licensees should be compelled to open",
for all those hours. They wanted the choice left with each individual licensee.
A further recommendation would give the power to licensing justices to impose:
"a limited restriction on permitted hours of opening, provided they are satisfied that this is in the interests of public order, safety, health of amenity".
Those recommendations have not been implemented by any of Her Majesty's Governments since 1972.
Meanwhile, in Scotland a similar departmental committee known as the Clayson Committee reported a year later in 1973 and made recommendations on the flexibility of hours very similar to those of the Erroll Committee. The Scottish Office acted on that report by producing the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. On flexibility of hours of opening, that Act contains provisions on permitted hours very like those in the 1964 Act. But there is an additional provision in Section 64 entitled:
"Occasional and regular extensions of permitted hours".
It is that additional provision which has brought about the flexibility of hours of opening in Scotland in different locations. The additional hours have to be granted locally. Therefore, flexibility of hours is not operating throughout the whole of Scotland, but only in parts. This has been, we think, a great success. However, it is very difficult to find out from Her Majesty's Government whether it has in fact been a success or not.
Last June, in answer to an Oral Question, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who I see on the Government Front Bench, replied to me:
"the Government have no firm information on the effects of the extension of permitted hours in Scotland, nor have they received any representation that the increased hours have had any adverse effects".
394
The noble Lord went on to say:
"I am able to say that there has been no significant increase in drunkenness offences or motor vehicle offences caused through drink since the 1976 Act came into force"—[Official Report, 18/6/1982; col. 770.]
That is a very important comment by Her Majesty's Government because a great many of the objections to flexibility of hours have come from people who think that more drunkenness and more drink and driving offences would occur.
A second Question was asked only three weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. This time his Question was:
"What assessment has Her Majesty's Government made of the effects of the relaxation of the licensing laws in Scotland in 1976 and 1977?"
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said:
"The Government have made no recent assessment of the effects … An earlier survey, carried out immediately before the coming into operation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, with following surveys in March 1977 and November 1978, indicated that there was no significant change in the average consumption of alcohol, since those drinking tended to do so at a more leisurely pace, and supported the suggestion that changes in the licensing laws had produced no adverse effect."—[Official Report, 25/4/83; col. 798.]
That comment is, I think, a very important one, because it is the contention of both the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers that there is not likely to be any great increase in the expenditure on alcohol by any particular person if the hours are flexible. People go into pubs with a certain amount of money in their pocket and they will spend it. At the moment, if they are near to closing time, they spend it quickly. If the laws were to be more flexible, they would have much more time to spend their money and would be much less likely to become drunk, with all the nasty effects that that may have.
The worries about the introduction of flexibility are included in a discussion pamphlet entitled Drinking Sensibly, which was issued by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1981. There is a bit about flexible hours there. On the whole, I would suggest that they treat the matter rather neutrally: they do not really shoot it down or commend it. However, in that pamphlet there was one interesting little comment about what happened in the state of Victoria in Australia when that state extended the final hour of opening from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. It says:
"A study of the effect on motor accidents of a change in closing time from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. found that although the overall total of personal injury accidents remained unchanged, the previous accident peak between 6 and 7 p.m. had disappeared and had been replaced by one between 10 and 11 p.m. It is accordingly possible that changes in licensing hours had significantly affected drinking patterns without apparently influencing overall consumption."
That is a point which both the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers make—that they do not anticipate any large increase in the personal consumption of any particular individual. What they do anticipate is that there will be more people finding time to make use of the pubs if there is more opportunity for them to get to those pubs. So we hope that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. The advantages of flexibility are really that the gap during the afternoon, when pubs have to close, would disappear to the benefit especially of foreign tourists. I live in Kent and I see foreign tourists passing through who are absolutely infuriated when they

395
arrive at a pub at about 3.30 p.m. and are told that they cannot get any intoxicating liquor until 5.30 p.m.
Publicans could time their opening hours to fit in with local conditions. That is particularly the case where there is a large factory working on s shift system. At the moment some shifts end at the time when the pubs have to close. It would also mean that in holiday resorts the pubs could keep open during the afternoon and possibly not open so early in the morning.
The point here is that each licensee should be given an opportunity to decide how long his pub should be kept open. He does not necessarily have to keep the pub open for the whole time. He can introduce a break at any time that suits him and that suits his local clientele. One should remember that a licensee is a very responsible person because, if he behaves irresponsibly, his licence will be taken away from him. Of course, this is not so much the case with other places where alcohol can be purchased at all hours of the day, particularly supermarkets, where there does not appear to be that amount of supervision, especially over the age of the purchaser, which a responsible licensee will exercise.
Therefore, Scotland is in the lead. I am an expatriate Scot and I have very little opportunity of enjoying the benefits of the flexibility of hours which exist in Scotland. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will very soon give us down here the opportunity of enjoying those benefits. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for initiating this Question. I may not be the only Member of your Lordships' House to own a pub, but I do believe that I am the sole licensee here. So for those two reasons I must declare an interest. Over some months now I have seen at first hand the real need for more flexible hours within the existing framework of the permitted 62½ hours per week. In my pub we work a 53-hour week, which I think is sufficient for our area. However, with plans for expansion I can see restrictions on our enterprise as things stand. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, knows well—for he is a part of my Back Bench group on small businesses—we have these considerations with regard to forward-looking enterprises very much in mind.
A rural inn such as mine would benefit greatly if it could remain open until midnight, and at lunchtime until three o'clock. I can assure your Lordships that customers travel considerable distances for a good meal. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has said, licensees are highly responsible people—they have to be. Surely they can be relied upon to run their businesses well, for if they do not they go out of business. It is as simple as that. Competition is extremely fierce and many pubs have indeed closed. We can, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, lose our licences, and that of course means that we lose our livelihood as well, if we trangress the law.
The police have not been mentioned much today, but surely the police would prefer a fixed later hour of midnight. Then they would not have to go around the
396
neighbourhood seeing whether somebody who had a licence until the normal closing hour of 10.30 was not staying open until 11.00, and that the people allowed to stay open until 11.00 were not staying open until 11.30. I think that they have to waste a great deal of time.
Times are changing fast. There is far more leisure time, sadly due to unemployment but also due to the shorter working week. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, why should we not follow the Scots? There does not seem to be any proof, if that is what we are looking for, that there is more drinking leading to more accidents and to more crime—which perhaps is even more important than car accidents—although of course people feared that that would happen.
Our EEC partners think that we are absolutely crazy about our licensing hours. As many noble Lords who have travelled abroad will know, the French often remark on this. Tourism is of tremendous value to this country, and this is a point worth thinking about. I hope that my noble friend can give some hint as to when we might see a really sensible and constructive approach to the flexible hours suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Spens. I can assure my noble friend that if we receive such encouragement it will receive widespread approval from the vast majority of licensees, not least myself.
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I have no wish whatsoever to enter into this particular debate on this Question on any form of prohibitionist ticket. I have been for over 15 years closely associated with the field of alcoholism and alcohol abuse in Scotland. I have also been for many years the chairman of the Scottish Council on Alcoholism. But I should like to make it clear before I go any further that those over whom I take the chair in all the voluntary agencies throughout Scotland—because we are differently organised to in England—as well as myself, have a deep detestation of the prohibition lobby, on the basis in Scotland of the terrible damage that we have seen done by it in those areas of our native country which subscribe somewhat to it for social or religious reasons. Therefore, I rise as a humble Scot on a Question which pertains essentially to England and Wales, but I also rise with the, I hope, useful knowledge of a little of what has happened in Scotland since the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
If one is going to ask Her Majesty's Government for a view upon a particular question, I would have thought it fairly reasonable that all your Lordships would, in one way or another, look for evidence, and that it would be upon that evidence that you would hope to receive your reply from the Government. Although I have said that the Scottish Council on Alcoholism is entirely separate and autonomous from anything in England, I have received correspondence which has asked me to pass on to your Lordships the apologies of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his unavoidable absence. On his behalf, for he is chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism which deals with south of Scotland—and, as I say, somewhat differently from us—may I express his apologies for his absence, and his wish to be associated with those remarks I may make where they affect England.

397
What evidence do we in fact have? There are three research reports available which are relevant. The first was by Bruce in 1978, and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has already referred to it. He interviewed 1,700 Scots, all adults, before the first changes in the law came into effect in 1976. Then again, he interviewed them three months later. He also collected sales data from 40 bars which had taken advantage of what we call the "extra hour". He concluded:
"The survey of licensed premises showed a significant reduction in pattern acceleration in drinking towards the end of the evening. Thus, although the "beat the clock attitude" to drinking has not disappeared, it has at least diminished".
This overall favourable report was followed by a publication by Knight and Wilson in 1980 based upon research undertaken between October and November 1978, also referred to by my noble friend Lord Spens. That was some two years after the extension of permitted hours. The report was primarily aimed at Sunday opening. However, the findings within the area on the extra hour tended to support Bruce. With regard to Sunday opening, on the other hand, the report found that while the sample as a whole had not increased their weekly consumption of alcohol, subgroups within the sample had altered their drinking behaviour. For instance, those young males who had earlier reported high levels of consumption now reported a very significant increase in their drinking. Thus, the impact appears to have been one of facilitating the drinking of heavy drinkers, but does not seem to have altered the drinking habits of the more moderate males or females. In view of the Clayson recommendations this was an important finding.
"All day" licensing has only been widespread in Scotland during the past three or four years. Therefore, in fact there is only one available study upon it, and that is by Davies and Fisher. The study was restricted to Glasgow. The sample of public houses was small—only 19 out of Scotland's approximate total of 4,350—and difficulties in such studies are well known to your Lordships. Nevertheless, the insight gained was not without interest. The overall impression gained from reading the report—and I would strongly recommend your Lordships to do so—is that afternoon drinking is not a species apart from lunchtime or evening drinking, but is just more of the same. Different public houses have different types of customers who patronise their favourite establishment at different times and consume varying amounts of alcohol of different types.
In saying that I am not in any sense trying to be facetious, but it highlights what appears to be an essential criticism of the current all-day licensing legislation as we know it in Scotland. The Clayson Committee recommendations—indeed all the recommendations—were based on what is known as the social integrationalist approach to alcohol consumption. Simply stated, this philosophy suggests that by removing restrictions on the availability of alcohol one diminishes the taboos and the myths that exist about alcohol. Greater freedom of use, it is argued, should gradually lead to more responsible use, with the integration of alcohol in the broad fabric of everyday life—in other words, alcohol as an unremarkable and unemotive product.
398
Controls on the misuse of alchol are shifted from the law to more informal social controls. The classic example of this type of drinking is that of the French and the Italians who consume two or three times more than we do per capita in Scotland, but—this is the important point—little overt drunkeness is exhibited. Yet what has happened with all-day licensing? As noted earlier with the Sunday opening of public houses, the informal social controls have not been built in with the liberalising of the law. From evidence that is available to us today all that has happened is that the traditional styles of drinking have been extended over a longer period. For example, Davies and Fisher give no indication that the patron of the all-day licensed premises is a new breed of moderate drinker, or, more importantly, that he or she is accompanied by the potential social control of his or her spouse or their children.
A further comment on the failure of the legislation to build in social controls alongside the more permissive measures is the fact that by 1979 only 47 out of the 15,800 licensed premises in Scotland, which is 0.3 per cent., were of the refreshment type of facility that allows families to utilise licensed premises.
Statistics from the Strathclyde Region—and those we never take lightly in Scotland because half the population of Scotland lives in that region—show that, in 1980, 99.2 per cent. of all regular extensions were granted to ordinary licensed premises into which children under 14 years of age were not permitted to enter. This is hardly the breeding ground for a revolution, minor or otherwise, in the nation's drinking habits in Scotland.
Up North—I mean by that, Scotland—the main areas of contention about the putative success of the legislation concern official statistics relating to alcohol-related offences. Clayson claimed not so very long ago that since 1976 the,
"whole totality of drink related offences has diminished".
Dr. Clayson, whom I know and who is a most honourable man and whom I respect, could make such a statement on statistical evidence only until that statistical evidence was subject to close scrutiny—a scrutiny which become all the more necessary when it was observed that it was being most vociferously supported by the licensed trade. It is absolutely true that in 1977 convictions for drunk-driving and drunkenness were on the decline; hence the Minister's answer. But the fact is that this trend had started before the introduction of the 1976 Act so there is a good reason to suppose that the two were unrelated. Indeed, it is relevant to note that, while crimes made known to the police rose by 12 per cent. in the period 1976–77, there was a drop of over 5 per cent. in convictions for all crimes and offences.
We all know that convictions for any offence are strongly influenced by police activity. Thus it must be drawn to your Lordships' attention that in 1977 police manpower in Scotland was 10 per cent. below establishment and that within Strathclyde Region itself—I repeat that that area contains half the population of Scotland—a ban on overtime working was enforced. Therefore, the influence of Strathclyde Region's policing had a massive effect upon the national statistics available. For example, in 1979

399
Strathclyde accounted for 84 per cent. of all convictions for drunkenness in Scotland.
Also in 1977 the court staff in Glasgow took it into their heads to take industrial action and many minor offences associated with drink led to police admonition rather than convictions. It is interesting to note that when normal working was resumed and the police manpower increased in Scotland—not just Strathclyde—by 10 per cent. or by 1,200 officers in 1979 as compared with 1977, convictions for all offences rose. For example, drunk-driving convictions rose from 8,460 in 1977 to 10,594 in 1979—hardly, I should have thought, the base on which to claim, whether it be my friend Dr. Clayson or anyone else, that the whole totality of drink-related offences has diminished. So statistics certainly show that any decrease in alcohol offences has been shortlived.
Perhaps the most worrying point upon which one may safely place a finger—and because it has to do with health maybe it upsets me most—is the international evidence which links alcohol-related harm with per capita consumption. As one increases, so does the other. It must be fair to surmise that the legislation which makes alcohol more available and which encourages wide and more prolonged consumption contributes to more rather than less damage. As a horrible example, between 1978 and 1982, deaths from liver cirrhosis alone rose by 27 per cent.
A noble Lord: In Scotland.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, yes, in Scotland. It is perhaps proper to note that one of the recommendations made by the Central Policy Review Staff in 1980 was that Scotland should reconsider its all-day legislation and that there should be no adoption of such liberal practices South of the Border.
My Lords, before I take my seat once again, may I stress that the agencies to which I have referred in Scotland do not support the prohibition lobby? At the moment I am bombarded! There are three points of view, and there have been for about three years. On the one hand, there are those who place to one side and cast away all evidence of damage and who support wholeheartedly the Act of 1976. On the other hand, there are those who claim that all evidence of damage is directly attributable to that same legislation. In the middle, stands the largest group; and I place myself among them. They are those who simply do not know. For us in Scotland, legal parlance might be used, I suppose, and we would say that, in either case, it is not proven.
We believe that it can be argued that there is little substance to the claim that the new licensing law has made the Scots into a nation of social drinkers. Although the extra hour does appear to be popular and may have reduced the "10 o'clock swill", this is the only part of the law, the only part, that is above suspicion. The Scottish Council on Alcoholism works very closely with the agencies of the Scottish Office. I have been working alongside them, as I have said, for the past 15 years. I have always found, within this field in Scotland, that, if you take a matter of deep concern to the Scottish Office and that matter has merit,
400
perhaps not immediately but at some time in the future, you get a constructive response.
It is now three years since we first voiced our deep concern on this division of opinion in Scotland and we have continued repeatedly to do so. Hence, I place my trust in my experience of the Scottish Office which would suggest to me that we may well expect from them, from the Minister or the Secretary of State, some action in the not too distant future following the collation of the information that they have apparently been gathering. For that reason, I would hope and, indeed, would ask the Government to wait just for a time until they have some hard evidence to hand before committing themselves one way or the other with regard to a change in the licensing laws in England and Wales; for, in my view, it would be premature, if not irresponsible, to act at this point in time.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, to discuss flexible hours of opening of public houses. Flexible opening has a certain familiar ring to me, and it would be strange if I did not support the essence of this debate. It is difficult to discuss this matter without bringing in the pros and cons of drinking alcoholic beverages. I respect the views of those who sincerely believe that alcohol is the root of all that is evil in this country today, but, although I am well aware that the abuse of drink can cause untold misery—and, as a retired magistrate, I have seen much evidence of this—yet I do not believe that certain alterations in the opening hours of public houses would aggravate the present situation. I recognise that there is need for more research in this area, and I should like to make the further suggestion that the Government give support to the commission project on this matter.
Of course, the Erroll Report, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, could be said to have examined the whole situation very thoroughly. I think it is worth quoting from the concluding paragraph of the chapter of the Erroll Report which deals with public house opening hours. On page 161 it says:
"In the last analysis the success of our proposal depends on two factors. First, it is essential that the approach of licensees themselves should be directed away from any undue reliance on the letter of the law towards a genuine attempt to interpret local needs and to take effective action to meet them—even if this means changing previously established hours of work. The whole point of our proposal would be lost if licensees either felt themselves compelled to open for the full 14 hours permitted by law, or stuck to their present hours of closing, regardless of any demand for alternative hours which might exist in their locality. Second, our recommendations would place a very considerable responsibility on licensing justices, the police and local authorities".
This brings me to the views of the Justices' Clerks' Society in their paper, Licensing Law in the Eighties, published in April 1983. The society states that they feel that the problems of misuse of alcohol are not susceptible of solution by legislation alone. They most certainly advocate a number of changes in the licensing laws while remaining firmly of the view that the public must be educated from a very early age about the dangers of alcohol abuse. They advocate treatment for alcoholics and charge the Government with the duty to encourage and fund research into the whole problem of alcoholism.

401
I do not believe that the changing of the opening hours of "pubs" would increase the alcoholic problem. It is merely the occasional drinker who would be able to take advantage of the more flexible hours. The Justices' Clerks' Society, alas! do not include a recommendation for more flexible opening hours among the various options that they present for amending the present licensing laws. They say that there is no public demand. I think that they are wrong. Why are we having this debate if there is no public demand?
There are two last points that I wish to make very briefly. They are that, if we are going to amend the licensing laws, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and my noble friend the licensed victualler, would hope that we would take note of and fall in with the laws of Europe. Total bewilderment faces tourists either from Europe or from the United States of America who foolishly believe that they can buy a drink when they want, as they do in their own countries.
Finally, I would ask your Lordships to spare a thought for the family with young children who take the car and go for a day out in the country and who are forced to eat either in an hotel at great expense or in a cafe (if there is one) because the children cannot enter a public house. Surely, family rooms should become a pleasant and legal accessory to any public house, where the parents may drink and both parents and children may eat. I hope the Government will feel that today's debate will provide impetus towards the research project I have suggested—a project which could be speedily set up after the Government have overwhelmingly won the forthcoming general election.
8.1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Spens for introducing this debate on a subject which, although it has been extensively debated, has seen little constructive change to the fragmented and outdated liquor licensing laws that are applied in England and Wales. I shall be reiterating what many of your Lordships have already mentioned and I would ask you to excuse me for doing so.
There are some extraordinary anomalies in the way in which the laws operate, and noble Lords have already referred to some of them. For example, one is not allowed to buy a drink in a London pub at midnight but one is allowed to drink at any time on a moving boat, train or plane. Also, children are allowed into some licensed premises but not into others, where they may or may not drink alcohol, depending on a complicated interaction between their ages and the nature of the premises.
It is surely time that Her Majesty's Government—and I refer to future Governments as well, of course—were persuaded that there is a popular demand in this country for action on this subject to complement the many years of "consideration" which, according to ministerial replies, have been devoted to this matter. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that the people of England and Wales are sufficiently mature to decide for themselves when and where to drink alcohol.
I myself support the recommendations of the 1972 Erroll Committee, calling for the reform of the liquor
402
licensing laws and, more specifically, the recommendation that pubs should have the right to remain open from 10 in the morning until midnight, leaving it to landlords to decide exactly when to do business within those hours, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Spens. I regret that, so many years after that excellent report was compiled, Her Majesty's Government still feel that the report requires further consideration. I would suggest that the time is ripe for action and I therefore strongly recommend the arguments that were put forward so eloquently by those noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken before me.
There are indeed many advantages to be gained from greater flexibility in licensing laws in England and Wales, and I shall mention a few of them. First, it would allow consumers to make up their own minds when they want to drink. Secondly, tourists would find the country a more congenial place to visit, and we should earn more foreign exchange from their increased spending. The present liquor licensing laws are a considerable handicap to the holiday and tourist industries. Thirdly, the boom in over-priced nightclubs in London would be curtailed and more people would be attracted back to the traditional English pub.
It is sad that when one leaves a cinema or theatre in the evening one is often too late to have a relaxing drink in a pub without being pressurised and hassled by the landlord concerned to clear his bar. More employment would be generated by the modest proposals of the noble Lod, Lord Erroll, as bar staff would need to be recruited in order to meet the extra demand. Also, imaginative and industrious licensees would be given the incentives to develop catering and other ancillary services in an effort to compete with licensed restaurants; and this variety would do much to brighten up our cities. The spread of better quality pub food and of pub entertainment has shown consumers the great economic potential of breaking down the rigid division between bars, restaurants and entertainment.
I can well appreciate the concern of the opponents of liberalisation, who argue that longer drinking hours would lead to more drinking, which in turn would cause more health problems. This approach, backed by the French demographer, Dr. Sully Lederman and his theory of the "log normal curve", has been seriously undermined and challenged by numerous researchers of late. I would support the theory of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, that the most decisive influences on consumption rates are the general economic climate and the real price of liquor. It is on this point that parallels can be drawn from the effects of the introduction of flexible drinking hours in Scotland, where I believe it is now possible to buy alcohol in a pub from 10 in the morning until 2 o'clock the following morning, subject to the discretion of the local licensing authorities.
Since the liquor licensing laws were liberalised in 1976 in Scotland, statistics have shown that consumption has actually decreased slightly, and so has street drunkenness and drunken driving. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, seems to disagree with me, but we are all entitled to our own interpretation. Liquor prices in Scotland have remained stable despite higher overheads through

403
longer hours. More and more places are providing food and generally finding ways of making more money in extra time. The success of the liquor law reforms in Scotland illustrates the inadequacies of fragmentary reform and the viability of such a liquor licensing reform which needs to be introduced in England and Wales.
I shall not detain your Lordships further on this subject. The arguments of those of us who have spoken show the great support for flexibility of licensing laws and have been well developed by speakers. I feel that the strength of our case has made it clear that such a reform is indeed most necessary. I look forward to hearing the speech of the great "reformist" in our House, my noble friend Lord Hams of High Cross. I look forward also in due course to the speech of the Minister. I shall be most interested in what he has to say in reply and I hope that he will include some proposals for the reform of the licensing laws rather than further references to the Government's need to contemplate the subject.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I agree and join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in promoting what has so far proved to be a sober and interesting debate on the merits of more flexible opening hours. He pointed out that he has received some support from the informal Repeal Group, which seeks to challenge outdated laws that restrict the freedom of adult citizens to live their own lives without hurting the like freedom of their neighbours. I would say to my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso that we take one test of whether legislation is outdated by asking: if this law did not exist, would it be necessary to invent it? I believe on that issue the present licensing laws impose objectionable fetters on millions of people that are not justified by any overriding imperatives of public policy.
Since some time ago the Tory party appeared to cause some confusion in the public mind between the Peerage and what became known as the "beerage", I think we should all declare an interest, or lack of interest, in this particular form of consumption. From the published figures I find I am well below the average annual consumption of 200 pints of beer per head of the population, although in wine I am safely between the annual average of 170 pints in France and the 14 pints in the United Kingdom. I must tell your Lordships that, although I have never regularly taken advantage of the varied facilities of the 76,000 public houses and licensed hotels in the United Kingdom, I have to admit that on rare occasions I have been known to curse mildly because I could not find a single pub open at a time when it would have been convenient on a journey, on holiday or to celebrate a family or friendly reunion. I commend to your Lordships the thought of how much worse it must be for the millions of our fellow men who through work or from choice do not live their waking lives from approximately dawn until after dusk.
We have heard that the present licensing laws were introduced under emergency powers in the First World War, just as Tudor monarchs once clamped down on ale houses to encourage archery. I have no
404
doubt that the stipulated nine or nine and a half hours' opening time from 11 a.m. until 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. generally suit the average convenience of the population. But the question I want to ask is why do averages come into it? The average man does not play golf or visit Covent Garden or even indulge in hunting, shooting and fishing. It does not follow that strictly minority activities should be regulated by reference to average tastes or majority prejudices.
In one of the appendices to the excellent Erroll Report there is a summary of an official survey into public attitudes towards licensing laws. It shows that about half of the random sample in 1970 favoured keeping opening hours as they were, and as they still are. But the other half was divided between a larger fraction favouring later closing and a smaller fraction preferring earlier closing. For a liberal democrat the only logical deduction from such a conflict of views is that the more flexible the hours of opening the larger the number of people who would get what they want.
It is only in politics that we think it right for majorities constantly to impose their will on minorities. In the market place, of which I am known to be an admirer, it is minorities that rule the roost all the time. Except for monopoly services such as the letter post, telephones, gas or electricity, almost everything we buy and where we choose to buy it reflects our individual preferences. In the cars we drive, in the clothes we wear, in the food we eat, we are all minorities. We would be voted down if we had to carry a democratic majority with us on every line of consumption.
I do not deny that all freedom is capable of abuse. We should, every one of us, be concerned that there are approaching 50,000 cases of drunken driving, but that remains a minute fraction of the 2½ million serious offences recorded by the police in a recent year. Although no more than 0·004 per cent. of men are treated for alcoholism, we all know of others who are at risk. But the Erroll Report confirms our everyday observation that there is no simple correlation between excessive consumption and the number of hours that pubs are open, especially when drink can be so easily obtained for consumption at home. This lesson has not been disproved by experience in Scotland since the law was liberalised in 1976 and is upheld by evidence from places as far apart as Sweden or Australia, where severe restrictions on hours have not checked abuse. Nothing in the interesting sociological speculations of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, linked more flexible hours with proven excess. In the end he seemed to me to fall back into agnosticism.
I believe that we cannot make people better by legislation. That is the task for teaching, preaching, personal example, and in the last resort enforceable laws against anti-social behaviour. It is clearly not a sin to drop in at the local. Indeed, no less an authority than the Director of the Christian Economic and Social Foundation, the Reverend George Brake, recently urged the need to preserve the place of the pub, which he thought,
"the most favourable controlled environment for the consumption of alcohol".
He added that,
"the well-managed public house provides a convenient controlled environment for drinking and is to be preferred to the uncontrolled situations in which drinking takes place at the present time".

405
If the licensing laws were abolished, as I would wish, no pub would be required to open for more hours. Some pubs in some areas would no doubt preserve the present arrangements, while others elsewhere on some days or at some times of the year would open longer and later. The Erroll Report quotes the licensing authorities in London as granting 64,000 extensions in 1970, while a sample of 29 petty sessional divisions gave 28,000 exemption orders for an average of between an hour and an hour and a half of extra opening.
No wonder the witnesses petitioning the Erroll Committee in favour of almost completely relaxing the law included the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police, as well as tourist boards and various catering and hotel organisations. There were of course then, as there will be again, familiar lobbies in favour of tighter controls. The question is: who will speak for the millions of unorganised consumers?
I would argue that, whether any one of us would personally wish to take advantage of more flexible hours, we should not stand in the way of removing restrictions upon others with different preferences. Opening hours are no more a matter for majorities to override minorities than the times at which cinemas, restaurants or shops ply their trade between willing buyers and willing sellers. The contract that is implicit in a free society is that, even where our emotions are involved, we respect the choices, even the whims, of our fellowmen as a condition for having our own differing tastes and values tolerated by others. If we admit that all freedoms are subject to abuse, we must acknowledge the need for penalties where excess may harm others. But such possibilities do not in my view justify the condescending paternalism, however well-intentioned, that tries to impose a selective morality by the crude, insensitive steamroller of statutory prohibition.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we are indebted, as several noble Lords have said, to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for raising this aspect of licensing laws concerning public houses and, of course, the various licensing Acts, including those affecting Scotland. As several noble Lords have pointed out, as long ago as 1970 the Erroll Committee reported on the situation. Thirteen years later, the situation has changed radically and new licensing laws are needed as a result of further consideration, especially to deal with the inconsistencies in the law to which reference has been made by various noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made reference to a report from the Justices' Clerks' Society, which I have also received. It is a very valuable report called Licensing Law in the Eighties. As she will know, being a magistrate like myself—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am now retired.
Lord Bishopston: I am also retired, my Lords, so we are still level-pegging on the supplemental list. But I was a magistrate for two decades from 1957. As I was saying, the society was founded as far back as 1839, and it is the professional body representing the principal legal advisers to the magistrates of England
406
and Wales. In the early days they may have had whiskers and so on, but now their ideas are very much up-to-date and they have on many occasions provided those who need such information with reports which are well worth scrutiny.
On the subject we are considering, I think we should ask what criteria we should look for in the matter of opening hours of public houses. If we refer to the incidence of the effects of alcohol, we are told that the times of opening and the duration of opening are not the main factors. That may be so, but surely the supply and consumption of alcohol and its effects need to be considered comprehensively with other means of procurement and consumption. We should also look at the matter, as several noble Lords have said, with an eye to the effect on tourism. Several inconsistencies have been mentioned tonight by noble Lords. Certainly we should have regard to the needs of visitors, both from home and from overseas. Above all, we should see the whole matter in the context of what is generally good for the community at large.
In his speech the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made various criticisms of the present situation, some of which were well justified. I notice that the Justices' Clerks' Society points out that alcohol, in combination with other factors, is connected closely with the loss of many working days, with the break-up of or misery within many marriages, and with the commission of criminal offences, as can be seen by the daily court lists.
The report seeks to be unbiased with regard to the two sides which have expressed their views, but the fact is that alcohol is a factor of some importance. Alcohol-related illness is increasing rapidly. The Office of Health Economics estimates that there are three million heavy drinkers, some 100.000 problem drinkers and 150,000 alcoholics in England and Wales. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has mentioned some of these problems. There is also a big increase in drink-related offences by young people. There needs to be some tightening up of the controls on the sale and consumption of alcohol by minors. There is need for more home influence and for more teacher influence. All this should be dealt with in the social context.
If I may consider that aspect, there is no doubt that for many minors the public house is what the youth club and the coffee bar used to be. In many rural and other communities, public houses provide a centre for fellowship and a meeting place, especially for younger people. I have mentioned tourism. We are well aware of the importance of tourism to our country. Conversely, we are also well aware of what we should be offering to tourists who come here from abroad. A number of opinion polls have indicated that a majority of people, especially in the 20 to 30 age group, are in favour of reform.
On the matter of licensing hours, any poll is likely to come up with the suggestion that licensing hours should be extended and that people should be allowed to drink what they like when they like. There are other considerations. It is quite clear that if there is no control over closing time and somebody is drinking at 11 o'clock at night the licensee may have to stand around for many hours while a very small amount of alcohol is consumed. This can be detrimental to the viability of the establishment and may have an effect

407
upon the staff. But there is a need for us to review the licensing laws in order to get rid of some of the inconsistencies which have been mentioned, and to bring about a greater degree of standardisation throughout the country.
With regard to licensing hours, the factor of availability includes the number of outlets and the price. There is need for effective control by means of licensing laws and, therefore, for more action—sometimes by the police and by other agencies. There are many problems, including the absence of national standards for licensing committees and the fact that many registered clubs are not strictly controlled. There is a laxity of proper control, under Section 77 of the Act, and also a lack of control, in many cases, of under-age drinking. There is need for public awareness of the effects of alcohol in a number of ways.
With regard to the particular aspect under review this evening—the permitted hours of licensed premises—although the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and other noble Lords have advocated flexible opening hours there appears to be no proof that the public generally wants or needs such a revision. As we know, there would be the problem of monitoring and of checks by the police, especially when the permitted hours of opening varied from those of other licensed premises in any particular licensing area. Because of the increase in the number of registered clubs, discos and other licensed premises, there would be the added facility of what one might anticipate would be continuous drinking, with people leaving one establishment and going to another nearby where the hours were rather different from those of the establishment which they had just left; or there would be the possibility of people going to registered clubs to continue their drinking. I am not suggesting that flexibility and the inconsistency of the present laws should not be considered. There may be a case for the permitted hours in registered clubs being the same as the general licensing hours in a particular district, even if they had to be extended to cover some of the anomalies which have been mentioned. There is a case for a more standard approach through the licensing committees.
Reference has been made to the departmental report, under the chairmanship of Lord Erroll of Hale, which was published some years ago. Little has been done by successive Governments to bring into effect some or all of the recommendations contained in that report. The fact is that the situation has changed greatly since the report was published. There are more outlets, and the problems connected with alcohol abuse have increased. I believe, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and others are right to stress the need for a review. Although we should be looking at the need for flexibility in licensing hours I do not believe that we should be looking at that question in isolation from some of the other aspects which should be considered by the licensing committees. However, this is a matter for the next Government. I am pleased to say here and now that my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place, and my noble friends in this House, will take note of what has been said tonight.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for providing us with this opportunity to debate a subject of such importance and to examine the issues which it raises. I think this is the first general debate that we have had on the reform of the licensing legislation since 1973, when your Lordships discussed the report of the departmental committee on liquor licensing, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, which was presented to Parliament in 1972. I am sure that those of your Lordships who are familiar with the report will agree with me that it provides an excellent starting point for any consideration of proposals for reforming the licensing law.
The committee recommended fundamental changes in the law. Many of its proposals—and some of these have been implemented—were quite acceptable. The proposals which proved most controversial when the report was discussed in your Lordships' House were those for extending the permitted hours, the fettering of the justices' discretion in the granting of new licences, the lowering of the minimum drinking age and allowing children freer access to public houses. Because of the concern which had been expressed in the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place about the likely effect these proposals would have on alchol misuse, the Government of the day concluded that the report would need to be considered against the background of growing concern about alcoholism and gave an undertaking that such proposals for change as were brought forward would be those which the Government believed to be in the general public interest and generally acceptable to public opinion.
There is no doubt, I am afraid, that since 1973 the problem of alcoholism has increased. Estimates vary of the number of problem drinkers in the United Kingdom. The OPCS in 1979 estimated that between 1967 and 1977 the number had increased by 50 per cent.—that is, from about 500,000 to 750,000. Others suggest larger or smaller numbers, but all agree generally on the scale of the increase. Most of the other indicators of misuse have also risen very substantially. The social and economic costs of misuse are considerable and it is hardly surprising, therefore, that successive Governments have shown a reluctance to introduce legislation which would make alcohol more readily available.
A further factor which has influenced Government thinking has been the findings of a number of influential bodies which have looked in detail at the problems of alcohol misuse and at ways of controlling it. In 1977, the Expenditure Committee in another place and the Government's Advisory Committee of Alcoholism both published reports which, having examined among other things the extent to which availability might be a factor in misuse, stressed that extreme caution should be taken over any relaxation of the licensing law.
Since this Government have been in office, we have received many representations from those who would like to see the licensing laws relaxed. At the same time, we have had to meet the costs which fall on the health

409
and social services which are attributable to alcohol misuse. We concluded that because of our duty to the public, it would be irresponsible to take any initiative in the direction of relaxing the licensing laws in isolation from the wider issues and without regard to our general strategy for helping to prevent alcohol misuse. At the same time, we thought that the issues which had been brought to our notice by the reports to which I have referred should be the subject of informed public debate. To that end, in December 1981 the Health Departments published the discussion document Drinking Sensibly, to which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred. The booklet looks at the different issues and the scope for action by both individuals and the Government.
Of particular reference to this afternoon's Question are those sections which deal with the relationship between alcohol consumption and harm, and the effectiveness of legal restrictions controlling the availability of alcohol. In deciding to publish the document, the Government hoped that they would promote public discussion of these issues and that the responses would enable sensible decisions to be taken as to whether the licensing law might be reformed, and, if so, how.
Having said that, the Government have recognised that the licensing law of England and Wales was in need of reform. The Licensing Act 1964 was a consolidation measure of statutes dating back to the last century. During our period in office, the Government have effected a number of reforms, mainly by assisting Private Members and Members of your Lordships' House to promote legislation which we felt would be useful.
For example the Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Act 1981 wound up the licensing compensation scheme and enabled £2 million to be allocated for funding alcohol education and research projects under the direction of the Alcohol Education and Research Council, which meets under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. This Act has also enabled £1 million to be allocated to the Licensed Trades Charities Trust. Most recently, we gave assistance with the drafting of the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Bill, which was introduced in another place and which was taken through all its stages in your Lordships' House by my noble friend, Lady Trumpington. There have been a number of other measures, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made orders which have almost abolished the system of licensing planning in some parts of the country.
My noble friend, Lady Trumpington, referred to recent recommendations of the Justices' Clerks' Society. I can say that these have been received by the department but no conclusions on them have yet been reached. They are receiving careful study, and I can assure both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, of that; the Government greatly value the society's views. My noble friend Lady Trumpington asked also whether it will be possible to arrange for some special new research programme. That is an interesting suggestion and one of which I shall take note—and I shall ensure that my right honourable friend does what he can in that respect.
410
At the same time as the other measures to which I have referred, we have been unable to support proposals for making the law more restrictive where, on the evidence available, we have felt doubtful whether such measures would contribute to any reduction in alcohol misuse. That is why we have resisted proposals for restricting the sale of drink by way of wholesale, and the imposition of further restrictions on retail sales in supermarkets. I recognise that the licensed victuallers and the temperance movement, among others, feel strongly about these matters—but they have not conclusively proved their case for the imposition of restrictions, which would place substantial burdens on wholesale dealers and retailers. I have given these examples by way of showing that the Government have not been inactive in this area.
Turning specifically to the Question on the Order Paper, during the last four years the Home Office has received many representations on the subject from the licensed trade and from other interested organisations. The trade has been particularly worried about the adverse effects which the wider economic recession has had on its profitability, and it believes that the solution lies in its members being permitted to open for longer hours or being able to vary the existing hours so that they attract more custom—and this point was expressed by my noble friend Lady Sharples, with her own special expertise in this area. The tourist industry has supported the trade on the grounds that the existing licensing hours are unattractive to tourists—a point made by my noble friend Lady Sharples and by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. Neither of these arguments should be allowed to influence the decision on this matter. The licensing law exists primary to protect our own society and it is perhaps relevant, and interesting too, that the Home Office has not received a great volume of correspondence from individual members of the public on this matter.
The essential difference between the English and Scottish divisions as to the permitted hours lies in the discretion given to the licensing authorities to vary the general permitted hours of opening. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest, coming from that relevatively enlightened part of the world. The prescribed hours of opening in both countries are broadly similar. They allow public houses to open in weekdays between 11.00 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. or 11.00 p.m. with a break or two hours or two and a half hours in the afternoons. The hours on Sunday are shorter but are also broadly the same. Prior to 1976, as your Lordhips will know, Scottish public houses were required to close at 10.00 p.m. and all day on Sundays.
In England and Wales, the power of the licensing justices to grant regular extensions is tightly circumscribed. As a general rule, early morning and afternoon extensions may be granted only in the vicinity of markets, and extensions beyond the evening terminal hour are available only where the sale of drink is ancillary to the provision of food or music and dancing.
In Scotland, following the reform of the law in 1976, a licensing board has a much wider discretion and may grant extensions for any part of the day in respect of

411
individual premises if it considers it desirable, having regard to the social circumstances of the locality in which the premises are situated or to activities taking place in that locality. Although it is perhaps arguable that Parliament intended it to be used quite extensively, this power has been widely used to permit Scottish public houses to open during the afternoon break and late at night, particularly in the larger towns and cities. Some boards, however, have adopted a policy of refusing to permit afternoon opening.
Provisional assesssments based on surveys carried out in 1976, 1977 and 1978 would seem to suggest that the consumption of alcohol has not been significantly affected by this extension of hours and that those drinking do so at a more leisurely pace. It is interesting that the statistical data on drink-related offences indicate that recent trends show a decrease in offences of drunkenness, and between 1972 and 1982 there has been little variation in offences of drinking and driving. The statistics do not, however, separately identify offences occuring during or immediately following permitted or extended hours.
With regard to any increase in alcoholism or other medical problems, the statistical data likewise show that there has as yet been no indication of such adverse effects. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, talked about another survey which had been carried out, but I must say to him that that particular information has not yet been widely publicised or debated. The Government wish to continue to keep all information that comes to hand under review as it emerges, and I myself consider that the analysis which the noble Earl made in his very interesting speech was in itself a very worthwhile study. I am sure the Home Office will look at this in great detail.
While the evidence relating to Scotland might suggest that the case for introducing into England and Wales more flexible or extended hours of opening has been proved, I must sound a note of caution. The last survey on the effects of the changes in Scottish licensing hours was carried out in 1978; that is, before afternoon extensions were granted as commonly as they are now. While we think that the Scottish experience so far is encouraging, the Government believe that more time and possibly further research are needed to assess the situation before introducing a similar relaxation into the law of England and Wales.
I recognise that the reply I have given to this Question may come as a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and also to the Licensed Victuallers and others who wish to see the law amended in the way the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and others have suggested. The Government are not insensitive to their views, but, as I have indicated, in considering any proposals to relax the licensing law we must first consider them in relation to our general strategy for helping to prevent alcohol misuse. If it is a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, both of whom have made powerful speeches this evening, we have not closed the door on the possibility of longer licensing hours, but we wish to be assured that opening it wider will not lead to an increase in the problem. The
412-414
noble Lord, Lord Spens, has, however, provided us with an opportunity for debating the subject, and for this I know we are all very grateful.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  SEALINK: TRANSFER OF HARBOUR ASSETS
  SEALINK: TRANSFER OF HARBOUR ASSETS
  HEATHER AND GRASS BURNING
  HEATHER AND GRASS BURNING