Sitting of 11 December 1984

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

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments set out in the list of Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business proposed to the House by the Chairman of Ways and Means, laid upon the Table by Mr. Speaker on 4 December, be made.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Defence Programme (Annual Review)
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State of Defence when he expects to announce the results of the annual review of the defence programme.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Information about the future defence programme will be given in the 1985 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" in the normal way.
    Mr. Cartwright: As the existing commitments in the 10-year defence programme are reported to exceed available resources by as much as £10 billion, will the Secretary of State ensure that his next review makes it clear what non-nuclear commitments are being cut out to make room for the Trident programme?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must learn to distinguish between a planning process and a commitment. There are no excess commitments in the Ministry's long-term policies, because such commitments have not been authorised by Ministers.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: In the course of the review, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to the future of the European fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that discussions are being protracted, largely by the French? Will he make provision, if necessary, for funds to go national?
    Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's real interest in this matter from his constituency point of view, with which I sympathise. However, there are great prizes to be achieved if Europe can co-ordinate more closely its
    892
    military procurement. Ministers of various Alliance countries are trying to achieve that, if possible. We cannot say that it is possible to achieve greater co-ordination, but we are trying to achieve it within the framework of the EFA discussions.
    Mr. Boyes: Has the Secretary of State had time to study an answer that I was given about using animals, without anaesthetics, to test the effects of cyanide poisoning? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Conservative voters have told me that they will vote Labour at the next general election because of the Government's outrageous attitude to animal welfare? Does he believe that it is in the national interest to propose in the defence review the closure of Porton Down as a chemical research establishment or to consider it as a suitable and useful area for peaceful purposes?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think we all realise the immensely difficult issues that are raised in the context of the research to which the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House. We must also realise that we have a responsibility to our troops, especially those in Germany who face the possibility of a chemical attack by the Soviet Union. It would be unthinkably irresponsible for a Ministry of Defence Minister not to do everything possible to provide them with the best preventive kit.
    Mr. Stern: In the course of the defence review., will my right hon. Friend consider the role of export sales in making our defence programme possible? Will he encourage his Department of Trade and Industry colleagues to take a realistic attitude to potential export sales, particularly to countries, such as Turkey, which have never defaulted on such contracts?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and interest. I have the closest and most harmonious relationships with all my Government colleagues, who meet to discuss these difficult issues of priorities.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: When the Secretary of State comes to publish the fruits of the defence review, will he be as candid as was the Minister of State for the Armed forces in the Royal Navy debate two weeks ago and admit that the cost of Trident is bound to come out of conventional defence programmes? If that is so, does he agree that, by cutting our conventional defence, he is weakening Britain's real defences and its contribution to NATO at a time when it is important to build up conventional defences and not to rely on the first use of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is fascinating to note that the right hon. Gentleman, whose party campaigned during the election for a reduction of 30 per cent. in the conventional defence budget, should now tell us that the Labour party wants to improve our conventional defences.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to alter security precautions for exercises involving cruise missile convoys.
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to change the security precautions for exercises involving cruise convoys.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Security precautions always remain under review.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that, in the early hours of 15 November, when a convoy of cruise missiles was entering Longmoor camp in Hampshire, two local inhabitants who were disturbed by the convoy were kidnapped by the police, deposited in a 5 ft deep pit, fenced by barbed wire, and guarded by two armed soldiers? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the deployment of cruise missiles will inevitably lead to this sort of erosion of civil rights and put us on the road to totalitarianism?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has an extraordinary recollection of that event. Those individuals were trespassing in a military training area during a military exercise. To protect them, they were put in the one place where there was some shelter and cover from the elements—a rifle range, which was not, of course, being used at that time.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that interference with telephone lines in the neighbourhood of cruise missile convoy exercises, as happened last night, is neither tolerable nor legitimate as a security precaution? Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that his strategy of trying to hide American weapons in the British countryside is doomed to failure, because many thousands of people will not turn a blind eye to what is going on?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The off-base deployment programme of ground-launched cruise missiles for training purposes has been extremely successful.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that there should be off-base deployment to maintain the credibility and deterrence effect of the second strike power of all this weaponry? It seems to me that that approach is broadly accepted not only by those who live in the area but by those who are concerned about defence matters.
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. He is entirely correct.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the activity of people such as those who participate in Cruise Watch—whether or not they are aware of it—in monitoring the movement of these missiles off-base only aids and abets this country's enemies?
    Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the amount of time and effort devoted by certain small minorities to watching cruise missiles is strange. Some Conservative Members wish that those people would devote the same amount of energy to watching the progress on SS20s on the other side of the wall.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Are not all these problems an indication of how ridiculous it is to base cruise missiles not only in Britain but in the most populous areas of southern England? Is it not a fact that the cardinal principle of ground-launched missiles is that they should be mobile and not be detected? These missiles are not mobile. It seems that everyone from here to the Kremlin knows where they are.
    Mr. Stanley: That is not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Government and NATO were right
    894
    to serve notice on the Soviet Union that the massive increase in its capacity to blackmail western Europe through the SS20s would not go unanswered by the West.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such are the safeguards built into the cruise missile system that the only risk of deployment is a traffic accident and, therefore, the right action for right minded people is to ensure that deployment can occur without obstruction?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I am sure that all responsible people believe that deployment for training purposes is a necessary part of deterrence. Responsible people will enable those deployments to take place.

    RAF Molesworth and Alconbury
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of Defence if he will make a statement on the development of RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury.
    Mr. Stanley: On RAF Molesworth I cannot at present add to my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 29 October .
    RAF Alconbury is scheduled to be developed in support of the deployment of TR1 tactical reconnaissance aircraft, with construction planned to begin next year.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister proud of the fact that he is a member of a Government who have turned Britain into a police state against the miners? Not content with that, they are now crawling on their hands and knees to Reagan and the Americans and are prepared to bring conspiracy charges against the Alconbury seven to help site American missiles there? Why do the Government not send them back where they belong and drop the charges against those people? They are British people.
    Mr. Stanley: I am proud to be a member of a Government, as are all my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have cemented the Anglo-American alliance which formed the linchpin of our security during the second world war.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Cambridgeshire will not react kindly to any authority which allows to be established at Molesworth and Alconbury the type of peace-camp nonsense that was established at Greenham common? The people of Cambridgeshire do not expect to have to pay increased police bills as a consequence of any unlawful activity at Molesworth and Alconbury.
    Mr. Stanley: I note what my hon. Friend says. Police bills are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am sure my hon. Friend accepts that the important deployment that will be taking place at Molesworth should be subject to the necessary security measures to protect the ground-launched cruise missiles as and when they are established there.
    Mr. Marlow: If Britain were to be the only significant territory within a nuclear alliance—NATO—on which no nuclear weapons were based, and if hostilities broke out with the Warsaw pact, would not the most likely area of NATO to be subject to nuclear attack be the United Kingdom, because the likelihood of retaliation would be

    895
    rather less? If the United Kingdom were not to have atomic weapons on its soil, would we not be in more rather than less danger?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Opposition believe that it somehow serves our defence interests to ask our most important ally to go back across the Atlantic, their logic escapes me.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister tell us when we shall reach a stage, such as we have at Greenham common at present, when what was originally a Royal Air Force camp turns into a United States air force base where we have little or no control over whether weapons are used in this country.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the agreement establishing ground-launched cruise missiles in this country was between the United States Government and the Government of this country.

    Helicopters (Northern Ireland)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any complaints about helicopters operating in Northern Ireland, especially in the Crossmaglen and Forkhill areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): There have been a few complaints, including some from the Crossmaglen and Forkhill areas. We are considering whether the levels of noise referred to in these complaints are sufficient to justify the payment of compensation by the Ministry of Defence. A decision on this complicated matter will be taken next year.
    Mr. Dubs: May I urge the Minister to go to Forkhill and Crossmaglen and listen to local people? Is he aware that there is enormous feeling about the frequent helicopter flights? They sometimes fly as often as one every 30 seconds out of the military base at Crossmaglen. People who are by no means opposed to the security forces in general feel angry about helicopters flying at night 30 ft above their bedroom windows.
    Mr. Lee: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. This is an operationally dangerous area. Many members of the security forces have been killed. There is a substantial threat from culvert bombs. Therefore, substantial helicopter activity is essential.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend accept from those on both sides of the House who have been to Forkhill that people have a genuine complaint, particularly on Sundays when church services are upset by the noise of helicopters? Despite the security implications, will he do all that he can to ensure that only necessary flights take place on Sundays?
    Mr. Lee: The security considerations must be paramount, but we shall take into account the points made, particularly about the sabbath.
    Mr. John David Taylor: As I live in the same county as Crossmaglen and Forkhill and within 100 yards of the helicopter station, may I put it to the Minister that the vast majority of people in County Armagh welcome the presence of the helicopters and their constructive contribution towards the pursuit of terrorists? Is he aware that people have been killed even during church hours?
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I am sure that the security forces will also be grateful.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that when more force than is reasonably necessary is used in sensitive areas, such as Crossmaglen, Forkhill and Derry, simply to appease Unionist politicians, not only is the infamy of the Black and Tans recalled, but the most notable and enduring casualty is the honour and reputation of the British Army?
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: Sit down, you silly man.
    Mr. Duffy: Say that outside.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lee: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is overreacting. I am sure that the security forces do not use more force than is necessary in the circumstances.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: In view of the difficulty of operating helicopters in that region without infringing the border, is it not time that there was direct co-operation between the British and Irish Armies against those whom Dr. FitzGerald has described as the common enemy?
    Mr. Lee: Relationships between the two forces are extremely good, but I take the specific point that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. McNamara: Can the Minister say whether helicopters were used at the time of the Gransha hospital incident last week? Can he also say whether the British Army has now abandoned its stop-and-search policy in favour of a shoot-and-kill policy? Is he aware that the yellow card procedures seem to have been completely abandoned? Can he also tell us whether the two people killed by the British Army last week were first given the opportunity to surrender, whether there were any warrants out for their arrest, and, if so, why they were not dealt with by the RUC?
    Mr. Lee: The services are, as always, answerable to the law.

    Nuclear Missiles
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the equivalent numbers of nuclear missiles targeted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Warsaw pact countries on western Europe and vice-versa.
    Mr. Stanley: As detailed on page 43 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984", the Soviet Union has deployed about 1,800 intermediate and short-range land-based nuclear missiles facing western Europe. The equivalent figure for NATO systems based in Europe facing the Soviet Union is some 300. Strategic nuclear missile systems would be additional on both sides.
    Mr. Chapman: As there is clearly an imbalance in nuclear missiles in favour of the Eastern bloc, would not any simple nuclear freeze result in a greater threat to western Europe unless it were the first stage of an agreed, verifiable multilateral disarmament programme?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The fallacy of a nuclear freeze is that in the present circumstances it would merely freeze the very substantial superiority of the Soviet Union in this area and remove any incentive for the Soviet Union to reduce that superiority.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is not the question of balance in terms of the number of warheads completely academic? Does the Minister appreciate that if nuclear war broke out in Europe many fewer missiles than those now sited would create a very cindery situation in this country and mainland Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy of successive Governments has been that multilateral disarmament should be on a balanced and verifiable basis.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that whether he is counting missiles or warheads, which he is not counting today, the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles, not only in the waters surrounding Europe but in the Atlantic and other areas totally annihilates the potential for verifiable arms control?
    Mr. Stanley: The deployment to which the hon. Gentleman refers is carried out by both the United States and the Soviet Union. In the short term, the Soviet Union is likely to have an operational capability for strategic ground-launched cruise missiles, strategic air-launched cruise missiles and strategic sea-launched cruise missiles.
    Mr. Terlezki: As Mr. Chernenko is to visit this country soon, will my right hon. Friend give him a message to take back to the Soviet Union—that we want peace, but not at any price; that if the Soviets dismantle their nuclear missiles we will dismantle ours; and that the British people are not naive?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend summarises the message very well. The British Government want a more peaceful world, and a world that is also more secure. That means multilateral balanced disarmament by both sides.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: When we consider nuclear missiles, must we not also consider strategic as well as Euro and intermediate missiles? On the question of a freeze, is it not true that there is a balance now, generally speaking, between the Soviet Union and the West?
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned multilateral talks. Can he tell us whether the British Government favour talks to cover both strategic and intermediate range weapons? As he is so keen on multilateral disarmament, will he also tell us whether the British Government will be present at those talks?
    Mr. Stanley: Like the American Government. the British Government favour participation in both the strategic and intermediate areas. We have been taking part in the negotiations. We have been directly involved, for example in the talks on chemical weapons. Traditionally, strategic negotiations have been matters for the United States and the Soviet Union.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Frank Cookasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of conventional defence spending.
    Mr. Heseltine: The defence budget for the current financial year amounts to £17·25 billion. Of this, some 97 per cent. will be spent on our conventional forces.
    Mr. Cook: When will the Secretary of State realise that the electorate will not tolerate the kind of fob-off offered to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr.
    898
    Davies) in answers to supplementary questions on question No. 1? Does not persistent dependence on a reduction in conventional spending inevitably mean that we rely more on the threat of nuclear arms and the sophisticated weapons that are being developed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that persistent reliance on that strategy means that we will inevitably contribute to the destruction of the globe?
    Mr. Heseltine: I take a somewhat different view. All Labour Governments since the war have followed the policies that I follow. I believe that we should continue to follow those policies, because they have worked.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend spell out the implications of a decision by this country to scale down our spending on conventional forces to the levels currently maintained by our NATO colleagues? Would not such a decision mean the decimation of our conventional forces and place greater reliance upon nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Heseltine: I believe that all those consequences would indeed flow from such a decision, together with another which my hon. Friend did not mention, but which I am sure he will accept, namely, the incalculable effect upon the credibility of the NATO Alliance of Britain's taking a decision dramatically to reduce our commitment to defence.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will not the assurances given by the Secretary of State today have a somewhat hollow ring for the 1,000 people who are to lose their jobs in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshops? Will they not directly relate any savings of that nature to a campaign to make money available for Trident in the future?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that anyone would seriously believe that that is the purpose of trying to get more value for money out of the defence budget, which, on all counts, we have a responsibility to do.

    Light Aircraft Industry
    Mr. Lyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from representatives of British industry about the opportunity to re-establish a British light aircraft industry during his evaluation of the tenders for the new basic trainer for the Royal Air Force.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend and I have received numerous representations from industrialists in support of the companies tendering for the new basic trainer aircraft including some reference to the wider aspects of re-establishing a civil light aircraft industry.
    Mr. Lyell: Will my right hon. and hon. Friends remember that Hunting Engineering Ltd.'s Firecracker is a beautiful aircraft, which well meets the RAF's needs, is wholly the product of private enterprise, is wholly privately financed, and would provide Hunting Engineering Ltd. with a real opportunity to re-establish the British light aircraft industry?
    Mr. Butler: I appreciate my hon. Friend taking this opportunity to press the case of one aircraft. Of course, what he mentioned is one of a wide range of considerations that we have to take into account.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that what remains of the British light aircraft industry is to be found in my constituency? Is he aware that no fewer than three of the contenders have connections with the Isle of Wight, where unemployment is now approaching 17 per cent. and where many of those who work in the aircraft industry are working a three-day week? Will he assure the House that he will take those facts fully into account when making a decision about a replacement for the Jet Provost?
    Mr. Butler: We shall take those facts fully into account. Perhaps I might say something about the light aircraft industry. We have short-listed two aeroplanes, which will be made by companies which are not manufacturing fixed-wing aircraft at the moment. That means that we are prepared to accept that possibility. However, there are many other considerations that will carry greater weight.
    Sir Patrick Wall: When considering these tenders, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that only the PC9, linked with the Hawk advanced trainer, will form a package that could provide major export orders?
    Mr. Butler: There is no reason in theory why there should not be a package that involves the Hawk with another aeroplane.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister aware that there is already a company in the light aircraft industry that has a worldwide reputation? Will he assure us that Shorts Tucano will also be considered?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we really need an aeroplane that meets the requirements of the RAF? The RAF has undertaken an extensive review of the technical merits of all of the aeroplanes at Boscombe Down. Does he agree that what is wrong in this procedure is the fact that the air staff target has set a speed that is far too low for the RAF's requirements?
    Mr. Butler: I agree that the operational requirements of the RAF must have priority, but, as I have made clear today and previously, there are many other considerations. I hope that we shall be able to make a decision reasonably soon, and preferably before the next round of Defence questions.
    Mr. McNamara: The whole House agrees that we require an aircraft that most meets the RAF's requirements. I understand that the overwhelming support for that comes from the PC9. Will the Minister confirm that, among the weighty considerations to be taken into account, there is not the fact that if Shorts get the order it will be made more attractive for privatisation? Secondly, will he confirm that if, for some strange reason, we have the RAF flying a Brazilian aircraft, thus becoming the laughing stock of NATO, that will not be done to enable us to have facilities to get down to the Falklands because of the Fortress Falklands policy?
    Mr. Butler: I hope that the RAF will not be the laughing stock of anybody, whether it has an aeroplane that is designed in Brazil, Switzerland, Australia or the United Kingdom. There are many considerations to take
    900
    into account. Relations with Brazil are important to Britain, as are relations with Switzerland, Australia and many other countries.

    Trident Missile
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost in pounds sterling of Trident.
    Mr. Heseltine: As I indicated in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 13 November, the Trident estimate is currently being reviewed as part of the annual recosting of the defence programme. I hope to be able to announce a revised estimate to the House early in the new year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have not the Government been patently negligent in failing to negotiate with America an offset agreement guaranteeing work to British defence contractors? Is it true that, apart from the submarine and the warheads, British contractors have won only £12 million-worth of contracts out of a multi-million pound contract and that Britain is retaining less than half of the total capital cost? What will the Government now do to defend the interests of British defence contractors?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important issue which is of concern to me. When we decided to purchase the Trident D5 system, it was an existing system with existing contractors in the United States. That makes it especially hard for British industrialists to break into the bidding process. However, substantial opportunities are available and I hope that British industry will take advantage of them. I shall be looking to ensure that, wherever reasonable, without raising undue hopes, we are pursuing such opportunities as exist.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend see any significance in the announcement by Sir Charles Pringle, director of the Society of British Aerospace Companies, that the Ministry should look at the possibility of a home-grown Polaris system to replace the existing system?
    Mr. Heseltine: It would be quite wrong to leave any doubt. There is no question of the Government's reviewing the Trident programme.
    Mr. Strang: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) contrast sharply with the assurances that he and his predecessor gave to British contractors? Is it not now clear that about half the colossal expenditure on Trident will go on American technology and jobs? How many hundreds of thousands of jobs might be created in this country if that £5,000 million or thereabouts were spent in Britain?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this decision was taken for defence reasons. The technology that we are purchasing is available in the United States, and it was considered that that technology gave Britain the best possible independent nuclear capability. That was the object of the decision. I shall do what I can to secure proper job opportunities in this country, but there is a limitation, for the reasons that I have given. The House will realise that virtually half of the

    901
    Trident programme will be spent in Britain, and consequently very large numbers of jobs will be associated with it.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that deterrence vitally depends on our ability to inflict an unacceptable level of damage on a would-be aggressor, and that the important aspect of Trident D5 is that, for the next 30 years, it will possess just that capability, while many of the alternatives on offer do not?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The alternatives were set out and discussed in the open government document. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government took the view that this is the system most likely to create the deterrence upon which our ultimate peace depends. We believe that we took the right decision, and there is no prospect of changing it.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the total cost of Trident to be in excess of £10 billion? Will he confirm that that is double the original estimate? Will not the most likely consequence be that this will put increased pressure on the level of our conventional defence expenditure? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the result of that will be to heighten the nuclear threshold, thereby making nuclear war more, rather than less, likely?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will remember the open government document, which I have with me, which refers to the cost as £7·5 billion. Therefore, his arithmetic does not stand up even if his figures are correct. The House will appreciate that most of the change about which we are talking is based on changes in the exchange rates at today's money values carried forward over the next 10 to 15 years, when the House is not capable of reaching an informed judgment about exactly what the exchange rates will be.
    Mr. Franks: In considering the Trident programme, will my hon. Friend take account of the necessity of ensuring that when the Vickers shipyards are privatised, control of those shipyards remains firmly in British hands?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend's question will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has responsibility for that matter.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If, as the Secretary of State rightly said, no one knows what the exchange rate will be in the next 10 years, how on earth can he trot out these spurious estimates of the cost of Trident? Given the present state of the British economy, the likelihood is that exchange rates will go down rather than up. Even more important, will he confirm what he said earlier— that he has no intention of looking at the suggestion of a Polaris Mk II to try to get him off the hook of paying for Trident?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that we are not reviewing any other alternatives. We did so at the time of the review of the options and arrived at our decision. The right hon. Gentleman asks how I can trot out spurious calculations to give costings to the defence Estimates. The answer is simple. I inherited much precedent from the previous Government, to which I have slavishly stuck.

    Nuclear Weapons (Transportation)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Defence to which chief constables and to which fire
    902
    officers general guidance has been given concerning safety aspects of movements of nuclear weapons: and when such guidance was last issued.
    Mr. Stanley: Guidance is issued to those chief constables and fire officers who have a need to know, and is kept up to date. For security reasons I cannot give details.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this morning I received a letter on this matter from the Prime Minister, who says that guidance is given to chief constables and fire officers about the transport of nuclear weapons through their areas, "where necessary"? For the benefit of those who live in Leicester and other cities through which Chevaline and other missiles are transported, will he say whether the words "where necessary" mean that chief constables and fire officers are or are not told when such weapons pass through their areas?
    Mr. Stanley: We are not willing to disclose which chief officers are notified, as that would involve disclosing routes and methods of transport.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Leicester will welcome the news that such information is to remain confidential? Does he further accept that they are grateful for what has been done by the chief constable, the police and the fire services, and that any attack on them is completely unwarranted and undeserved? It ill-becomes the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to behave like that and scare the people of Leicester in such a way.
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his responsible attitude.

    Animals (Experiments)
    Mr. Tom Coxasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of animal experiments carried out by his Department.
    Mr. Lee: Experiments involving the use of animals conducted by the Ministry of Defence are mainly directed at developing defensive measures against chemical attack. The Soviet Union maintains substantial stocks of chemical weapons and it is essential that our forces are protected. It is also necessary to ensure protection against biological warfare. Other work includes medical studies, including the study of wounding, and the diagnosis of disease.
    The use of live animals for experiments is governed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. It has been the consistent policy of the Ministry of Defence to comply fully with the Act.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware of the ever-increasing anxiety of the general public about the barbaric experiments on animals that the Department allows to be conducted? Is he further aware that it seems that it is only by persistent questioning in the House that he will begin to outline the experiments that are allowed? What efforts is his Department making to find alternative methods of experimentation, if he claims that it is so necessary, rather than using defenceless animals?
    Mr. Lee: Porton Down takes the lead in considering alternatives. The vast majority of the population, and of hon. Members, and all our service men and women recognise the necessary work that is done at Porton Down.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the comments of Opposition Members, there is no equivocation on this subject, and that the growth of non-animal-based toxicity tests has been rapid in recent years and months? Does he further agree that the tragic incident in India has highlighted the need for toxicity tests on cyanide, which are paralleled by the work at Porton Down?
    Mr. Lee: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for his support. We resent some of the innuendo, abuse and exaggeration about the work of Porton Down.

    Exercise Autumn Train
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the official reports on Exercise Autumn Train which took place in the Atlantic in November; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stanley: Exercise Autumn Train 84 was this year's Fleet weapons training exercise. Some 20 Royal Navy and other NATO ships and submarines took part, as well as RAF Buccaneers, Nimrods and Phantoms. All participating units achieved considerable training value from the exercise.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister assure the House that the operational effectiveness of the Fleet and its aircraft was not seriously affected by a shortage of spare parts, notably for the Sea King helicopters which embarked with 814 squadron on the carrier Illustrious?
    Mr. Stanley: There has been some difficulty in the supply of engine components for Sea King helicopters. That is partly a manufacturing problem. The overall stock of the Royal Navy is in pretty good shape.
    Mr. Porter: Does my hon. Friend believe that the operational effectiveness of the Fleet was affected by the delay in ordering the type 22 destroyers? Does he accept that it is about time that the order went to Cammell Laird at Birkenhead?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has introduced a difficult issue. As was made clear in the debate on the Navy, we shall try to resolve this matter quickly.

    Defence Procurement (Memorandum of Understanding)
    Mr. McWilliamasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the balance of advantage to the United Kingdom of the effects of the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy on defence procurement.
    Mr. Butler: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the memorandum of understanding relating to the FH 70 and Tornado programmes. The answer is yes.
    Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but how can he be so complacent as to be satisfied with collaboration with companies such as Rheinmetall, when that company is now in court for supplying arms to Argentina via Spain—arms that were used against our men — and when that company is putting people in Britain out of work?
    Mr. Butler: The memoranda of understanding and present circumstances show that for different reasons the
    904
    balance of advantage lies with the United Kingdom in respect of both the FH 70 and Tornado programmes at the moment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Fisher: When considering whether a pit should close for economic reasons, does the Prime Minister think it sensible or reasonable that costs such as surface damage, which may continue for many years, whether that pit closes or not, should be included? Given the interest in, not to say controversy about, the National Coal Board's accountancy system that has been stirred up, would it not be helpful and constructive if the Prime Minister were to set up a full review now to look into the accounting basis for pit closures?
    The Prime Minister: No, the board fully accepts that management decisions on pit closures should not be based on a single accounting document, and that has never been its practice.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Could my right hon. Friend find time today to consider how far my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has infringed his quasi-judicial capacity on airport policies by proceeding with the Civil Aviation Bill? Does she understand that there is grave concern among many hon. Members on both sides of the House that a fair decision on this matter is being prejudiced by the way in which matters are being handled?
    The Prime Minister: I could not possibly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am aware of what happened this morning, but the future meetings of that Committee is a matter for the Chairman of that Committee.
    Mr. Cunliffeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her Government's mean and niggardly decision to cut old people's heating allowances for those on supplementary benefit by £1? Does she understand that this has caused considerable anxiety and concern in all parts of the House — a concern equal to that about student grants? Furthermore, will she resist any attempts by her Chancellor of the Exchequer to put 15 per cent. VAT on fuel prices, which will again cause severe hardship for pensioners and others?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the Government's excellent record on fuel allowances. The Government are spending £400 million this year on help with fuel bills, and £200 million of this goes to pensioners. The level of the heating allowances has risen by 40 per cent. more than the increase in fuel prices.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend as concernd as I am about the activities of the drug companies, which are suggesting that the very limited movement into generic prescribing is calculated to create two levels of health service? Will she place on record the fact that there is no reason why any patient should be disturbed, because the efficacy of those drugs being recommended is at least as good as those with brand names? Will she also express surprise that general practitioners and the British Medical Association are prepared to lend their names to this campaign?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The House would have cause to criticise the Government if we did not get the best value for money spent on drugs in the NHS.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the youth training board of the Manpower Services Commission is recommending to the MSC that the pay of young people on youth training schemes should be increased to £34 next year? Is the Prime Minister willing to endorse that recommendation and so give assistance to young people on training schemes and their families, much as she did last week to deserving young people and their families involved in higher education?
    The Prime Minister: No. I think that it is more important to get the maximum number of young people on the youth training scheme—[Interruption.] No. I think that it is much more preferable to get the maximum number of young people on the training scheme, to enable them to get jobs for which higher skills are necessary; jobs which would not be available to them but for that training.
    Mr. Kinnock: There seems to be confusion in the Prime Minister's mind. There is no conflict between the quality of training, the numbers involved and the payment of at least acceptable rates of pay to young people. If the Prime Minister is interested in these matters, will she acknowledge that the youth training board is also interested in involving the maximum number of youngsters, but that it still recommends £34 a week? Will the right hon. Lady also accept that, because of the anticipated underspend in the next year, the MSC could pay £40 a week and still not exceed its budget?
    The Prime Minister: If increases were to be made, resources would have to be found. The right hon. Gentleman talked about anticipated underspend. Precisely because of that anticipated underspend we increased other training services. The money has already been spent on other training projects.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister saying that after offering a guarantee to all young people—of which she boasts—that they will have education or training, she has been expanding other schemes by filching money from the funds that she was offering under that solemn guarantee to those young people? Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? Does she think that young people should be properly paid, by the amount recommended by the youth training board—£34 a week —or does she think that they should continue to be underpaid?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's last question was inconsistent with his previous question. In his previous question he said that an increase was justified because of an anticipated underspend. In his last question
    906
    he said that we had spent the anticipated underspend that he proposed to spend on increasing the payment — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that we should increase the amount because of the anticipated underspend. I was telling him that because of the anticipated underspend we had already increased the spending. I am concerned about increasing the numbers of young people who are trained. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is impossible without imposing extra tax.
    Mrs. Jill Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Prime Minister aware that claims made last week by an Opposition Member based on an article published in Accountancy that NCB accounts were a flawed instrument have been totally invalidated by the article being withdrawn— [Interruption]. The article's authors have admitted that they did not properly understand the accounting or decision-making procedures employed by the NCB and that they included factual inaccuracies in their article.
    The Prime Minister: I understand from a press statement issued by the National Coal Board on 7 December that the NCB's members and its director general of finance yesterday met the authors of an article in Accountancy. The statement said:
    "The board … explained how the authors had misunderstood the board's accounting and decision making procedures and drew attention to factual inaccuracies. The authors, who regretted that the orginal article had been circulated by the magazine before the board had an opportunity to discuss it with them, readily agreed to review the contents of their article.
    The board … expressed their willingness to discuss with the authors their revised article."
    Mr. Steel: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the £10 Christmas bonus for pensioners introduced by a previous Conservative Government in 1972 is now worth only £2.80 in real terms? Is the right hon. Lady continuing to refuse to uprate the bonus? Does she realise that comparisons between her and Mr. Scrooge are wholly unfair, because he was prepared to see the error of his ways?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this Government have paid the Christmas bonus every year—unlike the last Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman helped to keep in power. This Government will continue to pay the Christmas bonus. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more, will he tell the House where the resources should come from?
    Mrs. Rumboldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Although many people agree that the laws on Sunday trading need to be reviewed, does my right hon. Friend agree that the traders who opened last Sunday should be roundly condemned for opening illegally? Would it not have been preferable for those traders not to have opened illegally on Sunday but to have left the matter for Parliament to consider and reach a decision?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the law must be obeyed until it is changed by Parliament.
    Mr. Barronasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barron: The Prime Minister said earlier that the National Coal Board does not use any one set of accounting figures in relation to colliery closures. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why she stood at the Dispatch Box last Thursday and tried to defend the NCB's practice of using a single set of figures? What was said in the article about those figures has not yet been withdrawn. Have not those figures been described as a mine of misinformation?
    The Prime Minister: I have made the position perfectly clear. The NCB fully accepts that management decisions on pit closures should not be based on a single accounting document. That has never been its practice. What I said last week still obtains—that, whatever the accounting procedures, the taxpayer has paid £1·3 billion subsidy to the NCB. That is a matter, not of accounting procedure, but of fact.
    Mr. Sternasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to study the recent conclusion of Professor Patrick Minford that the best possible way to reduce unemployment is to raise tax thresholds?
    The Prime Minister: I accept the implication behind my hon. Friend's question that there is an unemployment trap because there is virtually no gap between the level of what a person can receive on supplementary benefit and some of the levels of pay, and because of the difficulties that occur when withdrawing certain means-tested benefits. It is vital to raise the thresholds. Under Conservative Government, thresholds have been raised by 16 per cent. in real terms, compared with a fall under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Prime Minister recall her assurance to the House last month that the United Kingdom would not pass on to the European Community super levy payments unless other countries were seen to be complying with the milk quota scheme? What is her reaction to the strange decision of the Commission last night to withhold from the United Kingdom's regular
    908
    agriculture payments an amount equivalent to what it assumes to be the super levy due by the United Kingdom to the EEC?
    The Prime Minister: This matter will be dealt with in the normal way, by representations to the Commission. What I said will hold.
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Wang factory which will be opened next week in my constituency by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and of the news today that Hughes Microelectronics has announced a £25 million expansion scheme in Glenrothes, creating some 500 jobs? Is it not a tragedy that the Labour-controlled local authorities which represent those areas are adding to the costs of these new businesses by squandering more than £1 million of ratepayers' money in support of striking miners?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I was very glad to hear the news about Hughes Microelectronics setting up in Glenrothes, which means some 500 new jobs. I agree with my hon. Friend that when local councils put heavy rates on business, ultimately it will drive away business from that area. Also, I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question that the strike is doing untold damage to the repuation of this country for value for money and speedy delivery.
    Mr. Ewing: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards, unless they are directly related to questions.
    Mr. Ewing: Yes. It is directly related to questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Ewing: I apologise for raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed that during defence questions when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised a question you called the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) to give, quite rightly, a contrary point of view. I do not complain about that, but the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has just made a scurrilous and untrue allegation against—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching the clock, he would have seen the reason why it was not possible to call another hon. Member.

M25 Motorway (Accident)
3.32 pm
Mr. Robert Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the serious motorway accident this morning which resulted in death and injury.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): A multiple accident occurred in thick fog over a length of some 40 yd on the westbound carriageway of the M25 at 6.15 am today near the Kent boundary with Surrey. I understand that 22 vehicles were involved. Wreckage has not yet been cleared and it is feared that at least nine deaths have occurred, but this figure may not be the final total. The total number of injured is not yet known.
The westbound carriageway is completely blocked and is not expected to be opened until tomorrow, Wednesday, at the earliest. The eastbound carriageway has been closed except for use by the emergency services. The police have set up an emergency telephone service for news of casualties. I thank all the emergency services involved in dealing with this motorway tragedy.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing condolences to the relatives and friends of those so tragically killed and in sending the injured our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. I join in her thanks to the emergency services for yet again turning out at short notice in awful conditions and in expressing condolences to the relatives of those who were killed and to those who were injured, so near to Christmas, but may I ask her a number of questions? First, will there be a specific—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One question.
Mr. Adley: May I ask my hon. Friend whether a specific inquiry will be set up into this accident, as is done with other modes of transport, and whether the police have powers to close motorways in certain weather conditions to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future? Will my hon. Friend now examine the attitude of her Department, which seeks to increase rather than to reduce the speed of heavy lorries?
Mrs. Chalker: In the event of a road accident, it is up to the police to decide whether to prosecute as a result of their inquiries, but I assure my hon. Friend that my Department will examine all the data, using all the relevant resources, to see what we can learn from this terrible tragedy. I can tell my hon. Friend that a 30 mph limit had been in operation for all vehicles throughout the night, in an effort by the police to prevent such an accident.
Mr. George Gardiner: How regularly is this section of the M25 vulnerable to fog, and has it any previous record of accidents as a result of fog? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the lighting arrangements along substantial sections of this motorway?
Mrs. Chalker: I cannot tell my hon. Friend how regularly fog will fall on any section of the motorway. To my knowledge, there have been no major accidents on this stretch of motorway, but I shall check and write to him about that. Motorway lighting, which may be helpful in some cases, is not necessarily helpful in fog; it depends
910
on the height of the fog. I cannot say that the lack of lighting at the point of the accident was necessarily unhelpful until we know the prime cause of the original and subsequent crashes.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the hon. Lady undertake to look into speed restrictions and their observance on motorways? Does not this accident show the Department of Transport's wisdom in resisting the pressure to increase the speed limit from 70 to 80 mph? The public do not generally understand that an amber flashing light warning of the necessity for a reduction in speed is only a recommended limit. Will the hon. Lady try to ensure that the law is changed to make that limit enforceable?
Mrs. Chalker: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I thank him for his comment on the Government's common sense in retaining the 70 mph speed limit in good weather conditions. I am aware that the amber flashing lights are switched on by the police only when they believe that speed should be reduced to the level shown on the matrix signals. All drivers should heed that warning. In this case it was 30 mph, but it may be even less. Drivers should seek, not only to slow down, but to keep a sensible distance from and as far behind the vehicle in front as possible, so that they have room to pull up in bad weather conditions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look fully at all the evidence in the case.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I thank my hon. Friend for making a statement on this tragic accident. It gives the House the opportunity to express our condolences to all the victims. I support what she has said, but will she re-emphasise that on the motorways each driver depends for his life and that of others on the responsible driving of other people? It is only by keeping a safe distance and driving at speeds which suit the weather conditions at the time that safety can be increased and ensured. Too fast and too close is all too often the cause of this kind of tragedy.
Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He is right in the guidance that he gives. I would add that every driver should consider whether it is necessary to go onto the road in bad conditions, and, if so, to ensure that all his lights are in safe and working order and well cleaned so that he may be seen as well as see others. I recommend all motorists to look at paragraph 50 of the "Highway Code" entitled "The Fog Code", which contains sensible advice.
Dr. John Marek: I do not wish to prejudge the cause of the accident, but will the Minister accept that many such accidents are caused by motorists going too fast? Will she urge the police to crack down on these law-breakers, especially those who travel at more than 70 mph?
Mrs. Chalker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not yet know the cause of the accident, but there is no doubt that to drive faster than is safe in bad weather conditions, or in any other conditions, is motorway madness, as it has been dubbed. I very much hope that motorists will learn from this terrible tragedy that, whatever the weather conditions, they should obey the law, which lays down a maximum of 70 mph in good weather conditions.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my hon. Friend consider the design of this motorway, about which she will remember I have had extensive correspondence with her? The problem is as much that of a traffic jam building up eastwards for many miles as anything else, as it is impossible to leave the motorway for a distance of about 20 miles. If there were only an interchange capability where the motorway meets the A21, many hundreds of drivers could have been eased out of the traffic jam which caused so much chaos for so many hours.
Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that any change in the distance between junctions would have made any difference to this tragic accident. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but if drivers would obey the "Highway Code" and take notice of police advice we would not be dealing with a private notice question about a tragedy of the sort that took place this morning.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, will she seek the consent of the House to give the amber lights the full force of law?
Mrs. Chalker: As I said to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I shall be examining the matter.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The whole House will join the Minister in sending condolences to the unfortunate relatives of those who have been killed and injured. Will she consider closely the history of the lighting along this stretch of motorway, where several accidents have occurred, as there may be some connection between accidents and the lack of lighting? Will she bear in mind that there is no point in giving advice to motorists if it is constantly ignored? Will she satisfy herself that the police can impose restrictions where motorists consistently break the speed limit that is imposed in bad conditions?
Finally, will she tell the Secretaries of State for Social Services and the Home Department that it is not only on occasions such as this that we should remember the worth of the emergency services? The ambulance, fire and police services are increasingly under attack while doing their jobs. They need the support of a proper budget and the ability to provide proper cover at all times.
Mrs. Chalker: On the information so far given to me, I am content that the police will impose all necessary restrictions on a motorway when this is necessary. I am considering lighting on motorways. I cannot say that the absence of lighting was necessarily a good or bad thing in this instance.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will note what the hon. Lady said about the emergency services. I know of no circumstances where our emergency services have been anything but first class. They have been on the spot immediately. That should be said, whatever the political background to the hon. Lady's question.

Rate Support Grant (England)
3.43 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the rate support grant settlement in England for 1985–86.
In my statement to the House on 24 July I set out my proposals for the main elements of the rate support grant settlement for next year and listed the 18 authorities which I was designating for rate limitation. I have today laid before the House the main Rate Support Grant report for 1985–86 and I am sending rate-capped authorities notices advising them of the rate or precept limit proposed for them. Copies of all the material being sent to local authorities today are available in the Library and the Vote Office.
I have also laid today two Rate Support Grant supplementary reports. The third supplementary report for 1983–84 adjusts authorities' grant entitlements in the light of the latest information on outturn expenditure for the year. The second supplementary report for 1984–85 implements grant abatement for Liverpool city council, whose budget was received too late to be taken into account when I implemented grant abatement for all other authorities in July. Both reports also contain other technical adjustments to grant.
I now turn to the main report for next year. For 1985–86, for the first time, the Rates Act 1984 enables me to influence directly the spending levels of the worst overspenders by imposing limits on their rates. As we promised throughout the passage of the Rates Bill in Parliament, this means that rate limitation will benefit not only the ratepayers of the selected authorities but low-spending authorities, since I am no longer obliged to ask them to make cuts because of the excesses of the high-spending minority.
I have decided to confirm the targets that I proposed in July with two important changes. The first allows most low-spending authorities an increase over this year's budgets of 4·5 per cent. instead of the 4·25 per cent. I previously announced. This reflects the slight increase in the forecast inflation rate over the period. For the first time, targets for the lowest spenders imply spending increases in line with inflation, or, in other words, no further cuts in real terms, the second change relates to a particular group among those low spenders — namely, authorities such as Berkshire budgeting this year to spend not only below grant-related expenditure but at or very close to target. They will be allowed a further relaxation of targets so that they may increase spending by up to 4·625 per cent. —a little more than inflation—without incurring penalties. With these changes, the targets for low-spending authorities fulfil to the letter the undertakings that I gave to the House last January.
I have decided to confirm the stringent holdback tariff which I announced in July at the rate of 7p in the pound for the first percentage point of overspend, 8p for the second, and 9p for each point thereafter. I believe that it is only fair to match realistic targets with a strong incentive that they should be met. I propose, however, to continue to exempt from penalty increases in certain urban programme and civil defence expenditure and increases in expenditure on schemes jointly financed with health

913
authorities. Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £11·764 billion. That is slightly higher than the figure which I proposed in July. The grant percentage is 48·7 per cent.
Following consultation with local government, I have decided on some limited but important changes to GRE assessments, affecting primarily the GREs for passenger transport support, highway maintenance, rate fund contributions to council housing and recreation. I have also increased the slope of the block grant poundage schedule. This increases the importance of spending in relation to GRE as a factor in grant entitlements and increases the marginal cost of spending about GRE for all authorities. Again, this helps low-spending authorities, since it gives more of the available grant to authorities spending at or below GRE.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: May we have a translation?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend may take it that it is good news because it gives more of the available grant to authorities spending at or below GRE.
In the light of this RSG settlement, I am issuing maximum rate or precept limits for the 18 selected authorities. Since July, when I announced expenditure levels for these authorities, it has been open to each of them to apply for a redetermination of its expenditure level at a higher level, but none has done so.
Rate or precept limits for 1985–86 are therefore based on the July expenditure levels. I am today sending out statutory notices informing each authority of the limit that is proposed for them. A list of these limits has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office. In calculating the rate or precept limits, I have taken account of the expenditure levels set and the authorities' block grant entitlements next year. I have had regard also to the level of financial reserves available to each authority, making assumptions as necessary.
Authorities now have until 15 January to comment on the rate or precept limits proposed and to draw my attention to any relevant information of which I may not be currently aware. Unless I have comments by 15 January, it will, in the absence of agreement, be necessary to move on to the next stage of asking the House to confirm the rate limits by affirmative order.
The proposed rate and precept limits that I am announcing today will be warmly welcomed by ratepayers in the areas concerned.
Mr. Tony Banks: Tell us what they are.
Mr. Jenkin: For 13 of the 18 authorities I have set rate or precept limits which are lower than the rates or precepts being charged this year. In the five remaining cases, however, the rate or precept will be lower than it would have been without rate-capping.
This year's average rate increase was the lowest for 10 years. If authorities budget to meet their targets next year, the average rate increase next year should be even lower. the first stage of rate limitation will at long last bring relief to ratepayers in the rate-capped areas. Moreover, rate-capping has allowed me to set much fairer targets for low-spending authorities. This settlement has meant increasing the provision for local authority current spending next year
914
by £820 million above the provision in last February's public expenditure White Paper. In present economic circumstances, this is a reasonable and fair settlement, and I commend it to the House.
Dr. John Cunningham: The House will be aware that if the Secretary of State had been bringing good news today, he would have announced it in language that we could all understand. Is not the irony of it the fact that he makes a statement in which he continues the trend which has currently, under this Administration, removed £9,000 million from rate support grant and placed increasing burdens on the ratepayer, when his colleagues in the Treasury are publishing a report which shows that, because of almost six years of Government inefficiency, almost £1 billion is being wasted through Government purchasing policy? That is far in excess of any alleged overspending by local authorities.
Is it not also significant that in the five pages of his statement, the Secretary of State never once mentioned the quality of services or the impact of the settlement on employment? The reality is that the provision for expenditure, despite the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, is 5 per cent. below what is required just to maintain existing services across the country. Have not the local authorities made that clear to the right hon. Gentleman in their discussions with him? Are not local authorities being aided for spending below the assessment of what is required of them for the proper provision of services?
How can the right hon. Gentleman believe that an increase of one eighth of 1 per cent. in targets—that is only for some authorities— will make up for the fact that the aggregate Exchequer grant next year is to be £110 million less in cash terms, which equates to £600 million in real terms? That is the measure of the reduction.
Will the Secretary of State say how many councils spending at target will receive less grant in real terms next year than they received in the present year, after taking into account his changes in transport supplementary grant? Will not most major spending councils receive less in real terms as a result of this settlement? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make his announcement about housing investment programmes and other capital allocations?
Is it not a fact that for 1 per cent. expenditure over target, authorities will be fined treble the amount taken away from them in the current year? That is, for every £1 in excess, they will have to pay £10 to the Treasury. Paradoxically, the Treasury has gained from authorities spending above target in the current financial year to the tune of over £500 million. That is how perverse the Government's financial arrangements are.
May I also ask the Secretary of State — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the Secretary of State insists on making two statements, one on rate support grant and one on the Rates Act, he can expect two lots of questions. He will recall saying on 24 July:
"Rate-capping does not therefore mean that services must be slashed. The spending limits that I am setting are reasonable and should be perfectly attainable".
Is he aware that one of the most impoverished boroughs in England is being asked for a cut of 28 per cent., the city of Leicester for a cut of between 15 and 16 per cent., the London borough of Brent more than 13 per cent., Merseyside almost 18 per cent., the London borough of

915
Haringey almost 14 per cent. and the city of Sheffield 12·5 per cent. Does he accept that that is the reality of the cuts in local authority budgets that he seeks?
It is idle to claim, as the Secretary of State does, that the derogation process somehow offers a way out. Is the Secretary of State aware that on derogation the Conservative leader of Portsmouth city council said:
"The thing about the redetermination is that it could come with strings attached that my council could not possibly accept".
That is the view of Conservatives in local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "One."]
Is the Secretary of State aware that in engineering rate decreases at the expense of the shire counties through lower grants being made available to them and at the expense of the Exchequer he has at last admitted what many Members and people outside have put to him—that because of the increase of more than £800 million in public expenditure that he has just announced under the rates Act he is spending £800 million to save £100 million?
May I say, finally—
Hon. Members: No.
Hon. Members: Yes.
Dr. Cunningham: Is not the Government's message to ratepayers the same old recipe—pay more and get less? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are increasingly realising that the Government are determined to prevent local democracy from working and to prevent elected councils from meeting their statutory obligations?
Mr. Jenkin: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman spoke a great deal of nonsense, but I will try to answer his specific questions.
Of course there is a reduction in the percentage of expenditure met by the aggregate Exchequer grant — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That continues the trend of many years, including the period of the Labour Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. In 1976 the percentage was 66 per cent.—
Mr. Robin Corbett: Here we go.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is going to hear the truth. The percentage fell to 61 per cent. under the Labour Government and it has continued to fall. Many people in local government, and the Association of County Councils in particular, support that development because they recognise that a higher proportion of expenditure being paid by ratepayers enhances local accountability.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) went on to ask how many councils spending at target would receive less grant. I can only advise him to look at the totals. There are a number of changes in grant-related expenditure assessment. A number of councils will receive more grant, but most, of course, will receive less because of the reduction in the percentage. That is perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman persists in confusing the real savings that will be made with the necessary adjustment in the public expenditure White Paper figures to achieve realistic targets.
The figure that we expect to save this year through the operation of rate-capping, based on what the rate-capped authorities have shown that they would otherwise have spent, is about £400 million. Because of that £400 million,
916
I have now been able to offer much fairer targets to the shire counties and to fulfil our undertakings of last January.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked when we expect to make a statement on capital spending. I know that authorities are anxious to know where they stand on capital, so that they can make their plans. I am sorry that we have not managed to make the announcements coincide, as they usually do, with the rate support grant settlement. I cannot yet give a firm date—we are still sorting out some of the details—but I hope to make an announcement quite shortly.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: If I understood my right hon. Friend's answer correctly as meaning that the Exchequer proportion of local authority expenditure is further to be reduced, how does that equate with the intention to reduce the rates burden? In particular, how does it equate with the effect on small businesses, on which the employment prospects of many people depend?
Mr. Jenkin: I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that in each of the past four years the proportion of expenditure met by the rate support grant has fallen and that in each of those four years the percentage increase in rates has fallen as well. There is no necessary connection between the level of rates that a local authority levies and the proportion of its expenditure met by grant. What matters is the level of an authority's spending. By increasing their accountability, we are bringing greater pressure on local authorities to keep their spending firmly under control and to keep their rates down with a lower increase each year. I confidently expect that to happen next year.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On the point referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), will the Secretary of State confirm that—leaving aside the cruel effect on many households —the extra burden on commerce and industry is £4,000 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Prime Minister was entitled to make the remarks that she made at Question Time today? Does he accept that the arrangements that he has proposed this afternoon will further increase unemployment, and that many areas cannot stand any further increase?
Mr. Jenkin: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. High rates cost jobs. In many of the areas of highest unemployment, the rate reductions made possible by rate-capping will help to reduce unemployment.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: What persuades my right hon. Friend that the present system of rates is a more just form of taxation than central Government taxation? If, like me, he is not satisfied that the rating system is a just form of taxation, why does he increase the percentage of local government expenditure borne by that unjust system?
Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on the rating system. I am sure that he will have taken comfort from my announcement in October that I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to undertake a series of thorough studies into the whole system of local government finance. I hope that that process will produce a fairer and more robust system

917
of financing local authorities and will enhance local authority accountability. I am sure that we would all welcome such an enhancement.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State believe that, by those figures, he can justify taking away over £2,000 million of grant from London in the past four years, because that has been the result? My borough has lost over £70 million in grant. Can the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that, on the figures now announced, if Southwark spends the maximum that it is allowed to spend under the rate-capping legislation, it will none the less be over £1·5 million over the target above which it will be penalised? Is that logical? If it is logical, where does that logic lead us?
Mr. Jenkin: The ratepayers of Southwark expect to benefit from a reduction of about 25 per cent. in their rates.
Mr. Hughes: Thirty-three per cent.
Mr. Jenkin: The figure on which the rate limit is based is 25·74 per cent. Had Southwark been free to spend in accordance with the intentions that it had disclosed, the domestic and business ratepayers of Southwark would have faced an increase of 30 per cent. rather than a cut of 25 per cent. The hon. Gentleman would do well to keep quiet about the matter for a time.
Mr. John Maples: My constituents will welcome the fact that the three authorities to which they pay rates have all been rate-capped. However, will my right hon. Friend explain the justification for continuing the target and penalty system for rate-capped authorities, and for continuing the grant calculation system under which the GLC and the Inner London education authority will continue to receive no rate support grant? Is that not extremely unfair on Londoners? Could not my right hon. Friend arrange matters so that rate-capped authorities receive their fair share of the rate support grant?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend must recognise that it would be wildly unfair as between rate-capped authorities and those which fell just below the criteria for rate-capping, to impose penalties on the latter for exceeding their targets but not on the former. That distinction would be completely indefensible.
On this basis, the GLC will recover a marginal entitlement to rate support grant. However, both the GLC and ILEA spend so much more than their grant-related expenditure assessment that they remove themselves almost completely from entitlement to rate support grant. Were that not so, there would be less grant for everyone else.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: How can the Secretary of State argue that local accountability is improved by reducing the rate support grant to 80 per cent. of expenditure when that reduction is accompanied by fictitious penalties, targets, GREs and rate-capping? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his diktat to Merseyside county council will mean the loss of 3,000 local government jobs and the abandonment of statutory obligations? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell Merseyside county council which laws it should break and which statutory obligations it should renege upon?
Mr. Jenkin: There is no question whatever that any local authority faced with a rate limit is likely even to approach the level at which it would be obliged to break its statutory obligations. The authorities concerned are all high-spending authorities, which spend at least 20 per cent.—
Mr. Greville Janner: On what?
Mr. Jenkin: —more than their GREA and at least 4 per cent. more than their target. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is quite wrong. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should study the precept limit that I have set for Merseyside. As the legislation requires, I have had to take account of the use of balances in the authority's accounts. Merseyside will still face a substantial precept increase next year, but it will be very much lower than it might have been. If the authority had continued to spend at the level at which it made clear earlier this year it intended to spend, the increase might have been as much as 100 per cent. Merseysiders must be grateful for small mercies.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals for target increases in those shire counties which have been most hard hit by targets after reacting responsibly and diligently to the Government's requests that they should reduce or contain expenditure. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that low rate increases in the shire counties are not the sole objective of a large proportion of the electorate and the ratepayers? People are equally concerned about the provision of adequate services. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the worst of all worlds is a high rate increase couplied with a cut in services?
Looking even further ahead than 1985–86, will my right hon. Friend give a commitment now to relax or preferably to abolish targets for shire counties in 1986–87?
Mr. Jenkin: I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend that the increase in target for Wiltshire, at 4·625 per cent., is the highest for any authority. I am grateful for his welcome recognition of the steps that we have taken to acknowledge the efforts made by low-spending authorities. I entirely agree that ratepayers are concerned about standards of services. One of the advantages of the present rate support grant settlement, compared with all those that have preceded it, is that any economies that an authority is able to make and any extra efficiencies that it is able to achieve, instead of being clawed back under the penalty system, may be spent on improving and enhancing the quality of services given to the ratepayers. That is a perfectly fair outcome of the consideration that we have given to the matter in the past two months.
Mr. Janner: Does the Secretary of State not understand that it is undemocratic, unreasonable and unfair to penalise a well-run city, such as Leicester, for building up reserves under Conservative and Labour Administrations, precisely as a good businesslike operation would do? How can he expect a reduction of 56·61 per cent. in rates to be absorbed without destroying and causing chaos in services which all citizens need?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously not studied the figure of Leicester city council's reserves, which, on the information available to us, were astronomically high. It is unreasonable that ratepayers should be expected to add to such reserves. On the

919
contrary, any sensible council with such massive reserves can reasonably be expected to charge ratepayers a lower rate. That is the basis on which we have approached the setting of a rate limit for Leicester. If Leicester believes that we have got it wrong, it has until 15 January to come and give us the true figures.
Mr. Janner: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jenkin: It is for the council to come in. I believe that the ratepayers of Leicester will cheer mightily at the prospect of a 56 per cent. reduction in rates.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed in areas which have suffered because of high-spending authorities elsewhere? Will Buckinghamshire be among the low spenders that will benefit from a permitted increase in target spending of 4·625 per cent.? Has my right hon. Friend been able to make any progress on the problem relating to Buckinghamshire's population?
Mr. Jenkin: The target increase for Buckinghamshire is not 4·625 per cent., but a full 4·5 per cent. because it has been budgeting this year marginally over the target. The highest increase in the target goes to authorities which have budgeted below GRE and target. I am well aware of the case of Buckinghamshire and several other authorities which have expanding populations. I am not convinced that the system works as unfairly in their case as they claim, but I am always prepared to listen to arguments about whether further adjustments and refinements of GREs are necessary to reflect that phenomenon.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many rate-capped authorities are planning to spend more rather than less next year? Does he agree that a sudden slamming on of severe cuts will produce chaos, confusion and real hardship for people who depend on local authority services and for local authority employees? Whatever the Secretary of State's argument with councillors might be, will he take steps to limit the impact of rate-capping on innocent bystanders who are not involved in this battle?
Mr. Jenkin: The local authority is responsible for the level of its expenditure. I believe that many ratepayers in Greenwich will welcome an 18 per cent. cut in the rates. Greenwich is that London borough the expenditure and rates of which have increased among the fastest in the country. It has become a byword for extravagance. It is for the council to decide how to live within the level that we have set. I am sure that Greenwich ratepayers will welcome an 18·9 per cent. reduction in rates.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: By how much would the ILEA precept have increased next year without rate-capping? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that further reductions could be made to bring the ILEA target nearer to its GRE?
Mr. Jenkin: The proposals for the ILEA precept will result in a reduction of 7·25 per cent. ILEA has published for next year a bogus budget of what it would have liked to spend. If it spent that amount, there would be a 12 per cent. increase in the ILEA precept. My hon. Friend is right. ILEA is notoriously extravagant and can make savings which would enable it to come closer to the GRE and so begin to be entitled to rate support grant. Several proposals have been made by the Conservative minority on ILEA.
Mr. Guy Barnett: The Secretary of State referred several times in his statement to low-spending authorities. Is he aware that the average rate level in the London borough of Greenwich is the fourth lowest in inner London—way below that for Chelsea and Kensington and for Westminster? Is he aware that that is the case in spite of the fact that Greenwich has lost or had stolen by by the Government a larger—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State listen?—a larger proportion of its rate support grant than any other authority in Britain? Is he aware that his proposals will lead to the imminent loss of no fewer than 1,000 council jobs and a slashing of services to the elderly, the disabled and the poor? The Secretary of State's Audit Commission described those services as efficient and well run. Is the Secretary of State surprised that my constituents regard his attitude, and that of the Government, towards Greenwich as nothing short of unjust and vindictive?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Greenwich's rates have increased by 112 per cent. since 1981–82. It has a high GRE because it scores high on several of the inner-city deprivation indicators, and therefore its base entitlement to grant is fairly high. That is as it should be, but it does not absolve Greenwich from running services effectively and economically. I shall believe the hon. Gentleman's cries of woe when see Greenwich cutting out a lot of its nonsensical spending on advertising, police committees and the rest, rather than on services. By their works we shall know them. We shall watch carefully where Greenwich makes its savings.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take into account the fact that there is another statement and then an important debate. I shall take questions until 4.30 pm. I hope that, if hon. Members ask their questions briefly, I might be able to call them all.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a ratepayer in the Lambeth area, I am delighted at his tough approach towards high-spending authorities and at his decision to abolish the GLC? Is he further aware that, as a ratepayer in Warwickshire, I am rather less enchanted with the news that he has given us, although it is a move in the right direction? Will he give a pledge that well-run low-spending authorities will continue to be looked on with the greatest favour in view of sacrifices that they have made in the past?
Mr. Jenkin: I thorougly endorse what my hon. Friend said about Lambeth. I wonder whether he has noticed that Lambeth has decided that, for local authority tenants who owe more than £1,000 in rent arrears, for every £1 that the tenant pays off, he will be let off £4? I should have thought that the ratepayers of Lambeth would have something to say about that.
Mr. Jack Straw: Housing benefits.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is quite right to mention housing benefits. These tenants are able to pay their rents but are simply allowed to go month after month without paying them. That is a scandal, and Lambeth ought to be thoroughly ashamed of itself.
Warwickshire gets the full 4·5 per cent. increase in target this year. It budgeted marginally above target for the

921
current year and therefore qualifies for a 4·5 per cent. increase of next year's target over this year's budget. With regard to grant entitlement, Warwicksire loses probably less grant in percentage terms than many other counties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah—less."] Of course, it will lose some because we are clearly reducing the percentage of the aggregate Exchequer grant. That is in accordance with decisions taken by the Government and our predecessors.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that people came from all over the world to observe Sheffield's post-war housing take shape? Now in my constituency there is dilapidated and decayed housing, lengthy waiting lists and appalling repair problems. In view of his confirmed stringency and vindictiveness towards Sheffield, will he tell the House how far and on what timescale he expects to correct that regression?
Mr. Jenkin: I think that Sheffield should follow the example of some of its Labour-controlled neighbours and make arrangements for some housing to be modernised with the help and support of the private sector. The hon. Gentleman should look across the Pennines and see what has been going on in Salford, Oldham and other authorities there. They have achieved a substantial upgrading of the quality of life for the people who live there, and it is being done substantially at the cost of the private sector.
The ratepayers of Sheffield, who have been paying through the nose for years because of the extravagance of the council, will welcome the virtual rate standstill next year. It certainly would not have been so if Sheffield had been free to continue spending as it has been doing in recent years.
Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Governments tend to lose the confidence of people when they speak in a language which people cannot readily understand? Does he know of any system of local government finance in the Western world which is more confusing and confused than this one?
Mr. Jenkin: I shall send my hon. Friend, together with a number of hon. Members, what I hope will not unkindly be called "A child's guide to the rate support grant system".
Mr. Cormack indicated assent.
Mr. Jenkin: I share his concern about its complexity.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Has it been helpful to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Jenkin: Yes, it has been very helpful to me. It has helped me to understand the system, and I am not ashamed to admit it. I think that I now understand most of it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) will feel that it is a helpful step. It is important that people should understand the system, which is not as illogical as it is sometimes made out to be. Obviously it is complex, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government is studying its complexity.
Mr. Corbett: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the city of Birmingham we are presently discussing rate increases of up to 100 per cent. merely to stand still, not to carry out any of the policies on which we won control
922
of the council? In the light of his statement how does he propose that the first city outside the capital should deal with urban decay and a genuine crisis in housing?
Mr. Jenkin: Luckily for the present Labour-controlled authority of Birmingham, the previous administration budgeted economically. Birmingham is not spending in excess of its target and it is spending below its GRE. Birmingham will qualify for the 4·625 per cent. —the maximum increase in target. I recognise that Birmingham, as a major city, has financial problems, but they are not as serious as the hon. Gentleman tries to pretend.
Mr. Robin Squire: I welcome any increase in grant support for responsible authorities, such as Havering, but is my right hon. Friend aware that until we have a reformed system of local government finance —he has only recently announced the inquiry—many of us will be concerned about the ever-increasing reduction in the amounts met by the Government and the consequent increases now carried by an inadequate local rating system?
Mr. Jenkin: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's concern. When I spoke about the studies that are being undertaken, I made it clear that a central problem that we need to examine is the balance between central and local government of bearing the cost of local government services. Clearly one wishes to achieve maximum accountability of local authorities to those who enjoy their services for the discretionary spending which rests with them. That is one of the points at the heart of my right hon. Friend's study. We want to ensure that we achieve a better, more robust and defensible system.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Has not the Secretary of State shown that he has no understanding of local government in metropolitan areas, such as Greater Manchester? Will he explain to my constituents who poorer and fewer services, higher rates and increasing unemployment are in their interests?
Mr. Jenkin: Greater Manchester and Manchester city have both been fairly high-spending councils. They have not yet gone above the level that we designated this year for rate-capping. I have no doubt that both authorities can make significant savings without seriously impinging on the level of services, if they are prepared to budget hard and economically. The ratepayers of Manchester would welcome the level of reduction that such action would bring.
Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend accept my warm support for his statement that civil defence will not count in grant-related expenditure? Does he agree that the financing of old capital expenditure by local authorities should not prejudice the rate support grant, especially where it has led to greater prosperity? Is he aware that Harroate borough council will be affected considerably to its detriment by his statement?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he said, civil defence expenditure will be disregarded in line with what has happened in earlier years. Where authorities have in the past incurred large capital spending, run up large debts and therefore have interest charges, it would be extremely difficult to disregard those interest charges for the purpose of targets and block grants because they form part of each authority's expenditure. However, each

923
authority must manage its capital expenditure so that the revenue costs can be borne within the guidelines laid down by Parliament.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State recall, when he made his statement in the House on 24 July, that in my question about the alleged high spending of South Yorkshire county council I said that I had not received any letter of complaint about the rates levied by the council? In answer, he said that he had received many letters from ratepayers in South Yorkshire complaining about rates. I then wrote to his Department asking how many letters had been received from people in Rother Valley, and he wrote back that he had received none in the past nine months. Has he received any since 24 July?
Mr. Jenkin: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if South Yorkshire had spent at the level of the proposals which have been discussed within the council, the precept increase next year would have been more than 50 per cent. In those circumstances, we would have received a flood of complaints. As it is, South Yorkshire's precept will show a 2 per cent. reduction, which will be welcomed.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has my right hon. Friend taken a look at rate-capping authorities, such as Derbyshire, which think that shoving up rates as fast as possible is part of their duty to their ratepayers and whose services in essenial work, such as education, are worse than those of neighbouring local authorities, such as Nottinghamshire and Birmingham? Incidentally, in Birmingham the Tory council cut the rates twice, yet managed, to find £1 million this year to promote its services in advance of a local election. When can we expect my right hon. Friend's strong right arm to be fully recovered to put a stop to such practices?
Mr. Jenkin: Next May the ratepayers of Derbyshire will have their opportunity to pass judgment on the extravagance of Derbyshire county council. No doubt my hon. Friend will lend her considerable talents to the same end. We are giving urgent attention to the question of spending on advertising. It will also come within the purview of the abuses inquiry, on which I hope to make a statement to the House fairly soon. The huge sums of ratepayers' money which local authorities are spending on what is nothing more or less than blatant political propoganda are an almighty scandal and cause great outrage among many ratepayers who, for the information of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), write to me about it frequently.
Mr. Derek Foster: Will the Secretary of State now admit that by continuing to reduce the grant he will either force up rates or slash services? Is he aware that in my area, which is one of the most deprived in the country, there is male unemployment of 26 per cent., and that we can afford neither? He is heaping burdens on the backs of those who are least able to bear them.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Obviously he did not hear what I said earlier. In each of the past four years when the grant has been reduced, the average increase in rates charged by local authorities has also decreased. This year, the increase in rates and precepts will be the lowest on average for the past 10 years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of the statement. Therefore, exceptionally, I shall allow another five minutes for questions, although I remind hon. Members that long questions lead to long answers.
Mr. Derek Spencer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Leicester city council is well able to comply with the limits that he has set, because it has so much money in the kitty that it has been able to indulge in a massive anti-rate-capping campaign?
Mr. Janner: So it should.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. and learned Friend is right. He will welcome the 56 per cent. rate-cap that this limit implies.
Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the Secretary of State is aware that he is forcing Labour-controlled local authorities into illegality if they are to defend services—
Mr. Robert Adley: Question.
Mr. Banks: I said, "Surely the Secretary of State is aware" that he is forcing such authorities into illegality. Does the right hon. Gentleman relish the confrontation that he will undoubtedly have with Labour-controlled authorities in London? If the GLC does not raise a precept, which I would recommend it so to do, does the Secretary of State plan to introduce a Bill to allow the boroughs to raise a precept next year?
Mr. Jenkin: I am glad to read in the press that several of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the GLC have made it abundantly clear that they will have nothing to do with illegal action and that they will urge the GLC to precept lawfully, as it must, do, by 10 March. If the GLC does not raise a lawful precept in line with the limit that I have announced today, or as may be approved by the House. it will be open to any London borough, which will incur extra costs because of the GLC's action, to take the necessary proceedings in the courts. I have no doubt that one or more will do so.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the residential and commercial ratepayers of London, especially those of the London borough of Enfield, will welcome his statement warmly? Were it not for rate-capping, what would the GLC precept have been?
Mr. Jenkin: Had the GLC been free to precept in line with what it was saying, it would have increased rates by at least 20 per cent., or from 36·5p in the pound to 43·8p in the pound. There is no reason why there should be a large increase in Enfield's rates next year, and Enfield ratepayers will benefit from the GLC rate standstill.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his statement is wholly consistant with the Government's policy of reducing the standard of living of those least able to look after themselves and of reducing jobs? Would it not have been more honest for him to have told us haw many jobs he expects will be lost and about the deterioration in local government services?
Mr. Jenkin: I expect the significant rate reductions in many of the highest-rated areas to be a considerable encouragement to the private sector to expand its

925
businesses and increase employment. The reverse has happened as rates have increased. There is no reason why jobs should not increase as rates decreased.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind the complexity of the child's guide which my right hon. Friend will circulate, may I ask him to produce a simpler child's guide? What are the implications of his statement for salary increases for local government workers, teachers and others?
Mr. Jenkin: We have made no assumption about that. The Treasury has estimated the GDP deflator for next year to be 4·5 per cent. That is why we have allowed an increase of at least 4·5 per cent. in the targets of low-spending authorities. I shall do my best to provide what my hon. Friend wishes. Perhaps a pre-natal guide would be the answer. It is a complex system, and if one is to do it justice and my hon. Friends are to understand it, the explanation must be reasonably full and, therefore, complex. My hon. Friend will probably find the paper that I have circulated to be interesting.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is not the Secretary of State disregarding absolutely areas with high unemployment, aging populations and the need for more, not fewer, local government services? When my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) said that the statement would mean the loss of 1,000 jobs, the "Hear, hears" that we heard from Conservative Members were the real voice of the Tory party.
Mr. Jenkin: The points made by the hon. Gentleman about the unemployed, the elderly and other deprived groups are taken into account, through the GREs, in assessing the grant to which an authority is entitled.
Mr. Loyden indicated dissent.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am telling him nothing less than the truth. If Liverpool city council is prepared to spend irrespective of its financial resources, it is bound to get into serious difficulties. I hope that even now the city council will see sense and not drag the city of Liverpool, as it seems bent on doing, closer to the brink of chaos.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, until the Conservative party takes control of Cleveland next May, there will be considerable rejoicing among Cleveland ratepayers about the action that he has taken? Not least among those rejoicing will be the members of Teesside chamber of commerce, which announced recently that if Cleveland county council continued to spend money as it has at least 3,000 jobs in the private sector would be lost during the next 12 months. He has saved those 3,000 jobs, and probably many more.
Mr. Jenkin: I understand that, but Cleveland is a high-spending shire county, and its target for next year will be lower than its budget this year. Cleveland must bring its expenditure firmly under control, or it will impose severe burdens on its ratepayers. However, the ratepayers will wreak their revenge next May.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call today, and will give them preference in the debate on the rate support grant settlement.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker—I am sure that I express the view of the House — for extending the time for questions on the statement.
Is it not disgraceful that the central message of the settlement—that grants to local authorities will be cut—had to be wrung from the Secretary of State in questions rather than being made clear by him in his statement? As he has now admitted that most authorities will receive less grant, does that not mean that rates in many Conservative-controlled areas will increase as a direct result of his cuts in rate support grant? Does that not mean in turn that the Secretary of State has failed completely to fulfil the solemn undertakings that he gave to the House on 23 January?
Is it not a fact that rates have increased twice as fast as the rate of inflation since 1979, and that the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils said that excessive increase in rates was entirely attributable to the Government's action?
When the Secretary of State publishes his child's guide, will he ensure that it explains that if Labour overspenders reduce their spending to the level dictated by grant-related expenditure assessments, it will lead to less for the Treasury and for Tory authorities? To give one example, if this year all authorities had spent at their GRE limit, Tory Norfolk would get not £90 million in grant but only £56 million, and its rates would be 20 per cent. higher.
The Secretary of State said that he would sort out some of the details on capital. Is it not true that he is having a major row with the Treasury about the use of capital receipts? When will that row end? Given the screams of private companies about the potential loss of building orders from the public sector, will not the cuts over which the Secretary of State is presiding lead to a loss of jobs not only in the public sector but in the private sector?
Mr. Jenkin: I cannot add to what I said earlier, in reply to the hon. Member for Copeland, about the capital statement. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is wrong. I gave the percentage of AEG in my statement. The hon. Gentleman knows that the grant this year was 51·9 per cent., so when I announced that it would be 48·7 per cent. for next year I obviously meant that there would be a reduction. To say that this was wrung from me is absurd.
The hon. Gentleman also has it wrong about the holdback, which is the penalty suffered by those authorities which exceed the targets that have been laid down. The money goes to the Treasury, but the Treasury has made it abundantly clear, both in public and in private, that it would far rather forfeit that holdback and have authorities spending in line with the Government's guidelines, which are approved by the House, than have the penalty money going into its coffers.
I do not accept the figures about which the hon. Gentleman talks. What would be set would depend entirely upon the circumstances. I do not expect a large number of authorities spending well above GREA to come down to GREA overnight. Of course they could not do that.

National Union of Mineworkers (Sequestrators)
4.40 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement concerning the indemnity that I gave, on behalf of the Government, to the sequestrators of the assets of the National Union of Mineworkers.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Why?
The Attorney-General: As the House will know, on 28 September this year, Mr. Justice Nicholls gave judgment on an application that had been made in an action by two working miners, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Foulstone, against the NUM. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Nicholls restrained the NUM from, among other things, describing the strike in the Yorkshire area as official, as it had not been called in accordance with the rules of the NUM.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes it was—under rule 41.
The Attorney-General: Despite that order, and in full knowledge of it—
Mr. Barron: This is sub judice.
The Attorney-General: It cannot be sub judice — [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Attorney-General is only just beginning to make his statement. If hon. Members are patient, they may be called to question him.
The Attorney-General: Despite that order, and in full knowledge of it, the national executive committee of the NUM and its senior officials made statements that affirmed the strike as official. This was a deliberate contempt by the union and on 10 October, Mr. Justice Nicholls fined the union £200,000 and ordered the fine to be paid within 14 days.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, if a matter is before the courts, it is sub judice. Is the Attorney-General correct to speak on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this matter is not before the courts.
Mr. Barron: It is before the courts.
The Attorney-General rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Attorney-General is not talking about the judgment. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that he is the Law Officer.
The Attorney-General: I am citing a matter of record of the court.
This was a deliberate contempt of court by the union and, on 10 October, Mr. Justice Nicholls fined the union £200,000 and ordered the fine to be paid within 14 days. He made it clear that if the fine were not paid, the union risked having its assets sequestrated. In imposing the fine, the judge said:
"A great and powerful trade union, with a large membership affected by the court orders in question, has decided to regard itself as above the law, and to make this plain repeatedly, emphatically and publicly on a nationwide basis."
928
The fine was not paid within 14 days and Mr. Justice Nicholls therefore appointed sequestrators, as he had warned the union that he would, on 26 October. The sequestrators accordingly set about taking possession of the assets of the union. However, by about 11 November, they had been able to seize assets only to the value of some £8,500. The vast majority of the remaining assets of the union, amounting to many millions of pounds, had apparently been transferred by the union to banks in various countries abroad, apparently in a deliberate attempt to put them out of reach of the court.
Mr. Skinner: Why not? Your lot do it all the time. There are gangs of them on the Tory Benches sending money abroad.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Attorney-General: The sequestrators, as was their duty—
Mr. Skinner: Have you got any?
The Attorney-General: The sequestrators, as was their duty, took steps in the countries in question to obtain possession of the funds that had been spirited away, and in particular instituted proceedings in the High Court in Dublin where they had traced a substantial deposit of funds. For the purposes of these proceedings, it seemed likely that the sequestrators might be required to incur considerable financial liability themselves, including having to give a financial—[Interruption.] Oh, do shut up.
Hon. Members: Order!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Attorney-General was referring to me. It would be helpful to the House if the Attorney-General could complete his statement, as hon. Gentlemen would then have an opportunity to question him. Interruptions from a sedentary position delay the proceedings.
Mr. Martin Flannery: He is barracking the audience from the rostrum.
The Attorney-General: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I was not intending to refer to you, and I regret what I said. Sometimes, the temptation is difficult to resist.
In those circumstances, I understand that the sequestrators inquired — [Interruption.] This is really quite important. I have been asked particularly to come to the House and make a statement, and I hope the House will let me finish it.
In these circumstances, I understand that the sequestrators inquired from the High Court in this country whether this potential liability could be covered by funds at the disposal of the court. They were told that there were no funds available to the court for that purpose. There was no communication at any time between Mr. Justice Nicholls and my Department.
When I learned of this situation, it seemed to me to be contrary to the public interest to allow the risk of the sequestration being frustrated in this way. On the one hand, it was not right to expect sequestrators to incur this increasing substantial financial liability themselves, even though, at the end of the day, they could look for reimbursement out of the union funds. On the other hand. it was totally unacceptable that the order of the court, made following the non-payment of a fine imposed for

929
deliberate contempt of court, should be defeated by the union's tactics of transferring its assets abroad and keeping them abroad. I therefore sought and obtained authority to give the sequestrators, on behalf of the Government, an undertaking to indemnify them against the costs and expenses that were reasonably and properly incurred by them in carrying out their duties in pursuance of their appointment by the court. In the knowledge that that undertaking is available, they are now pursuing actions in various jurisdictions abroad to recover the assets which were surreptitiously removed from this country. The contempt of court committed by the NUM will therefore be punished and the law will be properly upheld.
Mr. John Morris: I thank the Attorney-General for responding to the Opposition's request for a statement. However, would it not have been better for him to volunteer the information himself, rather than entrusting the matter to the press spokesman at No. 10, presumably after he had been briefed on the law by the Attorney-General's Office? Given the Attorney-General's frequent incantations about his independence, does not this politically incestuous handling of the issue dent his claim more than a little, as his high office is not seen to be independent?
What is the Attorney-General's power under common law to give this indemnity? As the common law is developed through precedents, what precedents are there for this indemnity? As a matter of policy, have the Government decided to reinforce the law of contempt? What evidence was there of the risk of the public interest being frustrated, as the senior partner of Price Waterhouse and Co. is quoted on the tape as saying that the firm did not ask for this help, and it was unsolicited? As Price Waterhouse did not ask for the indemnity, does intend to use it, does not the Attorney-General feel that a hypothetical, or even real, need to protect the courts is outweighed by the disadvantages of his being seen to be intervening in civil litigation? Whatever his motives, is not the cherished impression of the independence of his high office tarnished?
The Attorney-General: I find it absolutely astonishing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is one of Her Majesty's counsel and sits from time to time as a recorder, does not seek from the Dispatch Box to support the enforcement of a High Court order.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had read the statement that I made to the House with the care that I should expect of him, he would have appreciated that the purpose is to ensure that the law is upheld and for the High Court's orders to be successfully carried out. By that I mean that the orders of the court should not be frustrated. We heard not a single word about that from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) again at the end.
Mr. Derek Spencer: Is it not a principle of the common law that where there is a grievance there should be an effective remedy? Would it
930
not be a blot on the fair face of British justice if a plaintiff were debarred through lack of means from effectively obtaining this remedy?
The Attorney-General: I would always agree with that proposition, but the sequestration was not ordered to enforce the judgment in favour of one of the parties to the action. It was ordered following the non-payment of a fine imposed for deliberate contempt of court by the National Union of Mineworkers. Not only did the NUM make it clear that it would not obey the court's order, but it tried to defeat the order by transferring assets abroad.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Has this ever been done before? Is this an innovation which seems to many to have occurred, not because of the honour of the Attorney-General, which I respect, but because the Government are involved in the dispute? That is the impression in the country. I repeat the question: Is this the first time that this has been done? Is it not being done because the Government are heavily involved in the mining dispute?
The Attorney-General: This is the first time that it has been done. My researches show that this is the first time that when an order for sequestration has been made—[Interruption.] Such an order is made only when the court is satisfied that the person against whom the order is made has the funds to satisfy it. It is known that as long ago as last March the NUM had taken the money out of the country.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Do not the Law Officers of the Crown have a duty to the Crown to ensure that orders made by Her Majesty's judges on behalf of the Crown are not frustrated because those who are instructed by the court to carry out those orders do not have the means to do so? Is not the precedent the fact that never before has any body such as the NUM sought so perniciously to frustrate the workings of the common law of England?
The Attorney-General: With respect, I agree. It is important to remember that the sequestrators went back to Mr. Justice Nicholls and spoke of the difficulties they were having in being required either to find a bond or to give a personal undertaking about any damages that might be awarded against them in the action in Dublin if that action failed. They were not doing this for fun. They had been asked by the court to carry out this onerous duty. One can understand why they went to the court to seek assistance and to find out whether any funds could indemnify or guarantee them against the ever-increasing costs. The judge said that no funds were available which he could direct to be awarded to them.
Mr. Barron: They said that they did not want the money.
The Attorney-General: I am speaking of how the indemnity came about. After that, there was a real risk that the sequestrators, Price Waterhouse, might withdraw—[Interruption.] They have said only that they did not seek funds from me. They sought assistance from the court and the court was unable to give it. I, as the guardian of the public interest, have no alternative but to give it.
Mr. Roy Mason: But is the Attorney-General not aware that, by paying the hounds after the NUM's money, the Government are directly participating in the strike because they are trying to cripple

931
the union financially? Does he agree that this is an act without parallel and that it should now be stopped? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that in the end the Government and those hounds whom he is paying will not pay the cost because the Government will force it from the miners who will pay in the end?
The Attorney-General: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard and respect, should fail to make the distinction between the Government and the courts.
Mr. Mason: The Government are directly involved.
The Attorney-General: Everything that has happened, from the first action—brought by two working miners, not by the Government—to the injunction to the union and the executive that they should not call the strike official, to the imposing of the fine of £200,000 and to the entry of the sequestrators, has nothing to do with the Government. They have been carried out by an independent High Court judge. — [Interruption]. The only thing that I have done—it is so simple—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is simple all right."]—and so self-evident — is that I have said that if the sequestrators were unable to go on because they were not in funds, the Government would indemnify them. That was done so that the court's orders would not be frustrated.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the contempt by the NUM leadership strikes at the very root of the rule of law? Does he agree that, if such contempt is allowed to continue, it will undermine the basis on which our society exists and that his action in providing an indemnity will be widely welcomed throughout the country, since he has correctly identified a matter of great national interest?
The Attorney-General: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Attorney-General accept that there is a fine dividing line between the province of the judiciary and the province of the Executive? Is he aware that it appears to many people that such a blatant act by the Attorney-General oversteps that line? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he sought authority to give the indemnity. From who did he seek that authority? Were the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members involved in giving that authority?
The Attorney-General: I consulted relevant Ministers. That is all that I shall say about that. It is important to remember—[Interruption]—that there are two alternatives. One was that the sequestrators did not manage to obtain any money and had to give a financial undertaking to the court in Dublin—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a sensible and important point to the House.
Mr. Flannery: You are not doing it very well.
The Attorney-General: I shall start again. There were two alternatives. One was that the sequestrators would be advised by their lawyers that they could not accept an open-ended financial commitment in the case in Dublin and would therefore withdraw. The other alternative was for them to be supported, if possible by the court. They went to the court and were told that the court did not have the funds to do that. It seems so simple that an order of the High Court should be enforced. As guardian of the public interest, I was the only person who could do that.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the argument presented against his action is absolutely bogus, that the country will learn the attitude of Opposition Members, which is to uphold contempt for the rule of law, that the law would be an ass if the orders of the court could not be enforced and that the country is wholeheartedly behind my right hon. and learned Friend in taking seriously his position as the protector of the public interest in this matter?
The Attorney-General: That is put as well as, if not better than, I put it myself.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Some individuals—wrongly, in my opinion—have taken civil action against the NUM in the courts. What does that have to do with the Attorney-General?
The Attorney-General: Again, the hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point. I am not concerned in the matter and never have been. It has always been a case of two working miners against senior officials. The Government are neither concerned nor involved. There is no Government counsel or advice.
At the end of the day, the court made an order which was deliberately and flagrantly ignored. The court then imposed a fine of £200,000, which was ignored. The court then put in the sequestrators, who are liable to run out of money—
Mr. Flannery: What—Price Waterhouse?
The Attorney-General: There is no reason why Price Waterhouse should involve its partners in ever-increasing financial risk. That cannot be the responsibility of any ordinary commercial firm.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not a sad day for the Labour party when there is a deliberate contempt of court by a major union that regards itself as above the law and says so, but no Opposition Member is prepared to uphold or support the enforcement of the law?
The Attorney-General: After the intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), I sought to say that we would have liked to hear an Opposition Member say that he wanted the order of the court to be enforced. We have not heard that from one Opposition Member.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Attorney-General agree that, as this precedent has been created, any future plaintiff who finds—as many have over the years—that the defendant has moved his assets can now receive an indemnity from the Government while tracing takes place? Does not the right hon and learned Gentleman agree that this unique precedent has been created for purely political purposes?
The Attorney-General: I can just envisage the hon. Gentleman, who is a solicitor, seriously advising his clients in that way.
Hon. Members: You have done it.
Mr. Tony Blair: Assuming that the Attorney-General has much unprecedented power, is it not the case that he has had that power for centuries? Have there not been cases of contempt involving sequestration over the centuries? Why has he chosen to use this power now, in this particular case and at this particular lime? Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer

933
that question to avoid the charge that he has acted not as an officer of the Crown but as a servant of the Government?
The Attorney-General: Sequestration can apply in a number of cases. It can be applied for on behalf of one party to an action who has succeeded against the other party. But this is sequestration not on behalf of either of the two plaintiffs, but because it is a contempt of court and a fine was imposed by the court. It would not go to the benefit of either of the plaintiffs. It is an attempt by the sequestrators to enforce the order of the court. There was a real likelihood that that order would be frustrated—
Mr. Tony Banks: That is the court's province, not yours.
The Attorney-General: In answer to that I must tell the House that the court was powerless because it had no funds.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his explanation is anything but satisfactory? Indeed, he shot himself in the foot two or three times. A serious aspect of the matter is that his legal impartiality is now under question. How can he tell the House that, since the order was imposed by the courts, Price Waterhouse could not fund the carrying out of the duty placed on it by the courts? Indeed, suggesting that is, to some extent, a slander on Price Waterhouse, which can easily afford the funds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the money will be obtained and the miners will have to pay for all the legal proceedings. Therefore, his statement is most unsatisfactory.
The Attorney-General: The problem is that, if someone is determined to approach the matter with such prejudice — in the way that the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated—there is no point in my seeking to make him see the ordinary, straightforward, honest approach that needs to be taken. I, as guardian of the public interest, have a duty to ensure that the orders of the courts are enforced.
Sir Ian Percival: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the vast majority of people in this country will fully understand the very clear explanation that he has given for his actions—
Mr. Flannery: Speak for yourself.
Sir Ian Percival: The people will have great respect for my right hon. and learned Friend's courage in taking his action and will share the view that it is a sad day when not a single voice is heard from the Opposition Benches upholding the rule of law. Will they not see it for what it is — an attempt by the Opposition to make cheap political capital out of my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to ensure that the rule of law prevails?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That was the reason—and the only reason—that I granted the indemnity.
Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Attorney-General is the protector of the public interest, where in law does he have the right to involve political Ministers in advice on and discussions about such an extremely sensitive matter?
The Attorney-General: It is not a matter of whether someone is to be prosecuted, where the law imposes a single duty upon me, but with a right — as Lord Shawcross said clearly in 1946 —to consult, although not to be bound by advice. This is an entirely different position. There was a risk that the law would be frustrated. I therefore consulted certain Ministers and drew to their attention what had happened, especially in Dublin, and gave advice on what I thought was the proper course to adopt, and in the end was authorised to grant indemnity.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that this House has the responsibility of Supply. Will he tell us under which Vote he has made these moneys available?
The Attorney-General: That is entirely a matter for the Treasury. The necessary documents were laid before the House yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is clearly contrary to the public interest that the NUM should defeat the court's orders by salting away money outside the jurisdiction? Does he further agree that he is doing no more than his public duty in granting the indemnity? Is it not almost certainly in the interests of the ordinary miners within the NUM that the money is brought back into this country with all possible speed?
The Attorney-General: That appears to be the view of the judge who ordered the appointment of a receiver. The House must realise—however unpalatable it may be to Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who never stops intervening from a sedentary position — that the courts are the Crown courts and that the pubic interest requires that their orders should not be defied.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Attorney-General aware that it is absolutely right that the sequestrators should be enabled to carry out their job, but as the High Court has made this judgment, is it not right that it should will the means to carry out that judgment? If it cannot do so, will the Attorney-General make a statement about the situation and look into the possibility of finding the means for its judgment to be carried out? If there was no consultation between the judge and the Attorney-General, could the Attorney-General tell the House from whom he understood that Price Waterhouse had approached the court?
The Attorney-General: As for willing the means—that is the reason why the sequestrators went back to Mr. Justice Nicholls—it was hoped that he would have the means. But he does not. The High Court has the means to pay witnesses, and small items like that, but not to provide the sort of funds that might be necessary in this case. As for the information which was obtained, it was obtained partly from the registrar as a result of inquiry and partly from the newspapers, because the Dublin case was quite widely reported. I am not sure whether Clifford Turner, the solicitors, provided information.
Mr. Barron: May I thank the Attorney-General for at least being honest enough to admit to the House that the action which he has supposedly taken was not asked for by the sequestrators? Would it not be more truthful if he went on to say that the person who brought the action to

935
bear was the very person from whose office Mr. Bernard Ingham yesterday gave a press conference before this House knew anything about it—namely, the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister? That is where the political involvement relating to this court action came from. It would be more honest for the Attorney-General to stand up and admit that to this House than to try to hide behind this obnoxious way of saying in effect that he knew that he had to pay it but that nobody had asked for it to be paid.
The Attorney-General: The entire initiative came when the matters were put before me.
Mr. Tony Banks: By whom?
The Attorney-General: Nothing came from No. 10. [Interruption.] I am speaking of the time when I first looked into the matter and the matters were put before me. As a result, I consulted certain colleagues, informed them of the position and obtained the authority to give the indemnity about which I have told the House.
Mr. Redmond: Will you confirm that by your actions you are seeking to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not me.
Mr. Redmond: Will the Attorney-General confirm that, by the actions which have been taken, he is seeking to influence matters which are now before the courts? Will the Attorney-General be honest enough to tell the House when this idea first entered his head and who put it there?
The Attorney-General: The matter was put before me within 48 hours, if not a day, of the failure of the sequestrators to persuade the judge to will the means, to use the words of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), because he did not have any means that he could will. It was thereafter, as a result of further inquiries, that I realised that there was an appreciable risk that the sequestrators might say that they could not go on.
Mr. Stanley Orme: How did you know?
The Attorney-General: I spoke to them.
Mr. Orme: They did not answer.
The Attorney-General: After I had obtained the authority, I spoke to the sequestrators and was told that in their own minds they had set a limit beyond which they would not go. They had not reached the limit, but they were not far from it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the matter was as simple as the Attorney-General keeps saying, why is it that nobody else who has held his office from either party, for very many years, has discovered this simple way of dealing with matters? My impression is that the Attorney-General has been incapable of explaining the matter simply to the House. In fact, he has had a tottering time. The Attorney-General ought to know that the sequestrators could get hold of £200,000 quite easily, because £200,000 is to be found in those areas where miners are working. That money has not gone to the national office. If the sequestrators wanted to get their hands on £200,000 they would only have to go to Nottingham, Leicester, South Derby. All the money is there. Is not the truth of the matter that what the Attorney-General and in particular the Prime Minister are up to is using the judges, the police and all the echelons of the establishment in order to smash the
936
NUM? They hope that if they get away with that, the result. Will be that the rest of the trade union movement will fall like a pack of dominoes. It is a political decision from beginning to end and the country, thank God, is beginning to see just how much this lousy, rotten Government are involved.
The Attorney-General: I think that the country has now heard that broken record so much that they are fed up to the back teeth with it.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Attorney-General tell the House whether or not Price Waterhouse would have pulled out of their duties if he had not given this guarantee to them?
The Attorney-General: I cannot say that. All I can say is that there must be a limit to how much an ordinary firm is prepared, at the request of the court, to take on in a duty of this kind without being able in the end to be absolutely satisfied that it will recover its money. It is the partners' money and other people's money. It is not just the firm's money.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Attorney-General aware that there is as much sorrow as there is anger on this side of the House that the Government, having brought the police into disrepute, during the course of this dispute, now appear to be bringing the courts and the law into disrepute? Will the Attorney-General reflect on the political nature of the decision and now answer the specific question which was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on whether or not an important precedent is being set?
The Attorney-General: No precedent is being set, because I do not think there has ever been a case in which an order for sequestration has been made in which it was discovered, when the sequestrators went about their duties, that £8,250,000 had been squirreled out of the country and had to be obtained from places as far apart as Dublin, Luxembourg and Switzerland.
Mr. John Gorst: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are some rebellious and politically unmanageable elements to be found on his back Benches but that, when he upholds the due processes of law and facilitates their implementation, there is unequivocal support for what he does?
The Attorney-General: I shall not comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I am very grateful to him for what he said subsequently.
Mr. David Winnick: We know of the attitude of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) towards what happened at Grunwick, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that today he has lost a great deal of credibility? The reason is that he has acted as a pawn of the Government in trying to undermine the strike of the National Union of Mineworkers.
The Attorney-General: I could not have believed that not a single Member of the Opposition would be prepared to speak in support of the law.
Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that on the issue the Government, and in particular the Attorney-General, who has fought with his back to the wall, who has not properly answered a single question today and who has repeatedly

937
lost his temper, are impailed upon the horns of a dilemma because they have been asked questions this afternoon to which they have no answer? Will the Attorney-General tell us which law of this country allows the Attorney-General and the Government to come forward with moneys which could not be obtained by the two scabs who were getting money from business men all over the country, and which sets a precedent that he has been unable to explain to the House in any acceptable way? Is it not a fact that during the last half hour his personal credibility has been totally destroyed?
The Attorney-General: Every Minister has a power to give an indemnity in the right circumstances. I gave an indemnity for one reason only; that is, that I believe that the rule of law—
Mr. Flannery: Which law?
The Attorney-General: —and the orders of our courts should be enforced.
Mr. Flannery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has not answered.
Mr. Max Madden: Does not the Attorney-General now appreciate that for him to have acted in an unprecedented and highly politically partisan manner has compounded the grave dismay which he caused earlier this year when he seemed to be offering advice to judges in advance of court proceedings concerning the miners' dispute? Will he now confirm to the House that the Prime Minister was consulted and agreed before he gave the indemnity that he has given? Will he also confirm that the expenses of court receivers who have been appointed, including active members of the Conservative party, are also covered by the indemnity?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman knows that that last comment is ridiculous. I confirm that I consulted the appropriate Ministers; that includes a Treasury Minister because Treasury approval for the payment, if it were ever called up to be made, would have to be given. That is as far as I am prepared to go.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Attorney-General accept that Price Waterhouse received special treatment? Is that treatment now to be the normal course of events in similar cases?
The Attorney-General: I have said many times to the House that, despite constant references to similar cases, this is a unique case so far as the NUM is concerned. It is a unique case, in which the NUM has deliberately sought to put beyond the reach of the courts over £8 million. That is unique.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Attorney-General and several of his hon. Friends seem to be suggesting that somehow the NUM has acted illegally in moving money abroad. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that that money was moved abroad lawfully largely because the Government removed exchange controls? If those exchange controls had not been removed, the money could not have been shifted. As that was the Government's action, would it not be more appropriate for the Conservative party, rather than the present Administration, to pay the sequestrators' expenses?
The Attorney-General: One of the problems is that the sequestrators' expenses have been grossly inflated by the money having been moved abroad because action has had to be taken in the Isle of Man, Dublin, Switzerland and Luxembourg in addition to the ordinary costs here. Therefore, that has amounted to a great deal of money. That is one of the reasons why it is a much higher figure than it otherwise would be.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: After the exchanges over the past 40 minutes, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the one fact which the Opposition appear to be determined to ignore is that the sequestrators were appointed by the court for the purpose of enforcing the order of the court? Is it not right that, if my right hon. and learned Friend did not support the court in that action, that would be an attack on the rule of law in Britain which hon. Members opposite might well come to regret?
The Attorney-General: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have sought to say that in a variety of words. I am grateful to him for the clear way in which he has expressed it.
Mr. John Morris: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he has failed to answer a single one of my questions, but instead sought to question my integrity? He may not be aware that on the Floor of the House in a debate in May, and on radio and television, I have repeatedly said that the law must be upheld and that whoever is in breach of it must be punished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to reflect on that and reconsider his comment.
Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the court is powerless? Mr. Justice Nicholls did not ask for his help and Price Waterhouse did not solicit his help. When he tells the House that there must be a limit for ordinary firms, what evidence is there for that and for the decision that he has taken? Will he be good enough to place that evidence in the Library?
Lastly, why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrogate to himself the decision on the gravity of the offence? Is that his role? Is that not for the courts themselves? Given that he has revealed that there is no precedent at all for this, now that he says that he is the guardian of the public interest, what precisely is his authority at common law for his decision?
The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why I say that the court is powerless. The judge made it clear that there was no way in which he could assist when Price Waterhouse sought assistance for its case in Dublin. I should have thought that a fine of £200,000 for a deliberate contempt of court was in anybody's eyes a serious offence. Nothing more needs to be said about that. [Interruption.] It is a matter of opinion. Hon. Members do not have to agree with me. I happen to think that it a serious offence.
I have said many times that there is no precedent of which I know in which, when an order for sequestration has been made, it has been found that a large sum of money, in excess of £8 million, has been put, so far as possible, beyond the reach of the courts. The authority for the indemnity is the authority under which any Minister has the right to grant one as long as it is put before the House at the necessary time, as this one was.

Statements by Ministers
5.27 pm
Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week at Scottish Question Time there was considerable debate on teachers' pay. That matter has been raised on a number of occasions since and there is to be an Adjournment debate tonight. I am advised that at approximately 4.10 pm the Secretary of State for Scotland put in the Library the answer to a written question from the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I am equally advised that he held a briefing beforehand with the Lobby to advise it of his written answer. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you do not have the power to make a Minister make a statement, but is it courteous to the House and within the procedures of the House for a Secretary of State to discuss that matter with the press before his written answer is available to hon. Members in the Library?
Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reply that the Secretary of State gave and placed in the Library is not worth wasting the time of the House on. The whole thing is a lot of rubbish. It is not worth wasting the time of the House by making a statement.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I first dissent from the view taken by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)? The answer given by the Secretary of State for Scotland was full of ambiguities and could be considered by many to be a bit of a con trick. Nevertheless, it would have been advantageous for Scotland if that answer had been given in the House so that we could have put many important questions to him. Last week, Scots Members were placed in a difficult situation, as indeed you were, Mr. Speaker, by the lack of a statement. Something must be done in future to make the Secretary of State for Scotland answer for his important decisions to Members representing Scottish constituencies.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Ministers of the Crown are constantly and continuously making fairly important decisions that will involve widespread disruption in classrooms in Scotland in the form of written answers rather than statements on which they can be cross-examined, it must surely be within the power of the Chair to protect the rights of Back Benchers and somehow to bring influence to bear to stop that practice in future.
Mr. Speaker: The House well knows my view. I stated it yesterday and I state it again today. The House of Commons should always be told before the press. If there is an embargo on those matters they should be held up until the statement has been made, if a statement is to be made.
940
Whether written answers are given is not a matter for me. There is an Adjournment debate tonight and no doubt those matters will be aired then.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: This is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that there is more than a little controversy over Stansted airport. I am not involved in any way, but I listen to what is going on and I know that representations have been made for statements to be made by the Government and for leave to table private notice questions, for example. However we shall not go into that because—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the point of order?"] Mr. Speaker decides whether there will be private notice questions.
We understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are placed in a difficult and sensitive position. However, the Secretary of State for the Environment is involved in the Stansted issue. Apparently he has said that he is not having anything to do with the decision-making and that has been given to his No. 2, "Supergrass" — the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is reported that Mrs. Jenkin has said on behalf of her husband and for herself, "We do not want the airport here." I should like to know who will make the decision. I think that you should call the Secretary of State to account, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter on which I cannot, and perhaps should not, rule.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to your previous reply, Mr. Speaker. On previous occasions when I have raised with you the issue of the Secretary of State for Scotland making statements to the press before he has issued them to the House, you have said that you disapprove of the practice and that it should not happen. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? What sanction does the House have when the Secretary of State, in spite of your ruling, continues to flout the advice and continues to treat hon. Members with contempt?
Mr. Max Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. An important debate is to follow points of order and in fairness to those who wish to take part in it, I shall deal only with this issue. I shall take that course unless the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has something vital to raise with me. It is not a matter for me whether written answers are given or are not. If a written question is tabled, it will receive an answer. That cannot be a matter for me, and I cannot offer any advice on it.

Entry Certificates
Mr. Max Madden: I apologise for delaying the House, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to a point of order that I raised yesterday. I have made further inquiries since asking you yesterday about the procedures that the Government intended to pursue to implement a decision announced on 22 November to impose a charge for entry certificates. I have discovered that the imposition of the charge was implemented by statutory instrument on 22 November by the Foreign Office. As there is widespread concern about the legality of this procedure, it seems that the Government are guilty of sharp practice. I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker, on the remedies that are available to hon. Members and others who question the legality of the Government's decision, bearing in mind that the statutory instrument was introduced on the day that it was said by the Minister responsible that the charge was to be imposed.
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into that matter and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, Sir, I have a profound interest in these matters. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) involves many of my constituents and possibly dependent relatives overseas. For the first time in our history, we are charging Commonwealth citizens a certain sum for entry certificates—in other words, visas—when they have a lawful right to come here. This will be a controversial matter. I wish to tell the Leader of the House to think about the matter because I shall be raising it on Thursday during business questions and drawing attention to early-day motion No. 200.
[That this House requests a reconsideration of a proposal made on 22 November to introduce, for the first time, a charge for entry certificates for Commonwealth citizens; and points out that refusal of an entrance certificate, simply because the fee cannot be paid, would not be lawful under the Immigration Act 1971.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note because—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman should not raise with me today what he wishes to talk about on Thursday.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I take another point of order, I shall deal with the statutory instrument.

Entry Certificates

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

European Community Budgets
[Relevant Document: "Developments in the European Community, January—June 1984", Cmnd. 9348.]
5.35 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed with the main debate I seek your guidance on the main document that we shall be considering, which is Cmnd. 9348. I am sure that hon. Members who have studied the document will have found what appears to be a serious arithmetical error on the final page, which will place the House in total confusion in its approach to the debate.
One of the fundamental issues which I am sure will be debated is the trading balance. The figures set out in the final column tell us that exports of £3·6 billion and imports of £12·6 billion produce a balance of minus £3·9 billion. Obviously, that cannot be correct. I do not know the precise figures, but the trade balance and the consequent loss of jobs will be a fundamental issue in the debate. I appreciate that those in the Foreign Office are not always as good at sums as those in the Treasury, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to state the real figures. Alternatively, could we adjourn the debate until we know the real position?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to what appears to be a slight error. However, I am not very good at arithmetic either. Perhaps the best thing would be for the Government Front Bench to investigate the matter. I am sure that it will be dealt with during the debate. Perhaps we should now get on with the debate.
5.37 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8322/84, Preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1984; 8879/84, Letter of amendment to preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1984; the unnumbered document, Draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1984; Document No. 10222/84, European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 of the European Communities for 1984; the unnumbered document, Draft general budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1985; Documents Nos. 9482/84, Letter of amendment to preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1985; 10690/84, European Parliament's amendments and modifications to the Draft budget of the European Communities for 1985; 8454/84, Amended proposal for a Council decision on the Communities' system of Own Resources; 8445/84, Commission proposal for a Council regulation introducing reserve measures to cover requirements in 1985; 8514/84, Commission's communication on the budgetary requirements of the Community in 1984 and 1985; 5899/84, Amended proposal for a Council regulation amending the Financial Regulation of 21st December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities; and the unnumbered document, Budgetary discipline: common position of the Council of Ministers; and welcomes the agreement on budgetary discipline providing for the firm control of agricultural and other expenditure.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and some of his hon. Friends.
Mr. Rifkind: The debate takes place in the aftermath of the Dublin summit, where a number of important matters were considered by the Heads of Government. The Heads of Government discussed and endorsed the annual

943
economic report prepared by the Commission on economic development in the Community. I am sure that both sides of the House will be delighted that the Heads of Government endorsed the report, which showed that the growth expected in the United Kingdom was likely to be greater than that in any other European Community country in the forthcoming year.
It is of interest that the economic policy that was proposed and endorsed by the Heads of Government was one that emphasised the importance of keeping inflation low, controlling public expenditure and pursuing an economic policy very close to that of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way later to my hon. Friend. I ask him to be patient. I am dealing with matters that are of importance to the House. It was of significance that a summit which dealt with a wide range of issues was able positively to endorse an economic strategy which was identical in all important essentials to that of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am happy to agree with the Minister that an important document was placed before the Council. I draw his attention to the section on page 31 which observes that programmes of public investment should be strengthened, especially in countries where the construction industry is under-utilised. As one worker in four in Britain's construction industry is idle, how does he square that observation in the report, which he so warmly endorsed, with the simultaneous decision of the Government to lop £500 million off the construction investment?
Mr. Rifkind: That is because the main conclusion of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers observes that the overriding consideration must be to keep the maximum constraint on expenditure, to reduce it where possible and to concentrate available resources on the reduction of taxation.
I shall concentrate on budgetary discipline, but before doing so I shall make further comments on some of the important issues that were discussed at the Dublin summit. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the completion of the internal market. That is something to which the Government have given enormous importance in recent years. We were delighted when Lord Cockfield was given responsibility in the recent announcement by the President Elect of the Commission to take responsibility for that matter.
In the early 1950s the European Community decided to complete within 10 years the elimination of all tariff barriers within the Community. It succeeded in fulfilling that target. We hope that it will now be possible to achieve by 1990 the completion of the elimination of non-tariff barriers within the Community. That is a short, although not unreasonable, period, especially when we consider . that we are seeking to implement the commitments entered into by the Community when the original treaty was signed.
The proposed enlargement of the Community is important to the House and relevant to budgetary discipline. Enlargement is at a crucial stage and the United Kingdom has some strong views on the matter. The
944
Government have stated their great belief that it would be in the Community's interests to come to an early and successful conclusion on the current negotiations on enlargement, enabling Spain and Portugal to join the Community. A wide range of issues are involved, some of which are of less importance to the United Kingdom than to other countries. The negotiations on fruit and vegetables, olive oil and wine are more significant to existing Community members from the Mediterranean area, for whom the accession of Spain and Portugal will mean important competition, than they are to the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom considers other parts of the negotiations to be equally crucial; for example, the fisheries' negotiations, which are of particular interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have emphasised that the common fisheries policy, which was agreed only after many years of anxious negotiation, should not be jeopardised by the accession of a country with the largest fishing fleet in Europe. The Community has adopted a negotiating mandate with Spain, and we should insist on the Community protecting the interests of British fishermen and fishermen from other members of the existing Community. That aspect is crucial in the negotiations.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Bearing in mind that there are about 17,000 Spanish fishing vessels — more fishing vessels than Britain has fishermen—is it likely that the negotiations will result in a diminution of that Spanish fishing fleet in the years immediately following accession?
Mr. Rifkind: As I understand it, the bulk of the Spanish fishermen fish in various parts of the world in waters far from Europe. That results from bilateral arrangements between Spain and various other countries, primarily in the Third world. It is primarily for Spain to decide the future size of her fleet. We are determined to ensure that that fishing fleet does not pose a threat to the already precarious livelihood enjoyed by many fishermen in the United Kingdom and other existing member states.
Industrial tariffs are also important to the United Kingdom. We are all conscious of the fact that in recent years there has been a substantial disproportion between the tariff that must be met by British manufacturers on exports to Spain and the tariff enjoyed by Spain when exporting to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Budgen: For how long has this problem existed? How long will it be before the problem is resolved?
Mr. Rifkind: The problem has existed since the conclusion of the agreement in 1970 between Spain and the European Community, at a time when Spain's industrial structure, especially its vehicle industry, was much weaker and smaller than now. It is important and, indeed, essential, when considering the transitional arrangements on industrial tariffs which Spain will properly enjoy, that special attention is given to a form of accelerated reduction of the high tariffs on industry, of which the motor vehicle industry is perhaps the most important category for the United Kingdom. I assure the House that that aspect will pre-occupy the United Kingdom and other Community countries.
I have said that competition from Spanish and Portuguese fruit and vegetables, olive oil and wine is of

945
less direct significance to the United Kingdom, but we are concerned about the financial implications of accession. When the Community is beginning to control the agricultural expenditure of its northern members, it is essential that we should not agree to the accession of new Community members if that will create comparable problems for southern members of the Community. Recent agreements on olive oil and wine will help to safeguard the position.
Much of the discussion has concentrated on economic questions, but I emphasise that the United Kingdom remains convinced that the political dimension of assisting Spain and Portugal, which not long ago emerged from a dictatorial form of government, to entrench their new democratic institutions is important to Spain and Portugal and to western Europe as a whole.
Mr. Eric Forth: I understand, although I do not agree with, the Government's obsession with bringing Spain and Portugal into the Community. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that if we do not obtain satisfactory arrangements on fishing, trade and all the other matters which bear directly on United Kingdom interests we shall not agree to Spain coming into the EEC?
Mr. Rifkind: The Community has taken a long time to come to a decision about Spain, because the United Kingdom and certain other countries with a particular interest in fisheries and the other matters to which my hon. Friend referred have attached great importance to those issues. Having spent so many months reaching a satisfactory Community position, we have no intention of abandoning that stand in the subsequent discussions with Spain. The conclusions must be satisfactory to the interests of those affected by the common fisheries policy.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister is saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that the Government are satisfied with the conditions and that the conditions have now been met. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, if Spain and Portugal come into the Community, there will be no average increase in the cost of the common agricultural policy; in other words, that by bringing Spain and Portugal into the Community, their share of the cost of the agriculture policy will not lead to the cost of that policy overall becoming pro rata greater than it is at the moment?
I believe that the Government's policy was that they would not agree to an increase in Community own resources except in respect of policies which the United Kingdom wished to support. One of those policies concerned the accession of Spain and Portugal. The Government have justified no other policies in terms of an increase in own resources. May we take it as read that, if it is not agreed that Spain and Portugal should join the Community, there will be no requirement to increase own resources?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that I did not intend addressing the matter of own resources during this debate, because it goes beyond the pure question of enlargement. Enlargement is undoubtedly an important component in these discussions. We maintain that, because of the various reforms introduced at the present
946
time, the cost of the CAP will lead to agriculture representing a smaller share of Community expenditure, notwithstanding the enlargement of the Community.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend has made a profound philosophical point. He has said that by entering the Community the nature of the people in both Spain and Portugal will change and that they will have a continued interest in a particular form of internal government. My hon. Friend stated that as though it were a self-evident truth which any sensible person should understand immediately. Will he explain it a little further?
Mr. Rifkind: I did not put it in quite the way so helpfully suggested by my hon. Friend. Having assumed democratic institutions, the Spanish and Portuguese Governments — as did the Greek Government before them—believe it is important for the development of their democratic identity that they acquire membership of a community that is entirely democratic, in the sense hon. Members understand democracy, and consists entirely of parliamentary democracies.
We believe that the full integration of Spain and Portugal within the family of the democratic countries of western Europe will be assisted by their membership of the European Community. That is not just the British view. It is the view held by every Government within the Community as well as the Governments of the applicant countries. I accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that that does not necessarily make it the correct view, but it is the view that we hold, and as yet we have heard no convincing reasons to suggest otherwise.
I mentioned the political considerations a few moments ago. It is interesting to note that the country which recently suggested that it would deliberately delay the accession of Spain and Portugal if certain other conditions were not fulfilled was Greece, the most recent member of the Community. Its position has been influenced by its determination to obtain substantial extra resources through the system of what is referred to as the "integrated Mediterranean programmes".
The British Government's view on that is clear. With the other member states of the Community we have endorsed a policy which accepts that those countries which will be most directly affected by enlargement are entitled to some assistance through integrated Mediterranean programmes, but we have insisted that those programmes must be integrated into the structural funds which currently exist.
Mr. Budgen: What does that mean?
Mr. Rifkind: I mean the regional, social and other such funds. It is not acceptable to create a separate new fund for that purpose. We have also said that the sums that can be made available in the foreseeable future can only be modest, taking into account the financial pressures that exist on the Community as a whole.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister saying that in the view of Her Majesty's Government regional and social funds, for as far ahead as we can see, will be entirely cosmetic?
Mr. Rifkind: No, on the contrary. The regional and social funds already represent substantial sums, and all the Heads of Government have agreed that there should be a significant increase in the size of those funds.
Mr. Budgen: Why? We are reducing them.
Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that I have not suddenly announced a new statement of policy. My hon. Friends have been aware for some months that that is the position which has been agreed by the Community. If my hon. Friends are anxious to see agriculture represent a smaller and smaller share of Community expenditure, it is not unreasonable that other forms of expenditure should increase.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I must be allowed to continue. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to intervene in the debate.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I should prefer not to at this stage.
I come to another matter which relates to budgetary discipline. It is the supplementary finance that has been requested for the current year. The House will recall that on 10 July, when asked about the matter in the House, I said that the Government's view would be that only when we were satisfied that the likely overspend during the course of the current year had been reduced to the current minimum would we be prepared to consider whether, and if so to what extent, it was appropriate to produce supplementary finance to assist the Community.
That examination has not been cursory; it has been extremely rigorous. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has been fully involved with other Finance Ministers in the Community to ensure that those sums are reduced to the absolute minimum. As a result of their efforts the original sums proposed by the Commission have been reduced by more than half. We believe that they have now reached a level which is the irreducible minimum, given the obligations which the Community has under its existing rules.
We also said earlier this year that our attitude towards supplementary finance would depend upon two further conditions being satisfied. One was the payment of the refund to which the United Kingdom was entitled during the current year, and the House will be aware that that sum has now been released and been paid to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Budgen: We have paid for it.
Mr. Rifkind: We have not paid to receive the refund. My hon. Friend is wrong about that. The refund was provided for in the original budget, and through payments out of the original budget. The supplementary finance about which we are talking is not connected to the refund which the United Kingdom has already received. I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance on that.
The second matter to which hon. Members will be aware the Government attached considerable importance was satisfactory conclusions on budgetary discipline. I should like to deal with the conclusions on budgetary discipline which were endorsed by the Heads of Government at the Dublin summit.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before the Minister moves on to the disciplinary mechanism, can he
948
reassure us about the repayments of the 1984 reimbursable loan, which is the subject of Cmnd. 9395 and another procedure? Is there provision in the 1985 budget for the repayment of that loan? He may not be able to answer now, but perhaps he could arrange for an answer to be included in the reply to the debate. There is some disagreement about the liability for the loan and the authority under which any such loan is repayable.
Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has heard the question and will seek to respond to it in due course.
Mr. Robin Cook: I wish to ask a question about procedure, and it may give advance notice to the Economic Secretary. I understand that the final appeal in the case ex parte Smedley will not be heard until tomorrow and that there will be no judgment until Thursday. 'That will make it difficult for the Government to table an order for debate next week. In the event that the House cannot debate and therefore condescend on the order next week, may we have an assurance that no moneys will be paid to the EEC in advance of the House returning from the recess? Where does that leave the EEC budget, which runs out on 31 December?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that we do not know when the judgment in the case to which he has referred will be announced. I cannot anticipate the business for next week which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may wish to consider. It goes without saying that if we are required to receive the authority of the House before supplementary finance can be provided, until that authority has been obtained we cannot provide it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can accept that that is the position.
I shall return to the main subject which I wish to raise, which is budgetary discipline and the conclusions which were endorsed by the Heads of Government at the Dublin summit. We must study the background to the subject and realise that for most of the life of the Community there has been nothing that could properly be referred to as budgetary discipline. Over the years that the Community has operated, decisions have been taken on expenditure, and only once they have been reached has it been thought necessary to ensure that the revenue is available to provide for the resulting costs.
It was that provision which the United Kingdom Government first identified as being unacceptable and which we have striven over the past few years — successfully I believe — to persuade our fellow Community Governments to agree was unacceptable as a way in which the Community deals with its economic affairs.
The first important milestone was reached when the Community Heads of Government some months ago endorsed the principle that in future revenue should determine expenditure, and not the other way around. It was crucial that that principle be endorsed, because it was a denial of the Community's recent history. It was appropriate that that should be made clear.
The conclusions that were endorsed by the Heads of Government last week provide for a reference framework that will identify the Community's total expenditure in a given year, and, within that reference framework, provide that there should be a financial guideline which will control agricultural expenditure. It also provides that,

949
should there be growth in agricultural expenditure, that growth must be less than the growth in the own resources base of the Community as a whole. The effect of that when implemented will be that agriculture will increasingly represent a smaller and smaller share of total Community expenditure.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that among the budget discipline documents we see such phrases as "exceptional circumstances in article 2"; in article 5 "barring aberrant circumstances"; and in article 6 "amend the reference framework", and that those words can mean—as they usually do in European Community jargon—that while the Community starts out with good intentions, they are infinitely variable afterwards, depending upon those rather ill-defined circumstances?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend asks a perfectly reasonable question. I shall be coming to the points that he has raised. I have explained the general way in which it is proposed that budgetary discipline should apply.
Essentially, three criticisms have been levelled at the proposals. First, it has been suggested that as the proposals are not in the form of a regulation they are not legally enforceable and are thus of limited value. Secondly, it is argued that because decisions will be taken by a qualified majority United Kingdom interests may not be properly protected. Thirdly, there has been criticism of the provision for exceptional circumstances to alter decisions already reached. Those are reasonable concerns, and I intend to deal with each of them in turn. Before doing so, however, I wish to make two general points.
First, the United Kingdom objective has always been to ensure that Community expenditure is dealt with on more or less the same basis as national expenditure. In other words, we have never sought to suggest that there must be an absolute straitjacket on expenditure, but simply that Community expenditure should not be handled according to rules which no national Government would consider appropriate for their own national circumstances.
Secondly, we have been the initiators, as it were, of most of the concern about this in the Community and I freely accept that the position that we have reached is not perfect in every respect. If it had been left entirely to us, further improvements could have been made, and still could be made, to certain proposals to make budgetary discipline more effective. We see this as a dynamic process. [Interruption.] I wish to be completely honest with the House. We have never suggested that the solution was perfect. As the motion states, it provides
"for the firm control of agricultural and other expenditure."
That is the position to which we adhere. There may well be ways of making that control even more effective in years to come.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that under article 1 of this so-called strict budgetary discipline the Council of Ministers could agree by a majority to spend any amount that it wishes, without any limit at all? In other words, even if we think that the Council of Ministers is crazy and spending money like water, there is nothing to stop it deciding by a majority to spend double the amount that we consider necessary.
Mr. Rifkind: I said that I would deal with the specific criticisms, of which that is one. If my hon. Friend will also allow me to continue, he will have the answer to his question.
First, there was the criticism that the absence of a regulation meant that the proposals were not legally enforceable. If there were a regulation or a treaty amendment there could be no question but that the rules for budgetary discipline would be completely enforceable, but the opposite does not necessarily apply. The mere fact that there is not a regulation does not mean that the European Court would not find the rules to be enforceable.
Mr. Marlow: What is the disadvantage of a regulation? Why not make it a regulation, to be on the safe side?
Mr. Rifkind: For the United Kingdom there would be no disadvantage in a regulation. As I have said, there were proposals which we regarded as preferable. It is no secret that we should have preferred a regulation.
Sir Anthony Meyer (Clywd, North-West): Is it not a trifle ironic that those now pressing most strongly for enforceable regulations are always the first to demand that we retain a national veto to be used whenever we feel that we are being inconvenienced?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the paradox and inconsistency of some of the interventions.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Rifkind: No. I have been very generous about interventions. Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so perhaps they will keep their comments for their own contributions.
The Council of Ministers itself has identified these conclusions as binding upon it. Whether they are legally enforceable can be determined in the last resort by the European Court. We believe that they are binding, and all the Heads of Government have endorsed them as such. The European Commission, too, has accepted that it will be bound by them in its proposals to the Council.
Mr. Budgen: If all the other countries have the political will to curb excess agricultural expenditure, why did they not agree to a regulation?
Mr. Rifkind: The attractions of budgetary discipline were received by the various states with varying enthusiasm. Some Governments are less enthusiastic than others. Nevertheless, to the best of my recollection, when the Council of Ministers endorsed the proposals only two of the 10 states entered any reservation to the effect that they did not regard the conclusions as binding on the Council as a whole.
The second criticism, that the requirement for a qualified majority constitutes a major flaw in the proposals, does not hold water. First, it ignores the important fact that the Commission has said that it will regard itself as bound to put forward proposals consistent with the rules of budgetary discipline. Under article 149 of the treaty, when the Commission puts forward proposals a decision not to comply with them requires unanimity on the part of the Council. Secondly, even in a situation in which a qualified majority would be relevant, even in the enlarged Community any combination of two large states and one small state could prevent the qualified majority being obtained in the Council.
Mr. Marlow:What security is that?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's question implies that only the United Kingdom has any interest in budgetary discipline, but that is not remotely the case. In considering any increases in Community expenditure which may be proposed in years to come we must consider also where the burden of financing them will fall in the light of the Fontainebleau conclusions, which provide for a two thirds refund to the United Kingdom of any new expenditure. That means that the maximum proportion of funding for new expenditure that will fall on this country is not the original 21 per cent., but 7 per cent. For France it will remain 27 per cent., and for Germany 32 per cent.
That being so, the suggestion that Britain will invariably be more concerned about budgetary discipline while France and Germany have no interest in the matter flies in the face of common sense. Indeed, a number of smaller countries have an equal and increasing interest in budgetary discipline and can be expected to support us in rejecting any unreasonable proposals. Therefore, notwithstanding article 149 and the need for unanimity when the Commission puts forward proposals with which certain people disagree, even when a qualified majority is appropriate there is reason to assume that in the vast majority of cases any unreasonable proposal will rightly be dismissed.
The third criticism was about the reference to exceptional circumstances, and related matters. Not just in the Community, but in any national Government, a budget that has been fixed may have to be altered during the year because of exceptional circumstances. That in itself is not an unreasonable proposition. The main safeguard, however, has not been mentioned. Within the conclusions that have been adopted, although exceptional circumstances may result in increased expenditure, the provisions also require that that additional expenditure should be clawed back in the following years. Therefore, the overall requirement to control expenditure is safeguarded.
Mr. Budgen: "May be" clawed back.
Mr. Rifkind: Not "may be". Under the conclusions adopted, additional expenditure is required to be clawed back.
Mr. Forth: Following that line of logic, what would happen if there were three consecutive years of fine harvest?
Mr. Rifkind: The Community cannot in future assume that the interests of the farming community are the only considerations to be borne in mind. In the circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend, we would have to consider the overall interests of the Community and the expenditure that would have to be incurred to meet that situation.
Given that the overwhelming part — some 93 per cent. — of any new expenditure will not fall on the United Kingdom, it is reasonable to assume that other member Governments would be as concerned as Her Majesty's Government about the implications of such expenditure.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: May I refer my hon. Friend to article 5? He says that the money would be clawed back. Will he tell us what is meant by the reference to "barring aberrant developments"? That phrase seems to me to
952
imply that the money will be clawed back unless the Council considers that there have been what it would call aberrant developments.
Mr. Rifkind: We are seeking to ensure that any proposal to provide for unreasonable increases in expenditure can be blocked in the various ways to which I have referred. We have never sought to impose a rigid straitjacket on Community expenditure. What we have sought to ensure, and what I believe the conclusions adequately represent, is effective control of expenditure.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What about article 5?
Mr. Rifkind: I refer those who doubt what I have said to various reactions to the proposals and the conclusions on budgetary discipline. Dr. Stoltenberg, the Federal German Finance Minister, stated in a debate on these matters in the Bundestag:
"I believe that we now have, for the first time, an effective instrument to bring about a sensible control of expenditure".
The French Permanent Association of Chambers of Agriculture — a body with a great interest in these matters—said:
"Heads of State and Government have just decided a real financial straitjacket for the CAP".
The president of the Italian farmers association said that the proposals that had been agreed represented a "complete change in direction of the CAP."
Hon. Members: What about Mr. Rocard?
Mr. Rifkind: The French Minister of Agriculture was at one stage quoted as being hostile to the proposals, precisely because he was concerned about how effective they would be. The French Government and Mr. Mitterrand have emphasised that their primary objective is to ensure proper budgetary discipline. We welcome the fact that the French Government share with us the belief that that must be the supreme consideration. That is why, despite the no doubt understandable reservations of Mr. Rocard, the French Government remain absolutely committed to the proposals.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way on one final point? I give an undertaking, binding in Community law, that barring either exceptional circumstances or aberrant developments, this will be my final intervention. Does my hon. Friend agree that the imposition of the milk quota was the first tentative attempt to control agricultural expenditure? Will he tell us how those milk quotas have been applied in each state?
Mr. Rifkind: On the basis that this is to be my hon. Friend's final intervention, I shall be delighted to corriply with his request. As a result of the quotas, the United Kingdom has experienced a significant reduction in milk production. Belgium was required to cut production by 2·7 per cent., but the latest information suggests a cut of 3·7 per cent. Denmark was required to reduce production by 5·6 per cent. but so far has reduced production by 6·3 per cent. Neither Greece nor Ireland, which under the original proposal were permitted an increase, has increased production by anything like the amount proposed.
Mr. Rocard has recently made it clear that French milk production this year is expected to be significantly below the quota.
Mr. Budgen: What about Italy?
Mr. Rifkind: I have given my hon. Friend a certain amount of detailed information. He may be disappointed

953
to hear that most member states are carrying out their obligations. I suspect that that was not the answer that he expected to get and that it was not his intention to assist the Government in their hour of need.
My hon. Friend rightly mentions Italy. Italy is the one country which has not so far made any serious attempt to carry out its obligations under the agreement. In consequence, the European Commission has begun infraction proceedings against Italy in the European Court. The United Kingdom and many other countries have made it clear that it is essential that if any country is expected to carry out its obligations, all countries must do so. That is the only way in which the system can operate effectively.
Mr. John David Taylor: I entirely accept all that the Minister has said about milk quotas. However, he has told us only how the national quota has operated in each nation. Who decided that there should be regional quotas within nations? Was that a national responsibility, or a Community decision? In either case, what is the legal basis for it?
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot answer that specific point in detail. However, our main concern must be to achieve a substantial reduction in overall milk production. We would also expect that the detailed provisions agreed upon by the Heads of Government have to be accepted and implemented according to the details agreed. There would be no basis for a system of implementation different from that orginally endorsed by the Council of Ministers. Nearly all member states have substantially reduced production. Italy is the one main exception to that general principle, and we are pleased that the Commission has begun infraction proceedings.
Mr. John David Taylor: Most nations, including the United Kingdom, are now below their national quotas. However, for some reason, we still have to pay super levies to the EEC. Indeed, our British super levy was seized last night.
Mr. Rifkind: No, that is not quite correct. I understand that as a precautionary measure the Commission has taken a decision which applies to all Community countries, in part because we have made it clear that our attitude towards the payment of the super levy will be influenced by whether other countries also carry out their obligations. However, no specific action such as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to is being taken.
We believe that the proposals on budgetary discipline should commend themselves to the House. As I have sought to explain, they provide effective—
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, I shall not give way. The proposals provide effective and appropriate ways of controlling expenditure within the Community.
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way? I will give the same undertaking as that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
Mr. Rifkind: If my hon. Friend will give that undertaking, I shall be happy to give way.
Mr. Marlow: We are all most grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in answering all our interventions. However, as he has explained the budgetary discipline, it will, in legal terms, hold as much water as a leaky sieve. We are concerned, therefore, about people's intentions.
We understand that next year the Community will spend £1,000 million more than it is entitled to raise. How can we at this stage have any reassurance about the intentions of the nations that make up the Community and that they will behave in this way?
Mr. Rifkind: Precisely because one of the reasons why the Council of Ministers is in conflict with the European Parliament is that the Council of Ministers has insisted on putting a draft budget to the Parliament which is within the 1 per cent. ceiling. If the Council of Ministers had not been determined to insist on that, no doubt my hon. Friend would have complained that that showed a lack of willingness to observe the rules of budgetary discipline.
Way back in 1979, curiously enough also at a Dublin summit, the Government initiated what we believe to be necessary reforms in the EEC. Since then there has been a major transformation in the rules which are applied and in the thinking of all Governments in the Community on this matter. The issue was perhaps best summed up in an article which appeared in the French newspaper Le Figaro on 1 December 1984. It said:
"It is true that she"—
meaning the Prime Minister—
"has every reason to be pleased with the outstanding diplomatic victory she won this year, after five years of hard struggle. For it was in November, 1979, at the Dublin European Council, that she entered on the battle to obtain a reduction in the British contribution to the EEC budget, a drop in the EEC budgetary expenditure and, in particular, in the Common Agricultural Policy. She has won on all fronts, and it is understandable that yesterday she should have termed 1984 'A very important year' for the Community."
I endorse those comments and, on that basis, invite the House to accept the motion.
6.21 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I wondered for a moment whether I had entered into an agreement with the Minister that, if he gave way to me twice, I should not attempt to speak in the debate. I am relieved that I still reserve the right to speak.
The Minister, in conclusion, painted a glowing picture of the past 18 months as a progress of triumph, suggesting that the EEC has retired to a succession of summits for meditation and negotiation and has emerged from that process strenghtened, purified and with a new commitment to relaunch the Community and its objectives. I find it extremely difficult to recognise that picture in the documents that litter the Table from which I am speaking. Those documents paint a picture of an institution that is in financial shambles. It is stumbling towards the end of 1984 grasping for temporary expedients to keep the cash flow. The expedient on which it has hit to get to the end of this year is a whip-round of member states. It is not clear whether that whip-round is a loan or a grant. When he spoke to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury described it as a reimbursable advance. As the Committee elicited from the Economic Secretary, it is an advance, but it is by no means clear whether it is reimbursable. However it is described, it is clear that there is a large gap in the budget for 1984

955
which has been plugged only by payments from sources outwith the resources of the treaty and by a special arrangement.
It is difficult not to agree with the Court of Auditors' statement that the Commission's estimate of a shortfall of more than £1.6 billion in its original calculations is evidence of
"the need for greater accuracy in the preparation of original budget estimates".
We do not find such "greater accuracy" in the 1985 budget. The draft budget provides sufficient revenue to meet expenditure for the first 10 months of the financial year. A letter, attached to the draft budget, expresses the hope that, on arrival at the last two months of the year, some way will have been found of meeting expenditure. It is extraordinary that a responsible public institution should enter the financial year on such a basis. If Hackney or Islington borough council introduced such a budget for the forthcoming year, Treasury Ministers would be the first to denounce them as introducing an illegal and irresponsible deficit budget.
In these documents we see an institution that is wallowing in a financial crisis that is deeper than anything that it has experienced since the relaunch of the Community in Stuttgart 18 months ago. Against that background we must judge the wider issues, to some of which the Minister addressed himself. The Minister did not address himself to one document. That perplexed me, as the document was before the Government at the summit only last week and it received the attention of the Council when it met in Dublin. As the Minister failed to refer to it, perhaps I can help to redress the balance. I refer, of course, to the document prepared by the Dooge committee. It prepares the way for European unity. It is impossible to take exception to elements of that report. Section 2, for example, has a chapter headed,
"The Promotion of the Common Values of Civilisation."
I do not think that even the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would take exception to such a document. However, it is clear that the document tends towards European union. That is made clear in chapter 4, which consists of only two paragraphs and calls on the European Council to agree to an intergovernmental conference to negotiate a draft European union treaty. The report is studded with footnotes bearing the name of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who, I understand, is a member of the committee. There is a footnote attached to chapter 4. I looked down the page eagerly to see what reservations the Minister had entered against the proposal, only to discover that his reserve is founded on the ground that the proposal is premature in an interim report. I had expected a more substantive reservation about a provision for European union. I do not know about the Minister, but I am not entirely confident that such a proposal would find a majority in the House. If we were to take a snap vote of those right hon. and hon. Members who are present, the Minister might be in some difficulty.
Mr. Budgen: But what about the Whips?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the insight offered by the hon.
Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
At no stage have Treasury Ministers come to the House to justify entering a European union. If they have no serious intention of entering such a union, they should at the very minimum tell their colleagues on the Dooge
956
committee rather than hide behind the subterfuge that the conclusions are preliminary and that the report is only interim.
Sir Anthony Meyer: It would probably not he worth while taking a snap vote in view of the utter failure of Labour Members, apart from two conscientious exceptions, to attend the debate.
Mr. Cook: The numbers of Labour Members present make up precisely the same proportion of the parliamentary Labour party as do the numbers of Conservative Members present of the parliamentary Conservative party. I should naturally welcome a larger attendance to hear my pearls of wisdom, but we are represented equally.
Other items in this report are worth singling out for the attention of the House. The Dooge report contains a provision to limit the veto and to provide for more majority voting. Again, the Minister has entered a reservation on this item of the text, but he is quoted as having
"accepted the principle of a more frequent use of majority voting".
If that is the case, the House is entitled to know on what issues he is prepared to accept more frequent majority voting. On what issues is he prepared to abandon the use of the British veto?
Similarly, there is a provision for the European Parliament to have control over the revenue side of the budget. At any rate, I believe that is what the committee is recommending, because it is not immediately apparent from the language used. It wants to give the European Parliament
"responsibility in decisions on revenue as the coping stone of the establishment of a new basic institutional balance"—
whatever that means. The Government have entered no reservation on that proposal. Does the Minister accept that the European Parliament should have control over the revenue side of the budget and in what way?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman has properly read the report, he will see that the United Kingdom reserve, which I introduced, refers to that whole chapter. We have not accepted the recommendations of the majority of the committee to increase the powers of the Parliament. The only point we wished to put forward was that there should be an improved conciliation procedure on the basis that has been discussed by the Council of Ministers, but blocked by one country up to now.
Mr. Cook: I am satisfied with that response and happy to accept the Minister's explanation. However, if he has entered a reservation against the whole of that chapter, it becomes even more meaningless to me why the Government are prepared even to temporise on the question of having an inter-governmental conference to render all this into a treaty of European union.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for giving way and for drawing the attention of the House to these proposals which have not yet been to the Scrutiny Committee. These proposals are fundamental and relate to the constitution and treaties of the EEC. Can he say more about the vires and authority of the committee to which he has referred? Was it not formed after the Fontainebleau summit and was not that meeting outside the terms of the treaty? Will he invite the Government to tell us what

957
authority this committee, which is suggesting changes to the treaty, has and with what authority the Minister sits on it?
Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure that it lies in my mouth to answer for the Government, but my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to refresh my memory of the text. The reservation to which the Minister referred applies to section B. No reservation has been entered by the British Government to any part of section C which deals with the increased revenue powers of the European Parliament.
Mr. Rifkind indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: I am going only by the text which was placed in my hand by the Library. The Minister may, if he wishes, check the text and make appropriate corrections, but the only reservation entered on section C is by the Greek Government.
Mr. Rifkind indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: The Minister shakes his head and says that it is not true. I take exception to that observation. I can only go on what is in the text as published, in which—and he is welcome to check it — there is no British reservation.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman implies that the reservation applies to one particular page. It refers not to section C or D, but to the whole chapter dealing with the powers of the European Parliament. As I sat on the committee, I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that the reservation applies to the whole section on the powers of the European Parliament, including the proposal to provide it with powers over revenue.
Mr. Cook: I can only suggest that the Minister takes this, matter up with whoever drafted the presentation of the text, because it is quite clear that footnote II refers to section B and that the reservation entered in respect of section C was entered by the Greeks. I should have thought that had the British Government wished to enter a reservation to section C as well as to section B, they would have entered the footnote on both occasions. However, the Minister may wish to consider the matter.
Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in general the powers of the Council are set out in the written constitution of the EEC? Was not the Luxembourg agreement a significant derogation from that, because after France had left for a period it became necessary to introduce the practice of allowing a nation state to exercise a veto when it said that its essential national interests were at stake? What has now happened is a promise to use the Luxembourg veto less generously.
Mr. Cook: It is plain from the text that the British Government appear to have committed themselves to accepting majority voting on more frequent occasions, and that implies a more restrained and less regular use of the British veto. There is a school of thought, of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished exponent, which takes the view that that is entirely desirable. If so, that case should be argued in the House by the Government. They should clearly tell us the occasions on which they wish to
958
restrict the use of the veto and the occasions on which they would be happier to see an issue resolved by majority voting.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is implying that somehow this is a new development. The Government have made clear on numerous previous occasions their belief that, in those areas where the treaty does not require unanimity, all member Governments should ensure that the veto be used only in a genuuine case when vital national interests are affected. Of course there have been occasions when various Governments have applied the veto when it would have been difficult to substantiate the view that a vital national interest was at stake. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other British Ministers have said that we believe that it is in the interests of the Community as a whole for the use of the veto to be kept to a minimum where vital national interests can be said to apply.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful that we have had this exchange, because it is becoming clear that the Government have moved some way down the road of the Dooge committee to an extent that I had not previously observed. It may be remiss of me, but I do not recall the Prime Minister's clear statement that she is willing to contemplate more majority voting.
Mr. Rifkind: I undertake that this will be my last intervention. The hon. Gentleman is remiss. If he looks at the document "Europe—The Future", produced by the Prime Minister for the last summit, and which has since been made available publicly, he will see in it an explicit reference to the need for the veto to be used only as a last resort. There is a suggestion that when it is used, an explanation might be useful as to why the issue is a vital national interest. In that way we could seek to minimise the use of the veto and not allow it to be used unreasonably. Those matters have been aired publicly on many occasions.
Mr. Cook: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I must apologise to the House for having let pass underneath my nose one of the many documents relating to Europe which come before the House. I accept that on this occasion I have been remiss. However, if the Government are willing to entertain a position in which they are more reluctant to use the British veto, it would be nice to know how they define the occasions on which they believe British use to be justified.
There is a considerable amount of merit in the idea of enlargement. I believe that there is something in the Minister's point that, by bringing in Spain and Portugal, enlargement would give added strength to the democratic institutions which are still taking root in those countries. I also believe that enlargement would bring an element of fluidity to the Common Market, which would be welcome to those of us who believe that the Common Market stands in need of substantial change. Yet, if the Community is serious about enlargement, it should put its house in order before inviting the Spaniards and Portuguese to share our present problems and, thus, to complicate them.
The Minister was censorious about the Greeks. It would be unrealistic to imagine that only the Greeks stand in the way of Spain's and Portugal's membership of the Community. If the Greeks had not objected, the French or the Italians would have done. If the Greek objections were

959
met, I should be surprised if one or other of the Mediterranean countries did not raise an objection. Be that as it may, it is now obvious that there are two question marks over enlargement.
Will it happen at all, and will it happen by 1 January 1986? The retiring President of the Commission, Mr. Gaston Thorn, has made it clear that he does not expect enlargement to be completed by 1 January 1986. The Minister did not condescend to speak about the implications of that. What does the shift in enlargement mean for the decision on an increase in own resources? Conservative Back-Bench Members asked the Minister about that, and I wish to press the point.
The Government's position on the increase in own resources has gone through many phases. In February 1983 the Government took the view that there was enough money in the kitty, even if enlargement took place. They now believe that there is not enough money in the kitty, even if enlargement does not take place, and they want an increase in own resources to take place in advance of enlargement. Between them, there was a flitting phase in which the question of the increase in own resources was tied to enlargement of the Community. Even now the Minister still partly justifies an increase in own resources by reference to enlargement.
I invite the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to answer several points when he replies. The House is entitled to greater clarity about where the Government stand should enlargement not take place on 1 January 1986 or should it recede into the indefinite future. If it is not going to take place, is it possible to defer an increase in own resources? If an increase in own resources is required, we are entitled to know how much less that increase need be, if enlargement has not occurred and the increase is required only to pay for the return of our rebate.
What will happen to our rebate for 1984, which is payable next year? The 1985 draft budget made no provision for our rebate. The Strasbourg assembly has included a provision for a rebate on the expenditure side. Its motivation, with which hon. Members will be wearily familiar, is that it wants a rod with which to hit the back of the Council, for reasons which have nothing to do with British contributions. I am sure that the House will be united in resisting that provision.
If we consider the draft budget, even without the amendments of the Strasbourg assembly, we find, curiously, that the Commission has not made provision for the British rebate payable in 1985 on the revenue side either. Will the Economic Secretary tell us where the rebate is? Is he confident that the Government will secure it? How will they do so? If they secure it by means of an abatement, when will he proceed to deduct our refund from our payments to the Community? Will it start in January? How much will he deduct from our contributions to take account of the refund to which we are entitled for 1984?
That naturally and logically brings me to the budgetary discipline package, which is the sister to the rebate agreement, to which the Minister referred at length. We shall presumably have an opportunity to debate the matter again when we eventually debate the order which is at present before the courts. I noted what the Minister said about the objections to the document on budgetary discipline. I noted that he said that, although it had no legal status, it did not necessarily mean that the courts could not found on it. That is doubtless the case, but it does not mean
960
that the courts would necessarily found on it; even less does it mean that the Commission is likely to take any action before the courts in respect of that agreement.
The Minister did not respond adequately to the point raised by Conservative Members about the aberrant developments, in the event of which rebate —. read "clawback" — would not operate. Agriculture, as Conservative Members are fond of reminding the House, is a chancy business. There are many changes with the seasons and with the harvest. It would be difficult to find a year when the CAP operated in which one could not find something to tag as an aberrant development to justify clawback not being stimulated.
A basic reason for not being over-persuaded by the Minister's arguments is the patent fact that he has failed to persuade the farming community that the impositions in the budgetary discipline document will bite. We do not need to search for quotations from the German Parliament or from Italian or French farmers. We need simply look at home. After the text on budget discipline was produced, Farmers Weekly stated:
"Farmers have nothing to fear from the EEC budget discipline agreement drawn up in Brussels to control the common agricultural policy because it is so full of escape clauses'.
Michel Rocard's name has already been taken in vain. After the final agreement, he said that the French had agreed to it because it provided sufficient flexibility for the CAP to continue unimpaired.
There is another reason why we should be sceptical about the extent to which a common position would be sufficient to control expenditure on agriculture in future, and the extent to which we can rely on our Community partners to observe that voluntary undertaking. It is provided by the way our partners have operated recently. The Minister attempted to persuade us that milk levies and quotas were being observed by our partners. Michel Rocard assured the French nation, even if he did not mention this at the Council of Agriculture Ministers:
"No dairy farmer will have to pay super levy on overproduction in 1984–85."
For the removal of doubt, Alain Clauzier, who is a principal agricultural commentator in the French press and a large farmer, said more bluntly:
"Delaying payment of the super levy didn't make any difference to us in France … We weren't going to pay it anyway, we're not worried about what anyone else in the Community thinks."
There is an entertaining footnote to that exchange:,n the dispute between the Strasbourg assembly and the Commission about the 1985 budget. The assembly provided for the insertion in the budget of revenue of 120 million ecu from payment of the milk super levy in November. The Commission has since deleted that insertion on the ground that it does not expect to receive any payments of the super levy. That speaks volumes for its confidence in the system which it set up.
However, we need not found our nervousness about the efficacy of the document on budgetary discipline on the milk quotas alone. Paragraph 11·7 of the White Paper is fascinating. It deals with infraction of Community law and cases referred by the Commission to the European Court. During the past five years, 173 cases have been taken to court, only seven of which involved the United Kingdom. We are almost at the bottom of the league, with only the Danes below us. Italy accounts for no fewer than 61 of the 173 cases, and France accounts for 27. In 1983, there was only one case against the United Kingdom, but 12 each

961
against France and Italy. Some of us believe that it is a bit rich in those circumstances for the French and Italians to lecture the British about being non-communitaire.
What is even more striking is that, although the British are punctilious about agreements made in the Council, our partners take what might charitably be called a more creative attitude. Given their record of imaginative interpretation of Council agreements, one is bound to be sceptical about the extent to which the agreement on budgetary discipline, which does not even have the merit of the legal status that resulted in those infractions being brought before the courts, will bite. Its failure to bite is fairly clear from the 1985 draft budget, because there is a danger that the formula for budget discipline will make things worse next year. It provides that 1985 will be one of the two base years. Therefore, the agricultural community has every incentive to bid up expenditure to establish a high base rate for future years.
The draft budget proposed by the Commission includes a dramatic increase in the agriculture budget. In the draft budget sent to the Strasbourg assembly the proportion of expenditure on agriculture increased from 66 per cent. to 72 per cent. Since then the Strasbourg assembly has added 1·3 billion ecu to agricultural expenditure. I noted that 5 million ecu relate specifically to additional help to beekeepers. The money has been doled out carefully among different agricultural interests.
The Commission responded to the increases by advising the assembly that they were illegal, to which the assembly retorted that the draft budget was illegal anyway as it did not cover the full 12 months. There is some justice in the charge levied by the assembly against the budget, but that was not an elevated set of exchanges between the two bodies. This is not an institution trembling on the verge of relaunch.
It is worth noting what has been cut to make room for the additional agricultural expenditure. The 1985 aid budget has been cut, and the proportion for aid has been reduced from 3·5 per cent. to 3·2 per cent. For the first time, the EEC will be spending less on aid to the Third world than it will spend on the salaries of the bureaucrats in Brussels, who will now swallow 3·4 per cent. of the budget—[Interruption.] Those are the figures provided in the draft budget.
Mr. Robert Jackson rose—
Mr. Cook: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will contain his impatience, but I should tell him that we have not yet reached a position in which hon. Members intervene by means of a megaphone.
The cut in aid is pertinent, because last week we heard a statement, in response to the Dublin summit, in which the Prime Minister referred to the Community's commitment, given at the European Council, to provide 1·2 million tonnes of grain to the countries of north Africa. In their innocence, the Opposition welcomed that commitment, because they imagined that if the European Council was to will the food, it would find the funds to pay for it. We were wrong. We learn now that the food aid budget will remain at a fixed ceiling. Even as we speak, according to The Guardian,
"Community officials are working against the clock—and in some cases against their own consciences—to divert food aid from countries such as Bangladesh",
962
to Africa. We understand from the report that the Prime Minister was a main opponent of any increase in expenditure. In that she was at least consistent. She is imposing on the Community budget precisely the same strictures as she imposed on the British overseas aid budget, thus requiring any additional aid to Ethiopia to come from our overall aid budget.
Mr. Jackson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him earlier. He was wrong to say what he did. He should be aware that the Community has a separate budget for overseas aid in relation to the Lome convention. He referred to food aid, which is only a small proportion of our total effort.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but I am referring to the appropriations included in the draft budget, which provides a reduction in the proportion for aid from 3.52 per cent. to 3·2 per cent. of the 1985 draft budget. The aid provision in the draft budget is less than the provision for expenditure on administration in Brussels. An institution that gets its priorities so markedly wrong is in severe need of outside advice to rethink its priorities.
In common with many hon. Members, I receive large volumes of mail from constituents who are deeply moved by what they see on their television screens about Ethiopia. A point that they raise repeatedly, and which plainly distresses them, is a simple equation. They see Europe stuffed to capacity with surplus grain—stuffed so much that the grain is overflowing into barns in Switzerland and Austria because the Community can no longer contain it—and they also see, not too far away from Europe, people perishing from hunger. They then make the reasonable equation that some of the surplus grain could be used to relieve the suffering and deaths that they have witnessed.
The 1·2 million tonnes of grain is not a large amount; it is less than one fifth of our intervention stocks and less than one tenth of the intervention stocks that we are likely to have next spring when they will reach their peak. It is less than the amount of wheat used by the Community for conversion into animal feedstuffs to feed the animals of the Community.
What happened, and what continues to happen, in Ethiopia is an appalling tragedy, but it was also an opportunity for the Community to redeem itself and to prove that there was some purpose, for the good of humanity, in the large surpluses produced by the CAP. The halting response of the European Community until the Dublin summit, and the hypocritical response given there, have knocked what last hope there might have been of the CAP redeeming itself by giving that necessary food aid to north Africa. Instead, the whole episode has sharpened the moral offensiveness of a system that extrudes ever-swelling surpluses in a world where two thirds of mankind go to bed hungry.
We are left with a draft budget for 1985 in which an offensive and extravagant agricultural system absorbs an even higher proportion of the budget than it did this year. Not only that, we have a document on budget discipline that cannot provide us with a guarantee that expenditure will not swell further. In the meantime, the trivial resources allocated to other projects are cut. The communiqu´ after Dublin called upon the European Council to implement without delay its commitment to transport policy. The Commission's draft budget cuts

963
expenditure on transport. The communiqu´ after Dublin called upon the European Council to adopt further measures to strengthen the technological base of the Community. The draft budget presented by the Commission cuts expenditure on science and technology.
Had the Commission set out to confirm our prejudices about the mistaken priorities of the Community, it could not have done better than to present us with the 1985 draft budget. The House does not have the power to alter that budget. That is one of the unsatisfactory features of the position in which we find ourselves. However, we have one power. We can resolve that, in the light of the priorities displayed in this 1985 budget, it is inconceivable that there could be any rational and principled case or any consistent intellectual argument mounted to persuade the House that there is a basis for us to vote an increase in own resources to provide for even larger expenditure on the same priorities in 1986. I hope that the Minister, who is a rational and intellectual man, will take note of that, and will not put the House in the embarrassing position of having to vote down the increase.
7 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, to leave out from "Council of Ministers" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"but regrets that the arrangements made at Fontainebleau and Dublin provide for a major increase in public expenditure and that the restraint mechanism on agricultural spending has no legal force and would, even if effective in practice, provide for substantial further increases in this area of spending."
My hon. Friend the Minister did not say whether my amendment would be acceptable to the Government, but I thank the Chair for selecting it for debate, because it enables us to focus our attention on the basic issue of budget discipline, the issue on which the Minister concentrated.
Although we have had a bit of fun this afternoon, the whole thing is deeply depressing. It is clear that we shall throw away the one chance that this country has had in over 12 years to achieve reforms in the Common Market, and the only chance that we shall probably ever have to secure budget discipline. My hon. Friend the Minister gave way several times, but whenever there was a specific issue about whether or not there was any substance in the budget discipline, he made it clear that all that we would rely on in the Common Market was the goodwill of those taking part in the meetings of the Council of Ministers. He quoted the paper Le Figaro, which said that it liked what was going on. He quoted Italian farmers, who said that they thought that it was a grand idea and he told us of the French Agriculture Minister who was hopeful that France might, some day, abide by the milk quotas. However, when we come down to the details of the budget discipline, it is obvious that it is nothing more than a sick joke.
I shall go through the specific questions that I put to my hon. Friend the Minister but which, sadly, he was not able to answer. We are told that there are strict financial guidelines. Was there anything in the guidelines that would prevent the Council of Ministers, by a majority, from increasing the total expenditure to any sum that it thought fit, whether by 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent.? Under article 1 of the new so-called budget discipline agreement, there is nothing whatsoever to stop such a thing happening.
Mr. Marlow: If there is a new limit on own resources of 1·4 per cent. VAT, will that not limit what the Council of Ministers may agree?
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend may hope that that is the case, but I remind him that there is already a restriction for 1984 and there will be a restriction for 1985, as in both these cases there is a legal limit of 1 per cent. VAT. My hon. Friend is aware that, despite the attempts of that great British democrat Mr. Oliver Smedley to dissuade the Government from apparently abusing the law, we shall be giving more money to the Common Market this year above the legal limit. Next year, there is such a crazy budget that we shall obviously greatly exceed it.
I again put to the Minister and to the Treasury a sirnple question. Is it true that, despite all the talk of strict financial discipline, there is nothing in article 1 that will prevent Ministers from deciding to spend any sum that they might want, whether we like it or not?
There is then the question of the agricultural budget. What has been set as the basis for a major step forward is the principle that the Common Market will be able to increase the amount that it spends on agriculture only by roughly the amount of increase in own resources. There are severe problems here. First, the base on which we are working and on which we shall assess all the percentage increases is actual spending in the year 1984 and the envisaged spending for 1985. Surely Ministers are aware that 1984 was a year of horrendous over-production, a year in which mountains reached the most crazy levels. What is proposed now is that agricultural spending should be based on this year and on a prediction for next year, when agricultural spending is estimated to rise by about 15 per cent.
At the moment, the wheat mountain exceeds 4 million tonnes, the barley mountain is over 1 million tonnes, and the beef mountain, the height of which is continually soaring, is about 500,000 tonnes. We have all-time high mountains of food, expenditure on agricultual dumping and destruction of food. Despite that, the Government are asking us to regard it as an achievement that future agricultural spending will be based on this year and will not increase by more than Community own resources.
Even that has an escape clause, as the Minister is aware. In article 2 of the so-called binding agreement—
Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend refers to horrendous over-production, but he will recognise — I am surprised that he has not done so already—that none of that over-production has been done by British farmers.
Mr. Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. Britain does not have a problem of over-production, although we over-provide on some things—for example, marginally on dairy and cereals. However, if the Common Market were ever to do anything about the agricultural policy, British farmers would suffer. Sadly, that is why the Government have never proposed a reform of the CAP. We hear my right hon. and hon. Friends talking, year after year and month after month, about the need to reform the CAP, if only these wretched Continentals would agree. As we know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan) is well aware, at the Stuttgart summit we agreed that we would not seek any reforms in the basic structure or policies of the CAP and seek only modifications or adjustments in the CAP.

965
The Government have said that they want to persuade the Continentals to reform the CAP but, sadly, there has been no sign, apart from the general broad sentiment, that the Government have any wish to reform the CAP. I do not believe they do, and I am sure that the Minister will accept that. Some people may think that there is a need to reform the CAP, but how do the Government intend to go about it? They have said that they want moderation in prices, but they know that that will not solve the problem and would not be acceptable to our colleagues. They say that change must be gradual, but they do not say in what direction the change will be. We are facing a crisis of overproduction and all that the Government intend to do is to spend more.
Even if we were just to say, "Spend more from the increase in own resources," there is an escape clause in article 2 of the so-called solemn and binding agreement which says that account will be taken of "exceptional circumstances". Is there not something else in this binding agreement? The Minister said that we should not worry, because if the Community overspends one year, we can claw back the money the next. I asked him a specific question which, sadly, he did not answer. That concerns article 5, which says that, if there is overspending, even on top of the increase in own resources, we shall not claw back if there are what are called "aberrant developments". Nobody knows what those are, or what exceptional circumstances are.
Mr. Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants a solemn and binding agreement so rigid that no exceptional circumstances and no aberrant developments of any kind would affect it?
Mr. Taylor: I am almost a little impatient with the hon. Gentleman. He knows what the score is. There is no control in this so-called budget discipline. The Liberals have talked about the Common Market with much enthusiasm, but if they are that enthusiastic, they would grab the one and only chance that we have to achieve any reform of the CAP and the Common Market. The Community has run out of cash, and all that we shall do is give a lot more money to the Common Market so that it can spend much more on agriculture and other such things. In exchange, we have only a worthless piece of paper, which provides no protection.
These days we are accustomed to talking about the Common Market's great triumphs. The other day we talked about the great achievement of handing over 5 million people to red China with the assurance that the same would not happen to them as happened to the people of Tibet or Zimbabwe. This agreement is not an achievement in any sense. We are talking about a worthless piece of paper which gives no guarantees.
The Minister told us not to worry too much because he is confident that under the arrangement the percentage spent on agriculture will be down a little. That can be achieved only by spending more money on other things. For example, I might tell one of my hon. Friends that I am worried about the percentage of his income that he is spending on gin and whisky. He might come back and say that I should not worry because he was going to spend more on gin and whisky, but so much more on tobacco that the percentage total expenditure on gin and whisky would be reduced. That is what is happening. We are about to
966
spend much more money on agriculture, on dumping and food destruction, and nothing in the agreement can prevent it.
My hon. Friends will have been receiving large numbers of letters from pharmacists and doctors who are worried about the change in the prescribing of drugs. The Government say that the change is vital and that it will save £100 million a year. University students were not happy about something that the Government planned to do and which we were told was vital because it would save £30 million. We hear talk of the need to reduce the pensioners' heating allowance, which could save us about £50 million.
How many of my hon. Friends are aware that every week—not every year—the Common Market spends £100 million on destroying, dumping or storing food? We are experiencing a crisis. What are we doing about it? The Government plan to give more money. The only protection that we have is the goodwill of Community members. We shall have to rely upon their solemn resolve to face up to their responsibilities and to try to reduce spending.
It is difficult for me to go back to my constituents and tell them that it is vital to reduce the pensioners' heating allowance, that it is vital to reduce the percentage of rate support grant and limit a doctor's right to prescribe whatever medicines he thinks fit because we must control public spending, when the Government are providing enormous additional sums which the Common Market will waste. It does not make much sense to cut spending on regional grants in Britain if we put more money into the crazy Common Market regional fund. It does not make much sense to cut out welfare payments if we put more money into the Common Market welfare fund.
Conservatives should unite on this fundamental issue. We should not bury our heads in the sand. The only way to achieve change is to control the money supply, say that there can be no increase in resources and that reform must come from within.
There is a strategic aspect. So long as this crazy spending on agricultural surpluses continues, we are providing a massive boost and subsidy to the Soviet Union and its immediate supporters. I do not think that people are fully aware of the immense boost that we are giving to the Soviet economy and war machine as a direct result of the CAP.
We were talking the other day about sending an extra £19 million to Ethiopia on the strict understanding that we cut aid to Bangladesh. How many people are aware that every week—not every month or every year—we send 164,000 tonnes of cheap, subsidised food from the Common Market to the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and other essential parts of the Soviet bloc. What price do we charge? A recent parliamentary answer gives the information. We are sending beef at the equivalent of 40p a pound, sugar at 7p a pound, flour at 5p a pound and wine at the unbelievable price of 7p a litre. At one time I thought that that was a secret plot by the Common Market's Right wing to spread alcoholism in Russia and so undermine the people's will.
If those prices were reflected in the Russian shops, it would not be so bad, but the Russian housewives, I am sad to say, do not gain advantage. The Soviet state machine shoves up the prices and keeps the difference. We are talking about a massive sum which is a direct aid or subsidy to the Soviet Union and others. I do not mind paying high taxes in Britain to provide an Army, Navy and

967
Air Force to defend ourselves against Russian expansionism, but it is crazy and nutty that I should have to pay additional taxes to subsidise the Soviet Union, Bulgaria and the Soviet war machine.
Despite the ever-growing surpluses, the Common Market has begun a system of super-subsidies. A recent example is the special sale of butter to Russia at Yip a pound in blocks of 50,000 tonnes. Is there anything in the Government's proposals which will reduce those figures? There is not. The figures and the mountains will continue to rise and nothing will be done about it. We know that to be so in our heart of hearts.
If hon. Members are not worried about subsidising Russia they should, for God's sake, worry about what they are doing to the Third world. It makes me sick to hear some of my right hon. and hon. Friends talk all this Brandt nonsense and how they want to help the Third world, when they are the architects of the most vicious policy against the Third world—the common agricultural policy.
Why are Third world countries unable to provide food for themselves? Why are they unable to pay their debts? Why are they unable to buy British machines? The reason is that we are deliberately depriving the Third world of a fair price for its agricultural produce by dumping food on the world market.
If one produces sugar in the ideal place in the world for that purpose, one receives about £90 a tonne. A farmer in Norfolk producing sugar beet receives about £350 a tonne. The world price is so low because we are dumping. It is not just a question of what we dump because everything is comparable—wheat with rice, and so on. We are causing hardship and damage, distress, starvation and misery in the Third world as a direct consequence of the agricultural policy. The Government plan to do nothing about it. That is wrong and shameful.
I have been speaking for just over 15 minutes and many other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that the Government and my hon. Friends will be wary about what they are doing about relations with the United States of America. It is abundantly clear—it was one of my original reservations about the EEC — that if the Common Market is to have any meaning inevitably it will conflict with the United States. We are seeing more and more signs of that. We forget at our peril that the United States pays for most of western Europe's defence. It pays 52 per cent. of the total cost. The Americans are becoming a little fed up. Motions in the Senate stress the need to reduce spending by the United States in western Europe.
What worries me is that the Common Market seems to be going out of its way to make life difficult for America, to be unfair and unreasonable. A good example is the recent Common Market outrage about the export of steel pipes and tubes to the United States. Our friends in the Commission said that the Americans were imposing outrageous and illegal restrictions on Common Market imports. They said they would have to retaliate and impose restrictions on American goods.
The Common Market came to an agreement. In 1982 it was called an exchange of letters. We said that we would restrict our exports of pipes and tubes to the United States to 5.9 per cent. of the US total market. In fact, our exports were not kept to that figure but soared to 14 per cent.—more than double the share that had been agreed. I asked the Government why we did nothing about that. They said that, as the agreement did not establish a binding limit on EEC exports of steel pipes and tubes, there was no
968
question of the Government or any other EEC member seeking to impose a limit. In effect, they were saying that the agreement into which they had entered did not matter a damn.
The Government objected strongly when the Americans stepped in and said, "Sorry, we are going to impose the 5·9 per cent. limit until we obtain an agreement that will work." I am sure that there is some way in which the Government could claim that that was not fair or right. The fact is that we reached what the Americans thought was an agreement on 5·9 per cent., yet we exported 14 per cent. and did nothing about that. Indeed, the Government said in Parliament that they were not prepared to do anything about it, but they then objected like crazy when the Americans wanted to do something about it.
The same applies to the dumping of food. There are informal agreements on which parts of the world countries can dump food in. We are moving into areas that the Americans have traditionally regarded as their dumping grounds. I am concerned that the activities of the Common Market, especially those of the Commission, are deliberately creating a conflict between Britain and the United States, and that that conflict will grow.
Of course, there is also the effect on our country. Let us consider what is happening to Britain's trade. The figures for manufacturing trade in the White Paper are wrong and do not add up. I pointed that out to the Minister during a point of order. The White Paper puts exports at £3·6 billion and imports at £12·6 billion, with the difference being £3·9 billion. That is not even—
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): I have been advised that there is an error in the printing. The figure for exports should be £8·7 billion, not £3·6 billion. The figures will then be reconciled.
Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I find it difficult to understand how the difference between £3·6 billion and £8·7 billion can be a printing error. I appreciate my hon. Friend's courtesy in intervening on that point.
We must ask ourselves about the implications. My worry has always been for the British economy. We have hooked ourselves on to an area of structural decline and become a peripheral part of it. We are in an area that is destined to have higher unemployment than the remainder of the world, and we are especially vulnerable. The trade factor shows exactly what is happening with the movement of decision-making and investment towards the centre of the Market.
Our amendment is about the budget discipline only. I know that the Minister is one of the most honest Ministers in the Government. He must accept that all we have in the discipline document is a form of words that means absolutely nothing and will give us no security. All we have to rely upon is the word and the goodwill of Ministers in the Common Market who have made spending a total nonsense. They have spent money like water —wastefully and irresponsibly. There is not the slightest sign of any solid common sense in the EEC.
We will do just as well without the discipline document as we will do with it. The real crunch will come when the House must decide whether to vote for more resources. Nothing that has been said today should make the House do anything other than say no on that occasion.
7.24 pm
Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is a populist doctrinaire. During these debates he repeatedly produces an effective and fluent blend of facts and prejudices which are difficult to tackle in an ordered manner. I wish to take up some of his points, which I have heard not for the first time.
These debates are important—something upon which, at least, the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. It is a great pity that they are conducted again and again before a practically empty Chamber and a virtually empty Press Gallery. That is, perhaps, a measure of the mistaken set of priorities on which we conduct a great deal of our political dialogue. We often ignore that which is of quite great importance in favour of the transient and sensational.
As a pro-Community Member, I admit that I find it depressing that those who consistently oppose the Common Market again and again appear in these debates and express their views. Those of us who do not take that position, who I believe to be the majority, are often absent.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Johnston: Before I give way, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in doing so I am not setting a precedent.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he cannot see everything as it is. Those of us participating in the debate are concerned mainly to reform the Community. Just because we do not believe that the sun shines out of the back of the Community's head does not mean that we want to get out of it.
Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman could have fooled me.
I want to direct my remarks to the Minister. I want to raise questions on a number of important issues. I hope that he can answer some of them when he replies to the debate and will correspond with me on the remainder. One asks questions in many of these debates, but receives no answers.
We did not hear that magic word "Spinelli". We did not hear the less onomatopaeic word Dooje, which was raised by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). There was no reference from the Government to the important development — whether or not we agree with it — in current Community thinking about the institutional change that may be required. When the Minister replies I hope that he will say something about the Government's thoughts: not necessarily that we must accept Spinelli hook line and sinker, but that he will address the basic question whether the Government think that the present treaty is adequate or whether it requires some change, and if so in what direction.
It is evident that the Government would agree with Spinelli on the tearing down of internal trade barriers and on having real freedom of movement. No doubt the Minister has seen the article in The Economist of 24 November, from which I shall quote briefly. It is entitled, "How Europe has failed". The thrust of the argument is not that advanced by the Minister for Southend, East, that the failure is to attempt to get together, but approaches the matter from the other side, namely that we have not got together sufficiently, and consequently our economic performance had been hindered.
The article states:
970
"In producing the new generation of digital-telephone switches, North America relies on three companies, Japan on two. In western Europe nearly 10 companies produced these switches, at an R and D cost of $500 million—$1 billion per company, which they then could not sell anywhere in the EEC except their home countries because each government protected its own."
I want to know the Government's view on that sort of integration. There is no doubt that if, on a Community-wide level, we want to compete effectively with the United States and Japan, there will be some areas where firms will suffer and go to the wall. That is not an easy matter. It is a difficult issue. Let me quote again from this article:
"Government procurement accounts for an immense market —equal to some 17 per cent. of European Community GDP. European Governments have wielded their purchasing power for ill in two ways. The first is by discriminating in favour of domestic producers. This has been most flagrant in telecompunications, but it happens with all high-tech products. In October the EEC Commission issued a declaration which feebly 'urged' member states to open 10 per cent. of their telecommunications purchasing to products from other EEC countries. The other discrimination in European public procurement is in favour of big companies. Government contracts can be a lifeline for small firms and new industries."
If the Government, as they are continually telling us, are in favour of breaking down all the non-tariff barriers, do they also recognise that the logic of that position means that both in Government support policy and in intergovernmental co-operation within the Community we shall have to look at ways in which competing firms within the different countries of the Community can be integrated in some way? In some cases it will mean that some firms will be forced to -the wall. In forcing them to the wall, a more effectively competitive position will be created. That is not an easy matter, but it is part of the logic. So Spinelli, we would presume, is all right in certain respects.
May I also take the opportunity to remark that in the exchange between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Livingston and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who has temporarily left us, about majority voting, it seemed to me that at least on the face of it the Government were moving in the proper direction.
Secondly, I wish to ask a few questions about the Parliament. The hon. Member for Livingston perfectly properly referred to the Dooge committee. It is much to his credit that he did. It is remarkable that the Government made no reference to it at all. The hon. Member for Livingston and the Minister had an exchange of words about what exactly the Government's position was on the potential budgetary powers of the Parliament. After some pressure from the hon. Member for Livingston, I understood the Minister to say that he had more or less reserved the whole chapter on the Parliament. This is very interesting, but it tells us nothing about the Government's view on what kind of changes, if any, there should be in the Parliament.
If there is to be greater integration, and if more is to be done trans-nationally, does this not mean a stronger Parliament? Or is it, contrary-wise, the Government's position—I suspect that it would be the position adopted by the hon. Member for Livingston—that democratic control is exerted, not through the Parliament, but through the Council of Ministers, and that therefore one has a route to the fabulous veto which everybody goes on and on about?
When a Parliament is elected on a Community-wide basis, it develops Community-wide attitudes. The Budget Committee met on 3 and 4 December and was unanimous

971
in rejecting the budget. There was not a single voice, not even an abstention, against its rejection. That means something. [Interruption.] I did not quite catch what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said. However, few Members of the European Parliament would be able to match the hon. Gentleman in that regard. There is no doubt that in the eyes of many Members of the European Parliament the conciliation procedure is farcical and not at all meaningful. The Council is not operating the treaty as it stands at present while there is any chance of change.
Mr. Robin Cook: I shall not detain the hon. Member for long, but he referred to the exchange that I had with the Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I could confirm for him that it would appear that the reservation to which the Minister referred applies to the whole section on the European Parliament. There would appear—the Economic Secretary might wish to refer this to his officials —to be a misprint on page 20, by which footnote 2, which gives effect to this, appears at an earlier point in the text where it clearly intrudes upon section B. It was that which led me to the reasonable assumption that it referred to section B. But since footnote 2 appears to predate footnote 1, which comes later in the section, there has obviously been a misprint, which the Economic Secretary might wish to have corrected.
Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, on which there is really no need to comment any further.
What about the uniform electoral system, for example? Does the Minister envisage any change taking place there before the next European elections in approximately five years' time? We in the Liberal party and our Social Democratic colleagues remain politely bitter about the last result and about the fact that 2,591,652 people voted for the alliance in the United Kingdom and obtained no representation at all, while fewer than double that number voted Labour and obtained 32 seats. Obviously that has affected the political balance within the Parliament and distorted it in a way that is not reflective of the general position in the Community as a whole.
Turning, thirdly, to the Commission, we know that the Prime Minister is in favour of one commissioner per country. I suspect the reason why the Prime Minister agrees to this position, which, on the face of it, looks very fair, reasonable and rational. Why do we have two commissioners for the large countries and one commissioner for the small countries? In a sense, it was to protect the realistic political weight of the large country. If one then proceeds to the argument that Britain should have one commissioner and that Luxembourg should have one commissioner, I suspect that at the back of her mind the Prime Minister is also saying, "We want a weak Commission, anyway, do we not, so it will not make any real difference, will it?" [Interruption.] I did not quite catch what the hon. Member for Livingston said, but I am sure that it was quite helpful.
Do the Government have any views on the reform of the Commission, apart from that which we do know about? What about the idea of the President of the Commission, when he is chosen, having the opportunity or the power to select in some way or another his commissioners, his team, who are to work with him? It does great credit to the diplomatic skills of Mr. Delors that
972
he managed so quickly to sort out the portfolios last weekend. Nevertheless, the power of the President is very much limited. Very often, for various reasons which have nothing to do with any kind of nationalism, he is lumbered with people whom he would not otherwise have chosen.
The staff of the Commission were referred to by the hon. Member for Livingston in various critical comparisons of cost, but it must be said that there is a fair amount of crisis in terms of staff pressure within the Commission. There is the problem of older people who are holding on to fairly key positions which were inherited some time ago. Beyond that, the plain fact is that the Commission is being asked by each member country to do more and more things and does not have any opportunity, through its staff, to be able effectively to do them properly.
My fourth question relates to economic initiative and economic convergence. This point has been touched on in previous exchanges. I had an exchange with the Prime Minister on 5 December, when the right hon. Lady said:
"The hon. Gentleman mentioned convergent economic policies, but the Community is not meant to be a mechanical redistributive mechanism." — [Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 359.]
What is it supposed to be? [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in reform and improvement. The Community was established to provide the sort of cauldron within which economic activity could be more effectively pursued, but there was also, undoubtedly, the concept of redistribution. Why else have a regional fund? Why else have a social fund? There was the concept that the poorer countries would be lifted up and that wealth would be shared out, and an attempt was made
—idealistic, perhaps too idealistic even, but a good idea—to create opportunity at a roughly equivalent level througout the Community.
Mr. James Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the original intention was to bring up the peripheral areas of the Community. How does that balance with the argument for enlarging the Community yet again? Spain and Portugal—possibly others — now want to join the Ten. They are poor countries by industrial standards. When will we be able to cope with the peripheral regions of the existing Ten and still enlarge the Community?
Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman was an effective chairman of the Regional Committee of the European Parliament. If he will wait one minute I shall come to his point, which is linked with the social and regional fund.
The hon. Member for Southend, East made much of mis-expenditure in the Community. He referred to the regional fund as a silly fund—or a word to that effect. The regional fund now is so small that it has a limited effect and certainly nothing like the remarkable effect that many of us hoped it would have when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and I were in the European Parliament, when George Thomson was in charge of establishing that fund.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to finish my point I shall give way, despite what I said earlier about a precedent.
The total EEC budget that we are discussing is about 2 or 3 per cent. of the Community's GNP. The regional and social funds, taken together, are less than 10 per cent.

973
of that 2 per cent. That is tiny. How can one ever expect any convergence to be achieved using that sort of mechanism? It is not possible in a thousand years. No wonder Mr. Papandreou is making the point that he is making.
What is the Government's view on convergence? On page 18 of "Developments in the European Community January-June 1984" I find that the regional fund had £1,222 million in 1984, of which £1,157 million was what is called quota. In other words, it is already allocated between countries. It has very little to do with the central evaluation. Only £65 million was non-quota. There was a time when it was hoped that a much larger proportion of the regional fund would be non-quota and allocated by the Community according to the guidelines laid down by the Commission and advised upon by the Parliament, rather than simply as a result of a haggle between countries in a way that was most unsatisfactory.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way a second time. I shall give the usual undertaking that, except in exceptional circumstances, I shall not interrupt him again.
The hon. Gentleman is putting the case for a regional fund. One way that he has suggested is that money could be moved from the richer to the poorer parts of the Community. Sadly, we are one of the poorer parts of the Community and are net contributors to the EEC budget. Therefore, the fund has not worked in that direction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as sad about that as I am.
The other way in which the fund could work would be to have a series of policies devised at the European level which would apply throughout the Community. We have a regional fund at the moment and various policies within that regional fund. The main one relates to industrial training. The Government have also said that they want to spend more money on regional policy. Why is money spent on training better allocated at the Brussels or Strasbourg level than by national Government?
Mr. Johnston: There are fairly obvious reasons for that. If guidelines are laid down which are agreed to by all the individual countries, I do not see why that should not be the basis of the distribution. In fact, it must be the basis of the distribution if one is to have a Community-wide policy.
I come next to the question of enlargement. I should have liked to see the date of 1 January 1986 achieved. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Livingston. He quoted Gaston Thorn. I spoke to him last weekend and he repeated that he was very doubtful whether it was possible, particularly as it was unlikely that Papandreou would withdraw his veto.
Why is Papandreou pressing that? It must seem to him that this is the last opportunity that he will have. He is using the same sort of tools to bring pressure to bear as the British Prime Minister used. The British Prime Minister used those tools to achieve budgetary discipline and a rebate for the United Kingdom. Papandreou is doing so in order to achieve greater expenditure from the regional and social funds within Greece. He knows that if he does not get it now it is unlikely that he will get it after enlargement. It would not be possible to deal effectively with the
974
problem, not so much of Spain, but certainly of Portugal and Greece, unless there was a considerable increase of own resources. There is no balking that question.
I hope that everyone remembers that if Spain fails to get in that will have an effect not just on Gibraltar and negotiations there, but a direct effect on the referendum on Spain's membership of NATO. Therefore, those matters cannot just be put into compartments.
The question of political co-operation is dealt with in section IX. On Iran and Iraq it says:
"The Ten noted with concern the continuing conflict … They appealed to the two parties to look for a peaceful solution".
It is not a particularly good example of co-operation if Britain has so increased its trade with Iran that it is thereby able to obtain the necessary income to purchase weapons, as I suspect it in part does, and to obtain from Britain motor parts and vehicles which can be used in the war effort, while on the other hand France directly supplies weapons to Iraq. That is not a good example of political co-operation within the EC.
The paragraph on the Arab-Israeli dispute says:
"They called upon the Government of Israel to put an end to its policy of establishing settlements in the Occupied Territories."
Good. That is an essential pre-requisite to a settlement in the middle east. What pressure, as a consequence of that, has the Community put on the United States? UNESCO is not mentioned, but one wonders what the logic is when the Government argue in favour of political co-operation and yet refuse to observe the unanimous request of all the other members of the Community that we should not withdraw from UNESCO. Indeed, the Minister knows their views.
In conclusion, let me quote the Minister of State. As I noted it, he said that "of course there are certain proposals which, if we had been left to ourselves, we could have made better." There is a certain arrogance in that which is perhaps not typical of the Minister. He does have glimmerings of open-mindedness. However, it is rather redolent of speeches of the hon. Member for Southend, East. As the Americans and the Japanese streak ahead of us and our unemployment queues lengthen, I find it extraordinary that the House spends its time lauding itself and endlessly going on about the virtues of the British veto, irrespective of whether it is applied by a Right-wing Conservative Government with Right-wing views or a Left-wing Labour Government with Left-wing views. I sometimes feel that instead of being in the Chamber of the House of Commons I am in a neolithic political tomb.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Johnston: If the Community is to proceed, it must set aside national prejudices and develop a coherent, common will.
7.50 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: This debate will be the last for some time in the long series which we have had on the reform of the framework of the European budget. It is an opportunity for us to take stock of what has been achieved and to consider future prospects.
There can be no doubt about the cost to Britain of the long dispute that we have had with our partners about the framework of the budget. I emphasise that the quarrel was not of our making. The problems flow from the budgetary arrangements which were agreed among the Six before we

975
joined the Community, and they were anticipated by Britain in the negotiations for accession in 1972 and 1973, when we obtained assurances from the Community. Nevertheless, the cost of our efforts to get the Community to honour the commitments which it made in 1972 and 1973 has been high. There has been the disillusion among the British people, which is amply reflected in these debates. There has been the disillusion also of some of Britain's friends on the continent, who have never really understood what we have been worrying about. There has been the narrowing of the focus of our national vision of Europe. Perhaps most important of all, a series of concessions have been made and British interests have not pressed because of the overriding importance which the Government have rightly attached to making progress on the reform of the budget. Have we reached the end of this painful and debilitating argument, or will there be more to come? I must tell the House that in my opinion the answer to the question must be no.
In logic there are three possible solutions to the problem of imbalances in Britain,'s net contribution to the Community budget. First, there might be a corrective mechanism to reduce the gap between contributions and receipts. Second, there might be a reduction of spending on agriculture in the Community's budget. This is criminal because such spending falls most heavily on the United Kingdom with its relatively low share in European agriculture. Third, there is the idea of increasing Community spending on non-agricultural policies from which we are net beneficiaries. These three solutions are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we have heard Ministers saying over the years that they expect all of them to play their part.
I wish to consider the implications of the Fontainebleau agreement and of the new text on budgetary discipline for those three solutions. Take first the Fontainebleau agreement, the essential feature of which is its provision of a new corrective mechanism to replace the temporary agreement of May 1980 and the failed mechanism negotiated at the Dublin summit in December 1974.
The Fontainebleau mechanism has been hailed as a permanent solution. Is it? Part of the agreement specifies:
"The corrective formulas will form part of the decision to increase the VAT ceiling to 1·4 per cent., their durations being linked."
There is no doubt that, from the British point of view, that formula represents a real achievement. We have obtained an abatement of two thirds of our net contribution over the period of the 1·4 per cent. ceiling, and we have succeeded in getting those arrangements embodied in new legal institutions and procedures which will become vested facts and will give us acquired rights. So much on the positive side. But what happens when the 1·4 per cent. ceiling is reached? Will the British abatement continue at two thirds of out net contribution at that time? Will we be able to retain that abatement while insisting on no increase in the 1·4 per cent. ceiling? If there is an increase over the ceiling, will our two thirds abatement be able to continue without challenge?
The answer to these questions is that no one knows. We are told that the abatement formula and the increase in own resources are linked. That is the phrase in the agreement. However, the character of the link is not specified. From close observation of the subject for some years, it is my belief that when the time comes there will be several different views about the nature of the link. We shall have
976
the advantage of the principle of special treatment for Britain having been conceded and of the practice having become established, so I doubt whether we shall once again have to face fundamental arguments about whether or not we should have any rebates at all. However, I have no doubt that the idea of a two thirds reimbursement will come under heavy pressure in future.
In view of this prospect, Britain continues to have a special interest in the level of the Community's farm spending, which is the root cause of our special problem, and in the balance between that farm spending and spending on other policies.
What will be the impact on that balance of the new agreement on budgetary disciplines? Let us consider, first, the new discipline on farm spending. I do not quarrel with the Government for having been driven back from them original position that budget disciplines must be written into the treaty. Nor do I complain especially that it is envisaged that spending on agriculture will grow at a. rate that is "no greater than" the rate of increase of own resources rather than the initial British phrase which called for a rate "markedly below" the growth of own resources.
However, nothing in the budget discipline agreement has changed the fact that the Community's spending on agriculture is determined essentially by external factors, especially by the state of harvests around the world and the movement of currency rates of exchange. Essentially, the new agreement introduces a new element into the Community's procedures for making decisions about agriculture. It provides that if there is evidence that, the Commission is satisfied that the Agriculture Ministers are contemplating decisions that will cost more than is provided by the so-called "reference framework", Finance Ministers will be called in before any decision is made.
I have no doubt that this is a valuable innovation, and I am sure that the Finance Ministers, and my hon. Friend especially, will breathe heavily over the shoulders of their agriculture colleagues. But how likely is it that they will take a view that is radically different from that of colleagues in the same Governments who face the same political pressures? In my view, the physical presence of Finance Ministers around the Council table will constitute a factor of restraint, but no more. Therefore, I predict that until we have terminated the open-ended nature of CAP price supports—as we have now done in the milk sector — we shall continue to see spending on agriculture overshoot regularly. I must say that I find somewhat unconvincing the reasoning of my hon. Friend the Minister about the effect of majority voting.
What is to happen to the third possible solution to the British problem—that element in Community spending from which we might hope to make a net benefit? I refer to the non-farm spending — the so-called "non-obligatory" expenditure. My first fears were that the Government would lock Britain into a straitjacket in which non-farm spending would be bound to be as restrained as spending on agriculture. Happily, those fears have turned out to be mistaken. The budget discipline agreed for non-. farm spending is essentially no different from the arrangements which already exist, by which the Council has sought always to stay within the maximum rate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why does my hon. Friend think it is good for the Common Market to increase its expenditure on non-agricultural items?
Mr. Jackson: I was about to explain that, because I expected that point. Briefly, I believe that it is in this area that we shall find a long-term solution to our problem of long-term imbalance.
Because the budget discipline for non-agricultural spending is no different from what we already have, the possibility remains that, from time to time, the Council may agree to spend more on non-agricultural policies than the amount prescribed by the maximum rate—although I note with regret that the Council will be able to do so only on the basis of unanimity. Therefore, in spite of my gloomy prognosis for the continuing growth of farm spending, the possibility remains that non-farm spending will grow just as fast, so the overall balance between farm spending and non-farm spending will not worsen —indeed, it may even get better. But if farm spending regularly overshoots, as I fear it will, that balance will turn ever further against us.
Where will that non-farm spending go? That is the $64,000 question. If I am right in saying that the Fontainebleau agreement does not solve our problem in perpetuity, and that the growth of agricultural spending is unlikely to be as constrained as we would like, the third solution—the growth of non-farm spending—will be very important to us in the long term. That is the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). We know that heavy claims will be made by other member states, especially after enlargement. Will the British Government be in there fighting for the share of that new spending that we will need if we are to turn the balance of our net contributions permanently on to a more favourable basis? I must confess that I am concerned that the Government have not yet come fully to terms with the problem.
So great is our concern with budget discipline that we run the risk of overlooking opportunities for doing ourselves a good turn through Community spending. I shall give a simple and topical example. It is now becoming apparent that Britain is almost isolated on the exceedingly sensitive issue of acid rain. We face the possibility that we may be outvoted on this question, and the probability that, in due course, we shall have to find the money needed to deal with the problem.
If we were not so worried about budget discipline that we had almost given up ways of spending Community money to Britain's advantage, we might have anticipated that position, saying, "All right, we shall go along with the majority on acid rain, but, since there are so many coal-fired power stations in Britain, and because this is so self-evidently a Community-wide transfrontier problem, we are looking for substantial support from the Community budget for the adaptation of our power stations." I have no doubt that, if such a programme were agreed, it would involve spending well beyond the limits of the budget discipline agreement. I would not worry about that. My concern is rather that it would worry the Government. Indeed, I fear that that consideration would be uppermost in their mind. With regret, I must say that such an attitude could be simply described as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
8.3 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My remarks will be confined to the sections in the draft budget and the White Paper on the fishing industry. I should like to concentrate on the issues of
978
maritime inspection and controls, Community education and vocational training and the adjustments of capacity in the fisheries sector.
The fishing industries in the Community operate within the framework of a common fisheries policy. That framework may be altered, following the accession of Spain to the Community. Earlier this evening, the Minister assured the House that the outcome of the negotiations would be satisfactory to the British fishing industry, and I hope that events bear that out.
The EEC's fish police inspectors are beginning to make their weight felt. There have not yet been any convictions, but fishermen are certainly aware of their presence. The problems of foreign overfishing have been with us for many years, especially in the case of the fleets from Denmark, Holland and the Republic of Ireland. Where such vessels are involved, excess captures have reached absurdly high levels — so high that one can say that orders placed with Dutch yards for new and large vessels have been made on the basis of illegal fishing. That is absurd. It looks as though the EEC will take legal action following a report drawn up by the EEC's fisheries inspectorate. Similarly, the Danish Government have decided, at long last, to take action against the owners of some 70 vessels for illegal fishing.
In Lloyds List of Friday last week, Ian Strutt said:
"The Danes were thought to have caught 150,000 tonnes of juvenile herring last year which would have matured into an adult stock of around 1 m tonnes.
Catching of juvenile fish was thought to be continuing this year until the Danish Government decided, for the first time, to take mass action against the fleet."
The policing of the Community's fishing effort has had partial success, but much more needs to be done. I still believe that we need an expansion in the EEC's fisheries inspectorate. I should like to hear the Government's view on that matter.
Item 4300 in section III B of the draft budget refers to
"Measures establishing a Community education and vocational training policy in the fisheries sector."
Yet the sum of money to be committed to achieving that commendable objective is about £80,000. To say the least, that is a derisory figure. If the aim is to move towards a common training and educational programme for EEC fishermen, we shall not progress far on that pittance. One essential feature of such a programme is, or should be, the interchange of those directly involved in the training of fishermen. How on earth can that be achieved, given the miserly sum of £80,000? At the very least, that sum should be trebled.
Training programmes and financial assistance should not be confined to the established educational and training bodies. They do a good job training fishermen, but we must not lose sight of the fact that many of our fishermen, especially in Scotland, live in remote communities far removed from the technical and nautical colleges that provide that training. In those circumstances, the group training associations play an important role, and I hope that they are here to stay. They were created by the sea fisheries training council, which is now defunct, and I hope that they will continue to flourish under the umbrella of the Sea Fish Industries Authority.
I am bitterly disappointed that the draft budget contains no proposals for the payment of compensation for those fishermen made redundant by the EEC's fisheries policies. I refer to the document that mentioned the adjustment of capacity in the fisheries sector. No mention is made of the

979
fishermen displaced by the pursuit of this policy. We must remember that many of those fishermen were placed in the nasty, brutal front line of the fisheries dispute in the 1970s between the United Kingdom and Iceland. Those fishermen have been badly served by both Conservative and Labour Governments. I go further, and say that they have been betrayed by successive Governments.
While for many of those fishermen it is desperately late in the day, natural justice demands that they be given some compensation. The EEC should examine forthwith the means by which redundancy payments could equate with the financial assistance offered to those vessel owners who tie up, scrap or effect a change in the use of their vessels.
The Commission should devise a financial scheme of income guarantees for redundant fishermen in line with some aspects of the provisions available to coal and steel workers. I do not believe that such payments should be derived from a levy on each tonne of fish landed at United Kingdom ports. Some other means will have to be found. Other means have been found to compensate vessel owners so why not for the fishermen who crew those vessels?
The Commission should also investigate the possibility of a common state retirement and pension policy for all fishermen aged 55. Fishing is the most dangerous industrial occupation in Britain today. It is far more dangerous and causes more injuries and death than coal mining. No fisherman in his late fifties should be forced to go to sea. We should be talking about compensation for fishermen along the lines of that offered to redundant steel workers.
I remind the House, if it needs such a reminder, that fishermen are almost always denied redundancy payments by their employers and the state. I can give an example of that from my family. A brother of mine was given the princely sum of £385 by his firm after 19 years of service with it. The firm received £400 per gross registered tonne for each vessel that it decommissioned. It seems that the European Community believes that GRT is more important than fishermen.
Many of the vessels for which decommissioning compensation is being given were built with the aid of generous grants and loans from the Treasury. In terms of employment rights, fishermen are second-class citizens. I can give an example of that. At a recent industrial tribunal hearing in Hull, when several fishermen were claiming redundancy payments because their firms had accepted decommissioning grants and tied up their vessels—case numbers 4227/84, 7760/84, 14443/84 and 2792/84 of 24, 25, 26 and 27 September 1984—the chairman said:
"These men were on individual contracts and when they finished the voyage, and settled up, and were off articles and off pay, they were not employed, they knew they were not employed, they knew they were unemployed when they signed on as being 'available to work'; for their own reasons the applicants chose to stay loyal to"
their firm and
"for their own reasons they chose not to work elsewhere, they chose to remain with this employer and did not seek to go elsewhere or leave the trade".
The chairman found that, as a result, those claimants could not be offered redundancy. I find that disgraceful. I only wish that those fishermen could be offered a measure of hope, but reality precludes that. The Community's recalcitrance on the important issue of compensation to the crews of fishing vessels is a matter of deep regret. It is a disgraceful state of affairs.
980
I believe that much more could and should be done for the fishermen who catch the fish that are so vital to our maritime communities.
8.14 pm
Sir John Farr: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is not here because I wanted to refer to his remarks about the large surpluses of some products that are built up in the Community. Surpluses are bad, unwelcome and expensive. The two fashionable surpluses — wine and butter—are not produced by British agriculture. It is almost impossible to run farming anywhere in the world as an exact science because of the vagaries of the weather, which can make one year's surplus into a deficit the following year.
The point that my hon. Friend was making—it was a fair one—is that it is expensive to have large surpluses produced by the CAP. Homes have to be found for the surpluses. He cited the example of outrageously cheap butter and other commodities being sent to Russia. The EEC countries and others will not always be in surplus. Famine in Ethiopia has caught the headlines, hut only three or four years ago central and south central Africa suffered from famine. There are now countries in Africa, including Ethiopia, that are importing food but which for years were net exporters.
We must look sensibly at surpluses and not condemn them out of hand as my hon. Friend would have us do. We need sensible surpluses. The excess must be available for despatch wherever in the world it is needed. Until a few weeks ago, that happened to be Russia. I am glad to see that large supplies of food are now reaching Ethiopia. In December, 100,000 tonnes of food, including 30,000 tonnes of corn from the EEC and 8,000 tonnes of corn from Britain, are going there. Next month, 150,000 tonnes of food will go to Ethiopia.
I should like to see the CAP, with all its imperfections, geared to maintaining—as far as the weather permits—the reasonable, healthy food surpluses that may be needed in other parts of the world. I do not regard as immoral or wrong a reasonable surplus of commodities that can be made available to countries which may be in need of food today and which are likely to be in need of food in the future.
My hon. Friend mentioned the enlargement of the EEC and the accession of Spain and Portugal. That was designed to be agreed by the end of this year. It has now been slightly postponed. We in Great Britain have a great deal to fear from the expansion of the Community. Its enlargement poses a threat to British horticulture. Hundreds of horticulturists in this country are likely to face the chop once Spain becomes a member of the Community unless long transitional arrangements for its membership are made.
Portugal and Spain are substantial manufacturers of footwear, and Portugal is also a substantial manufacturer of knitwear. The House may not realise—I hope that when it realises this it will care about it—that last year Portugal exported no fewer than 48 million pairs of ladies' tights to Britain. Exports of knitwear to this country are also increasing, resulting in substantial job losses in the British knitwear industry. In the past couple of years, between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs have been lost. In five categories alone, between 1982 and 1984, Portugal's exports of knitwear to Britain increased by 100 per cent.

981
In the last year for which figures are available, 48 million garments were imported from Portugal, equivalent to the loss of about 2,400 jobs. The United Kingdom knitwear industry is now losing 50 jobs per week. We must face those facts and recognise that, unless proper safeguards are established, the accession of countries such as Portugal to the EEC will greatly accelerate the loss of jobs in areas such as mine in the east midlands.
What kind of European Commission will be running our affairs in the future? We hear that there has been a big change and that we now have one of the most Leftward-looking as well as one of the most inexperienced Commissions in recent years. I believe that it includes two British Commissioners. In view of the inexperience and certainly the Socialist inclinations of the Commission, the Government should consider carefully several times any recommendation that it may make.
In the things that matter to my constituents the EEC seems to do its best to make itself unpopular. My constituents are neither anti-EEC nor pro-EEC, but they are not impressed by the ridiculous suggestions from the Commission that the Government and both sides of the House have to resist. The recent proposal for standardisation of the clock throughout the EEC was, I am glad to say, rejected by the Government, the Opposition, all the big unions and the CBI. Trivial suggestions of that kind to achieve some federal idealist dream help to bring the EEC into disrepute as a sensible and serious unit.
My constituents like their British passports and do not want mauve EEC passports. They also see no reason why we should join the European monetary system. We have managed very well without it for many years. My hon. Friend the Minister did not mention that, although pundits say that a decision is to be made very soon. I hope that before deciding whether Britain should join the EMS the Government will take careful soundings so that there is no repeat of what happened last week in relation to education. Although sterling is now of limited international consequence, many Members on both sides still believe that it has a role to play which is far better performed outside the EMS.
Another row is blowing up about milk quotas. Last spring, all member countries except Ireland agreed to reduce milk output. As Members on both sides have pointed out, however, some countries have implemented that agreement far more energetically than others. Strangely enough, a country that we have learned not to trust in international affairs —France — seems to have offered no sign of any intention to comply with the reduction in quotas. When this matter is next discussed in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will insist that a clear performance chart for member countries be made available and that countries which have fallen by the wayside and virtually ignored the reduction in quotas must be dealt with through the special penal levy to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred.
My constituents are also angered at the apparent decision by the outgoing Commission to take Britain to the international court in an attempt to dismantle our ban on imports of fresh milk. In the many debates on the subject at the time, it was clear that this was essential not only for the British dairy industry but to ensure continued doorstep deliveries of fresh, wholesome milk. Our overall trading
982
deficit with the EEC is about £2·4 billion per annum, of which £2·1 billion is due to our deficiency in food, beverage and tobacco trading. Imports of fresh milk on top of that would not only threaten doorstep sales but cause many more redundancies in our industry as well as making it even more difficult for our farmers to meet their milk quotas, as they now do.
What about the future? I believe that the projected increase in VAT contribution to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and 1·6 per cent. in 1988 is to be deplored and when the House debates that I shall seek to intervene to register my protest. I hope that the Government will comment on whether Britain's reservation about increasing our percentage quota has been raised energetically enough at EEC meetings.
It is transparently obvious to some of my hon. Friends that Britain is the largest net contributor to the EEC, and has the most to lose. The rest of the member states are, by and large, net beneficiaries—France, Greece and Italy, for instance — and they have the most to gain. We should have retained the 1 per cent. of VAT. Otherwise, it is so easy in the bottomless pit of European money for our hard-earned contributions to sink without trace. All that we will have left to remind us of what we have paid may be a European anthem and a common European currency with which to pay for it.
I suppose that, for the future, one must stay in.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why?
Sir John Farr: That is a good question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and develop that point.
My own view is that we must be much more selective. We must stay in only if we can see that to do so clearly benefits Britain and our electors. So far, our membership of the EEC has had some very unfortunate results. For instance, my constituents fail to understand why a student from the EEC should be allowed a privileged position compared with a student from the old Commonwealth. They fail to understand why a relation or friend from a Commonwealth country such as New Zealand or Australia cannot come here to stay or may have great difficulty in obtaining a work permit, while foreigners from the nine countries can walk in on privileged terms. Such matters make the EEC very unpopular with my constituents.
Britain pays a big levy in order to belong to this club. One of the arguments on which it was sold to us was that in unity there is strength. However, those who sold the package to us forgot to add that, in order to obtain that strength from unity, we would have to pay a very large annual subscription. My constituents have yet to be convinced that that subscription is worth while.
8.32 pm
Mr. John David Taylor: The Order Paper shows that in this debate we are discussing many aspects of the EEC. We are discussing the details of the 1984 budget, the various stages of the 1985 budget, the Fontainebleau agreement, the White Paper and budgetary control—a wide variety of issues. That may be why the debate has become somewhat fragmented. It may also explain why so few hon. Members attend such debates. It is regrettable that we do not direct our attention to a specific EEC issue.
I wish to concentrate my mind on a crisis within the EEC which will be with us within 48 hours. I refer of
**
983
course to the probable rejection of the 1985 budget by the European Assembly in Strasbourg on Thursday. We already know from this morning's newspapers that the budget committee of the European Parliament last night almost unanimously rejected the 1985 budget. Only two members voted against that decision—two memberss from Denmark who, it is said, oppose the Common Market. All the other members of the committee voted to reject the 1985 budget. Among them were British Labour Members of the European Parliament, and British Conservative Members. They all united to reject the budget approved by the members of the Council of Ministers, including our Government's representative. We know why that has happened. The meeting at Fontainebleau, to which the Minister referred in his excellent opening speech, has played a part.
The Minister concluded by praising the efforts of our Prime Minister at Fontainebleau. I should like to associate myself with his commendation of the role played by the Prime Minister in the past few years. The European Economic Community has treated the United Kingdom badly in budgetary affairs. We have had an unfair burden to carry. The Prime Minister has been in a difficult negotiating position but, for standing firm for our rights, she deserves our support.
However, we must also pay attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together in Strasbourg and later in this place for some six years. He is one of the great optimists of the European Community. Never until now has he been critical of the EEC. Never until now has he displayed pessimism. We must, therefore, now take his opinions seriously. As a former rapporteur of the EEC budget committee in Strasbourg, he knows what he is talking about. The hon. Gentleman says that the Fontainebleau agreement is not a long-term settlement, and that there is no real budgetary control. His speech will be well worth reading tomorrow in the Official Report.
The 1985 budget is likely to be rejected for various reasons. British Labour MEP's will vote against it because they wish to undermine the achievements of our Prime Minister at Fontainebleau. They wish to undo the settlement of the British rebate. They dislike that settlement. They wish to bring it back to the floor of the European Parliament.
Why do the Conservative MEP's also oppose the budget? Why do other Members from other countries oppose it? They do so because of the issue of the powers of the European Assembly. That is the kernel of the problem—the contest between the national Parliaments and the European Assembly. Until that key issue is clarified, there will be crisis after crisis over European bugetary affairs.
The situation is chronic. Under article 201 of the treaty of Rome, only the Council of Ministers has power to raise revenue. However, under article 203 of the treaty, responsibility for expenditure is shared by the Council of Ministers and the European Assembly. When there is an assembly with no responsibility for the raising of revenue which yet shares responsibility for expenditure, there is a chronic problem which will continue to breed political irresponsibility. That is the situation today.
The European Assembly Members are rejecting the 1985 budget in pique. They are piqued, first, because they were not involved in the settlement of the British rebate
984
at the Council meeting at Fontainbleau and, secondly, because they wish to bring that matter back into the 1985 budget. There is another reason for their annoyance. They recognise that the budget as proposed by the Council of Ministers will not cover expenditure for 1985. Within the 1 per cent. own resources limit, the budget is legal.; but the Members who reject the 1985 draft budget wish to proceed to exceed the 1 per cent. VAT limit and to go straight to the 1·4 per cent. figure for own resources.
Such a move would be illegal. It would pre-empt the general understanding that there would be discipline before we adopted the 1·4 per cent. VAT figure. That is the key issue—Members of the European Assembly are determined to rush the community into 1·4 per cent. before discipline in the budget has been created. That can happen in two ways. Either the budget can be rejected or it can be amended, at which point it becomes a disputed budget. However, whether it is disputed or rejected, there will be no budget within a few weeks on 31 December.
Some of us know what all that means because, as Members of the European Parliament, we lived through such an experience years ago. It means the one-twelfth system by which the Commission is limited from 1 January to spend one twelfth per month of what it spent this year or of the draft budget for 1985, whichever is the smaller. The effect of that is serious for the United Kingdom. It must be spelled out that those who are opposing the 1985 budget are acting in pique because they have limited power and in support of an expanded budget which would be illegal because it would be over the 1 per cent. VAT limit. It would also be against the interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom because the one-twelfth system will result in reduced expenditure through the guarantee fund for the agriculture industry. That is serious for our farmers.
The United Kingdom has benefited more than any other country from the expansion of the European social fund, money from which goes to areas of high unemployment to provide training. The 50 per cent. of the fund which may be used by the end of March will not be available if the 1985 budget is thrown out. Moreover, there will be a reduction in EEC development aid to Third world countries if the budget is not accepted. That, too, will not be popular in the United Kingdom, where there has been much public interest in African countries, especially Ethiopia. The effect of rejecting the budget on fishing areas is more than likely a stop on FEOGA grants to the fishery section so that the money can be used in other ways.
Such limited expenditure, which would affect the United Kingdom as I have just described, could continue for many months. Last time, it nearly took until 12 July —an appropriate date for us in Northern Ireland—before the issue was resolved. The problem might not be resolved until 12 July 1985. By then, the United Kingdom will be suffering in many ways. However, United Kingdom people and United Kingdom interests will not be all that suffer. The European Parliament will be damaged. That Parliament has not caught the imagination of the United Kingdom electorate and many of its Members are elected by less than 10 per cent. of the electorate. That is not a tribute to democracy and it does nothing to enhance the status of the European Parliament. By next summer, the Strasbourg Parliament might have to crawl back and accept what the Council of Ministers has suggested. That

985
happened last time. If that happens, far from strengthening the European Parliament and increasing its credibility, its standing will have been damaged even further.
It would be in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom and that of furthering the cause of the European Parliament for that Parliament to sit back and reflect on what it is doing and to decide to support the Government and the 1985 budget.
8.45 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: These debates are usually rather depressing affairs in which we rehearse familiar arguments and make the same speeches. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) went a long way to bringing a sense of reality into our proceedings. He did well to draw attention to the imminence of the crisis in regard to the future of the European Parliament. He put his finger unerringly on the central issue.
It might surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) to learn that I have always believed that there is great danger in the form and functions of the European Parliament as it was conceived. It has the power to spend money, but no responsibility for raising it. That is why I was so ferociously opposed to the Labour Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales. I do not oppose devolution, but their proposals were disastrous.
The Frankenstein is well and truly out of the bottle, if I have not mixed my metaphors too much, and we are now faced with a Parliament which is determined to assert its authority as a directly elected body, however slim that authority might be in view of the small turnouts for European elections. Moreover, it is on a collision course with the British and other European Governments. I have little doubt that one of the results will be a growing demand in Britain and elsewhere to do away with the European Parliament, although that means rewriting the treaty. Such pressure will not be easy to resist.
However small my enthusiasm for the European Parliament and however grave my misgivings about the form in which it was set up, I must utter a solemn warning. In order to abolish it, we shall have to rewrite the treaty. I am convinced that it will turn out to be impossible to conclude a new treaty which gives us even part of the satisfaction that we derive from the imperfect operations of the present Community. The outlook of the statesman who concluded the original treaties in 1957, to which we acceded many years later, meant that they were prepared to see the wood and not be blinded by the trees. They were prepared to subordinate the short-term interests of their countries to secure advantages which could be achieved only by a pooling of effort. I find no evidence of any such readiness among leaders of any of the countries that constitute the present Community. Much as I deplore the weaknesses of the present Community and regret the wrong functions given to the European Parliament, we must live with the present treaty and try to make it work.
By the same token, I share many of the pertinent criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East of a CAP which piles up ludicrous surpluses and seeks ways of funding ever larger surpluses.
I must also reflect that had we followed the policies advocated by the Labour party and a few Conservative
986
Members—it is not unfair to include my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East among them—and bought our food in he cheapest markets, we would today be bidding against those countries stricken by famine for the world's limited supplies of cereal. I do not believe for a moment that that would place us in a better situation.
I have never made any secret of my view that the European Community is unsatisfactory. However, it is the best Community we have, even though it is just not good enough. The Community in which we presently live is rapidly losing out to the rest of the world in industrial innovation, the creation of new jobs and raising the living standards of its people. It is failing to do the job it was set up to do. It is not even a Common Market. We shall not get even half of what the Community should be providing unless we are prepared to go forward rather than backward. We should not go backward by saying that the only things we want from the Community are those which advantage us. Frankly, we cannot run any kind of alliance, let alone a community, on that basis. We must go forward and strengthen the decision-making processes of the Community. Therefore, we must take seriously the proposals circulating in the European Parliament in respect of institutional reform. I believe that the Parliament is out of its depth on financial matters, but on institutional matters I believe that it may have a lot to teach us.
Nothing alarms me more than the gap which is now opening up between the common thinking within the European Parliament among parties of all nationalities—not, perhaps, among the British Labour group, but that group is all alone in the world — on the need for institutional change and more effective ways of taking decisions, and the total refusal on both sides of this House even to consider those ideas, let alone to consider accepting them seriously. We must move towards a system in which the use of the veto is altogether exceptional. No one is suggesting that we should give up the veto where vital national interests are at stake, but unless the nations which comprise the EEC are prepared to reconcile themselves to the fact that normally they will accept majority decisions and resort to the veto only in cases of acute national need, not much progress will take place.
The best that can be hoped for under the present system is the acceptance of what is familiarly known as two-speed Europe. That is frequently described as a great tragedy. I am not sure that it is, given the limitations of the present situation. We could possibly go along with a system under which, for example, the seven nations constituting WEU agree to co-operate more closely in providing a European pillar for the North Atlantic Alliance. Equally, those nations which are getting together to build up a European aviation industry could go ahead and build the aircraft, even if British Airways, for reasons of its own, prefers to buy inferior American aircraft rather than the superior European aircraft which are available.
The founder states have formed and operated a European monetary system that provides an element of stability to their exchange rates, but, for reasons best known to the Treasury, we prefer to remain outside that system. I believe that we would do very much better within it. We can operate that type of two-speed Europe for a certain time, but even that will not work without better decision-making processes. It is notable that among the institutions of the Community which do work — the

987
European monetary system and the Airbus consortium are two examples—there are institutions which are able to take effective and swift decisions.
8.54 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who is sincere in all his contributions, has called for realism. I shall attempt to be realistic and shall echo some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) who made a distinguished and fundamental contribution.
The ambit of our debate is extremely wide. In fact, the motion contains four debates. There is a debate on the arrangements for finances for 1984, another on the draft budget for 1985 and its various appendices, yet another on the preliminary document on own resources — an important document arising out of Fontainebleau's success or otherwise — and a fourth on the disciplinary document. If that were not enough, we have in the italicised sentence of the Order Paper consideration of Cmnd. 9348, with its 122 paragraphs. In my capacity as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, I wonder whether the House has taken on too large a meal.
The main purpose of my speech is to draw the attention of the House to the reports of the Scrutiny Committee on some of the documents referred to in the motion. It would be wrong of me to try to deal with all of them—the debate is too wide for that—but I want to emphasise some of the current practical points that have been mentioned so far. We are now talking about financial control in the Community. The long-awaited crunch has happened. The Community has run out of money, and its various institutions and member states are asking, "What will happen next?" In the midst of this, as the right hon. Member for Strangford reminded us, the Assembly is attempting to increase its own power and, perhaps, credibility.
We must remember that the power of this House over its own Executive is through the control of money, but the mere fact that we are asked to debate instruments which relate to running out of money in 1984, and the fact that there is also Cmnd. 9395—named as the Undertaking, but we are not discussing it now—tells us that the hoop has been burst, provided that it is possible for the House to approve that document in view of proceedings elsewhere.
If the House approves that document, the increased expenditure for 1984 will be approved. It may be a relatively small amount—a matter of 1,000 million ecu —but that is the principle, as can be seen from the 34th report from the Select Committee on European Legislation. The Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Strangford and I are members, owes a great deal to the assistance we get from our clerks. Among the batch of documents on which we reported-they were largely financial — was a consultative document, No. 8514/84, and a letter signed by Mr. Andriessen. He more or less told member states, "The Community will run out of money in 1984. Please see what you can do about it". Paragraph 7 of the document refers to raising money for the current year. It states:
"Similarly, the Council cannot, if it is to respect in full all its obligations under the Treaty, advocate an upheaval of those policies which are financed by non-obligatory expenditure. The
988
transfer of a major volume of non-obligatory credits to EAGGF Guarantee would mean a decimation of the Community's structural and sectoral policies."
It then states that the Commission will not cut those to maintain the obligatory expenditure of the Community. That is a major statement of policy. We must be under no illusion that Cmnd. 9395 merely maintains the obligatory expenditure of the Community. It also maintains the non-obligatory expenditure, which is nevertheless above the 1 per cent. limit.
The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to the 1985 budget. The Scrutiny Committee summarised the proposals in House of Commons 78-xxxv. On page 10 we set out a schedule of the draft budget for 1985 and the preliminary draft budget for 1985. The original preliminary draft budget came to a total of 28,000 million ecu. The present budget is 2,000 million ecu less, which makes a total of 26,000 million ecu. The reason for the reduction was to keep within the 1 per cent. The Council makes it clear that expenditure will exceed that. It states:
"In deciding on a budget appropriation for the 1985 EAGGF of 18,000 million ecu, i.e. a reduction of 1,315 million ecu by comparison with the figure considered necessary by the Commission in the preliminary draft Budget, the Council for its part, while emphasising the need for rigorous market management, undertakes to meet by 1 October 1985 the additional budgetary requirements which will arise in 1985."
The 1985 budget is not realistic in the eyes of the Commission. The Council, in keeping with its legal obligations, has cut it to inside the 1 per cent. limit. However, at the same time it is saying that by October 1985 it will need more propping up. The Government may return to the House to ask us to approve yet another undertaking to fill the kitty, which may be empty sooner next year than it was this year. That is assuming that the own resources mechanism is not in place by then. It may be. We hope that own resources will provide repayments for 1984 and 1985, if they go through.
I turn to a change in the financial regulations. We commented on this in our report, House of Commons 78-xxxiii. It states that the Commission proposes
"that greater flexibility be given to the Commission to transfer funds between lines in this section."
In effect, that changes the appropriation. A reason why we have an appropriation Act is to maintain rigidly what
the Government can spend between different votes. In the EEC it is not a budget but an estimate of expected expenditure. The financial regulation will give greater flexibility for transfer of appropriation between one heading and another. There is already a lot of that.
I turn to the question of monetary discipline. In our report, House of Commons 85-ii, the Scrutiny Committee draws the following conclusion:
"The Committee do not perceive any legal implications in the Conclusions as presented in this document but have already commented on the unusual nature of its status, and the fact that it does not have legislative form. They note that the text will arise for discussion between the Council and a delegation of the European Parliament scheduled for 21 November 1984 and will be presented for adoption thereafter."
I mention this because it is clear, not only from the report but from a letter which I received in the nick of time from the Economic Secretary, that before the disciplinary document was discussed and agreed by the Council of Ministers, a delegation from the European Parliament talked to the Council about it. That was before the House

989
talked about it. I received a letter from the Economic Secretary today telling me that, as a result of the Dublin summit, the Council adopted the following conclusions:
"Firstly, to invite the Commission and the European Parliament to examine with it ways in which the co-operation necessary for a budgetary discipline common to all three institutions may be brought about. Secondly, to invite a delegation of the Parliament to meet it shortly before the meetings at which the Council is due to fix the reference framework for the year."
There will now be regular consultation between the Council and members of the Strasbourg Assembly in respect of budgetary discipline. The points made by the right hon. Member for Strangford have been fulfilled completely, because the budgetary procedures will now include consultation with the Strasbourg assembly, but there will be no similar consultation with the House.
The present struggle — financial control over an executive not in Whitehall but in Brussels—is critical. I suggest that the same constitutional rules apply there as applied here hundreds of years ago and as still apply today.
9.6 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: In the few minutes available to me, I shall concentrate on a fairly narrow area, although I hope that Ministers will realise that I wished to say much more.
My hon. Friends will agree that when the Scottish National Farmers Union has met Ministers it has introduced sensible and realistic proposals. That body was the first to suggest to the Minister that quotas were the way to deal with the milk problem. The NFU accepted quotas, because it suggested them, but Scottish farmers are now unhappy because the super-levy is not working. They oppose the super-levy because they believe that, although they have honoured their side of the agreement, farmers in other parts of the Community have not.
The Scottish NFU believes that the way to deal with the over-production of cereals is to allow the price to dictate the market, but it qualifies that by saying, "We are prepared to promote the idea but we want the Government to be realistic. If the rest of the Community behaves as it has done with milk quotas, we want our backs to be protected."
I represent a constituency of 2,000 square miles which are largely agricultural. The vast majority of it is mountainous agricultural land, and some parts of my constituency include the most rugged agricultural land in Scotland. When I went to school, Scotland was split into three parts—the highlands, the central lowlands and the southern uplands—but some years ago we introduced a new animal called the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It would be hard to find a more misnamed organisation, because it does not represent all the highlands of Scotland. Indeed, a substantial part of the highlands of Scotland are completely outwith the board's responsibilities.
Unfortunately, the Europeans, hearing us describe an area of Scotland as the highlands and islands, naturally think that we are talking about all the highlands. There are communications problems, not only because of the language differences but because we cannot draw lines on the map to represent the mountain areas accurately, which causes problems. The constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) adjoins
990
mine. He will know that the northern stretch of the A9 that normally gets blocked in the winter months is in my constituency. However, that is not recognised and accepted as being as difficult for farming as the Inverness area. There is something wrong with this, and something should be done about it.
Areas such as Glen Lyon, Rannoch, Drumochter, which is next to Inverness, Glen Shee, Strathadle, Glen Prosen and Glen Clova are without doubt some of the most difficult farming areas in Scotland. Therefore, they should be treated as are the rest of the highland areas. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Labour Members would not laugh if they had to face the problems of farmers living in these difficult areas. They see their neighbours being treated differently because we have drawn a line on the map that does not represent the highlands of Scotland.
I make it clear that this is not a plea for more European spending. My farmers and I take the view that budgetary disciplines are essential if Europe is ever to work, but it must be seen to be fair and responsible, and at the moment it is neither.
9.11 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Once again we are discussing the payment of more money to the Common Market, and for what? Primarily, it is for the dubious privilege of buying dearer food. It is difficult to understand why the serried ranks on the Conservative Benches want to vote for this. I am struck by the painful and glaring contrast between the Government's stringency at home and their largesse abroad in the EEC. Recently we had the statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. After some arm-twisting, he had to climb down. To pay for that, he took a couple of million from university furniture and a couple of million from science. On these matters we get meticulous, penny-pinching economies, but just mention the EEC or the CAP and the Government open up their coffers and money is spent with gay abandon. They spend money like a drunken sailor with eight arms.
Why is a dash of monetarism not applied to the EEC? Instead, rather like the good fairy in a pantomime, the Prime Minister rushes in to play Lady Bountiful with our money. Gone are the days when she spoke of achieving a broad balance of our payments into the budget and about getting our money back, or when she went to the Dublin summit and claimed that she was not prepared to settle for half a loaf. Gone are the days when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Financial Secretary, came to the Scrutiny Committee and said that our position must be that of the French and we must be roughly in balance. Gone are the days of resolute statements and firm intentions. All hopes have disappeared. We have been let down and strung along. We have been kidded and conned, and Agriculture Ministers are still coming along with their tree-grown theory of money supply.
There are two questions that have never been answered. First, why are we paying net any money to the budget? We are one of the poorer members of the Community, so why are we not a beneficiary? The bulk of this money goes to incentives for farmers to produce more food that cannot be consumed, so the second question is: why should there be any more money for agriculture? People keep going on about reforming the CAP, but if it were reformed it would not need any more money.

991
We should let the countries which produce the surpluses pay for them. Not only are we denied cheap food from overseas and forced to pay the higher EEC prices, but we pay for the surpluses of other member states, which are caused by the higher prices. We are doing violence to our national interest. The policy is anti-British.
The higher prices are a type of danegeld paid by Governments on the continent to assuage their agricultural populations and lobbies. I am not against such bribes, but I do not see why we have to pay them. It would make more sense to make deficiency payments to our own farmers to keep prices low and give us cheap food.
The Foreign Secretary said that the Government had no intention of introducing legislation to increase own resources until the Finance Ministers had agreed
"on precise measures to guarantee the effective implementation of budget discipline."
On the same day the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that it was wrong
"to proceed on the basis of fudge and hope—fudge the issues and hope that the outcome will be all right."—[Official Report, 10 July 1984; Vol 63. c. 894–907.]
Having read the documents, I am bound to say that the European political fudge-making industry has never been in better shape. We are in the ludicrous position of trying to persuade the EEC to spend less by offering it more money.
While farmers are encouraged to produce more, the budget will always push against the own resources ceiling. In the meantime, we continue to be Europe's major paymasters on a continuing and escalating basis. The truth is that the Prime Minister was out-manoeuvred at Fontainebleau. She conceded a 40 per cent. increase in tax contributions, without achieving the budgetary discipline and control of agricultural spending, in return for a refund mechanism the complexities of which serve only to conceal its imperfections. Had that mechanism been in operation from 1980 to 1983, our refunds would have been much less than they were.
Fotainebleau has provided no lasting solution to budgetary discipline and agricultural extravagance. When the EEC runs out of money again, as it will, we shall be asked to pay yet again even more. The threat is that VAT contributions will go up even further to 1·6 per cent. The prosperous farmers of West Germany were given a remission of 5 per cent. VAT, resulting in even higher prices and so even bigger surpluses. That is hardly a sign that the situation will improve.
Instead of resources determining expenditure, we have agreed to contribute £120 million to an inter-governmental whipround. Why is that? It is to bail out the CAP, to keep it going and to encourage its wasteful rake's progress. On the condition that we pay the extra £120 million, the EEC has agreed to pay us our 1983 rebate, which was agreed at Stuttgart.
The Government's "victory", or "diplomatic achievement", is that we can have some of our own money back if we pay in even more. The agreement on increasing our VAT contribution was to be conditional on the reform of the CAP. A requisite was the Council adopting measures guaranteeing budget discipline acceptable to Britain and the House.
The document is pathetic and hopelessly inadequate. It is not a regulation like the existing regulations that govern
992
the budgetary procedure. Instead, it has the status of "Conclusions". What does that mean? I do not understand. It has no legislative force.
The sixth report for the 1983 Session of the Select Committee over which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) presides with such distinction states:
"The result of any such controls would clearly depend upon…the extent to which it was enshrined in legislative form."
It has not been, and why not? The answer was given by the Prime Minister on 5 December. I do not know why the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) is making funny faces. I hope he understands that the debate can continue until 11.30 pm. The Prime Minister said:
"The text on financial budgetary discipline is binding on the Council itself, but is not being embodied into a treaty or technically—legally—into the budgetary process.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because one simply cannot get agreement from all 10 countries."—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, column 354.]
We could not reach agreement, which is why it is not enshrined in legislation. Are the member states likely to agree in future? I do not believe that they will do so. Therefore, we have absolutely no guarantee, yet despite that we are increasing our tax contribution to the EEC.
In article 1 of the so-called "Conclusions" it is stipulated that the EEC will act by a qualified majority. Again, that gives the veto to other countries to stop a satisfactory position. It is in no way binding-it is as watertight as a sieve. Articles 2, 3 and 4 refer to account being taken of "exceptional circumstances". What are they? From my experience of the Common Market, there are always exceptional circumstances.
Article 5 provides for a clawback of any excess expenditure over the following two years, barring "aberrant developments". What is the EEC except an aberration? It is an institutionalised aberration. We have absolutely no guarantee in any shape or form.
Once again, we have been led up the garden path—and not only on this count, but on every count, whether trade, jobs, food prices, taxation, investment in or out or fishing. Whatever the count, this country—like the Scandanavian countries—would be better off not being a member of the EEC.
9.23 pm
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The Minister made an heroic effort at the beginning of the debate to prove to the House—[Interruption.] It was an heroic effort. I shall give the reasons for its failure later. He tried to convince the House that firm budget discipline had been achieved. As we listened to the debate, it became clear that with one or two notable and unconvincing exceptions—those sitting on the Liberal Benches—the Minister manifestly failed to achieve his aim. Even the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), on whose support the Minister could generally rely, was critical of the current position in the EEC.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the Minister's efforts failed. After all, it was only a short time ago—last July—that the Government told us that they were determined to bring this year's budget into balance and that there would be no question of any supplementary budget. However, by September it appeared that their resolve had weakened. Perhaps the Minister of State can blame his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for that and move the blame for failure slightly away from himself, for

993
it was then that the Economic Secretary agreed to the supplementary budget that is the subject of the undertaking that is now being considered before the courts and that may be considered by us before the end of this month. However, the Economic Secretary takes an opimistic view of the supplementary budget—this extra payment of £120 million—since he described it as a reimbursable advance. Drawing upon his experience as a banker, he said that this is a payment made to the borrower in advance of the receipt of his own funds. Presumably he expects that next year the Commission will have sufficient funds to pay back to us what he is pleased to call an advance.
Perhaps another reason for the failure of the Minister of State to convince the House is that the Prime Minister cast doubt upon the firmness of the budgetary discipline which had been obtained at the Dublin summit. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) questioned the Prime Minister on 5 December he said:
"The Prime Minister has said that the Council has bound itself in respect of budgetary discipline. If that were to be so, would that not need financial regulations?"—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 355.]
The Prime Minister said that she would have preferred financial regulations, but that she regarded the conclusions as binding upon the council. Even if the Government had achieved the kind of regulations that were wanted, that would still not have dealt with the fundamental problem facing the EEC with regard to its budget. Even if regulations had been obtained setting a ceiling on agricultural spending, we would have been left with a self-contradictory set of regulations. Some of the regulations already in operation in the EEC allow open-ended price guarantees and commitments in terms of agricultural spending. All that the financial disciplinary regulations would have done would have been to try to hold that down. There would have been a contradiction. Indeed, the notion of imposing firm discipline upon farm spending is like trying to hold down the lid on a pot of boiling water. Sooner of later, the lid blows off, and out comes the boiling water.
The Minister of State failed to convince the House because it is recognised that the Government have failed to achieve the original objective that they set themselves—the radical reform of the common aricultural policy. That is why, quite rightly, hon. Members on both sides of the House have continued their sustained criticism of the common agricultural policy. The CAP is responsible for the budget overspending. Unless the CAP is reformed, we can talk about firm discipline until the cows come home—an appropriate metaphor, perhaps—but we shall not get control of the EEC budget.
What we have been offered in terms of the conclusions reached by the Council are, as one senior EEC official described it, not worth the paper they are written on. Its legal status is doubtful and it is full of holes.
Even if, as the Minister of State suggested, the Commission were to take one or other member country to the European Court and try to apply the strictures of the Council to it—let us grant to the Minister of State that supposition—what I fail to understand is how there could be any success in the European Court if what one is trying to apply is a set of guidelines with such gaping holes in their application. Obviously, even in that
994
situation, there would be every opportunity for the country allegedly in breach of the conclusions of the Council to wriggle out of any charge that the Commission wanted to bring against it. It is no good saying that people can be taken to court. They have to be taken to court with a watertight case. Without that it would be pointless.
Many points have already been well made during the debate. The references to "exceptional circumstances" and "unusual circumstances" in the various articles show that the rules cannot possibly apply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) rightly asked, when do we find a situation in the EEC which does not have exceptional circumstances for the farming community? When can farmers not plead in their cause a gamut of conditions that they can pull into play, ranging from what is happening to the dollar to what is happening to world food markets whether in grain, sugar or whatever? Any of those situations can be used to justify whatever claim they wish to make.
We are left with a document whose legal status is unclear and whose guidelines cannot be binding because of the loopholes that they contain. We are also left with a series of conclusions that have as their major weakness that they set too high a ceiling on any future agricultural spending. That is because of the way in which the rules have been drawn.
Any of the major rules of the system can be breached or altered by a qualified majority vote in the Council. The way in which future calculations for agricultural spending are to be carried out will allow agricultural spending to rise both as a proportion of future budgets in 1985 and in the years thereafter and in volume terms. That is why the conclusions that have been adopted at Dublin cannot possibly prevent overspending in future. That is why the Minister of State completely failed to convince the House that we shall have firm control on agricultural spending.
Let us take one or two examples from what is happening now and see what confidence that will give us for the future. Look, for example, at what is happening with regard to milk production. The quota system that was introduced this year aimed at cutting EEC milk production by 7 per cent. Last Saturday the Financial Times pointed out that seven months after its introduction not one penny of the super levies have been paid and three delays to payments have already been agreed by the Commission. In October and on 1 December the Financial Times reported that the Commission had to take four EEC states to court over the milk super levy, and apparently those cases are still under consideration.
On 1 December the Financial Times commented:
"So complex are the rules that most member states are nowhere near completing the administrative arrangements to carry them out. Where they are reasonably well advanced, a number have tried strategems which the European Commission suspects are designed to soften the blow of quotas or enable their farmers to sell more milk."
West Germany is quoted as an example. It seems that it is defying the super levy regulations by exempting thousands of small farmers from more than half the reduction that is required. Although a reduced rate of cuts for small producers may be compensated for by the greater cuts that are made by large dairy farmers, the German move is believed by Commission experts to ignore both the letter and the spirit of the regulations and it has not been officially sanctioned.
We usually complain about the attitude of France towards Community regulations and Germany usually

995
claims the virtue of wanting stringent spending controls. In this instance it appears that even West Germany, one of the more virtuous members of the Community, is bending and twisting the milk quota rules to ensure that many of its dairy farmers are exempt from Community strictures.
It is claimed that the milk quota rules show that the Community is moving towards stricter budget discipine and is prepared to accept quotas. It is said that the Community is prepared to restrict production and thus to reduce spending on agriculture. After the best part of a year following the introduction of the regulations, we find that member states are not observing them. They are busy adapting, avoiding and evading the regulations. Italy is a notorious example. One of the documents before us tells us that there are 61 cases against Italy in the European Court. Italy is flouting the rules.
If we are asked to believe that the Council's conclusions will take us forward into the future, that the EEC will present us with a balanced budget year-on-year and fulfil the Community ideal in that way and that farm spending cuts will take place, we must realise that there is little evidence for that in what has been going on so far.
The Government are trying to con us into believing that farm spending is under control and that they have obtained everything for which they have asked. Ministers return regularly from Brussels, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Fontainebleau, or wherever the latest summit happens to be, and say, "We have won again. We have obtained everything for which we asked. Everything in the garden will be lovely." It is the greatest con job in history. They do nothing of the sort.
Mr. Hugh Dykes rose—
Mr. Budgen rose—
Dr. McDonald: I give way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
Mr. Budgen: Is the hon. Lady not being grossly unfair to the Government? It may have been a con job for the first time they tried it, but it cons no one now.
Mr. Dykes rose—
Dr. McDonald: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he was absent for most of the debate. As I understand it, he is not in the Chamber to reply on behalf of the Government. If he is, he is sitting in the wrong place.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He is not deceived. Having read with interest the way in which he cuts through Ministers' condescending verbiage in Select Committee, I know that he is not conned by them. However, many members of the public believe the Prime Minister when she returns from a summit and tells us that she obtained everything for which she asked. It is our job in Parliament to make it clear that she has obtained very little of that for which she asked. In this instance she has returned with a 1985 budget—
Mr. Dykes: What did the previous Labour Government obtain?
Dr. McDonald: I shall educate the hon. Gentleman with a little history. One of the things that Conservative Members must understand—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not get over-excited. I heard his piece from a sedentary position.
996
The transitional arrangements did not end until 1978, so the problems with which we are now faced did not arise. They have arisen since 1979 and worsened. We are now left with the 1985 budget. The proportion of that draft budget spent on agriculture will increase to 72 per cent., and in the real budget the proportion will increase to 73 per cent. As a type of palliative, the regional and social funds have been marginally increased, although, once inflation is taken into account, they probably have only stood still.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) described in detail the cuts in aid which appal people in this country and other member countries—cuts in transport, science, technology, industry and other social measures. Those services are the immediate victims. Yet more and more money will be paid out next year to farmers. The laughable aspect of the whole business is that the budget will cope not with 12 months but with 10 months of a year and will immediately bring us into conflict with the European Parliament as it rejects a draft budget that is too stupid for words.
The Government, having come back for more money this year, once the court case is cleared up in the way they hope, will return next year with their begging bowl asking for yet more money from the suffering British taxpayer. In the following year, they will run into a further crisis, because the 1986 budget will also fail to meet the demands made on us. The Government will start talking about an increase in own resources from 1·4 per cent. No doubt by then the Government will have run out of goods. which have already been zero-rated, on which to oppose the imposition of VAT.
Ministers talk about firm controls on spending. Nothing they have said proves the point they wish to make. Next year's budget shows that nothing like that aim will be achieved. This year's budget shows that the whole of the Minister's work in Brussels has been a total failure. The British taxpayer pays the price, and it is up to him to realise whose fault that is.
9.42 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, this has been a wide-ranging debate covering a large number of documents and a great many more Community topics. I do not have the time to enter into some of the wider considerations discussed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I shall have to leave it to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) to debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) whether changes in the treaty are needed. I believe that a great deal could be done within the existing treaty, and that is where the priority lies.
I note the comments of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about fisheries. I shall report what he said to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked about the subdivision within the United Kingdom which results in Northern Ireland having a problem with the super levy. I understand that that has happened, because national quotas are divided into separate sections according to what is technically the organisation of dairies

997
—in this case, the milk marketing boards—and, because there is a separate milk marketing board for Northern Ireland, that board is a separate entity.
General points have been mentioned in the debate. The hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) have displayed a fundamental misunderstanding. They spoke as if the budgetary problems in 1984 and 1985 were somehow a condemnation of budget discipline. The point is that the difficulties of constraining expenditure this year and next have occurred because we did not have effective budget discipline. Had we had budget discipline, I have no doubt that many of the difficulties that we face would have been avoided.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked whether supplementary financing would be reimbursable and what the provisions were in the 1985 budget. The 1985 budget was drafted and brought forward before the agreement on the supplementary finance was reached, and the proposals are that the advances should be reimbursable, starting in 1986. They do not appear in the documents before us today.
On the question of the overrun this year, the hon. Member for Thurrock sought to chide me for being reluctant to concede in July of this year that we should make a substantial payment for supplementary finance. I wonder what type of negotiations she thinks Ministers conduct if they do not try all along the line to ensure that they obtain the best deal. In this case, the amount of overspending was reduced to the irreducible minimum and the amount of supplementary finance required was also as low as possible. I should have thought that that was self-evidently in our national interest. Getting the figure down from well over 2 billion ecu in the original proposals to 1·35 billion ecu in the July Budget Council without conceding that we would agree to any supplementary finance was an achievement which the hon. Lady should be glad British Ministers could deliver.
Dr. McDonald rose—
Mr. Stewart: When we managed to agree a figure on 1,003 million ecu in September, that was less than half the original amount proposed. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the efforts that had been made on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Dr. McDonald: The Minister has misunderstood much of what has been said. On 10 July the Foreign Secretary said that
"we shall be pressing in the Budget Council next week for savings that will bring into balance the 1984 budget".—[Official Report, 10 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 897.]
That is fine as an intention. No one quarrels with that, but we are saying that the Government did not succeed.
Mr. Stewart: The Government succeeded in reducing the figures substantially. We forced the Commission to make savings in its market management, and we forced the Commission and Council to agree to offsetting amounts against agricultural expenditure so that we were left with a much smaller figure to finance. The fact that there was a residual figure shows that budget discipline has not applied until now. I and most hon. Members must wish that budget discipline had been in place at least two or three years ago. It would have prevented many of the
998
problems that we have had to face in the past two years. They are still with us, because the Fontainebleau agreement was not put in place until the middle of this year, and the post-Fontainebleau package—of which budget discipline is a part—is only now being put in place.
The right hon. Member for Strangford said that it would be undesirable if the European Parliament were to reject the 1985 budget, because that would be flat against the interests of all member states, and the agricultural sector in particular. I entirely agree with what he said in a thoughtful and impressive contribution. I hope that before members of the European Parliament seek to reject the 1985 draft budget they will realise that the consequences for the people whom they represent and who elected them to serve there would be entirely adverse and would not assist the reputation of the European Parliament or its claim for a greater part in the affairs of the Community.
Mr. Marlow: In his brilliant introductory speech my hon. Friend the Minister of State unfortunately did not have time to touch on the proposal to increase the Community's own resources. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will deal with that. The increase in own resources means that the Community will be spending more taxpayers' money. Will my hon. Friend tell us where that will substitute for current United Kingdom policy so that we know what the Community will be taking over from us? If there are to be new Community policies, will he tell us what they are? If not, which of the current policies are to cost more in the future? The sum must add up somewhere, and I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is very good at arithmetic.
Mr. Stewart: If I had not given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I should have had more time to deal with the points that he has raised and which have been covered many times in the debate. I shall be coming to the question of own resources.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I correct in supposing that this debate can go on until 11.30 pm?
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly true.
Mr. Stewart: I think that I should also take the wishes of the House into account in measuring the length of my speech.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked how the United Kingdom would get its 1,000 million ecu refund next year. We intend that the own resources decision should be brought into play before the end of 1985 and that we should receive the 1,000 million ecu by way of abatement. We have also arranged, and the Council has agreed, a general undertaking attached to the 1985 budget guaranteeing that the United Kingdom refund will be paid without specifying the means whereby that is to happen. The actual decisions are for the future, but the Council has recognised the unreserved right of the United Kingdom to the 1,000 million ecu compensation in respect of 1984, to be paid next year in that way.
The European Parliament wished to place our compensation on the expenditure side, but we were able to resist that. It also wanted to go above the 1 per cent. ceiling for the 1985 budget, and we were able to resist that, too. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that this year and

999
next year there are temporary pressures on the budget because of the lack of a budgetary discipline system in the past.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Economic Secretary has just made a very important statement and I should like to press him a little further on it. The Fontainebleau agreement provided that the refund in 1985 in respect of 1984 would be payable by means of an abatement. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he does not envisage the refund coming into operation until the decision on the increase in own resources is taken. He will be aware that the date of that increase is a matter of contention in the Community and that the Germans are still holding out for 1 January 1986 so as to coincide with enlargement. Is the Economic Secretary saying that the agreement on our refund does not come into play if the date for the increase in own resources is not in 1985? More important, is he saying that the Treasury will not deduct the abatement from our payment to the EEC until the decision on own resources is reached? As I understand the Fontainebleau agreement, there is no reason why the abatement should not start running from January 1985.
Mr. Stewart: As I have said, it is our assumption and intention that the own resources decision should be implemented within the calendar year 1985 and that our abatement would come into play at that time. As it is possible that the own resources decision will not be implemented in 1985, however, the Council has agreed that the United Kingdom will be due to receive its compensation next year in any event.
I must move on to the question of budgetary discipline. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who tabled the amendment, spoke of the budgetary discipline text as a worthless piece of paper. I take the strongest possible issue with my hon. Friend over that view. We undertook to arrange that measures necessary to guarantee the effective application of budgetary discipline would be put in place. The component parts of those measures are an overall reference framework covering all expenditure, separate provisions for an agricultural guideline and a maximum rate of expenditure covering non-obligatory expenditure.
My hon. Friend raised the question whether there was any limit on the reference framework which the Council could fix. The Council, being bound by the conclusions, will not fix a reference framework higher than that of the agricultural guideline and the maximum rate. It is limited in that way.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I suggested that article 1 imposes no limit and that the Ministers can sit down and, by a majority vote, fix any ceiling that they wish. My hon. Friend now says that there is a restriction at the 1·4 per cent. figure. If the 1·4 per cent. limit is there anyway, what does article 1 provide which would not have been provided if that article did not exist?
Mr. Stewart: Article 1 refers to the reference framework itself and also to the agricultural guideline, but the reference framework is the total amount within which the budget must be set. The component parts of the budget are the agricultural expenditure and the non-obligatory expenditure within the maximum rate. As the budgetary discipline text provides for both those elements, that constitutes the reference framework.
Mr. Forth: Does not article 6 provide for the reference framework itself to be changed, and does that not render it meaningless?
Mr. Stewart: Article 6 provides that the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers may alter the reference framework, but that would be a matter of changing one of the elements within it. As the Council has bound itself in relation to the maximum rate, it would be able to alter the agriculture guidelines under the circumstances described in some of the clauses of the budgetary discipline text.
It has been said that because there is flexibility in the text it is useless, meaningless or full of holes. That is not the case.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why?
Mr. Stewart: I shall explain why, if I am given a chance to do so.
The purpose of the budgetary discipline is to move away from a system where price and the price-fixing of agriculture settlements in the early part of the year determined the cost of the programme to a system in which an acceptable cost works back to the establishment of the prices. No one can say, with something as erratic as agricultural expenditure, that one can always predict in March the exact outcome later in the year. That is why neither this country nor other member states could have accepted an absolutely rigid system. That would not have been realistic.
Comments have been made about the legal nature of the budgetary discipline text. The consequences are binding on the Council. That is the important factor. They are incorporated in the budgetary procedures of the Community.
On the question of own resources, it has been suggested that we would have a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure. There will be no step change, because the base is fixed on 1984–85, and therefore increases will be related to that. The increase will be much lower—probably less than 20 per cent.—because Britain will pay less than 1 per cent. in own resources for the next few years even if the VAT ceiling is increased to 1·4 per cent.
We now have a satisfactory arrangement on budgetary discipline and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos 8322/84, Preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1984; 8879/84, Letter of amendment to preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1984; the unnumbered document, Draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1984; Document No. 10222/84, European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 of the European Communities for 1984; the unnumbered document, Draft general budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1985; Documents Nos 9482/84, Letter of amendment to preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1985; 10690/84, European Parliament's amendments and modifications to the Draft budget of the European Communities for 1985; 8454/84, Amended proposal for a Council decision on the Communities' system of Own Resources; 8445/84, Commission proposal for a Council regulation introducing reserve measures to cover requirements in 1985; 8514/84, Commission's communication on the budgetary requirements of the Community in 1984 and 1985; 5899/84,

1001
Amended proposal for a Council regulation amending the Financial Regulation of 21st December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities; and the unnumbered document, Budgetary discipline; common position of the Council of Ministers; and welcomes the agreement on budgetary discipline providing for the firm control of agricultural and other expenditure.

Overseas Aid
10 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move,
That the draft International Development Association (Seventh Replenishment) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.
I understand that, with the leave of the House, we can take with this the second motion—
That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1984 Selective Capital Increase) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister have the leave of the House?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Mr. Raison: The purpose of these orders is to authorise an increase in our subscription to the capital stock of the World Bank for the take-up of a further 529 shares, and a contribution to the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is known more popularly as the World Bank, owes its existence to the imagination of those concerned with the immediate financial needs of Europe after the second world war. The creation of the World Bank, along with the International Monetary Fund, was an act of faith. Her Majesty's Government's participation was agreed by this House almost 40 years ago, in December 1945. Since then, the bank has, of course, changed its emphasis to tackle the problem of the world's developing countries.
The IBRD' s basic aim, enshrined in its articles of association, is to promote economic progress in developing countries, other than the very poorest, by providing financial and technical assistance, mostly for specific projects, in the public and private sectors. Loans have been granted to Governments for projects in a variety of sectors—agriculture and rural development, education, energy, industry, population, health and nutrition, water supply and sewerage, transportation and telecommunications. There has also been some non-project lending, including structural adjustment loans. This recent form of lending is to provide financial assistance—foreign exchange—to a country which undertakes to make changes in its economic management. The bank's total lending in the year to June 1984 was $11·9 billion. The bank's goal is to bring its borrowers to a point at which they are fully able to turn to the world's financial markets to meet their needs. The bank has helped many countries graduate out of its lending programme. The most notable case is, perhaps, Korea.
The Bank has unparalleled first-hand knowledge of a wide range of developing countries' problems and an operating experience which is second to none. Moreover—we attach more importance to this—it has a first-class system of evaluating its lending operations.
The Government have consistently given the strongest possible support to the World Bank president and his staff. I welcome the opportunity provided by today's debate to reaffirm that support, and to pay tribute to Mr. Clausen and his team for their sheer professionalism and dedication to the formidable tasks in hand.
More directly, we support the bank's central aim of the alleviation of poverty and its concentration of resources in

1003
key areas, especially in agriculture, rural development and energy. We welcome particularly the Bank's very useful country macro-economic and sector analysis work, as well as its willingness to do more in donor co-ordination.
I shall now deal more specifically with the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1984 Selective Capital Increase) Order 1984. The purpose of this order is to enable the Government to make a further subscription to the capital stock of the bank of a sum equivalent to $63,815,915, of which only 8·75 per cent. - or $5·5 million—would be paid-in. The balance would be callable. A copy of the IBRD resolution No. 395 has been placed in the Library for the information of hon. Members, and the sum I have mentioned is the price of 529 shares as set by the terms of that resolution. The selective capital increase will add a further $8·4 billion to the IBRD's capital base. That will help the bank to maintain its lending programme at the current high level. The main purpose of the selective capital increase was not to provide additional capital, however, but to effect changes in shareholdings in the bank following the IMF eights quota review. The need for a long-term increase in the bank's capital base will have to be met by a general capital increase in about 1986.
As a result of the selective capital increase, and in the context of the negotiations on the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association, the ranking positions of the major shareholders in the IBRD have been re-aligned: the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany remaining respectively in first and third positions, Japan moving from fifth to second position, and the United Kingdom—formerly second—and France—formerly fourth—sharing joint fourth place. The United Kingdom has thus been given a lower allocation of shares, 529, under the Bank 1984 selective capital increase than would otherwise have been allocated to us. However, this does not mean that our support for the bank is in any way diminished. The World Bank shareholding is generally fixed in relation to members' economic and financial strength.
I turn to the International Development Association. As the House will know, the association is the soft loan affiliate of the World Bank. It was created to provide loans on highly concessional terms to developing countries which would have great difficulty in servicing borrowing from the World Bank itself. As the association is administered by the same staff as the World Bank, all that I have already said about that staff applies with equal force to the association's operations. With its concentration of resources on the world's poorest countries—some 60 per cent. to Commonwealth countries—the association's programme is almost a mirror image of the allocation of our own bilateral aid programme. Many in the House will be aware that negotiations on the IDA's seventh replenishment were tough, protracted and, in the end, disappointing. A total of only $9 billion was agreed, some 25 per cent. less than the nominal level of $12 billion approved for IDA 6.
Although at the final meeting of the IDA 7 Deputies in Washington last January donor representatives felt that the IDA was one of the most effective multilateral channels for transferring resources to the poorest countries, the United States' representative reiterated his country's earlier determination to contribute to the replentishment no more than $750 million in each of three years. The other countries represented were not prepared to meet the
1004
shortfall in the contribution of the major donor. and the size of the replenishment was predicated by the United States 25 per cent. share. The IDA management was given a mandate to try to raise additional resources to help close the gap between the $9 billion agreed and the level of $12 billion which most donors regarded as the minimum required by the association for its fiscal years 1985–87. As hon. Members will know, I was able to announce to the House on 27 January that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to make a contribution to supplementary funding on the basis of the usual equitable burden-sharing among donors. Many other donors have expressed a willingness to contribute on a similar basis, but the IDA management has not pursued this question of supplementing IDA's general fund because of the declared non-participation of the United States and, in their absence, of Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The draft International Development Association (Seventh Replenishment) Order 1984 will if approved by the House, give the Secretary of State authority to make a United Kingdom contribution of £401,520,000. Payment to the association would be effected by the deposit of three promissory notes, of equal amounts, over three years from 1985, to be encashed over a period of years, with the costs being met as they occur from sums voted for overseas aid.
I do not propose to go into the detailed arrangement of the workings of the replenishment. They are set out in the report of the Bank's executive directors, together with the IDA resolution, dated 24 May 1984. Both have been published as a White Paper—Cmnd 9402.
I should, however, draw the attention of the House to changes in the shares of contributions of several donor countries. Five countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Kuwait and Sweden—have reduced their percentage shares; while 10 other countries have increased theirs—the most significant being Japan, France, Canada, Italy, Norway and Finland. In our own case, our percentage share has come down from a very high 10·1 per cent. contribution under the previous replenishment to 6·7 per cent. I make no apologies for that. Our reduced share is not a reflection of any weakening of the Government's resolve to support the association. We have determined the level of our contribution in relation to the United Kingdom's relative economic strength among donors.
I am glad to say, however, that we were able to negotiate a package with our Japanese friends whereby their share of IDA 7 funding was substantially increased as par of the arrangement for the realignment of shareholding positions in the World Bank, to which I referred earlier.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister explain more clearly what he means by his statement that we have determined the level of our contribution in relation to the United Kingdom's relative strength among donors? What sort of calculation did that involve?
Mr. Raison: It is based on the gross national products of the different donor countries. The 10·1 per cent. share that we had in the previous replenishment was far above our proportionate share of the world's economy. We have reduced it to a more realistic level.
During negotiations, we made sure that the combined share of the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and

1005
Japan was no less than it was under the previous replenishment. In fact, it turned out to be slightly higher than last time.
The IBRD and the IDA are the world's leading development institutions. They constitute the cutting edge for change and for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries. Successive British Governments have supported them, and our commitment now is as firm as ever. I commend both orders to the House.
10.12 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: We deplore the failure of the United States Administration to contribute to the supplementing of the international development association funds. We regard that as critical for the role of IDA. I shall develop that argument and its relevance to Government policy shortly.
We also deplore the fact that the Government's IDA contribution will fall from 10·1 per cent. to 6·7 per cent. We do not accept the Minister's argument that that reflects Britain's economic strength among donors, because we do not accept that the Government are fulfilling their potential in the international arena, nor that they are participating with other countries in the sorts of project for joint international recovery which the World Bank report for 1984 stresses as critical to the future prospects of less developed countries. The report states that the world's economy is now:
"balanced on a knife edge."
Students of economics will be familiar with what is known as knife-edge theory. It is that an economy, such as the international economy, can either hit the ceiling or the floor. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is amused. I trust that during the debate he will argue for a recovery of the world economy rather than a continued collapse of trade among less developed countries, which has devastating effects on sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Srortford): I shall not argue on the merits or demerits of knife-edge economic theory. I shall argue about the effect of the amount of money and help that we give to ordinary people in extremely poor countries.
Mr. Holland: I would be impressed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention if we were to have a significant increase in the amount of money given, but the Minister has just said that we cannot have such an increase because of the position of the United Kingdom economy. Although he claims that this is an outdated economic theory—by which I presume he means a Keynesian economic theory—it is very much to the credit of the World Bank that it has not fallen for the manic monetarism of some other institutions and is arguing the case for global recovery. The bank stresses that, without that recovery, the prospects for some areas of the world economy, especially sub-Saharan Africa, are extremely dire.
As the bank stresses, after three years of almost uniterrupted decline in growth in trade, the improvement in the world economy during the past year was due almost entirely to the United States recovery. That recovery is no longer in question, but it will be deflated by the American Administration's cuts in expenditure, including social
1006
expenditure. If, as expected, that reduces American exports to the level where they were about two and a half or three years ago, that will take about $100 billion worth of demand out of the world economy. Although Third world countries are not in as strong a position as they should be, in terms of the United States importing from them, that in itself will damage Third world prospects.
It is a double blow for Third world countries that the United States Administration can neither contribute to the replenishment of IDA funds, nor can it sustain its recovery, which we were told was secure, in such a way that world trade and payments can increase. The figure of $100 billion in total demand from the North is the equivalent of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. of Third world export trade. The collapse of that trade will be damaging and will certainly dwarf the replenishment levels in IDA funds at present.
As the bank stresses, strains persist in the international structure of trade and payments, and faced with the need to reduce imports, the developing countries have been forced to reduce the level and alter the composition of their investments. Capital formation has been shifted towards the energy sector and economic infrastructure at the expense of the social sector.
The position of sub-Saharan Africa will be dire. The list of human miseries in the African continent has been well highlighted by UNICEF in its report on the impact of recession on children, which showed how children have been the victims of economic decline. Much attention has been focused, and will be—with good reason—in this debate, on the drought in Ethiopia and the relevance of the World Bank's proposals to the African Continent. However, in a country such as Zambia, the height-for-age ratios have fallen in all age categories of children under 15. Child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa was 50 per cent. higher than the average in developing countries in the 1950s; it is now almost double that average. The bank claims that there must be improvements in countries' internal economic management. We do not claim that internal economic management cannot be improved. The bank also claims that additional external assistance will not by itself solve Africa's problems.
Net capital flows to sub-Saharan Africa are expected to fall from $11 billion to $5 billion. We are talking about a difference of $6 billion, which is double what the replenishment of the IDA from $9 billion to $12 billion would have been. It shows how devastating will be the effect of not achieving the aimed-for increase in the IDA replenishment. Some of the figures illustrate how serious the position is. Against gross capital flows in 1980–82 of about $13·1 billion, the projections for 1985–87 for sub-Saharan Africa are a total of $13 billion. But amortisation, or the paying off of debt, will increase from $2·3 billion to $8 billion, so that the net capital flow into the area will be halved—instead of being $10·8 billion it will be $5 billion.
The World Bank, under pressure from the Reagan Administration, has felt obliged to endorse the role of market forces, but, because of the increased amortisation payments, net private capital flows, which, for 1980–82 were $2·5 billion, will now be minus $1 million. In other words, not only is the United States Administration failing to increase IDA, but the private sector lauded by that Administration is taking resources out of the region.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the past decade or more, extremely high interest rates, for the most part led by the United States, have meant that when it comes to a crisis, rather than poor little kids in Ethiopia and elsewhere in the Third world being saved, the entrepreneurs in the casino economy—the bankers—are being bailed out? This results in the poor countries having to pay more and more to save their necks, when all that the Western economy is doing is bailing out bankers who should have had their fingers burnt. In other words, the bankers are all right when they are making a profit, but, when they look as if they will die, the so-called market forces do not operate and the bankers are saved by those who should be looking after the starving millions.
Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend has made a typically forceful and relevant point. It is apparent from the World Bank's recent statement that it is especially concerned about the impact of IMF policies on the countries that it helps through the development programme. In other words, the World Bank is concerned with long-term development prospects, issues and projects, but the IMF is concerned with short-term balance of payment adjustments. This has meant—I am glad to see that the World Bank has endorsed this in the case of Latin America—that the IMF has imposed a further deflation of some $30 billion in trade by imposing cuts packages on some of the leading Latin American countries. Therefore, while the World Bank is trying seriously to make a contribution to world development prospects, the IMF is making contributions to the global slump. My hon. Friend's point about the role of the banks is important. The banks have lost confidence in several less developed countries, and in so doing over the past few years have started for the first time in decades to draw resources out of the Third world.
If imagination and political willingness were shown by leading Governments, and this Government must still be considered one of the leaders among the official development donors, we would see a public institutional response to offset that decline in the private capital flow and in private capital lending to the Third world. That would mean a World Bank and IDA replenishment that was several times what we are being offered by the Minister tonight.
The bank is cautious about market forces in its annual report. I am glad that it does not simply want to let the market rip, and it is not waging a war against the mixed economy as the IMF is. It stresses the importance of other programmes such as health and education, as well as improved financial control. It stresses smallholders and co-operative agriculture as well as the promotion of private investment. That is right, as private investment will not come unless it is co-ordinated and promoted through public institutions and by public policy. But the bank is not being allowed to play the kind of role it should be able to play in the promotion of investment and world trade. Also, inasmuch as the bank is affected by the kind of monetarist market reasoning coming out of the United States, market forces alone, whether through smallholders or cooperatives, will not be sufficient to ensure the long-term development aids with which the bank is concerned.
It is relevant to compare the analysis of trade by the bank and that by UNCTAD. The UNCTAD statistical handbook lists the commodities on which the Third world depends. It refers to wheat, sugar, coffee, corn, rice,
1008
agricultural raw materials such as cotton, natural rubber and tobacco, and minerals and other materials. Between 65 per cent. and 95 per cent. of trade in those commodities is controlled by multinational companies. The donor countries in the development assistance programme, the funding countries in the World Bank programme and the funding countries on the IDA programme must face the fact that only a fraction of the value added from those exports goes to the less-developed countries. Typically, less than 20 per cent. goes to those countries and frequently less than 10 per cent.
If the bank is to fulfil its aim of long-term development, it needs to take a leaf from UNCTAD' s book and confront the question of why so little of the value added in key commodities goes to the less developed countries. Countries such as Britain with a high share of multinational company activity in Third world countries should seek to ensure that a higher share of that value added goes to the Third world. If they do not those countries will not be able to offset their grave domestic economic problems in the current economic climate.
The World Bank report stresses the role of the aid donor. It deals with the longer-term agricultural development programme and the relationship between the bank, the British Government and other World Bank board members. The bank is not concerned with short-term issues. The bank is not the most appropriate agency to deal with the drought problem.
In the debate on 22 November I welcomed the possibility of the funds which the Government are not now to make to the IDA replenishment programme, because of the non-co-operation of the United States, being rescheduled to the World Bank's programme for Africa. However, there was nothing in the Minister's statement to confirm that. What is to happen to the £200 million which would have gone to IDA? Will it be allocated to the World Bank programme? What will happen in Bangladesh, for example? The Minister did not reply to my earlier question about that.
It appears that the 6,500 tonnes of food aid for Ethiopia was to have gone to Bangladesh. That is giving with one hand and taking with the other. The problem in Bangladesh is severe. The floods between May and September affected 20 million people and caused $800 million worth of damage. There is a 2·8 million tonnes shortfall in foodstuffs compared with a normal shortfall of 1·5 million tonnes. What is the Government planning to do about that? If they are not planning to reschedule the funds what will they do for Bangladesh and the food need there?
Any sure foundation for the World Bank's longer-term development programme in Ethiopia and Africa must be based upon an adequate response to the drought problems.
The Prime Minister has said that not only are the Government doing their bit, but that they are doing more than other countries. That claim is contradicted by the facts. The United Kingdom's contribution to Ethiopia before October this year was £1·2 million and £2·5 million worth of cereals. Since 1 October, the contribution has been £6·2 million plus two Hercules aircraft. Italy has given £16 million as well as two Hercules. West Germany has committed more than £7·5 million, excluding the EEC contribution. Australia has contributed £7·5 million, Canada £16·5 million and Bulgaria £10·5 million.
Italy's contribution is critical, not only in quantity but in quality. It sent 150 trucks plus spares to Ethiopia. The

1009
trucks could double the aid distribution capacity of the Eritrean Relief Association and make a direct contribution because of which the World Bank's longer-term programme would be based upon the survival of agriculture in the critical drought areas in Ethiopia.
Mr. Keith Best: The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument is probably that the problems in Bangladesh and Ethiopia are not for solution by individual countries but—especially in the latter case—can be solved only by the international community. Does he accept that when I was in Bangladesh some years ago there was no prospect that it would ever be able to feed itself in the foreseeable future? Surely these are matters for the international community as a whole and cannot be laid at the door of any one nation.
Mr. Holland: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. Bangladesh illustrates the problem to which he referred. When I was in Japan not long ago I spoke with members of its development institute, which had sent a team to Bangladesh for two years to study areas of potential comparative advantage that that country might have in the world economy. After two years, they decided that there were precisely none. In textbook theory that should not be possible—in the real world, it is possible. One reason is not only the technological change, which means that jute is not the export commodity that it once was, but that we now have a multinational division of capital and labour world wide. Thus reliance on low-cost wages alone with intermediate technology is not sufficient to guarantee Bangladesh an international future.
I would have agreed with the hon. Gentleman had he said that it was not for national governments alone to seek to solve the problems of a country such as Bangladesh. That must be supplemented by multilateral and international action. But it appears that the food aid allocated to Ethiopia has been diverted from Bangladesh—and it was a small contribution in the first place, some 6·5 million tonnes. Yet there is an 800-million tonne gap in the needs of Bangladesh.
Mr. Robert Parry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the real problems for Ethiopia is that of the Eritrean people, and that assistance from the Government should be given through the Eritrean Relief Association to ensure that it goes to those in greatest need? I have tabled a question on that matter.
Mr. Holland: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is one reason why Ethiopia and Eritrea cannot wait for the World Bank's long-term development programme for sub-Saharan Africa. It is a point that the Minister seems unwilling to admit. The fact is that 85 per cent. of the drought areas in Eritrea and Tigre are outside the Government's control because they are in the hands of the Liberation Front, and 50 per cent. of Wollo is similarly outside the Government's control.
The Minister has chosen to react to the points that we have made several times by claiming that he has no desire to hype-up the political confrontation with the Ethiopian Government, and I appreciate that. However, he assumes that that would happen by dealing wih the Liberation Front. If so—as we have said before, and now stress again—there is every reason to allocate a far higher
1010
share of food aid to the relief associations such as those in Tigré and Eritrea. I know that the Minister is doing that, but it is on a small scale. The caring British public, which responded so overwhelmingly to the drought crisis in Ethiopia, is beginning to understand that a far higher share of food aid is going to the Addis Ababa Government that to the liberated areas—30 times more.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would not my hon. Friend accept that a large proportion of the food aid which is going in through the good offices of the Addis Ababa Government and the relief agencies is finding its way into parts of Tigre and Wollo which are not necessarily under the control of the Government and that the practical logistics of moving grain mean that the grain must go that way?
Mr. Holland: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and I respect it, not least because he has been to the areas concerned and seen what the problems are. But the fact at the moment is that no long-term development programme such as the World Bank is proposing for sub-Saharan Africa will start at rather than behind the post unless the current drought can be tackled. If millions of people leave their farms because of the current drought and have to go to the main towns of the area for food aid distribution, there will be no chance of a harvest next year. It is totally different case from Bangladesh where floods this year left deposits and sediments which may mean a good harvest next year. That is not the position in sub-Saharan Africa.
I put this point to the Minister because it is directly relevant not only to laying the foundations for a longer-term World Bank programme but also to the concern shown by the British public. If he cannot call for a ceasefire and cannot persuade the Council of Ministers of the EEC to call for a cease-fire in Ethopia, is he so timid that he cannot at least call for no attacks upon properly marked food convoys and for an assurance that airstrips for flying in food aid which the liberation fronts have offered to construct should not be bombed?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We are discussing the operations of the World Bank and the association and the levels of contributions thereto. We must not stray too far into the unilateral contributions of the British Government.
Mr. Holland: I am grateful for your guidance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are talking not simply about the bilateral contribution of the British Government but about the role played by the EEC and the relationship between short term food assistance or drought aid and longer term development assistance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect, we are talking about two orders which relate to the operation of the World Bank and the International Development Association and the level of contributions which are set out in the order.
Mr. Holland: I appreciate that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my argument, simply, is that the kinds of costs which are likely to be incurred by failure now to distribute food aid effectively in sub-Saharan Africa will pre-empt the kind of resources which the World Bank wants to put towards development. It will simply be remedying a drought crisis after hundreds of thousands or millions of people have died rather than being able to build on a sure foundation. We are not an insignificant power.

1011
Although our share of the World Bank has diminished, we are still represented on the board of the Bank and this Minister is directly responsible for Government policy on the Bank.
I would stress a further point on the relationship between the current economic crisis and the Bank's lending policy and the role of IDA. The bank is seriously addressing itself to the longer-term development issue. It is not receiving adequate support from the leading countries and from its board members on this point. It is not simply a matter of United States policy. It is, firstly whether alternative ways can be found for like-minded members of the bank's board to undertake activities which fulfil the spirit of the bank's objective without necessarily undertaking them through bank agencies.
Secondly, on such individual projects as the bank's programme for sub-Saharan Africa, where the analysis has been published in detail and where the prospectuses have been published in detail, what will the Government's response be? Thirdly, what role will the Government play in relation to the longer-term issue of global economic recovery which the Bank stresses is so crucial for its own activities? It is very notable that, because of its concern about the recession in the United States economy, the bank in its report makes the case for a European economic recovery which would have a very significant impact on the export performance of less developed countries.
This week's issue of The Economist asks why, with a recession now under way in the United States as a result of Government policy, Europe cannot take up the recovery
1012
and face its responsibility for a recovery programme. I was glad to see this and it is rare for me to say that of something in The Economist. If Europe does not do so, not only shall we have had a cut in the IDA contribution which could cripple the IDA' s activities, but we shall have a deepening of the global slump.
It is possible for the Government to take action. The longer term development prospects depend upon a real recovery in world trade. For example, a real recovery of $100 billion a year spent would not only sustain Third world exports by 4 to 5 per cent. a year but would, over a 10-year period, add more than a half to the Third world's GNP. That would make it possible not only to offset the debt crisis in some respects through repayment. And the World bank stresses the imminent risks to the Third world countries from that debt crisis. It would thereby enable less developed countries to put the brunt of the debt crisis behind them within not 10 but five years.
The Government are making no contribution to such a recovery. They are reacting to the depression of world spending and trade. They claim that they are justified in reducing contributions to the bank because of the reduced circumstances of the United Kingdom's economy. call upon the Minister to say what he is doing in the international arena to encourage not only the bank's policies but, for example, Commonwealth countries and their New Delhi summit proposals and those of the recent meeting of the Commonwealth countries for economic recovery. If we do not do so, not only the World Bank and its programmes will suffer but the Third world too.
10.41 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister rather than criticise him, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) did, on the way in which he led the group in the World bank to try to effect a special fund for the support of the IDA to replenish the figure of £9·5 billion. That is what the total IDA replenishment has been reduced to by the American's failure to contribute to it. My hon. Friend maintained the amount of money allocated in the ODA budget in order to continue to make that contribution.
Those countries which failed to support my right hon. Friend were Germany and Japan. We in the House should say straightforwardly that we resent that. The Third world should resent the fact that Japan in particular, with its responsibility for aid and trade relationships with the Third world in which it is very much the winner, has failed in its responsibilities to the Third world far more than has the Government, who were led by my right hon. Friend to replenish that shortfall in the IDA replenishment led by the United States.
Let me deal with the United States and the reasons why it did not support the replenishment of the IDA at its current level — £12 billion. Clearly, in view of rising overseas costs and inflation, that would have been below what had been agreed to previously. When one bears in mind that in the meantime China, an extremely large country with many poor people, has come into the IDA, the failure not only to renew at the same level of £12 billion, but to reduce it by 25 per cent. to £9·5 billion, is something that the developed world should be ashamed of.
I much admire my right hon. Friend's work and determination in trying to bring that about. The reason why the Americans failed to do that was that they resent the fact that 40 per cent. of the IDA fund goes to India. It was felt that with the addition of China, an even greater percentage would have gone to India and to China. That is because the allocation of funds under the IDA is to those countries which have a low per capita income. India and China can therefore command a large percentage of the IDA budget.
India is a powerful economy. It is a nuclear power with a major defence capacity. It has also a major industrial capacity. The Americans are right to criticise the IDA's distribution of money to India. In fact, India could devote a large amount of its funds—it has large reserves—to the support of the poorest in its own country. I believe firmly that development begins at home, and help must start at home. Developing countries must put their own houses in order and direct their money to the poorest in the communities before they can expect the international community to respond. I have some sympathy with the American view of the IDA and I understand why they chose not to replenish its funds. On the other hand, I criticise it because IDA grant funds are needed desperately, especially in Africa, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall has said and as my right hon. Friend would undoubtedly agree. Aid is necessary in Africa to prevent widespread starvation of the sort which we have seen on our television screens and which has accorded a major response from the British people.
Mr. Parry: Is it not deplorable that our assistance to the African continent is so small compared with that which
1014
is made available by some of our European partners? We are making available only half of the target which has been set by the United Nations.
Mr. Wells: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the United Nations target of 0·75 per cent. of GDP, which we have agreed to and at which we should be aiming. That is the target for total aid contributions. But we should not talk in meaningless monetary economic terms. We should be directing ourselves to sending aid to where it is most needed. I am not interested in global figures. My interest lies in directing aid to the poorest, to the starving people of Africa and elsewhere. The issue is directing money, people, materials, compassion, management and administration to those places and not 0·75 per cent. targets. The hon. Gentleman may agree that that aid should be directed to Africa and the poorest parts of the world.
My right hon. Friend has been trying to promote that policy. He has been supporting the World Bank's fund for Africa, which is designed to absorb the moneys which were available in the ODA budget and to support the IDA. Having failed to secure replenishment for the IDA, we are supporting a special fund for Africa.
What is my right hon. Friend forced to say to the World Bank and other organisations which come to him for money? What I am about to say may lead to cross-party agreement. He is forced to say that he does not have the money now. I should like him to tell me that that is not true, but I understand that the Government are saying that they cannot now lend money to Africa for a special Africa fund. There will be opposition from West Germany and Japan to the formation of a World Bank special fund for Africa, and Britain may be included in that category because the Government say that they do not have the money.
Why do we not have the money? Let us return to the debate on aid and take up the leader that appeared in The Times on the Saturday after the debate. It seems that many in the House did not understand what was happening; neither did the leader writer of The Times. The aid budget has not been compensated at all for overseas risen costs and adverse changes in the exchange rate, whereas the diplomatic budget has been compensated in part for those risen costs.
The Times leader said that the Foreign Secretary had given way to the aid lobby and had not cut the aid budget in favour of cutting the diplomatic budget. The reverse is true, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has had to deal with the consequences. We have learned from a strange admission to the Public Account Committee that my right hon. Friend's budget for dealing with the Ethiopian crisis by emergency relief and food aid was £50 million. Anyone budgeting in the ODA hopes that he will not have to use all that money and that he will be able to use money in other directions through the unallocated funds within the ODA's budget. That aid money has been used up almost entirely in providing drought relief in Africa. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave generously to Ethiopia to try to relieve the drought and political problems. The hon. Member for Vauxhall paid tribute to my right hon. Friend in trying to deal with those problems — perhaps not enough was done; there can never be enough done in such cases — that lie beneath the Administration of the Addis Ababa Government, whom I deplore.

1015
I can see that you are becoming agitated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am not dealing with IDA, but these budgets are related.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a general debate on overseas aid. The debate is concerned with the two funds and our contribution to them. Any hon. Member taking part in the debate must address himself to the orders before the House.
Mr. Wells: I fully accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to say that these two budgets are intimately related; that is why my right hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to make the contribution to IDA which he would otherwise ask the House to approve. We have reduced, as we should do in the light of our economic circumstances, the amount we give to the IDA. The figure has been reduced by 25 per cent. because of the failure of the American and British Governments to contribute at the level at which they would have contributed if the aid contribution had been renewed at the previous level. I contend that it should have been renewed at a higher level. You have given me the opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a point on the IDA.
The House has decided to take together the issues of the IDA and the IBRD, and I shall try to be quick in dealing with the World Bank. I am concerned about the way in which the British Government control the votes of the World Bank. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the way in which the alternative director on the IBRD executive board and the IDA executive board votes is controlled not by the Overseas Development Adminstration and my right hon. Friend for Overseas Development but by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How is the alternate director told how to vote?
Mr. Stuart Holland: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and others were in government, that was the responsibility of the Ministry of Overseas Development. It is simply a reflection of the downgrading of that Ministry that that is no longer the case.
Mr. Wells: I am asking for information. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be able to correct us and put us on line. As I understand it, that aspect is not under the control of the Overseas Development Administration.
The IBRD needs not only more money—in case you think that I am getting out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I point out that is a reason why I welcome the order—but greater conditionality. Conditionality is required to ensure that the money that goes through the World Bank is directed towards the development of those countries which need it.
Why has the alternate director of the World Bank executive board voted against Guyana and denied that country more funds from the IBRD to which the order contributes? A policy decision must lie behind that, which has not been revealed to the House. I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify how and why that director is authorised to vote. We should not penalise or turn our back on Guyana. We need to help Guyana's economy through the World Bank with the money which will be voted through this order.
I believe that the special adjustment loan is on offer, and I call upon my right hon. Friend to ensure that the
1016
World Bank conducts itself properly in relation to special adjustment loans to aid development of the poorer countries. That must be combined with the conditionality of the IMF so that we achieve a longer-term programme through the two institutions than is available through the IMF alone to resolve the difficult development problems faced by the poorer countries.
I shall give an example of how some of the money from the IBRD and the IDA is used badly, in the development of one country. Let us take St. Kitts. Sanctions against sugar going to the United States and the EEC have caused St. Kitts to lose $5 million, but the World Bank and the IDA have just given it $5 million for additional development projects. That shows that there is insufficient co-ordination of policy not just domestically and bilaterally but also internationally, with other countries and multilateral agencies, and through trade relationships, to support the development of the poorest countries. The IBRD and the IDA have the greatest opportunity to bring about that co-ordination. That is why I ask the House wholeheartedly to support the orders. I hope that my right hon. Friend can bring about the necessary improvements to meet the points that I have made.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House wants to hear the Minister's reply. He would like to begin at 11.22 or 11.23 pm. I appeal for brevity.
10.57 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: I cannot altogether follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in the sympathy that he expressed for the United States over the seventh IDA replenishment. The Minister, perhaps inadvertently, gave some, but not all, of the figures on this issue. It is worth summarising them briefly, because they are stark.
The sixth IDA replenishment amounted to $12 billion. The World Bank, which operates the IDA scheme throughout the world to the poorest countries, wanted $16 billion for the seventh replenishment. That would have been an increase of one third. There is to be $9 billion. That is a decrease of 25 per cent. on the sixth replenishment, but what is more important is that it is a decrease of 43 per cent. on what the World Bank considered to be essential for multilateral aid from rich countries to help poor countries over the next three years.
That is not the final figure, because the figures that I have been quoting are all in cash terms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said, there is inflation throughout the world and the 25 per cent. cut is probably even bigger if one takes account of expected inflation over the next three years.
The prime mover in making this cut has been the United States, as the Minister very fairly pointed out. I think that the whole House accepts that. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford suggested that there were reasons for this. No doubt there were—there are reasons for bad policies, just as there are reasons for good policies. In other words, there are good reasons and bad reasons. In making that cut, the United States has forced all the other rich countries to follow suit because of the way in which the IDA contributions are calculated. Once a major donor has taken the lead, the process cannot be stopped but

1017
spreads like the ripples in a pond when a stone is thrown in, and the poor countries of the world will suffer substantially as a result.
The United States took that action for bad reasons. I know a great about political opinion in the United States in relation to the Third world. There is a great deal of myopia and sheer ignorance, not merely among the American people, but among their legislators, about the facts of life in the poor countries which the IDA replenishment is designed to aid. If ever there was a case of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar, it is the penny-pinching attitude of the United States in this regard.
In terms of the United States defence budget, let alone its total budget, the cut in contribution from $1 billion to $750 million, rather than an increase to $1,250 million, is penny pinching indeed. For the world's richest country to adopt such an attitude to the major issue of the next few years, which will affect the future of all of us — not even improving life in the poor countries, but just stopping things getting worse—will inevitably make it far more difficult for the World Bank and other international institutions to stop the rot getting worse.
The United States, aided and abetted — as the Minister again quite fairly said, although he did not use those words—by the Federal Republic of Germany and by Japan, has taken a very bad decision indeed. It is probably one of the most significant decisions that it has taken in relation to the Third world since the second world war, and possibly in its history. Those three countries, with the rest of us who are carried along willy-nilly due to the system of proportionality in contributions, will live to regret that decision.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall explained in such clear detail, the situation in the Third world is getting worse. Let those who doubt that read the World Bank's annual reports, including the latest report. The problems are not just poverty, unemployment, disease and malnutrition, but heavy debt burdens, population increases and, above all, the fact that in real terms commodity prices are at their lowest for about 30 years so that Third world countries cannot earn the money to pay for the extra cost of their imports or even to finance their debt burdens properly.
I do not suggest that the whole system is about to collapse like a house of cards, because I believe that the rich countries have sufficient nous and self-interest to recognise that they must allow debt rescheduling rather than let the world banking system collapse. But that does not improve life in the poor countries. It merely staves off disaster for all of us, and that is what the IDA replenishment would have done if we had had the $16 billion to which I believe the British Government would have been willing to contribute. Certainly there would have been pressure from the House for them to do so.
We have to accept the order, because it is better than nothing, but symbolically it is a disaster for the Third world. Those countries need more multilateral assistance, but they will get less as a result of the ignorant and myopic policies of the politicians and leadership of the United States. My only regret is that the United Kingdom, as a close friend and ally of that great country, did not have sufficient influence to change opinion on Capitol Hill and
1018
in the White House and ensure that the United States, as the world's richest country, undertook its true responsibilities to the poor countries of the world.
I am ashamed of the action of the United States. We must accept the order, because by doing so we shall preserve something at least for the poor countries. However, I am afraid that the position will deteriorate. When, in three years' time—under a Government of whatever colour—we debate the eighth replenishment of IDA, I am afraid that the global situation will be much worse, and that will be partly because of what the United States, Germany and Japan have done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) for the brevity of his speech.
11.06 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: This is the first time that I have taken part in a foreign affairs debate. I do so because two weeks ago, as a member of an all-party delegation that included six other hon. Members, I visited the United Nations. I should like to thank all those, especially in the Foreign Office, who so excellently put to use some very scarce funds. Whether anyone apart from the participants benefited from the exercise, I leave the House to judge, but I hope that it will be possible to continue to send such delegations.
We had 24 meetings at the United Nations in three and a half days. One might have thought that in that time we would have run the gamut of the United Nations agencies. We saw politics, and we saw the aid agencies. We had lunch with Brad Morse, the director of the United Nations Development Programme, which was an experience that I would recommend to anyone. But we did not see the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and we did not see the transfer and banking of funds. We did not meet anyone from IBRD or from the IDA. That was a serious omission, because without trade and without industrial development — without the hard-headed commercialism especially noticeable in the IBRD—we must be talking in a very limited way. For if trade and commercial enterprises are successful and mutually beneficial, as I believe that they are, much aid becomes less necessary. The political input that the Western world would like to see into the Third world will follow both more subtly and more effectively in that way than if it is simply fuelled through the political and soft aid agencies.
I have had some contact with IBRD in the recent past. I believe that is is easily the most hard-headed and commercially minded of all the agencies operating in that field. My husband's company has been involved in much of the supervision of its activities in parts of the Third world.
The rules of the IBRD could be commended to one or two other organisations, including, perhaps, some of our own companies. I quote from the guide to the United Nations:
"Under its charter, the Bank must lend only for productive purposes—
in other words, not direct to Governments—
"and pay due regard to the prospects of repayment … loans must be for specific projects … The bank must assure itself that the necessary funds are unavailable from other sources on reasonable terms. The use of loans cannot be restricted to

1019
purchases in any particular member country or countries, and the bank's decisions to lend must be based only on economic considerations."
Most of the money comes from private investors—from the bank's own borrowing — and the disbursement is done entirely against invoices, most of which are for contracts based on international competitive bidding. After that, an extensive audit is required.
That is not a bad collection of commercial rules on which this and other Governments could allocate funds to the developing countries.
In 1974–75, my husband was involved in supervising some IBRD projects in Turkey. I went with him. This week, I checked on what has happened to some of the projects in the decade since then. The experience was salutary. The IBRD projects have continued to be profitable, despite all the political vicissitudes of that sad country. I found it hard to believe, but one particular project was in fact set up to break a government monopoly in one industry, and it has had a dramatic effect on that part of the economy.
The IBRD has encouraged and made possible an input in kind—not just cash—from other donor countries, so that, for example, the link between West Germany and Turkey has been emphasised. We should recognise and value such links. We would be far more worried if such links were forged between Turkey and East Germany or some other Eastern bloc country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) says that funds should go to the countries where they are most needed, but there are occasions when funds should go where they are most ably used. If we concentrate on a country that is rising and that has potential for development, and if we can transform it from a poor to a moderately well-off country, we will have helped the world economy more rapidly and more effectively than by simply pouring money into the countries with the greatest difficulties.
There has recently been much criticism of attitudes to aid of various types. Some of the most telling appeared in a leader article in The Times of 27 November, which came out while we were sitting at the United Nations. It sent a shiver of fear through representatives of all of the countries sitting there, so much so that several agency leaders came up to us waving a copy saying, "You do not all believe this, do you?" The article's comments were based on a debate in the House on Overseas aid on 22 November. Two comments were especially apposite. First:
"MPs showed an obsession with volume."
It went on to say that aid should be
"subjected to more critical cost benefit analysis for donor and recipient together."
I do not think that I could be described as an aid freak because, perhaps more than any other hon. Member present, I am aware that the funds which we are voting are competing with my pet activities such as pensions and the National Health Service. We should try and we should admit that we are obsessed with inputs at the expense of outputs. If I might say so with the greatest respect, the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) was a classic example of an obsession with inputs without any consideration of the results. That, of course, is a British failing. We do it all the time. We do it with the National Health Service and with the Department of Health and Social Security, and we have just done it with the Common Market. I suspect that much of the funds that
1020
we have just voted for the EEC might have been better devoted to filling the grain silos of the rest of the world rather than those of Europe.
I suspect that much of the grumbling about inputs that we get from newspapers such as The Times is an excuse for not examining the results. Those who have doubts cannot be smug. We must ask three questions about where the money is going to and what we get out of it. First, what do we as donors get out of it?
Mr. Parry rose—
Mrs. Currie: Secondly, what do the recipients get out of it; and, thirdly, what is the result for both of us? We must ask what we donors get. It is a selfish and cruel question, but in this world the best things are often clone for the wrong reasons and we should remind ourselves and our constituents that, through the IBRD and IDA, about 80 per cent. of what we give comes back to us in direct procurement. One or two agencies provide even more. The United Nations development programme, for example. brought back twice as much to the United Kingdom in terms of dollars in 1983—we gave $28 million and got $63 million back. We are on to a good thing in some of these programmes and we should not let our constituents forget it. I commend to my right hon. Friend the practice of the Ministry of Defence which, when there is any argument about what we should do about that programme, circulates to all hon. Members a list of companies in our constituencies which benefit from the programme so that we can be assured how employment prospects in our constituencies are affected.
We must ask what developing countries get. For IBRD it is easier to say what they do not get. They do not get weapons from IBRD. They do not get political infiltration. We are not talking about CIA or KGB funding of tin-pot dictators. They do not get unrepayable debts. They do not get grandiose white elephants and triumphal arches. They do not get schemes which break down for lack of infrastructure, parts or skills. The Third world is littered with past mistakes and especially the neglect of agriculture. It is significant that all those things that I have listed are the result of bilateral aid programmes, especially of Government-to-Government direct bilateral aid. We in the United Kingdom give about two-thirds of our total aid through bilateral aid and about one-third in multilateral aid of this type. I cannot tell whether that proportion is right but I know that if we go on—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Lady must relate what she is saying to the orders.
Mrs. Currie: I am referring directly to the orders., or at least I am trying to. I know, however, that if we head entirely away from programmes such as we are dealing with, we are probably going in the wrong direction.
We must ask what we get together. IBRD and IDF have shown the success of programmes which have a hard-headed and commercial element, for many of the nations that were once the recipients of IDA are now donors to IBRD. They work. Sentimentalitly alone is not enough. Long after the starving have disappeared from the television screens and long after the urgency of the immediate aid programmes has faded, the money that we vote tonight will contribute far more to a prosperous world from which we shall all benefit.
11.14 pm
Mr. Russell Johnston: Time is short and I want to make only one simple point. The Liberal party entirely agrees with the criticisms of the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) of the United States for its failure to respond to the World Bank's request for replenishment to IDA. I wish to put that firmly on the record.
Did the Government make representations to the Reagan Administration about this, and if so, what response did they receive? Did they receive a response in the terms referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells)
11.15 pm
Mr. Keith Best: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done and on his personal commitment to this matter. I welcome these orders because they are directly relevant to what is happening to the poorest countries—something on which a number of hon. Members have rightly concentrated.
Of course we must increase the viability of developing countries as partners with industrialised nations in a mutually rewarding expansion of international trade. Every developing country, in addition to needing financial resources, also needs human resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) mentioned Mr. Bradford Morse, the administrator of the UNDP. I was in New York two weeks ago and had more than one meeting with Bradford Morse. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. It is quite an experience, which unfortunately too few people have. I am indebted to him for reminding me that development is all about human beings. That is an axiom, but it is often forgotten when one gets bogged down in figures and percentages.
Mr. Morse reminded me that for far too long we have suffered from a Marshall plan mentality on aid. After the second world war in Europe all that was needed was a transfer of capital, but development in the Third world is still too concerned with investment and the transfer of capital, without concentrating on developing human resources.
In Europe that was not necessary, because the human resources were already fully developed after the second world war. We must do far more to improve skills, human resources and capacity. Only 10 per cent. of improvement in development comes from capital—the rest is in the development of human resources. The latter has been neglected, and in the last five years the World Bank has tried to fill that gap. That is why I am pleased about the orders.
I do not entirely follow the doom and gloom that is sometimes spread by Labour Members, although I share many of their criticisms and much of their concern. However, it is right to put on record that in the 30 years between 1950 and 1980 there has been a greater improvement in the less-developed countries than in any other 30-year period for any nation at any time, including Japan. Literacy in the poorest countries increased from 22 to 48 per cent. Life expectancy rose from 41 to 57 years. Child mortality decreased from 28 per 1,000 to 12 per 1,000. There has been a dramatic and worthwhile benefit over that 30-year period.
These orders are directly related to what we can do for the poorest countries. I am concerned about the fact that
1022
for the poorest 50 countries our percentage of gross bilateral aid was 63 per cent. in 1983, the lowest since 1979, with the exception of 1982. Our total overseas aid expenditure in 1983 was only 0·35 per cent. of GNP, the lowest for the last 20 years, except for 1980.
I appreciate that technical factors—for example, the timing of our contributions to IDA—have been largely responsible for those lower percentages, but that percentage of GNP is exactly half that suggested by the Brandt Commission. Indeed, it is necessary to remind the Government that in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum to the Brandt Commission in July 1980 there was a commitment to work towards the 0·7 per cent. of GNP for official aid, although without a target date. The percentage in 1979 was 0·52 per cent.
The poorest countries need international institutions because they are unattractive donees for bilateral aid as they have little to offer in return. I urge my right hon. Friend, when considering the orders, especially that relating to the IDA, to ensure in future that there is no flight of capital from Third-world countries, and to review the terms for loans because many of them are no longer applicable to the problems of Third-world countries. Finally, there is a need to fix interest rates for the future. Third world debtor countries cannot plan their next year's budget when they do not know what interest rates will be.
I commend the orders to the House.
11.20 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was told tonight by Mr. George Galloway, who is to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow and who has just returned from Ethiopia, that he has evidence from aerial photographs that about 500,000 people are making their way towards the southern Sudan. The position in sub-Saharan Africa, as the Minister knows, is beyond description.
In those circumstances, should this oil-rich country make this cut? About every eight hours a tanker leaves my constituency at Hound Point for Japan, Korea or heaven knows where, loaded with North sea oil. We are rich in oil. Even in our own national interests, should we not do something more to help the Third world?
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) has been waiting patiently to speak, as I did, so I shall end on a point which will not surprise the House. The Sunday Times estimates—it is an underestimate—that £3 million a day is spent on those islands in the south Atlantic, yet the Government propose this international penny-pinching. That is not the way that the United Kingdom should conduct its affairs in 1984.
11.22 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: When the Minister replies, I hope that he will deal with how aid is distributed. He may have seen the admirable article in this week's New Statesman by James Firebrace about large donors, such as the United States, Canada, and European countries. There is no examination of where their aid goes, but aid given by voluntary organisations is monitored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) rightly said that 85 per cent. of people in Eritrea can be reached only by the Eritrean Relief Association. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government

1023
recognise the ERA and will give it full support to ensure that vital supplies are given to the people there, who need them desperately.
11.23 pm
Mr. Raison: I shall deal with the last point immediately, although it is perhaps a little outside the scope of the debate. We believe that the best way to get help to the rebel-held areas of Ethiopia is by working discreetly through voluntary agencies. I believe that to be a better way than to recognise all sorts of bodies and to hype the matter up politically.
There was great unanimity in the debate, in that we all respect the World Bank and what it does. No hon. Member seriously dissented from that, and I echo that shared respect. I was glad to hear from a newcomer to our debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). It is always nice to have fresh blood in these debates. Her stress on outputs as opposed to inputs is right. It occasionally worries me that we spend all our time during the Lomé negotiations talking about how large the next one will be, and little time talking about how large in terms of effect the existing one has been, or, indeed, why it has not been possible to spend much of the money that was allocated to Lomé 2. We should talk about the consequences of our aid programmes, rather than only about their size.
The debate was wide-ranging and not especially disciplined, but nevertheless it was valuable. All that I can do in the time available is pick out a few points, and one in particular. We all share the regret that the next IDA replenishment will be as low as $9 billion. I should tell the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) that Britain and the EC made clear to the United States their views on the size of the replenishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and others mentioned the World Bank's proposal for a special facility for Africa. The matter has been mentioned directly in relation to the orders and to the possibility of an IDA supplementary fund. The proposal was discussed by the World Bank's executive board earlier today. The facility will take the form of a voluntary fund with a target of $1 billion to be committed over three years. The fund would be outside the IDA and the normal burden-sharing arrangements among donors would not apply. The precise purposes for which it would be used will be agreed by donors at a meeting in January or February. The United Kingdom would expect to attend that meeting. Until then, we shall continue to discuss with the bank how best we can play our part not only in relation to the facility, but in the wider context of the bank's joint programme action for sub-Saharan Africa, of which the special facility will be only a part.
The bank's purpose—this is in line with what we have heard in the debate — is to support reform and adjustment undertaken in African countries that have structural problems. That is precisely the underlying aim of our bilateral aid programme in Africa. During the past year alone, we have committed programme or sector aid worth nearly £33 million to eight countries in pursuit of that policy, and we shall need to bear in mind the strength of our bilateral programme when considering how to respond to the bank's latest initiative. We must ask ourselves whether a United Kingdom contribution to the bank's proposed special facility would be likely to yield
1024
greater value to African countries than would our programmes, and whether, in consequence, it represents a higher priority claim on our resources. Hon. Members must understand that, in the final analysis, there are limits to what we can do.
In the wider global context, there is a general decrease in official development assistance available to developing countries. Therefore, it is more important than ever that aid flows are used to maximum effect. We know that aid alone is not sufficient to bring about change; the right climate and policies must also be there. We must ensure that we have an effective policy dialogue such as we have been seeking in the Lomé negotiations.
As the House probably agrees, the World Bank and IDA staff are taking a positive lead in those directions, especially in the creation of more consultative groups in which policy dialogue with recipient countries can take place, and donors can exchange information. The bank intends to strengthen its staff in that area. We can take encouragement from that. I say firmly that my Department will work closely with the bank and IDA staff wherever and whenever we can. That is the real thrust of the joint programme of action for sub-Saharan Africa.
I cannot say now exactly what will happen in the discussions on the special facility, but I can say categorically that we believe that nothing is more important in tackling the problems of the world, especially Africa, than that we should work together as closely as possible with the World Bank and the other multi-lateral and bilateral donors. That must by the keystone of our approach to Africa in the difficult period that lies ahead. The House recognises those difficulties. and it recognises that, in the short term, we have the desperate problem of dealing with the immediate famine. which I have seen so vividly, and which everyone has seen on television. That is the immediate problem, but beyond that is the crucial problem of finding out how best we can begin to get the long-term development that Africa has so far not seen, in spite of the great resources that have been poured into it.
When the House passes these orders, as I believe it will, it will be making a significant and important contribution to this enormously challenging and worthwhile task.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft International Development Association (Seventh Replenishment) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
Resolved,
That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1984 Selective Capital Increase) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.—[Mr. Raison.]

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

(i) in paying remuneration or allowances to persons appointed as a temporary measure to act as judges of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary;

(ii) in assisting persons to conduct research into any matter connected with the law;

(b) any expenses incurred by the Lord Advocate in assisting persons to conduct such research; and

(c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under any other Act, are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

PETITION

  Human Embryos
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I beg leave to present a petition from the ministers and members of the church congregations in the Banff and Buchan constituency. The petition contains 449 signatures and was initiated by Rev. David J. Randall of Doune Manse, Macduff, and the other ministers in the constituency.
  The petitioners believe that the newly fertilised human embryo is a real living individual human being, and oppose all practices which discriminate against the embryo, or violate his, or her, human dignity and right to life.
  The petition continues as follows:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos; the discarding of human embryos; their use as sources of transplant tissue; or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the embryo concerned).
  The petition initiated by Rev. David Randall, and the others to whom I referred, concludes:
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray for the guidance of Almighty God upon all your deliberations etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Teachers (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
11.32 pm
Mr. John Maxton: This is—
Mr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has done the House and the people of Scotland a great service by securing this debate this evening. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland has made a major announcement, which will have enormous consequences for teachers in Scottish education, but he is not here on the Front Bench tonight. Is that not an outrageous affront to the House of Commons?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Where is he? Where is the Secretary of State?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet.
Mr. Canavan: The Secretary of State is not in his seat.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is taking time from the Adjournment debate by continuing the point of order. The presence or otherwise of the Secretary of State is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Where is the Secretary of State if he is not in his seat?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the House that this is not a matter for me.
Mr. Maxton: I take the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) are making, because the issue of teachers' pay and salaries, and their demand for an independent inquiry to examine their pay and conditions, is an important one for Scotland.
When I first applied for this debate two weeks ago, the major teaching union in Scotland, the Education Institute of Scotland had been demanding such an inquiry for four months. When I was eventually granted the debate last week, it was against the background of the teachers in Scotland being on strike for one day. That strike achieved a turn-out of 31,000 out of 41,000 members of the EIS. In areas which are traditionally moderate such as Dumfries and Ayrshire, the strike was 90 per cent. effective among EIS members. Tomorrow, yet again the teachers of Scotland will be on strike.
In the meantime we have had a written answer from the Secretary of State to a question carefully planted by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Planted questions are not unknown. In that reply the Secretary of State made important announcements about the inquiry into teachers' pay.
The first point that must be made is that the Secretary of State is not present to hear the debate. Secondly, he should not have made such an important statement in a written answer. He should have made a statement on the Floor of the House this afternoon so that we could question
1028
him about it. It is an insult — a continuing insult — because time after time the Secretary of State makes statements by way of written answers.
I understand that on television in Scotland tonight the Secretary of State said that a written answer was the usual way to deal with such matters. His colleagues in the Cabinet do not believe that. They believe that the correct way is to make a statement on the Floor of the House. How much better it would be if we had an assembly in Scotland where such matters could be properly debated and decided.
If the statement is so important, why did it have to be made today and what effect does the Secretary of State think that it will have? If I were being slightly less immodest than usual, I should say that it was to forestall my Adjournment debate. I do not believe that to be so. I think that the Secretary of State must have thought that if he issued the statement today it would appease the teachers in Scotland and that the industrial action promised for tomorrow would be called off. I have spoken to teachers' leaders in Scotland tonight and I am afraid that I must disillusion the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State was given a roasting tonight on Scottish BBC television. He was taken apart by that most moderate of women, Mrs. Mary Marquiss, and made to look foolish. That says something about his case.
Far from appeasing the teachers, he has made matters considerably worse. It is likely that what he has said will cause considerable confusion in Scotland tomorrow and that the industrial dispute will go on even longer than first intended. It is possible that the teachers will ballot for an extension of industrial action and that they will be joined by other trade unions in the teaching sector.
The Secretary of State has treated the legitimate demand for an inquiry with contempt. He is not prepared to admit that teachers' pay has been seriously eroded. He said in the letter which formed part of the written reply:
"it is of course no part of the Government's policy that salary increases should be indexed either to the rate of inflation or to some measurement of pay increases in the economy generally … However, pay awards to teachers over the last 10 years or so have in fact been very closely comparable with those made to other groups of local authority employees in Scotland."
I do not know about whom the Secretary of State is talking.
Mr. Canavan: What about the police?
Mr. Maxton: Indeed, what about the police? Their salaries have gone up considerably more than teachers' salaries.
The Minister has treated that argument with complete contempt. He has said to the teachers, "We do not believe that your salaries should be increased. We believe that the erosion of your salaries against the cost of living and other comparable professions is right." From what he said on television about pay, it would appear that one reason why he is refusing to set up an independent inquiry is that it would give a blank cheque to the Educational Institute for Scotland. Conservative Members might agree—do that they think that it would so so? Let us consider what that means. They are saying that an independent inquiry—one set up not by the EIS but by the Secretary of State—would be so convinced by the teachers' case that it would give them everything they want.
The Minister said that the workload of pressures on teachers has not increased. Anyone who knows anything about the teaching profession knows that that is not the case. There has been enormous curricula development in

1029
relation to those two great men of Scottish education, Dr. Munn and Mr. Dunning. The Secretary of State says that, essentially, the curricula development will be over in a short time. Anyone who studies the matter knows that examinations will have to be set up and the work by teachers will continue for a long time yet. Many children face prospects of no employment when they leave school. They are not interested in education because they feel that they will be on the dole queue anyway. That places an additional burden on teachers.
The Secretary of State makes an offer of a possible award of additional money. Let us be clear that that is hedged about by so many clauses, sub-clauses and sub-contracts that it is difficult to say that it is any more than a con-trick. In return for that fraction of a promise, the teachers will be asked to give up hard-fought and hard-won conditions of service for essentially nothing. They are not being offered anything in return.
The Minister has solved nothing by his statement. The teachers are angry, depressed and frustrated. That will lead in the short-term to industrial action. No teacher wants that—the teaching profession is not renowned for industrial action. The Minister must ask why the Government have forced teachers into industrial action that they do not want. Even more important are the long-term effects on the morale of Scottish education of such a statement.
I ask the Minister to change his mind and set up an independent inquiry to decide the rightful position of Scottish teachers.
11.44 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on his good fortune in having an Adjournment debate tonight on this important matter. I am grateful to him for leaving me a few minutes before the Minister replies.
It is significant that the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have had ample opportunities to address the House on this matter, but they have declined to do so. Had it not been for the fact that my hon. Friend was fortunate in obtaining the Adjournment debate tonight, there is a strong possibility that we should not have heard from the Government today.
I said earlier today that the Secretary of State's letter on this issue was an insult to the teachers and to the House and therefore it would have been a complete waste of time had he come to the House to make a statement today. I have come to the conclusion that the Government have now set themselves on a road which turns every grievance in this country into an industrial dispute.
The Scottish teachers have a justifiable grievance. The Munn and Dunning reports have been produced. The whole context of a teacher's work load has changed quite dramatically. The Secretary of State does not even acknowledge that in his letter to Bob Beattie, published today. Teachers' salaries have fallen substantially, in a way which no other profession in this country has experienced. The Secretary of State acknowledges that fact but goes on to say that that is part of the Government's policy in any case.
The right hon. Gentleman adds a final insult to injury by saying that he is prepared to try to find a way around all this by setting up some kind of inquiry, but that he will
1030
dictate the terms. He wants an investigation into nine or 10 points which would dramatically alter teachers' contracts of employment by taking up hard earned home time in order to right a grievance'. The teachers have a justifiable grievance. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends want to alter the teachers' contracts in order to right what undoubtedly is a justifiable grievance.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart is right and there is prolonged trouble in Scottish schools, it will be because the Secretary of State does not understand Scottish education. Never having attended a Scottish school, he does not understand that we aim for the highest standards. Nor does he understand the dedication of Scottish teachers. Therefore, he plays on something which he simply does not understand.
If there is trouble in our Scottish schools, the responsibility for it—let it be said before the trouble begins; it is not a case of being wise after the event—will lie at the door of the Secretary of State. I hope that the parents of children in Scotland will understand clearly that the teachers are the victims of this Government's dogma and of a policy which is so unjust and so reprehensible that it is bound to lead to trouble. Even at this late hour I plead with the Minister to try to persuade his right hon. Friend to use common sense, to withdraw the letter which he sent today to Bob Beattie and to accept the teachers' request, not a demand, for an independent review so that the teachers can get on with the job which they so want to do—teaching our children.
11.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): On such a serious subject, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) did not resist the temptation to make some cheap and totally unjustified personal remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will not be surprised to learn that I did not agree with much, if any, of what he said. But this is a serious subject and I am glad of the opportunity tonight to set out the position, following my right hon. Friend's statement, and in particular to put on record the Government's decision today on the postponement of the implementation of the standard grade, following the receipt today of a letter from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The complaints of hon. Members opposite about the absence of an oral statement were totally bogus [interuption.] I have checked what the last Labour Government did on teachers' pay under similar conditions. Not only was there not an oral statement, but I have not found a written statement, although one may exist.
I assure those hon. Gentlemen who have suggested that in some way the timing of today's decision was related to industrial action that it was completely unrelated to any disruptive action. Of course we deplore the disruptive action that has been taken. I hope that disruptive action will not continue once the teachers have had the opportunity to consider precisely what my right hon. Friend said. Disruptive action will damage pupils, Scottish education and teachers' reputations. I can say unequivocally that disruptive action from the teachers' point of view will achieve nothing.
No responsible Government could possibly have signed a blank cheque in the way that the teachers wanted. But my right hon. Friend has said clearly in his statement that

1031
he fully appreciates the strong feelings of many teachers. He has pointed out that there is another possible and proper way to handle the matter.
Mr. Canavan: Give the teachers the same money as the police.
Mr. Stewart: If I have time, I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point about the police.
It is the statutory responsibility of the Scottish joint negotiationg committee to determine the salaries and conditions of service of school teachers in Scotland. We are prepared to consider on their merits, and in the framework of the Government's existing public expenditure plans for Scotland, any proposals relating to pay and conditions of service which might result from a detailed examination undertaken by the SJNC for school education.
Mr. Maxton: If the Minister is prepared to do that, why does he not accept the report that has already been drawn up by the working party of the joint negotiating committee which has representatives of the Secretary of State on the management side?
Mr. Stewart: I am about to deal with that report, which I have read, unlike, I suspect, many hon. Gentlemen.
My right hon. Friend has, however, pointed out that a review of conditions of service would have to deal specifically with areas where existing arrangements appear not to be in keeping with the present-day requirements, including the definition and prescription of teachers' responsibilities in the planning of personal teaching methods and programmes; the teaching, discipline and assessment of pupils; participation in schemes of personal professional development; participation in pastoral, tutorial and guidance arrangements; lunchtime and playtime supervision of pupils and consultations with parents, including attendance at parents' meetings, and control by employers of time within conditioned hours when teachers are not in class contact.
I cannot accept that it is other than realistic and constructive to want to examine teachers' conditions of service as well as their salaries. In much of the discussion of the teachers' request for an independent review of their salaries alone, great play was made of their status as professionals. But the argument that we have been hearing is that teachers should be paid on what they conceive to be professional scales but that their conditions of service, which in a number of respects are favourable, should not come under scrutiny. Teachers currently work a 32½-hour week. I shall rephrase that. Teachers currently have a 32½-hour working week.
Mr. Ewing: That is a cheap point.
Mr. Stewart: No, it is not a cheap point. It is surely unusual, by the standards of any profession, that teachers should have several hours in the week—the difference between their class contact time and their working hours—in which it is up to them to decide where they put in the hours that they are expected to spend on non-class contact duties.
I understand that there has been something of a hysterical reaction about the conditions of service point from the Educational Institute of Scotland this evening.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: A what reaction—historical or hysterical?
Mr. Stewart: I understood that there has been a hysterical reaction to this point. There is a good deal of
1032
confusion about such matters as playground and lunchtime supervision, discussions with parents and attendances at parents' meetings. There is much doubt in the minds of many teachers whether these matters are part of their professional duties. It is in no one's interests—parent, teacher or pupil — to leave the issue unresolved. A review is a sensible response to what has been said.
I shall respond to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cathcart about the teachers' case for substantial salary increases.
Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I usually give way to those who wish to intervene. However, I should like to get on with my speech. If I have time later, when I have put my case on the record, I will give way to him.
Mr. Canavan: Did anyone teach the Minister to make a speech?
Mr. Stewart: I had excellent teachers.
Mr. Canavan: It does not sound like it.
Mr. Stewart: We have been told by the hon. Member for Cathcart that the teachers have an unanswerable case for salary increases. That is based on the proposition that if something is said often enough and loudly enough it automatically becomes true.
Mr. Canavan: Give teachers the same money as the police.
Mr. Stewart: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point about the police. Teachers have been treated very much like other comparable groups of employees. Teachers say that comparable groups have received much larger pay increases than themselves, but if they are compared with other public service groups, especially others employed by local authorities such as manual workers, social workers, administrative, professional and technical grades, and with civil servants, it emerges that they have been treated in much the same way. When one compares teachers with civil servants in the comparable salary bands, it emerges that teachers have had larger salary increases over the past 10 years than those groups.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the police. The police provide security and they are significantly different from other groups because they have no right to strike. I need hardly say, in more general terms, that it is not the Government's policy to index pay increases either to the rate of inflation or to earnings of other groups.
Mr. Canavan rose—
Mr. Stewart: That would not be consistent with our policy of fighting inflation—
Mr. Canavan: It is on the police—
Mr. Stewart: —or of keeping down expenditure—
Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Canavan: It is unfair of the Minister to compare teachers with the police.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to resume his seat. The Minister has not given way.
Mr. Canavan: Then he will give way now. The police cannot be compared with teachers. Teachers educate children.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Canavan: The police are employed by this Government to beat miners and others over the head on picket lines.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who was fortunate enough to secure the Adjournment debate. The debate is personal to him and we want to hear the Minister's reply. Mr. Allan Stewart.
Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: No, I have given way to the hon. Member for Cathcart, who initiated the debate. I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. The local authority sector must be a part—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falkirk, West is not doing any good by making constant interjections. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to hear what I am saying in response to the arguments of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
Hon. Members will know that my right hon. Friend sought the advice of the Scottish Examination Board and COSLA on whether phases II and III of the standard grade reforms in the implementation programme should be postponed. The SEB advised that for its interest there was as yet no reason for postponement. I have today received the advice of the convention that phases II and III should be postponed, and my right hon. Friend has accepted that advice. I agree with the convention that the policy of non-co-operation in new curricular developments, which the EIS has adopted, makes it necessary to postpone the new courses due to begin in August 1985 and August 1986.
I share the extreme reluctance with which the convention said it decided that postponement was now inevitable. The refusal of teachers to co-operate in new developments is a complete betrayal of the expectations of parents and pupils. I regret particularly the loss to those pupils who have not hitherto had the opportunity to show what they can do in national examinations and to gain a certificate showing their achievements. The policy now adopted by the EIS contrasts strangely with its view, less than two years ago, that implementation should be speeded up—a view that the Government then accepted.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Stewart: By its action — or rather policy of inaction the EIS has now prolonged for the schools the
1034
period of overlap during which both old and new courses are taught, a period which, not so long ago, the EIS was anxious to reduce to a minimum.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Stewart: May I finish this point?
I must reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made crystal clear: there can be no going back on phase I of standard grade, the new courses in English, mathematics, science and social and vocational skills which pupils started in August this year. We cannot betray the trust of those pupils by saying to some of them that, after all, they will not have the opportunity to gain the Scottish certificate of education in 1986 and saying to others that, after a term spent on the new courses, they must revert—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were going to bring the proceedings to an end. The Under-Secretary of State has made an important statement. There has been a difficulty in getting such statements from the Library the following day. May we have the statement placed in the Library? Will you approach Mr. Speaker on this subject? A statement made around midnight has not been available to hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Under-Secretary of State has heard the hon. Member's comments.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Stewart: I cannot give way; I have only one minute to go. I shall be happy to ensure tomorrow that hon. Members have an early copy of what I am saying, because this matter is important.
Phase I of standard grade must go ahead as planned, and we shall, of course, monitor the position. We are consulting the local authorities and the examination board. I hope that we can minimise any further disruption to pupils now embarked on these new courses, to pupils studying for ordinary grade and higher grade examinations and to the conduct of the examinations next year.
The Opposition have talked about the additional work load for teachers. I must say to the—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o' clock.

WALES
  River Conwy (Tunnel)
  River Conwy (Tunnel)
  Welsh Water Authority
  Welsh Water Authority
SCOTLAND
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Homeless Young People
  Homeless Young People
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Housing Support Grant (Dundee)
  Housing Support Grant (Dundee)
  Local Authority Services (Dundee)
  Local Authority Services (Dundee)
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  School Meals
  School Meals
PRIME MINISTER
  HMS Conqueror (Log Book)
  HMS Conqueror (Log Book)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Studet Grants
  Studet Grants
  Rail Travel (Official Business)
  Rail Travel (Official Business)
  Israel
  Israel
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Pwllheli
  Pwllheli
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Dogs)
  Metropolitan Police (Dogs)
  Lion Intoximeter 3000
  Lion Intoximeter 3000
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Members' Communications (Interception)
  Members' Communications (Interception)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Supplementary Grant Settlement
  Transport Supplementary Grant Settlement
  Seafarers (Health and Safety)
  Seafarers (Health and Safety)
  Driving Test Centre, Basildon
  Driving Test Centre, Basildon
  Trucks (Wheel Nuts)
  Trucks (Wheel Nuts)
  Brazil (Landing Facilities)
  Brazil (Landing Facilities)
  Shipping Movements
  Shipping Movements
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
ENERGY
  Electricity Generation (Pollution)
  Electricity Generation (Pollution)
DEFENCE
  Statements of Service
  Statements of Service
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Missiles and Aircraft (Dual Capability)
  Missiles and Aircraft (Dual Capability)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  NATO Ministerial Meetings
  NATO Ministerial Meetings
  Army Detention Centres
  Army Detention Centres
  Tidworth Army Depot (Custody Statistics)
  Tidworth Army Depot (Custody Statistics)
  Service Personnel (Custody)
  Service Personnel (Custody)
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  JP 233 Airfield Attack Weapon System
  JP 233 Airfield Attack Weapon System
  Northern Europe Tracking Station
  Northern Europe Tracking Station
  Military Helicopters (Nap-of-the-Earth Flying Areas)
  Military Helicopters (Nap-of-the-Earth Flying Areas)
  Submarine Exercises
  Submarine Exercises
  Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre (Contracts)
  Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre (Contracts)
  Military Aircraft (Minimum Operating Height)
  Military Aircraft (Minimum Operating Height)
  Gruinard Island
  Gruinard Island
  Jet Provost (Replacement)
  Jet Provost (Replacement)
  Tornado Project
  Tornado Project
  Marconi Radar
  Marconi Radar
  Air Defence Network
  Air Defence Network
  Trident Missile
  Trident Missile
  NATO (Conventional Weapons)
  NATO (Conventional Weapons)
  HMS Conqueror
  HMS Conqueror
  Airborne Early Warning
  Airborne Early Warning
  Martin Kettrick
  Martin Kettrick
  Flexible Response and Forward Defence
  Flexible Response and Forward Defence
  Multi-launch Rocket System
  Multi-launch Rocket System
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Military Training (Reorganisation)
  Military Training (Reorganisation)
  Space-based Anti-ballistic Missile Technology
  Space-based Anti-ballistic Missile Technology
  Type 22 Frigates
  Type 22 Frigates
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Shoeburyness (Departmental Services)
  Shoeburyness (Departmental Services)
  RAF Molesworth and Alconbury
  RAF Molesworth and Alconbury
  Allied Command Europe
  Allied Command Europe
  Trainer Aircraft and Support Helicopters
  Trainer Aircraft and Support Helicopters
  Naval Construction Work
  Naval Construction Work
  Exercise Brave Defender 1985
  Exercise Brave Defender 1985
  RAF (Central Region)
  RAF (Central Region)
  Northern Ireland (Irish Regiments)
  Northern Ireland (Irish Regiments)
  COCOM
  COCOM
  ALARM Missile System
  ALARM Missile System
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
  Defence Sales (Brazil)
  Defence Sales (Brazil)
  Nuclear Weapons (Ministerial Control)
  Nuclear Weapons (Ministerial Control)
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
  Naval Dockyards
  Naval Dockyards
  Flexible Response and Forward Defence
  Flexible Response and Forward Defence
  FH70 Propellant
  FH70 Propellant
  Exercise Lionheart
  Exercise Lionheart
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Falkland Islands (Free Airmail Letters)
  Falkland Islands (Free Airmail Letters)
  NATO (Weapons Systems)
  NATO (Weapons Systems)
  Defence Review
  Defence Review
  NATO Training (Weapons)
  NATO Training (Weapons)
  South Atlantic
  South Atlantic
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Lemnos (Militarisation)
  Lemnos (Militarisation)
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Capital Grants
  Capital Grants
  Milk
  Milk
  Beef and Lamb
  Beef and Lamb
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Textiles
  Textiles
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Companies (Public Funds)
  Companies (Public Funds)
  Regional Aid (North-West)
  Regional Aid (North-West)
  French Cosmetic Product
  French Cosmetic Product
  Cargo Centre Development, Manchester
  Cargo Centre Development, Manchester
  Leeward Islands Air Transport
  Leeward Islands Air Transport
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
ENVIRONMENT
  Falkland Islands (Vic Hallam Company)
  Falkland Islands (Vic Hallam Company)
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Town Planners (Manchester)
  Town Planners (Manchester)
  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Trafford Park Enterprise Zone
  Trafford Park Enterprise Zone
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Hulme (Ministerial Visit)
  Hulme (Ministerial Visit)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Humberside County Council
  Humberside County Council
  Lordlords (Compensation)
  Lordlords (Compensation)
  Multiple Occupation Houses (Safety Precautions)
  Multiple Occupation Houses (Safety Precautions)
  Homeless People
  Homeless People
  London (Housing)
  London (Housing)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Freshwater Bodies (Acidification)
  Freshwater Bodies (Acidification)
  Vegetation (Ozone Damage)
  Vegetation (Ozone Damage)
  Air Pollution (Crops and Trees)
  Air Pollution (Crops and Trees)
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Acid Deposition (Power Stations)
  Acid Deposition (Power Stations)
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Theatre Technicians
  Theatre Technicians
  Noise Protection
  Noise Protection
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Unemployment (London)
  Unemployment (London)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Lemnos (Militarisation)
  Lemnos (Militarisation)
  Treaty of Lausanne
  Treaty of Lausanne
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Students (Statistics)
  University Students (Statistics)
  Blind and Deaf Children (Teaching)
  Blind and Deaf Children (Teaching)
  Thompson Report
  Thompson Report
  Special Education Needs
  Special Education Needs
  AIDS (Research)
  AIDS (Research)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Students (Tuition Fees)
  Students (Tuition Fees)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  World Scientific Research (Report)
  World Scientific Research (Report)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia (Famine Relief)
  Ethiopia (Famine Relief)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Scotland (Incomes)
  Scotland (Incomes)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Foetal Material
  Foetal Material
  Gay's the Word Bookshop
  Gay's the Word Bookshop
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Commercial Bills
  Commercial Bills
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Erne Catchment Area
  Erne Catchment Area
  Fair Employment Agency
  Fair Employment Agency
  Custodial Remand (Statistics)
  Custodial Remand (Statistics)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Staff)
  NHS (Staff)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Drugs
  Drugs
  NHS (Infertility Treatment)
  NHS (Infertility Treatment)
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Action on Smoking and Health
  NHS (Chief Executive)
  NHS (Chief Executive)
  NHS (War Preparations)
  NHS (War Preparations)
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Local Offices
  Local Offices
  Occupational Asthma Scheme
  Occupational Asthma Scheme
  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Foetal Material
  Foetal Material
  Outpatient Waiting Lists
  Outpatient Waiting Lists
  ENT Consultants
  ENT Consultants
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Postgraduate Hospitals
  Postgraduate Hospitals
  NHS (Charges)
  NHS (Charges)
  Health Authorities (Charges)
  Health Authorities (Charges)
  Maternity Services Advisory Committee
  Maternity Services Advisory Committee
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Neonatal Intensive Care Units
  Neonatal Intensive Care Units
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Black Foster Parents
  Black Foster Parents
  NHS (Managers)
  NHS (Managers)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Earl Nelson The Earl Nelson—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.

Spain and Portugal: EC Fisheries Policy
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 what progress has been made in negotiations with Spain and Portugal over the common fisheries policy, with a view to their entry into the European Communities.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the European Council, at its meeting in Dublin on 3rd and 4th December, reached agreement on the Community's position on a number of outstanding issues in the enlargement negotiations, including the fisheries aspects. This should clear the way for negotiations with Spain and Portugal to proceed.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, that is very good news for the fishing industry. Can my noble friend say whether we may be quite certain that the enormous Spanish fleet will not be allowed into the North Sea and thus compete with our fleets and other EEC members' fleets?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Community's agreed position is that Spain ought in principle to have no more access to species of fish, subject to total allowable catches and quotas, than she already has. I hope that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the agreement in Dublin was not an agreement with Spain or about Spain but rather an agreement among member states about their common position—that fishing stocks and the traditional rights of member states should be protected? There was no agreement in Dublin to deal with the fact that Spain has 17,000 trawlers. If those trawlers were let loose in the traditional fishing grounds of this country and of other countries, then the British fishing industry would be at an end. Can the Minister indicate clearly to the House that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government will be one of defending that British fishing industry—or at least what remains of it?
Lord Belstead: My Lord, the noble Lord is quite right when he says that the European Council adopted an agreed negotiating position on fisheries in the light of the concern felt by member states over safeguarding the balance of the common fisheries policy following
120
Spanish and Portuguese accession. Without being too explicit, I believe that that agreement among the Community member states fully safeguards United Kingdom fishing interests. But so far as concerns the specific point which the noble Lord puts to me—about the size of the Spanish fishing fleet—it is certainly the position of Her Majesty's Government that we believe there should be a restructuring of that fleet, both before the accession of Spain and, if necessary, afterwards.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that what is causing anxiety in the British fishing industry is the sheer size of the Spanish fishing fleet, which is the largest in the world? Do Her Majesty's Government realise that some limit must be placed on the number of Spanish vessels which can fish in northern European waters?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wholly agree. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has long experience of these matters, and it can hardly be a matter of surprise that I entirely agree with what he has said. This is inevitably going to mean a restructuring of the Spanish fishing fleet.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government obtained the full agreement of the other members of the EEC to the aim stated by my noble friend Lord Belstead in his replies to me in, this House last October? He said then that the common fisheries policy should not be re-opened, having concluded with great difficulty and being intended to last for many years.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not think that that matter was explicitly discussed in Dublin: I think it is implicitly agreed. The question discussed at Dublin was whether the European Council should, in the middle of these difficult negotiations and in taking stock, decide that they were all saying the same things so far as their attitudes to the enlargement negotiations were concerned. They did so decide, and I repeat that the agreement at Dublin, so far as fishing was concerned within the Community, fully safeguards United Kingdom fishing interests.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has tried valiantly to reassure the House about this matter, but will he be good enough to explain what "restructuring" a fleet of 17,000 fishing vessels means? Does it mean reducing that number of 17,000 vessels substantially?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords.

The Treason Acts: Prosecutions
2.41 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: 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 the Treason Acts are still in force and, if so, what are the criteria for a prosecution under them.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I believe that I should declare an interest: one of the types of conduct constituting treason is killing the Lord Chancellor. I shall now proceed to answer my noble friend's Question. A number of Treason Acts, including that of 1351, are still in force. The criteria—which are of course for the prosecuting authorities—are the same as for any other offence; namely, the likelihood, on the available evidence, of securing a conviction, and the general interest of the public.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer, which was full of clarity. Can my noble and learned friend tell me whether attempting to blow up Her Majesty's Government is high treason or could be charged as high treason? If so, does capital punishment still apply?
Secondly, in the event of a foreign citizen being involved in such a crime, can he be charged with high treason? Thirdly, and speaking as one who does not agree with capital punishment, if my two previous assumptions are correct, would it not be more sensible to repeal the law so that capital punishment does not apply to high treason? Is it right to have a law of this severity lying on the statute book unused when the crime itself seems to be committed fairly frequently, and is that not an unsatisfactory state of affairs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are a number of questions. Is trying to blow up Her Majesty's Government an act of treason? Certainly it is an overt act. I suppose it would be a question for the jury, properly directed, as to whether such an act constituted,
"levying war against Her Majesty within Her Realm"
or, alternatively, encompassing,
"the death of the Sovereign".
The next question was about capital punishment. Yes, my Lords, the penalty under the Treason Act 1351, as amended, is death by hanging. Thirdly, on the question of foreign subjects, if my noble friend will consult, I think, Calvin's case in 1608 he will discover that all aliens owe local allegiance to Her Majesty and therefore the charge of treason will lie against them.
On the repeal of the law, that of course will be for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to consider; but my noble friend might care to know that the Law Commission is considering currently the question of public order offences, which I suppose includes treason. I understand that it has hit on a number of major snags and it is not known when it is likely to report.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the abolition of capital punishment for this most serious of all offences would be highly controversial and probably would not get through Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not for me to speculate as to what would get through Parliament. If one reads the Treason Act 1351 one is I think slightly puzzled by the Norman French of Stratford atte Bow. If one delves rather deeply into the various meanings
122
attached to that statute by successive judicial interpretations one becomes more puzzled still, so that a revision of the statute law certainly could not necessarily be held to be premature.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I ask whether prosecuting authorities in this country now treat the offence of high treason as obsolete? I take the instance of the Birmingham bombers. There were five IRA men resident in Northern Ireland, owing allegiance to the Queen, who came over to England and joined in Birmingham an IRA man resident here. They planted a bomb which killed 21 people and wounded 80. They were arrested and charged only with murder. They were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Was not their act, levying war against the Queen in her Realm? Were they not guilty of high treason? Ought not the prosecuting authorities to have considered that offence and charged them with it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only say that they were both charged with and convicted of murder in that particular case. As I said in my substantive Answer, it is for the prosecuting authorities to decide according to the public interest what charge it is appropriate to bring. In the light of Joyce v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, I should be hesitant to say that the crime of treason was obsolete. In the case of using explosives it was, I think, the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in a case called Gallagher, in about 1883, that even three people with enough explosives could be guilty of the offence.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a not too distantly related aspect of the criminal law of treason is the law of sedition? In the current atmosphere, particularly in the coalfields of Great Britain, would it not be prudent for the Law Officers of the Crown—all four of them—to have a review and careful consideration of the law relating to sedition?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper related to treason and not sedition.

Iran-Iraq Conflict
2.48 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 what efforts they are currently making to seek a peaceful solution to the war between Iran and Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we wish to see the earliest possible end to the tragic and wasteful conflict in the Gulf. We will support any realistic initiatives, especially through the good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General. On 4th December, the leaders of the Ten announced that they would continue to work for an early, just and honourable settlement and would give full support to any efforts to limit the scope of the conflict.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that full reply. Is the noble Baroness aware that the efforts of Great Britain are acknowledged? This appalling war, with its inhuman terror, constitutes a great threat to the states of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It could engulf the Middle East and have savage repercussions throughout the world. Does the noble Baroness not agree therefore that Britain with its great experience could perhaps now give a lead and encourage in particular our American allies to find, if necessary, a strong method to stop this exceedingly dangerous conflict.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we hope that both sides will agree to try and settle their differences by negotiation. On 9th June 1984 the United Nations Secretary-General appealed to both sides to cease attacks on the civilian population centres. This has largely been adhered to and is a useful first step. The United Nations Secretary-General has also called on both sides to refrain from using chemical weapons and to cease attacks on shipping in the Gulf.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that it is quite impossible for anybody in this country to export to either of the belligerents anything which could possibly be used for military purposes?
Baroness Young: My Lords, our normal trade relationship with both sides includes items of non-lethal military equipment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it true that the Government have offered Iraq credit to the amount of £300 million? If so, what is it intended that that credit should be used for? Furthermore, is it the case that in October 1983 Iraq was offered £275 million credit by Her Majesty's Government? Can the noble Baroness say whether that was taken up and what it was used for? Furthermore, on the question of the United Nations, can she say whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention to take an initiative themselves and raise the matter in the security Council?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in answer to an earlier question, we have a normal trading relationship with both sides in this conflict. Any money that might be used would be, I think, in furtherance of that trading relationship.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not, as she normally would, answered my question specifically. I mentioned a figure of £275 million in October last year and £300 million now, making a total of £575 million. Surely Her Majesty's Government would not give credit to that extent without knowing precisely what the money will be used for in the context of the conflict that is now going on.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that under the circumstances it would be better if I wrote to the noble Lord on the point that he raises.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how can the Minister reconcile the policy of taking any action to bring the conflict to a halt with continuing to supply non-lethal military equipment to both sides, which prolongs the conflict? Would it not be preferable if Great Britain took a lead among the Ten in imposing a complete embargo on all supplies of military equipment, lethal or non-lethal?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, it would not work. In the case of Iran, even if there was a general Arab-Western embargo on arms, other countries would continue to supply them.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government expressed their concern to the Iranian Government, in the context of human rights violations, about the continued recruitment of boy soldiers into the Iranian army, some of whom are as young as 10 or 11?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. Recently a representative from the Community Presidency in Teheran made a démarche expressing our concern at the inability of the International Committee of the Red Cross to fulfil its obligations in Iran.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the points that have aleady been made, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of this? The British Foreign Secretary had a remarkably successful tour of the Middle East. His speeches were well received on all sides, both by those for and against various points of view. That has placed Great Britain in a situation where we really could give a lead at the United Nations, and where we would have a right, because of the Foreign Secretary's endeavours, to ask our American allies to assist in bringing this frightful and dangerous war, with its evil consequences for all mankind, to a swift end.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, we should like to see a negotiated settlement, but we believe that a condemnation of one side in this conflict would be likely to be counterproductive. What we have noticed, of course, is the stated willingness of the Iraqi Government to enter negotiations.

Exercise Brave Defender 1985
2.54 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: 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 the Home Office and local authorities will be participating at national or local level in Exercise Brave Defender 1985.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): No, my Lords. This exercise is a military home defence exercise to test the plans for the protection of vital installations in conventional war, and civil defence plans will not be tested.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I suggest to him that it is most unsatisfactory? Does he not agree that the full involvement of local authorities with regard to their civil defence duties is essential in order to make home defence effective across the board?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we do not think that it would be appropriate so to do until civil defence preparations are more advanced than they now are.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind even what my noble friend has said, is it not elementary that in any attempt to defend this country the local authorities would be involved? May I therefore suggest that at least the emergency planning officers, or perhaps the chief executives of local authorities, be invited to attend the exercise, if only as observers?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion will be borne in mind, but I should say that as regards the strictly civil defence element, we think that it is necessary to be further advanced in planning. Answers to the civil defence questionnaire which was recently sent to local authorities have come in, and a preliminary analysis shows that considerable and extensive effort is being made on the part of most county councils, the vast majority of which provide at least some form of contingency planning. We hope to make the results of the analysis available before Christmas.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the very low morale in local government generally and in many local authorities, can the noble Lord envisage the sort of reply that he might get?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord thinks that I am a pessimist, but I am an optimist. I believe that the local authorities have here an overriding duty to the public whom they serve which they would not shirk.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend possibly explain what happens when the local authorities declare themselves nuclear-free zones? When that happens presumably nothing happens as regards civil defence. Is that the position?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords; duties have been put on local authorities, and the extent to which they are honouring the obligations put on them is being revealed in the questionnaire to which I referred earlier. My noble friend, of course, will be aware that no hostile force would be interested in whether an area had declared itself nuclear-free.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's welcome remarks about the responses he has had to the questionnaire, can he assure me that in a future year, after the next one, he and the Home Office will encourage any exercise planners to include civil defence as a matter of routine from 1986 onwards?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that that would be going a little far, but we already encourage exercises at local and regional level. Where an opportunity to involve a military aspect arises, I shall make sure that
126
my right honourable friend has my noble friend's suggestion in mind.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Avon will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the rate support grant settlement 1985–86. That will be followed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on the indemnity given to the sequestrators of the NUM funds.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Food and Environment Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period; and that during that adjournment the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 will be taken.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to orders for extended hours at premises providing entertainment and in relation to special hours certificates. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Highland Regional Council (Uig Pier, Skye) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Lochmaddy and East Loch Tarbert (Improvement of Piers, &c) Order Confirmation Bill
3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Alport: My Lords, I am sorry to rise rather slowly on this, but, not having followed the previous proceedings, I was not quite clear whether I was entitled at this particular point to say how very much I should like to welcome this order and how grateful I am to the Government for proceeding with it, and also for the fact that it should be done through the European Council's contribution. I must declare that I have a special interest in this matter in so far as I have

127
been very familiar with all these ports over a long period of time. I know how very much this move on the part of the Government will help those who live on the islands and all those who visit it during the summer holiday period. This is particularly important from the point of view of the islands; and these are matters which will ensure that in the future more people in this part of the world and in the rest of England and Scotland will understand and have the advantage of that very beautiful part of Britain.
My Lords, if I am out of order in any way in introducing these particular sentiments at this point it is merely in order to make the point, which I know will be appreciated in the islands, that your Lordships have passed this Bill, which is so much to their advantage.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill considered on Report.

Friendly Societies Bill
3.2 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gowrie I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 15 [Control of pesticides, etc.]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 56A:
[Printed earlier: col. 1531.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 56A along with another amendment on the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill. In response, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that he would have good news for me on Amendment No. 56A, and in order to receive that news I now beg to move Amendment No. 56A.
The Earl of Swinton: I am indeed most grateful to the noble Lord. As I in fact said on Amendment No. 5 I think I have better news on this one. I understand
128
that the noble Lord may have indeed identified a weakness in the powers of disposal set out in Clause 15(1)(e). I should like to take this matter back again, discuss it further and probably come back with a suitably worded amendment to cover this point at Report.
Lord Gallacher: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 57.
Page 13, line 20, after ("pesticide") insert ("or delivery device").
The noble Lord said: This subsection gives the Minister power to seize the pesticide or anything treated with it. But suppose the offence is to have used an unsuitable spray device with an otherwise suitable pesticide. Without this amendment, has the Minister power to seize that spray device? For instance, I am told that some farmers make their own spraying equipment and that such a power may be necessary. If the device used is in fact the guilty party and the pesticide used is not, then without my amendment the Minister's hands are tied as he has no power to seize the unoffending pesticide. This point must surely be allowed for in the Bill.
There is a secondary point, in that the provision now authorises the seizure of a device along with the pesticide. But that provision is unclear; I may be told that this can be done. If the Minister gave me an assurance on the second point, I would accept that; hut my amendment would clarify both points. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend has made two points in moving this amendment. I wonder whether I might take the second one first, which is the seizure point, which is in fact the effect of this amendment, and just say this in reply to my noble friend. I do not believe that it would be effective in this Bill if one was only to look at the delivery device. As I sought to say to the Committee last week, there is a whole variety of other reasons why spraying may not be up to standard. A machine may be eminently suitable for use with one product and may be totally unsuitable for use with another—a point which my noble friend made himself when speaking a moment ago. A machine which when correctly adjusted, maintained and used is eminently suitable as an applicator of a range of pesticides may be totally unsuitable and potentially dangerous if incorrectly adjusted and poorly maintained or misused.
Therefore, I really do think that to put a power of seizure of spraying equipment in the Bill would not only be very heavy-handed indeed but also would not be dealing with where the real problem lies. That leads me to the first point which my noble friend made in moving this amendment, which is whether there is a power to match the pesticides which are being used to the way in which they are being used. It is very firmly the Government's opinion that in order to ensure the safe use of pesticides machines must be matched to pesticides and the users instructed as to what machine to use and how to use it.
That is why, last week, in Committee, I gave an assurance that we intend to look at each chemical,

129
either as a new product or on review, and approve each chemical in relation to safe application methods only. This will involve, in many cases, the specification of particular types of machine and the specification of how those machines must be adjusted and used.
I hope that answers my noble friend. We do, I believe, have the power in the Bill that he has asked that we should have, and therefore the amendment is not necessary. But in addition to that, the effect of his amendment would be to allow the seizure of spraying machines. I really do think that that would be a very big step which the Government would be extremely hesitant to take.
Lord Melchett: I think I am becoming a little clearer as to how the Government intend to tackle this problem of how pesticides are actually applied. I hope the noble Lord agrees with those of us who have already raised this point in Committee that this will very often be as important as the question which chemicals are applied, and for what purposes. However, I still personally do not follow what the noble Lord envisages happening if, once they have given a particular chemical clearance in the way he suggests, for use with particular sorts of machinery and in particular conditions or whatever, machinery is not used which is right for that chemical.
Suppose they have cleared the chemical for particular uses and it is then out on a farm being sold to farmers with inappropriate spray equipment, with spray equipment which is badly adjusted, or whatever. What happens at that point? I hope the noble Lord would agree that it cannot be enough just to clear the chemical. I really do not follow what steps will be taken when the chemical gets into the wrong machine.
Lord John-Mackie: This is a very difficult point. There is no doubt that you could not possibly fault the machine. It must be the operator who is ultimately at fault. Later in the Bill, there is an amendment to see that all operators are well trained. This should meet the point about ensuring that he would not use a faulty machine. If he is a certificated operator, that will solve the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton.
The Earl of Onslow: It seems to me that there are two sides of this coin. Unless we have proper machinery, either it will put on too little of the dose or put on too much. If you put on too much, there is bound to be economic cost to the farmer, which he will learn the second time round, and there will also be environmental harm. It would seem that the follow-on is that you cannot avoid licensing machinery if you licence the stuff as well or give it some form of certificate of approval. This must be the right way to proceed. I should have thought that it was selling things under false pretences if there was not some form of approval.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Listening to this debate, I have the horrible fear—I am sure it is not intended—that a farmer will possibly require different sprayers for different chemicals. That would virtually put spraying by the farmer or his men out of existence. It would become totally uneconomic. Sprayers are
130
expensive machines. The task would therefore be almost certain to pass into the hands of contractors. It could be argued that this might be a good step. It would mean that the task was being done by highly skilled people. I agree, however, with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that if too much liquid is put on, more gallons per acre than is the recommended dose, that is not the fault of the machine; it is the fault of the operator in using the wrong size of jets. We shall be discussing later matters such as the licensing of operators. The supervision lies in the human element and not in the condemnation or seizure of the machines.
Lord Somers: It is easy, I suggest, to have an adjustable spray. This is used, for instance, on machines for spraying various weedkillers on lawns. It can also apply perfectly well to a spray.
Lord Craigton: Regrettably, I do not find the Minister's reply very satisfactory. I hope that he will read the debate. To me, the insecticide and the sprayer used are one and the same in respect of the instructions of the Ministry as to what should be done to protect crops. If there is a fault in one, there can equally be a fault in the other. I am not at all satisfied. I shall have to look at the matter before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 13, line 21, after ("used") insert ("from land, water or air").
The noble Lord said: We are to have a debate on aerial spraying on Amendment No. 68; so I do not intend to raise that point on this amendment that is designed purely to get information from the Minister. I should like to restrict myself to the question of spraying from water. As the noble Lord will know, quite a lot of spraying applications are carried out on water, although nothing like the amount carried out on land. The spraying, from specially constructed boats, of herbicides in watercourses has become more frequent. In some areas like Romney Marsh and the Somerset Levels, conservationists fear considerable damage has been done. I hope that the noble Lord can assure me that where spraying is carried out over water from a boat, the powers in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that any regulations that the Government bring forward will cover those operations. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support the noble Lord. I declare an interest. I carry out a considerable amount of spraying of chemicals into water for clearing a fishing lake. It is infinitely easier to be careless and irresponsible in spraying on to water than it is over land. I have had the experience recently of being sold a chemical and being told verbally by the Ministry of Agriculture and the company concerned that it was free and available for use and then being told by the Thames Water Authority that under no circumstances was Ito use it, even though it had been cleared for use in the United States of America. It is important that the regulations in this case should be extremely strict and clear.
Lord Belstead: The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that, yes indeed, there is power in the Bill to do what he has suggested and, indeed, to do what my noble friend Lord Onslow suggests. I do not think that on this amendment I should go much further. I wonder, however, in courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether I may answer a question that he raised on the previous amendment. I was rather slow to my feet and failed to reply to it. The answer again is very short. If there is misuse of machinery on the farm, the answer is that those who are responsible for enforcement and who have powers to sanction enforcement under Clause 17 in Part III of the Bill—namely, the health and safety inspectors—would be those responsible for checking up.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall not pursue the point arising from the previous amendment now, although I register my continuing disquiet about the route that the Government have chosen. On the particular amendment that we are discussing, I am grateful for the Minister's assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert (", and if any pesticide has been exported from the United Kingdom in contravention of any such prohibition or condition either of the Ministers may require that it shall be returned to the United Kingdom")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was associated with Amendment No. 50, which the Minister has undertaken to reconsider. I wonder whether he can give an assurance that when reconsidering Amendment No. 50 he will also reconsider the sense of a proposal to prevent pesticides which had been refused by an importing country reentry into this country, which would be rather a ludicrous situation. I wonder whether the Minister will take on board the sense of the amendment and consider both at the same time. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although I was glad to support the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 50, I am afraid that there is a reason why this one could surely not be accepted by the Government. The noble Baroness is asking that Ministers may require somebody abroad to return something to the United Kingdom. Ministers would have no authority and no power to require that this should be done. I feel therefore that my noble friend the Minister will have to be very cautious before he says anything encouraging the acceptance of this amendment or anything like it.
The Earl of Onslow: There is a lovely idea, which I have suddenly seen, presented by this amendment. This foul, noxious stuff produced in a tin distillery in the back streets of Bolton is exported to some obscure third world country which says, "No, we don't want it", although it is allowed to be exported. But then, if the Minister has the power to ban imports of stuff, it cannot come back in again. So where, pray, does it go?
Lord Belstead: First, it would be churlish if I did not say to the noble Baroness, who, on the extremely difficult Amendment No. 50, said that she would be
132
prepared to await the next stage of the Bill before the Government replied, that I shall do my best to consider this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 50. There are, however, two problems. One has had the finger put on it by my noble friend Lord Renton and the other by my noble friend Lord Onslow. Indeed, so far as my noble friend Lord Onslow is concerned, there could be a rather difficult yo-yo effect.
I was reminded as the noble Baroness was speaking of the situation (which I think was the subject of a poem many years ago) of the man who presented himself at the gates of Heaven and was asked whether he had done anything very good in his life, and he said no he could not think of anything very good that he had done. So he was refused entry. He then went to another place and was asked if there was anything very bad that he had done, and he could not think of anything very bad he had done, either. He found himself very much in the position which I think my noble friend the Earl of Onslow foresees under Amendment No. 59.
Having said that, we certainly will have a look at it. Nonetheless, as the noble Baroness knows, there are very great difficulties so far as our consideration of exports is concerned, but I am looking at the question genuinely.
Baroness Nicol: I understand the spirit in which the Minister has made his offer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
(" ( ) impose conditions on the use of pesticides on any land which forms part of, or is adjacent to, a highway (including a footpath or bridleway) or is land to which the public have a right of access for open-air recreation;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of the application of pesticides on rights of way, or land which is adjacent to rights of way. I put it down because I think it is fair to say there is now growing and widespread concern among people who walk in the countryside about the adverse effect that they are finding from contact with pesticides while exercising their legitimate rights to walk—or to ride if it is a bridleway—down a right of way in the countryside. It is of course possible that spraying on a right of way might amount to an illegal obstruction, or at least a nuisance, but there is no case law on the subject and it would clearly be a difficult case to try, in particular because of the difficulty of proving the presence of pesticide in a particular crop especially as the effects of contact with the crop and the pesticide may not be apparent immediately as the person is walking.
However, it is clear that this concern is not simply something which is felt by walkers in the countryside. A farmer in Hertfordshire earlier this year actually gave a letter to local school children in the area where he farmed to suggest that they and their parents and animals should be kept away from local footpaths for a period of time because spraying was about to take place. This, on the one hand, was I suppose very

133
praiseworthy action by the farmer to try and avoid young children and animals—pets—and so on coming into contact with fields that have been sprayed. On the other hand, it is clearly a quite illegal attempt to deny people a public right of access. It is as illegal as it would be for a farmer to put a notice out saying that he did not want people to drive down the M.1 next week because he would be straw or stubble burning and the smoke might obscure the road. A public highway is a public highway. It seems to me that there is a very clear conflict; a conflict of which many farmers are conscious, and of which walkers are becoming increasingly conscious.
If I could just give another couple of examples of recent injuries suffered by walkers, near Cambridge this year two women were walking on a footpath alongside a field which had been sprayed with a fungicide. They suffered a severe rash and burning sensations to the legs. Two young puppies that were with them—on a lead I hasten to add—suffered considerable ill effects including severe thirst which lasted for several days.
A member of the Ramblers Association in Kent was recently discussing with a local farmer the possibility of diverting a footpath which ran through an orchard so that it would be alongside it. The farmer's reason for wishing to divert the public right of way was that the apple trees were going to be sprayed regularly—in fact up to 28 applications between April and October if a MAFF advisory booklet was followed—and some of these chemicals were extremely dangerous. I should remind noble Lords that at the time of this discussion the footpath ran through the middle of the apple orchard—and may still do so if the diversion has not been put into effect—and the farmer in that case was telling the local representative of the Ramblers Association that some of these chemicals that he would be spraying and had been spraying on the apple trees were extremely dangerous. Indeed, one of the containers had a skull and crossbones prominently marked on it.
In these circumstances where there is clearly a degree of confusion—some clear evidence of suffering on the part of those exercising their local rights to use public rights of way, and concern, rightly, from the farming community—it seems to me that it would be sensible for the position to be clarified. Spraying with the sorts of pesticides now in use can be very dangerous. Operators working the machinery often have to wear overalls, rubber boots, rubber gloves, respirators, and so on. It cannot be right that those chemicals can be applied to fields often with crops growing across a public right of way on which members of the public are free to walk immediately after the spraying operation has taken place.
There is a conflict here. It seems to me quite clear that what is needed in the Bill—or if not in the Bill, in the regulations—is a provision to ensure that no dangerous chemicals are placed in areas where members of the public are likely to come into contact when exercising their lawful rights. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: This is also a very difficult question and I quite see the concern of the ramblers and walkers in the countryside, particularly if they
134
read some of what look to me to be scare stories about what sprays can do, although I agree with my noble friend that there are a lot of dangerous sprays used. Perhaps I could give my own experience. I have 6,000 yards of footpaths through my farm of 430 arable acres. Nevertheless, if I could not spray these, every yard that I do not spray is an acre and a half unsprayed. I remember an occasion when, because of a tree, we missed a small portion of a wheat field when spraying for aphides; and they spread like lightning that year. It was a very bad year for aphides. It would be very difficult in my case to miss areas round footpaths—and I suspect in the case of many farmers as well.
The point that I should like to make is that I have been spraying on this farm, which is 20 miles from where your Lordships are sitting. We get a lot of walkers, and I have never had a complaint of any description about spraying, and we use all the various sprays for arable crops. I agree that something should be done but I would rather my noble friend had pinpointed a little more what he would like done and had not just left it to the Minister to say that he should put something in regulations. I feel that in spite of what he says the display of notices saying that spraying has taken place would be something that could be done. As it happens most of the footpaths on my farm are wide enough so that no one needs to touch the crops at all.
I suspect that in one of the cases that he mentioned, walkers had been going round the field at the particular time of the year when nettles, and what we call cleavers or sticky willies, were about, and the result might have been the prickles of that on their legs because I cannot think in this particular case—which has had wide publicity—that a week after spraying fungicide it could have done harm to people's legs. But I agree that there has been publicity and I feel something should be done. I feel there should be notification by signposts of some description to say that spraying has taken place in order to warn people to keep to the footpath, which in the regulations should be wide enough to prevent people actually walking into the crops.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not much like this amendment—in fact, I do not like it at all. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is really trying to throw the baby out with the bath water again. If it is dangerous to spray near a footpath the Minister has powers to stop us, as he told my noble friend Lord Craigton in an earlier amendment.
Secondly, if damage is done to that individual person walking down the footpath, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, with a fungicide—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I am surprised it was a fungicide—then that person has a perfect case in law to bring a case against the farmer. But the reason that I really object to this amendment is that it would cause irritation, indeed near panic, that all spraying—even though I know the amendment does not say this—near rights of way would or could be stopped. This would encourage the eco-rambler—I do not mean the proper rambler; I welcome him—to cause great trouble in the farming community. This would be most regrettable, bearing in mind the great progress that has been made

135
over the last five years to get farmers to open their farms to the public and the good attitude that the great majority of ramblers and other people who walk in the country have towards farmers. I have great experience of them, farming, as I do, quite close to Oxford.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: The present network of rights of way across farmland in this country was designed for a system of farming which is very different from the system we follow today. If the Ramblers Association were prepared to be more flexible than they have been historically in agreeing to divert footpaths onto equally good and equally long routes more suited to public rambling, and more suited also to the use of the land for modern farming, then I am sure that it would be easier for the farming community to avoid any contact by the rambling public with spray.
The Earl of Onslow: I think there is just a little in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says. I am awfully pleased that we have now had an eco-rambler joining with the eco-freaks; that is a great advantage. Would it not be possible to think along the lines of making sure that spraying is not done near footpaths on Sundays, and not done in the middle of the day? There obviously is some cause for concern. We, as farmers, must show some consideration for others. I can hear in the background my noble friend Lord Stanley saying, "No, no, no", which is an unfortunate attitude for the farmers to take because it gives us a bad name, which I do not want. That is my view.
Lord Walston: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and rather more sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. This is surely a question of balance. I think it would be wrong for farmers to be able, at will and without any warning, to spray dangerous chemicals over a footpath, but I think it is impractical to follow the suggestion put forward in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Would it not be possible for a list to be prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture of those sprays which are potentially dangerous to human beings or animals, on contact, and then to lay it down that when such chemicals are used on a field or an orchard adjacent to a footpath the farmer should be obliged to put up a notice at each end of the footpath saying that he has sprayed these chemicals on such-and-such a date? The farmer should leave the notice up for however long it may be that the chemical has an adverse effect on passers-by.
I suggest that would cause the minimum of inconvenience to farmers and make certain that no inconvenience is caused to the legitimate users of the footpath. It would also meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has raised—that one does not want to have antagonism between ramblers, users of footpaths, and the owners of the land and the cultivators of the land. There must be goodwill between them. That would be put in jeopardy by this amendment, but not by some form of modification such as I have suggested.
Lord Henley: Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I should like to ask whether this
136
amendment is really necessary at all. I think that paragraph (c) already gives the Minister power to impose conditions. Would not that be enough for him to lay down regulations to the effect that notices be put up or that certain sprays should not be used near the highway?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend Lord Stanley expressed the fear that people might become so alarmed that all sprays were dangerous that the whole fun would go out of rambling. I should like to point out that not all people exploring the countryside are on rights of way or belong to the Ramblers Association. On my farm there is a camp site where 2,000 young people come every year. They have permission to go on a whole lot of routes across ground which does not include public rights of way or highways. If they became alarmed that every field they went into which has been sprayed was dangerous, I do not think the experience would be any fun at all. Should there be chemicals which are known to be dangerous to walk across, they would of course be told. No sensible farmer who welcomed them would fail to do that. The whole thing is not quite as cut and dried as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, thinks.
Lord Belstead: I think the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, have put their finger on perhaps the main problem with this amendment, which is that it calls for conditions without stating what the conditions should be. That I think was perhaps more implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was saying, but it was explicit in what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and my noble friend Lord Stanley said. Indeed, the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite was quite explicit when he said that, with the best will in the world, with the enormous number of footpaths running across his own farm, if there were really stringent conditions, this could have a very serious effect on his farming operations; and that he would regret this because he felt that he had taken sufficient care and his relations with the local people who are walking on his land were of such a nature that it would not be necessary. So, if I may say so, I think that is the difficulty.
My noble friend Lord Henley is of course quite right in saying that there is a power in the Bill to do what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would be asking for; it is to be found in Clause 15(1)(c). But, with the best will in the world, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I think it is difficult, in view of the speeches which have been made, to support this amendment when, as I say, the conditions are not set out. Although the noble Lord was eloquent as to the problems, as he saw them, I do not think he actually gave the Committee very much of a lead as to the conditions he would like to see imposed.
However, having said that, I wonder whether I can be a little more helpful and say that, under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, pesticides are indeed scrutinised very closely today. The potential risks are evaluated to include those to bystanders as well as to users, and these evaluations will most certainly continue under the statutory scheme; and of course they would be backed up, if this Bill becomes

137
law, by powers to control application on the ground where that would be seen to be necessary. That could be done through codes of practice, and in the statement of intention which I circulated to your Lordships on Thursday of last week we make it absolutely clear, in paragraph 11, that the Government would be looking very seriously at the need for codes of practice following the passage of this Bill.
Perhaps I could consider the suggestion which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and see whether that is something we ought to think about for the future or, indeed, for a code. I like to think that what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said is the case—that any good farmer should be making it known to people who are camping on the land or are known to be on the land, or who could be coming across the land, that there is a need to beware in a particular circumstance.
Before I finish, I should like to say that we should not run away with the idea that sometimes we are not all, as members of the general public, told to take care. We are sometimes told to take care if we are passing a building which has scaffolding around it. We are sometimes told to take care if somebody has dug a hole in the road. I see nothing reprehensible, if I may say so, on behalf of the farming community, in putting a notice up sometimes, if it is necessary, to say that those who are crossing the land should be aware of a particular factor. As to whether it would be right to do it in the way that the noble Lord. Lord Walston, has suggested, that is something which, if the noble Lord will allow me to do so, I should like to reflect on.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I do hope that my noble friend the Minister will very seriously consider the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. To take but one example, where a pesticide has been sprayed and it is dangerous to animals it is very important for people taking dogs for a walk in the country to know the situation. Most people with any sense keep their dog on a lead on a footpath in a field where, for example, there are sheep, but they do not do so in an open field where there are no sheep. The dog is likely to be off the lead and wandering around the field probably covering 10 times as much distance as the owner walks. But I think that most sensible people would say that if they could see a notice saying that a dangerous pesticide had been sprayed on the field they would then put their dog on a lead and keep it to the footpath throughout, and I think that that would be very sensible and helpful.
Lord Belstead: I have said that the Government will look at the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, made, particularly in view of the probability that legislation—if it reaches the statute book—will almost certainly be the subject of some forms of codes of practice. But that is in the future. I hope that that undertaking is acceptable to my noble friend Lord Maude.
Lord Melchett: We have had a longer debate on the amendment than I had expected. I should like to make three points before I withdraw the amendment. First,
138
with respect, I think that it is a bit of a cheek for the Government to say that my amendment is not nearly specific enough about what type of conditions I want to see imposed, when their own Bill has been criticised from all sides of the Committee on the grounds that it gives them very wide powers to make regulations without their saying what they intend to put in those regulations in detail at all. I was simply following a lead which the Government had so ably given in taking the widest possible powers and not attempting to be specific in my amendments. So it really is a bit much. Half the time the noble Lord is saying that all the amendments are much too specific and will tie his hands, and now he is turning round and saying that the amendment is much too general and that I have got to say what I mean. I tabled the amendment because I wanted to make sure—and I think that it quite clearly does this—that the Government have power to impose conditions if they are necessary. That will change over time, as the noble Lord has not hesitated to tell us on numerous occasions when debating other amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised the question of diverting paths which go across fields to field edges so that they take—to use what I think was his phrase—a more sensible route in view of modern conditions. It is true that for many years the Ramblers Association agreed very readily to such diversions. The Ramblers Association only recently changed its policy in this regard and it has done so because it found that field edge paths, which had been created as a result of such diversions, were regularly being ploughed out.
It is legal to plough a path which goes across the middle of a field, but it is against the criminal law to plough a path which goes along the edge of a field, and it is also against the law to plant such a path with a crop.
Two of the incidents of which I have heard where people have been adversely affected by pesticides, and which I did not have time to mention when introducing the amendment, actually concerned such cases, and they both arose in Lincolnshire. The first concerned a group of people who last spring walked around the edge of a field on a public right of way which had been illegally planted with a cereal crop. They suffered a severe rash and intense irritation on their legs for about seven days. I have a photograph of a path, again going along the side of a field and again in Lincolnshire in the parish of Deeping St. James, where a notice has been erected at the entrance to a field of oil seed rape, warning people of the danger of pesticides. The height and thickness of the oil seed rape crop is such that it would be physically impossible to walk along the footpath around the edge of the field without coming into contact with the crop.
On the question of notices, which a number of noble Lords raised, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that when he considers the situation I think that he will find that it is a dangerous route to go down. It seems to me that we shall get into exactly the same problem as we have with farmers putting bulls in fields which are crossed by public footpaths and where the Ramblers Association's advice to walkers is to trespass rather than run the risk of serious injury by entering the field. Moreover, in doing so they are also

139
following advice from the Health and Safety Executive, which says that all bulls are dangerous and none should be trusted to be safe.
The fact of the matter is that if a group of ramblers had been walking since, let us say, early in the morning on a hot summer's day for several miles along a linear route where there are no opportunities to turn off and they are a couple of hundred yards from a pub at lunch time, but come across a notice on, for example, Lord Walston's farm (or for that matter anybody else's farm) which says, "Danger. Pesticides in this field"—the last field which they have to cross before they can get to the pub—they will either cross it nevertheless, or go round the edge of another field and trespass on the noble Lord's land. Either of those outcomes seems to me to be undesirable from both the walkers' and the farmers' point of view. So I do not think that erecting notices which imply that a legal right is in some way being withdrawn, will do.
3.45 p.m.
I assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was saying that we have to walk around scaffolding on a footpath in a town. If a public footpath in a town or on a highway of any type is blocked up, the people who block it have to get permission to do so and they usually have to provide safe alternatives. That is why one sees around building sites special corridors set aside for pedestrians. If that were done in this case, if a safe alternative route was provided by the farmer around the field that was sprayed, I do not think that any sensible walker would object. They would not object to what in other words is a temporary diversion. But that is different from putting up a notice which purports to deny people their legal rights. I do not think that notices of that nature will provide a solution—they will make matters worse. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind when he considers this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this might be a convenient moment to take the first Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Rate Support Grant Settlement 1985–86
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon):
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the rate support grant settlement 1985–86, being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the rate support grant settlement in England for 1985–86.
"In my Statement to the House on 24th July I set out my proposals for the main elements of the rate
140
support grant settlement for next year and listed the 18 authorities which I was designating for rate limitation. I have today laid before the House the main RSG report for 1985–86 and I am sending rate-capped authorities notices advising them of the rate or precept limit proposed for them. Copies of all the material being sent to local authorities today are available in the Library and the Vote Office.
"I have also laid today two RSG supplementary reports. The third supplementary report for 1983–84 adjusts authorities' grant entitlements in the light of the latest information on outturn expenditure for the year. The second supplementary report for 1984–85 implements grant abatement for Liverpool City Council, whose budget was received too late to be taken into account when I implemented grant abatement for all other authorities in July. Both reports also contain other technical adjustments to grant.
"I now turn to the main report for next year. For 1985–86 for the first time the Rates Act enables me to influence directly the spending levels of the worst overspenders by imposing limits on their rates. As we promised throughout the passage of the Rates Bill in Parliament, this means that rate limitation will not only benefit the ratepayers of the selected authorities. It will also benefit low-spending authorities, since I am no longer obliged to ask them to make cuts because of the excesses of the high-spending minority.
"I have decided to confirm the targets I proposed in July with two important changes. The first allows most low spending authorities an increase over this year's budgets of 4½ per cent, instead of the 4½ per cent. I previously announced. This reflects the slight increase in the forecast inflation rate over the period. For the first time targets for the lowest spenders imply spending increases in line with inflation, or in other words, no further real terms cuts. The second change relates to a particular group amongst those low spenders—namely, authorities such as Berkshire budgeting this year to spend not only below GRE, but also at or very close to target. They will be allowed a further relaxation of targets so that they may increase spending by up to 4.625 per cent.—a little more than inflation—without incurring penalties. With these changes, the targets for low spending authorities fulfil to the letter the undertakings which I gave to the House last January.
"I have decided to confirm the stringent holdback tariff which I announced in July at the rate of 7 pence in the pound for the first percentage point of overspend, 8 pence for the second, and 9 pence for each point thereafter. I believe that it is only fair to match realistic targets with a strong incentive that they should be met. I propose, however, to continue to exempt from penalty increases in certain urban programme and civil defence expenditure, and increases in expenditure on schemes jointly financed with health authorities. Aggregate exchequer grant will be £11.764 billion. That is slightly higher than the figure which I proposed in July. The grant percentage is 48.7 per cent.
"I turn now to grant distribution. Following consultation with local government, I have decided

141
on some limited but important changes to GRE assessments, affecting primarily the GREs for passenger transport support, highway maintenance, rate fund contributions to council housing, and recreation. I have also increased the slope of the block grant poundage schedule. This increases the importance of spending in relation to GRE as a factor in grant entitlements, and increases the marginal cost of spending above GRE for all authorities. Again, this helps low-spending authorities, since it gives more of the available grant to authorities spending at or below GRE.
"In the light of this RSG settlement, I am issuing maximum rate or precept limits for the 18 selected authorities. Since July, when I announced expenditure levels for these authorities, it has been open to each of these authorities to apply for a redetermination of their expenditure level at a higher level, but none has done so.
"Rate or precept limits for 1985–86 are therefore based on the July expenditure levels. I am today sending out statutory notices informing each authority of the limit that is proposed for it. A list of these limits has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office. In calculating the rate or precept limits I have taken account of the expenditure levels set and the authorities' block grant entitlements next year. I have also had regard to the level of financial reserves available to each authority, making assumptions as necessary.
"Authorities now have until 15th January to comment on the rate or precept limits proposed, and to draw my attention to any relevant information of which I may not be currently aware. Unless I have comments by 15th January, it will, in the absence of agreement, be necessary to move on to the next stage of asking the House to confirm the rate limits by affirmative order.
"The proposed rate and precept limits I am announcing today will be warmly welcomed by ratepayers in the areas concerned. For 13 of the 18 authorities I have set rate or precept limits which are lower than the rates or precepts being charged this year. In the five remaining cases, however, the rate or precept will be lower than it would have been without rate-capping.
"Mr. Speaker, this year's average rate increase was the lowest for 10 years. If authorities budget to meet their targets next year, the average rate increase next year should be even lower. The first stage of rate limitation will at long last bring relief to ratepayers in the rate-capped areas. Moreover, rate-capping has allowed me to set much fairer targets for low-spending authorities. This settlement has meant increasing the provision for local authority current spending next year by £820 million above the provision in the public expenditure White Paper. In present economic circumstances, this is a reasonable and fair settlement, and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Minister for reading the Statement so beautifully. As it is the first rate settlement Statement
142
that he has read, perhaps I may congratulate him on the fact that he made it sound very much better than, in truth, it is. I should like to ask the Minister some questions. First, is he aware that the Government have taken away £9,000 million in the rate support grant and that, as the Association of County Councils pointed out last January, it is for this reason that rates have doubled? Is it not the case that by reducing the rate support grant, with an increasing burden on ratepayers, services will shrink even further? There has been a 5 per cent, cut in real terms, so the effect of these very seductive words is entirely cosmetic. The figures disguise the fact that the cut is 5 per cent, below what is required to maintain existing services throughout the country as a whole.
In their relaxation, the Government have tried to buy off the shire counties by increasing spending from 4½per cent, to 42 per cent. They are trying to help their friends by giving increased targets. Then there is the increased slope. This has the effect of discouraging further spending above GRE. The increased effect of spending above GRE helps those spending at or below GRE, which includes 29 out of 39 shire counties. However, I am afraid that this is a big con, because the aggregate Exchequer grant of £110 million in cash is at least £600 million less in real terms.
Will the Minister confirm that every council spending at target this year will receive less grant in real terms than it did in 1984–85? I stress that I am speaking in real terms. Will the Minister say how many councils spending at target this year will receive less grant, taking into account the transport supplementary grant? Is it not the case that major spending councils will receive less in real terms? When will the Minister's right honourable friend be making an announcement, which I understand has been held up, on housing investment and other capital investment programmes?
On the question of rate-capping, the Secretary of State has evidently chosen the path of confrontation, because on 24th July he said:
"Rate-capping does not therefore mean that services must be slashed. The spending limits that I am setting are reasonable and should be perfectly attainable".
How does this square with the rate limits announced today, which are based on expenditure limit cuts ranging from 6 per cent, to 28 per cent.? It really is quite impossible. The Secretary of State went on to say that:
"authorities could use the redetermination option".
But in practice it is a closed door, as it involves a lower limit and becomes a Catch-22 situation. Councillor Gibson, the Conservative leader of Portsmouth Council, said in an article published in the Municipal Journal of 3rd August:
"It is too early to say whether we should go for a redetermination. It is obviously an area that we must consider, and consider very seriously. The thing about redetermination is that it could come with strings attached that my council could not possibly accept".
Those are the words of a Conservative councillor.
In July the Secretary of State set expenditure limits for authorities. He set a cash freeze—an average cut of 11.9 per cent, in real terms. For some authorities it was much more. In fact, the cuts range from 17.8 per cent, for Merseyside to 12.5 per cent. for Sheffield. Today he will set these in concrete by setting the maximum rates

143
for the 18 rate-capped authorities. The system is really quite mad as, if rate-capping works and can reduce expenditure in the rate-capped areas, there will be less grant at higher rates in Conservative areas. In fact, paradoxically, the money goes to the Treasury and, therefore, the Treasury has a vested interest in fining local authorities, as local authorities can now be fined up to £10 for every £1 they spend.
In the past, the level of grant support has always been up to the Government to decide and the expenditure side has always been left to local authorities. But now the total expenditure of local authorities is being decided by the Government. This is a new, unpleasant innovation by this Government, and once again it is taking away from locally-elected councillors, from elected authorities, the right to make decisions for their own areas.
4 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. Like the noble Baroness, I can see in it no tidings of comfort and joy for local authorities. This has been another sad day for local authorities. Throughout the time this Government have been in office local authorities' powers have been whittled away, their finances have been cut, and now their rates are to be controlled by Government and in some cases even fixed by Government.
The Minister says that rate limitation will benefit not only the ratepayers of selected authorities, but also the low spending authorities. But how can this be so when there is a lower percentage of grant than ever before to be shared out among the authorities, when the Secretary of State has given an assurance to the shire counties that they will get more, when in fact the lowest spenders will get increases of only 4½ per cent., supposedly in line with inflation? The low spenders will get that little.
The rate-capped authorities, because they are rate-capped, will probably get more grant than they might otherwise have done. What about those in the middle? Are they the ones who are going to pay for the extras for the shire counties and the others? Such an increase is unlikely to benefit the good housekeeping shire counties (such as mine, Cambridgeshire) which, by just standing still in service provisions, are spending over target, though well below their GRE, and so are penalised.
Eighteen authorities are to be issued with maximum rate limits. How many authorities, in addition to those, have intimated that they may be considering levying illegal rates? We live in difficult times. We have greater pressures than ever on the social and humanitarian services provided by local government. Cutting the RSG without giving local authorities any alternative means of raising additional finance, with targeting, with penalties, with rate fixing, does nothing to help those in these hard times.
Surely over the years it has been proved that patchwork policies in regard to local government do not work. This Government continually go for quick, piecemeal remedies and solutions when what is needed, and what we have been arguing for from this side of the House for many years, is a long-term
144
strategy for local government. I believe that we are well on the way to destroying the financial stability of local government, and the Government are now demanding cuts in services that authorities just cannot achieve.
On the penultimate page of the Statement the Minister refers to the level of financial reserves. Surely this is an arbitrary exercise of ministerial discretion in regard to the rate-capped authorities when assumptions only are being made as necessary. It is going to be a miserly Christmas present for local authorities and for those who need and depend on their services. One can only hope that one day even this Government might manage to dispense a little Christmas cheer.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their personal welcome to me, if not to the Statement. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that all authorities budgeting this year to spend three-quarters per cent, or more below GRE are getting targets for next year which will allow spending to increase in line with inflation by 4½ per cent. Even the lowest spenders' targets this year implied real-term cuts of about 2 per cent. That comparison shows clearly how it has been possible to discharge to the letter the undertaking given to the House last January. On top of that we have given a modest extra improvement to targets to those authorities spending at or very close to target as well as below GRE. These are allowed up to a 4.625 per cent. increase in spending.
My right honourable friend felt it was right to increase the weight given to GREs in grant distribution, but this benefits all authorities whose spending is at or below GRE. I do not think that inner-city authorities as a group should have cause for complaint. Many of them will do well out of the GRE changes in this year's settlement.
While we are on the subject of the quantum grant and the expenditure groups who were worried about the uplift of the £1·7 billion which they wanted, I should point out that, after the necessary classification changes and using the Government's inflation estimate, the local authority bid of £1·7 billion is, we take it, equivalent to £1·4 billion, and the uplift of over £800 million which was announced today goes more than half way to meet this. I believe that this is a sizeable step in the right direction, and I do not believe that it is unreasonable to ask local government to come the rest of the way to meet us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned in particular a figure of £9 billion off the RSG. She mentioned restoring the AEG to the 61 per cent. level pertaining when the Conservatives took office. It is our contention that only £3 billion extra grant would be paid. In any case I am led to understand that the ACC favour cuts in grant to increase accountability. I understand also that the ACC wanted inreased slope of the schedule to put more emphasis on GREs as a basis for distribution.
I was asked about an assurance of grant reductions in terms of real cuts. I do not think it is possible to say that, as it depends on authories' budget decisions. But there is no cap on the gains in grants due to grant mechanisms. I am sure here that the message is to spend to target and to avoid penalty.

145
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the lowest spenders getting a 4⅓ per cent. cash increase. The high spenders have of course to reduce in real terms by 1½ per cent., which is a cash cut of about 6 per cent., and that I believe is as much as we can reasonably ask anybody to do in a year. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked about the capital allocations, and I appreciate that authorities are anxious to know where they stand on capital, so that they can make their plans for next year. I am sorry that we have not managed to make announcements to coincide with the announcement today as usual. I cannot give a precise date or any details at present. We are still trying to sort out the position on the final decisions on public expenditure. I hope I have covered a number of the points raised by the noble Baronesses.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions arising out of that Statement? First, may I thank him for repeating it and welcome a good deal of what is in it. It must be a good thing to reduce aggregate Exchequer grant and thereby take a step towards the position where more of local services are financed by taxes raised from local electors. To the extent that the Statement indicates a further step in that direction and a further step towards more accountability it must be welcomed.
However, two questions arise from that. First, may I have my noble friend's assurance that in the spring local government will have the help of central government in dealing with their critics, because at that time when rates are set there will be a general increase in rates of some 10 per cent. This is as a direct result of meeting the reduction in the aggregate Exchequer grant and in competing with continuing inflation. At that time we shall undoubtedly get criticisms from ignorant people who are not fully au fait with local government finance, from some mischievous critics, and from some critics who ought to know better. The first question, therefore, is: can we count on central government support in rebutting those criticisms when that happens?
I come to my second question. There must be a point in this process—which is itself welcome—at which the rating system in the unreformed condition in which it is, and unsupported by any other way of raising finance locally, will not be able to take the strain imposed on it by this process. In that connection I think that the House would be glad to hear—I certainly would—that the review of local government finance (for which we have all been asking for so long, and which at long last the Secretary of State announced, in ringing terms at the Conservative Party Conference this autumn) has now begun and is proceeding constructively to a satisfactory conclusion.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his welcome of this Statement. Of course the Government will take their own responsibilities for any increases necessary in the spring. May I say at the beginning that I hope it will not be necessary for 10 per cent. to be the level of increase, but we shall certainly take our share of responsibility.
146
The inquiry is progressing. I know that progress is being made, and I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear that it is going as fast as it can.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to remind the Minister that there were two or three questions that he did not answer. I thank him for the answer to the question on the announcement to be made on capital grants, although it does not seem to be in sight. I asked him whether he would confirm that every council spending at target this year will receive less grant in real terms in 1984–85. I assume, as he did not mention it, that that is so. That is the way it works out from the figures. I asked him to tell us how many councils spending at target this year will receive less grant, taking into account TSG. I also put it to him that major spending councils will receive less in real terms. I think that was a point that was also made in a slightly different way by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. All these will add up to fewer services for the elderly, fewer services all round and difficulties for local authorities maintaining what they have been trying so hard to maintain for all these years in the face of the difficult criteria set down by the Government.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is difficult for me to answer the specific questions which the noble Baroness has asked without the figures we all need to have in front of us. So far as the future increased expenditure is concerned, the figure I mentioned—I believe the noble Baroness mentioned it as well—of £600 million we believe to be a step in the right direction. It should not lead to cuts in expenditure on the social and other resources of the counties. Until we have seen the figures in more detail I cannot answer the noble Baroness more clearly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the statement that my noble friend made about civil defence expenditure, which will mean that local authorities will no longer have a financial excuse for not carrying out their statutory and humanitarian duties with regard to civil defence. But to clarify the matter, will he confirm that the exemption applies to all civil defence expenditure on both capital and current account?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I can confirm that it applies to all civil defence expenditure on capital and current account.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) provide for the inspection of pesticide application and delivery devices;").
The noble Lord said: With the approval of the Committee, I should like to discuss this amendment with Amendment No. 109.
Amendment No. 109: Page 15, line 29, after ("pesticide") insert ("or delivery device").
First, dealing with Amendment No. 61, at column 1539 my noble friend Lord Belstead said, on 6th December:
"It is our intention that the Government look under the statutory scheme at each chemical, either as a new product, or on review, and consider the likely machinery by which the product will be applied".
I repeat those words:
"and consider the likely machinery by which the product will be applied".
Consideration is impossible without inspection. This amendment includes inspection in the regulations, which must give power to inspect in any case if the purpose of this Bill is to be fulfilled. That is the reason for my first amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 109, such official consideration and inevitable inspection must, as the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission wished, lead to improvements in the devices used. So it is logical to ask the manufacturer of the device to pay for its approval or consideration just as the chemical manufacturer pays for his pesticide approval under this Bill. In effect, what I am saying is that delivery devices should be approved after inspection for which the manufacturer of the device should be charged. I do not think the Bill permits this now. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: For reasons which I have already sought to put before the Committee, I do not take the same view as my noble friend, that it would be practicable to introduce an inspection system for spraying machines. That does not mean that the overall objective of my noble friend and the Government is not the same. We agree that the need is to ensure that pesticides are only applied through machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. We are agreed on the ends; we are only at a difference on the means.
As I see it there are two problems here. The first is the one which I have already endeavoured to explain to your Lordships; that it is not just a question of looking at a machine and deciding whether it passes an inspection, because once the machine is out in the field there are a whole host of other factors which will affect the effectiveness with which the machine is being used.
The second problem is that this would amount to an MoT system for sprayers involving a vast number of officers who, I suggest to my noble friend, would be much better employed making sure that the farmers and contractors used the equipment they had with the appropriate chemicals—I stress "with the appropriate chemicals"—and in the correct way.
I am not simply saying that for something to say because in Clause 17(4) and (5) we find that the officers who will enforce Part III of the Bill, who will be health and safety at work officers, will have powers to impose improvement and prohibition notices on anyone who uses pesticides in a way likely to create a hazard. Thus anyone using a machine incorrectly or using an unsuitable machine could be told that he could not continue to use that machine while it remained in that condition or that he would need to have some instruction on the correct use of the machine. I feel that in taking those powers, we have gone about as far as it is reasonable to take the powers of the Government in this matter.
148
I very much regret having to say that because the objectives of the Government are exactly the same as those of my noble friend Lord Craigton; nonetheless, we feel that to set up a testing system for spraying machines is something which would hardly be practicable.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord a question about this aspect? What would be the situation if a farmer bought a pesticide application system, a sprayer or whatever, from a manufacturer? In the hypothetical case that I am suggesting it would probably be a small manufacturer. The manufacturer sold the farmer that machine as being appropriate and safe for use with a whole range of herbicides. The farmer then used the machine for applying a whole range of herbicides. A health and safety inspector saw the farmer at work with the machine, stopped the farmer working and said, "This machine is neither appropriate nor safe for use with herbicides. It should not be used to apply herbicides at all. It is completely wrong for that. You have broken the law and I am going to prosecute you. You must stop using the machine immediately".
I understand that the farmer would have a case in civil law against the manufacturer, for he had been sold something which was not right. But the farmer at that stage would be in the process of being prosecuted under the criminal law, as I understand it. Would the farmer have a defence against the criminal charge that he had bought the machine in good faith from a manufacturer who had said that it was appropriate and safe for use with a herbicide and therefore that let him off the hook? His "due care and diligence" had been exercised simply by his accepting the manufacturer's word. Or would that not be a sufficient defence for the farmer?
Lord Belstead: I shall give the noble Lord a reply which I often find myself giving to those who write to Government departments—and I know that the noble Lord has probably done the same in his time in the past: Consult a really good solicitor and then await the decision of the court.
Lord Craigton: The Government are missing a very great opportunity here to follow the suggestion and advice of the Royal Commission in its 7th Report, which drew the attention of the public to the fact that you can get the same value from spraying with one-fifth of the amount of pesticide if you use the right sprayer. The burden of the Royal Commission's complaint was that not enough enthusiasm was behind the improvement of the sprayer and there was no push from the Government or really from anybody else because the incentive is to use more pesticide and not less—because that is the incentive of the manufacturer. I believe that the Government are missing a great opportunity in not putting into this Bill, not what I want but what the Royal Commission wants.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, is it good enough to say to all the farmers who are potentially affected by this power that the Government are taking that if they get into trouble they should consult a solicitor and await to see what

149
the courts decide? This is a fundamental point. The Government are aiming their controls on application techniques at the farmers, making sure that farmers use due care and diligence in applying pesticides, and they have said (as the noble Lord has just said) that it will be too unwieldy to try to test machinery when the manufacturers are responsible for it. They want to keep all their controls on the farmer.
In the case that I have suggested, it seems to me quite possible that the controls would not bite anywhere. The farmer would simply pass back the buck to the manufacturer, and the Government have decided not to look at all at what the manufacturers do. With respect to the noble Lord, I think that it is a more serious question than his initial reply suggested.
Lord Belstead: If I may intervene, the noble Lord was perfectly reasonable to put this point to me again. It gives me the opportunity to say that the Government feel very strongly that the responsibility for the safe use of pesticides has to rest with the user. I have deployed the reasons why we feel that, but we do feel deeply. So far as the hypothetical case which the noble Lord has put to me is concerned, I was not meaning to be flippant. After all, if the noble Lord or I were to have the misfortune to go out in a car, to be driving and to have a very bad accident, it would be a matter for the courts to decide where the responsibility lay if we then started to argue that either our steering had gone wrong or the brakes had failed. I really could not from this Box conceivably give a different answer from the one I gave the noble Lord to the issue which was put to me. Having said that, I take the point that the noble Lord is concerned about where the control should lie. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my saying that, even having listened to this debate, I feel that the Government are right in saying that the point of control ought to be with the user.
Lord Broxbourne: Does my noble friend appreciate that, so far from his original answer being flippant, it gave a very precise and informed assessment of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts?
Lord Craigton: In view of that reply, which had nothing at all to do with my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 13, line 36, leave out from ("much") to ("and") in line 37 and insert ("and when a pesticide may be used on crops, food or feeding stuff and how much residue may be left;").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is no more than to strengthen the clause to which it refers. We are in complete agreement with what the clause is trying to do, but it is difficult from the point of view of the grower to decide how much of a pesticide is eventually going to be left in the crop which is in question. It would be a very considerable help from the grower's point of view, and make the application of this regulation more effective in our view, if the amendment were adopted so that there would be guidance from the Government as to the quantities
150
and the timing of the application that can safely be used without leaving undue amounts of residue in the crop. I would remind the Minister, as doubtless he knows, that all of Clause 15 is permissive; it is only that the Minister "may" do this and not that he is forced to do it. As I say, it is purely because we are in sympathy with what he is trying to do that we are putting forward this amendment, in the hope that he will consider it will make the clause as it stands somewhat more effective.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 63 or 64.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I should like very much to support this amendment because it appears to us that to attack the problem as it does in the Bill is to attack the problem from the wrong end. There is an additional benefit in the Minister having the right to set the maximum use of pesticides. It does not only mean that the Minister can set the maximum use; he can also set the minimum use; and that is desperately important. We all know that using a pesticide, and using too little, raises the risk of building up immunity and resistance in both pest and pathogen targets. It is important that if the farmer perhaps is trying to save money and would use too little, he realises that to do so is just as important as using too much. I believe, therefore, that the amendment has a lot to recommend it.
The Earl of Radnor: If I may say so, I have sympathy with parts of this amendment. It has certain faults to it. I shall take up a point raised by the noble Baroness opposite and say that it is very important that minimums should not be specified so that people can experiment. I think a number of noble Lords would want to see if they can get the same results using less of the spray. I think it would inhibit that. The only other thing I would say is that I think that to ask the Minister to decide on the timing is very difficult indeed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I rather agree with my noble friend over the minimum, but I would rather leave this question to a later amendment when we are discussing it in full. But, either way, whether my noble friend on the Front Bench accepts this amendment or whether he leaves the Bill as it is, I should like to ask him three questions about which perhaps he can try to help me. First, who will enforce that a particular pesticide is being used correctly, so ensuring that the right residue, or no more than the right residue, is left in the crop? I ask this particularly with regard to gardens. I should like to know what is my noble friend's view over gardens. I cannot believe that there can be a single noble Lord here who gardens who has not over-dosed, and vastly over-dosed, his garden with chemicals at some stage. I should like to know how the Government are going to deal with that particular problem.
Then I should like to ask my noble friend about the position of the farmer who is found to have too much residue in his crop. Whose fault is it if he can prove that he has used the chemical according to the instructions? I will not ask my noble friend to go too far down this road, but I am particularly worried about

151
my noble friend's Amendment No. 129 knocking out "due diligence", which, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pointed out, was a defence. But it will not be a defence if my noble friend's amendment is accepted. I hope that we shall be able to deal with that particular problem then, if my noble friend does not want to answer it now.
Finally, I must ask my noble friend how he is going to deal with the problem of residues left by imported chemicals. I accept that imported chemicals must be made safe, but it is of equal importance that the maximum residues that are decided here must be similar to those decided among our continental friends. Otherwise British agriculture will again be unfairly prejudiced.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I think this is an interesting amendment. I was interested in particular in what seemed to he an amendment which proposed what your Lordships wished; namely, to write into the Bill a power to set limits for residues and, more importantly—this is what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord were chiefly speaking about—to specify when pesticides may be used on food crops or on feeding stuffs. Then when the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, started talking about "minimum amounts" I felt that there was an uneasy stirring around me and the feeling came again, at any rate to some of my noble friends, along the lines of, "Are we not beginning to tie the farming community up so tightly by what we are suggesting that we ought to take care?" Whether or not that is the case, it leads me to the conclusion that, if we can, I think it is better to try to leave the statements in this Bill in broad terms before coming down to making the detailed regulations later, which the Government have promised over and over again will be done only after consultations with all the various interested parties.
However, if the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, feel that I am entirely avoiding the issue of their amendment in saying that, may I remind them that the statement of intention which I circulated on Thursday of last week explains the sorts of requirements and precautions which might be laid on pesticide users as conditions of use. Some examples arc given in paragraph 11 of that statement, and I am very ready to say that a specification of when a pesticide should be used could well be added to the requirements which would still be under the regulations; for instance, not using a spray when a crop is in flower, or not using a spray so many weeks before the harvesting of the crop. I believe I am right in saying that sometimes labels display a requirement that a spray should not be used longer than a certain period after coming out of store.
Also, it would be possible, following the thrust of this amendment, to have cases where a certain pesticide might or might not be used. Here again, an obvious example is that as the law stands at the moment—there is an amendment down regarding this which we shall come to a little later—Warfarin can be used for grey squirrel control, certainly in England and I believe also in Wales. But, as I understand it, there are certain counties where the red squirrel is still to be found, and great care has to be taken in the use of
152
Warfarin. However, if I may say so, the issues of when and where a pesticide can be used certainly could be part of the regulations which would be brought in under the powers of the Bill.
Perhaps before I sit down I might add another point. This is an amendment which also mentions residue limits. I would simply say that we are taking powers in this Bill, as your Lordships know, to enable us to set legal residue limits for the first time; this is in Clause 15(1)(g). We may also need to implement European Community agreements on residues, which will facilitate trade. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I do not think there is anything very much in this amendment with which I would disagree, except that we immediately get into difficulties when we try to become too specific in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked three specific questions. The first was: who will enforce the residue limits? As I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, the Health and Safety Executive officers are responsible for enforcement under Part but this specific issue mentioned by my noble friend has yet to be determined. It is worth noting that local authorities, supported by public analysts, already have responsibilities under the Food Act 1984 and residue limits will serve to clarify the position on residues. This might well be dealt with in that particular way.
My noble friend also asked: what about the position of the domestic gardener? On residues, there is no real grounds for concern here, because when products are approved for domestic use full consideration is always given to the method of application and the safety of the user. It is of course important that gardeners should respect the instructions given for safe use.
Finally my noble friend asked: What about the residue limits on imported chemicals? It was felt that United Kingdom farmers should not be at a disadvantage compared with farmers in other countries. I assume that my noble friend is concerned here about the residues of chemicals in imported food. I must admit that no decision has yet been taken, so far as the Government are concerned, on the residues regulations: but it is likely that Community requirements will cause us to introduce residue limits on imported and exported foods. There is no danger of United Kingdom farmers being disadvantaged because an important part of the exercise on residues is harmonisation with Community standards which, by definition, means equality of treatment between different parts of the country.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to forgive me for not answering his question as to whether or not "due diligence" would be a defence if somebody is found to have in his crop residue limits which are too high. If I may, I would prefer to return to this when the subject arises, as I have no doubt it will, on a subsequent amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I wonder whether I may proffer what I hope will be some constructive suggestions to my noble friend. I took the trouble to write to the German Agricultural Attaché, who has sent me a resumé of some of the German regulations. Since 1968 they have had this marvellous

153
thing called Pflanzenschutzgesetz, which is the Plant Protection Act of 1968. They have powers; they can be used in some regions for some purposes, or under restricted conditions. So the Germans already, as I say, have these conditions and perhaps it might be worthwhile looking at the details of those regulations to see whether we can get some help or guidance from them.
The follow-up to that is that if we are to go for harmonisation of regulations and possibly variety, according to local conditions, this would seem to be a more helpful and constructive way to go about it, especially as it appears that very little harmonisation has been done. Again, according to the German Embassy, some progress has been made. Some things have been achieved; there have been, for instance, additives to food, and more feeding stuffs have been harmonised. But little has been done as regards pesticides, except in regard to some vegetables. One of the obvious problems with harmonisation lies in the control of pesticides, because the situation is so different in various member states. What I would hope is that when we get to the regulations and accept this particular aspect of them, we go for as much harmonisation as possible. This is a sensible thing to harmonise on; there is no question of sovereignty or anything like that being involved.
Lord John-Mackie: I feel there is a little difficulty in this amendment in terms of trying to decide how much residue would be left if you are spraying a different thickness of crop. I presume—although I am not sure whether I am right in this—that if you spray a thick crop of barley, there will be less residue, whereas with a thin crop you will very probably use the same amount of spray but the residue will be greater. So I feel that the amendment falls on that count alone.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I feel I must get to my feet again to defend my "minimum standards". I am sorry if it has been understood as being a bar to experimenting on reducing the amount of pesticides you use in order to control your pests. Any pesticide that is sold has to be tested and licensed for use, and it seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to set minimum standards. All of us know that it is dangerous to use too little pesticide. Once there is no immunity against a pest, it is much more difficult to control matters later. I do not see that it militates against experiment in quantity.
Lord Walston: This has been a worthwhile short exchange of views and I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said and for his undertaking to give thought to these problems. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("crops, food or feeding stuff") and insert ("agricultural products").
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are no doubt aware, I am advised by the Food and Drink Federation on this amendment. When that body was
154
forewarned of this Bill in June of this year, the Ministry said in relation to this particular subsection that its purpose was,
"to lay down by regulation maximum residue limits for pesticides in agricultural products".
The purpose of my amendment is to reinstate that wording. In fact, we have to become rather more specific with the wording that is in the Bill at the moment, and which I seek to remove. It is interesting that my noble friend the Minister, in replying to the previous amendment, said that there are always difficulties when one is too specific in a Bill. I suspect that in this case he is being too specific.
The term "agricultural products" is fairly broad but indicates that one is reasonably close to the farm gate—whereas food as described in Clause 22, which refers to Section 131 of the Food Act 1984, includes,
"drink, chewing gum and other products of a like nature and use, and articles and substances used as ingredients in the preparation of food or drink or of such products"—
and it goes on to describe what is not included. This is essentially directing one's thoughts towards processed foods as opposed to the raw materials of foods as produced on the farm.
I suggest to your Lordships that controls on agricultural products would be more appropriate and effective than controls on processed food—not least because of the difficulty of tracing produce back to the individual grower if an item of processed food were found to contain residues above a statutory maximum residue limit.
I believe we are becoming over-complicated and I would be most grateful if my noble friend will give me the benefit of his consideration of the points I have raised. At this stage, my amendment is by way of being a probing amendment but it may be necessary for me to follow it through at a later stage, if my noble friend cannot satisfy me now.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend the Minister answers, is it conceivable that this question might be looked at from another viewpoint? For example, does not the residue in flax matter? It is not going to be eaten, although it is an agricultural product.
Lord Belstead: I can understand why my noble friend Lord Mottistone has suggested this amendment. On the face of it it would simplify the wording of this Bill, but I foresee a difficulty. It would restrict the powers to set maximum residue limits in processed foods; but also, in, for instance, fish or game if that was felt to be necessary.
It is true that the timing and extent of the use of this provision has yet to be decided. It is clear that the term "agricultural products" would be too restrictive. Some agricultural products are only traded in processed form. For example, there is virtually no international trade in milk; at least, the Government feel very strongly that there should not be fresh milk coming into this country—let us put it that way. The fact of the matter is that there is not a great deal of trade in fresh milk across borders. But one finds that with overseas suppliers of butter and cheese there is such a trade. It is for serious consideration as to whether there should be standards for residue limits for products of that kind.

155
4.45 p.m.
Oils and fats are another example. Indeed, they are likely to be included as, I am advised, are milk and cheese, in Community directives on pesticide residues. Furthermore, there are certain interests which, as your Lordships know very well, regard maximum residue limits on food products at retail level as a useful public health safeguard. I am not entirely sure of the usefulness of such a measure when we already have wide-ranging surveillance of residues which pays particular attention to foods at retail level; but we have to recognise that people feel that way about residue limits in food and not just rule out the possibility altogether.
I hope that my noble friend will consider what I have said about this matter. There is no wish on the part of the Government to be draconian. Without trying to make out that we are attempting to incorporate every single point in this Bill, I will say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that the Bill would allow flax to be covered as a crop. But the point that worries me about this amendment is that, if it were to be made, it would mean that there would be a gaping hole at retail level where, quite suddenly, society would have said that they would not wish to put the question of residue limits into the Bill at all. I believe that would be a very questionable thing to do. It is on those grounds that I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I shall read with great interest what my noble friend has said. Perhaps I may press him further on one point, concerning the difficulty which could be created by the wording as it stands in the Bill, in relation to food. As your Lordships are well aware, I am particularly interested in biscuits. A biscuit involves second-stage processing; that is to say, the wheat is first processed into flour and then the flour is processed into a biscuit. How will the biscuit manufacturer be readily able to trace the source of the original wheat or the source of the pesticide that was used in the orginal production of the wheat? Would it not be much better if my noble friend could find a formula—and this is what I invite him to do—which is not quite so general as "all stages of food"?
The food chain is a very long one, from the farm gate right through to the customer. Quite frequently there are two levels of processing, sometimes three, before one gets that far—which takes one a very long way from the original pesticide. At the same time that I give consideration to what my noble friend has said, perhaps he will undertake to consider what I have said to see whether he cannot produce a better definition—perhaps not even relying on Section 131 of the Food Act 1984 as his basis for definition of food. Perhaps he can find some other way of narrowing the definition to make this matter easier to implement.
One is not fighiting the principle behind this subsection but against the difficulties which may in practice arise in trying to enforce the resultant regulations which may come out of the Bill as it is currently worded in subsection (1)(g).
Lord Belstead: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to look at what he said. I give no commitment, for the reasons which I have sought to explain. Perhaps
156
my noble friend and I could have a further consultation before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend and I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: This might be a convenient time to take the second Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NUM Assets: Sequestrators' Indemnity
4.52 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I desire to repeat a Statement which has now been made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General concerning the indemnity which he gave on behalf of the Government to the sequestrators of the assets of the National Union of Mineworkers. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will know, on 28th September of this year Mr. Justice Nicholls gave judgment on an application which had been made in an action brought by two working miners, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Foulstone, against the National Union of Mineworkers. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Nicholls restrained the NUM from, among other things, describing the strike in the Yorkshire area as official since it had not been called in accordance with the rules of the union. Despite that order and in full knowledge of it the National Executive Committee of the NUM and its senior officials made statements which affirmed the strike as official. This was a deliberate contempt of court by the union and on 10th October Mr. Justice Nicholls fined the union £200,000 and ordered the fine to be paid within 14 days. He made it clear that if it were not paid the union risked having its assets sequestrated. In imposing the fine, the Judge said:
'A great and powerful trade union, with a large membership affected by the court orders in question, has decided to regard itself as above the law, and to make this plain repeatedly, emphatically and publicly on a nationwide basis'.
"The fine was not paid within the 14 days and Mr. Justice Nicholls therefore appointed sequestrators, as he had warned the union to expect, on 26th October.
"The sequestrators accordingly set about taking possession of the assets of the union. However, by about 11th November they had been able to seize assets only to the value of some £8,500. The vast majority of the remaining assets of the union—amounting to many millions of pounds—had apparently been transferred by the union to banks in various countries abroad in a deliberate attempt to put them out of the reach of the court. The sequestrators, as was their duty, took steps in the countries in question to obtain possession of the funds which had thus been spirited away and in

157
particular instituted proceedings in the High Court in Dublin where they had traced a substantial deposit of the funds. For the purposes of these proceedings it seemed likely that the sequestrators might be required to incur considerable financial liability themselves, including having to give a financial undertaking to the court. In those circumstances, I understand that they inquired from the High Court in this country whether this potential liability could be covered by funds at the disposal of the court and were told that there were no funds available to the court for that purpose. There was no communication at any time between Mr. Justice Nicholls and my department.
"When I learned of this situation, it seemed to me to be quite contrary to the public interest to allow the risk of the sequestration being frustrated in this way to continue. On the one hand, it was not right to expect the sequestrators to incur this increasing substantial financial liability themselves even if, at the end of the day, they could look to reimbursement out of the union's funds. On the other hand, it was totally unacceptable that the order of the court, made following the non-payment of a fine imposed for deliberate contempt of court, should be defeated by the union's tactics of transferring its assets abroad and keeping them abroad. I therefore sought and obtained authority to give the sequestrators, on behalf of the Government, an undertaking to indemnify them against the costs and expenses which were reasonably and properly incurred by them in carrying out their duties in pursuance of their appointment by the court. In the knowledge that that undertaking is available, they are now pursuing actions in various jurisdictions abroad to recover the assets which were surreptitiously removed from this country. The contempt of court committed by the NUM will therefore be punished and the law will be properly upheld".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable and learned friend's Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Attorney-General's Statement. However, does the action taken by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government, as described in the Statement, not give rise to serious constitutional and legal questions, with a number of which I must trouble the noble and learned Lord?
Was the financial backing given to the sequestrators volunteered by the Attorney-General or the Government, or was it requested by them? According to today's Daily Telegraph report the Attorney-General's intervention took them completely by surprise. According to a statement by the sequestrators on the tape today, Treasury help "was unsolicited". Therefore, it is not to that source that we must look for this unprecedented initiative.
Now I come to a crucial question. Is there any precedent for the Government's intervention, acting through the Attorney-General in this way, in contempt proceedings? On what authority—statutory or otherwise—did the Government or the Attorney-
158
General purport to act? Will similar financial help be given by the Government in other future contempt proceedings that may arise? This surely adds a new dimension, if not a new terror, to contempt proceedings which are already subject to a great deal of criticism for their very nature and embrace.
Is the Attorney-General now, on behalf of the Government, going to state the limit and extent of this new role of Government as financial backer in contempt proceedings? Finally, how was it that the fact of the Government and the Attorney-General's intervention only emerged by reason of a note by the Financial Secretary to the Supplementary Estimates?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, in expressing some anxiety about the course upon which the Government have embarked I make it perfectly clear that no one on the Alliance Benches is seeking to offer the slightest encouragement or support for the criminal antics of Mr. Scargill.
Our anxiety arises because these are essentially private proceedings. They are proceedings brought by two individual miners against their union. They are not Government proceedings. The Government could have been party to them if they had wanted to; hut, for perfectly understandable reasons, they decided not to. The Government, if they had wanted, could have brought proceedings for criminal conspiracy. They might have initiated proceedings against the trustees of the union for misuse of funds. In fact, they have taken no action of that sort but left the matter entirely to private individuals. The result is that the Government are now seeking to indemnify private litigation out of public funds for allegedly public purposes.
Does this not come very near to the historic offence of "maintenance'"? I know of course that the offences of "maintenance" and "champerty"—I have often wanted to use the word "champerty" in a public speech and I have at last succeeded in doing so—were abolished in 1967, but the noble and learned Lord will, I am sure, agree that the rule of law which they embody still remains. Indeed, Halsbury, fourth edition, volume 9, paragraph 400, gives the definition of "maintenance". The noble and learned Lord will, I am sure, agree with this because the editor of those volumes was in fact one Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. Maintenance is described in this way. It is the,
"giving of assistance or encouragement to one of the parties to litigation by a person who has neither an interest in the litigation nor any other motive recognised by the law as justifying his interference".
Will the noble and learned Lord not agree that both in the Consett case in 1955 and in the Adams case in 1971 there are dicta that make it perfectly clear that those criteria are to be applied extremely strictly? In those circumstances, putting the matter as I do at its very lowest, will he not agree that there is at any rate some cause for doubt as to whether the action taken by the Government on this occasion is within the parameters laid down in the definition of maintenance which has for so long been accepted?
I accept of course that there is a problem. These are not the sequestrators' costs. We must be careful perhaps to be precise. These are the plaintiffs' costs in the last analysis. The noble and learned Lord will no

159
doubt agree that there is a problem where the plaintiffs have brought proceedings successfully for contempt of court and a bill is likely to be presented to them which is beyond their means. Will he not agree that the proper answer in that situation is either that legal aid should be available to those plaintiffs or, alternatively, that a suitors' fund of the sort which the organisation Justice has for long recommended should be available as a public fund from which costs of that type should he met? Would that not be infinitely preferable to the Government involving themselves and embarrassing themselves by intervening in a matter which is essentially one of private litigation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal in inverse order with the points raised. With the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, he is onto a thoroughly bad point. What is at stake is the payment of a fine. The sequestrators are appointed by the court in order to enforce the payment of the fine; and they are therefore officers of the court. The law of maintenance has no more to do with this matter than the rule in Shelley's case.
As regards the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I disagree with him that there is any serious constitutional question involved. The court has the obligation to see that its fines are enforced. When sequestrators are appointed it is important that the order of the court enforcing the fine should not be frustrated by want of funds. That is a purely public question as to how the penal order of the court should be enforced by the officers of the court. I think really that there is nothing more to it than that.
The noble and learned Lord asked me a number of specific questions, and I deal with them in the order in which they were asked, if I have it right. The first was, was financial backing volunteered or requested?; and then there was a reference to the Daily Telegraph of today, which I am afraid I have not read. As I understand it, what happened was this. I shall write to the noble and learned Lord if I turn out to be seriously wrong, but I think that I am right. There was, as the original Statement says, a procceeding in Dublin before the equivalent of the High Court there by the sequestrators, as a result of which the Dublin court gave an interlocutory injunction, to use popular language, freezing the assets of the NUM which had been sent across there.
As the noble and learned Lord will know, and as I think I am right in saying as regards English law, if as a plaintiff (and of course the plaintiffs in the Dublin proceedings were the sequestrators) you get an interlocutory injunction, you have to give an undertaking as to damages to the court, so that a right will be done in the end. If you are a foreign plaintiff—and for this purpose the sequestrators would have been foreign plantiffs vis-á-vis the Dublin court—you have to give some security for that sort of thing, and a bond was demanded.
The sequestrators then asked the English court where the funds to back the bond were coming from. It was at that stage, not because they asked the Attorney-General but because they made an inquiry of the English court and were told that there were no funds, that the Attorney-General offered an indemnity
160
and gave it. It seems to me that he acted perfectly properly and intelligently, It was not in a sense volunteered. It was volunteered because it had been necessary to put up a bond in order to give security for costs, or the equivalent, to support an undertaking as to damages in the Dublin court. If I am seriously wrong about that, I shall tell the noble and learned Lord, but I think that what I have said is, broadly speaking, right. In fact, the Dublin court has I believe continued the injunction on that basis.
Is there any precedent for Government acting through the Attorney-General in that way in contempt proceedings? That for which there is no precedent is that in order to defeat the order of the court, any person in contempt has been wicked enough or foolish enough to remove his assets abroad. As there was no precedent for the occasion, there has been no precedent for the riposte. I think that it is a thoroughly good riposte and a thoroughly good precedent. Of course, I cannot say that it will be repeated. I hope that there will never be occasion for it again.
Is there any limit on the extent of the new role of the Government? I do not accept that this is a new role of the Government. What is difficult is this—and I do not think that it was more than a purely technical question. When the court has imposed a fine for contempt, the court has no funds—I was a little surprised to know it. Therefore the Government gave, as they are entitled to do, like any other individual, an indemnity to ensure that the sequestrators, who could hardly be expected to meet the matter out of their own pockets, should not be out of pocket. I hope of course and believe, that when the funds are ultimately acquired the costs will be obtained out of the funds so acquired, and there will be no liability on the Government if that is so.
How was it simply brought forward in the Supplementary Estimates? I think that the fact of the matter is—and here again I shall correct myself to the noble and learned Lord if I am wrong—if there is a contingent liability of a continuing character, one has to seek statutory authority to do it, but when it is a one-off exercise, then I believe that one has to put it in Supplementary Estimates, and that was the way in which it has to be done. I really think that this is much ado about nothing, but it may be that I am unduly optimistic.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord not agree that the Statement and the issues which have been raised today upon it lend support to the view of the many in the country that the issue arising out of the miners' strike is one which ought long ago thoroughly to have been debated in Parliament? Since the fundamental issues involved are political issues, is Parliament not the place in which they ought to be discussed? Is the noble and learned Lord aware that there is a widespread feeling in the country about this matter that the Government have failed the nation, and in particular that Parliament ought to have been consulted at different stages as this deplorable chapter in our industrial history developed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am afraid that the Attorney-General's Statement had nothing whatever

161
to do with the merits of the miners' strike. It had to do with the giving of an indemnity to sequestrators, and I think that I must limit myself to that.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, on the limited aspect of giving notification to Parliament, is it not the case—according to my recollection it certainly used to be the practice—that it is normal for the Treasury to seek an opportunity to advise Parliament of a contingent liability which it is undertaking and which would otherwise not be known to Parliament until the Estimates came before it at some later date?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not at all sure what the answer to that is because I have never worked as a Treasury Minister. I know the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, knows a bit about these things. But my understanding of it was that the earliest (and, indeed, for this purpose the latest moment) at which it could be done was by putting it in the Supplementary Estimates in the way that it was. That was my understanding of the matter; but this is not a matter upon which I would claim to be as big an expert as the noble Lord.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 13, line 37, after ("stuff') insert ("or soil")
The noble Lord said: I bring the Committee back to more earthly matters. I can find no reference in this Bill to the soil. This seems to me to be a very grave omission. The soil is really the foundation of agriculture. It would indeed be possible to say that it is the foundation of man's life on earth. We in this country have very fertile soils, perhaps some of the most fertile in the world. Their stability, their workability, their water-holding capacity and their ability to release nutrients to plants gradually depend mainly upon their organic content. An organic soil provides a well buffered medium for plant growth. The breakdown of organic matter in the soil is carried out by myriads and myriads of micro-organisms, micro-flora and micro-fauna—and some fauna that are not so micro, like earthworms.
Many modern agrochemicals are capable of destroying organic life in the soil, of upsetting its balance, or of destroying some aspects of it. One of the worst features of the situation is that we know very little indeed about what many of these agrochemicals are actually doing. I should like to give the Committee some examples. In the case of residual herbicides, there is ample evidence to show that traces of them remain in the soil from one year to the next and often build up.
My attention has been drawn to a paper produced by the British Agrochemicals Association in which they wish to resist this amendment on the grounds that the extent and rate of the degradation of chemicals in the soil varies in different types of soil and the residues vary in their bio-availability because some are tightly bound up in the soil particles. If I may say so, this only adds to the argument that there should be more
162
research into, and more information on, the behaviour of chemical residues in the soil and that, where necessary, the residue levels should be controlled.
If I may give the Committee an example, in our own farming enterprise we found a few years ago, to our distress, that certain fields no longer seemed to have any earthworms active in them. Having looked very carefully at the possible causes, we came to the conclusion—which has not been entirely verified but we believe it to be true—that a particular fungicide called Benlate was responsible. We have subsequently found a good deal of evidence that Benlate does destroy earthworms in orchards in the Kentish countryside. I have here the Ministry's orange book on chemicals, under "Fungicide" there is absolutely no reference to danger to earthworms.
5.15 p.m.
I believe another very serious risk which we are facing is the fact that soil fumigants are beginning to be advertised by chemical manufacturers for use in the field of cultivation of' vegetables. Soil fumigants are precisely designed—if I may quote from an article in Grower:
"methyl bromide is technically the most attractive of the true soil sterilants. It is a general biocide that will kill most nematodes, weed seeds and fungi"—
in the soil. The article goes on to say:
"It works very quickly and dissipates from the soil within a few days. There are residues, but these are acceptable within present standards".
What does that mean? I believe there is important experimental work going on at Boxworth, near Cambridge. I should like to ask the Minister if he will give me an assurance that the results of that work will be taken into account in framing the regulations under this Bill.
Finally, I should like to say that I think most farmers (as I was) have been brought up, as I was brought up by my father, to believe that the health of the soil is the most important trust which any of us who live by the land can have. I believe that responsible farmers need support and much more information about the side effects of the chemicals which they are being pressed every day to use, so that they can avoid unintentionally doing damage.
I admit that I have probably drafted this amendment badly; but I believe it is also necessary that the soil should be included in some form within the regulations which the Minister frames, so that those few farmers who are prepared to sacrifice good husbandry to short-term expediency can be brought into the net and prevented from doing so. I believe that the soil is still this country's most important natural resource, and we must not destroy it. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that no one could disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said about the soil in this country. Whether or not his amendment is correct, I do not know; but I think we should give considerable thought to what we are doing to the soil by using the various sprays that we are using.
A few months ago, in a debate on the environment, I mentioned that, along with my fellow farmers, we went on spraying and spraying and adding various

163
things to the soil without really knowing what we were doing. I appealed then for research in this way. I hope that the Minister will support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for research as quickly as possible so that we know what we are doing.
Lord Melchett: I also want to support this amendment, which has my name on it. I should like to make two very quick further points. I think the case has been very ably deployed for ensuring that the Bill provides some powers to allow the Government, if they wish to—and I hope noble Lords will remember that this is simply discretionary and not mandatory—to ensure that the soil of this country is not subjected to dangerous levels of pesticide residue. For example, I understand that in West Germany paraquat has been banned on the grounds that undesirable levels of residues of that chemical were building up in soils subject to minimal cultivations.
There is the greatest interest in this from the farmer's point of view. For example, I understand that it is quite likely that fungicide residues may slow the breakdown of straw. Straw incorporation and other means of getting rid of straw and stubble which is not burnt is very much in the news and in farmers' minds at the moment. It seems to me to be extremely undesirable from the farming industry's point of view that fungicide residues should so build up as to make straw incorporation that much more difficult. So there are good farming arguments for ensuring that residues of pesticides in soils are kept to an absolute minimum.
As I understand it, there are already examples in other European countries, other Common Market countries, of chemicals actually being banned because of the danger of residues building up in the soil. I therefore hope the Government will support this amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether I could briefly intervene at this stage to support this amendment. Speaking as one who was on the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Select Committee, I think one of the outstanding moments of our investigations there was when we went to Rothamstead and were lectured by somebody from Soil Survey. I think it became apparent to us all that the soil is an area which does not have enough research into it carried out in this country, and, as the noble Lord has said, is fundamental to all our agricultural activities. Certainly, it had a dramatic effect on my ideas about how we should be looking at residues, not just in terms of crops but in terms of the soil itself. This is an important amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Earl Peel: I am sure that the Minister will have a good reason why it is not practicable to put this aspect in the Bill. I would, however, agree with the noble Lord opposite. If we are going to look long term—I sincerely hope that we are—towards seriously reducing the amount of pesticides used in the countryside, then surely the quality of the soil will be all-important. We must therefore look after it now.
The Earl of Onslow: We should be warned, when talking about this amendment—which, incidentally, I
164
support—about the discussion that is already taking place about the amount of nitrates leaking through chalk to the aquifer below, which is building up to levels that are causing concern. To leave out soil would be unwise. I know that my noble friend is a wise man. I am sure that he will include it in the Bill.
The Earl of Radnor: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment but perhaps not the knowledge to go with that sympathy. I feel however that nitrates are in a different category altogether to pesticides and more to do with fertilisers. I agree that levels are up to an enormous height. I have heard reports of almost dangerous levels of nitrates being brought up from 240 feet below in some chalk aquifers. However, that has perhaps nothing to do with pesticides.
The Earl of Swinton: I can say in all honesty that I share every concern that has been expressed by noble Lords who have spoken in this little debate. I personally take great pride in saying in front of your Lordships that I share a widely held principle that land—and when we think of land we include the soil, obviously—is something that should be handed on in a better condition than that in which it was received. I share very much the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Having said that, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that our intention is so to control pesticides as to avoid unacceptable effects on soil flora and fauna and the environment generally.. These are the factors which are always considered when a pesticide is proposed for application to field crops or the soil.
My noble friend Lord Peel was good enough to say that I would have a very good answer. I like to think that I have. I hope that he will agree with me when I produce it, because I do not believe that this aim would be achieved by setting maximum residue limits for soil. For many pesticides it would indeed be impossible to arrive at a satisfactory figure.
The situation in relation to food is quite different. The aim is to ensure that when the crop or food reaches the consumer it does not contain unsatisfactory levels of residues. This is I think very much a practical problem. At what point would we set a limit for residues in soils? Shortly after application, the residue level could be high. In some cases—for example, residue herbicides, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—the pesticide is designed to persist in the soil for a specified period, after which the residue levels decline at varying rates, depending on the pesticide itself, the soil type and weather conditions, until they disappear.
Surely, the aim is to ensure that no pesticide is used in such a way as to have persistent and damaging effects on the soil or any other aspect of the environment. I am sure that this is best done, first, by screening all pesticides so that their risks to soil flora and fauna, if any, can be assessed; secondly, to arrive at conditions for their use—if the use is likely to be acceptable at all—which protect the soil from deleterious effects; and thirdly, to make sure that those conditions are adhered to by the users.
Certainly, I can give the undertaking that we shall be taking into account most seriously the research work carried out at Boxworth when we come to forming our

165
regulations. I might add that it is not just research at Boxworth. MAFF has research going on at a number of places into the soil and its problems. The powers to do all this are here in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree, with my noble friend Lord Peel, that I have put up a very good case why this amendment is not necessary.
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry to enter upon the debate at this late stage but the Minister in his reply has supported the possibility of damage being done to the soil and of pesticides remaining in the soil for a long time. His reply however gives us the seeds of a method of controlling it. My noble friend said that some pesticides are designed to stay in the soil for a certain length of time. Would it not be possible to bring in regulations that refer to the type of pesticide and the amount that is still residual in the soil a particular period after application? This may be difficult but it would I think produce a practical answer in the long run. Perhaps my noble friend might like to consider it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems to me that no farmer, if he knows that there is any question of soil being permanently damaged by the use of a specific pesticide, will use it. Nor will he use it if he knows that if he persistently uses a certain pesticide it will build up in the soil. What is needed is the education of farmers, perhaps some advertising and maybe a specification on the container. These are all things that the Minister might think about. It is a very important issue. I do not believe however that farmers need very strong persuasion once they know the implications. They know that the soil is the most valuable thing that they have. It is their capital.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for answering the question of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The answer is that if any farmer knows that a pesticide will do this to the soil, he will not use it. Not only will he not use it but under this Bill we shall make jolly sure he is not able to use it. That is what the whole Bill is about. It would be extremely difficult to follow the line proposed by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. There are so many difficulties, as I have tried to explain. There are so many factors such as the type of soil and the weather conditions that all affect what the residue levels are.
Lord Northbourne: I am delighted to hear the assurances that have been given. I would only say that I do not feel that the controls that have been applied and the systems of screening applied heretofore have been sufficiently stringent. The evidence exists I think to show that this is the case. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 14, line 6, at end insert—
("; and
(hh) require all manufacturers, suppliers and persons applying a pesticide over more than 0·5 hectares of land on any one occasion to keep and make available to persons authorised under section 17(l) records of—

(i) the supply of a pesticide in a quantity sufficient to treat more than 2 acres of land;

166

(ii) all applications of the pesticide with details of the date and time of the application, the place, quantity and method of application, the personnel employed to apply it and the conditions under which it was applied.").

The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. My noble friend is very sad not to be here but he is attempting to fly into Heathrow in the fog. We are still waiting for him to arrive. Hence, I should like to move the amendment on his behalf. It may appear an excessively bureaucratic amendment. Much has been said around the House today about the good farmer following the right principles in looking after the soil. I agree that any farmer with an interest in his soil would keep records of the pesticides that he puts on his land. Much has also been said about the residue left in the soil that can affect crops in future years. It is exactly for that reason that we believe it is correct for records of applications to be kept. It would be helpful in helping research in evaluating the residual values left in the soil. One would be able to go back to properly kept records of application.
It would help in other ways. When a person has been accidentally contaminated by a pesticide, there would be no problem for the doctor in finding out what particular pesticide had been the culprit. This is frequently the case now. I believe that it would not be a hardship to keep these records. It would be helpful both to the research and to farming practice. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I have absolutely nothing against the keeping of records; I think they are invaluable and necessary. However, as I have already said in the course of this debate, I think that too much is being asked in this particular detail. I do not know the set up of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I suspect that he has an army of private secretaries. I do not have one, and even if I did I see the instructions that are given by the firm which supplies me with the pesticides. They write out on a sheet of paper what mixture should be put on each field; how many points per acre; and, because the tank does five acres to the fill, I therefore do some calculations and hand them to my foreman and say, "This is what you must put in".
Where I draw the line with this particular amendment is that I think that it is asking too much. Of course, there must be a record of the particular pesticide—or the blends of pesticides which is the usual case today—where either two or three of them have often to be put in. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for the date. It is going a little unnecessarily far to say at what time, particularly if you are doing two or three fields in the day, so that you have to say, nine o'clock in such a field, and half past eleven in the next. One must always remember—certainly on my farm, where I have two men—that one chap has to do the work and then has to remember to go home and fill in these details about the time.
The only other point I object to is making a note of the conditions under which it was applied. What exactly does this mean? Warm and sunny? Gentle breeze blowing? Slightly humid atmosphere? With great respect, this is tipping the balance a little over what I have begged should be considered; getting the

167
balance right between the requirements (which I fully recognise) of what I describe as the environment, and of the practical side of farming.
It puzzles me why the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, starts off by talking about "0.5 hectares" and then three lines later switches to "2 acres". That I would not know, but if I may say so with the greatest respect, the Mackie brothers have always been in a class entirely on their own.
Lord John-Mackie: I was going to say that I almost completely agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Stodart, has said—and he said it better than I can probably say it—except that I do not understand the point requiring manufacturers to do anything about it. The supplier surely is the important person. As the noble Lord said, the detail required is far too much to expect an ordinary farmer to cope with. We keep reasonable records which should satisfy without going into these details—which I think the noble Lord shattered fairly well!
Lord Tordoff: I do not wish to come between the Mackie clan in any way at all; but in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, perhaps I could just assist slightly. I wish his plane would arrive because there is another amendment coming up which I may have to move if he is not able to do so.
There is one point I should like to interject at this stage which bears on the question of manufacturers and suppliers—but, certainly as Lord John-Mackie said, probably more on suppliers than manufacturers—and the need for records to be kept at that level. I am informed by my honourable friend the Member for what used to be called Ely (but I think is now called something else) that there is considerable concern in his part of East Anglia that as a result of the tragic accident in India there is a tendency of people to start stocking up with pesticides of the category that were being manufactured at that plant. Certainly if that is the case then of course it is something that the Government really ought to keep a careful eye on in order to make sure that an unusual level of stocking of those sorts of products is not being put into unsuitable buildings. I wonder whether the Government are aware of this fear at the moment and whether any steps can be taken to overcome the problem. I do not expect an answer now. I take this opportunity of raising it in this Committee.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: The speeches I have heard so far seem to apply only to very rich farmers. The account book would not allow the idea of small farmers like me buying in and storing extra fertilisers because they might get banned. The noble Lord who sits on this side of the Committee said that we should not spray on Sundays, or at 12 o'clock. Again, a small farm you spray when you can: when the land is dry, not when it is wet in the morning or wet again in the evening dew. I think we should be practical on this matter and look at the ordinary, small farmer's point of view.
Lord Belstead: The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and my noble friend Lord Stodart feel that this is going into
168
detail which would not be reasonable. At the same time, I hope that the statement of intention which I circulated last week shows that the Government are sensitive to the demands about the need for records. I can assure the Committee that the requirements for records—if they are to be made—would be kept to the minimum necessary for us to ensure the safe and efficient use of pesticides and would be the sort of records which many farmers now keep as part of normal, good agricultural practice. I say that particularly to my noble friend Lord Stodart who set out in very simple terms exactly how he felt about that from the point of view of normal, good agricultural practice.
I repeat what I have said many times before, that we will consult all interested parties fully before endeavouring to impose any requirements about records as about anything else in the regulations. We have been having informal consultations with the National Farmers Union. My advice is that those informal consultations would lead us to believe that it is possible to design a system of records which would be acceptable to farmers. Meanwhile, we have made it clear that the regulations would require what, in our statement of intention, we call certain records to be kept by users including farmers. It is difficult to go much further than that before the consultations with those who represent the users if those consultations are to have real meaning as we are determined that they shall. It is for that reason that I ask the noble Baroness if she will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I shall certainly consider withdrawing the amendment; but before doing so, may I say to the noble Lord. Lord Stodart—who questioned why we had put conditions in—that there is an enormous difference between a still, sunny day and a howling gale. A farmer could be applying his pesticide when the wind was too strong and the pesticide was therefore spreading. I do not think it is unreasonable to refer to conditions. But with the assurance of the noble Lord, I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 14, line 6, at end insert—
("and
( ) specify the degree of volatility of any pesticide formulation,").
The noble Baroness said: I am indebted to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation for information about this particular problem. Certain pesticides, mainly herbicides, are so volatile that after they have been sprayed onto a target crop they may vaporise from the leaves or from the soil's surface and drift in the form of an invisible vapour. This vaporisation may occur up to several days after application, and it should be distinguished from spray drift, where a pesticide is blown away from the application area before reaching the target crop. A pesticide's liability to produce vapour drift is a result of its chemical formulation, not its method of application. Pesticides based on an ester formulation—that is, an organic formulation—are more volatile than those based on inorganic salt formulations. I am sure that other members of the Committee have been given this

169
information by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, but I think it is important that I produce the information they have given, for the benefit of those who have not had it.
In 1981, MAFF produced a leaflet warning farmers about the problems associated with ester formulation hormone weed killers. This leaflet recognised that horticultural crops are particularly susceptible to vapour drift. Many horticulturists are extremely concerned about this problem, and the Evesham branch of the National Farmers Union has called for a ban on ester hormone herbicides. The MAFF leaflet listed susceptible crops, which included nearly all of the broad-leaved crops grown in the United Kingdom. Many of these crops are related to wild plants of the countryside, but MAFF has not acknowledged that the native British flora should be regarded as susceptible to vapour drift. No compensation is available to owners of nature reserves affected by vapour drift, as it is to horticulturists so affected.
The Ministry of Agriculture itself has demonstrated, in a trial at Boxworth, that brussels sprouts plants were badly damaged due to vapour drift, and there are other instances which can be mentioned to support the argument. The problems of vapour drift could be reduced by encouraging the production of pesticides with salt-based rather than ester-based formulations. This could be brought about by including a test of volatility in the proposed statutory approval scheme and withholding approval when a new formulation was perceived to be of too great a volatility.
I appreciate the Minister's concern that we should not become too detailed in this Bill, but this is not a point of detail. This is a new dimension, a new hazard, which needs to be recognised; and as far as I am aware it has not yet been mentioned in any of the documents produced by the Minister—not even in his excellent declaration of intention in regard to the regulations. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to tell us his view on this new hazard, and whether the Government intend to take it into account in the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am glad the noble Baroness has raised this problem. First of all, I would say to her that it emphasises the responsibility of farmers in this case. We were very well aware, about four or five years ago, that the ester formulation, particularly of CMPP, would go on the crop and then, in two or three days, take off and destroy a neighbouring crop. I am delighted to say that I am informed that no case has occurred in 1984, and the amount of spray used in the ester formulation, as opposed to the salt, has dropped to absolutely minimal proportions. I hope this perhaps brings out how farmers, too, can take a responsible and indeed an experimenting view.
However, if I can now pour some cold water on the amendment, I would say that I think it is going to be very difficult for the Minister to quantify volatility. First of all, the noble Baroness is perfectly right: in high temperatures you get this take-off after two or three days, which you cannot decide. Certainly ester formulations take off more than the salt. But it also depends I think on the type of weed you are spraying. If it is a flat-top weed that reflects the sun, you are
170
more likely to get more take-off. All I am saying is that I think it would be very difficult in fact to put on the label how much volatility that chemical has. But I am entirely behind the noble Baroness in her reservations about ester formulations, particularly of CMPP.
Lord Renton: I appreciate the motive of the noble Baroness in moving this amendment, but I am puzzled about the way in which she has put it forward. When she says that the regulations shall,
"specify the degree of volatility",
I presume that she means they shall specify the maximum amount of volatility that would be permitted. But the amendment does not say that. If she could make it clear that that is what she intends, I think we should all have a better understanding of what she is getting at.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I very strongly support this amendment. I think it is one which meets the very considerable concern of many farmers, in particular fruit growers, who have suffered considerable damage because of pesticides volatising from neighbouring crops, often some considerable distance away, and appearing sometimes some days after they were applied originally. My noble friend drew attention, in particular, to the problems which volatile chemicals of this sort cause to the natural interests in the countryside. After all, the nature reserve does not need to be annexed to or even very close to a field which has been sprayed with a particularly volatile pesticide to be affected very adversely by it—to say nothing of the generality of plants in hedgerows and alongside green lanes, most of which will be particularly susceptible to the types of pesticide which are produced in the most volatile formulations.
I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies to this debate, will deal with this problem. Whereas the damage caused to farmers and growers by chemicals which have come from a neighbouring crop, because of their volatility, is now subject to compensation, there is no similar compensation here. Indeed, in the MAFF guidance notes which I have seen there is not even any recognition of the problems which, broadly, weed species, wild plant species, suffer as a result of this.
To answer the point the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, made, I would say that it would surely be quite possible—and this amendment would do nothing to prevent this—for a standard test of volatility to be produced. It would not tell you exactly how volatile a chemical is going to be in any given circumstances, but, like any other standard test, it would give you a guide. After all, if the noble Lord's point were followed, I think it would be pretty well impossible to test anything for anything. You have to have a standard test—that is, standardise the testing procedure—and then subject all pesticides to that standard test. That would give you an index of volatility which would allow you at least to make a comparison between one pesticide and another. That is a particularly important point, it seems to me, because my understanding is that pretty well all, if not all, of the pesticides available in the ester, in the volatile form, are also available in a salt solution, in a non-volatile form. If that informa

171
tion were available to farmers, rather fewer of the volatile chemicals even than are used now would be used in future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know whether I am being very much of a dim-wit, but, quite apart from the issue of volatility, I do not understand the context of this amendment. It comes (does it not?) under Clause 15(1)(h), which says:
"direct that, if there is more pesticide or pesticide residue … than the proportion specified".
The amendment seeks to,
"specify the … volatility".
Is not the amendment in quite the wrong place, and should it be adopted—or am I misunderstanding?
Baroness Nicol: If the noble Baroness will look, I think she will see the amendment goes back to the very beginning of Clause 15, and it would in fact become paragraph (i). The subsection would then read:
"The Ministers may jointly by regulations—… (i) specify".
While I am on my feet, let me reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Yes, the amendment is designed to specify the maximum volatility and I see it as making no particular problem for the farmer because if the chemical did not meet the Ministry's standards it would not be approved and it would not reach him.
The Earl of Onslow: My attention has been drawn to a paper given to the All-Party Conservation Committee and signed by my noble friend Lord Craigton, Sir Peter Hardy and Sir John Farr. It would probably have been better if my noble friend had produced this information but as I am on my feet I shall do so. It says that in 1981 MAFF produced a leaflet entitled Focus on Spraying with Hormone Weedkillers. It then says:
"However in this leaflet MAFF failed to acknowledge the implications of spray and vapour drift for wildlife. The leaflet 'invented' the idea of the 'susceptible crop' and gave the impression that in areas where these were grown special precautions must be taken, but outside of these areas there was no particular problem. The list of crops listed as susceptible includes all broadleaved crops grown in U.K.—if these were susceptible then it was clear that the majority of the UK's native flora were also susceptible.
"Details of a well controlled study conducted by ADAS were published in 1982. This showed that brassica plants could be damaged by vapour evolved from leaf surfaces sprayed with the herbicide mecroprop 30 hours after spraying. Damage was recorded 100m. from where the herbicide had been sprayed. The volatilisation and vapour drift of these herbicides is not new. The earliest report, in 1946, had involved the herbicide 2,4-D. Damage over I mile away from this pesticide was reported to the Third British Weed Conference as early as 1956. The results of a 5 year study of vapour drift damage by 2,4-D was published in 1970. It seems clear that MAFF and the agrochemical companies chose to ignore the problem of pesticide volatility and subsequent vapour drift damage".
There is a little more on the subject. However, it appears that it has been a problem which has not been given the attention that it deserves. It is a problem which should be taken very seriously when the regulations as regards this Bill are drawn up.
The Earl of Swinton: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. Obviously it is an issue that has had a very good airing today, and it is one in which many of your Lordships are interested. It
172
provides me with yet another opportunity to emphasise the wide spectrum of conditions of use which may be set by Ministers under Clause 15(1). The object is to protect the environment from pesticides whose volatile nature poses a risk and the Government of course go along with that. There is no reason why the environment should not include, among other things, nature reserves.
We could do this in two ways under the powers already provided under the Bill. We could refuse or revoke an approval for a pesticide product which we considered too volatile to be used safely in any way. If its volatility were such that it could be used safely in some ways, but not others, then we could set conditions on its use restricting it to the safe methods of application and we could penalise those who infringed such conditions. I should also stress that we propose to approve products individually, not just active ingredients, since, as the noble Baroness has recognised, formulations can affect safety as much as individual chemicals (whether by affecting the volatility of the product or its ability to permeate skin—to give two examples). I hope in view of what I have said the noble Baroness will not think that this amendment is necessary.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl said that in looking at the safety of a particular product its effect on the environment would be taken into account. He then added, in parenthesis, that that would include nature reserves. But as I understand it, it would be a major change of policy from the existing scheme if, when the particular products were assessed, their effects on native flora were considered as significant as their effects on other broad-leaved crops when it comes to volatility. If that is what the noble Earl is saying, then it would be very welcome and would take us a considerable step forward.
However, as the noble Earl heard from both sides of the Committee in the debate which preceded his reply, the fact of the matter is that up till now his department does not seem to have acknowledged at all that the problem of volatility can affect broad-leaved species other than crop species, and those will be, as has been said and as was reported to the All-Party Conservation Committee, the great majority of the native British flora. If the effects of volatility on those plants are to be considered in deciding whether chemicals should be cleared under the new regulations, it would be a significant step forward and it would be useful to have that confirmed.
Baroness Nicol: Before I withdraw the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister would also clarify a point for me? Is he saying that in future volatility will be a consideration? If so, are the manufacturers aware of this? From the information which I have it does not appear to have been a consideration in past tests. It is very important that the situation should be made clear.
The Earl of Swinton: I can really only repeat what I have already said. I should stress that we propose to approve products individually and that formulations can affect safety as much as individual chemicals. I do not know whether or not the manufacturers are aware of this.
Baroness Nicol: If I were a manufacturer I would not be too happy about that particular reply. We are getting back again to the yes or no situation. Is volatility to be taken into account or not? Is it a hazard which is to be measured or not?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes; and volatility has in the past been taken into account.
Lord Melchett: May I press the noble Earl for a response to my specific question on the matter of whether in future the effects of volatile chemicals on non-agricultural species—on the native flora—will be considered a significant factor or not?
The Earl of Onslow: While the Minister is thinking of the answer to that question, his answer on volatility has not, with respect, been quite as hopeful as some of us on this side of the Committee had anticipated. It seems to me that it is dangerous not to get a proper level regarding volatility. If that is the case, it seems to me perfectly simple for the Minister to say, "Yes, this will be considered in greater detail than it has been shown to be considered over the past year or two".
The Earl of Swinton: I sometimes wish that my officials could write a little better than I write myself! Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that in a way he has hit on the whole advantage of this Bill. It does give us power statutorily to consider the environment generally in dealing with chemicals. We cannot give a clear indication of the practical effects, but volatility is a fact to be taken into consideration.
Lord Melchett: I was going to intervene to say that the noble Earl might like to consider taking away the points that I have made. I do not necessarily expect the Government to give a reply to all these detailed points, particularly as we are dealing with some very general clauses. There is likely I suppose to be some weeks between now and the Report stage, and I would be very happy to receive a typed letter in reply to all these points and which we could both read at our leisure over the Christmas break. I am not trying to put the noble Earl on the spot now. But if he would like to take the matter away and write to me I should be very grateful. I think that both of us might find it more helpful.
The Earl of Swinton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I must say that if I wrote to him, never in a million years would he be able to read it: I shall make sure that it is typed. Of course, I shall write to him, but I am not prepared to take this particular amendment back and look at it again because I do not think that it is necessary.
Baroness Nicol: In order that the correspondence may take place, and that I may read with some care, in Hansard what has been said, I propose at this stage to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert ("or section (Aerial spraying of pesticides)").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee for not being here before but I had a board meeting which was arranged some time before the meeting of the Committee and it was considered quite important that I attend that meeting. I have no doubt that I have been deputised rather better than if I were present myself.
The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Lord aware that that is a different excuse from the one given for his absence by his noble friend Lord Tordoff?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must apologise for not briefing him properly, but both of us were probably telling the truth. Amendment No. 68 leads straight to Amendment No. 100, which obviously it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss.
Amendment No. 100: After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:—
("Aerial spraying of pesticides.
.—(1) The Ministers may by order prohibit, or license unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit, the aerial spraying of pesticides over a place or class of places to be specified in the order.
(2) The Ministers may jointly by regulations—

(a) provide for the licensing of operations over places that are the subject or an order under subsection (1) above;

(b) prohibit aerial spraying of pesticides within 100 metres of any building of a class to be specified in the regulations and over any land adjoining or crossed by a road, public footpath or bridleway or over any common land;

(c) require the person on whose behalf aerial spraying of pesticides is to be carried out to give at least 24 hours' notice in writing that such an operation will take place to—

(i) the local authority within whose area the operation is to take place;

(ii) the office of the Chief Constable of the area in which it is intended to operate; and

(iii) the owners or occupiers or uses of land adjacent to the area that is to be sprayed;

(d) provide for the information to be included in a notice in paragraph (c) above;

(e) require the person on whose behalf the aerial spraying is to be carried out together with the operator who will apply the pesticide to consult with persons in the vicinity of the area over which the operation is to take place and who may be affected by it as to the risks involved;

(f) direct that the person on whose behalf the aerial spraying is to be carried out shall mark the boundaries of the area to be sprayed in a specified manner.

(3) Regulations under this section may only be made by the Ministers after consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport.").
6 p.m.
The amendment paves the way for the new clause, which is Amendment No. 100. It is extremely important because I do not think that anything has caused more annoyance to the public than aerial spraying. From all over the country there come complaints—and sometimes exaggerated reports—of the damage done as a result of aerial spraying. However, from my experience of aerial spraying I know that it is enormously difficult for an operator to confine himself precisely to the boundaries of the crop.
It was evident from the Second Reading debate that most of the farming interests present thought that because of the expense and everything else aerial spraying could be dispensed with in the light of some of the new techniques, including wide booms, tramlining, and so on. I doubt whether it can be dispensed with in all cases. Exceptions were mentioned on Second Reading. In answer to a previous

175
question, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave us a very helpful resumé of the Government's attitude; he mentioned that many of the Civil Aviation Authority's regulations were in the process of being stiffened up, and in general showed an awareness of the size of this problem, which of course is shared by all who have an interest in it.
The new clause speaks for itself. We want to know the Government's attitude to particular problems. Again on Second Reading my noble kinsman mentioned the difficulties of farms across which there were many bridle paths and in many cases the necessity to spray forestry, hill-land and bracken. All these matters need to be looked at, as do the new techniques which may depend on some form of aerial spraying. Therefore, it is very necessary for the Government to take power to license aerial spraying, which is what this amendment seeks to do. We say that aerial spraying should be allowed only in specific circumstances. I think that that is true. One can of course envisage immensely wet times when the only way to stop a disease which might ruin a crop might be by aerial spraying. But we need to reach the point where aerial spraying is licensed only in exceptional circumstances. We cannot ban it altogether, but the right way to proceed is to introduce regulations to license it only where it is absolutely necessary.
I shall not go into all the complaints from the public, but they are very real, and if any aerial spraying is to be carried out at all, we need regulations of the sort contained in our new clause. I shall not go into each of the subsections of the new clause, but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on regulations of the sort which we suggest in this amendment. I stress again the importance of such regulations in relationships between the farming community and the public. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: In spite of his board meeting, I am glad that my noble kinsman has arrived here at last and we are grateful to him for tabling this amendment. As he rightly said, aerial spraying has given rise to the fear of spray drift by the public. I should like to divide aerial spraying into spraying by fixed-wing aircraft and spraying by helicopter. I have done both in Scotland and in Essex, and I am perfectly certain that in arable areas we could ban fixed-wing spraying without there being much loss to any situation. A plane can spray only at a speed of about 80 miles per hour. If the pilot is in the process of climbing and at the same time forgets to switch off the spray, in those one or two seconds it is very easy to make a mistake. We were speaking about drift earlier; if spraying is being carried out at about 200 feet, with wind drift the chances of making a mistake are very much greater. Apart from hill and forestry spraying, I think that we could safely ban fixed-wing spraying in arable areas, urban districts, and so on.
As regards spraying by helicopter, that is a different kettle of fish. There the pilots have much more control of the spray and can spray much lower. The spraying contractors have pointed out that just over 1 million acres of crops are sprayed from the air. That is a very small percentage of the total amount of spraying that takes place. I believe that for all the various reasons
176
which my noble kinsman gave—and there are many other reasons as well—the amount of spraying earned out by air, whether by fixed-wing plane or by helicopter, must be absolutely necessary.
Whether aerial spraying is carried out under licence or simply as a result of having to ask permission of the Ministry, not much more or less would be done than is done at present. I do not think that the spraying contractors have anything to fear from a reduction because due to the cost factor at the moment aerial spraying is absolutely necessary. I believe that rather than introduce a licensing system—because aerial spraying needs to be carried out at short notice—it would he better to have to apply for permission. I suggest that there should be considerable conditions, such as wind speed and other factors, before permission is granted, and that the conditions for aerial spraying should he quite rigidly applied. Permission should not be given too freely. I do not want to comment on the wording of the amendment. We support it in principle, with the reservations that I have given.
Lord Burton: Noble Lords opposite have considered only farming, and I am very surprised that forestry appears to be entirely forgotten. Surely any of this spraying applies equally to farming as it does to forestry. In some of the remoter areas it would be extremely difficult to comply with some of the regulations which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has just suggested.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord could not have been listening very carefully. I said quite distinctly that fixed-wing aircraft should be allowed for forestry and hillside bracken spraying. I said that on Second Reading and I repeated it a few minutes ago.
Lord Burton: I apologise to the noble Lord, I must have missed his remarks.
Lord Walston: In principle I support what my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, have said. As farmers, I think that in almost every case we can manage without aerial spraying, although I accept that there are certain occasions when that is both desirable and sometimes even necessary. Forestry and hillside bracken spraying is an entirely different category, and there the regulations should clearly be far less stringent than those needed for proper agricultural spraying.
There are two questions which I should like to ask the Minister. First, as I understand it at the moment aerial spraying is under the control of the Civil Aviation Authority. I should like to know whether in the Minister's view the Civil Aviation Authority is at present able adequately to enforce the correct methods of spraying, and if those methods were tightened up whether this would be done in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, or whether in his view it would be better for the Ministry of Agriculture to take over responsibility either from the Civil Aviation Authority or in conjunction with them?
The second point is that I have been handed what is described as a notification card agreed at the 11th October meeting with crop sprayers. This is

177
notification to tell all neighbouring dwellers and neighbouring farmers that spraying is proposed to take place as soon as the weather is suitable, or something of that kind, and it specifies what type of herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, or even fertiliser is to be used.
Could the Minister tell us whether this is simply a voluntary notification so far as he knows which may or may not be used, or is it statutory, or would he consider making it an obligatory one rather than leaving it to the goodwill of the aerial spray operators? I accept that the great majority of them are amply supplied with goodwill and have no desire to cause any trouble. Those are two specific questions I have to put to the noble Lord.
I understand also that they have agreed to widening the area close to gardens, houses and so on which will not be sprayed from the air. Is the Minister satisfied that this is statutory, or purely voluntary, and does he consider that it is adequate, or would he prefer it to be a rather wider area than at present has been agreed by the spraying operators?
Lord Belstead: Could the noble Lord repeat the last question? I did not hear it.
Lord Walston: As I understand it, there is agreement with the operators of aerial spraying to increase from 75 feet to 200 feet the minimum proximity distance from residential buildings. Could the noble Lord tell us whether this is statutorily binding or a voluntary agreement, and whether he considers that the 200 feet is adequate, or whether he would rather see it extended to something like, perhaps, 100 yards?
The Earl of Onslow: I know that aerial spraying is one of the things which causes an enormous amount of concern among the public, and rightly that concern has been shown in your Lordships' Committee both last Thursday and today. One is inundated with paper over this Bill, but there is one piece of briefing which I know has been given to my noble friend which seems to me apposite on this.
We admit aerial spraying to be essential under certain forestry conditions or bracken conditions. If a certain amount of aerial spraying other than that is not allowed, it could be that we shall kill off the ability to do aerial spraying at all. I put that in, not as a point of view that I hold myself but as something for people to bear in the back of their minds.
The Earl of Radnor: I am entirely in sympathy with this amendment, but perhaps not as it is written, because this licensing is so complicated. It seems so complicated to me that it might put people off altogether. If you are going to do that, I think that with modern machinery—and taking the point about the helicopter—we could well do without aerial spraying altogether.
I have talked to a number of my neighbours at home and to the farm managers I am fortunate enough to employ. Their reply was that the fixed-wing aerial spraying was so inaccurate on the crops on which we used it that they would really prefer to find some other means. If it is that inaccurate, then it should not be allowed. I am not experienced here but I suspect that
178
there is perhaps a more efficient way of wording the amendment. The sort of approach I should like to see taken is that fixed-wing aerial spraying would be banned except in such places where either the terrain or the flora—which would cover the forestry situation—did not allow the use of these modern tractors and booms, and so on, that we use today.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I support the amendment. May I respond to the point which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made, which I think was put to him, as it has been to me, by the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association? They suggest, as I think is agreed on all sides of the Committee, that if some aerial spraying is necessary—for example, for forestry operations where clearly no other form of spraying is a practical possibility—then, the argument runs, we must keep aerial spraying available for everything to ensure that there is a viable aerial spraying industry around to spray the trees.
I find that a nonsensical argument. I am astonished that the noble Earl gave it the light of day. For one thing, the aerial spraying—which I think on all sides it is agreed we should at least severely curb, if not ban—would largely take place in the south and east of England, and it would be the contractors in those areas who would be affected, whereas it would be contractors in the north of Scotland and the north and west who would be taking part in any spraying of forestry crops.
It may be that there is no other way of spraying trees, and it may be that the price would be slightly raised because the operator would not he spending some of their time spraying crops in other parts of the country, but if people are prepared to pay for it then somebody will come along and be prepared to do it. It does not seem to me to be a sufficient argument that because we have to go on spraying trees from the air we must allow people to go on spraying anything else they want to from the air.
I shared the experience that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that he had had of trying hard as a farmer to get aerial spraying done accurately. When I first had responsibility for the farming company of which I am now a director we had been for a couple of years spraying not a weed killer but a nitrogen fertiliser, putting it on from the air on to some grazing marshes. We had complaints from the local nature reserve that some of the nitrogen was falling in their pools.
The first year I was responsible for this I went to enormous trouble with the contractor to explain exactly where the fertiliser had to go and where it did not. We looked at it on the ground. Every precaution you can imagine was taken. The day it was done people driving down the approach road to the nature reserve got nitrogen fertiliser bouncing off the roofs of their cars. That convinced me that it is impossible to do this job with anything like enough accuracy to make it acceptable except in areas where there is no alternative, like forestry and possibly bracken control, although I personally have my doubts about that. I support the amendment.

179
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave us a detailed reply on this point, and I am sure he does not want to repeat it all again. He mentioned all the various ways in which the Government could control and put conditions on the use of this method of applying pesticides. The noble Lord needs to address himself to a sharp difference of opinion between what he said on behalf of the Government and what was said by noble Lords in many parts of the House with a fair degree of unanimity during the Second Reading debate. The view he put was that aerial spraying should continue on much the same sort of basis as it does now but they will have all sorts of powers to put regulations here and controls there, and lengthen the distance from houses and make sure that all these rules are kept. What many noble Lords have been saying is that we need to end aerial spraying for many of the uses to which it is now put.
There is a consensus that some aerial spraying should continue, that licensing or some such procedure would be desirable for those exceptional cases, but that that is all we should be left with. That is a sharp difference of opinion which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not address himself to when we last discussed this in Committee. I hope he feels able to address that point today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some noble Lords may have been saying that, but I do not think all noble Lords have. I think all noble Lords have agreed that the public dislikes aerial spraying. It seems to me to be of the greatest importance that anything the Government do by regulation should leave room for the development of more accurate ways of spraying arable crops by air, and more successful ways, as well as spraying that cannot be done from the ground.
I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, does not feel that speedy aerial spraying, carefully and accurately done away from houses, is not important for seed potato crops with high tops on them which could be badly damaged by being sprayed from the ground. Spraying for blight very often has to be decided on overnight for some varieties. The noble Lord obviously does not see this problem; I think I do.
It seems to me that flexibility is very important in this; consideration for the public, yes, but let us move forward scientifically. Helicopters can pick up a man from the ground. They can be very accurate indeed now. The fact that they have not always been accurate when spraying arable crops is another matter. I hope that we will not block the way forward for experimental research and the careful use of helicopters on arable crops, and that we will not confine them to being used on trees and bracken.
The Earl of Onslow: May I come back to take up one small point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made. I was not advocating that this was definitely the truth. But if we are to have a system of licensing of pilots, they must work quite hard at it and not just be part-time aerial sprayers. I am not necessarily saying it is essential that what they are saying is true, but there is sufficient force in their argument for it to be taken account of. That is what I am saying.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am glad that my noble friend Lady Carnegy said something, because then I am not the only black sheep. I think your Lordships are being a little hard on the aerial sprayer. Your Lordships are being hard, I think, because of TV and media coverage and the thought that aeroplanes must be inaccurate because they rush about madly, spraying and looking like a sort of dragon pushing out fire. They are not. Many pilots, particularly helicopter pilots—I think I shall carry the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, here—are very accurate indeed and probably more accurate than many of your Lordships when you get on a tractor. They are certainly more accurate than I am.
I would ask your Lordships to remember the first point, that a ban on aerial spraying in the United Kingdom would unfairly prejudice us against our continental partners. I know I have said this once before, and I shall go on saying it, but it is a fact that there is enough against us already. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, aerial spraying is by far the most effective way to spray potatoes and also, when it is wet, to apply slug pellets.
Another point that your Lordships have missed is that aerial sprayers have brought great technological advances. For instance, they are far more developed in the technology of CDA spraying and many of them who spray abroad on cotton have experience of spraying very low rates in oil.
Finally, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has reminded us, the CAA has strict controls. However, I admit that there have been worries over spraying in particular with fixed wing aircraft. I ask my noble friend to consider one or two points. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston and by my noble kinsman Lord Onslow; it relates to the question of the pilot. It is the pilot who should be licensed, not the area, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The pilot should be licensed to spray agricultural chemicals, preferably, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, by the Ministry of Agriculture.
At the moment the CAA licenses the pilot and he may have had no agricultural experience whatsoever. His last job might have been to fly Concorde; then he comes in and flies agricultural chemicals. That is crazy. He should have some agricultural training and he should be licensed. This would help to stop some of the terrible things that have happened as a result of using pilots who are probably not nationals of this country or who do not belong to this country, but have come from abroad; and even though they have a pilot's licence, they have done some fairly awful things.
The second point is that when a rule is contravened at present the company is taken to court. The pilot and the company should be taken to court and the fact should be put on the pilot's sheet, and if he has two or three convictions, he should lose his agricultural spraying licence. Lastly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that there is a vast difference between fixed wing and helicopter spraying.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: Once more your Lordships are considering and thinking of rich, large farmers and once more you are ignoring the small

181
farmer. The small farmer uses aerial spraying as a last resort when MAFF tells him that he has a disease and this is the only way of dealing with it because of the time of the year or the state of the soil. The cheapest form is the fixed wing and it is mostly very accurate. Please do not forget that. Incidentally, many interesting things are found from the archaeological point of view, as well.
Lord Belstead: I am interested in the debate which has taken place on aerial spraying, for the second time. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for flying in in time to enable us to have this debate. I think we want to be a little careful about some of the assertions which have been made. My noble friend Lord Stanley made some very helpful remarks, but I am not entirely certain that he is accurate in saying that when the CAA is awarding an aerial application certificate it does not take into account the experience of the pilot. My information is that the agricultural experience of the pilot is a factor, but I should like to look into that and maybe my noble friend will as well.
Before I reply briefly to this amendment I shall answer the three questions that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked me. The first is that the regulations which would be made on aerial spraying under this Bill would be subject to discussion between the Health and Safety Executive and the CAA. However, when the regulations come to be made they will be made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, but that will have to be in concert with another Minister, and it would be for consideration whether it would be the Minister of Transport in this case. The second—
Lord Walston: May I ask the noble Lord to clarify this? He says that the consultations would be between the Health and Safety Executive and the CAA. The noble Lord did not mention the Ministry of Agriculture. Does he take it for granted that the Ministry of Agriculture will be included in those consultations, or will it be left solely to the two bodies he mentioned?
Lord Belstead: I thought that it would be implicit that the Ministry of Agriculture is in touch, as I know, indeed, we are in touch, with the Department of Transport. So of course we are in touch with the CAA and, indeed, with the Health and Safety Executive. I think that goes without saying. The point is that when it comes to the moment when the regulations are made, I think that the noble Lord can be assured that the HSE, the CAA and the Department of Transport will have had plenty of opportunity to say what they feel. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for transport, could well be a party to the making of the regulations, because regulations always have to be made by two members of the Government.
The noble Lord asked me about notification to neighbouring householders and inhabitants of the area. Strengthened notification requirements were announced, as I think the noble Lord is well aware, by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport at the end of July. They are
182
fully enforceable, and indeed the CAA is in the process of bringing a prosecution for failure to notify as required.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me whether or not the proximity to buildings is statutory. Again, that is under the Air Navigation Order, although the distances which I mentioned last Thursday are not quite the same as the distances which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has put into his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is right. I must not go over all the ground again, because I endeavoured to do so last Thursday. Basically, my reply needs to be this. This is an amendment about licensing and I think there is a difficulty when one comes to look at the amendment itself; because in some senses with an amendment of this kind one falls into the trap of being too specific. The prohibition on spraying within 100 metres of buildings is just the sort of thing that we should be able to alter or improve over time without having to have recourse to going back to primary legislation. And the flat prohibition of any spraying over footpaths, bridleways or common land might well prove in practice to be unnecessarily restrictive in, for instance, the forestry areas which have been specifically mentioned in the debate this evening.
On the other hand, what appears to be a comprehensive amendment, in practice leaves out many of the elements of control which we might wish to see given statutory force under Clause 15: the limitation to less toxic products, the types of application devices.—I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Stanley said about the aerial spraying people being very much in the forefront of development here—the training of operators in pesticide use, and so on. Indeed, if I may say so to the noble Lord, in an amendment which is appearing to be covering not only the safe use of pesticides under this Bill but also the air safety implications, there is no mention of consultation on spraying near designated areas—that comes under the Air Navigation Order—or of having to give warning to hospitals or schools or other institutions, which, again, is a feature of the Air Navigation Order.
I think there is a difficulty (and I am not suggesting that it cannot be overcome) about becoming too specific in the way that the noble Lord would wish us to be in Amendment No. 100. That leaves me with a final question which I have to answer. It is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put to me. It is this. Do the Government believe that we should go towards a licensing system as a matter of principle, despite the practical objections that I have just given to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; do the Government believe that there ought to be some form of ban; or do the Government believe that the basis we have at the moment is the right one? I have to say quite openly to the Committee that I believe that the basis that we have at the moment is a basis which is right; because the CAA are bound to be interested in, and expert on, the air navigation side of this particular practice and the Ministry of Agriculture, in proper consultation with those who are concerned, has a duty, a moral duty and a work duty, to be concerned with

183
making regulations which will properly complement the Air Navigation Order restrictions.
It is open to both the CAA and the Ministry of Agriculture to see that the restrictions, on the one hand, are made tighter—and that, in fact, is what the CAA is doing at the moment—and it is for the Ministry of Agriculture, on the other hand, to see that the rules we make in the regulations in the light of what is said in both Houses of Parliament are really firm and effective but capable of change as the years go by. I therefore feel that the method by which it is done at the present time is the one which the Government find desirable.
Lord John-Mackie: Before we finish this short debate I should like to say that there is a slight suggestion from most noble Lords that there was criticism of the pilots. I certainly did not want to make any criticism at all of the pilots. I was simply criticising the margin of error that there is in using a plane, particularly a fixed-wing place, in spraying. I had some experience when with the Forestry Commission of spraying large areas of woodland in the North West of Scotland. A New Zealand pilot did it with a fixed-wing plane and I had nothing but admiration for the way he handled that plane and the accuracy with which he carried it out. But he was operating over a large area and a very sparsely populated area. Also, on my own farm I have seen pilots with helicopters operating among the trees and their skill was quite extraordinary. But, whatever you say, there is a very large margin of error. Anyone who has seen the errors that we make with tractors travelling at five to six miles an hour, opening up too quickly and blotting things out with double spray and so on, can imagine what could happen with a fixed-wing plane, irrespective of how skilful the pilot was. I thought I should like to make that point.
Lord Melchett: May I make a brief point? I was grateful to the noble Lord for giving me a straight answer to the question that I asked, although I must say that I find it bitterly disappointing, particularly as a farmer. I suspect that many of those involved in the manufacture and distribution of pesticides, and those involved on a commercial basis as contractors not using aircraft, will be bitterly disappointed as well. I cannot help asking when, oh! when, will the Ministry of Agriculture think about making concessions to widespread, deeply felt public concern about some aspect of modern agriculture before they are absolutely forced to do so and when no benefit is brought to the agricultural industry when the concession is made? Straw burning has been a good example and the Ministry, if they had introduced their new by-laws a couple of years earlier than they did, might well have made a dramatic difference to the way that the farming industry is seen by the public. If they had made some greater concessions to conservation interests when the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was being debated in this House and in another place, we should not now, two or three years later, be contemplating an amendment Bill. Surely, sooner or later the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government are going to have to recognise that they cannot
184
continue to treat public opinion about agriculture with what seems to me to be contempt.
In this case we all recognise that there is deep-felt concern about aerial spraying and widespread support, at least in the Committee, for the idea that spraying from fixed-wing aircraft is not accurate and cannot be accurate enough. Surely, that is the sort of thing on which the Ministry ought to be giving a lead and saying, "Yes, we need to respond to this and not carry on as we are until we are forced to change and make the agricultural industry yet more unpopular with the general public".
Lord Belstead: I must say that I find that a most extraordinary intervention. What the noble Lord is saying to the Government is that, because he wants to have a ban and the Government do not want to have a ban, the Government must be wrong and the noble Lord must be right. I do not find that particularly self-evident. I should like to remind your Lordships that what the Government have been saying on this very important and deeply-felt area of aerial spraying is this: "Our intention is that the regulations to be made under Clause 15, if this Bill becomes law, would be to complement the controls exercised by the Civil Aviation Authority, who, in their turn, are very considerably tightening up on the Air Navigation Order. And we will do this by imposing controls on the environmental safety of aerial spraying".
I would remind the Committee, if I may, that under the PSPS currently we clear only the less toxic and less volatile pesticides for application from the air. This is a practice which undoubtedly would continue. Indeed, if I may just draw your Lordships' attention again to the Statement of Intention which I circulated, paragraphs 8 to paragraph 11 dealing with safety and efficacy, labelling and premises and training, would all apply to the regulations to be made on aerial spraying, including also, of course, the specific statement in paragraph 11 of the Statement of Intention that the range of possible controls and penalties on conviction for aerial spraying are going to be widened and not narrowed by the passing of this Bill.
I really think that my addition of that reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shows that, although we may not agree on the end which the noble Lord wishes to achieve, the noble Lord has made no secret of the fact that he simply wishes to ban this practice.
Lord Melchett: I—
Lord Belstead: Well, I am sorry; but the noble Lord made it sound as if that is what he wished to do. Perhaps the noble Lord will be putting down an amendment to show us what it is that he wishes to do. I hope that I have made clear that although that is not what we wish to do, we are as concerned as the noble Lord and we are prepared to do something about it.
Lord Melchett: May I just reply to the noble Lord because he asked me specifically what my view was? I was supporting the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and which has been supported by noble Lords on various sides of the Chamber. That is what my view was on this. I feel we ought to have a licensing system.
The Earl of Onslow: I support my noble friend on this. We had a very long debate on it on Thursday. My noble friend was quite categorical that he was going to tighten up the regulations very much. Those of us who take a pretty suspicious view of aerial spraying—and I certainly include myself among those—were very pleased to hear what he said, because he seemed to be going at least 95 per cent. of the way to meet the worries and concerns some of us feel over agricultural spraying; and, as somebody who has been quite critical on occasions, it might be just reasonable to say that I am actually on his side.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: If I may intervene in this debate, I think the Minister has obviously got the sense of what the Chamber feels with regard to aerial spraying. I should like to say that of course in our amendment we did not mention every eventuality—I hate to think what he would have said to me if we had done so. But one of the purposes, of course, was to probe the Government's attitude, and I must say I am somewhat encouraged because I think it is absolutely necessary for any future development of aerial spraying that the Government tighten up the regulations and rules and do away with the resentment—the very real and proper resentment—felt by the public.
I have had literature from various sources saying that only 154 complaints have been received by the CAA, and that sort of thing; but in fact when I was aerial spraying I found I got a kick-back, which did not come into official complaints, all round the place because people wondered what on earth was happening when aircraft spray was obviously seen to drift, sometimes well away from the crop sprayed. So if we are going to have new developments and if we are going to use aerial spraying at all, it needs to be enormously carefully regulated. I think there is an argument for saying that if you ban it or reduce it severely you will not have the aircraft available for the necessary work when you want to use this method.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I was grateful for his support. But the one thing an aircraft can do is to fly quite quickly from the South-East to the North, if you want to shift it about the country to spray different crops. I must say also to my noble neighbour that the question of spraying blight on potatoes, tall crops and so on, has been largely solved by the new width of booms. The one thing you cannot do, if you have to spray in an emergency, is to call up an aircraft out of the blue. You need to have an arrangement with the people involved.
So I do not think that there is a strong case for the necessity of aerial spraying at present over a great number of crops, but I see that the future may well require aerial spraying and it may well turn out to be a safer form of spraying. In order for that to be tolerated I think the Minister needs to develop the attitude he has shown and to take great care that the regulations are tightened and practices giving the offence they have given are stopped. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations shall include a provision that all pesticides which at the date of the passing of this Act have not been approved under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme (or any modifications thereof) shall be submitted for such approval within two years of the date of the passing of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I am referring to the 3,700 or so pesticides which have been cleared under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme but have not as yet been approved under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme (the ACAS scheme) for efficacy. I am quite satisfied that the efficacy testing of new products is covered under the proposed regulations. However, it is those products which are currently being used that really concern me, and those which have not been tested under the ACAS scheme. Obviously the sooner these pesticides are cleared for efficacy the better it is going to be for everyone, including of course the farmers themselves and ADAS who advise them.
6.45 p.m.
As your Lordships are obviously aware, there is a gross over-use of pesticides in the countryside at the moment, and I am always concerned by the idea of a representative of a company going round to farmers and saying, "You try this one and see how you get on". That is a somewhat unacceptable situation to be in and of course it is precisely the knowledge that the farmers themselves learn from this efficacy testing which leads them to use less chemicals. That, of course, is to everyone's benefit.
My noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading that it is the Government's intention to cover all products; and I appreciate that. However, he went on to say that it is not practicable to cover immediately all existing cleared pesticides. Of course, no one would expect them to be covered immediately, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask my noble friend whether there could be some specific time limit on this. It is really a question of asking what is a practicable period. I would say to the noble Lord, two years, which is the amount of time I have put down in this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I think it is just worth commenting that this particular amendment, or something very like it, would be supported by the British Agrochemicals Association and also by the CLA, who I think actually drafted it, if the truth be known; and so they support it. Few, if any, of the products currently marketed actually do not work, in spite of what the Friends of the Earth say; but it would seem a good idea and I beg leave to support the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will remember that I raised this matter on Second Reading, in particular because the Ministry's press release on the Bill, which was put out on 9th November, said that for the first time all pesticides would be screened for efficacy as well as safety. The noble Lord, in replying to the debate on Second Reading, made it clear that it would not apply to all products immediately; it would apply to all new products immediately but for others there would have to be a period of time during which products would

187
"come up" for efficacy—and the noble Lord actually said, "as their clearances are reviewed".
The first question I should like to ask him is this. Is there any set time period after which clearances would have to be reviewed and, if so, what is it? There have been numerous reports in the farming press that the chemical industry has been told there will be a five-year period, during which, so far as I can see from the report, all existing products will have to be cleared for efficacy. I do not know where that has come from, but it has been repeated more than once in farming papers and so I assume it has its origins in the noble Lord's department. It would be helpful if he could comment on whether that is accurate or not and, if it is, whether all products will be cleared in that period.
The Government have made quite a lot of the fact that for the first time under this legislation products will be cleared for efficacy as well as for safety and that this is the major step forward which the legislation allows for. I hope the noble Lord would accept that, if that is to be the case and if it is going to be a claim the Government can justly make, there needs to be a time period under which the existing products are cleared for efficacy. If there is not such a time period, the claim that the Bill advances safety by including this test will be difficult to sustain. I would hope that it could be done within the sort of time period proposed in the amendment.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for moving very succinctly this important amendment. Just for the record, may I say something that I know your Lordships are aware of. Paragraph 4 of the statement of intent which we circulated makes it clear—and I now put it on the record in this Committee—that we would only consider granting full approval to products which have commercial clearance under the PSPS and have passed an efficacy criterion such as that provided by the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme. Products which have only provisional or full commercial clearance under the PSPS would only be provisionally approved under the statutory scheme, pending review of their efficacy.
My noble friend and other noble Lords asked the question: how long will that take? Without doubt, it would be highly desirable to specify a period, but I will add to the statistics my noble friend presented in moving this amendment. Approximately 700 products are currently approved under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme, but under the PSPS (but without any other approval) there are around 4,000 products and a variety of areas of use of those products, including crop protection, rodenticides, chemicals for use in bulk food stores, home and garden products and wood preservatives. That figure is perhaps rather higher than my noble friend Lord Peel appreciated.
Arising from that, there are two problems in introducing an efficacy screening system for all pesticides. The first is that although efficacy testing systems have been established under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme for crop protection products, no such system exists for the other kinds of pesticides. Before we can require applicants to demonstrate that their product is efficacious, we have
188
to decide exactly what data can be regarded as being sufficient evidence of efficacy. We are already working on this issue, and I have given an undertaking that in this, as in other areas, there will be consultations. But there are many classes of pesticides involved, and each class will probably require a somewhat different class of efficacy test. That is the first problem.
The second problem of timing is that if one subtracts 700 from 4,400 one is left with 3,600 products to be submitted for efficacy approval within two years, if this amendment were to be passed. That is 1,800 products per year, or 34 products per week. To do that in any sort of proper way would be asking us to rubber-stamp old products. The Ministry of Agriculture would certainly be able to undertake that task, and could probably complete it faster than two years; but we believe that this is something which your Lordships would deeply deplore.
What we are proposing is to review each product thoroughly in order to satisfy Parliament, ourselves and society at large that a product is demonstrated to be effective for the purposes for which it was designed and is used. Surely it is more satisfactory to do so at a reasonable pace than to rush through a paper exercise that would produce no real benefit. I say to my noble friend Lord Peel that it is surely reasonable, when the issue is one of environmental safety, and when our record to date is a good one, to embark on a deliberate and painstaking application of the new rules, so that each chemical will be considered on its true merits and classified accordingly.
We would not have introduced this Bill, and I would not be standing here speaking to this Bill, if we did not intend to complete that task as quickly as we can. But my parting words at the moment are that 3,600 products, quite apart from new applications, will have to be assessed. I promise my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment that we shall do that as quickly as possible. But if a limit of two years were to be written into the Bill—and your Lordships will of course decide what you believe is right—then it really would come down to being almost just a paper exercise. I know that the Ministry in which I work would deplore that, and I believe that your Lordships, too, would deplore it.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend give some indication of the time span in which he considers that the task could be accomplished? That is the first part of my question. The second part is: how many of the 3,600 chemicals he mentioned will actually fall off the end and be replaced by new chemicals? I realise that is a difficult question to answer.
Lord Melchett: While the Minister is considering that question, may I ask him to reply also to the point I made concerning the five-year period which the farming press has reported manufacturers have been told is the period within which the remaining number of products will be cleared for efficacy? I have read two reports appearing in different papers in the middle of November which stated quite explicitly that manufacturers have been told there will be a five-year period to re-screen all the present, approved pesticides for efficacy. It would be helpful to know if that is the time period the Ministry has in mind.
Baroness Nicol: Can the Minister give some idea of the priorities he will be observing—not simply the total length of time involved, but to which particular types of pesticide priority will be given? What criteria will be used in that respect?
Lord Walston: I have one further question. As I understand this amendment, it says very clearly that products may be submitted for approval within a period of two years. That does not mean to say that the Ministry must grant approval, or otherwise, within a period of two years but that the manufacturer must submit the product within that time—and then it is up to the Ministry to deal with the matter as quickly as it reasonably can.
Lord Belstead: That is true. When I first read the amendment I thought for one moment that it was as though we would be required to agree to clear all applications within a period of two years. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, is quite right as far as that is concerned.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, we are thinking at the moment in terms of a five-year period so far as reviews are concerned. It must be subject to consultation, as to whether that provision, if the Bill becomes law, should be the subject of a regulation in that way. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked which pesticides we would deal with first in changing what is clearance only, but not approval under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme, into statutory clearance under the scheme. I believe I would be safe in saying we would try to go for the most toxic products first.
Earl Peel: I thank my noble friend for his reply, but I must confess that I am perhaps a little disappointed—although I realise the difficulties involved. My noble friend mentioned the Ministry's good record, and nobody could disagree with that. My noble friend is aware of the strong feeling in this Committee and has given his word that he intends to complete the task as quickly as possible. In the circumstances, that is probably all I can expect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) The regulations shall provide for the repeal of the Animals (Cruel Poisons) Regulation 1963 and the Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order 1973.").
The noble Baroness said: This is simply a probing amendment. The status of some existing legislation is not clear in relation to the proposed new Bill, and we simply want to find out—using this as a specimen—which existing legislation will be replaced in this particular case and what other existing legislation of this kind will be replaced by the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: This amendment would require the removal of very specific and clear controls on the use of cruel poisons such as strychnine and on the use of warfarin to control a recognised agricultural
190
pest. They have worked well for many years and have played an important part in protecting non-target species, particularly red squirrels, from the effects of the use of these poisons. I would hesitate to agree to the removal of such important controls until the implications have been fully considered in the light of any future pesticides approval scheme.
I now come to the part of my reply for which the noble Baroness is probably waiting. Once the new scheme is under way, it is our intention to review the operation of any other parallel controls. But clearly it would be premature to require their revocation in the way proposed.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for that reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 72:
[Printed earlier: col. 1504]
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment and Amendment No. 136 at our previous Committee sitting. In his reply to the debate on Amendment No. 47 the Minister said—and this gives me hope that he will accept these two amendments—that,
"there is not the slightest reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also should not make the regulations under this particular part of the Bill."—[Official Report, 6/12/84; col. 1507.]
I hope that the amendment will, therefore, be accepted together with, in due course, Amendment No. 136. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There will be consultation with others in order to make the regulations. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate just to put in that consultation should be with the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Baroness Nicol: I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage. We must look again at the whole question of the involvement of the Department of the Environment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
(" ( ) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) above the Ministers shall specify the maximum rates at which pesticides may be applied by reference to the maximum quantities of pesticides which may be applied to each unit of area or to each animal as the case may be.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is of considerable importance. It takes us back to Amendment No. 62 where the noble Lord, Lord Walston, highlighted the difficulties for farmers under Clause 15(1)(g) in judging the residues which they might leave in their crops and for which, if they left the wrong residue, they could he held responsible. It seems to me that they should at least have some proper help from the Minister in this respect. If they do not, as far as I can see, they would have to rely on instructions from manufacturers and suppliers, which may or may

191
not be correct, but which probably would be correct, and their own good judgment.
To complicate the issue, I would think that residues (the residual stuff, or whatever it is) left in, say, a cauliflower would possibly be influenced by soil conditions, the climatic conditions, and so on. The amendment suggests that the Minister should decree certain maximums, which I believe would be entirely to the Government's advantage. It would take some of the responsibility from the farmer. The Government, after all, have at their fingertips much scientific advice and will, of course, be careful because the whole of the Bill is directed towards protecting the environment. It seems quite proper that the Government should help the farmer in this way and not leave him in such a vulnerable position.
In the amendment "maximum" is specified. We have already debated the question of minimum applications and I shall not bore the Committee by repeating what I said previously. This is an important matter and I hope that the Government will take some serious note of it. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to take a slightly different attitude towards this amendment which has also been tabled to encourage lower rates of pesticide. I therefore ask my noble friend to explain why paragraph 9 and paragraph 2(c) of his regulation intentions (if I may call them that) mention minimum rates, which have also been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. Presumably my noble friend worries about the small, concentrated particles wandering around, but I worry—and this is why we have tabled the amendment—that the regulation might stifle new techniques. We all know that in the past chemicals have been recommended at much higher rates than we now use. Grammoxone is a perfect example which came on the market at two-and-a-quarter pints in 20 gallons; we are now possibly using only half or three-quarters. I do not want this minimum quantity to be stopped.
CDA and electrostatic sprayers may well be suited to very low concentrated usage; for example, as I have previously mentioned, if sprayed in oil. Here I come back again to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson—I am sorry she is not present—who said that such low dosage might create resistance. I am sure it would create resistance when using antibiotics, but I am not so sure that that would be the case with herbicides. I know that my noble friend has given an undertaking to encourage low rates of chemical. Indeed, my honourable friend Mrs. Fenner also commented on this before the Bill was introduced. But there is a great temptation for manufacturers to specify higher than necessary rates, if only to protect themselves. Therefore, we come again to the thorny problem arising from the word "efficacy". I am sorry to come back to this, but it is a difficult subject.
The amendment would give the farmer a guide, and a defence, as my noble friend Lord Radnor said, on how much chemical to use and would enable him to make a case should the residue in his crop be too high. I ask my noble friend, again, a question on efficacy. The amendment may cause problems on the efficacy front—that is, if higher rates than necessary are put
192
in—with the chemical manufacturers. For instance, it is probably possible to make most herbicides kill anything if one quadruples the rate. Therefore, if the rate is controlled, the efficacy may be reduced. We therefore come to another problem to add to my noble friend's problem and the large list he gave when replying to Amendment No. 69. My noble friend said on Second Reading, as reported at column 701 of Hansard, that,
"of all products evidence"
must be given,
"not simply of safety but of efficacy as well."
Therefore, my question is: How can efficacy be stated when so much is dependent on soil type and on different chemicals and formulations responding differently to different soil types?
The Earl of Swinton: Perhaps I may answer first the two explicit questions from my noble friend Lord Stanley. The minimum dilution rate states that X amount of product must be dissolved or mixed in at least Y litres of water. Such a minimum dilution rate is set to ensure that the spray issuing from a machine is not dangerous to the spray operator or bystanders.
Obviously, when my noble friend referred to his noble friend and column 701 he was referring to my noble friend Lord Belstead and what he said. I hope I can give the explanation of "efficacy" such as my noble friend would give it. By "efficacy" We mean the ability of a product to do the job claimed for it on the label. Our technical experts in MAFF and the Health and Safety Executive are discussing the details of a definition of "efficacy" and the minimum standards which we shall require pesticide manufacturers to meet. Eventually we shall discuss our proposals with the industry and all others involved.
But I think there is a much shorter and simpler explanation why I cannot accept the amendment. I do not believe it to be appropriate to make such a detailed provision in an enabling Bill, for the reason that pesticides vary greatly in formulation and use. While we could, and would, accept maximum application rates as described in this amendment for almost all, if not all, agricultural pesticides, it would not be helpful to be obliged to set maximum application rates for all pesticides. For example, it would not be appropriate to set a rate for rodenticides which specified how many rat holes one could treat within one barn, or precisely how much powder one was permitted to put down each hole. I hope, therefore, that my noble friends will agree that the amendment is unnecessary and that such detailed provisions are best left to regulations. Rats!
The Earl of Onslow: It is obviously joke time on the Front Bench! The Germans have regulations on the maximum amount of stuff that can be put on the ground. I think that certainly that should be brought into the regulations. I think it should be there unless there is a reason why it should not be there. That might be a good way of doing it. Secondly, if we are going to go towards a Community-wide system of regulations, which I think we all agree we should, the more we concur with our neighbours, the better.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that. Unfortunately, I do not know

193
the German for, "Rats!" To be serious, my noble friend has kindly given us a copy of what the Germans are doing. We shall have a look at that. But for the reasons I have given concerning rats and rodenticides, we cannot accept the amendment as it is now worded.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does that mean that the Minister will accept the amendment in a different form?
The Earl of Swinton: Not necessarily.
Lord Melchett: I have been listening to this, and I am not entirely clear. If the amendment had "may" instead of "shall", so that it did not oblige the noble Lord to produce regulations on rodenticides and would remove rats from his mind for a moment, if that is possible, and allow him to concentrate simply on the other things, where he said that regulations might be desirable, would he be able to accept the amendment?
The Earl of Swinton: I think I shall have to keep the noble Lord in a state of extreme suspense over Christmas to see what my reaction would be should such an amendment be put down.
The Earl of Radnor: I have listened to my noble friend's answer. I am not sure who will be kept in suspense over Christmas. After all, we can always bring back another amendment if we wish.
I think my noble friend said that on the whole—I am paraphrasing—it would be quite possible to have some arrangement such as this, where maximums were outlined by the Government, and he then produced a rather way-out (if one likes) instance where it would not be appropriate. It seems to me that perhaps in his heart of hearts he is slightly on my side over this amendment. If it were rephrased, with exceptions put in, and worded in a different way, it might be acceptable. It still seems to me that it is a matter of great importance. I feel worried by the fact that farmers have to make these decisions. They are either going to get into trouble, I think on occasions not through their own fault, or they are going to do the job improperly because they will leave such a wide safety margin.
Although I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, I shall certainly go away and see whether it can be reframed for a later stage of the Bill to suit my noble friends on the Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) above the Ministers shall make such arrangements as may be appropriate to ensure that all applications for the use of safe pesticides imported to the United Kingdom are cleared within seven working days of receipt, free of charge to the applicant.").
The noble Lord said: In 1981 British farmers woke up to the fact that they could obtain on the continent for a fraction of the cost chemicals similar to those
194
used in the United Kingdom. The result was that farmers' vans visited France and returned not with champagne but Dicuraine. Needless to say, there was an outcry from British manufacturers, who alleged that what was being purchased abroad was different from and/or inferior to the British product. It may be that some of the charges were correct; some certainly were not. But the proof of the pudding was in the eating. Many British chemicals fell drastically in price, and for once, I might say, we had a smile on our faces.
Some of those imported chemicals, although similar to British approved ones, were, of course, not approved by PSPS. That did not matter because, as we all know, the scheme was, and indeed is, voluntary. But now, under this Bill, approval will be needed by law, so we have a problem: how to allow free inter-Community trade, which is required by the Treaty of Rome—and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Belstead made a point of that on Second Reading—and, on the other side, make sure that imported chemicals are safe and get rapid legal approval, as required by the Bill? I know that my noble friend Lord Belstead is aware of the problem. On Second Reading (at column 736) he assured your Lordships' House that the Government would give rapid clearance to similar chemicals free of any fees next year.
I therefore have to ask him whether it will be possible for a farmer, as in 1981, to drive to collect those similar chemicals. How will he get clearance under the Bill if he wants to do such a thing? What is an identical product? Is it the active ingredient of the chemical, is it the formulation, or is it both? What will be the position if the chemical is identical but less (and I come back to that horrible word) efficacious? Will it he cleared rapidly? Must the label necessarily be in English? I should like my noble friend to assure me that the Government will make available sufficient resources to deal with those problems.
To help him along that path, I hope he will accept the amendment, which would ensure clearance of these similar chemicals within seven working days free of any clearance charge—I would call it not a clearance charge, but an import charge. Without this amendment, I fear that British farmers will be disadvantaged compared to their European counterparts—I know that I have said that before—and we shall return to the pre-1981 situation, with no cool breeze of competition. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has amply covered the subject. I added my name to the amendment because I believed that he ought to nudge the Minister towards committing himself to a time limit. Whether the one that we have put down is the right one I do not know, but I should be glad of an assurance that a time limit will be set for the clearance of chemicals under these circumstances.
Lord Monk Bretton: I also wish to support my noble friend the mover of the amendment. I should not wish again to see licensing cause a barrier under which United Kingdom agro-chemicals start to cost more than they do in the EEC. The price discrepancy arose under the present scheme. I think that if it had not arisen, a potent cause for this legislation would not have arisen. It certainly helped to precipitate this Bill.

195
My noble friend Lord Stanley has spoken very adequately on it. I know the amendment is opposed in certain quarters. Nevertheless, I hope my noble friend the Minister does not give way on this and that rapid approval for similar imported chemicals may be obtained.
Lord Melchett: It is important to note, however, that there is a conflict between the importance of farmers in this country having access to chemicals which are cheaper on the continent, if they are exactly the same as chemicals cleared in this country, and safety if the products are not identical. The amendment to some extent goes round this question by simply leaving it in the amendment unanswered, by saying that a chemical which is safe may be imported in seven days. The question is: how do you determine whether it is safe? How do you know it is safe? If it is an identical product in every respect, there is no problem.
I speak as a farmer looking with some anxiety at the costs of growing cereals next year and at the likely returns. I hope the Government will do all they can to make sure that cheaper products are available but not at the expense of the safety which they will now be imposing by law. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that I think those who are concerned about safety and the environmental consequences of pesticide use in this country would be less worried if we already had strict rules about pesticide use as have countries like West Germany. Our farmers are in an extremely favourable position at the moment compared with at least some in the Common Market. If we had strict regulations such as in West Germany, free imports from them would be no problem. But they have banned 20 chemicals which we commonly use in agriculture. It is not good enough to say that we must not have any restrictions which do not apply in the rest of Europe, and at the same time say that we must not have any of the restrictions which apply in the rest of Europe placed on ourselves.
Lord Belstead: I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of this amendment. I hope what I can say in reply comes very near to it, although it does not fully meet it. Our intentions are to have a rapid clearance system for imports. I hope that it is going to be truly rapid. The important point is that there should be genuine competition between identical products and we most certainly intend to provide for that. I should like to take the opportunity, in replying to my noble friend's amendment, to assure the Committee that the envisaged arrangements for the quick clearance of imported products identical to those already available in the United Kingdom will be as straightforward as is possible within the confines of our responsibility to ensure that all products are safe for use.
Incidentally, I am saying this after dicussions which have been held between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Community. For the purposes of these quick clearance arrangements one product would be considered to be identical to another if the active ingredients in both products are the same and are produced by the same company. The formulations of both products should also be the same within the variations agreed as tolerable by the United Kingdom approving authority in approving the original product.
196
In order to demonstrate that two products are identical we will have to require the importer to provide certain basic information such as a copy of the label of the imported product together with its batch number, brief details of the product already cleared in this country and a copy of the instructions in English that will be attached to the imported product before its use in this country. As I say, the procedure has been discussed with the Community and with the British Agrochemicals Association. It has also been discussed with the National Farmers Union. I think it is fair to claim that all have agreed that in principle this is a way forward and we would put it into practice as soon as possible.
So far as those last words are concerned, I must make it absolutely clear to my noble friend Lord Stanley that what we feel we have to do is to start a non-statutory system from 1st January of next year, free of charge. I trust that was the undertaking I gave on Second Reading. When we start the statutory system there would subsequently have to be a fee charged. I would not at this stage wish to be committed to any preferential system of charging for any one group of applicants for approval but the assurance I can give is that the fee to be charged on an individual farmer's imports would I believe be very reasonable.
My noble friend asked me some specific questions of which, as he has with others, he very kindly gave me notice. My noble friend asked, "Will it be possible for a farmer to collect chemicals, as was done previously?" A farmer will be able to do that and then submit them for the quick clearance procedure. "Is a chemical identical if it is less efficacious?" my noble friend asked. The answer to that of course is no, because that means it would be in a different formulation and therefore not identical.
May I just add one last remark. This amendment would wish all this to be done within seven days. To be perfectly honest with the Committee, I think that nine times out of ten we can do it in seven days. But to be tied down to that is not just a Government department saying that they do not want that restriction to be put on them but it would not be for the convenience of the farming community. You might find in particular cases that something happens which makes the seven days not quite possible to meet. I therefore give an undertaking to the Committee that we would do our very best to see that it is kept down to only a matter of days.
I should remind the Committee that this would be a very beneficial method of clearing products. It would not be done in the ports. It might be done when the product is still on the continent of Europe. It might be done, I am advised, after a product has come in but before it has been used. I believe that whole matter would be dealt with in a reasonably straight-forward and easy way. It would nonetheless ensure that imported chemicals, unless they are absolutely indentical in the way that I have described, would have then to be cleared just the same as any other chemicals being manufactured in this country. I believe that is fair. I believe that this system will work well. I hope that my noble friend will not press me on the exact seven day period.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I was interested in the procedure. I wonder whether the Minister could say if

197
any analysis would be carried out at any time. As I understood his reply, the clearance would be done on the information supplied by the manufacturer. Is he satisfied that that is enough and that the regulations on the continent—if that is where we are getting it from—are strict enough to proceed on information supplied in that manner?
Lord Belstead: Yes, we are. It is true that it will be a paper exercise but it is a paper exercise which will be based on some details which I outlined when I was speaking. Certainly the Community for their part believe that this will work properly, that this is a proper basis for saying that one product is identical to another. As I understand it, the British Agrochemicals Association believe that this is a sensible way forward, and my advice is that the National Farmers Union are at the moment feeling the same way from their point of view and that this would be a sensible and a safe way to proceed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have found this a very interesting debate. I shall have to come back to it at Report. Perhaps the first point of interest to me was the noble Lord, Lord Melchett's remark that most chemicals on the continent are more strictly looked at than they are here. If that is the case, it seems to me that we have not a problem with safety when we are importing. So far as the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead are concerned, I thought he was going to be more helpful in what he said than he was. Relating to ingredients, he first of all said yes they would be the same if it was the same company. I am not so sure what happens if it is a different company. It seems to me that very often the company will be different but the ingredients the same. Maybe, I misheard my noble friend. I shall read his remarks very carefully. My noble friend also did not say anything about a different formulation. It sounds to me, in respect of these two cases—if it was a different formulation and it was a different company even though the same ingredient—we would not get rapid clearance. I feel that we want to look at this.
7.30 p.m.
Then there is the question of charges. As I understand it, my noble friend said that there would be what I call an import charge on these identical chemicals for rapid clearance after the year. I shall again read what he had to say. I think that I would ask for more than one year even though I fully accept that at Second Reading he only promised one year.
Lastly, we come back to this horrible word "efficacious". He said that if they were not so efficacious as a similar chemical, they could not get rapid clearance. I am worried about that. If they were less efficacious, because they were weaker or something, I cannot see why they should not get rapid clearance. I shall not go on about this, because I must read my noble friend's very helpful remarks, or, rather, I do not know how helpful they were, but certainly explanatory remarks, between now and Christmas and make up my mind whether I want to ask more questions after Christmas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74A not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this may be a convenient time to adjourn the Committee for dinner. May I suggest that we do not return to this Committee before 8.30 p.m.? I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1984
7.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations will increase by 4 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those first satisfying all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st January 1985. They are made under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 which was debated in your Lordships' House early in 1979. While the Act does not provide for any review of the size of these payments, the Government nevertheless increased them by 40 per cent. for those first qualifying from 1st January 1983, by 5 per cent. from 1st January 1984 and now propose this increase of 4 per cent. from the beginning of next year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to review these amounts each year.
The Act covers the industrially contracted diseases of pneumoconiosis, which includes silicosis, asbestosis and kaolinosis, byssinosis and diffuse mesothelioma. Those suffering from these diseases, and the dependants of sufferers who have died from the disease, are entitled to seek compensation under civil law where they can show that the disease was caused through negligence, or breach of a statutory duty, on the part of an employer. In practice, however, it might prove difficult to pursue a claim where the employment giving rise to the disease ocurred a long time ago. In addition, the time lapse between exposure to the cause and diagnosis increases the possibility that the employer in question may have gone out of business before the sufferer becomes aware that he has a claim against that employer.
For these reasons, the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 was introduced to provide a measure of lump sum compensation for those who are unable to claim compensation in the courts because there is no employer remaining in business against whom they would have a viable claim for damages. Those who apply under the Act do not have to demonstrate that their employers have been in breach of either a statutory or common law duty.
It has never been the purpose of the Act to provide an alternative to pursuing claims through the courts in cases where there is an employer available to sue. However, the Government have done all they can to assist those who have a previous employer still in

199
business but where it could not be considered that they have a viable claim against that employer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been as generous as the Act will allow him to be.
During the past 12 months we received 100 applications in addition to 26 applications outstanding at the beginning of that period. Of these, 81 applications were approved at a total cost of over £400,000. Thirty-one applications were rejected, mainly because there was still a relevant employer still in business. Fourteen applications are at present outstanding. The total of payments made under the Act since it came into force is nearly £27 million. From this I think your Lordships will understand that the large numbers of eligible people suffering from these diseases who awaited the coming into operation of these provisions have received their compensation. We are now mainly dealing with applications from people who have been recently diagnosed. That is a brief résumé of the regulations before the House.
Your Lordships will readily understand the importance of uprating the amounts of compensation the Government pay to those sadly disabled by these diseases. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.36 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, let me say first that I am grateful to the Minister for the sympathetic manner in which he has introduced the regulations. I am also grateful, of course, for the increased amounts contained within them. These are very acceptable. I fulfilled this role about the same time last year. It may be that there will be a repeat performance by myself or someone else next year. I know that the Minister, because of his thoroughness and assiduity, will have taken the trouble to read the proceedings of the Statutory Instruments Committee that dealt with this subject on behalf of, and in, another place.
Noble Lords present will bear with me if I digress for a moment to refer to two or three of the Members who spoke during those proceedings and who obviously have a keen interest in particular matters covered by this Act. I know, as the Minister has said, that the Government have been generous and are continually keeping the situation under review. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, sitting alongside the Minister gave the undertaking last year. It is difficult to know where one could conclude this type of activity with any real conviction that one had reached the end of the road.
I refer first to Mr. James Lamond, the Member for Oldham Central and Royton in another place, who, over a number of years, has followed with great thoroughness and keenness the case of textile workers some of whom benefit from under the regulations we are discussing and some, unfortunately, who do not. I would ask the Minister to take note of the fact that there are still, as I believe—and certainly this is the case if one reads Mr. Lamond's observations—a substantial number of people in the textile industry,
200
mainly women, who are outside any benefits from the past private employer and the present private employer. Although, as the Minister said, there is the right of recourse to litigation, they are frightened of the thought of going to court and the financial implications of doing so and therefore look to someone else to care for them.
One of the sad facts is that most of the women or ladies concerned are in their twilight years. While we may not be talking in terms of large sums of money when discussing some of the individual benefits under the Act, it is right to say that for those people they would be viewed as substantial amounts indeed.
I want to refer to the dedication that Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse has shown. He is an MP for a mining area who has on three occasions attempted to introduce a Bill in another place that would bring within the ambit of these provisions the terrible disease of emphysema. As most noble Lords will know, that is a terribly regressive disease. People can retire from work possibly visibly unaffected and then the disease starts to develop and take its toll. I wish Mr. Lofthouse every success in the future. I hope and believe that when the time comes Mr. Lofthouse and people who sympathise with him will be pushing at an open door in their approaches to a Government who have shown I think great sympathy.
I have to refer also to Mr. Peter Hardy, who is the Member for Wentworth, another mining area. Over a number of years he has persistently taken an interest in this type of thing and he spoke very forcefully in the debate in another place on this matter. I think it is as well that we place on record sometimes some of this rather unsung and unpublicised work that MPs of all parties do. It never reaches the press, or the media; it is not designed to be newsworthy. But it is one of the most caring things that Members of Parliament undertake; and, as I say, I do not make any special plea for my party. It is done by members of various parties in both Houses. I think it was because of the persistence of people from all parties that Governments, irrespective of their political colour, were persuaded that society as a whole owed a debt to such people and was prepared to shoulder that burden.
I am only too delighted, of course, that the Minister has indicated that the Government will keep an open mind on this, and if they err in any way in the future, I would hope and expect that it will be on the side of generosity.
If I appear to cavil a little, it is because of what I have read in the Hansard report of what the Minister said in another place when dealing with statutory instruments. It may be that what he said was said in a different tone than appears in Hansard. That could very well be the case. For the Minister's benefit, I point out that I am talking about the third paragraph of the report—which starts, "I do not wish". I do not want to quote, other than to say that the Minister said in that paragraph:
"We all know that the Act was right, but that getting it passed was part of a deal to keep the Labour Government going for a little longer.".
If one just accepts that as it reads, it appears as though a shabby deal was done. But I can assure noble Lords—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who was involved in particular dealings at

201
that time might agree—it was not quite like that. We knew that a Labour Government could not survive indefinitely. This particular Bill, as it was then, had a priority on the stocks. The question was, when would the General Election be? When would the Government be defeated? The Government of the day did not want to trigger off a Bill that would fall because that Parliament itself was coming to an end. What happened was that approaches were made to three Members of Parliament of one of the minority parties. They thought they were getting something more than the actual Bill. They were the ones who actually threatened the passage of the Bill unless certain things were done. The Conservative Party—the Opposition at that time—to their credit did not oppose the Bill. So that really had nothing to do with what I believe the Minister has been referring to. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would concur with the facts that I have described but I think that they give the true picture.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is my recollection, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: It was not the Bill that was opposed; we were talking about three votes on something else which eventually did not matter anyway because the Government fell. I hope I have put the record right. It seems a little garbled, but that is what actually took place. I think the Bill had almost total support itself in another place at the time.
I believe that the last speech that was made in another place by the present Leader of the Opposition in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, was made on this very Bill. He made a very forceful speech, which I think convinced quite a few of the waverers that the Bill was justified and was necessary. Of course he was taken note of. Obviously the speech was made in the full knowledge that there were a lot of people in North Wales, working in the slate quarries and that type of industry, to whom the Bill related and who would benefit by it.
Having said that, I have great pleasure in saying that the 4 per cent. increase is very welcome. I have made the point that I know the Government and the Minister have given an undertaking to review this on an annual basis. I would hope that, as surely the economy starts to improve and perhaps more money is available for this type of thing, not only may the annual increase be slightly more than the current rate of inflation—to which this figure is about equal—but that we may also be able to look at the widening of the parameters relating to people who can be brought into this benefit, bearing in mind, as I have said, that most of the people involved will, I am sure, be in their twilight years. We are a caring nation and I believe that Members of all parties in another place and in this place will welcome such a development with open arms. I am grateful to the Minister for the way he moved the regulations and I close my remarks on that basis.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing these regulations. This is indeed, as has
202
already been said, an annual event, and I think a very worthy one. It is a good scheme; it is a scheme which we all applaud.
I have one small question and one slighly larger question that I should like to ask. The small one is this. Although reference has been made to the generosity of the scheme and to the generosity of the Government, can the noble Lord tell me, if this is a regular uprating, why it has been decided to uprate by 4 per cent. rather that 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent., which I think are the expected increases in inflation? If we are going to have a regular uprating it would seem sensible to uprate by the forecast for inflation. It is only a small point but, on the other hand, if you took an award, let us say, of £10,000, an increase of 4 per cent. is £400, whereas an increase of 5 per cent. is £500; so it can make a difference.
My second point is a rather more general one. As the noble Lord will be aware, much more valuable research has been commissioned into diseases of the lungs and respiratory tract by the Medical Research Council. Would he not agree that properly funded medical research might go a long way to reducing these problems in the future and also, in fact, to reducing the requirements to draw on this fund? Will he therefore ask his right honourable friend to make sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Science keeps this in mind when assessing the Science Vote?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their reception of these regulations which I have just laid before the House. May I touch on one or two points? Yes, I do so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that there are many Members in another place who, unsung, pursue the interests of those less fortunate than ourselves, and that, of course, is absolutely creditable. It does not really matter what party they belong to, since the 1979 Act had the serious and intended support of all parties.
In regard to the difference between the spoken word and the written word, it is perhaps easy for those who were in another place in 1979, or, indeed in your Lordships' House at that time, when we first debated the Act, to remember what was really meant and intended; and so, although the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made a small quotation, I do not think he really expects me to pick that one up.
When one is talking about the efforts of Members of another place, and, indeed, others, I should like to remind your Lordships that the Act was originally introduced to provide lump-sum payments to those suffering from these certain dust-induced diseases, which are all characterised by so long a period. When a suitable opportunity arises, we hope to amend the Act so that additions may be made by regulations to the list of diseases. While the Government will consider seriously any requests for an extension to the list of diseases in the Act, the immediate purpose of this action is to maintain the original intention of Parliament by extending the Act to cover the two asbestos-related diseases which formed the subject of an announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 16th March.
In regard to the extension, I understand that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has undertaken

203
to study and report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Of course, neither the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, nor the noble Lord, Lord Dean, would expect me to comment upon that until the council reports to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke about the figure of 4 per cent. I am sure he will recall that these amounts are calculated during September. Movement in the retail price index between January and August was 3.7 per cent. From January to 16th October, it was 4.4 per cent. It might well reach 5 per cent. by the end of the year. But it is necessary to start preparing the statutory instrument in September if it is to be laid in draft early in November so that it may become effective in January of the year following. It is for those reasons that the figure of 4 per cent. was reached. I think this looks right for this current year's review, which will be paid on 1st January. As I have said—I now confirm—the amounts of these payments will be reviewed during 1985.
I will of course give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that I will pass on to my right honourable friend his comments with regard to medical research. I do not think he would ask me to do any more than that. Finally, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their acceptance of this Motion and for the sincerity with which they have spoken on this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 until 8.30 p.m.]

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert—
(" ( ) In contemplating any regulations made under this section for the approval of pesticides, the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of maximizing—

(a) the scope for users of pesticides to improve the cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and flexibility of pest control operations; and

(b) the scope for the development and adoption of new technologies, including pesticide application techniques, together with integrated pest management.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to ensure that the Bill will take a positive, progressive attitude to both new technology and new pesticides instead of being like Nanny and continually saying; "No". The first half of the amendment would ensure that the Minister through, I suppose, ACP—or maybe Lord John-Mackie's quango, suggested in his Amendment No. 120—would encourage new pesticides and formulations by stating on the label the
204
range of the timing, the application methods and what I call the "wetters" that should be applied.
I am particularly worried about tank mixes. The problem here is that company 'A' will be inclined to recommend tank mixing only for their own product when it may be perfectly possible, or even better, to tank mix products belonging to company 'B'. This amendment would make it necessary for the Minister to state on the label "cross company" tank mixes. Perhaps I could give an example of the problem. The wetter, Frigate, which is produced by Farm Protection, mixed with Round-up, which is produced by Monsanto, cuts down the Round-up rate very, very considerably, Frankly, I cannot see Monsanto recommending such a tank mix. Yet it is to the farmers' benefit, and indeed to the benefit of environmentalists.
On the other side of the story I have to say—and this is what I put to my noble friend Lord Belstead—that there is a danger sometimes of some wetters making a perfectly harmless pesticide somewhat dangerous to those who handle the product when it is mixed. Under this amendment the label could also state whether chemical 'A' is more efficacious than chemical 'B'. I see an important role here for my noble friend in asking ADAS, NIAE, and indeed NIAB, about this particular problem.
The second half of the amendment will have a similar influence on the application devices—sprayers. We have discussed CDA and electrostatic sprayers and the problem of this Bill stifling further advances in more efficient application. I believe that at present there are only 20 products that are approved for CDA use although the farmer may at his own risk use other products. But after the passing of this Bill he would be breaking the law in so doing. I am asking who will buy a new-type sprayer—and I just cite CDA as an example—when he can only use 20 products? If that were to happen it would stifle innovation. I hope that this amendment will certainly help. It certainly allows me to raise the problem with my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Let me reassure my noble friend that the Government are conscious of the need of users to have as much flexibility as possible in their application of pesticides and our intention is that they should retain that flexibility. We are taking powers to control the use of pesticides and we shall impose conditions on use which are essential for the safety of users, other people, creatures and the environment. Our Statement of Intention at paragraph 11 gives an indication of our ideas on this.
There will be a general requirement on users to act safely. At the moment our ideas on what is safe use are conveyed through the labels on the pesticide products. If I may say so, my noble friend made an important point when he pointed out that so few products at the moment are said to be suitable for controlled droplet application. It would be fair for me to say on behalf of the Government that labels at the moment very often place too many restrictions and it is necessary to try to see that there are wider ways of application of products so that we may push the boundaries of technology forwards in order to improve safety and, indeed, to improve the operations of the farmer.

205
Over a transitional period we shall be reviewing labels to ensure that unnecessary restrictions are removed. We shall also be giving guidance on safe use through advisory booklets and codes of practice, on which of course we shall consult the industry. We hope that we can deal with new application techniques in this way.
Coming to another very important aspect of this amendment, we are also considering how to ensure that pesticides which are approved for only major crops can be approved for minor crops also. There are several options as to how this could be done and when we feel that we have hit on the right one we shall certainly be consulting the industry about it, and we shall certainly be receptive to any suggestions made to us.
The noble Lord asked me a direct question about mixing on the farm. From the outset of this legislation farmers will be required to act safely and they could be prosecuted for a blatantly dangerous mix. They must, therefore, act with care in their interests and in those of everyone else. Over time we shall evolve codes of practice and other illustrative material which will supplement product labels and express more clearly the established view of what is and what is not safe.
I welcome the objectives of my noble friend in this amendment. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I think that the terms of the amendment really are a bit too specific to be binding over the long term for legislation of this sort. Moreover, there are one or two expressions in the amendment which are probably not suitable for legislation. I would like in spirit to accept all that is said in the amendment, but I must confess that I would prefer not to write it into the Bill.
Lord Melchett: With a view to speeding matters up and as both noble Lords have touched on the availability of pesticides for minor crops, I should like to say a few words about my Amendment No. 108A, and then I shall not need to delay the Committee when we reach it in the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Testing of pesticides.
(". Ministers or the Advisory Committee on Pesticides may, for the purposes of determining whether to approve any pesticide, request such tests to be carried out by or on behalf of any person seeking such approval as appear necessary to ensure sufficient pesticides are available for use on minor crops.")
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about the availability of pesticides for minor crops. I just want to put to him—and this is what Amendment No. 108A seeks to achieve—that the only sensible way in which to ensure that sufficient pesticides are available for minor crops will be to insist that the manufacturers do the necessary testing when they apply for clearance. I would not expect the noble Lord to give an answer to that point tonight. He has said that he will look at the best way in which to ensure the availability of pesticides. For myself, I cannot see any alternative other than to require manufacturers to submit the necessary test data as decided on by the advisory committee or by Ministers. I hope that the noble Lord will take that on board when looking at this point and I shall not then move Amendment No. 108A when we reach it.
Lord Belstead: I do take that point on board. This is a most important aspect of the Bill and one which, in the interests of horticulture, we must take with the very greatest seriousness. I should like to look carefully at what the noble Lord has said as well as at what my noble friend has been saying on this particular amendment.
Lord Northbourne: It seems that we are also dealing with Amendment No. 76, and it may perhaps be convenient to take that amendment now.
Amendment No. 76: Page 14, line 14, at end insert—
(" ( ) In contemplating any regulations made under this section for the approval of pesticides, the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of

(a) maximising the range of crops and pests for which pesticides are approved; and

(b) ensuring that approval is extended without delay to substantially similar uses.")

Minor crops divide themselves into two categories. There is the category of minor crops which has a great similarity to an existing crop which has approval. To give an example, we grow green broccoli or calabrese. I believe that certain chemicals have not been approved for those vegetables, though the same chemicals have been approved for brussels sprouts and ordinary cauliflower. In that case it would seem that something similar to the rapid approval scheme, which is being used for imported chemicals, might be appropriate. There are other crops which are perhaps more recherché which have no equivalents in the major crop approval list, and those are the cases where perhaps the manufacturers might have to be required to go to the expense of making special provision.
Lord Monk Bretton: Both Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 deal with a very difficult subject. I support in principle my noble friend Lord Stanley's amendment, Amendment No. 75, and Amendment No. 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. My noble friend the Minister has also expressed an excellent earnest of good intention about the whole matter. There is anxiety among many people that possibly something more might be included in the Bill to try to define matters a little further, which is a difficult thing to do. The fear is that the users will be too rigidly tied to equally rigid instructions on the can and, the wish is that instructions should be more in the nature of statements setting out limits within which pesticides may be used in order to keep flexibility. Again, that is easier said than done.
So long as safety is not placed at risk, farmers should be given the maximum scope to improve cost-effectiveness, timeliness and flexibility; the manufacturer's instructions should feature as part of a statement setting out the limits within which a pesticide may be used, the label specifying the complete range of timing, application methods, tank mixes, proprietary adjuvants, etc. Without flexibility of this kind the very important innovative role played by farmers could be lost. The test required of manufacturers should be broadened to produce results which enable new technology or practices to be immediately assessed to ensure that labels take full account of new developments such as integrated pest management, which may reduce dependency on pesticides.

207
For instance, who will say that this or that spraying machine should or should not come on to the market; or, particularly, who will have the duty to give effect to the Minister's willingness to encourage new technology? I believe it is most important that someone should be specifically in charge of this. I wonder what proposals the Minister may have as to who this will be.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may answer the specific question which my noble friend has put to me. It is a fact that we have been assuring the industry that we are conscious of the need to make allowances for the continued development of pesticides which are to be used by farmers and growers on minor crops, and we are considering various ways of implementing that assurance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in an amendment (Amendment No. 108A) which he has very helpfully taken with this one, has put forward one option, which is compulsion. Another would be in some way to provide farmers and growers with direct access to the approval process; in other words, so that growers could make direct representations to those who are responsible for giving approval, perhaps through the good offices of ADAS. Those are two suggestions as to how one might go about this.
However, what is certain is that we must try to ensure what my noble friend Lord Stanley said in moving his amendment: we must try to do away with the restrictions on products for the good of farmers and growers and indeed use in general.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Would the noble Lord the Minister make clear to me what he means by that? Does he mean that before a farmer can innovate anything it must be on the label and approved and tested by the company or the commercial concern that produced it? That seems to me to be sensible. However, if that is the case, it rather does away with innovation.
Lord Melchett: As the noble Lord the Minister referred to me, perhaps I may make this point. The difference between what the noble Lord said about farmers and growers themselves having access and what my amendment suggests, which is that manufacturers should be obliged to do it, is not so much the difference between a voluntary scheme and a compulsory scheme, but the difference between farmers and growers paying the costs of obtaining the clearance, and under my amendment the manufacturers paying the costs. Surely that is the distinction that we need to bear in mind.
Lord Belstead: It may be; I think that we must see how we go. There are certainly two options and the noble Lord has put them very clearly. My answer off-the-cuff to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is that he has put his finger on the problem in the sense that, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, there are products where there is a restriction where perhaps there does not need to be a restriction. The obvious example is that a particular product may be said to be suitable only for use by controlled droplet application but it could also be suitable for use by
208
hydraulic process, or the other way round. Here we must try to see whether we cannot extend the freedom and remove the restrictions wherever possible.
Perhaps I may return to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made. As to how we do it is for further consideration. We have spoken about two options this evening. Perhaps the answers lie there; perhaps they lie elsewhere. I freely confess that the Government have not yet made up their mind; they are still listening. This is an important area.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and also for the fact that we have dealt with two more amendments: Amendment No. 108A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and Amendment No. 76, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, dealing with minor crops. I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Belstead saying that there might be a case for farmers making a direct approach, say, to ADAS to clear certain chemicals.
I have in mind one other small problem that perhaps my noble friend could take away. It concerns old chemicals which nobody is particularly interested in having re-approved. I fear that these may go out of production and they may still be very useful in minor crops; yet if the charge is too high—and perhaps this is the point that my noble friend would take away—and the amount used is very small, no one will bother to register these chemicals. Perhaps my noble friend would consider that point along with the others.
I was particularly pleased to have my noble friend's reaction to this amendment. It was very helpful. I like the idea of wider recommendations on labels. This will be most important. I liked his remark—and I hope that no one will shout at me—that the purpose will be to limit blatantly dangerous mixes. Of course we all agree on that. It is the innocent mix which we want to continue to make. I now understand why my noble friend is proceeding through regulations. He spoke about a continuing dialogue with the industry. The further I go through the Bill the more I understand why he is having to do this. He has been most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 14, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Where it appears to Ministers that substances approved for application under section 15(1)(g) above may affect the health or safety of persons at work they may require that such applications be made only by or under the supervision of licensed operators after a preparatory period of five years.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister's remarks in reply to the last amendment illustrates the need for a great deal of training and for some form of licensing of the operator. Every tractor driver must have a licence to drive his tractor, and that is not nearly such a dangerous occupation as spraying. We should progress towards definite training courses and towards a system of licensing the operator within five years, or some such period.
It seems illogical to have the discussion we have had here today and to say that anyone, untrained and

209
unlicensed, may apply these chemicals which we are taking such care to discuss and to legislate on. It must come. It is probably the most dangerous operation on the farm. We have all admitted the difficulties. It appears to me logical that ultimately—and not in the far future, but within a number of years—we should have a training and licensing course for people who are operating with these dangerous chemicals. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: Our Amendment No. 88 is on very much the same lines as my noble kinsman's amendment.
Amendment No. 88: Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) After a period of 4 years from the passing of this Act all spraying on areas over 0·5 of a hectare must be done by an operator trained and in possession of a certificate of his competence. It will be the duty of the Minister to see that training facilities are available.").
We spell it out and say:
"After a period of 4 years from the passing of this Act all spraying on areas over 0·5 of a hectare must be done by an operator trained and in possession of a certificate of his competence."
That is essential. Then we add:
"It will be the duty of the Minister to see that training facilities are available."
Spraying is probably the most skilled operation on the farm in many ways, as well as being a dangerous one if not done properly. I do not think that any farmer could object to sending his tractor driver, or drivers, to be properly trained, so that this operation, which is important to us all and requires great skill, should be carried out by someone with that skill and a certificate for it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): I should have reminded the Committee that if either this amendment or the next is agreed I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 79 or Amendment No. 80.
The Earl of Onslow: It is worth pointing out that tractor drivers do not have to have a licence to drive a tractor except when on the highway. I think there is an age limit on children not being allowed on tractors, but in fact one does not have to have a licence to drive perhaps a caterpillar tractor towing a six-wheel, six furrow plough accross Leicestershire, when one may just fall asleep at a hedgerow and just trundle, trundle on, as happened to an acquaintance of mine.
It is important that there should be a high level of skill in the operative. Perhaps only craftsmen on a craftsman's scale of pay should be allowed to use machinery such as this. This might cover it without the necessity of going into a separate licensing and training scheme. That is just an idea which I float.
Lord Melchett: As I understand it, there is such a licensing scheme and training of operators in the United States and Canada which works well. This was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which, while recognising the high standard of operator efficiency on farms in the United Kingdom, recommended that a training and licensing system should be introduced to ensure that those high
210
standards continue. I would certainly support this amendment.
I understand from looking at the Notes on Clauses that there is already power in the Bill to introduce such a training requirement. I am not clear whether the powers in the Bill would allow the Government to introduce a training and licensing requirement so that an operator, as the amendment suggests, had to be licensed presumably by the Government or some body acting on their behalf. I am not clear from what has been said so far whether the Government intend to introduce such a requirement. I understand the power is there at least to require training. Is the power there to require licensing of operators as well as training, and do the Government intend to do this, clearly after consultation with all concerned?
Lord Northbourne: I support the suggestion that there should be training and some form of licensing, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that on the smaller farming unit this might produce almost intractable practical problems. If you have two or perhaps three tractor drivers on the farm and one of them is licensed but happens to fall ill, does this mean that you cannot spray anything on your farm until he gets better again? It may be that the solution is somewhere on the lines of a licensed manager, rather in the way that you have to have a manager for heavy transport of goods, rather than simply a licensed operator.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: We cover that by saying:
"or under the supervision of licensed operators".
Earl Ferrers: Just for fear that one may be in a minority of one, may I say that I hope my noble friend will not accept this amendment. It is reasonable to want a high degree of skill; it is reasonable that people should be trained. But when you have to license individual farm workers for doing special jobs of work, that is carrying bureaucracy and interference to a degree which would be unacceptable and impractical, not least for the reasons which the last speaker mentioned.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I would support my noble friend Lord Ferrers on this and add: what about the unfortunate small farmer who does not have time to do all these things? There are probably 100,000 people spraying each day. It could be a fair bureaucratic madness. Having said that, I go along with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie: they certainly should be trained, but paper qualifications, I doubt.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers and to the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Northbourne, for their words of caution about making training and licensing mandatory. Although the answer to Lord Melchett's question is that the power is in the Bill for licensing, in their reply to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Seventh Report, the Government said that we did not propose to introduce official licensing arrangements. However, I join with all your Lordships in believing that training is important even though, again, we would not wish to make it mandatory. The Agricultural Training Board, which is of course considerably

211
supported by Government funds, last year trained some 2,648 trainees attending 371 ATB courses covering a whole variety of aspects such as legislation, records, handling of pesticides, storage and disposal, protective clothing, pesticides appropriate to horticultural crops, and so on, and including the problems of drift. Your Lordships will know as well as I do that there is the requirement for craft certificates for spraying courses.
Having said that, may I make one plea on this amendment? For goodness sake do not lose subsection (4), which the amendment would strike out! It is helpful to have the requirement to consult the Health and Safety Commission on the Bill because of the closeness of the Commission's involvement in our present work and the major role of the Health and Safety Executive in the enforcement of Part III. I hope I have said enough to show that we are trying to pull in exactly the same direction as the noble Lords who have moved this amendment, even though I must admit I have not accepted it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord has not even encouraged it. It is all very well to say that some 3,000 people have been trained to a degree, but there are many more farm workers and small farmers and large farmers who do not know nearly enough about the dangers of mixing, spraying, quantities, and everything else. As for the argument of the noble Earl that by all means let us train them but do not let us give them any certificates, I suppose he would like to go back in time and not even license commercial air pilots. If you followed the noble Earl's argument to its logical conclusion, you would not license anyone: you would simply say that if they are trained, that is all right.
In fact, a time must come quite soon when we have to license as well as train people. It is all very well to train them, but if the man is an absolute idiot does one say that because he has gone through the course and failed it completely he should then proceed to use these dangerous sprays? I think that the answer is not up to the usual standard of foresight of the Minister. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I do not say that we will not bring it forward at a later stage.
9 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: Before my noble kinsman withdraws this amendment, I should like to say that it seems quite ridiculous that all through this Bill there has run the thread of the great dangers of spraying; through every amendment that has been brought forward has been about the controls we must have and the dangers against which we have to do everything possible; but when it comes to the crunch, the man who has to put on that spray, oh no. You can train him if you like, but as my noble kinsman says he could be a complete idiot and fail the training; nevertheless, he may go home and work a spray. I do not think that the Government are being rational about this at all.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If I may just take up a remark made by the noble Lord, it is not just the spray operator but the boss—he who tells the operator what to do. It is he who has to be trained, not the operator; the can falls on the farmer. If he is uneducated or poor he is poor, but not the operator.
Lord Collison: May I make one comment? It is a long time since I was chairman of the Agriculture Apprenticeship Council, and a long time since I had any close relationship with the Agricultural Training Board, but is this not the situation: if the Agricultural Training Board takes this as one of the items of training given to its candidates, they would receive a certificate at the end of the training indicating that they had been trained in this direction, would they not?
Lord Belstead: The certificate is, of course, for the craftsman's certificate. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, is correct. In addition to that there are the ATB courses. When I said that a number in excess of 2,600 had been trained last year, that is in one year. The training goes on year by year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am pleased to say that in about 40 years everyone will have been trained, but that might be a little too long. I still consider that the reply is rather unsatisfactory, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 14, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) If any Regulations the Ministers contemplate making will, or are likely to, affect the health or safety of persons at work it shall be the duty of the Ministers to consult with and obtain the agreement of the Health and Safety Commission, the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances Sub-Committee of the Health and Safety Executive and the Chemicals in Agriculture Sub-Committee of the Agriculture Industry Advisory Committee.").
The noble Lord said: I will not detain the Committee long on this amendment. It is simply an amendment to safeguard further the health and safety of people in relation to spray by extending the consultation and obtaining the agreement of the three bodies mentioned in the amendment. It is essential to obtain agreement. It is all very well to consult, but agreement should be obtained and the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances Sub-Committee of the Health and Safety Executive and the Chemicals in Agriculture Sub-Committee should be consulted as well. I beg to move.
Lord Collison: I shall not detain your Lordships very long at this late hour, but I want to say a word about this amendment, which I strongly support. Perhaps I am the only one in your Lordships House who has worked as an agricultural worker, but it is certainly true that for many years I was general secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers—which is now the Agricultural and Allied Workers' National Trade Group of the Transport and General Workers' Union.
For many years the union has campaigned for a radical and far-reaching reappraisal of the current system to ensure the safety of those using pesticides and, in particular, of agricultural workers—especially necessary if one takes into account the huge increase in the numbers and the uses of pesticides, some involving, as we all know, toxic substances, both taken in through the skin and through breathing the air.
Your Lordships will agree that the union is a legitimate body to take up these issues in the interests

213
of the health of agricultural workers. One of its major campaigns has been to get the use of the weedkiller 2.4.5-T banned. The Trades Union Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution to that effect. It also called for the Health and Safety Commission to take over the responsibility of decisions on the safety and control of pesticides.
To date nothing has come of that, unfortunately, and nothing has been done about the use of 2.4.5-T, despite the evidence brought forward by the union and despite the fact, as I understand it, that its use has been banned in a number of other countries including Italy, Holland, the United States of America and Sweden.
The union contends and has brought to notice some evidence that 2.4.5-T has been known to cause cancer, birth deformities, liver damage and other ill effects. I should like to see what the amendment asks for, that is decisions taken under the umbrella of the Health and Safety Commission. Therefore, I strongly endorse the wording of the amendment which calls for,
"Ministers to consult with and obtain the agreement of the Health and Safety Commission"—
and the other bodies mentioned in the amendment in making regulations. I believe and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the legitimate representatives of the interested groups should be consulted, and not least the Agricultural and Allied Trade Group of the Transport and General Workers' Union.
I promised not to take up your Lordships' time. I could make a long speech on this subject, but it is quite clear to us all, and I think accepted by us all, that health is a precious commodity and must not be jeopardised. Those involved in the use of these pesticides, the workers as well as the farmers and others, should have protection. In so far as these new regulations will give protection, I welcome them. For those brief reasons I fully support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie.
The Earl of Onslow: It appears to me that not only the amendment but the clause itself has something rather odd about it:
"If it appears to the Ministers that any regulations which they contemplate making are likely to affect the health or safety of persons at work … ".
This means to me that they will make a regulation which will make people sick or be unsafe. That is what it means to me in plain simple English. They should not be making regulations like that at all. Could my noble friend explain?
Lord Melchett: I have two amendments down on the same point—Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. Needless to say, my noble friend Lord John-Mackie and my noble friend Lady Nicol have a better amendment so I shall not be moving my two amendments when we get to them. I strongly support their amendment. The answer to the noble Earl is that if the Government were taking a much more stringent look at pesticides, for which some of us have been arguing throughout the course of this Bill so far, they may not need to make use of this. But they are going to be approving a number of things which will be very dangerous. They will be dangerous if people happen to be standing under an aeroplane which is spraying them and they will be dangerous for the operators.
214
There will be rules requiring the operators to wear rubber gloves, to wear overalls, to wear rubber boots, eye goggles, respirators, and so on. On our farms, as I am sure the noble Earl is well aware, we use a number of substances which are extremely dangerous and extremely toxic. That, unfortunately, will have to continue. I accept that at least some of that will have to continue although, I think that a good deal less needs to continue than the Government currently contemplate. But in those circumstances, they need to consult with those concerned about the health and safety of people at work. I believe that we still have large gaps in our knowledge about the effects of these sorts of substances on people who handle them frequently. There is the long-running campaign about 245T, the fact that it has actually been banned in a number of other developed countries, though not in this.
I accept that scientists of reasonable goodwill have looked at this question but they have come to different conclusions in different industrialised countries about the same chemical on the basis of very much the same—if not identical—data. We are therefore not dealing with certainties but with a great deal of uncertainty, uncertainty which affects people's future health, their children's health and the health of the general public. In those circumstances, the wider the consultation and the wider the measure of agreement about dangerous chemicals, the better. I hope for that reason that the Government will, at long last see fit to accept at least one amendment on this part of the Bill.
Lord Belstead: I do not think that there is any mystery about subsection (4) so far as the question asked by my noble friend Lord Onslow; that is, that if you are dealing with (as Lord Melchett says) products which are toxic, then under subsection (4) it will very frequently be the case that the Health and Safety Executive will need to be consulted. As that subsection is drafted in the way it is, there will be a duty therefore to consult the Health and Safety Commission. That would not prevent the Commission from itself consulting its own subcommittees or indeed anyone else.
Therefore, if I may say so, I do not see the need to list the other various bodies here. I would go further than that and point out that if these amendments were to be made they would give the Commission greater powers under this Bill than they enjoy under the Health and Safety at Work Act itself. Particularly in view of the fact that we have subsection (4) firmly in the Bill, I think that the balance so far as consulting the Health and Safety Commission is about right.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall not embark on 245T this evening although I have listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Collison, and Lord Melchett, have said and even though I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collison, on this because the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has looked on more than one occasion at 245T and has not reached the same conclusion as the union. Nonetheless, it is a pleasure to have the noble Lord taking part in our debates. The noble Lord's experience is probably greater than that of anybody else in the Committee. I wish that I was not speaking at variance with him on this particular amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The regulations shall provide for the prohibition of non-agricultural uses of pesticide preparations formulated for use in agriculture.").
The noble Lord said: We have been approached by various people that pesticides, in the full use of the word, are rather too available to anybody who cares to use them. I must confess to doing something which this amendment would prevent me doing. The noble Earl in the middle of summer asked me if I knew how to get rid of couch in his garden. I went home and filled a bottle of Round-up, put a label on it and gave him a list of instructions. Then I realised that I had given him enough to do all the gardens in the town in which he lives. I am not sure that this amendment would apply to me but there is something to be said for some regulation that prevents anybody from buying pesticides without giving a good reason for it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: One thing that has worried me far more than the use in agriculture, although our methods are improving, is the totally unrestricted use which may be made of pesticides in gardens all over the country. They are much more likely to be over-used there by people who get sore backs from weeding than they are in agriculture. I do not know the answer to how this is going to be controlled. Certainly, one can insist (and indeed there are regulations) that everything is labelled and all the dangers are pointed out. The Minister's thoughts on this will be extremely interesting and I have no doubt that his accumulated wisdom will provide an answer to what I regard as this highly dangerous situation of the unrestricted use in gardens.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I make no secret of the fact that the Government take the point that both noble Lords have made so far as safety is concerned. This amendment clearly touches very closely upon the possible dangers of breaking down large packs of agricultural pesticides and putting them into containers or bags so that sometimes users have little idea as to how strong the pesticides are or even sometimes what they are and how they should be used. There is a difficulty—and I think that in a way the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in moving the amendment, indicated it—in that sometimes there are genuine reasons why one wants to include the non-agricultural use of pesticide preparations. Perhaps I may go on from the noble Lord's particular situation to say that there are the institutional but non-domestic users of pesticides, like local authorities, transport undertakings and indeed forestry concerns and so on. They would be affected by this amendment. So, with respect, I do not think that the amendment, as drafted at the moment, really will do. If the noble Lord wishes to give further thought to the very important aspect of safety, perhaps we can return to it at another stage.
Lord John-Mackie: In view of the Minister's reply, I think we should return to it at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 14, line 18., at end insert—
("( ) The Minister shall consult with the manufacturers of pesticides and the manufacturers of spray equipment on any aspect of the regulations that may affect them.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment says that,
"The Minister shall consult with the manufacturers of pesticides and the manufacturers of spray equipment on any aspect of the regulations that may affect them."
We put down the amendment because the manufacturers of spray equipment make the very real point that you can have all the sprays you like, but if you do not have suitable machinery for putting it on, the sprays are not worth a lot. They were slightly miffed that they were not consulted during the consultations undertaken before this Bill was drafted. The main point I want to make is that the manfacturers of spray equipment must be consulted along with the manufacturers of the actual pesticides. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, if we have in any way slipped up with the manufacturers of spray equipment in particular, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has certainly made sure that we put that right by ensuring that the consultations which I keep saying we are going to hold—I thought it was for the second time round—will most certainly be held. I think, with respect, there is a difficulty about this amendment, because it is not just the manufacturers of spray equipment who are involved. There are many other people who we are genuinely consulting and if we were to include them, we would need an enormously long list. I except from that, of course, the Health and Safety Commission, which we have already been talking about. They are in an important position with regard to this Bill, both on grounds of safety and because the commission officers are going to be responsible for the enforcement powers in Part III. But, with that exception, if we then start to pick out particular private interests, we get into difficulties.
Lord John-Mackie: I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) In any regulations that the Ministers contemplate making under subsection (1) above they shall ensure that, subject to their approval in each case, any person engaged in research and development relating to pesticides shall be exempt from any prohibitions on the import, sale, supply and use of pesticides so far as may be necessary for those purposes.").
The noble said: The wording of this amendment is, I think, fairly self-evident. It is obvious that research establishments would have some sort of exclusion under the Bill, and the purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that, subject to the approval of the Minister, others who are legitimately involved in creative research on pesticides and their application should also, through some formula, have similar exemption. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for expanding this amendment and I assure him that, in drafting the Bill, we bore in mind the position of research workers. I believe that Clause 15(1)(a),(b) and (c) together already enable us to cover this issue. I believe it is fair to say that since Amendment No. 83 was tabled, we circulated our statement of intention on the regulations which explains, in paragraph 2(c), how we propose to deal with this factor.
In the first instance, it is our intention—subject to what your Lordships and another place have to say on this Bill—that persons testing substances for possible pesticide activity on their own premises will not be required to seek approval for those tests, provided the materials are handled by their own staff only. Secondly, it would be our intention that persons who have discovered a possible new pesticide or new uses for an old pesticide and who wish to try out their ideas on a larger scale will be required to seek approval for the use that they propose. Persons in those circumstances would normally be granted a trials permit which will specify how much of the pesticide they could use on how much land, and what safety precautions must be taken. Additional conditions—such as the burning of any plants treated with the material—would be imposed where appropriate.
This amendment has I hope provided an opportunity for the Government to lay out in rather more detail what it is that we intend here. I hope the Committee do not mind me saying what it is that we intend because at the same time of course we are endeavouring to listen to what is being said to us.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, replies, if my noble friend Lord Belstead is referring to paragraph 2(c) of the intended regulations—which I believe he was to some extent—then, from what he has just said, it seems to me that that regulation will be too narrow. Perhaps my noble friend will reconsider that particular part of the regulations to see if it should not be made a little wider.
Lord Northbourne: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his assurances and, subject to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has just made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 84, I should advise your Lordships that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 85 or 86.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84:
Page 14, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
(" (5) Either the Ministers, the Accepting Departments or persons or organisations having an interest in or involvement with pesticides may require to be made available information by importers, exporters, many acturers, distributors or users—").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wished to deal with Amendments Nos. 84, 86, 105 and 112 together. However, before I received the Minister's note, we on this side had
218
decided not to move Amendment No. 84 because we were happy with the amendment of my noble kinsman and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson; that is, Amendment No. 86.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 14, line 19, leave out ("provision") and insert ("publication").
The noble Lord said: We regard this as being an important amendment because subsection (5) is very important in itself. Quite simply, we do not see why only Ministers should require the provision of information. We believe that such information should be widely available to responsible and irresponsible bodies if they want to check on the safety of any product.
There seems to be no reason for restricting that information, outside a commercial reason. Yet surely all these processes must be protected by patent. They take a long time to formulate; the tests go on for years. They are mostly protected, I would have thought, and at any rate a firm in opposition can, once a successful product comes on to the market, discover by analysis and other means exactly how it is formulated. I therefore see no objection to publication of the information required.
I see no reason why other bodies should not be able to check on the safety of products as well as official bodies. It surely must be right that we have freedom of information in a matter that vitally affects everyone in this country. Far more information is available in the United States on tests and formulations. In fact, information can be obtained in the United States which is restricted in this country. I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister's reply as to why the word "provision" should not be left out and the word "publication" inserted. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I believe it is the intention to take my Amendment No. 105 with this amendment, according to the note which the noble Lord the Minister sent round. If so, I am happy to agree and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to it now.
Amendment No. 105: After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of pesticide test data.
.—(1) Ministers shall disclose on request, any data and information supplied for the purposes of securing or retaining approval of a pesticide, where—

(i) it concerns the objectives, methodology, results, or significance of any test, experiment or survey conducted for the purposes of determining the efficacy of any pesticide or the effects of any pesticide or of any ingredient, impurity or product of the degradation of any pesticide, upon health, flora or fauna or the environment, including information relating to the persistence, metabolism and fate of the pesticide in the environment; and

(ii) it is supplied to a department or authority for the purpose of obtaining or retaining any safety clearance or registration, required by or under any enactment or otherwise, permitting the sale or use of any pesticide, or for the purpose of obtaining or retaining any official approval or certification of efficacy given by a department or authority, whether or not required by or under any enactment or otherwise.

(2) Any department or authority responsible for the granting of any clearance, registration, approval or certification referred to in subsection (1)(ii) above shall not grant any such clearance, registration, approval or certification based on information of the kind described in subsection (1)(ii) above, unless—

(i) the information is the product of tests or experiments conducted by or on behalf of or at the expense of the person making the application; or

(ii) the person making the application has obtained the consent to use the information of the person by or on whose behalf or at whose expense such tests or experiments were conducted; or

(iii) the information has previously been made publicly available without restrictions of any kind, other than information supplied as described in subsection (1)(ii) above and disclosed under the provisions of this Act.").

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I think that my Amendment No. 105, while aimed at exactly the same objective, makes a serious attempt to safeguard the information which would be of commercial importance to manufacturers. Amendment No. 105 does that in subsection (2), which makes clear that anyone who attempts to pirate information which has been disclosed under the provisions of subsection (1) would not be able to use it to gain any commercial advantage; in other words, such information, if it was gleaned by a competitor, could not be submitted to the authorities to gain clearance for a rival product.
That is an important point because it should be stressed—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said this himself—that all of those who support greater access to information on this subject accept the need for commercial interests to be safeguarded. I do not think any of us want to see those interests damaged. Certainly no farmers do, because all that that would be likely to do is put up the cost of pesticides or dry up the provision of new products, many of which promise to be safer and of more benefit to the environment than are existing pesticides.
The purpose of my amendment in particular is to allow for the controlled disclosure of the data submitted by manufacturers to the Government in order to obtain approval for their pesticide product. It would have the effect of providing the public and independent scientists outside the Government machinery with the information they require to form a view about the safety and efficacy of a pesticide. It would place a duty on the Government to disclose such information on request. However, as I have said, it would safeguard genuine commercial interests.
I accept, as the statement of intention from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says, that there are powers in the Bill as it stands, described in paragraphs 4 and 14 of the statement of intention, to make available to the public information obtained by them. The Government say that the degree of disclosure would be a matter for consultation with all the interests involved. It is fair to say that that has been the story of the Bill so far, but this is too important a matter to be left to those outside Parliament. Disclosure of information to the public about dangerous and toxic substances is not, with respect to the noble Lord, something which can be left to consultations with the industry, agricultural interests, environmentalists, and so on, outside Parliament. It is surely a matter of such public concern and importance that Parliament
220
should be allowed to make a decision on it, and the degree of disclosure. Indeed, the threat to commercial interests is such that Parliament should be given an opportunity to ensure that those are safeguarded on the face of the Bill.
The need for statutory provision seems to be two-fold. First of all—the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and I had a brief exchange on this, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, supported what I had to say—many pesticides are extremely dangerous and toxic, and will continue to be so. Many substances are subject to considerable public controversy, and 245T has already been mentioned in that respect. Many of the substances are a subject of disagreement between different national governments; for example, between West Germany and ourselves, and between ourselves and the United States. Different decisions are taken about the same substances, about the good sense of using them in the environment and about the likely effects on the health of human beings today and in generations to come.
9.30 p.m.
In those circumstances it seems to me vital that as much information as possible is made available to the public so that they can make a decision. It is, after all, an extremely closed system. Manufacturers submit data to a small group of scientists, albeit independent of the Ministry but serviced by Ministry officials, who then make decisions on these matters.
The second argument in favour of such a proposal as I have suggested in Amendment No. 105 is that a good deal of that information is slowly but surely becoming available from the United States, because there there is such a provision. So far as I know, it mirrors more or less exactly what I am putting in Amendment No. 105. It is possible for interested individuals or organisations in this country to apply to the United States and to obtain that data, some of it on chemicals which are used in this country and some of it, indeed, data which have been used to gain clearance of chemicals used in this ountry. In those circumstances it seems to me to be vital for Parliament to say that that should happen here, and on what basis it should happen. That is what Amendment No. 105 would do. I hope that an amendment along those lines will prove acceptable to the Government.
Earl Peel: I should very much like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said. In doing so, I am technically speaking, I suppose, to Amendment No. 112 to which I have put my name.
Amendment No. 112: after Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Register.
(1) The Ministers shall require such organisation as they consider appropriate to maintain (in accordance with regulations) a register containing prescribed particulars of any—

(a) application for approval made under section 15(1)(b);

(b) notice of such approval and the conditions to which the approval is subject;

(c) notice of review, revocation or suspension of any such approval;

(d) details of the findings of any review under paragraph (c) above;

(e) levels of pesticide or pesticides residue permitted in crops, food or feeding stuff under section 15(1)(g); and

(f) physical, biological and toxicological properties of any pesticide subject to testing for the purposes of determining whether or not to approve it or whether any conditions should be imposed in relation to it.

(2) The Ministers shall secure that—

(a) a register maintained in pursuance of the preceding subsection shall be open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(b) members of the public may obtain, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register,")

I see that there is one potential misunderstanding on that amendment. It says:
"The Ministers shall require such organisation as they consider appropriate …".
I suppose that it is always possible that they may not consider any organisation appropriate. In that case, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, certainly has an advantage over Amendment No. 112. But I think that at this stage we are not really discussing the merits of individual amendments but the whole principle and range of freedom of information, if I may call it such.
I think that it is far too important a point to be in the regulations and it must be in the Bill itself. The great thing is that that is strongly felt by everybody involved in countryside matters, right across the board. The CLA is in favour of something along those lines, as indeed are all environmental groups. They feel that the public should have access to the relevant data on the physical, biological and toxicological tests that have been carried out on pesticides. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—and again I think perhaps his amendment is stronger on this point than the one to which I have put my name—no one is attempting to obtain disclosure of the basic manufacturers' formulations. We simply want to be able to find out what a particular product has been tested against and what the results of the tests reveal.
As matters stand at the moment any organisation or individual wishing to find out information about safety test data on a particular pesticide is in the hands of the manufacturing company. If that company does not wish to disclose the information, it does not have to do so. I am sure that that secrecy breeds a fear and mistrust which we must try to overcome. The establishment of a register would, I think, help to allay such fears. It would also result—I think that this is a very important point—in companies competing more aggressively to produce products which are less environmentally damaging.
Very little research has been carried out by Government agencies. That means that the chemical companies themselves have virtually all the relevant data. That information would be of enormous benefit not only to farmers but to all the statutory and non-statutory bodies involved in the countryside.
On Second Reading the Game Conservancy was mentioned by several noble Lords. I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that under the cereals and game birds project, which is being conducted by the Game Conservancy, a particular pesticide (an organo-phosphorous product) which currently has been cleared for use in this country by PSPS has been used for controlling mildew in barley and been shown to have exceptional insecticidal properties in addition to the properties that would be expected from a pesticide being sold as a fungicide. If this information had been available, everyone would have known what its capabilities were and a great deal
222
of duplicated research could have been avoided. Equally—and perhaps even more important—advice could have been given to the farmers by the advisory bodies. The farmer would then be in a position to choose more readily which pesticide he felt that he would like to use.
I have already said that there is wide range support for this freedom of information but I should like to finish by quoting from the British Agrochemicals Association who recently stated:
"The public's right to know the basis on which safety assessments are made by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is appreciated and we believe that more detailed information on this would be in the public interest."
That speaks for itself. I would go so far as to say that from a political point of view I would have thought that the Government really cannot ignore this extremely important point. I hope that my noble friend will consider what I think is very wide support for our basic freedom of information clause in this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like very much to support what my noble friend Earl Peel and what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, have said on this matter. It is essential that there is some form of register which is open to the public and tells us test data, toxicological data, etc. It might be worthwhile to read to the Committee what the American Act says. I have given my noble friend a copy of this. It is absolutely right. I have obtained it through the help of the United States Agricultural Attaché. It says:
"All information concerning the objectives, methodology, results or significance of any test or experiment performed on or with a registered or previously registered pesticide or its separate ingredients, impurities, or degradation products, and any information concerning the effects of such pesticide or any organism or the behaviour of such pesticide in the environment, including, but not limited to, data on safety to fish and wildlife, humans and other mammals, plants, animals, and soil",
incidentally,
"and studies on persistence, translocation and fate in the environment, and metabolism, shall be available for disclosure to the public: provided, that the use of such data for any registration purpose shall be governed by Section 3 of this Act."
One cannot go much wider than that. It seems that if one can be bothered to fly to the United States, one can look up the information on numbers of chemicals that are sold in this country. This seems to me rather a waste of time. Would it not be much wiser to have a similar clause in our regulations? I should like to see it actually written into the Bill in some form or another.
I absolutely understand the point of the worry about the protection of patents. If somebody has spent £10 million, £15 million, £20 million, or whatever it costs to develop a new and special chemical which will be of great use to mankind, one does not want that data to go via Brazil to a backyard still in South Korea and be produced immediately afterwards by somebody copying it. That does not necessarily mean that it is going to come into this country, because it probably will not; but it will go to some other country and the fruits of somebody else's research and hard work will be lost through totally unscrupulous means. There are pages of the American legislation. I do not think that it is reasonable to go on reading it because I find it quite hard to understand, anyway, but it goes on to put in lots of limitations for the protection of patents. If it

223
exists in the United States, and the Germans have not quite the same system, but a system whereby you can go and ask for the information, it is there somewhere in the world. Surely, we should have it here as well.
Lord Walston: I would certainly support anything that moves towards freedom of information. That is a valuable step to take. I should like to take up the final point of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. It is something that we must look at carefully. Our own manufacturers are guarded by patent law in this country and in many other countries, but not in all countries throughout the world. While this informa
224
tion should be made available for those who are seriously interested in the matter, which means a wide range of people, it should not be of a kind that enables a backyard still in South Korea or even in North Korea to profit from the years of research work done by European firms.
If the noble Lord the Minister can assure us that by some means, possibly similar to the German laws or the United States laws, we can make this information available without running that risk, I am wholeheartedly behind such a move whether by means of the present amendment, Amendment No. 105, or Amendment No. 112, to which I have put my name. I do not know which is the better of those.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for those words of caution. I am also grateful to your Lordships for agreeing to take together these amendments which all have one common theme; namely, disclosure of information that is received in the process of scrutinising applications for the clearance or approval of pesticides for safety. Although the amendments have that common theme, they are all a bit different. Amendment No. 86, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, appears simply to require publication, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, wisely said that we had, of course, to be very careful about commercial confidentiality.
Amendment No. 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is a more complete affair involving, as it does, the insertion of a new clause after Clause 15, but granting the same right of access to safety data on request and without restriction. It is a more complete amendment because, as the noble Lord explained, it addresses itself to the concern that has always inhibited the Government in this area; namely, commercial confidentiality. I have to point out to the Committee that it is also a campaigning amendment. It appears in identical form, word for word, in a draft Bill, the Environmental Pollution Information Bill, being circulated now by the 1984 Campaign for Freedom of Information.
Amendment No. 112, in the names of my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would create the register. My noble friend Lord Peel has spoken to it. Again, the difficulty here is, surprisingly, that, although my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have spoken firmly and wisely about the need for commercial confidentiality, Amendment No. 112 seems to make no provision at all for the defence of commercial confidentiality.
Having said that, the Government cannot fail to be impressed by the generality and the quality of the concern expressed on this subject in the last 10 minutes; nor, I accept, can the Government ignore that there are arrangements made in other parts of the world. In particular, there is the case of the United States where test data on pesticides registered with the Environment Protection Agency are now made available to inquirers who, however, have to sign certain quite stern undertakings. All your Lordships are, I think, aware of the American precedent, although you have not perhaps read it word for word. There are dangers in comparisons. There is, as yet, virtually no experience of the day-to-day working of that system, of its costs, or of its environmental or commercial implications. I cannot help but notice that none of your Lordships has included in amendments a comparison with the American system. Your Lordships have not attempted to borrow from it, perhaps (if I may say so) wisely.
9.45 p.m.
Perhaps I may be a little more constructive. In another place a little while ago my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of the
226
Environment, Mr. William Waldegrave, said for the Government that the presumption must be in favour of openness in environmental matters. Indeed, the British Agrochemicals Association, speaking earlier this year for Britain's manufacturers, said that in this matter the public does have the right to know about data upon which an agrochemical registration is granted. It must be clear from what I am saying that the Government are prepared to take very seriously the issue of disclosure in this and similar sectors.
From the point of view of the main environmental concerns, we are already publishing regular surveys of pesticide usage and pesticide residues, and we plan to make these more timely and, particularly in the case of usage surveys, more topical. The powers to require information in Clause 15(5) of the Bill will, if necessary, be prayed in aid for this purpose, and we plan that the Advisory Committee for Pesticides will, from now on, publish annual reports of its work. The year 1984 will be the first of its activity so reported. The aim in doing this is two-fold. The first is to create a wider understanding of a task which we have grown accustomed to see performed with diligence and judgment but which has so far been performed almost entirely in private. I accept that. Secondly, we shall be asking the committee to describe as a matter of public record the decisions it has taken each year in relation to the principal chemicals approved, and to publish the characteristics of those products and the results of the safety and efficacy testing to which they have been submitted.
That is what we have been doing. I must tell your Lordships that despite the impression that your Lordships' speeches have made on the Government—and it is inevitable that when all noble Lords get up and speak in the same vein there is an impression created; I accept that absolutely—there really are practical problems with each of these amendments.
I have not yet spoken about commercial confidentiality, and perhaps I may do so very briefly. If it is no longer to be a reflex action on the Government's part to cite the commercial interest as a ground for withholding, there will still surely be cases where a manufacturing process must genuinely be protected if a valuable development is to be fully exploited. Nor are all such cases suitably protected by patent law. Moreover, safety data themselves have a commercial value, and conditions must be laid down which prevent competitors from seeking clearances on the basis of work which they have neither done nor paid for. This, it seems to the Government, is the fatal flaw, if I may be forgiven for saying so, in the otherwise very elegant design of Amendment No. 86. I am bound to say, as I have already said, that I do not see that it is catered for in the scheme for the register in Amendment No. 112.
I quoted from the BAA on the subject a few moments ago, and it is only fair also to record that they said at the same time that it is the financial value of the data that industry wishes to protect, not the information it contains.
If I may say just a word about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, my concern is rather

227
different. It is that the amendment is, in my view, for this type of legislation and for the current state of development of our policy on disclosure, really too specific and too clear. I know I have spoken on many occasions during the discussions on this Bill of the second round of consultations which the Government will be conducting with a full range of interested groups before the implementing regulations are presented.
Like other details of the forthcoming regulations, any detailed arrangements on disclosure must heed the outcome of those consultations and need to be based on the broader provisions of this Bill. If I may take as an example the difficulty which one gets into if one goes into really fine detail on this, of all subjects—I am drawing attention to the provisions of the second part of the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, which seeks to protect the manufacturers' interests after disclosure—there we find provisions which are in some respects a good deal less liberal than those currently being operated in the United States.
I do not know why. Was it intended? If so, on what grounds, and what do the various environmental and industrial groups think of that particular thrust of the noble Lord's amendment? I do not know, and I cannot—and I do not think I should—try to divine, during the process of broad, enabling legislation, what exactly is the balance here because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is genuinely trying to seek a compromise where it is very difficult indeed to get a compromise if we start going into the fine detail of legislation.
Your Lordships may say to me, "This is all very well, but what do the Government intend actually to do?" May I say two things? First of all, we are getting on with what I endeavoured to set out before your Lordships in regard to the reporting systems of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and also the activities which we have in looking into pesticide usage and pesticide residues. In addition to that, we are very shortly going to be replying to the tenth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and will be making our proposals for progress in that area.
But to the promoters of these amendments I should like this evening to offer three firm undertakings. The first is that it is the Government's firm intention that there will be provisions in the regulations on disclosure of information gathered under Clause 15(5). My second undertaking is that those provisions will take into account the outcome of a most detailed consultation with all concerned, if this legislation reaches the statute book. Thirdly, it is our intention that in the meantime the Government will develop further their reporting on residues and on usage and on work of the advisory committee. If I may say so, I believe that this work will be done better if these amendments are not pressed. I hope that perhaps we may all be able to read what has been said in what I admit has been a rather longer debate than I had intended. I apologise for speaking at some length; but these amendments are important.
The Earl of Onslow: I am slightly disappointed by
228
that reply, not because of what the Minister says he is going to do, not because of his emphasis—and justified emphasis—on the commercial property and commercial secrecy—because obviously there is a very serious problem there—but because he does not want to see it written into the Bill. I happen to think that this is one of the most important aspects of this Bill that we are discussing. I should like to see a broadly drafted amendment. I quite concede that our amendment has things wrong with it; the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has things wrong with it, as the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has things wrong with it. But surely it is not beyond the wit of man, or, above all, beyond the wit of the drafting officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, to put in an amendment which says that information shall be made as public as possible in the regulations, subject to commercial secrecy; or something like that. I am not a draftsman, but I should like to see something in the Bill before it leaves this House.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking such trouble to respond to my amendment in particular and needless to say to the debate as a whole. However, having listened to his comments on my Amendment No. 60 which dealt with footpaths in a very general way, and having heard him say that it was not nearly clear or specific enough, and having now heard him say that this amendment is too clear and too specific, the noble Lord will excuse me for feeling slightly confused about the Government's line in dealing with amendments to this Bill. I am even more confused when we bear in mind that the noble Lord suggested that my amendment was not liberal enough because it did not go so far as the United States legislation. I was trying, as the noble Lord rightly said, to be realistic. When it comes to disclosing information, I do not think that this Government are going to be as liberal as the United States Government. It would be foolish for any of us to pretend that they will be. Therefore it seemed sensible to pitch an amendment rather below the highest standards being set by the United States Government.
I should like to make one point to the noble Lord in response to what he has suggested about the United States experience. He said that enough was not yet known about how it will work. There have been some outstanding examples of the type of dangers which environmentalists and other people concerned about the safety of pesticides feel will be covered up if we do not have adequate access to the detailed data upon which clearances are based. That is what we are after. I accept the usefulness and the utility of all the other points that the noble Lord mentioned about annual reports and statistics on use which are very helpful. But all these amendments are designed to get at data which has been submitted to get clearance. That is the information that people are after.
It was the case in the United States that the Environmental Protection Agency found, for example, that one particular laboratory, the Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories—IBT—had been carrying out tests which were faked, and a large number of chemicals, including the most widely used herbicide in the United States, were found to be carcinogenic and had to be

229
withdrawn. They had been cleared on the basis of faked tests. I think that the noble Lord's department admitted earlier this summer that at least one pesticide in use in the United Kingdom was cleared on the basis of test data from that particular laboratory—from IBT. So the noble Lord will understand if I say that I think that there are a great many people who would feel that the American experience of disclosure has already proved valuable.
A number of people would be interested to know how many pesticides in this country have been cleared as a result of data provided by IBT, which has now been discredited: how many of those pesticides have had to have new data submitted; whether that has been done, and how long it took. So a number of serious questions arise when secrecy is maintained.
I still think from a personal point of view that it is necessary to have a provision in the Bill which ensures that access to test data, with safeguards for commercial companies, is available. If we have to do it on a less liberal basis than the United States to get all party agreement in this House on it, then so be it; but we should still do it.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having answered the many questions that were put to him; but I must confess that I am extremely disappointed by his response. It is getting late and one does not want to analyse the situation any further. However, I must say that surely it is possible to distinguish between the testing data on pesticides without revealing the detailed compound breakdown of a particular chemical. I simply cannot understand why this cannot be done. The noble Lord has given us assurances that the Government will be asking further questions—or at least that they will be in a position to ask further questions—and therefore that more comprehensive answers will be available to the Government. But my response to that is: will they be available to the general public? I fear that from what the noble Lord has said the answer is no.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This has been a very good debate and I have listened to the arguments put forward for the other excellent amendments that have been tabled. However, I must say that I come back to the view that our very simple amendment on publication is eventually the one which must be adopted. Several noble Lords cited commercial pirates in various parts of the world and indeed in specific parts of the world. But if a nation or a company is sophisticated enough to produce the pesticides and the chemicals about which we are talking, then as soon as a successfully tested pesticide gets clearance, if there is any information available at all, they will surely be in a position very soon to manufacture that pesticide.
10 p.m.
This is a highly technical question and I shall consult again about it. But if information is available in the United States, which is probably as commercial a country and as keen to protect its manufacturers as anyone, I do not see why we should not have that
230
information available here. I think that the simpler it is, the better. If we have simply a publication and a clause inserted about commercial protection, we might be going a long way towards reaching an agreed insertion in the Bill, which would please noble Lords who have expressed such tremendous concern.
I have, of course, formally to withdraw my amendment, at the same time giving notice that we shall certainly be consulting to obtain a more satisfactory response from the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
("(5A)(a) In deciding whether or not to grant exclusion of approval under section 15(1) of this Act the Minister shall have regard to tests of a type to be specified in the regulations designed to assess—

(i) the effectiveness of the pesticide for the purpose for which exclusion or approval is being sought;

(ii) effective application rates and methods of application in relation to a range of soil and climate conditions;

(iii) the effect of the pesticide upon the environment including man, animals, plants and soil ecosystems;

(iv) the economic or other justifications for the use of the pesticide by comparison with other pesticides available for the same purpose which may involve less risk to the environment;

(b) When exclusion or approval is granted in respect of any pesticide the Minister shall procure that information in respect of that pesticide in relation to all the matters set out in paragraph (a) shall be made available in a simple clear format accessible to the general public and also in detail for the specialist.").
The noble Lord said: I think that almost the last word has been said on information, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two aspects of Amendment No. 87, in my name, which are marginally different from those raised in the discussion which has taken place so far. First, the amendment requires the Minister to disclose the generalised information rather than the detailed clearance information, which some speakers in the previous debate suggested is what is really needed by the public, although the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not agree.
I very much incline to and admire the views put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I believe that what is needed is greater disclosure of information, not so much to the public but to the farmers. There is a terrible dearth of information; there is a lack of resources for research to produce the information that farmers need in the decisions that they have to make about the application of pesticides. Yet a great deal of this information is available in the hands of manufacturers. Surely somehow it could be passed from A to B.
The second point I wish to make on this amendment, which is an important one, is that the parameters of the tests should be laid down by the Minister and not merely be left to the manufacturers. I am told that the Pesticides Safety Precaution Scheme often clears for safety only those recommendations that the manufacturers of the pesticide chooses to specify. If that is true, clearly it does not secure that every pesticide is thoroughly and adequately tested, or ensure that the information is secured at the time the tests are being carried out, so that both the farmers and the general public know what the pesticide is all about. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Our intention would be to publish under the regulations a document which would set out the type and standard of tests and experiments to be carried out. The document would be continually updated, so that we might take advantage of any scientific developments in the fields of toxicology and environmental biology, risk assessment and other areas without delay. To enshrine the tests in regulations could impede that progress. I do not think it is possible to establish a definitive list of tests which all pesticides must go through. Some tests would be appropriate only to one type of pesticide and not to another. In some cases the need for a particular test may come to light only after we have seen the results of other experiments. So that is why I would not want to see them enshrined in the regulations. But I have seized the opportunity to try to indicate our intention, and I think that it is very similar to the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Lord Melchett: My name is down to this amendment, and I think that the Minister has given us a very helpful reply. I want to ask him one question, because I may have missed what he said. He intends to publish guidance notes under the regulations, setting out the tests that would be appropriate. What would be the status of that guidance note, document or whatever it will be? Would it be the case that in practice people submitting pesticides for clearance would have had to have taken them through the tests set out in the document?
Lord Belstead: I think that the status would be that which those who were responsible for the clearance procedure would be expecting. If those who were submitting the applications had not complied with that guidance, then the chances of getting a clearance would be that much less.
Lord Northbourne: On the basis of the assurance that the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Either of the Ministers shall ensure that labels for pesticides for export be submitted for statutory approval and that they are written in the most common language of the country of destination, whether that pesticide is approved for the use in the United Kingdon or not.")
The noble Baroness said: We discussed the content of labelling earlier. This amendment refers primarily to the kind of labelling, the description of the label itself. The labels are of prime importance in any country, even more so where back-up advisory services may not be available, and they must be in language that is understood in that country.
I recently had the pleasure of a visit to Reckitt and Colman's factory, where they produce mustard for 54 countries in the world. I saw their export department, where they had tins of mustard in something between 30 and 40 different languages, including dialects. If it can be done for mustard, how much more important it is that it should be done for lethal products of the
232
kind we are talking about. There is a call for symbols to be used as well as the language of the importing country, and that seems entirely sensible. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that.
The rationale for using regulations instead of writing intentions into the Bill is that regulations can be updated more easily. But surely we would not wish to change this particular piece of legislation often, and it seems more important that it should be on the face of the Bill. The intentions of the amendment would surely not change, and we feel they are sufficiently important to be in the primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: I have been a fascinated observer of, rather than a participant in the several debates we have had in the Committee so far. Sadly, unlike most noble Lords present, I am not a farmer. I am, however, a former lepidopterist and anisopterist. If any noble Lord does not know what that means, I used to be very interested in dragonflies. I am also a partaker of, and I take a great deal of pleasure in, the enjoyment of our special countryside. More particularly, as a doctor I am interested in the health and welfare of people who live there. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
I have an example here of how terribly wrong things can go if the precautions outlined in the amendment are not taken. I quote from a book called. A Growing Problem, Pesticides and the Third World Poor, which was written by David Bull. It is an Oxfam publication. It concerns the import into Iraq in the 1970s of seed which was already treated with fungicide. It says:
"The use of treated seed for food led to one of the worst epidemics of pesticide poisoning. This occurred in Iraq in 1971/72. Wheat and barley seed was imported which had been treated with a methyl mercury fungicide. Warnings issued to farmers not to eat the grain were insufficient or went unheeded. Warnings on some sacks appeared in English and Spanish only [in an Arabic speaking country] and in some cases, the seed arrived too late for planting. Many farmers' families ate the treated grain or fed it to their animals".
Edward Hughes, who is a journalist, visited Iraq in 1973, and his investigations and discussions with experts led him to estimate the true scale of the catastrophe at 100,000 injured and 6,000 dead, which is something like two to three times as great as the recent Bhopal disaster in India. Therefore, it is small wonder that I support this amendment wholeheartedly. This is not the only example of where things have gone wrong because the population concerned could not read the instructions. It is very important that the pitcograms—which is the proper name for the symbols that are being suggested—should also be put on the containers of the dangerous chemicals concerned.
Lord Belstead: I think there may be some misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, a misunderstanding which I shared before I had advice on this. A high proportion of pesticides are exported either as concentrates or in bulk for formulation in the country where they are to be used. Scrutiny of the labels with which they are to be shipped would do little to influence the labels on the packs finally getting to the people who will use them. I think that one has to take that into account in formulating an amendment.

233
The second point is that in scrutinising labels officials in government departments in London really are not equipped to appraise pesticides in relation to crops, climates and conditions of use overseas. Thirdly, the language of a label needs to be what the target user will understand. The official language of the country, which is the way in which the amendment has chosen to make the requirement, may not be the language of the ultimate user. This again is an issue which cannot easily be adjudicated from here. I think, with respect, that this is one of the many topics that are best addressed through a code of conduct such as that which is being developed by FAO. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurance that our own officials will be bearing in mind very much the intentions behind her amendment in the part that we are playing in the FAO negotiations.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for the reply and I note paragraph 9 in the Statement of Intention with regard to the regulations, which to a certain extent covers what the Minister has said. But I still feel we are being a little feeble in the sense that the Government surely have a responsibility to see that the next stage on, even if it is a bulk delivery, is clearly labelled in the language of the country to which it is going. The Government need to discharge their responsibilities at least up to the receiving port, wherever that may be.
I do not go along with the suggestion that it would be beyond our officials to deal with it. Surely we have enough expertise available, or we could make it available, when a matter as important as this is dealt with. I am not satisfied with the answer on that count. This is something I should like to pursue a little further, but not tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rea: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment I should like to bring up something which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned on several occasions on the previous night when the Committee sat. This concerned his statement that we in this country do not know what is required in the other countries; it is for them to say. I submit that in this country there is a greater concentration of expertise in tropical agriculture than exists anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of the acre or so that contains the FAO headquarters in Rome.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Either of the Ministers shall ensure that packaging standards for pesticides for use within the United Kingdom apply equally to pesticides for export.").
The noble Baroness said: The same arguments apply to this as to the previous amendment; that is that we have a responsibility to see that the packaging of pesticides for use in countries other than the United Kingdom, as well as within our own boundaries, is suitable for the conditions in those countries. This amendment was drawn up before the Statement of Intention, which I see covers this point. I am glad to see there that label conditions could include storage and handling requirements, which would be a step
234
forward. I still think that we should see that the actual packaging in which pesticides leave this country is adequate for the job at the port of arrival, and also that this requirement should be written into the Bill itself because it is something we would not wish to see changed by regulations in the future. It is far too important for that. I beg to move.
10. 15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: A rather different argument applies here. The effect of the noble Baroness's amendment is that packaging standards for sending pesticides overseas shall be the same as packaging standards within the United Kingdom. I am advised that the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code of the International Maritime Organisation, which would deal with sea transport, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation's technical instructions which deal with air travel impose, broadly speaking, packaging requirements in accordance with the class of substance—in other words, toxic substances—and the degree of risk which would be more stringent than those which would be expected for the home trade.
The PS clearance of a product includes clearance of its container. The standards expected for clearance here may have no relation to the demands on packaging found in overseas markets. It is rather a different argument and I am advised that one finds that the standards for sending pesticides abroad are probably more stringent than they would be for the home trade which, I think, is not what the noble Baroness is after. Yet again, I would say that this is a topic appropriate for a code of conduct and I understand that the industry is taking this matter very seriously in this respect.
Baroness Nicol: I accept what the Minister has said. The wording of the amendment does not carry the intention, which was that the packaging for more stringent conditions would be equally as good as the standards we apply in this country. I shall have to find other wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("or fails to comply").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 91 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95 and 97.
Amendment No. 92: Page 14, line 31, leave out ("or fail to comply").

Amendment No. 93:

line 32, leave out ("with")

Amendment No. 94:

line 33, leave out ("with")

Amendment No. 95:

line 35, leave out ("with")

Amendment No. 97: Page 15, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (6) above "contravenes" includes "fails to comply with" and "contravene" has a corresponding meaning.").
These are drafting amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 96:
Page 14, line 38, after ("subsection") insert ("(1)(hh) and")
The noble Lord said: I cannot remember what this amendment is consequential on. I had better not move it.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 97:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("or animals")
The noble Lord said: In order to give Lord Mackie of Benshie's memory a rest so that he may recover it, I should like to speak to this amendment. It is not of enormous significance, but it seems to us that this part of the Bill should apply not only to the various purposes that are mentioned here, but also certainly with regard to regulating growth to animals as well as to plants. Your Lordships well know that there are certain growth-promoting products which are used in intensive animal rearing—and not only in intensive animal rearing. They surely should come under the same regulations as all those we have been discussing. I therefore beg to move that "or animals" be inserted on page 15 at the end of line 20.
Lord John-Mackie: This is rather an important amendment because there is a tremendous lot of implantation of animals and there is also quite a lot of dressing of animals, for instance, for warble fly and so on. I think it is essential that animals should be included, and we support this amendment.
Lord Belstead: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that this is an important amendment. As I understand it it is one on which there is quite a lot of pressure of public, and indeed of professional, opinion. No doubt that is what has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to put down this amendment. However, I am worried as to whether this is the right way to proceed on this Bill. What is needed on the whole issue of animal medicines is a comprehensive approach, dealing with all veterinary medicines and addressing itself to the issue in full knowledge of the powers already available under the Medicines Act and with a clear view of the remedies which are needed. I think there are difficulties with these amendments which, in a sense, are saying "Me too" for certain veterinary products, to provisions specifically designed for pesticides. I wonder quite what the effect would be.
May I just go on from that to say that perhaps there is a misconception here about the meaning of Clause 15(8), which may have contributed to this amendment and indeed to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is true that we refer here to preparations which protect animals against ectoparasites as falling within this definition. In fact, our intention is that any substance which is administered directly to an animal, whether to an animal's interior by means of a syringe or dosing-gun, or to an animal's exterior, like
236
sheep dips or pour-on insecticides, should continue to be treated as veterinary medicines.
The reference to ectoparasites in Clause 15(8) is related to pesticides which kill ectoparasites but are not applied to the animal host. An example of what I am trying to explain would be an insecticide which is painted on the structure of a livestock building in order to kill flies. Your Lordships will see that it was our intention that only a very small range of ectoparasiticides should be covered by this definition, and following the convention already established by existing arrangements.
I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord to look in the record at what I have said. I am not trying to be deliberately obstructive at all, but there is a genuine concern here that we may, with the best of intentions, be getting into territory which is in fact Medicines Act territory. I think that is really all I can say on the subject this evening.
Lord Walston: I am quite sure that the noble Lord is not trying to be obstructive; indeed he is being most helpful. If, as he suggests, these matters are covered already by other legislation dealing with veterinary practices, then I would agree with him that there is no reason for this amendment. But if on further examination it appears that this is not the case, it will always be possible to come back. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 99:
Page 15, line 26, at end insert ("or endoparasites").
The noble Lord said: I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the clause dealing with ectoparasites. It was a very necessary explanation because it could have referred purely to medicines applied to the animal for dealing with lice, as against dealing with worms. That is why we put down the amendment. But, as he has explained, it deals with the treating of wood to keep down pests and so on. We appreciate the explanation, and I will not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 15, line 26, at end insert:—
("( ) In contemplating any regulations to be made under this section for the approval of pesticides, the Ministers shall consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.")
The noble Lord said: In the note on Clause 15 in the Notes on Clauses it states that the Government rely for their advice on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Unfortunately, when the Bill becomes law, these Notes on Clauses will carry no weight, and so this amendment makes it a duty of the Minister to consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I suspect my noble friend will say that of course the Government will consult and therefore my amendment is unnecessary.
I cannot agree, for two main reasons. First, the purpose of this Bill is to make what was a voluntary code under PSPS a statutory one. Therefore, while the

237
scheme was voluntary, it was entirely correct for advice to be taken voluntarily. But now that it is a statutory scheme, the advice should be statutory. Therefore, I say that the Government should abide by the rules they are making for us, and abide by their own rules, and should take advice.
Secondly, my noble friend has told your Lordships more than once that the regulations will be subject to affirmative order in Parliament. He has made quite an issue of that; and so we shall have a chance of looking at these regulations. I say to him that when the Government bring those regulations before your Lordships for approval they will carry more weight if the Minister is known to have consulted a body so responsible and so respected as the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: To my mind, it is unthinkable that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides should not be consulted. Also, if we write into the Bill that it shall be consulted, one wonders what the legal sanction would be. With deep respect to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, for whom I have great sympathy in this matter. I doubt whether it is right that we should legislate in order to compel consultation in circumstances in which it is bound to take place and in which it cannot be enforceable.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I accept the logic of the first argument but not of the second. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, put the case in a way which makes it almost impossible for the Minister to refuse.
Lord Belstead: The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is indeed a body of exceptional importance, which has given expert and independent advice to successive Governments for many years. The present Government have full confidence in that committee. We will most certainly consult the committee in preparing the regulations. My noble friend Lord Stanley is right in saying that I feel, therefore, that his amendment is not wholly necessary.
Nonetheless, my noble friend has made a very persuasive case this evening. I should like to offer to consult my noble friend with a view to accepting his amendment, but it is necessary to have consultation in order to ensure, from a statutory point of view, that we are not doing anything which, from a statutory point of view, would be inadvisable. I say that because of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton, which I take seriously. If my noble friend Lord Stanley will accept my offer, it is that, in principle, the Government would like to do what he is suggesting but we need to consult with him to see whether it would be right to do it in the statute. If it is right, we will do it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I must say that in what he said there was a lovely sentence from my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I am very grateful for his remarks. I will study them in the cool light of day, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: I have given the noble Lord notice of two matters which I should like to raise briefly. Both have been raised during the course of debates on amendments to Clause 15, but in none of those cases have we been able to spend any time on the specific points I have in mind. First, I will deal with the question of research. In a number of amendments, noble Lords have stressed the importance of research into future alternatives to current pesticides, of research which aims to reduce the level of pesticides and reduce dependence on pesticides, and so on.
The Committee will know that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House examined the question, at least as far as it was affected by the overlap between environmental and agricultural research, earlier this year. In the course of that Select Committee's investigation, in which I participated together with a number of other noble Lords in this Committee, considerable concern was expressed about cuts which were contemplated or which were actually taking place in the Agricultural and Food Research Council's budget and the resulting cuts in agricultural research organisations such as the Reed Research Organisation.
Since that period I have been told that further cuts are taking place at the Plant Breeding Institute. In particular, they are cuts which will affect the development of resistant strains of wheats. I am told that work at the University of East Anglia, which is based on experimental observation of Plant Breeding Institute wheats and computer simulations, suggests that varietal resistance could reduce growing aphid infestations on wheat by 75 per cent. Some very useful work has been done at the Plant Breeding Institute. However, I understand that that work is now being brought to an end due to the redundancy of the scientists involved. In addition, cuts announced last month at the Plant Breeding Institute include work on breeding for disease resistance on potatoes and beans.
10.30 p.m.
It has been pointed out to me that even if we manage to keep current pesticide levels and the effectiveness of pesticides, we are in great danger of resistant diseases of fungus and other organisms developing and that the only sure way in the long run of reducing the level of pesticide use and overcoming many of the problems which we have discussed throughout the amendments on Clause 15 will be to ensure that research continues at a high level. I think that members of the Select Committee who visited, for example, the research station at Rothamsted were impressed by the standard of research being done by agricultural scientists and their commitment, in the forward-looking work that they are doing, to move to a situation where we are much less dependent on pesticides than we are now.
Another matter on the research side which gives me great concern is the future of the soil survey. A number of noble Lords referred to that work when we discussed earlier amendments on soil, but we did not raise with the Government the question of the future of the soil survey. I understand that the noble Lord recently visited the survey and that the Government are considering its future. It seems to me to be vital that if we are to continue to safeguard the long-term health of the agricultural industry, that sort of work should be continued. Whatever we do in the Bill may

239
well prove to be rather insignificant if that long-term research is not continued. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us something more positive than we have so far been given by the Government about the future of the soil survey.
I now turn to a separate point—the continued use of DDT. The noble Lord said on Second Reading that DDT and Dieldrin were to be withdrawn from 1st October this year. I take that point. However, my understanding is that DDT was still being advertised; for example, in the Crop Chemicals Guide, which is up-dated annually. Although it was published in August this year, which was just before the announcement of the withdrawal of DDT was made, there had been widespread consultations leading up to its withdrawal. It is undesirable that the product should continue to be listed as available in that guide, with its price and other matters given in full, with no mention of the fact that it has been withdrawn.
The International Pesticide Directory, published in September and October 1984, advertises a DDT product at about the date when DDT, according to the Government, was withdrawn. I hope that it will be possible under the regulations which are drawn up under Clause 15 to stop the advertising of withdrawn products after they have been withdrawn. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me advice on that point, too.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord raises points about research on Clause 15 stand part, which is the clause which has occupied us for the whole of today. The noble Lord asks particularly about the priority we are giving to the development of integrated pest control systems. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for letting me know in advance the questions he intended to ask. Here we are following a programme of research and development. We hope that it will contribute to reducing pesticide use to the minimum level consistent with efficient food production, as recommended by the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
On the other hand, the work of the Plant Breeding Institute, which was started more than 10 years ago and aimed at producing varieties with greater resistance to pests and diseases, has had to be ended so far as the resistance of cereals to aphids is concerned. It had become evident that it would not be possible to obtain complete resistance, and therefore insecticides would still need to be applied. Against that background, the work could not be afforded high priority, and we felt that it was necessary to terminate it.
The noble Lord asked me about the soil survey, which I visited only about a fortnight ago. It is a survey which is the responsibility of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, with the Ministry of Agriculture paying for the work entirely, at just under £2 million last year. We are indeed currently reviewing our future funding levels. In making a decision the Government will be taking into account the views of the AFRC, of the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food and of other bodies.
240
On that I do not think that I can say more, except finally to answer the question which the noble Lord asked me about the advertising of DDT. I would only repeat that the uses of DDT are no longer allowed under the PSPS. If it is being either supplied or used in this country, that underlines the necessity for this Bill.
Clause 15 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Control of advertising.
.—(1) A person who broadcasts or publishes or otherwise disseminates or causes or permits to be published or broadcast any form of advertisement or supporting statement or information, or who provides any such information to another person, which—

(a)(i) is false in material particular; or

(ii) makes or contains a statement or claim which contravenes or misrepresents or fails to comply with any provision of the regulations or any condition of approval; or

(iii) fails to meet any requirement imposed by virtue of this Act;

(b) is calculated or likely to cause or permit any other person to contravene or fail to comply—

(i) with any provision of the regulations;

(ii) with any condition of approval of a pesticide; or

(iii) with any requirement imposed by virtue of this Act;

(c) advertises a pesticide or provides information regarding a pesticide, which causes or permits any other person to apply or use amounts of pesticide in excess of limits to be specified in the regulations,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Ministers shall require any person causing or permitting any advertisement for a pesticide to be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated, to ensure that a statement of the pesticides' known and likely effects on health, safety and the environment of human beings, livestock, crops, flora and fauna, is included in that advertisement in accordance with a manner specified in the regulations.")
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that we now come on to rather a long list of new clauses to be moved by me. I shall try to take them as quickly as I possibly can in view of the time of night at which they have been reached.
Amendment No. 101 deals with advertisements. It would enable Ministers to tackle the growing problems of pesticide advertising. It is certainly not aimed at restricting the more responsible advertisements. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would extend the power to make regulations to cover the content of advertisements and the supporting information, such as graphs and tables, with which pesticide firms frequently bombard users and which, I have to say, are partial and sometimes actually misleading.
Paragraph (c) would give the Government a capability to prevent the overuse of pesticides—for example, by applying limits to the number of times a crop may be sprayed—and prevent agricultural chemical companies encouraging overuse by selling products over-enthusiastically and exploiting fears of pest problems, which I am afraid occasionally happens. For example, the use of insurance spraying is now widely regarded as something which should not have happened in the agricultural industry but undoubtedly did and still does on occasions.
Lastly, the amendment would require an advertisement to include a statement of the risks of the pesticide, much as advertisements for cigarettes carry a health warning—including, for example, whether the

241
substance is likely to be poisonous or carcinogenic, and so on.
There has been in recent years considerable criticism in the farming press of advertisements for chemicals and suggestions that those are doing nothing to enhance the image of agriculture; indeed, quite the reverse. The sort of names that are applied to pesticides, with the connotations that they carry, have led to considerable criticism.
Most recently the pesticide Missile, which has provisional commercial clearance under the PSPS as a fungicide, has attracted a good deal of criticism. In particular, as the noble Lord mentioned on an earlier amendment, although it has provisional clearance as a fungicide, it is almost 100 per cent. effective as an insecticide. As I understand it, it is more effective as an insecticide than it is as a fungicide. Successive issues of Farmers Weekly in the Spring, in April this year, carried an advertisement for Missile which gave no indication that it had only limited clearance under the PSPS at this stage.
For example, it gave no indication that only 50,000 hectares could be sprayed with Missile, as I understand was the case under the limited clearance which had been granted. It was only in subsequent advertisements for Missile later in the summer, in June, that in very small print it was acknowledged that only limited clearance had been granted. Needless to say, none of the advertisements for Missile made the point that as an insecticide the product was more effective than or as effective as many insecticides available on the market. My understanding is that it was not granted safety clearance for use as an insecticide and subsequently was granted provisional clearance as a fungicide.
That sort of advertising cannot do anything but harm the image of the agricultural industry and lead to severe environmental and other problems. It is for that kind of reason that I hope this new clause will find some favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: As I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, there are various controls on advertising in this country, all of which apply to the advertising of pesticides. There is the British Code of Advertising Practice, which is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. There are a number of provisions also in common law and in statutes which can determine the formal content of an advertisement, and—possibly of most general application—there is the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 which prohibits, among other things, misleading statements about goods and services made in advertisements.
I repeat that all those controls relate to advertisements on pesticides. I shall certainly look with care at what the noble Lord has said. That is no mere form of words because I do have it in mind that Ministers might make it a condition of approval that a supplier should ensure that any advertising carried a statement of certain restrictions which Ministers had imposed on the product's use. There is a serious point there. But I believe that the powers to set conditions, taken together with the general controls over advertising already in existence, are enough to ensure that advertisements are informative and do not lie or mislead.
242
If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, I think the final part of the amendment, requiring an advertisement to state all the known and likely effects on health, safety and the environment, is totally impractical, unless the advertisement is to go on for ever. I do not feel very attracted to that recommendation.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord for going at least some way with part of the amendment. In particular, I very strongly support his view that there is something to be said for restrictions on the use of a pesticide, once it is cleared, being made clear in the advertisement. It does seem to me extremely undesirable in this field that advertisements should appear with general injunctions to wipe out and kill everything without any mention being made, of restrictions—particularly when they become statutory—placed on the pesticide's use.
The noble Lord has kindly said he will look at that point. It does not go nearly so far as I should like but it goes some way. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 102:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
(". Objectives—
In drawing up regulations to ensure the safe and effective use of pesticides under this Act, Ministers shall ensure—

(i) the progressive reduction of pesticide pollution of all kinds;

(ii) the conservation of flora, fauna and semi-natural ecosystems;

(iii) the health and safety of consumers, and people living and working in or visiting town or country;

(iv) the health and safety of livestock and domestic animals;

(v) the health and integrity of the soil ecosystem, its flora and fauna;

(vi) the elimination of practices leading to excess use and over use;

(vii) the elimination of practices leading to increased pest resistance, with or between species of pest;

(viii) the progressive reduction in pesticide use;

(ix) the availability of an adequate number of appropriate pesticides for agricultural and other use;

(x) the furtherance of alternative methods of controlling pests, other than through the use of chemical agents.")

The noble Lord said: I tried to have this amendment discussed with Amendment No. 46. I dare say there are some noble Lords who wish I had succeeded. However, the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench suggested that it should be taken seperately. We discussed Amendment No. 46 some considerable time ago. The noble Lord will remember that he was in a sunnier frame of mind in those days and he kindly said to the noble Lord who moved that amendment that he agreed that some general statement of objectives should be included in the Bill.
10.45 p.m.
I move this amendment only because I think it would be very helpful to those who believe strongly that a general statement of objectives is needed if the noble Lord could indicate whether he finds any of the general objectives I have included in Amendment No. 102 thoroughly unacceptable. That might give us some guidance, first, about how the Government are thinking on a general objectives clause, and, secondly, if any of us want to come back with another

243
amendment of Report, in what direction we should aim to try and secure Government satisfaction with our efforts. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: This is a little more than just a matter of style, but our preference is for a brief and pointed statement if we are to have a statement of objectives. We also have to consider whether any benefit derives from the addition of a very long statement of the kind that we have here. It is, of course, one thing for my right honourable friend to aim to achieve the elimination of over-use, pest resistance, and so forth, but quite another for him to ensure such an effect by regulations. That is one absolutely concrete reason why I find difficulty with this amendment.
When the noble Lord asks what attracts the Government to a statement of objectives, the answer is Amendment No. 46, which was in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and which we took last week. What particularly attracted us was that the noble Lords had taken the preamble to the pesticides safety precaution scheme. We felt that it may well have been that those who drafted the introduction to that scheme some years ago had the same thoughts in mind as those that I endeavoured to put forward a moment ago; namely, that our preference is for a brief and pointed statement. At any rate, that is how Amendment No. 46 appeared to us. That is what attracted us to it, and that is why, on that occasion, I said that we accepted that amendment in principle although we wanted to discuss the detailed wording with the noble Lords who had sponsored it.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful for that response. I agree with the noble Lord that the words used in the PSPS as the general objectives have considerable attractions. Whether they cover all the points is something that it would be useful to examine between now and Report stage. I hope that the Government may be able to give us some advance warning, as Report stage is some way away, about their intentions and whether they plan to produce an amendment on objectives. But I am still very pleased to hear that the noble Lord is in favour of this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Labels.
.—(1) The Ministers may require manufacturers, distributors and retailers of pesticides to ensure that information in written and pictogram form is included on container labels, such that known or suspected health, safety and environmental hazards are specified in a manner to be stated in the regulations.
(2) The Ministers may require manufacturers, distributors and retailers of foods or foodstuffs to ensure that, in cases specified in the regulations, and wherever there is under any Act a legal requirement to declare food additives, colourants, or preservatives on food labels, the label shall include notice of pesticide residues, in a manner to be specified in the regulations.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a rather different aspect of labelling compared to amendments moved a little time ago by my noble
244
friend Lady Nicol when she was trying to persuade the Government, rightly, that pesticides for export should be labelled adequately.
This amendment aims to enable Ministers to require manufacturers to inform the public and users about pesticides which are known or suspected agents of cancer, birth defects, mutations or whatever. There are a number of those, some recently discovered as a result of the freedom of information on pesticide-testing in the United States, I should emphasise again. The amendment suggests that this information should be available in both written and pictogram form, mentioned by my noble friend beside me when we were talking about labels for export. It is important, even in this country, that the labelling should be both written and pictorial. I hope that the noble Lord and his officials will not see the same difficulty in securing that labels on products for use in this country are clear and accurate, written, as they will be, in English.
The second aspect of the amendment is to enable those consumers who wish to purchase pesticide-free or organically grown food to exercise that freedom of choice by introducing a system of labelling of food according to the actual or likely pesticide residue levels. We already have an extensive system of labelling of food that many people find useful. The "E" numbers which are listed on a number of food products illustrate if additives or colourants have been used. But we do not have any procedures in our current legislation which ensure, if pesticide residues are likely to be left in food products, that the consumer is made aware of that.
I am not suggesting that we should try to get rid of all pesticide residues from food. I think there are bound to be some as a result of some operations, but surely it must be right that the consumer should be informed if that is the case and have the freedom of choice to buy food which will not have pesticide residues in it.
I think a number of us would feel that it might help some farmers who are going to find it increasingly difficult to make a living out of, say, milk production or intensive cereal production, to move into a field knowing that consumers will be able to exercise choice in favour of organically grown food or food grown without the use of pesticides. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I think the noble Lord is absolutely right in the first part of his amendment; and, if he will forgive me for saying so, not right in the second part. I think there is an unarguable need in the first part of his amendment to provide this type of information on product labels, and I can assure the noble Lord that these powers are already available under Clause 15(1)(c).
But when we come to the second part of the noble Lord's amendment, I really do think it would be impractical. After all, pesticide residues are not additives introduced by manufacturers of food in known quantities and analysis of all raw materials would be extremely costly and time consuming. Nor would food label information on pesticide residues be all that useful to consumers. Some foods are already advertised as residue free and legislation exists to deal with any falsity in making such claims. But, for the

245
rest, this Bill continues the work of ensuring consumer safety, and in view of what I have said about our surveillance of pesticide residues in food I hope that the Committee will agree that this second half of the amendment would be unnecessary and, I must say, also enormously difficult to impose.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure from the farmers' point of view that it is tremendously desirable that all food which is not marked pesticide free should be assumed by consumers to have pesticide residues in it; and to some extent that seems to me the effect of what the noble Lord has said. I would like to consider that again before the next stage of the Bill. But I am grateful to him for his assurance on the first part of my Amendment No. 103, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
(" Company Representatives and Salesmen.
Ministers shall require any person to obtain, before visiting any farm or household or other place or type of place specified in the regulations, for the purposes of selling or advertising or making available for sale any pesticide or of providing supporting information, the consent of the owner or occupier, in a manner to be specified in the regulations.").
The noble Lord said: I hope I do not need to say that this is a probing amendment. I move it with two purposes in mind: first of all, to see whether the noble Lord agrees that the practice of company salesmen calling on farmers has become really quite a problem. It is, of course, fairly frequent now in the countryside to see notices at the entrance to farms saying that no representatives are to call without an appointment. How effective notices of that sort are on representatives, I have no personal experience. But, more seriously, I hope that the Government will be able to give me an assurance that independent advice on the use of pesticides will continue to be available to farmers so that they are not wholly reliant on salesmen and representatives of chemical companies.
I should say straight away that, as a farmer, my own experience of the representatives of the chemical firms with which we deal has been extremely good. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that on occasions the representatives of the manufacturerers and retailers of pesticides will not be giving absolutely impartial advice and I suspect that that problem is likely to increase as the cost price squeeze on agriculture increases in coming years, and the sales of pesticides inevitably come under pressure, and salesmen come under equal pressure to maintain their level of sales.
Noble Lords may have seen in recent days reference to the incentives given to agricultural machinery salesmen to achieve sales against the very difficult outlook which they face, given the Government's changes in taxation provisions. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that ADAS will continue to give independent advice without charging large sums of money, which would inevitably affect the smallest and poorest farmers, so that there is source of independent advice on the sensible use of pesticides and their safety and efficacy. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: I should like to say that there is a very close parallel here in the promotion of drugs by pharmaceutical firm representatives to doctors. Many of us appreciate the visits by these ladies and gentlemen, who are always charming and often offer lunches and dinners, with alcohol, to help persuade us maybe to go down their line of thinking. I think the Department of Health and Social Security is to be congratulated on keeping us supplied with a continuous flow of information of an independent kind. This is just what my noble friend Lord Melchett has been trying to persuade MAFF to do for farmers.
Lord John-Mackie: This is a rather interesting amendment, and I feel we want to look at it very carefully. Farmers are not altogether fools and I think that they should judge for themselves whether or not a representative of a spray firm should be allowed about the place. Personally, I find them, on the whole, very helpful. You can always check their advice with ADAS. I should be loath to support my noble friend on this amendment.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I think those are wise words of caution. Apart from a rather strange situation where, as a nation of shopkeepers, we are deterring our salesmen, I think, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the amendment would have a rather odd effect, because whereas it would have the purpose of requiring pesticide salesmen to have to ask permission before coming and selling on the doorstep, it would mean that, in order to ask that permission, the pesticide salesmen must come on to the doorstep, anyway. It does not seem to me, therefore, that one would get very far. The householder who would prefer, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would prefer, not to have a whole series of salesmen coming to see him would still find that a whole series of salesmen would come to see him to ask permission to come to see him, if I am making myself clear. If I am making myself clear, I am not in favour of the amendment.
Lord Melchett: The only area where the noble Lord did not make himself clear was on the likely future of ADAS, and I am afraid that is something which is going to continue to hang over the agricultural industry for a while. Is it, or is it not, going to be another candidate for a British Telecom type of sell-off? That raises in my mind another point which I would put to the noble Lord. Most farms were already on the telephone before British Telecom was in private hands and it was possible for somebody to ring up and make an appointment. The noble Lord may know something about rural phone services which the rest of us do not, and it may be that in future the only way of contacting most people in the countryside will be by going to see them, as those sorts of phone services disappear. But I take the noble Lord's general stricture that this is not a particularly desirable amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Misused pesticides
. No pesticide shall be approved where it appears to either of the Ministers, or to the Nature Conservancy Council, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health and Social Security, or the Department of the Environment, that it is being, is likely to be, or has been persistently, misused, whether wilfully or accidentally.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a much more serious point; namely, that there should be a power in the Bill to ensure that Ministers can remove from use pesticides which, even if in their approved use do not give rise to environmental dangers, are nevertheless being consistently misused in a way which causes very serious problems.
Over the years there have been a number of chemicals which have been misused—for example, and in particular, to poison protected birds. In the period between 1979 and 1984, two chemicals—alpha-chloralose and mevinphos—were involved respectively in 141 and 123 incidents where they were used illegally in attempts (successful, unfortunately) to poison, on the whole, rare birds of prey. Alpha-choralose in those years, for example, was used in incidents which involved 43 buzzards, five red kites, 10 golden eagles, two peregrines, and so on. Mevinphos involved 34 buzzards, three golden eagles, a sea eagle—and incidentally the sea eagle is the subject of an extremely expensive and long-running reintroduction programme funded by the Government through the Nature Conservancy Council—one red kite, three marsh harriers and one human being who was accidentally poisoned by bait put out to kill a rare bird. There are a number of other chemicals. Strychnine is the other major example. It is available legally only to poison moles, but in fact in those five years it was involved in incidents which killed seven buzzards and 18 dogs.
11 p.m.
So there are examples over the years—and I have figures going back over the previous five-year period and again mevinphos and strychnine feature high on the list—where chemicals have, unfortunately, been persistently misused in ways which are illegal, and where the law has not been adequate to prevent that misuse.
One of the arguments up to this moment, until we had a statutory scheme, against banning particular chemicals of this type, is that people would simply turn to another one and use some alternative chemical. But it seems to me that if we had a statutory scheme and a provision such as that which would be provided by this amendment, it would be possible at last to place some check on these deplorable and consistently occurring illegal poisoning incidents.
Of course it is not just rare birds of prey and people's dogs that might be affected. There are, for example, chemicals which are used persistently by human beings when attempting to kill themselves. If that arose as a serious problem it seems to me all the more important that the Government should have some power to prevent such a chemical being used in future even if, as I say, its legitimate use gave rise to no grounds for complaint. If a chemical is persistently misused to cause widespread environmental damage,
248
death to human beings or whatever, there should be a power to enable the Government to control and regulate its use. That is what this amendment would provide. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must say that if a chemical is being persistently misused something ought to be done about it. But I do not think that it should be dealt with by the single action of "either the Ministers, or" for it appears to me that it would require consultation. I feel that the amendment is too widely drawn because too many people can act without the approval of others.
Lord Belstead: I must say that I would be very reluctant to go along with this amendment in the sense that it refers not only to misuse, but to the potential for misuse. Secondly, I am mystified that the noble Lord in talking about persistent misuse does not mention the existing law—the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which are both relevant in this particular respect. I do not think that this is necessary.
Lord Melchett: I am very sorry, but I do not think that that is an adequate reply to what seems to me to be a very serious and continuing problem. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said about the need to change the amendment so that the individual organisations listed here could not act individually, and that there should be some such phrase as "Ministers after consultation".
But the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, relying on existing law, would be satisfactory if the existing law had shown any ability whatever to reduce the incidence of these poisonings. But that is not the case. In fact in recent years there has been increasing concern abut the number of children at risk. Not long ago there was the case where a child picked up some eggs on a hillside and took them home and cooked them. It was only by luck that the family's pet dog ate part of one of the eggs before the child ate the cooked eggs. The dog fell dead immediately. The eggs had been illegally poisoned with alpha-chloralose or strychnine in an attempt to kill a bird of prey on a hill.
There have been some very close shaves by human beings who have very nearly lost their lives. In those circumstances, it does not seem to me to be enough to say that the existing law covers this. In particular, it does not seem enough to say that when the incidence of such poisoning appears to be, if anything, on the increase, and certainly not on the decrease.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will address his mind more seriously to this point. It is one of major concern. As far as I can see—and it would be helpful if the Minister could at least confirm this—there are no powers in the Bill as it is currently drafted to allow for the withdrawal of a product on this basis; in other words, where its authorised use causes no problems but it is being persistently misused. If the noble Lord could simply answer that question, it would at least allow me to make a judgment about whether I need to return to this point on Report.
In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will look at this matter again, because I think that there is

249
a serious problem here. We have not found a way in legilation of tackling it yet; and it seems to me that if a chemical is being used for very minor uses and is misused on a grand scale, causing widespread damage, the Government should have power to get that chemical withdrawn.
Lord Belstead: I have referred to other legislation first and foremost because the noble Lord persistently will not refer to it. The fact of the matter is that there is other legislation. I have mentioned the 1981 Act and the 1911 Act. If the noble Lord would look at those two pieces of legislation, that would help us.
There are also, of course, the restrictions on getting hold of poisons through the poisons legislation, which I should have thought would have had some reference to the very last and tragic example which the noble Lord gave to the Committee. I think that we are in an area where we are talking about enforcement of the law and not necessarily making new law, and not, in particular, making law which is drawn quite as widely as this amendment is, where we are talking about the potential for misuse.
The Bill will, of course, make misuse an offence, and heavy penalties are provided. The efforts of the new enforcement officers authorised by Ministers and the continuing action taken by organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, would help to make a major contribution in this area. So the Bill is not entirely inert on this subject. But what I do not like is the particular amendment which the noble Lord has produced, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Melchett: Again, I will look at the question of potential for misuse. I think that the noble Lord may well have a good point there in saying that the amendment is drawn too widely. I am quite happy to refer to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 at great length if the noble Lord wants me to, and I am well aware that there are powers in that Act which make these incidents illegal. I said right from the start that this was the illegal use of particular chemicals. I do not think that the Committee would like a long dissertation on the efficacy of the Wildlife and Countryside Act at this time of night, and, with respect, the noble Lord should not tempt me onto that ground, because I am all too easily tempted.
There are parallels with human medicines. For example, it was the fact that barbiturates were widely abused by people, and in those cases doctors limited their availability. In one particular case in Ipswich doctors stopped prescribing them altogether. That reduced the incidence of suicide and dependence on barbiturates very dramatically. I am suggesting that exactly the same sort of step should be taken here. It was the case that the abuse of some of those drugs was against some other provision or had some other means of enforcement, but they did not work because the drugs were too easily available. I am afraid that that is the case here. Although putting poisoned eggs out on the hillside is illegal and is a criminal offence for which people can be arrested and prosecuted, the fact of the matter is that while the poisonous substances are readily available incidents of poisoning continue to occur.
250
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will look at that point. I shall certainly bear in mind the points that he has made about the drafting of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
(" Packaging and labelling.
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State for Trade to amend the Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1978 so that—

(a) they apply to substances supplied for use as pesticide, and

(b) they apply to a pesticide supplied for export, and

(c) they require that pesticides that are to be exported from the United Kingdom are labelled in a manner and contain such information as to their hazards and the way in which they are to be applied as to be easily understood by those who will apply them in the country to which they are being exported, and

(d) the supplier of a pesticide for export shall certify its chemical composition.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment follows closely the reasoning of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on a previous amendment, but it is rather different in that we specifically refer to pesticides supplied for export as pesticides. There are a lot of horrifying figures, some of which were given by the noble Lord behind me, as to the misuse of pesticides supplied overseas. We cannot shelter behind the fact that it is up to any country to make its own regulations and that all we have to do is to comply with them. Where we know so much about the troubles that can occur through the misuse of pesticides, we should let it be known.
If we are going to have regulations in this country about clear labelling, then we must follow the lead of the big firms. For example, Shell are doing a tremendous amount of work on producing good pictograms, and they are at the point of trying to agree with FAO that there should be a universal code. We in this country should give a lead and insist by regulation that all pesticides supplied abroad are labelled, whether by pictogram or in the language of the country, as clearly as they are labelled here.
There are too many examples of enormous harm being done in third world countries, by techniques which are unclearly understood, for us to try to dodge our responsibilities. I should like the Minister to give a rather more positive reply than to say that when a code of conduct is produced we shall comply with it. It is up to our Government here, with our vast experience from colonial and other days, to give a lead in this, and I cannot see what harm it would do for him to say that we shall in fact insist that exports of pesticides for use as pesticides shall be labelled quite clearly with the dangers explained in pictogram form or in the language of the country. I cannot see anything but credit devolving on this country for that. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Although the Marshalled List does not say it, I think I should now say: Amendment proposed, to insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Belstead: The difficulty this amendment places me in is that the regulations which the amendment mentions, namely, the Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1978, have been replaced by the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984. The regulations the amendment mentions do not exist any longer. The new ones implement a series of European Community directives which are intended to apply identical safety rules in each member state. The purpose of this is to eliminate barriers to trade which would arise if each country went its own way. Pesticides are excluded precisely because we and other member states preferred to take our own decisions on labelling requirements so far as pesticides are concerned.
The noble Lord says to the Government that, if this is the case, we ought to give a lead. I know that the noble Lord does not wish me to say it, but I think that this is an area where the FAO code of conduct, which we are deeply involved in so far as negotiations are concerned, should be the vehicle we use in deciding on labelling or sending pesticides overseas. That is the stance of the Government at this time on this particular matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I shall speak severely to my advisers about the out-of-dateness of the matter of the regulations. In the spirit of the matter, I do not see what is to prevent the Government from saying that when the code of conduct comes in they will make a regulation applying the code of conduct. However, I am glad to hear that the Minister is keen on a code of conduct, is actively engaged in promoting it within FAO, and I look forward to its coming out. I shall consider his reply and see whether we should do something on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108A not moved.]
Clause 16 [Fees]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 110:
110 Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) In order to prevent the expense of duplicating tests the Minister shall give consideration to providing an observer to check on commercial tests and give approval on this basis.")
The noble Lord said: With a view to saving the Government money and with a view to helping the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, which follows this (in which he is worried about the fees) we think that in many cases in which a commercial company is going through tests of a pesticide or, for that matter, any substance, it should be sufficient for a Government observer to be there to observe the tests and give approval on that basis. I know that there are probably difficulties about this and I am putting it forward as a probing amendment in order to see how the Government are to do their tests for approval. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing this amendment which, on the face of it, would appear to save money. However, I do not think that the amendment is necessary, though the aim undoubtedly is. Clause 15 (5), which deals with the provision of information by manufacturers and others, is already broad enough to permit Ministers to require an applicant for approval to carry out tests under the observation of a Government representative, if Ministers felt that was necessary. The option which the noble Lord proposes as an economy measure is therefore already available to us under the Bill.
Moreover, the code of good laboratory practice, which the DHSS has recently announced is being extended into the pesticides areas, also provides for the regular inspection of research premises to ensure that they come up to scratch. The power provided in Clause 16 (2) is, in effect, a safety measure to ensure that, in the rare event of Ministers deciding that it was necessary for tests to be carried out by the Government, the costs can be recovered. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: It is an assurance which says that a lot of things are available under the Bill. The noble Earl is right—many things are available under the Bill, but he is unwilling to write them into it. However, in view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) In determining the level of any fees that either of the Ministers may require an applicant for the approval of a pesticide to pay, that Minister shall have regard to the level of any fees that an applicant for the approval of a pesticide may be required to pay in other member states of the European Economic Community.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the level of fees is such that agrochemical prices in the United Kingdom should not exceed, but should be broadly comparable with, those in the European Community. My hope is that my noble friend the Minister will see the virtues of this and possibly that he will see the desirability of writing something into the Bill, particularly if the fees will have a substantial impact. There is some concern about it within the farming industry.
If my noble friend the Minister can tell us about what happens with these fees in other EEC countries, it will be most helpful. The European Community's objection to our present voluntary regime was that it was restrictive of trade. As I see it, the European Commission have a desire to see fair competition within the EEC. British farmers also desire fair competition within the EEC and I know well that they wish to see much stress laid upon this.
The sparkling clear water of this concept tends to get muddied from time to time, we know only too well, and this proposal is something towards preventing that happening again. It is a principle that needs pretty constant defence.
There is one other thing that I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister, and that is whether he can give us some sort of estimate of the amount it is now

253
costing the Government to approve agrochemicals. This would give a broad indication of how much the total of the fees is likely to be. It would be a helpful guide to know how significant an impact this is likely to have. I will say no more now but await the reactions of the Committee, and particularly of my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I should like to support this amendment if only because I think it would establish an extremely desirable precedent, although I am not sure that it is one that the two noble Lords who put their names to the amendment really want to establish. As I said on an earlier amendment, it is a fact that in some European countries, and in particular West Germany and Denmark, there are much stricter controls on pesticides and far fewer products available to the farmer than there are in this country; in other words, we already enjoy, as farmers, considerable advantages over some of our European competitors.
Were this principle to be established in the Bill, I suppose it would only be a small step to go one further and say that we should not have available to us in this country pesticides which are banned in other countries of the Common Market; we should not be allowed to put pesticides on the land in circumstances in which farmers in other countries in the Common Market were prohibited from doing so. I do not know whether that is what the noble Lords, Lord Monk Bretton and Lord Stanley of Alderley, had in mind, but it is certainly a principle that I find quite attractive.
Lord Monk Bretton: I certainly did not ask for that. I merely wanted some clarification because I know that the industry in this country would be grateful for it. This is very much a probing amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining this amendment. It is common to member states of the European Community to levy a fee for the registration of pesticides. In fact, with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, all other member states charge for this service, and it is my understanding that the Irish intend to change their system in due course. The charges raised by our European neighbours vary considerably, and so do the services provided by their pesticides approval schemes. I am sorry, but we do not have details of precise charges, just the general information that they vary widely from country to country as to the services which they are designed to pay for. However, I could endeavour to get the information and write to my noble friend if that would be helpful.
It would therefore be impossible to base our charges on theirs unless our procedures also mirrored theirs exactly. Our intention would be to levy fees on a system broadly similar to that employed under the Medicines Act for the control of human and veterinary medicines. The aim would be to generate sufficient income to meet the Government's costs of adminstration and the new arrangements—no more and no less. I understand that at present the costs of approving agrochemicals are roughly of the order of half a million pounds, but we suspect that when this new, enlarged scheme comes in the costs might be in the region of about one million pounds. Experience
254
has shown that fees levied under the Medicines Act do not have an adverse effect on our trade since the fees themselves are insignificant when compared with the costs of developing a product. We will in any event certainly consult all interested organisations before we introduce any charging system.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should like to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for that most informative reply. I think that in view of what he has said it is pretty unlikely that one would wish to proceed further at a later stage. I will await what he may write, nevertheless. May I thank him for offering to write. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to ask one very simple question. I want to ask my noble friend: who are "the Ministers" referred to in line 28, I think it is, at the beginning of Clause 16(1), as opposed to "the Ministers" who are referred to on page 20, which mentions the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State? Previously we have been talking about nine Ministers. I wonder whether my noble friend could clarify this point?
The Earl of Swinton: I understand it is either the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: In both cases is that? Both on page 20, where it refers to "the Ministers" as meaning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State, and in this clause, it means either? Is that correct?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes.
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Enforcement powers]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 16, line 1, at beginning insert—
("( ) Either of the Ministers may authorise any person, subject to such limitations as may be specified in the instrument authorising him to enforce this part of this Act; and the following provisions of this Act shall be construed, in reference to a person so authorised, as subject to any such limitations.")
The noble Earl said: With permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 113 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 114 and 119 at the same time.
Amendment No. 114: Page 16, line 2, leave out ("authorised by either of the Ministers") and insert ("so authorised").
Amendment No. 119: Page 17, line 7, leave out ("exercise the powers conferred by this section") and insert ("enforce this Part of this Act").
These amendments are very similar to the amendment tabled by my noble friend last Thursday, on Part II. They make clear that Ministers have powers to authorise officers to endorse Part III and will bring this part into line with the rest of the Bill. Amendment No. 113 is the main change, and the other two amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 114, I must say that if it is agreed I cannot call No. 115.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 114:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 16, line 4, after ("pesticide") insert ("or delivery device").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, with this amendment I should like to discuss also Amendment No. 117.
Amendment No. 117: Page 16, line 13, after ("pesticide") insert ("r delivery device").
This subsection refers to obtaining evidence of an offence, and, in obtaining evidence of an offence, a delivery device and its condition might be an essential part of the evidence. I believe that, as such, it is no wit different from a vehicle used for applying a pesticide under subsection (2)(a). If a vehicle for applying a pesticide requires special mention in order to be produced as evidence, then a delivery device should itself be specially mentioned. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I really do not think I have anything to add to what my noble friend said on Amendment No. 57, when the noble Lord moved a very similar amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am not at all happy about that reply. I was asked by the Minister to put all my amendments together. My amendments—all with the same words, "or delivery device"—were an attempt to get delivery devices mentioned in the Bill; and here it has nothing to do with previous replies. This is proposed so that a delivery device could be used as evidence in obtaining a prosecution. That has nothing to do with the previous replies I received, and I regret to say that I do not at all like the reply which has just been given. If the Minister has nothing to say, I shall leave it until the next time, and beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the service of a notice under subsections (4) or (5) above, but is not subsequently convicted of an offence under section 15(6)(a), the Ministers shall be liable for the loss or damage.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 17 would allow a Minister to control, indeed to halt, agricultural activities if he suspects a breach of regulations. I am certainly not objecting to such a power, but I want to ask what will happen if it turns out that there was no breach of the regulations and that the farmer has, through this Bill, been put to unnecessary expense. This amendment would make it possible for the farmer to claim compensation for such an error. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: This amendment would severely inhibit enforcement officers in their first duty—to prevent and remedy dangers. It would also place undue emphasis on obtaining convictions. Furthermore, notices served under subsection (5) relate to the risk of the commission of an offence, so a conviction might be impossible.
Procedures for serving notices of this kind are already a well-established feature of arrangements under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and work perfectly satisfactorily without provision for compensation. However, in case my noble friend feels that a farmer or contractor has no means of redress against a prohibition or improvement notice which he feels is unreasonable, I would remind him that such a farmer would have the right to invoke the remedy of judicial review—which permits any person aggrieved by a decision of a public authority to have such a decision reviewed by the High Court.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have listened to my noble friend but am not sure that I am happy with his answer. However, I will consider it and meanwhile beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 119:
[Printed earlier: col. 254.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It might be appropriate at this point to question why, if we have to enforce this part of the Act, it would not be suitable at times to appoint representatives from the local authority—who are in fact responsible for public health in many cases and who know the ground. I question why they would not perhaps be more suitable than representatives appointed by the Ministry, in certain cases. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would care to refer back to his reply to the previous amendment and tell us why this cannot be so, under this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I shall try again. I want to know from the Minister why it is unsuitable for a representative of the local authority to be appointed. It appears to us that the local authority has a responsibility for public health and knows the ground. In many cases, it might be quite suitable for the local authority to authorise a person to enforce the Act.
Lord Belstead: With respect, it is not impossible and it is not necessarily inappropriate. Where it is appropriate, it is possible for local authority officers to be those who are authorised by Ministers to act under the Act.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: But it is not for the local authority to appoint them—they have to be authorised by the Minister.
Lord Belstead: Exactly.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
(" Advisory body.
.—(1) The Ministers shall establish an advisory body consisting of such members as they may from time to time appoint, provided that these members shall include three nominees of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be the duty of the advisory body to advise the Ministers on any question which they may refer to it or on which it considers it should offer its advice—

(a) in connection with the administration of this Part; or

(b) otherwise in connection with the control of pesticides.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Ministers to seek the advice of the advisory body before—

(a) giving approval under section 15(1)(b);

(b) providing for the imposition of any conditions under section 15(1)(c); or

(c) specifying under section 15(1)(g) how much pesticide or pesticides residue may be left in crops, food or feeding stuff.

(4) The advisory body may regulate its proceedings in such manner as it may itself determine, provided that it shall report annually to the Ministers on the performance of its duties under this section and cause such a report to be published.
(5) Before appointing a person to be a member of the advisory body the Ministers shall consult the Secretary of State for the Environment and such other persons or bodies as they see fit.
(6) The Ministers may, out of moneys provided by Parliament and to such an extent as may be approved by the Treasury, defray or contribute towards the expenses of the advisory body established under this section.")
The noble Baroness said: I shall be as brief as I can; but this was—and still is—a rather important amendment. We seek to place on a statutory basis the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. We have heard a lot this evening about how valuable that committee is, and we have heard with great pleasure from the Minister that, in future, an annual report will be published. However, we feel that it should be on a statutory basis. The Royal Commission for Environmental Protection recommends this in its Seventh Report, at paragraph 3.106. It states:
"We accordingly recommend that the appropriate Ministers should take general reserve powers which would enable them to make regulations for the control of pesticides"—
that is being done—
"and to appoint such advisory bodies for that purpose as they see fit. We see the latter provision as a form of statutory recognition of a body such as the ACP."
That seems an entirely sensible approach. The present composition of the ACP recognises the need for wide consultation and I have here the present composition of the ACP. I shall not read it in detail at this late hour but perhaps I should mention, for the benefit of those who do not know, the number of bodies who are represented on it. They are: the Agricultural and Food Research Council; the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland; the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland; the Department of Education and Science; the Department of the Environment; the Department of Health and Social Security; the Department for Trade and Industry; the Health and Safety Executive; the Laboratory of the Government Chemist; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and Medical
258
Research Council; and the Natural Environment Research Council. They all attend meetings of the ACP. Therefore, it seems to me that the credentials of this body cannot be in doubt. Indeed, many noble Lords have said so this evening.
There is perhaps a question mark over whether the chairman and members who are appointed by the DES should continue. It might be more appropriate if the Minister of Agriculture or the Department of the Environment were to appoint them. That is a matter which can be discussed later.
We seek to ensure that advice is sought in those important areas outlined in Amendment No. 120: that the Department of the Environment input will be safeguarded—hence, the first subsection which asks for three members from the Department of the Environment—and that an annual report will be published, which the Minister has this evening told us will be the case. The statement of intention in relation to the regulations, paragraph 4, assumes consultation with the ACP. We wish to see that consultation made mandatory. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Baroness has explained the amendment but perhaps I may be permitted to say that it is not necessary. I agree that an advisory body giving expert advice to the Government on pesticide matters is essential. As the noble Baroness knows, such a body—the Advisory Committee on Pesticides—already exists and has done so in various guises since 1954. This independent and expert committee consists of members from a range of medical and scientific backgrounds. Like the noble Baroness, I shall not run through them except to say that of the various members the Department of the Environment is most certainly one.
Members are appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, on which the noble Baroness had some doubts, but I believe it is right that my right honourable friend should make those appointments. It is very much in line with the Secretary of State for Education and Science making appointments to the research councils. There is consultation with other Government departments in the making of these appointments, and once again the Department of the Environment is one of the departments consulted.
We shall certainly continue to take advice from the ACP, and paragraph 4 of our statement of intention makes that absolutely clear. The terms of reference of the ACP on pesticides already commit it to keeping under review all risks that may arise from the use of pesticides, veterinary chemicals not directly administered to animals, and any other potentially toxic chemicals specifically referred to the committee, and to make recommendations to my right honourable friend. These duties have been carried out most successfully. I do not think that the record of successive Governments in relation to that suggests that there is any need to go further than we have gone before.
To come back to the beginning, the position of the Department of the Environment so far as the ACP is concerned is most certainly assured. Indeed, if I am able to respond in full to the amendment of my noble

259
friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and put the Advisory Committee on Pesticides into legislation, then the Department of the Environment will be a member, as indeed the other members will be, of a statutory body. I would have thought that that would satisfy all of us.
Baroness Nicol: Will the Minister clarify this? Will he then have a statutory obligation to consult the ACP on everything?
Lord Belstead: That is the effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley.
Baroness Nicol: In that case, I should like to know why there is resistance to making it a statutory body. What advantage is to be gained for the Minister in making it a statutory body?
Lord Belstead: It has worked extremely well since the 1950s in its present guise. I think that it makes it a more flexible body. If it is made a statutory body, presumably in statute the next step will be to start saying exactly who should be members and who should not. I think that we should do best to continue in the way that we are. So far as putting consultation with it on a statutory basis, we have already discussed that. It is something to which I think I am attracted, although I do not think that it is absolutely necessary. I am committed to discussing that with my noble friend Lord Stanley.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: As my amendment, Amendment No. 99A, has been mentioned, may I ask my noble friend, when he takes it away to consider it—and I am grateful to him for saying that he will do that—whether he will just consider the position of an engineer on this august body? I went through it, and could not see many engineers.
Lord Melchett: We are having a statutory scheme, which is going to be almost wholly reliant on an advisory committee, the ACP, which is going to carry out all the testing, issue the approvals, be the body which gives advice to the Government on the whole range of the way that these statutory procedures will work, and indeed now, possibly, as a result of the noble Lord's response to Amendment No. 99A, actually be referred to in the legislation as a body which there will be a duty on Ministers to consult. Surely it is pretty strange for that body not to be a statutory body.
The noble Lord says that the system has worked perfectly well for a long period of time. Some people feel that the voluntary system has worked well for a long time, but that, with respect, is not what we are legislating about. We are introducing new legislation. The whole system is being put on a statutory basis. I know that the Government have been anxious to pare down these clauses to the absolute minimum that they needed to put in the Bill. But it is quite without precedent, so far as I know, that a scheme which is going to rely on a particular body to carry it out is not mentioned in the statute and not set up by the statute. I would have thought that that really is wrong. It is irrelevant that the system has been on a voluntary basis for years. The whole thing has been on a
260
voluntary basis for years, but we are now legislating and it is all going to be on a statutory basis. Surely the advisory committee should be a statutory body now.
Lord Belstead: We will consider it. I cannot honestly see what the advantage would be. I will consider it, but I have not yet discerned an advantage.
Baroness Nicol: This is about the third or fourth occasion on which I am left feeling puzzled by the reaction from the other side to what is apparently a reasonable amendment and appears to put into law what the Government wish to do. However, I accept what the Minister has said. I suggest that public confidence would be greatly enhanced by having the ACP as a statutory body. That might perhaps weigh a little in the noble Lord's deliberations. But at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 121.
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Annual report.
. The Ministers shall after the end of every year prepare a report detailing the applications to and proceedings of Ministers under the foregoing provision of Part III during that year, and shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament and shall cause it to be published.")
The noble Baroness said: The workings of the ACP have been subject to the strictest confidentiality. Reports have been published, but very infrequently. They are now going to be published, we hope, with more regularity. We welcome the Government's statement of intent, which was repeated in Lord Belstead's comments on Second Reading at column 736. However, such a report must be the statutory duty of the ACP. As I understand it, this is the matter the Government are taking away in order to look at it. I therefore formally move this amendment in order to hear their reassurance on that. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I give the reassurance that the first report of the ACP covering 1984 will be published next year, and copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Information on all applications considered by the advisory committee and all reviews carried out by it during the year will be included in the report.
Baroness Nicol: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
. Nothing in this Part shall prejudice the provision of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 or of any regulations or approved codes of practice made under that Act.")
The noble Lord said: This is really a probing amendment. It is not clear to what extent there will be overlap between the provisions of the Bill, or, more particularly, the regulations, the Health and Safety at Work Act, or the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 which it incorporates and which provides for

261
protection of employees against the risk of poisoning, etc. I should be glad to know whether there is an overlap and how it affects the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Lord Belstead: It is certainly not our intention to do anything under Part III which would prejudice the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act. As safeguards to that assurance, the Committee should note that the Health and Safety Executive is jointly responsible, with the nine other departments, for the operation of the PSPS and will continue to fulfil that role in the new arrangements.
Secondly, the Bill already requires, in Clause 15(4), that Ministers should consult the Health and Safety Commission on any regulations which are likely to affect the health or safety of persons at work.
So I think that the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act are completely preserved so far as this Bill is concerned. The workings of that Act are in no way jeopardised by the provisions of this Bill as drafted.
Lord John-Mackie: I thank the Minister for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Officers and their powers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("exercise the powers conferred by section 11 or 17 above") and insert ("enforce Part II or III of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("the cargo of") and insert ("any substances or articles on board").
The noble Lord said: If I may move Amendment No. 123A and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 124, 125 and 126, these are all drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 124: Page 28, line 42, leave out ("and Northern Ireland").
Amendment No. 125: Page 29, line 2, leave out ("the issue of warrants to") and insert ("warrants for").
Amendment No. 126: Page 29, line 8, leave out ("to") and insert ("in").
I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 126:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Crown land]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In proposing Amendment No. 127A I must point out that the first word in subsection (4) shoud be "Subsection" and not "Subject".
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 127A:
Leave out Clause 18 and insert:—
("Application to Crown etc.
.—(1) An emergency order operates in relation to land in the designated area in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person to whom this subsection applies may perform any functions under this Act in relation to land in which there is such an interest.
(3) Such a person shall not perform any functions—

(a) in relation to land in which there is no interest other than a Crown interest or a Duchy interest; or

(b) in relation to land which is exclusively in Crown occupation.

(4) Subsection (2) above applies—

(a) to an investigating officer;

(b) to an enforcement officer; and

(c) to a person authorised to enforce Part II or III of this Act.

(5) In this section—
"Crown interest" means any interest belonging to her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department;
"Crown occupation" means occupation by Her Majesty in right of the Crown or occupation by a government department; and
"Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall.")
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment dealing with Crown land. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Offences—penalties etc.]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Proceedings in respect of any offence under section 15 of this Act shall not be instituted except by either of the Ministers or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.")
The noble Lord said: I believe this to be an important amendment. It has many precedents and ensures that unnecessary and unjustified prosecutions and indeed harassment do not take place. We are today, in all walks of life, subject to pressures and harassment from extremists. This amendment would prevent the unbalanced extremist from rushing about, entering farms and instituting or threatening to institute legal proceedings under the Bill.
It is quite apparent to me that throughout this Committee stage there has been a conspicuous lack of support for extremists be they farmer or eco-nut as we call them these days. This amendment is in line with that moderate, middle-of-the-road philosophy. Of course, any citizen can always protect himself or herself from consequential damage through the normal process of the law and can report the farmer to the appropriate authority if he or she suspects that an offence has been committed under the Bill. It will then, as my amendment reads, be up to that authority to decide whether to submit that alleged offence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I strongly oppose the amendment. Even at this time of night, for the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to try and get away with a suggestion that it is

263
only extremists who go to law and no one else, seems a little far fetched. Even worse is the suggestion that the taking away of the right of individuals to go to the courts is a moderate amendment. It is nothing of the sort. It is, if I may say so, a rather extremist amendment. It attempts to remove from private individuals their right to go to the courts and to have recourse to law. That is not something that should be lightly set aside. It is certainly not something that most moderates, I hope, would support. Indeed, I hope that the moderate line would be to leave the Bill as it is.
No one has anything to fear from the courts, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would agree, unless they have broken the law. If they have broken the law, Parliament should not prevent them being taken to court, prosecuted and found guilty if that is the case. There are a number of provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred me to it earlier—that enable private prosecutions to be taken. They have proved extremely valuable and important powers. Most of the prosecutions taken for the particular misuse of poisons to which I referred earlier—the illegal poisoning of birds of prey—have been private prosecutions. I am delighted to say that the police are taking rather more than they used to take. Nevertheless, most of the prosecutions in those fields are taken either by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It would be very undesirable if that right of private prosecution was lightly cast aside by moderates or anyone else.
Lord Belstead: It is normal under the law in England and Wales for any person to be free to prosecute any crime. Obviously, the Crown takes the large majority of prosecutions, but the right of anyone to take prosecutions is normal. I have to say that despite what has been said to the contrary by my noble friend Lord Stanley, I do not believe that it is necessary to place a restriction on the right in this area.
I recognise what my noble friend says about his worries, but I really do not believe that any responsible and capable user of pesticides (our safety record in this country shows such people are the majority) have anything to fear from this legislation—certainly not enough to overturn the normal right of the citizen to bring a prosecution if he or she feels that that is necessary.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not agree with my noble friend and I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am not saying that a person cannot bring a prosecution. What that person does is that he or she draws the attention of the Minister to an offence. It is then up to the Minister to decide whether an offence has been committed. My noble friend says that I am worrying unnecessarily about this. I can tell the Committee that I have had experience of people wandering into my farm saying, "Do not spray." This is the sort of person I am trying to prevent causing more trouble in this manner. I am just saying that it should be up to the Minister. There is precedent for this and my noble friend must know it. It is under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. It is also under the
264
Highways Act—blocking of rights of way. I am not happy with this and I may well come back to it if I can get more support from the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [General defence of due diligence]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 18, line 21, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("section 1(5)(a), 2(4)(a) or 9(1)(a) above")
The noble Lord said: This amendment would amend a drafting defect in Clause 21. The due diligence defence which is provided under Clause 20 is intended to apply only to offences which have no other mental element; it is not intended for offences which already contain their own mental element, such as those set out in Clause 15(6). Indeed, the defence is inconsistent with offences which contain their own mental element and could not be applied to them. This amendment would therefore clarify the extent of the defence by specifying the offences to which it would apply. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think this is the question where my noble friend is cutting out the words "due diligence", is it not? I am correct, am I not?
Lord Belstead: Yes. My noble friend is correct. For the reasons which I gave in introducing the amendment, we are cutting out the due diligence offence because these particular offences have their own mental element as a defence.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to delay the Committee. It is rather a legal question. I am advised that my noble friend is incorrect again. I am sorry to disagree with him over the last two amendments. I am advised that there is a great deal of difference between "due diligence" and "reasonable excuse". "Reasonable excuse" can be made when perhaps an accident occurs and the person cannot go on spraying, or he falls over and he spills the spray tank. However, "due diligence" is another matter, I am told—I am afraid I am speaking from hearsay; I am not a lawyer—and this would be a case when the person has taken all care to fulfil the instructions on the label, etc. Therefore, I find it rather difficult to understand why my noble friend has taken out the words "due diligence".
Lord Belstead: I am sorry. I owe my noble friend a little more of an explanation. The reason is that we only want the defence of due diligence to apply to those offences where there is strict liability, and by moving this amendment I would achieve that objective.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 18, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert ("the commission of the offence.")
Amendment No. 131: Page 18, line 27, leave out first ("the") and insert ("an")
Amendment No. 132: Page 18, line 27, leave out ("act or omission") and insert ("commission of the offence")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130. As this amendment and Nos. 131 and 132 are all drafting, perhaps I may deal with them as well. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment No. 130 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 19, line 1, at end insert—
(" "agricultural" is to be construed in accordance with section 109(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947, section 86(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 or section 43(1) of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949;")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12 midnight
[Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Northern Ireland]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 22, line 25, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: If I may, I should like to deal also with Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141.
Amendment No. 138: Page 22, line 30, after first ("to") insert ("Northern Ireland or").
Amendment No. 139: Page 22, line 33, after ("or") insert ("one or the other of").
Amendment No. 140: Page 23, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 141: Page 23, line 13, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("section 18 above").
These are all drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With the leave of the Committee, I shall now put Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141 en bloc.
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  DRUG ABUSE: PRISONS
  DRUG ABUSE: PRISONS
  DENTAL CLINICS, RICHMOND: CLOSURES
  DENTAL CLINICS, RICHMOND: CLOSURES
  ANGLO-SOVIET JOINT MARITIME COMMISSION MEETING
  ANGLO-SOVIET JOINT MARITIME COMMISSION MEETING
  SOVIET MISSILE DEPLOYMENT
  SOVIET MISSILE DEPLOYMENT
  BELFAST: GRANTS FOR VOLUNTARY PROJECTS
  BELFAST: GRANTS FOR VOLUNTARY PROJECTS
  FARM CAPITAL GRANTS
  FARM CAPITAL GRANTS